Want to know why my blog is titled "Constantly amazed, yet never surprised"? It's because of the paradox where I am well aware of life's irony (thus nothing surprises me), yet I am constantly amazed by certain things. For example, the fact that people en masse swallow the ridiculous falsehoods spon-fed to them by their favorite propagandists.
One of the propaganda messages that never ceases to amaze me is that liberals and/or democrats are the "elite." This couldn't be further from the truth, yet it is embraced by legions of people who never paid attention in history class, or (more likely) were never taught history to begin with, or don't know what the word elite means, or only stop watching Jerry Springer long enough to let Rush Limbaugh "tell [them] what to think."
Simply put, the democrats are the party of the working class, of trade unions and labor, of the poor and the disenfranchised, of minorities of all kinds, of anyone not blessed to be born into priviledged circumstances. The republicans are the party of big corporations, old money, class-warfare, inheritance, greed and corruption, plutocracy, and self-righteous superiority. In other words, the "elite."
The amazing and sad thing is that the GOP has convinced the working class to vote entirely against their own interests. They've done this by using the same old tried-and-true propaganda tools used by controlling rulers for centuries to whip their minions into a frenzy and secure their allegiance by appealing to their most base fears and predjudices, along with a little greed thrown in for good measure. Sadly, my observation has been that there are as many in the working classes who are racist, materialist, etc., as there are in the neocon elite; thus the appeal.In 2004 I saw people who gladly reaped the benefits of liberal democrat policies (overtime pay, health benefits, union benefits, federal housing programs, etc.) to the point where their very lives had been not only enhanced but actually saved by those very benefits, and yet they voted republican because A) they were racists who believed the republicans would close all borders; and b) they believed that the republicans are going to give them a huge tax break. As one fellow I know who screams from the wilderness would say... IDIOTS!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Actually, you couldn't be more incorrect.
When the parties first started, they were the exact opposites of the current parties. Our modern day Republicans would have had more in common with the early Democrats.
As for Democrats being "for the working class" . . . really? John Edwards and the rest of his ilk are the reasons why our health care system is in the state that it's in. Kerry married Heinz . . . as in Heinz ketchup! The Kennedy's are freaking loaded . . . so . . . that's what you consider "working class"?
Pshaw!
Also, if Dems are such "working class" goody goodies, then why is it that Kerry's campaign was better funded? See, your argument doesn't hold water. If the Republicans have "old money" as you say and are such "elite", then money shouldn't have been a problem.
Also, look at who was representing the Democratic party this year - movie stars. Please. Do you consider them to be working class? They're so far removed from reality that they believe making movies some how makes them special and intelligent.
Why don't you educate yourself before making baseless accusations and false assumptions.
And while you're at it, why not pick up a book and learn about Social Security, learn how it was started . . . learn that it was all part of "The New Deal" and that it was supposed to go away, freeing the "common man" the indignity of "getting something for nothing".
Oh, and lest I forget, it was your pal Bill Clinton that destroyed our economy in the first place. Remember NAFTA? The North American Free Trade Agreement. Yeah, it shipped all our high paying jobs overseas and to third world counties and, in turn, we're like England was after World War II - something else you might want to study up on, but I suppose that just makes me "racist". If getting upset that 2 million illegal immigrants are pouring over our borders makes me racist, then, I guess you're right, I'm a racist.
Society and nations are based on rules, laws and regulations. Without them, chaos ensues. If people want into this country so bad, then let them do it legally like countless other generations have done. What makes these people so special that they think they can violate our laws and regulations?
It's easy to remain ignorant and spout idiotic nonesense all day long, but real intelligence and enlightment are achieved when a person is willing to educate themselves and not just accept the bullshit that the mass media keeps attempting to spoon feed them.
Get a clue.
Actually, "Anonymous" (may I call you 'Nonny?), it is you who are wrong, as I will explain to you.
You’re right about one thing: the two main parties are the opposite of what they were at the beginning. This should be common knowledge but many demonstrate a lack of awareness about it, so kudos on that. Anyway, I have said this the past, so if you think I’m not aware of this, you’re wrong. My post was addressing the current nature of the two parties, which has existed in its present form since around the early part of the 20th century. Remember, it was the Great Depression, under a republican administration, which turned people away from them toward the new deal.
