LABOR DAY (Part 1)
There is a saying among soldiers:
I dare not make the first move but would rather play the guest
I dare not advance an inch, but would rather withdraw a foot
This is called marching without intending to move
Rolling up your sleeves without showing your arm,
Being armed without weapons.
There is no greater catastrophe than underestimating the enemy.
By underestimating the enemy, I almost lose what I value.
Therefore when the battle is joined,
The underdog with win.
Tao Te Ching (Ch-69)
Call out the
instigators
Because there's something in the air
We've got to get together sooner or later
Because the revolution's here, and you know it's right
And you know that it's right
We have got to get it together
We have got to get it together now
Lock up the streets and houses
Because there's something in the air
We've got to get together sooner or later
Because the revolution's here, and you know it's right
And you know that it's right
We have got to get it together
We have got to get it together now
Hand out the arms and ammo
We're going to blast our way through here
We've got to get together sooner or later
Because the revolution's here, and you know it's right
And you know that it's right
We have got to get it together
We have got to get it together
Now
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JAXKIKehbc
The first Labor Day in the United States was celebrated on September 5, 1882 in New York City.[1] In the aftermath of the deaths of a number of workers at the hands of the US military and US Marshals during the 1894 Pullman Strike, President Grover Cleveland put reconciliation with Labor as a top political priority. Fearing further conflict, legislation making Labor Day a national holiday was rushed through Congress unanimously and signed into law a mere six days after the end of the strike.[2] Cleveland was also concerned that aligning a US labor holiday with existing international May Day celebrations would stir up negative emotions linked to the Haymarket Affair.[3] All 50 U.S. states have made Labor Day a state holiday.
Struggle; that is where Labor Day Celebrations come from. Deaths and injuries were incurred by those who were being abused. And there are Labor Day Festivities all over the world. Canadian workers fought for and won theirs before us.
I was going to spend more time discussing income disparities but Rowan has done such a fine job I refer you all to her blog. http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/rowanwolf/2009/09/lets-talk-class-warfare-shall.php
Her '24' is over and this will help keep it alive. Someone was suggesting one of us just cut and paste it with proper attribution onto a new blog. Not a bad idea really. And if you have the time, check out the links there.
I can add some other 'facts' supporting Rowan's thesis though.
Income inequality in the United States is at an all-time high, surpassing even levels seen during the Great Depression, according to a recently updated paper by University of California, Berkeley Professor Emmanuel Saez. The paper, which covers data through 2007, points to a staggering, unprecedented disparity in American incomes. On his blog, Nobel prize-winning economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman called the numbers "truly amazing." As of 2007, the top decile of American earners, Saez writes, pulled in 49.7 percent of total wages, a level that's "higher than any other year since 1917 and even surpasses 1928, the peak of stock market bubble in the 'roaring" 1920s.'"
Beginning in the economic expansion of the early 1990s, Saez argues, the economy began to favor the top tiers American earners, but much of the country missed was left behind. "The top 1 percent incomes captured half of the overall economic growth over the period 1993-2007," Saes writes.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/14/income-inequality-is-at-a_n_259516.html
Take a quick look at Ramona's blog today on health insurance. http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/ramona/2009/09/health-care---a-condition-not.php?ref=reccafe
Here is another example of class warfare with regard to that issue:
NaturalNews) Health
insurance company Health Net Inc. rewarded employees for finding ways to drop
customer policies and not pay for their medical expenses, according to an
investigation by the California Department of Managed Health Care (DMHC).
Since 2005, the DMHC has been investigating five of the seven insurance
companies that provide health care plans to individuals in California. The department is attempting to crack down
on the practice among insurers of dropping people's coverage based on often
accidental errors in their enrollment applications. In many cases, people's
policies have been dropped after they submitted medical claims.
The DMHC has fined Health Net $1 million for failure to disclose a program in
which employees
received bonuses for meeting or exceeding quotas for health insurance
policies to be dropped. The department continues to investigate Health Net and
has yet to determine if the dropping of policies or the bonus program are
illegal. http://justwondrin.blogspot.com/2009/08/health-insurance-company-paid-its.html
Here is just a note on foreclosures:
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- U.S. foreclosure filings spiked by more than 81% in 2008, a record, according to a report released Thursday, and they're up 225% compared with 2006. A total of 861,664 families lost their homes to foreclosure last year, according to RealtyTrac, which released its year-end report Thursday. There were more than 3.1 million foreclosure filings issued during 2008, which means that one of every 54 households received a notice last year.
"Clearly the foreclosure prevention programs implemented to date have not had any real success in slowing down this foreclosure tsunami," said James Saccacio, CEO of RealtyTrac in a statement. And despite those efforts on the part of both the government and the banking industry to quell the housing crisis, defaults continued to climb as 2008 came to an end. Foreclosure filings were up 17% in December over November, and rose 41% compared with December of 2007.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/15/real_estate/millions_in_foreclosure/index.htm
So the repubs wish to get 'government' off 'the people's' backs. BUT WHICH PEOPLES ARE THEY TALKING ABOUT? Oh and the best the repubs can come up with is that those seeking parity for the vast majority of our workers are guilty of fulminating CLASS WARFARE.
Every time you witness a home being foreclosed upon, you have witnessed a casualty of class warfare.
Every time your cousin or your friend loses a job due to 'downscaling', you have witnessed a casualty of class warfare.
Every time your cousin or your friend is denied health coverage, you have witnessed a casualty of class warfare.
Every time COLA is denied to Social Security recipients, you have witnessed a casualty of class warfare.
Every time one of our citizens is put into prison for some drug related crime, you have witnessed a casualty of class warfare.
Every time you see cheney or rummy smirk after pocketing tens of millions and maybe hundreds of millions of tax payer money during their reign, you have witnessed an example of class warfare.
PEOPLE, EVERY SINGLE MINUTE OF EVERY SINGLE HOUR OF EVERY SINGLE DAY, THERE IS A BATTLE BEING WAGED IN THIS CLASS WAR AND GUESS WHICH CLASS WINS ALMOST EVERY SINGLE TIME?
And what are the prospects for a more equitable arrangement for our work force?
It has become fashionable among equities managers of the bullish persuasion to argue that a strong recovery in GDP will occur in 2010 because the "structural adjustment period" of moving back to a more normal savings rate has been completed. We've gone from a savings rate of barely 1% in 2008 up to 4.2% in July (ok, so the argument sounded better when the number was 6.2% in May, but still...).
Fortunately, there IS some pretty good data on income stratification in the United States, and a few assumptions can help shed some light. Economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez have made careers of studying US income inequality using IRS data, which goes back to 1913. The most recent data available (for 2007) showed that the top 14,988 households (0.01% of the population) received 6.04% of income, the highest figure for any year since the data became available. The top 1% of households received 23.5% of income (the second highest on record, after 1928), while the top 10% received 49.7% of income (the highest on record).
I've never actually had an after tax income of $22.9 million, so I couldn't say for sure whether a 50% savings rate is a reasonable assumption, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that it is, just based on the pure physics of spending money. Buying cars, clothes, and fancy dinners, even at Masa, won't get you there...the math doesn't work. Buying a private jet could get you there, but most people, even rich people, don't buy one of those every year. The only EASY way to spend more than 50% of $22.9 million on an annual basis is to buy lots of houses...but the definition of "personal consumption expenditure" used by the BEA specifically excludes purchases of real estate. They use an imputed rent calculation instead. So I'm going to stick with my 50% number. http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/category/income-disparity
I picked this squib just to underline the point that when you hear the word 'recovery' coming in the next few months (some already use that word) it is a recovery for the top echelon. It has nothing to do with those in the trenches. There is no legislation pending that I see, anyway, that is going to change the fact that when we have the 'ups' it will represent an increase for those on top and little for the remainder.
Do I feel hatred or animosity toward our Democratic Leaders? No. It is just that it will take five years to get our workers back to where they were nine years ago before the fascists took over full control of our tax dollars. That is if everything goes well. If the repubs get back in power, everything will be lost.
Until we tax Wall Street, until we institute a 90% tax on 'earnings' (aint that a great word? Do you really believe for one goddamn moment that one person can 'earn' a million dollar bonus? Or a one hundred million dollar bonus?), until we give shareholders back the rights that were stolen from them over the last three decades, until we find good regulators and overseers to police our capitalist society, until all Americans are given access to adequate health care;
WE ARE SCREWED
Dick, this is very leftist and off message of you. You wouldn't want Democrats to be caught hanging around with the wrong crowd.
September 6, 2009 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Dems are the wrong crowd Bluebell, at least if they act like Dems.......hahahahahahahahah
It is so weird to look at things in the sixth decade and look back at how I saw the same things in my third decade.
September 6, 2009 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
And then we have our version in West Virginia which I posted about the other day.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/wvbiker/
September 6, 2009 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am sorry. Forty-niner I will sell this blog as soon as you repost it.
I missed it.
There is something happening and most Americans do not know what it is.
Thank you for showing more courtesy than I did you.
September 6, 2009 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great post, wvbiker. Bring the comments too. maybe someon can find the YouTube with the flattened mountains.
September 7, 2009 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sir DickDay, my thanks for the effort to keep my post alive. As you know, the discussion has been a bit contentious at times. I am honored you judge it worthwhile enough to encourage folks to read it.
You have included excellent information here.
I also think that this point you make is critical:
This BS started under Bush with the 2001 recession (as far as I remember). It was labeled a "jobless recovery." WTF? When I started hearing the Obama folks use the same terminology, I almost lost 3 teeth by grinding them. A jobless recovery is no damn recovery at all.