You seem to have gotten the impression that I include party leaders with constituents. I don’t, because anyone who observes current politics knows that in America, politicians must be millionaires to run for office - a sad fact, but it is reality. I never said otherwise. It is also common knowledge that the core constituency of the democrats has always been "labor" rather than "management". That's one reason why they're always being called socialists.
John Edwards and, as you say, "his ilk", are the only defense we have against unscrupulous corporations who will chew you up and spit you out. If you ever go into the hospital for a hernia operation and come out with a limb amputated by mistake, I suppose you'll just let it go. Why involve lawyers, right? And neither he nor Kerry claimed not to be wealthy, nor did they attack others for being wealthy, which the republicans do in order to stir up "class warfare" by playing up lower-income voters' envy. You illustrate one of the republicans' big hypocrisies: right wing millionaires calling other people "elite." And by the way, you say "money shouldn't have been a problem." I never said it was.
Then you pull out that republican favorite about movie stars. This one always cracks me up! First of all, liberal celebrities were not "representing" the democrats. Celebrities' opinions are broadcast simply because they are celebrities. Besides, you point out another republican hypocrisy: You right-wingers always bemoan liberal celebrities, and yet you adore celebrities yourselves! Ronald Reagan: Movie star! Arnold Schwartzenegger: Movie star! Charlton Heston: Movie star! The list goes on, but of course, it's okay to broadcast celebrities' opinions as long as they are republicans!
Next, stop with the "educate yourself" crap, you presumptuous reactionary. “Pick up a book?” Odds are that I have picked up more books that you, and I know where the new deal came from: the republicans' great depression!
Next, NAFTA was entirely bi-partisan. Even republican legislators said so, and it was applauded by republicans for that reason (among others). If it is a failure, consider it a bi-partisan failure.
You mention outsourcing, of which I am well aware (again you choose to insult me - does it help to build yourself up by trying to knock me down?) Guess what? Republicans say that outsourcing is good for the economy! And you voted for them! Ha ha!
As for those 2 million immigrants "pouring over our borders," as you so thoughtfully put it, unless you are a member of a native tribe, your family may well have arrived here the same way. Those same immigrants generally work their asses off to provide you with goods and services that no one else will. Is it un-American to succeed through hard work? Is your job at risk? That's free enterprise at work, mister republican. And guess what? George Bush wants to give illegal immigrants amnesty! And you voted for him! Ha ha!
By the way, do you totally disagree with the statement on the statue of liberty? You probably do, since it was, after all, a gift from France.
Finally, your closing paragraph is one we both agree with, and you illustrate the point well with your own opinions (you misspelled of the word “nonsense,” by the way). All I can say is… please come back again! We obviously both enjoy a lively debate. And when you are old and feeble, if we should live so long, enjoy your social security.
I'm sorry, but did you actually read my comment? Or did you just fly off into a tizzy of a rebuttal?
First off, you said,
"anyone who observes current politics knows that in America, politicians must be millionaires to run for office - a sad fact, but it is reality. I never said otherwise. It is also common knowledge that the core constituency of the democrats has always been "labor" rather than "management"."
Really, then you've just proved my point, because either Kerry provided all his campaign money himself, or it was donated to him from some rather wealthy constituents. Of course, public records show that it came from the constituents.
Now, did I say that Bush didn't have some big time backers? Nope. Never did. All I implied was that if you take a look at the figures, they show that more money was donated in larger quantities to the Democrats than to the Republicans.
John Edwards . . . again, did I say that a doctor shouldn't be sued if, instead of gall bladder surgery, he amputates your arm? Nope. Didn't say that either.
(Are you sure that I'm the "presumptuous reactionary"? Ha!
What I was saying was that Edwards and the rest of his ambulance chaser buddies, that bring frivolous lawsuits to trial, are the reason why our health care system is in such dire straights.
What do I mean by frivolous? The woman that sued McDonalds because her coffee burned her, or how about every case where the lack of common sense seems to be a mitigating factor? Like the people suing McDonalds because they became fat, or the woman that's suing a train company because she was never warned that she could get hurt if she walked on the tracks.