Clinton used a similar upbeat tone with the "float all boats" when those needing foodbanks were skyrocketing. Your boat can't float if it is sunk, and a recovery that misses 90% of the population is graft. Moreso this time when what is fueling that isolated recovery is being paid for by us, and they are building the same bubble with the same games all over again.
This is not even a "recession" for much of the population. It is a depression, and it set in before 2008 for a lot of folks.
Thanks DD - for everything - and particularly your unswerving support for justice.
September 6, 2009 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am soooooooooooo pleased you came onto my post.
Yes there will be gooooooooood and bad arguments with regard to the issues you posted. BUT SO BE IT.
Oh and thank you for obviously reading the blog in toto.
And the Clinton Model, which was a compromise, obviously...
Hey, he likes to stand up and say we created tens of millions of jobs.
And his model worked. But it did not work under w.
There were tens of millions of jobs lost.
Thank you, thank you , thank You.
September 6, 2009 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
What was created under Clinton was the technology bubble. Lots of paper millionaires created - yes more monopoly money just another kind. It really didn't do much for the economic bottom half of the population, and of course we bled productive capacity and jobs - thanks to NAFTA and GATT. I was not a Clinton fan.
The "real economy" has been slipping away for some time. Personally, I blame Reagan with pushing us over a cliff corporately. On going into office he asked corporations for their wish lists. He then took is first 100 days implementing as many of them as possible. I have always thought it very telling that the Republicans lionize Reagan and keep wanting to "finish" the Reagan Revolution. They made big gains under Clinton and even bigger ones under baby Bush. Aside from "green jobs" Obama is not building the productive base as far as I can see. I know it is early in some regards, but the harbingers to date have not made me jump for joy.
But regardless of sector (productive, service, or tech) we laborers. I wish folks would realize that, but that was part of the Reagan Revolution as well - destroy organized labor. Folks forget, or choose not to think about, what Unionization brought us: 40 hr work week, overtime pay, paid vacation, health insurance. Those things people think about as basic components of a "good" job and which is disappearing from the employment landscape almost as quickly as ice from the Arctic.
September 6, 2009 11:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, we have lost something. We really have lost our 'private' unions. Government workers have just about the last shield of union protection. We have a couple grocery stores here and the union basically ensures that you make minimum wage and management makes sure no one works over 32 hours so that no benefits will be paid. One cashier I see from time to time, SLEEPS in her car.
Oh and I agree that this 'started' with Reagan.
September 6, 2009 11:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
What bugs me is that real wages for workers have not gone up since 1970. But total consumption had to increase for the economy to increase, so working families had to get additional money to spend from somewhere.
Savings have dropped continually since 1970 until the unemployment reached scary levels recently.
Both parents in two parent families have often gone to work. That increased from 1970 on. In 1970 the income of a single worker could still support a middle class lifestyle.
That wasn't enough so then credit was expanded. This has been the period of two to three new credit card applications being sent out a week, and the standards of who could be given a credit card steadily dropped.
Then somehow the workers who were not getting more income had to pay off the credit cards. Voila! Home equity loans were expanded nation wide. Suddenly the value of the home became added to credit card debt. At the same time banks increased interest rates and fees.
By the late 90's the last additional source of consumption was sub-prime mortgages and Greenspan started playing with the interest rates to keep the economy pumping.
Now of course, Greenspan raised interest rates in 2000 to above 6%. The single most reliable predictor of whether the party holding the Presidency is the state of the economy during the election year. Oddly enough the increase in the interest rate slowed the economy down in 2000.
Then right after the election Greenspan started lowering interest rates so that in 2004 they were at the lowest level in decades. It kept the recession at bay - and reelected Bush. Strangely, Greenspan started increasing the interest rate in February 2005 by 1/4% per month for 17 months, at the end of which time the Housing bubble had collapsed and started the Recession that has almost been the second Great Depression.
The timing of the interest rate increases and especially the timing of the reversal of the direction of interest rates are a dead giveaway of their political nature.
That was also class warfare.
And the so-called business news is also complicit. As the economy started down every month or so we were fed "economic happy talk."
"The downturn will be over soon. It should be recovering six months from now." I heard that one regularly for over two years.
This year they finally switched to "Next year there will be the recovery starting."
You know what the economic happy talk is about? It's Wall Street selling more securities under any conditions. The brokers get paid for transactions, not for the outcome the purchaser gets. So the market is always just about to recover and housing prices will soon start back up. There are few liars as oblivious as security salesmen, and those who are worse are clearly either psychotic or tobacco executives. Recently Republican politicians have similarly reached that level.
September 7, 2009 1:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
You reminded me a something I had forgotten. Sometime last September when 'this was all goin down' MSM was saying, hey this all started in 2007 so it should be over soon.
I thought it was strange when I heard it at the time. But after reading your fine essay...
PROPAGANDA, pure and simple. I can see a public good in it. Stop the panic...the only thing to fear is fear itself.
It all seems so conspiratorial.
Or is it stay on the sunny side of the street?
September 7, 2009 2:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, MCB has not yet read this, or there would be a comment for sure.
If I ever get organized, I will make aplace to keep links. Maybe it was here, but a factor in the recovery of the housing market is foreign capital. It has been revealed that realtors are bundling properties for foreign investors who buy them up and rent them. In the age of computers and service employees, who needs to have a contiguous property when it can all be managed so easily with our telecommunications? Banks are unloading the foreclosures and making money like crazy. How do you think these bailout funds are being returned so fast?
September 7, 2009 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wish I could rec this comment. This has been my experience, but I couldn't state it so well. Thank you.
September 7, 2009 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
It sure as hell isn't a recovery.
September 6, 2009 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, thank you, thank you for this incredibly important blog. Some of the statistics in the articles you quoted leave me breathless. What the hell have we DONE??
This alone is enough to cause me many sleepless nights. Let's hope I put all of that awake time to good use fighting against the bastards who are hell-bent on totally destroying everything we've worked for since the days of our founding:
September 6, 2009 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh Ramona Rowan started this with the link I provided.
I wanted an angle
this is part one
Tomorrow I wish to proceed
But I made sure to include yours as well
861,664 families LOST THEIR HOMES
I am emailing with a friend from here
She lost hers.
Its a depression unless you work for a great corp or have some huge retirement reservoir.
Yes and the amount who cannot get unemployment benefits.
THis is a mess Ramona.
September 6, 2009 8:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope it doesn't take 5 years to get back to a decade ago. I fear you are right, though. I have been talking about this for 10 years now. These chickens of our collective blindness to the plight of labor, (hey, it wasn't us, right?) Now they have come home to roost. With a vengence.
I'll never believe another lie about how these upper 10% people are smarter or work harder, they aren't and they don't. The only difference between them and everyone else is they sold their souls for money. Their callous disregard for their fellow man won't have a pretty end.
I do not think they should lose their lives, that's too easy, but their wealth? Oh yes, and they will, because they no longer have anyone left to prey on.
And no one to blame but themselves.
September 6, 2009 9:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
See Bwak you know this because you have met the top and the rest of us. Just like me. ha
Yes, I am more than concerned. But look at the Civil Rights Division, it will take five years to get rid of the racists in THEIR OWN DEPARTMENT DAMNIT.
Oh well.
Tomorrow is another day.
September 6, 2009 9:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, MCB has not yet read this, or there would be a comment for sure.
If I ever get organized, I will make aplace to keep links. Maybe it was here, but a factor in the recovery of the housing market is foreign capital. It has been revealed that realtors are bundling properties for foreign investors who buy them up and rent them. In the age of computers and service employees, who needs to have a contiguous property when it can all be managed so easily with our telecommunications? Banks are unloading the foreclosures and making money like crazy. How do you think these bailout funds are being returned so fast?
September 7, 2009 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't know how this got here, but it is amazing how we cater to ur own destruction. IN more ways then one we are taking down the machinery that was once a great nation and shipping it overseas so that others might do out jobs. It's a kick in the teeth. These 10% are smarter, but in a deviant way. We shoul acknowledge the complexity of their scams, but we should refrain from labelling them heroes. They are parasites.
September 7, 2009 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Every day that goes by, I get angrier, Dick. And seeing as I was trying to calm down after 50 years of white-hot rage, re-igniting is probably not a good thing. But if you just look at the numbers and think about them for a few seconds, and the viciousness of it all becomes clear.
"The fortunate 14,988 had an average income in 2007 of $35,042,705. They had an average federal tax burden, according to Piketty and Saez, of 34.7%, leaving them after tax income of $22.9 million."
While 861,664 families lost their home.
If those 14,988 wealthiest families incomes were reduced to a mere $2.9 million a YEAR, it would open up $348,000 for EACH of those 861,664 households going under.
But to suggest this stuff will bring the asshole brigade in here screaming to high heaven about Rights and Efficiency and Freedom and Communism and Russia and God and the Constitution. Their economic knowledge is nil, the proof is in the pudding, the only rights they see have to do with protecting complete freedom for the monied, (and seemingly no rights for health), and from their perspective even old Ike must've been a Commie.
But each day we ponder this stuff, and wonder why the world won't see sanity, thousands more families hit the floor.
Which leads me to the same conclusion as you.
FUCK 'EM.
Really. Fuck these people. I have no time for them anymore.
September 6, 2009 10:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah I have my own white hot rage. Do I hear these figures or facts or reports on msm? Not often.
CNN was kind of good about the foreclosures for awhile.
Nobody is touching the top 15,000 families.
See this would not happen in the 1950's. Oh sure there was 'hidden income' but the rich did not wish to broadcast this grandeur. But do not attempt to tell me that these 15,000 do not have 'hidden income'. That is absurd.
And, to beat the dead horse again, Pat Robertson on his show spoke about how bad it would be to tax off shore corporations. Probably after he cashed his own checks from some off shore corporation, monies that he will never pay taxes on.
And no group of shareholders would stand for this rape but they cannot bring suit in most cases.
We shall see if my countrymen awaken someday.
September 6, 2009 10:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess it's a good thing you don't live here, quinn.
Seriously: I don't spend much time contemplating life or the politics of Canada, nor Europe, nor Japan... I'm too busy typically sorting out issues here in the US. Which leads me to wonder why are you so emotionally involved in the United States? I can understand following global things... but to be involved so emotionally with something that is so outside of your reach of influence? What's up with that?
September 7, 2009 3:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is awesomely shitty of you, CT! THANKS! Remember how I said I love it when you try so blatantly to get rid of me by playing your nationalist card? You know, patriotism as the last refuge of the scoundrel? And I DO love it when you try it in front of a crowd, 'cause you're too stupid to realize just how nasty it looks when you're trying to run someone off because of their race or age or sex or religion. And yeah, it gives me a chance to explain why I call you a coward. It's for this.
And the even awesomer thing is, now you've done it on Dick's blog! Right put where everyone can see it, not just after the 24 hour timeclock has gone on someone's blog, which is where you usually do it.
So, let's proceed.
I've told you numerous times, my family has - for many generations - been completely intertwined with the US. I have a brother, a sister, and 6 nephews/nieces there as we speak. Other sibs married Americans, who came to Canada. Others got US degrees. So our family gatherings this Summer included Chicago and Fayetteville and Cape Cod and so on. And my sibs, their kids, cousins and I myself cross the border regularly, for work, play, family, school, etc.
As for family, I should probably start with my father, who went to Julliard and Yale and Oberlin, had numerous Top Tens in the Boston and NY Marathons, etc etc. Interesting guy. So my mother got to live in Ohio and Connecticut and NYC. Like I've said, a family with no money - but good brains. I have relatives going back to the Mayflower CT, Fullers. And those other funny old New England names. Royce. Chase. etc. Look 'em up. How about you? You been around these parts this long?
Now, I've told you all this before, more than once. But you keep hounding. Because you think it'll drive me off. You keep asking why I don't leave. And that's because when we argue, your bluster doesn't do very well, does it?
As for me, I wander back and forth. I got offered a nice job in NYC a year back, but didn't want the associated travelling. You'd know the people doing the offering, funny enough - we discuss them every day. But I still speak there from time to time. Last place I spoke was MIT, last year. So far, I've lived in California, and spent time in Mass, Colo, N Carolina, Maine, NYC, Michigan, etc. My major friendships, e-mail lists, reunions, etc. - are American. But as for the US being outside my reach of influence? Oh dear. Son, my college hockey team had more major US political players on it than you'd ever guess. Anyway. Lemme put it this way. My housemates, my friends, my colleagues, my family - they're into US politics, up to the eyelids, for decades now.
And I think you're just jealous, because I've managed to pull off a 3-nation political hat-trick. Canada, Britain, and the US. I may have to move back, just to disappoint you!
And with that, you really should feel a bit of shame, and apologize for continuing to try this shit on with me, but I doubt that you will, and even if you tried, you'd suck at it, because at heart, you're a graceless individual, and so, at this point I'll call you a name so you have something to complain about, and can go away complaining about that, and ignore the fact that you were just caught out being a total ass, because let's face it, you really are a bed-wetter and a gent who seems to enjoy celery jammed up his arse.
P.S. This is the last time I'm nice about this issue.
September 7, 2009 4:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nicely done.
September 7, 2009 9:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously, quinn, you don't talk nor write nor act like the allegedly VIP you claim to be. You exhibit essentially no self-control. Frankly, though not the point of my question, your response makes it difficult to believe your 'facts' -- especially as they are, on the Internet. Anonymously.
You claim your family had no money. So apparently, you, too, are a success story like Stilli. This puts you in the "wealthy" catagory.
Are you an ex-pat like David Seaton? You don't sound much like one. Or are you a Canadian who tries to find work in the United States?
As far as "trying to run you off the board" -- it's funny. You are the one always telling people to go away. (And not just me.) Simply put: whether you post or don't post at TPM is not something I spend any time thinking about.
Lastly, I posed my question because you were so emotional in your response about "not wanting to deal with those people". Well... what's preventing you from walking away from the situation. Especially since you are in Canada?
September 7, 2009 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a graceless man he is.
At least this time people will get to see how CT does this, as the other times he did it after the 24 hour bell. The way he takes some piece of personal information, and then starts snidely discounting somebody's life, asking these "innocent" questions designed to damage someone's place here. Somebody's nationality, their income, the state of their marriage, their home ownership - all fodder for CT to use - stabbing, but always in his most innocent voice. And if they smack him down? CT says - you can be anyone you want on the Internet.
But he doesn't swear, so that makes it all ok, apparently. See, CT feels that it's worse to call someone an asshole than to make cracks about their divorce, or to challenge their right to speak on the internet because of their supposed nationality.
A nasty little man. The blowhard who himself claims to be busily briefing Congress and/or writing jokes for late night TV and/or contributing to important NASA and military activities. But who when challenged, blows up, blows up his blog, comes back as pathetic little alternative characters, and then, when they too die a dog's death, returns as the Mighty CT.
And all from the comfort of his little Nectarine Repair & Celery Insertion Shop in California.
P.S. As I said, I'm not wealthy. Our family is just well-educated and engaged with the world. Nor did I claim to be a VIP. I know interesting people, including in politics, and my friends like to talk to me. As for my facts, they're straight up. As for CT? He's still a coward for the way he handles this kind of thing.
September 7, 2009 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just assume clearthinker gets off on it, q, if you know what I mean. That's his game: bait someone (I watched him bait stilli and then turn on her, and now he's working on baiting dickday), abuse them, then play innocent. It's a compulsive pattern, meaning he needs to do it, enjoys it, gets something out of it. Control, I guess. Who knows.
September 7, 2009 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lots of pot and kettle analysis going on these days.
September 7, 2009 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh really? Please show me either Gasket or Quinn brought up marital status, or nationality as a method to discredit any one.
You are out of line.
September 7, 2009 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pot and Kettle - accusing others of behaviors that they themselves exhibit.
This has zero to do with the specifics of this conversation and has everything to do with methodology.Both of the bloggers in question are quick to flame-down on anyone, at any time, with the slightest provocation using many of the same tactics. I am not passing judgment one way or the other, just observing the fact that all parties concerned use these techniques.
Yourself included.
September 7, 2009 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
No Jason. I disagree. As I said further downthread, everyone personalizes sometimes, politics can get pretty personal. The poster in question does as a rule. Therein lies the difference.
There is such a thing as degree, and by saying "everyone is guilty of this" you are effectively saying no one is. That is not reality.
I have noticed you tend to fall into this same logical fallacy frequently. Degree matters.
September 7, 2009 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
You get personal at the drop of a hat. Do I need to provide an entire blog full of quotes from just today or are you willing to stipulate that very observable fact?
Since I have never once produced such a blog (unlike my more vocal critics) perhaps I'll just grab one of your comments from this thread in response to this fairly innocuous comment:
The first sentence of your response?Pot and Kettle doesn't even begin to describe it.September 7, 2009 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hardly in the same league, you are being disingenuous, just like you were on Rowan's blog. Pointing out that someone that hasn't read the posts in question and thus isn't qualified to make a judgement, is merely pointing out the obvious. Bringing someones marital status or Nationality into it is a whole nuther matter. I thiink that you can agree with that.
Maybe you need to take some time off. You are devolving in your usually decent reasoning powers. I hate to see that.
September 7, 2009 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Name one thing that CT offered that was more personal or snarky than that quote. Or even this one. Or this little beauty complete with graphic! Drop the stones and back away from the glass house.
September 7, 2009 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, I missed those. Thanks!
September 7, 2009 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I won't back down. I didn't click on your link, but to riterate what I said before, EVERYONE does it SOMETIMES.
Now you are starting to annoy me. You show me a comment where I commented on someones marital status, Jason, or on their nationality. In fact find me a quote where ANYONE on this board has done so.
You go on defending the indefensible, it reflects on you.
Have a good day. I have more interesting things to read than this nonsense. Nothing personal, just pointing out the obvious.
September 7, 2009 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are comparing apples to orangutans. It doesn't matter what you are saying when the manner in which you say it is as worse than CT's rather pedestrian "insults" about seeming contradictory statements.
You use words like "dickhead" and "asshole" and "supercilious prick" instead of making actual criticism of the comment being offered. You didn't follow the links because they are proof that you are exactly that which you constantly rail against.
Irony seems to be a wasted realization around here most days.
September 7, 2009 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
It does matter WHAT you are saying Jason. Shame on you for going to the ends of idiocy to defend a scumbag.
Now you are being utterly ridiculous.
We're done.
September 7, 2009 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
There you go again selectively taking words out of context and changing the entire meaning of what was being said. Shame on you for intellectual dishonesty.
September 8, 2009 6:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bwak,
Just for the record, let's quick review history:
a) Stilli posted a very personal story about her ability to grow wealth.
b) You critiqued the story
c) I disagreed with your critique and pointed out that you had, in fact, risen to the point of owning two homes. I do regret bringing this up because instead of responding to the critique, you ended up responding to my bringing up two homes
d) You accused me of lying
e) I simply reminded you that you posted this info as a result of your describing your divorce. I was really explaining how I knew (one thing that does get to me is to accuse me of lying -- my integrity, even as an anonymous poster, is important to me).
f) Then you said I'm personalizing things by bringing up your divorce and that I was further lying
g) That's when I pulled up the post showing you had an ex, etc.