Right . . .
Also, you said,
"And neither he nor Kerry claimed not to be wealthy, nor did they attack others for being wealthy, which the republicans do in order to stir up "class warfare" by playing up lower-income voters' envy."
Really? Because I could have sworn I heard the Democrats, on at least one ocassion bring up the fact that Cheney worked for Haliburton, that they were the puppets of "big business" and, let's not forget how the Democrats loved to insinuate that Bush Jr. only got the Presidency because of Bush Sr. But you're right, none of those are direct criticisms of Republican wealth, but they aren't exactly endorsements either, now are they?
As for movie stars. You're absolutely correct - Arnold, Charlton, Ronald . . . can you name any more? Any "big, A-listers"? Didn't think so. So the Republicans get three and the Dems get the rest of Hollywood and all their narcissistic tripe.
You said,
"First of all, liberal celebrities were not "representing" the democrats. Celebrities' opinions are broadcast simply because they are celebrities."
Right . . . and you honestly believe that? So they weren't "representing" the Democrats when they actually gave speeches at campaign stops that were . . . *gasp* . . . specifically for the Democrats?
Of course, you're right about celebrities and their sound bytes. Then again, who is in charge of broadcasting those sound bytes . . . oh, that's right . . . Dan Rather and the rest of the liberal, media elite. Oh, sure, there's Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and a handful of others, but in comparison . . . well, there really isn't a comparison.
As for the whole outsourcing comment - yeah, I suppose Democrats know all about that, considering that Heinz outsourced how many thousands of jobs at her company?
As for the "native tribe" comment, actually, I do have a little Native American in me. Go figure. As for the rest of my relatives, they came over here legally and worked their way to the top. That's all I'm suggesting and asking of anyone else that wants to live in this country. You want to live here, go about it through legal channels.
And finally, I may have mispelled "nonsense", but you couldn't even point that out without making a mistake - "(you misspelled of the word “nonsense,” by the way)" What? Can you decipher that for me please?
Oh, one last thing, as for Social Security . . . by the time I'm old enough to collect it, it won't be around. Not that I care. Though, it might be if illegal immigrants had taxable wages that went into Social Security.
But that's fine . . . enjoy living off my dime.
Oh, no . . . wait . . . one more thing. "You right-wingers . . .". Really? Did I ever say I was a Republican or a "right-winger"? Again, who here is the "presumptuous" one?
Cool! A debate! It’s nice to see some tit for tat going on here at the ol’ site. A little comment from the side here if I may. ‘Nonny, your assumption that any mainstream media in amerika is any where close to “liberal” is laughable at best and truly resides in the anus… oops, I mean anal…I mean annals of IDIOTSPEAK! Who do you think controls major media? Let me tell you since you seem to resemble at least half a million other blithering IDIOTS out there. It’s big business. They don’t give a rat’s ass about you or me or shank, all they care about is money. They create stories where there are none ignore stories that need to be told and keep people in the country so confused, angry and stupid that they think reality tv shows are entertaining. (and real) On immigration, borders are an artificial construct.
“As for the rest of my relatives, they came over here legally and worked their way to the top.”
Legally? What gave the downpressor man the right to say who or who wasn’t here legally? The barrel of a F##*ING GUN! “. Force! Coercion! The brits stole it from the natives, our founding fathers stole it from the brits, monopolies stole it from them, and now multinational corps are stealing it from all of us. “…to the top.”? Who the hell are you, thinking you or any of your relatives made it to the “top”? You’re a member of the doomed just like me and Shank. You wanna know how I know? Cuz’ you’re bitchin’ about jobs being outsourced. Nobody at the top gives a piss if jobs are outsourced because they make money either way.
I really love that comment about not getting any S.S. and how it might be around “…if illegal immigrants had taxable wages that went into Social Security.”
That’s exactly the reason geeboy wants to legalize ‘em. More cush for the push so to speak. More tax base so the “elite” can continue reducing their tax while maintaining the roads that their limos use to drive past the unwashed masses.
Shank, and you too ‘nonny, give up on government. Nobody is gonna stop this mess but us. Remember what St. Emma said,
“The State is the altar of political freedom and, like the religious altar, it is maintained for the purpose of human sacrifice.”
p.s. posting anal… I mean anonymously is indicative of a certain amount of cowardice in my book.
Right and I hold your opinion in such high retard . . . uh, I mean regard . . . that I'll . . . no . . . wait, what the heck are you even saying?
I know, I'll speak the words, at least the ones I can decipher, into a recorder and then play it backwards . . . maybe then, it'll all make sense.
I love how you seem to be able to type words, yet you add nothing of real value to the conversation at hand. That truly is a talent.
Your comment about big business owning mass media isn't anything new. All you have to do is look up the major networks to see how woven together they are. In fact, you've just reinforced my point - big business controls the outlets, controls the information that we're receiving, controls how we think and shapes how we respond. This is classic "1984" conspiracy theory - oversex the population, over-intellectualize them, make them become self-absorbed, offer countless "freedoms" and watch them become paralyzed.
Freedom without consequences - that's what the media spout. But freedom without boundaries, freedom without personal and moral responsibility isn't freedom, it's anarchy. That's why I refer to the media as liberals, because they have nothing on which to base or guide their views, opinions, moral compass or the information/entertainment that they provide.
As for the rest of your nonsensical drivel . . . well . . . I won't waste my time.
Oh my! You are certainly a nippy little thing aren’t you? And using the word retard as a derogatory term shows such enlightenment and sensitivity to those with disabilities on your part. This is obviously an indication of your highly refined and polished “moral compass’’.
I love the comment about speaking all the words that you can decipher into a tape recorder and then playing it backwards so you can make sense of it. It’s obvious that’s how you interpret fact, stick it in and play it backwards. We in Special Ed call that a coping strategy. You’ve made very good use of it, congratulations!
As far as being able to type and add nothing of value to the conversation at hand, I would think you would feel honored. After all imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
Finally, and I’m keeping this short since by your own admission you have difficulty following free ranging discourse. It is you dear ‘nonny that need to pick up a book. Pick up a book and read about what anarchy really is. You would find that it is the epitome of personal and moral responsibility. Well, on second thought perhaps you should get a good book about anarchy on tape, and then play it backwards.
In closing, upon reading your response tonight I was reminded of a bit of dialogue from the movie China Town,
“Gee Lloyd, where’d ‘ya get the midget?”
Well, ‘Nonny, you’ve certainly given me a lot to work with, here (I’m talkin’ about the 2:29pm post, by the way). Let's see...First, I have to thank you for pointing out my ridiculous typo in the closing... or was it a clever test designed to determine your skill level? Did you pass or fail? I'll mail you your grades, along with a subscription to the Michael Moore celebrity newsletter.
With regards to “proving your point” about Kerry and campaign money, you'll have to explain that one to me, because it appears that either you misunderstood my point, or I did not communicate it very well. My point was, and is, that the fundamental philosophies of each party are as I described. The fact that it requires a millionaire to compete for office is a problem with our electoral process, and more complex cultural machinery as well. I perceive a difference between the two parties' core themes and the ugly realties of contemporary politics, just as one might differentiate between the good aspects of religion and the ugly things done in its name. Anyway, I'll bet you wouldn't keep bringing up the campaign finance issue if Bush had the edge in contributions. I'll bet Kerry's gain in contributions was largely the result of voters' passion regarding this particular campaign.
But as for the exchange about Kerry's money, etc., the fact is that it is the republicans who have been going on about elite- this and elite- that for the past twenty-odd years, and quite frankly, it is a serious case of the pot calling the kettle black. That is one reason why the democrats pointed out Cheney's dealings with Halliburton, because it was hypocritical for the republicans to point the finger at others when they were just as guilty. That, and the fact the Cheney's position constituted gross conflict of interest with regard to no-bid contracts, but that's for another day.