So that's where the marital status came in. You basically kept saying I was lying and I had to show I knew -- from things you posted -- that I wasn't making stuff up.
You know what? This is one of the problems with confusing TPM with Facebook. How am I to know what the boundaries are of posts for friends and posts for discussion?
Answer: I can't.
We see often that people use personal stories use them here as a means to promote a political idea. (Stilli elegantly did so on this blog, case in point.) So it's hardly surprising that these may come up later.
It's unfortunately that you see this as "personalizing" things in a derogatory way. In fact, you were the name caller -- you implied I was a liar. All I wanted to point out originally is that you, also, were able to rise above your initial means and so you, also, were proof that mobility is a possibility.
I think people should remember that this is not Facebook or myspace or a personal website.
I really do regret that we got sidetracked, but I think it's because some of the questions are so daunting or demanding that people would rather find any means of not addressing them seriously. It's easier to scream and vent and then move on asking why nothing gets done.
Stilli initiated such a great comment and it did, in fact, impact many people here and things did progress.
SO... there you have it.
This, I believe is the central problem. You come onto an Internet forum with a militant attitude. I'm not talking about thinking you are correct about things -- we all can do that -- but with the tactic of "I won't back down." If indeed we are discussing ideas, as I think we should be, then there's no reason to be militant. That's what hoses discussions.
September 7, 2009 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Word.
September 8, 2009 7:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Re: Links.
Good heavens!
September 7, 2009 7:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um, this is TPM, and facebook is facebook.
September 7, 2009 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was never commenting on the 'comments' you felt I 'should' have read so really this whole 'uninformed' and right to comment thing makes no sense.
September 8, 2009 1:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not really. It was a message to quinn in a secret code.
September 7, 2009 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's your secret code? Needs a little work.
September 7, 2009 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually it worked quite well, thank you.
September 7, 2009 10:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
P.S. You're a fine one to talk about flamers, jason. Takes one to know one, I suppose.
September 7, 2009 11:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please link to a single blog of thread that I have written that could be considered flaming that didn't start with words not my own. I make frank and honest assessments about comments or blogs, but I never take it personal until someone else goes there first.
September 8, 2009 7:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
How in the fuck am I supposed to do that, jason? Am I supposed to check each and every date/time stamp just to prove you're a hothead? Or are you vain enough to think I save all of your posts and comments and organize them by who insulted whom first? You know you are a hothead, so stop being dishonest.
I did go back to your very first post, however, where you called Bill Clinton a neocon. I politely corrected you in my very first comment, and you cried that I took your words "out of context" in your second response to me:
Wow. That strikes me as significant now because that's exactly what clearthinker did when I quoted his exact words recently! His response to my calling him out (for saying "Older people don't make protests") was almost identical to yours:
Do you two share notes, or are you the same person?
September 8, 2009 9:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. Just wow. I can't get over this.
I much prefer the jason persona over the clearthinker persona.
September 8, 2009 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Even in your own example, you refuse to allow someone to further explain a statement without using that explanation as some sort of proof that they are an ideologue, despite the fact that it actually refuted the original criticism. Since that first post here I have completely changed my MO, so going all the way back to my first, stumbling steps into blogging at TPM seems a bit weak.
I could go over your history at TPM and pull all sorts of quotes that would make you look like an asshole or a hypocrite.
As to the straw man you led off with, of course I don't expect you to know every single thing I have ever said here nor the exact context of all those words. That is clearly a ridiculous statement about something I didn't actually write, especially considering you are familiar enough with my style of writing to know that it takes a lot of getting punched in the balls before I respond in kind.
I prefer the Gasket persona I learned so much from in the primaries to this thin-skinned clone of so many TPM weenies.
September 8, 2009 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll tell you what, jason: You jumped into this thread to defend clearthinker's honor (such as it is) with exactly the same intent that I had for jumping in: to support my own friends here. It's an open forum, and we each have that prerogative.
Therefore, however, you have no more moral authority than I have. So get off your fucking high horse already.
Meanwhile, I've never claimed I wasn't an asshole, but I can claim that I'm not hypocritical. Feel free to go through my comment history until you go blind, because you're gonna have a really hard time finding inconsistency. And even though I've never pledged to be "nice" or to not use swear words or to not call out bullshit when I see it, you're also gonna find a lot of supportive comments from me to people that I've tangled with in the past, including you and (gasp!) clearthinker.
September 8, 2009 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
My reply here.
September 8, 2009 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
If CT had your writing skills he would be deadly, because he'll go to any depth. He just has no turn of phrase except, nya nya nya, nya! Forget him, Quinn. (At least he can't take all these comments home with him when he goes into another snit and quits again.)
September 7, 2009 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't "quit" last time I stopped posting.
There were real reasons, but again, we see the same people here who wonder about the chicken-little-sky-is-falling-birther-panic exhibit exactly the same behavior.
If you really followed me, you would have seen a comment or two on this topic.
September 7, 2009 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
If I really followed you? Oh, that is rich!
All I know is that one day you deleted all your blogs and took all the comments out at the same time. That seemed like quitting to me.
But no, CT, I don't follow you, nor do I ever intend to do so. When I did substitute teaching I had plenty of Eddy Haskels that I had to deal with on a daily basis, and I don't miss dealing with them. You really remind me of them though (middle school, BTW; not even high school)
I run into you because you post on some blogs that interest me. But I don't search you out.
September 7, 2009 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, as usual, you have very strong opinions on less than substantial knowledge.
September 7, 2009 9:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
OOOOOH, Snap!
That was deep criticism, and as usual, totally without substance.
September 7, 2009 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just don't understand why some of ya'll can't seem to comment without ad hominem attacks and snarky personal asides. It really is an odd way to discuss politics if the end goal is progress or influencing persuadable voters. The irony of having an allusion to civil in your name just makes it more confusing to me.
September 8, 2009 7:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
I read an illuminating Freudian slip on Rowen's blog, in which someone with conservative views said that we should not help "those who cannot help themselves...".
I might have been shocked by that statement, but considering the source, I wasn't.
What is shocking is that the right's definition of those to be scorned and left to sink has now morphed to include, not only those who, in their view, "will not help themselves" but also those who, in the poster's own words, "cannot help themselves." This, then, would presumably include people who are physically or psychologically handicapped, mortally ill, or otherwise incapacitated.
Can callousness really get worse than this? Now it is a capitalist crime if a person literally cannot help himself or herself?
Just asking, DD, since you are a whiz at links: have you found any evidence of top echelon investments in ice floes? Because surely when they set us out to sea to freeze or drown, they'll want to sell the floes to us, to get that last profit per person.
September 6, 2009 10:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is not coveting someone else's goods. The repubs would like that to be the cornerstone of their moral
foundation.
I mean our civilization is based upon coveting...I want a hybrid automobile because the Jones have one,I want an IPOD because Suzie has one...
But there is something soooooooooo sinister in a public official standing up to speak against the minimum wage.
Why such cruelty?
Oh well.
Hope you are having a nice weekend.
September 6, 2009 11:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Many of the comments read that way. Especially when taxes are seen in terms of punitive measures. Or comments like "the rich suck".
Ted Kennedy was one of the wealthiest people in Congress. Did he suck?
What about Barack Obama and Bill Clinton? Started off poorly and became self-made millionaires?
People here should understand that 90% tax brackets have been empiracally shown to produce less revenue than lower ones.
There is too much sheep bleating of "four legs good, two legs bad" here. Appropriate taxation is a valid point. It should be made progressive to be sure, but not debilitating.
If you want a more grown-up discussion of proper taxation techniques, here is a layperson article on JFK and his tax cuts.
September 7, 2009 3:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Define debilitating.
September 7, 2009 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Define progressive
September 7, 2009 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
90% tax bracket. Shouldn't exist. Period.
September 7, 2009 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, do they?
September 7, 2009 9:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Except for AIG employees who made obscene bonuses, that is. Yeah; a lower rate for them would save the country.
September 7, 2009 9:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
wwstaebler says:
"I read an illuminating Freudian slip on Rowen's blog, in which someone with conservative views said that we should not help "those who cannot help themselves...".
I did a search on that blog and the words "cannot help themselves" only appear in one of my comments.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=cannot+help+themselves&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=10&lr=&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=http%3A%2F%2Ftpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com%2Ftalk%2Fblogs%2Frowanwolf%2F2009%2F09%2Flets-talk-class-warfare-shall.php&as_qdr=all&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=off
The trouble is - that comments is the opposite of what you claim it to be. It says: "There is everything right with helping those who cannot help themselves."
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/rowanwolf/2009/09/lets-talk-class-warfare-shall.php#comment-3588332
It seems to me that you're committing a Freudian slip with your comment about my Freudian slip.
Or - you're a liar and you've been caught.
September 7, 2009 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do not call my Belle a liar. Why do this at all Lola. Huh?
There was no name given. No attribution. She might have been thinking of another blog.
Go away. I am done with you.
September 7, 2009 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
"There was no name given. No attribution. She might have been thinking of another blog."
- Unless you find evidence to the contrary, the only words that fit are my words.
In fact, a portion of them is presented as a quote - except of course for the part where the writer of the comment changes the meaning to the opposite of what was said.
Here's a search on all of Rowan's blogs.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=cannot+help&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=10&lr=&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=http%3A%2F%2Ftpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com%2Ftalk%2Fblogs%2Frowanwolf%2F&as_qdr=all&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=off
My words were deliberately distorted in order to create an intro for a comment.
I don't care if anyone calls me a conservative or any other name that's considered offensive. But there is a pattern at TPM to twist and distort the words and views of those the resident bleeding-heart mob disagrees with (in rare moments when it stops weeping about the ills of the world). And since it happens with such frequency, it's not accidental Freudian slips.
It's deliberate lying.
September 7, 2009 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's just careless reading, L. Not deliberate lying. Just carelessness.
I'm glad you defended yourself, however, because I know you don't believe what was implied about you.
September 7, 2009 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
You'll note, Lalo, I never got a response from my inquiry. :-(
September 7, 2009 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dick:
Can you show us where you believe WW was referring to?
September 7, 2009 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
DD: Thank you for coming to my rescue -- an experience I cherish, believe me -- but I'm afraid, although it galls me, that Lalo was right.... at least in the sense that I did misread his comment and so I have apologized for same, above.
Now it will be interesting to see if he apologizes to me for suggesting I was lying, but never mind, as that is a bit tit-for-tat.... or would that, in his case, be tat-for-tit?
XOX
September 9, 2009 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lalo:
I didn't come back to the top of this blog until this evening, and so missed your response to me.
You are correct that I misread your comment, which was:
"There is everything right with helping those who cannot help themselves...."
You did, in factm say "everything right" not "everything wrong" as I read it.
So it is my Freudian slip, not yours. Please accept my apology for that.
This is an interesting, if embarrassing, experience for me.
Because when I followed your link, just now, I read it wrong, again. Proving, perhaps, that the impression we have of someone's views can, in fact, color what we read, much later on, more than once.
Mea Culpa.
September 9, 2009 8:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds a lot like a final solution, doesn't it? Makes me want to call them the 4th Reich at times, but ... would I ever do that?!?
September 7, 2009 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wendy - In the case of the Health Insurance Industry, they take our health care dollars that we spend as "premiums" and then they spend these dollars as bribes and in dishonest PR campaigns to campaign against universal health care. Is this not somewhat similar to buying our ice flow as you mention? Or perhaps paying your hangman?
September 8, 2009 8:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
All I can say, SJ, is that I will cut my own ice floe before I will pay the pipers who made the gesture necessary. And, hey, if I cut my own, I have a final opportunity for a little creativity, eh? A little honed reflection here, a little depression there, some smooth surface , a few rough edges -- a floe to call my own. You?
September 9, 2009 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I dunno Dick, this all sounds a bit hyperbolic and incendiary and ideological and I can't really trust it you see because you don't cite any right-wing sources and all and what do all the fine people at AEI or Heritage or Dick Cheney have to say since you know they might not agree with you and we should always always be fair minded about this stuff and maybe there's a reason that only God knows why all the money's going to the top 0.01% and all those poor people must deserve what's coming to them, because that's the way nature or Darwin or God or Reagan would have wanted it, so I'm just saying this just can't be right and its not helping the country unite behind a common purpose if you say things that aren't very nice. though true...
*goes off stage... bangs head against wall*
September 6, 2009 11:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
(here's some ice for your head - mine hurts too)
Fair and balanced may apply if one is discussing opinions and points of view. However, there is such a thing as reality - though some seem to live in an alternate one than I do (or the reverse).
September 6, 2009 11:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi Rowan, your blog is great. Fair and balanced just means 'check your goddam facts and document the sources'. What the hell is wrong with those people...?!
p.s. sorry for making a bit of a mess with your thread...
September 7, 2009 12:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
YOU didn't make a mess.
September 7, 2009 12:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd like to apologize for making a bit of a mess on the thread too.
Lalo and Jason are pretty good at suckering me into their digressions, but yesterday's was a new low. Lalo flat out admited that he was lying (14th amendment requires a flat tax) and that really he just wanted to argue becuase his simplistic interpretations of our founding are against what he thinks Rowan is talking about. He didn't even read the post. Its one thing to disagree but state your case in facts- or state 'this my philosophical opinion' but don't make shit up and then scream russia.
I can't countenance such disingenuous any more. I get too angry. I will try to abstain (but whatching Quinn is a delight).
September 7, 2009 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
translation:
""I made a mess, but "THEY MADE ME DO IT"!!!!
I go from sane to total bitch in 0.1 seconds, and it's not my fault I can't control myself.
I lie about what others say because my eyes are red with noble anger and I can't read well and why would I even want to??
My only effective treatment is the high decibels of the resident drama quinn.""
You know what, Saladin? You do a great job of being an insecure fake, so I'm not bothered by your defending yourself by lying about others. WW fired the first shot in here, but it's not like you needed it or waited for it.
I've only got one thing left to say to you.Kiss My Ass. And have fun.
September 7, 2009 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
touched a nerve I see.
'insecure fake' now who is personal? No I am just someone who likes to discuss things, sometimes I do a good job, sometimes I don't. Its a hobby, but I do it with good intentions and with a goal of learning from whom I am conversing and maybe convincing them of my point.
I assume the same intentions on the other side. I didn't like your disingeniousness. I don't respect it.
Sometimes you make thought provoking points but in this case you were simply a lying provocateur (14th amendment) who rapidly descended into illogical screaming (you know the Russia thing) and then vitriol. I responded with "you are not serious today". You weren't.
Regardless. Peace.
I have no interest in fighting anymore today.
September 7, 2009 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes you did. Lies usually do .
Here's what I said:
"The constitution (on which the laws are based) requires treating everyone the same under the law. A law that doesn't apply to everyone equally shouldn't be allowed to pass."
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/rowanwolf/2009/09/lets-talk-class-warfare-shall.php#comment-3588355
You might want to read up on the role of 14th Amendment in imposing a general restraint on the government's power to discriminate. Or on Obama's belief that DOMA SHOULD NOT have been passed into law. Or various SCOTUS rulings related to government action on personal property.
14th Amendment (jointly with the 5th Amendment) provide more than enough foundation to find progressive taxation unconstitutional - if there was common sense and political will to do it.
To conclude:
- I didn't "flat out admited that he was lying"
- I didn't say a word about "flat tax"
- You're totally full of shit.
September 7, 2009 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
How is it a digression to show that the actual profit margin of the health insurance industry is pretty much the same as every other industry, despite the outrageous numbers being improperly quoted?
The entire blog was based on the premise that "outrageous profits" show that corporate America is engaged in class warfare. I punch a huge, gaping hole in at least one set of data, though it admittedly took a few tries, yet very few seemed to give my point half a second's thought before firing off a raging reply.
Seems to me that anything the TPM choir doesn't agree with is considered a digression and jumped on with zero mercy and even inclusions, which doesn't sound all that liberal to me. Perhaps I am reading the wrong definition.
September 7, 2009 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
And your point is...?
;-)
September 7, 2009 8:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
The top of my head apparently.
September 8, 2009 6:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
I always wondered what the 'Headbangers Bawl' was all about Obey. hahahahhahahahah
You forgot about the part where I refuse to consult a good dictionary.
September 7, 2009 12:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
a dictionary? I have a vague vague memory of some crap like that, but jeezus, some things are so friggin stupid even my neurons refuse to register it. God they drove me nuts tonight. Q was on form though!
This could start a series, eh? "The Asshole Monologues", or something...
September 7, 2009 12:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
The dictionary is because you don't know the meaning of many words, dickday, at least in evidence of how you misuse them.
Just wanted to be clear that your issue is not a simple spelling problem. It's a conceptional one.
For homework, may I suggest you look up the following words and use them correctly in a sentence?
Dictatorship.
Martial law.
Fascism.
All of these words have been misused by you in the past 48 hours. You know, just like teabaggers claim that Obama is a socialist... or a Nazi.
September 7, 2009 3:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
If your Mother ever saw you in action, she'd stand in mute horror.
Really. You have turned out to be such a shitty person. Asocial. Arrogant.
Go away. Become someone better. This "Clearthinker" character of yours is an abomination.
September 7, 2009 4:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
If I went crying to my mommy every time someone critiqued my writing with half the restraint that CT has shown, I would have never finished a single screenplay or short story. I certainly wouldn't be writing here under my own name, mostly succeeding in not going nuclear on people using aliases to bait me.
I lost track of the number of editors who told me to read a book or "learn a fucking thing or two" about the subject at hand before writing. If someone steps into the lead role in any situation, they should be willing to court such mild criticism as properly using fairly standard terms. If one wants to take poetic license with the terms, that is their business, but they should know enough to acknowledge they are doing so.
I would mention a change in the TPM acronym to better suit its recent mood swings, but that would probably make me a misogynist.
September 7, 2009 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Comfy up there, Jason? Keep an eye peeled. I hear there's a lot of celery passing through those parts.
September 7, 2009 9:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
You might want to see your psychiatrist for an update on your meds. This particular dosage appears to no longer be working.
September 8, 2009 6:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
PS: The voices aren't real.
September 8, 2009 7:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know, sometimes I read your comments and get such relief.... it's rare, granted, but when you DO manage to make it through a comment with using STRAWMAN or AD HOMINEM it's really just a cause for celebration.
Huzzah!
September 8, 2009 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just decided to respond in kind since that is the only type of debate you seem capable of conducting.
September 8, 2009 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is nothing like a good run-on sentence, Obey. When your head stops hurting, would you consider posting a run-on sentence blog competition (on more serious matters than mine was, although it was apparently fun for one and all)?
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/wwstaebler/2009/02/shared-creativity-just-for-fun.php
September 7, 2009 12:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Obey, Belle is famous for dark and rainy night blog. Not to hard to find. broke all records.