Which brings us to the media. Who you suppose owns the media? They're owned by big corporations, conglomerates that are not liberal by any means. They answer only to their stockholders, and if they occasionally appear "liberal" it is because programming which the religious right considers immoral is also what brings in the most revenue, like it or not (their main demographics are adolescents who you would not trust with your car keys). Corporate fat-cats know nothing of morality. So, by virtue of being capitalists, they are accused of being liberal. Then they turn around and sell what the conservatives want to them as well. So it cuts both ways, and anyway, there is no shortage of media outlets biased toward one side or the other. Indeed, talk radio has been dominated by right-wing commentators for many years. Liberal talk radio stations could be counted on one hand before Air America came along. And as for television, there are both. Movies? There are as many movies showing "conservative" values as there are showing "liberal" values, if you take the time to research the issue.
You state that there are more liberal media than there are conservative media. I see the exact opposite, and we'll obviously not agree on that issue, although I am fully confident that research would prove me correct. I have been an observer and consumer of the media for years, and I have watched the right attack the left constantly, and often erroneously. At the same time I have looked for, but found no evidence of, a "liberal media" with regard to journalism. Your statement about "Dan Rather and the liberal media" speaks volumes. When Fox "news" spouts lies ad nauseum, which they do, along with others, no one cares. Dan Rather, on the other hand, is only one journalist, with a pretty fair history in journalism. I'm not a great fan of his, but I don't think is he the Rasputin the right-wing media made him out to be. He is simply an old newsman who got sloppy and had the extremely poor judgment of behaving like a right-wing journalist (that is, releasing false information), and he was lambasted for it. He was hideously wrong to do sloppy research... if he had done his homework, he probably would have ended up with a story about another Carl Rove dirty trick. The whole thing was another example of republicans' most consistent theme: accusing others of things that they are most guilty of themselves.
Celebrities? 'Nonny, come on! You know you've got country music and NASCAR all sewn up! But don't think you're missing the A-Listers just because the right-wing press only points the finger at left-wing celebs. Do a google search for celebrities who vote republican and you might be surprised! Mel Gibson is one, and he is more rich and powerful than you-know-who (as in "the passion of..."). It's not that you don't have A-listers, it's just that you have fallen into the republicans' trap: their notion that anything short of a monopoly is a dangerous conspiracy. Even if there were only one lone liberal celebrity, they would be pilloried by the right as dangerous, immoral, subversive, and "elite." But as you point out, some celebrities campaigned for democrats. The republicans had their celebrities, too. But why are these things only wrong if democrats do it, but okay for republicans?
Medical costs - the causes are debatable, but I would say that more of the outrageous costs are the result of greedy pharmaceutical companies and yes, even hospitals, than lawyers. I saw a news story once long ago wherein a woman’s' cancer medication cost approximately $3000 a dose, until she found the same stuff at a veterinary supply for about $5 for a big bottle (don't have a link on that one, so someone please prove me wrong). My point is, the costs are compound, and it is folly to lay all the blame at lawyers' feet. As for frivolous lawsuits in general, there is a misconception about them, and people need to be educated about it. For example, that famous McDonald's coffee case was not only settled for a fraction of the award (as is usually happens), but there are other issues involved also. We already have mechanisms in place to thwart frivolous lawsuits. See this link:
http://ww.opednews.com/atkins_081204_tort_reform.htm
and this one:
http://corpreform.typepad.com
Illegal immigrants: here's one more thing that no one has brought up yet -- whose more guilty, the people who employ illegal immigrants, or the immigrants themselves? If those untaxed wages you mention are your concern, you should be just as concerned about those who hire and pay them, violating tax laws, health codes, labor laws, etc. guarantee you, there are republican business owners out there, including farmers, who are hiring illegals! Prosecute them! They are the source of the lost tax revenue, not the laborers! They are the source of those "untaxed wages"!!
In closing, you are correct that you did not claim to be a republican, and I called you one. If you are not a republican, then I insulted you, so I apologize. If you voted republican, then for our purposes here, you qualify as an honorary one because you empower them. And as long as you keep accusing me of not being as smart or well-educated as you, then I still maintain that you are presumptuous, as well as generally wrong about stuff, but hey - c'mon back anytime :)
Wow, SheaNC . . . I may have had you pegged all wrong. Could it be that you're the first moderate liberal that I've ever run across? Regardless, you've shown yourself to be a bigger man than I am, by apologizing for your comments and being the first one to do so. The least I can do is follow suit. I'm sorry for suggesting that your intelligence and educational background might not be up to par to handle a political discourse.