Go ahead. Kind a fun fest.
September 7, 2009 12:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wendy!! You know THAT was the blog that got me hooked here! I had already put up a couple of posts with some gibberish about Geithner that no one was reading, but then I came across that one, and I remember sitting in front of my computer for hours laughing with glee and amazement at those stories. And I didn't daaare touch my dashboard... except to refresh again and again. I was in awe. honestly. Should really, nay, MUST, do it again!
September 7, 2009 12:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
=D
The pug rawks yet once again.
Yez, if we suspend the evidence of the present reality, in order to be fair to those who don't believe in the very concept of fairness unless, of course, it applies to themselves, then one could reasonably concur with those that wander blindly and erratically in the wilderness of their own creation due to their craniums being encased firmly in their nether region orifice.
Yez.
September 7, 2009 12:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Okie dokie haha
September 7, 2009 12:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Now see? Bwak -- in your comment, you have already demonstrated the combination of real substance and a run-on sentence.
September 7, 2009 12:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
"fairness"? pshaw! that's just morality, and morals are arbitrarily created and subjectively defined by society, doncha know. With the exception of progressive taxation, from which ultimately all evil stems. Or so says lalo's almighty google, apparently...
September 7, 2009 12:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
An example of histrionic rhetoric. You'd be better off with the previously agreed upon made up number of 1%. See Rowan's blog for further details.
September 7, 2009 3:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
"histrionic rhetoric"
You know CT, when you throw stuff like that out there you better substantiate it. So I'll show you my numbers and you show me yours. Deal?
I'm going roughly by Saez and Piketty's numbers and get
for the top 0.01%: an increase in share of total income from 1% to 6%
- i.e. a six-fold increase in share
for the next 0.09% (outside the top 0.01%): an increase in share from 1% to 2%
- i.e. a two-fold increase in share
for outside the top 0.1%, then next 0.9%: an increase in share from 6% to 9%
- i.e. their share increased by half
So we've got a highly non-linear distribution of increase in share of income within the top 1%. The huge bulk of the increase in inequality is concentrated in the acceleration of income growth in the top 0.01%.
Okay, what have you got?
Or were you just posturing like an ignorant asshole. And don't ask me to do your fucking homework for you.
September 7, 2009 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
I believe I was the one who pointed out first, or near first, on Rowan's blog that wealth is distributed exponentially.
For those that know mathematics, an exponential curve is one where, the higher you go up the hill, the climb gets no easier.
Or for those that want the latest buzzword to Google, you can look up "the long tail".
Or... you could have said "all the wealth going to the 0.000001%" and you would have been able to make the same statement. Which sort of was my (admittedly oblique) point.
Interestingly, no one has yet commented on the fact that the wealthy have always controlled about 66% of the wealth in the country during at least the last 100 years.
The shift starts happening about 30 years ago in the early 80s. So the real question is this:
Are people here talking about evening the playing field to where it was in the 1970s... or something more radical?
Because it's clear what shifted things in the last 30 years and it's easy to make proposals to start sliding them back. Taxes are a key strategic start.
September 7, 2009 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Glad to see you found out how to google. Now find your meds.
You're way out of line down thread. When you've sorted out your psychological issues, then maybe we can have a good-faith discussion of tax-policy, social justice and inequality. For now, seek help.
September 7, 2009 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well done! You've found a way to avoid answering a hard question.
September 7, 2009 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hummm...lets see...The CEO people who don't want to pay income tax or have safe and healthy working conditions.
Maybe the bankers who want to give only Shylock loans to the middle class and below.
How about the small businessman who would rather pay his employees a buck an hour instead of the minimum wage.
Retailers who would like to sell what ever overpriced junk they can to an unsuspecting public.
Those people ?
(just for starters)
C
September 7, 2009 12:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
What bothers me is that so many people vote against their own economic welfare. Against their own economic interests. Year after year they do this.
And they seem to sympathize with guys like beck.
See C, I cannot even feel satire tonite.
September 7, 2009 12:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a book to occupy yourself with, dickday.
If you really want to learn the answers to your questions, that is.
September 7, 2009 3:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't it awesome that CT thinks that there's a book that will answer these questions? I mean, he actually thinks he's showing higher intelligence by pissing on everyone on the site (except maybe his little buddy, Jason)... but then always proclaiming that there's some magic book out there, which has all the answers. Why... just read that book!
You know, he's the kindof guy who thinks that if you take Poly Sci 101, the reading list could just rolllll out the answers for you. Kevin Phillips! Lakoff! There's only about 5 others he ever quotes. A few weeks reading, and the answers are all at hand!
HE'S THE SHAM-WOW MAN OF TPM!
Celery. Inserted. Only possible explanation.
September 7, 2009 4:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
hahahahhaha. Yeah, I aint never been much for that book learnin and all...kind of confuses folks anyway.
Just twenty years of schoolin, thirty five more reading every day...hahahahahah
SHAM WOW
September 7, 2009 5:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dick,
It's not your 35 years of reading every day, it's what you are reading.
Books are better than newspapers. They require more thought to put together.
September 7, 2009 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
A common notion, but absolutely untrue.
1) Books are only as good as their authors. Books never get fact-checked, but newspapers regularly do.
2) Most authors can't put a book together. Editors do that.
September 7, 2009 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
1) Yes, I agree it depends on what book you look at. That goes into the "what you read" category. That's why I point to specific books -- written in a scholarly manner.
2) A nice little semantic game that is debatable in and of itself, but had nothing to do with my point.
September 7, 2009 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, you don't get it at all, clearthinker. That's not what I'm saying. You are both uninformed and making assumptions that are incorrect.
"Scholarly manner" is meaningless. Lakoff's book was published by a "trade" publisher (Penguin, whom I've actually done work for). It's written for a lay (not a scholarly) audience. Therefore, it's popular nonfiction, and not given as much credence as a scholarly or university press might give it. Whether a book has integrity or not depends on the author, but it doesn't have to be accurate because it's not peer-reviewed.
Not semantics, and of course I'm not playing a game with you. I'm trying to correct a misconception people like you have about books. I've put together many more books than you have, I'm quite certain. Many authors can't put a book together without lots of help over many, many months. Try reading some acknowledgments pages sometime.
I also know from firsthand experience how newspapers and magazines are put together. The fact-checking is much more rigorous, even in popular publications.
You're simply wrong, clearthinker. And stupid about being wrong. So what else is new?
September 7, 2009 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh gasket... I love how you end up posting about nothing.
Lakoff is a known scholar and wrote something for those without training in neuroscience. Maybe you'd like to give us your take on Carl Sagan or Stephen Hawking... or Albert Einstein next?
Perhaps you would like to make a positive recommendation on a book describing "why people vote against their self-interest"?
Or is your position really "don't read books"?
September 7, 2009 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have no problem with Lakoff; I appreciate his work and I have cited him myself. Recently, in fact.
But I would never categorize him with Hawking, Sagan, or Einstein, and I don't think he would, either. Totally different sciences. Perhaps that's a subtlety you simply aren't able to comprehend. Oh, well. Tells me a little more about you.
What I have a problem with are your erroneous generalizations, clearthinker. Sometimes it's important to point them out in a very clear way, since you make so very many of them. I can't possibly keep up with the quantity, but I do what I can.
September 7, 2009 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're doing a good job, too. It's appreciated.
September 7, 2009 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL! Thanks, LisB!
September 7, 2009 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am the lowliest of the low, I assure you. I claim no infinite wisdom. I claim little by the way of wisdom.
I muddle through.
But I assure you, I have read thousands upon thousands of books in my long life. What I recall from those readings is a different matter. I have now found that besides the library, since I cannot afford to purchase books even at ebay prices, that I can read books available on line besides the standards that I own. I am reading two right now.
But that is another matter.
September 7, 2009 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dick:
Then you directly contradicted yourself by previously saying:
Anyway, you have another suggestion on your reading list to answer the questions you asked.
PS Give up cigarettes and you can buy quite a number of books. Again, it's all about choice.
September 7, 2009 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have another choice and that is I would rather debate a coffee table. Your nit picking is pointless.
Go away.
I will not, from this moment on, for any reason respond to anything you might write.
It is a waste of time.
If I do not participate in your gaming, I cannot become a part of it.
Goodbye and good luck.
September 7, 2009 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
P.S. Give up celery. Fibre is best taken orally. ORALLY, CT. It's just not gonna work, the shoving it up the other end routine.
P.P.S. Use the money to buy some therapy.
September 7, 2009 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, I go away for a weekend and come back only to find CT now has celery stalking two of his orifices.
What next? Lalo jumps in for good measure? Tell me it ain't so....
I guess Dick's post was good, cuz it sure got some people riled up, didn't it?
Happy Labor Day, all.
September 7, 2009 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
hey Sweatheart!!!!!! Good to see you. Hope you had a ball.
Only two causing rancor. Really fine blogs this weekend (sans me)Good info being traded on the web.
September 7, 2009 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
CT,
Are you some kind of robot blogger program they're working on at MIT,(CT beta)? They haven't perfected the irony code yet, right? Still a few human cognition bugs to fix?
If you can take this: "Yeah, I aint never been much for that book learnin and all...kind of confuses folks anyway" as a serious assertion (a "contradiction" by DD) or my "The rich suck" as a serious argument, I think it's back to the lab for you. My stand alone comment was not only a joke, it was one for your benefit and directly quoted your admonition against blogs and comments that "say that" (I'm still waiting for those links). C'mon now, robot bloggers have to tell the truth, don't they?
HAL: Look Dave, I can see you're really upset about this. I honestly think you ought to sit down calmly, take a stress pill, and think things over.
September 7, 2009 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, seriously, with Dickday, I can never tell his tone anyway. His writing is often the sort of "all your base are belong to us", especially the "HAHAHAHAHAHAHA" stuff. So maybe I missed something. (He also routinely gets key facts wrong but apparently it's all filed under artistic license I guess.)
So mea culpa on missing his irony... assuming it was irony.
With regards to "the rich suck"... Apologies. You might have been joking, but there have been plenty of people who write blogs these days who aren't.
Once upon a time, 80% of the blogs were more carefully crafted, more politically oriented, harder work to read (because they weren't stream of conscious puffery). Rowan's recent blog is an example of it -- inflammatory language aside. The puffy pieces (regardless of length, because some of these are short and some are very long) were in the minority. Those tended to be the snark fests and were entertaining. Today, we are eating supersized junk-blogs more and more at TPM. So it's hard to know where the snark starts and ends.
We need more vegetables.
September 7, 2009 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well Dickday...they still believe in the "American Dream"...that if ONLY they work HARD ENOUGH, FOLLOW ALL THE RULES...they too can have "The Good Life" and the ONLY reason they don't is because of the Government.
Refusing to accept that A: The Deck is stacked against them. And B: The "House Always Wins".
They call it the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe it. - George Carlin.
C
September 7, 2009 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great Carlin Quote. hahaha
September 8, 2009 3:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
It has become all too easy around here to demonize people we don't know. We tend to lump them into groups, stereotype them, then proceed to pound on them day after day after day.
Let me tell you a little story.
My husband and I both came from very meager circumstances. When we got married, between the 2 of us we had a set of double mattresses, a black and white portable t.v., a very small refrigerator, the dresser I got my 8th grade graduation, a couple of night stands that used to belong to his parents, a brand new Volkswagen, a 12 year old half-dead Volkswagen, 2 sleeping bags, and the household items we got for wedding presents.
We lived paycheck to paycheck. At the beginning of each month (we got paid once a month) we left enough money in the checking account to pay our rent, and any bills that needed to be paid by check (our utilities.) All the rest we took out in cash, and divided it into envelopes...food, car gas, medical, entertainment. When we got down to the last few days of the month and there was no money left in the food envelope, the car gas envelope, and entertainment envelope, we'd dip into the medical envelope to buy food, or just live on mac and cheese or peanut butter and jelly sandwiches for a few days.
When my husband got his 1st promotion, we put 10% of it into our budget, and the rest into savings. Each time he got a step raise or cost of living raise, we did the same thing.
My parents borrowed $2000.00 to loan us for the down payment on our 1st home. We sold the house a year later for a $13,000.00 profit, paid them back, and bought another house, using the remaining $11,000.00 for the down payment. By then it was 1981 and the housing market went a little crazy. We moved from the city to the mountains, this time making over $100,000.00 on our house, and because we were moving to an economically depressed area, were able to buy a house for much less than we sold the other one for, and got our 1st chunk of money (nearly $50,000.00) to invest. This move was in conjunction with another promotion, and again, we put 10% into the budget and saved the rest.
Along the way we bought a few pieces of furniture, had a couple of babies, but we ALWAYS lived well below our means. We never took exotic vacations, or bought fancy cars or bought a lot of clothes. We drove our cars for 10-15 years before replacing them. We shopped at Mervyn's, even though we could afford Macy's. We invested $5000.00 in starting a business which gave me a very small 2nd income, some good tax advantages, and 20 years later we sold it for a decent profit, again, investing the money. During that time I worked about 60 hours a week, and made less than minimum wage for doing it. A couple of times we refinanced our house and instead of buying toys with the money we pulled out, we invested it. We stayed married when there were times it would have been easier to get divorced. My husband got 2 more promotions, and again, we saved the money. We payed extra on our mortgage so the house would be paid off by the time we retired. Ultimately we were saving/investing more than we were living on.
My husband retired 5 years ago, me 3. He has a great retirement. We knew all along that he could have been making much more money per year in the private sector, but we stuck with the public sector job, because of the retirement. And it has proved to be a good decision.
Although we certainly don't "live" rich, I guess we qualify, as we fall into the top 8% in terms of net worth...but let me assure you, there is a HUGE difference between the top 2% and the next 6%. There will never be mansions, yachts, or $100,000.00 bracelets in our world. But we did send our kids to college, and give them the down payments for their 1st homes. There should be enough money for us to be able to live relatively comfortably to a ripe old age without being a burden to our children.
We didn't sell our souls to get where we are. We didn't trample on anyone, take advantage of anyone. We lived simply and frugally and invested wisely. We have volunteered in our community, tithed to our church, make donations to charity.
When I hear people say, "I hate rich people" or "rich people suck", I cringe. But I don't apologize. We DID earn it.
September 7, 2009 12:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nice, and what of all the people that did exactly what you did, but lost that job, got ill, or had a kid get ill?
They didn't work hard?
WTF
September 7, 2009 1:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
I never even came close to implying that they didn't work hard, chicken. Especially not you. The world is unfair. I believe all people in a country as wealthy as this one is should have a safety net. But if you are mad at me, you are mad at the wrong person.
September 7, 2009 1:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not mad, Still, I just resent the implication that somehow you got where you are do to "hard work."
It also had a LOT to do with good fortune. There are plenty in your generation, as well as mine that were not anywhere near as fortunate.
What pisses people "like me" off is the refusal of people like you to even acknowledge it.
September 7, 2009 1:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Chicken, I went back and reread my comment, and I can't find anywhere that I said we got what we have because of hard work...We didn't work any harder than anyone else. In fact, we had jobs that required little in the way of manual labor, so in that respect, we didn't work as hard as a lot of people have had to work, but have less to show for it. But, I never said, nor implied that we did. We lived below our means, made some good choices, and yes, we got lucky that we never lost our jobs or got ill, or had children who got ill.
I'm sad that you see this in terms of people like you and people like us, because I see us all as just people. I have mentioned several times how much respect I have for you, and how badly I feel that you have had it so rough.
September 7, 2009 1:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I haven't had it so rough, Still, you seem to be missing my point, which is fine. "Living below your means" for you meant not shopping at Macys, no fancy vacations, etc. What makes you think people worse off then you had any of those things?
Maybe for them, "living below heir means" meant something quite different, because their means couldn't get them even close to your standard of living.
It has nothing to do with what you did or didn't do. You didn't get where you are solely because of that, a lot of it had to do with good fortune.
I do think that people tend to look down on these less fortunate and say, well, "they made bad choices." It's an ugly meme, and one I don't appreciate you propagating it.
Some people don't GET choices.
September 7, 2009 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Chicken, I don't know if we will ever be able to come to a meeting of the minds on this, but I'd like to try.
I came of age in a different time. I got good grades in high school, but that was because it came easy to me. I was more interested in getting high and getting laid than I was in planning a future.
My husband was a screw up in high school. His father was an alcoholic who drank away any chance the family ever had to get ahead. His parents divorced when he was 9 and his mother raised him on a minimum wage job. He was wild and she couldn't control him. For reasons I won't go into on this post, he had an epiphany when he was 18 and turned his life around.
When we met, I was at a crossroads. There was no minimum wage back then. I was making $1.25 an hour working at a greasy spoon. I paid $75 a month for my share of rent on an apartment (utilities included), ate at the restaurant, and had I been on my own long enough to need clothes, I don't know where they would have come from. He wasn't wild anymore, but I was. To be with him, I couldn't get high anymore. Women had few choices back then. I didn't like the ones I had in terms of employment, so I followed the path many did back then and got married and had babies. I had a choice to make, and it turned out to be a good one. From where we both started, it easily could have been different for both of us.
Is that luck? Good fortune? If it is, color me guilty, I guess. But what it boils down to is, we started with almost nothing, and built our lives with no help from our family (outside of the $2000.00 loan) making all kinds of choices along the way.
We literally started on one of the lowest rungs, Chicken. Were there people worse off than us? Yes, there were, but not by a wide margin. We had perhaps a small head start, but it wasn't much of one.
We have never taken for granted our "good fortune" or the "results of our good choices." We have helped others along the way. Could we have done more? Undoubtedly. I don't think for one minute we are "better" than anyone else. Or more deserving. So what am I not doing, or thinking, or feeling, that would make you feel less badly about me?
September 7, 2009 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Still, I would just say remember this old maxim, "There, but for the grace of God, go I."
Success and wealth in this country isn't merely a product of good choices and hard work. Those help, of course, but they are far from the only things.
I hope you can see where I am coming from, but I understand if you don't.
September 7, 2009 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is where you have it wrong, Bwak:
You have completely taken free will out of things.
I have yet to see anyone at TPM be rigid about not acknowledging that circumstances can be beyond one's control.
But what I have seen are people here (you are first and foremost) rigidly say that anyone down on their luck has nothing to do with it.
Now, if someone never were given access to opportunity, that's one thing. But it's our responses to a set of circumstances that really reveals character.
People can end up in bad situations for making poor choices. Should they be penalized for it? No. But neither should people who have been diligent, exercised self control, and made better choices.
September 7, 2009 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think I do, Chicken. We have not faced a lot of the circumstances that some have. While I am tempted to use the "there but for the grace of God" line, that would mean that he He intervened on my behalf to make me suffer less than others, and I'm not sure if I believe He is DOES that.
We live in a world where there is hardship and even "evil." I was taught that God never promised to protect us from either (although that is what we pray for) but only that He would be with us as we confronted it to give us strength and comfort.