Kudos to you for all your points. I agree with most, to a certain degree, except for the ones regarding media, "A-listers" and donations (I'll get to the donations in a second), but tit for tat.
As for my comments about campaign donations - again, your original response was that Democrats are for the working class. If that's so, then where did all the money come from? Granted, I'm sure large amounts came from that same working class that you mentioned, but that still doesn't explain the huge gap between what the Democrats made and what the Republicans made. I would argue that the Democrats also have their "big business" backers, which places them in the same "pockets" as the Republicans. That's just my observation.
The Democratic Party seems to be one that's based upon idealism - a society where everyone gets along and everyone gets what they need and deserve - a utopia, so to speak.
(I realize that I'm making gross generalizations, but I'm trying to encompass each parties ideology into as concise a statement as possible.)
The Republicans, on the other hand, seem to realize that you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs. (Again, not the best of analogies, but it gets the point across.)
Both the Republicans and Democrats scare me. The Democrats, because I truly don't believe that they're for the "common man" anymore, and at least with the Republicans, you kind of know who they're for going into it. Are the Republicans for big business, sure. Who isn't. Even the Democrats are for big business. It's big business that helps keep our economy going.
That's one of the ways a capitalistic society works - trickle down.
Regardless though, the past two elections have seen little, or no difference between the candidates. The only difference was their views on the "War on Terror" - which let me tell you something, has got to be the most ludicrous name for a war. Ohhhh, the "War on Terror". To me, it comes across like we're trotting around the world putting a thumpin' on anyone that wears a Halloween mask.
Getting back to my point . . .
I didn't feel that Kerry offered any clear and decisive means for handling the war, or for that matter, many the issues that currently plague our society. Again, both candidates seemed to voice each others opinions on most issues except for the war.
Now, this is not meant to be an exhaustive explanation, but I am going to try and hit the high points.
Throughout history, what do most military leaders try to do to their enemy first? They attempt to disrupt their supply lines.
Were there WMD's? Not that we can find, though I still believe that what they did have was smuggled out before the war, because they knew we were coming and they had the time.
Anyway, take out the supply lines.
So we hit Iraq. Why? For the same reason that we put military bases in Europe after World War II - to serve 1. as a first strike/counterstrike option and 2. as a stabilizing force to the region.
The cold war is over, now who/where is the threat? The Middle East. Why Iraq? I'm under no dissolution that it wasn't partially personal, nevertheless, we had to pick a location to base ourselves, in the hope (and "hope" is the key word there) that we will be able to offer stabilzation to the region.
I mean, seriously. We finally have a President that isn't willing to sit on his laurels, while the U.N. (an overly corrupt organizaton, way past its prime) passes one meaningless resolution after the next.
I mean, even Clinton has publicly acknowledged that he had plans for Iraq, but then the whole Lewinsky scandal erupted and he was concerned that an invasion of Iraq might look like he was trying to divert attention to save his own political neck.
My guess is that you'll bring up the mistakes of the war, and you'd be right. Mistakes have been made, but it's war. There will always be mistakes. Humans are fallible.
Look, we can argue all day long, trying to "best" each other, and in the end, it's not going to serve any real purpose. So, that being the case, I'd like to say that I've enjoyed our discussion here, I wish you the best, but this'll probably be my last comment. Obviously, feel free to offer a rebuttal to my statements, but I probably won't reply.
Thanks for letting me stop by, it was interesting talking to a Californian again. I definitely miss the weather.
A quick note in the morning. It appears that 'Nonny and I will part on good terms, "agreeing to disagree" so to speak, on many things. We even found common ground in our mutual distrust of political parties in general, although we each have our preferences, perhaps the lesser of two evils as we each see it. Perhaps we'll meet up at a Green party rally someday. Until then, bon voyage, 'Nonny, and thank you for the scintillating debate. That's partly why I jumped on the blogging bandwagon in the first place! Check in another day and see what I have to say about that Iraq war stuff :)
Post a Comment