For whatever reason it has occurred, I am grateful that we never had to see absolute rock bottom. I do not take it for granted, and I try to help those who have, although I'm sure I haven't done enough, and will continue to try to do better.
September 7, 2009 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Full of angst, Bwak.
Tragedy befalls people. Shit happens. But those are exceptions. Bad luck, good luck... we can't control that.
But what we can control are every day circumstances. It's about the choices we make given the circumstances (both good and bad) we are presented.
You are decidedly middle class: hell, you own two homes. You aren't poor.
Every day we do make choices. To study harder at school. To live well under our means. To hold onto cars for 12-15 years rather than buy new ones. To not take vacations (even little ones). To not go out to drink beer. To delay having children. To not get married. To move away from the place we grew up. To buy Mervyns, not Macy's (as Stilli put it).
I honestly believe you resent certain people. You seem to resent (not just disagree with but resent) anyone who hasn't made the choices in life that you made. Frankly, it comes off as sheer jealousy: why so-and-so but not me?
September 7, 2009 3:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't own two houses you pompous dickhead. If you don't get my point, and it was a simple one, it's because your are an addle-pated, clueless, lout.
Now go play in traffic, and quit acting as if you know anything about anyone.
You don't.
September 7, 2009 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
You talked about your two homes in the past. Now you deny it. Just like you denied having two ID's here.
September 7, 2009 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have never said I own two homes, you know why? Because I don't. Now take your snide, ugly jealousy and use it on someone that gives a damn. Your baseless accusations and assumptions are frankly, abuse.
Your personalization has nothing to do with politics, but rather with the fact that you are an asshole who comes here to bully others that call you out on your bad behavior.
I plan on reporting you for abuse every time you do that, so you might want to show some self-control. TPM Cafe is not a place to get "even" with people that disagree with you, or best you in arguments.
September 7, 2009 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's ironic that this comment is so like your threatening tone of the other comment I linked to!
Your "two home" comment comes when you discussed your divorce. I won't go further because despite everything about you, you deserve the dignity of reiterate the situation if you choose to.
By the way: I've never told anyone to "play in the traffic" or called anyone an "asshole".
But you have. Today. Just now. I know you feel righteous about it. Just like the teabaggers feel righteous in their rage. It's really all from the same part of the brain. And it exhibits itself in a similar way. To wit: as the teabaggers look to you, that's how you look to us.
September 7, 2009 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, it's about your unrelenting personalization which has nothing to do with politics. It is the sign of an emotional, immature, insecure and undisciplined personality.
You need to stop this poor behavior, and I'm hardly the first to say so. It is abuse. As far as calling you an asshole, that is what you act like. No one else personalizes everything to the extent you do, they rely on facts and reason. You do not. You act like some sophomoric lout that changes the argument to be about the poster every time. Just like you did with Quinn yesterday. It's horrid. You are incapable of admitting you are wrong. You think if you smear people long enough and repeat your ugly assumptions about them, that somehow others will believe them. They don't. They know better. As I said this is not a place to "get even" with those that make you look like a fool for some of th foolish things you write.
Try sticking to reason and facts, and the issue at hand. You might get a better reaction. The description, "asshole" fits you to a "T", as you are alone in how you will go back to a persons post, (especially their personal information) from months ago and belittle them with it. You tend to be inaccurate to boot, but anything to puff yourself up and belittle others, eh? That's immature, and ugly.
If your constant personalization is not being an asshole, then what is it? You tell me.
September 7, 2009 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
And by the way, I'm not divorced. So there's two things you are wrong about.
Apology?
September 7, 2009 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Congrats on getting back together.
Now I wonder which story is true.
But then again, you've also said you weren't workerbee either (which directly contradicts the link I posted), so it's kinda like the boy who cried wolf at this point with you.
September 7, 2009 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
CT. None of this is any of your fucking business. Knock it off.
September 7, 2009 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, you proved my assertion. Please explain what my married or not status, has to do with this post. Also explain what or who you think I am or was has to do with this post.
I have flagged you for abuse. This inaccurate personalization and defamation needs to stop.
I'd appreciate others doing the same when they see this behavior.
Thanks.
September 7, 2009 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm only going by what you posted.
I agree, however, that I was wrong in assuming anything you posted might have been factual and might, in fact, have been an "internet story" merely to demonstrate a point.
I regret bringing up the statement about your two homes (whether that is now real or not) because it permitted you to not focus on the point of the comment and rather allowed you to skirt the point I was trying to make.
September 7, 2009 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
bwak,
I am posting a comment I had posted on Rowan's blog yesterday.
....Initially I always try to consider how truly sad they are, to always be so full of angst and unable to express themselves cohesively and without rancor.
But then my patience wears thin and empathy evolves into pity for them, as well as irritation that others who only wish to engage in civil discourse, are pummeled by these types who can only contribute ineptitude and vitriolic blather.
It's all the more annoying when their incoherent ramblings detract from the intent and content of other's good blogs. It is always those with nothing of value to offer who insinuate their irrational rants - yearning for attention, not able to produce their own positive product so they are like children throwing a nonsensical tantrum.
The best they seem to be able to do is to spew illogical attacks and vapid idioms.
Just sayiin...........
September 7, 2009 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
You talk of family:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/07/i-missed-my-nephews-graduation.php#comment-2972684
I'll leave it at that. Have a good labor day.
September 7, 2009 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
And you talked of........well, in the OLD chat room at Lingr, you showed us many a picture of naked people.
You kinda hounded two of the women in the room (and still kinda do).
In the new chat room at Mibbet, you were a real gem for the first two visits. You gave us helpful pointers on how to to deal with gov't officials, and we gratefully thanked you (we, being the people in the chat room at the time).
The last time you came to the chat room, however, you got all defensive about your behavior and how you're seen on the blogs here at TPM and you laughed at everyone in the chat room when they tried to talk reasonably with you. It got to the point where I, as temporary moderator at the time, chose to kick you out.
You're fine until you get personal. Well....so am I.
September 7, 2009 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually you booted me with no warning. People were playing double entendre games and apparently someone got prissy and I became the scapegoat. As usual, it was a community standard unequally applied.
You'll note I haven't come back.
As for the rest of it... it's a nice twist on reality. I know not of what you speak. But you say it was in the Lingr room and it's likely someone named themselves "clearthinker". Until you can positively ID someone, you might want to rethink your allegations. But I'm sure that's how you remember it. It fits into your narrative well, so you want to believe it.
Was wondering how you felt about the statement below that "silence is endorsement"?
September 7, 2009 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um, maybe it was Cypher last year, in Lingr. You could be right.
I tend to confuse the two of you.
Here, enjoy this song, in the meantime:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taDli3z9PKQ
September 7, 2009 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ooops! LOL!
THIS is what I wanted to play for you....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Mbhd4LGR-g
I keep looking at Henry Stowecraft, ya know? Then again, maybe the first link works just as well. I dunno, and don't care anymore....
Hope you had a great weekend being you.
xo
September 7, 2009 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bwak,
Quinn didn't prove me wrong yesterday but it's 100% impossible to convince you of that. You have a mentality similar to the birthers -- you have a deep desire to see me "taken down". I know this because occasionally I agree with you -- and even post to that end. No response. Nothing. It's as if you are afraid to admit we have common ground.
You are similar to a Rush Limbaugh mentality where anything a Democrat says is suspect. For you it's anything I say can't possibly be correct or worthwhile.
Within my first day of posting at TPM you misidentified me as someone who stalked you from a previous Internet board (CSPAN) where you later on admitted you were booted off as well. It's been downhill from there... with you assigning all kinds of emotional issue to me in a classic display of projection.
Let's be honest: you aren't in the least concerned about bullying. You've never come out against (say) Old Grouch. Just a few days he came out and said he wishes that Hinckley used a .38. Only Stilli came out and said something about that. And that was over and above his useless sniping at particular posters with far more angst than I've even seen from you.
Yet -- nary a peep from you on this comment.
(And Old Grouch pulls this sort of thing so frequently, and sometimes you even respond to his response, so I know you are fully aware of his behavior.)
So, Bwak, when you complain about politicians using double talk and having different agendas to what they are saying, please remember that you are just as skilled at the art.
If you don't want to engage me, fine. I typically don't engage you. But unlike the time you immediately left the chat room when I showed up, you will just have to learn to get along in the world knowing that I am part of it, and you can't will me away.
September 7, 2009 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
You seem to be more concerned with the inner workings of our minds than you are with your own.
September 7, 2009 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did CT just confess to being a teabagger? "us"?
September 7, 2009 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
GZ - I'm not sure, 'cuz all the postings with CT's name are just gibberish to me.
I suggest all quit feeding the beast as it only encourages and enables it.
September 7, 2009 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
bwak,
There seems to be something amiss here, there is some posting of comments to you here and elsewhere, but it comes across as gibberish and merely an annoyance that is ever so easy to ignore. And as most gibberish, it makes no sense and deserves no reaction.
And lil chickadee - must say, so nice to see ya!
September 7, 2009 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I will take your excellent advice.
September 7, 2009 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are there ever occassions when Bwak and CT butt heads that CT does not bring up a past from years ago?
September 7, 2009 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
CT has not known me for "years."
Interesting that he pretends, to, isn't it. It's all about personalization. If it isn't me, it'll be someone else.
September 7, 2009 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I aint lumpin no one with no one. Promise Stilli.
You are one of the best people I have met here. I do no wish to see you punished in any way for having been fortunate (and I am not unaware of your misfortunes).
Where do these ten and twenty and hundred million contract bonuses come from? They are made off the backs of people, most of whom make barely enough to get by.
September 7, 2009 2:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are correct, dickday. $100M bonus is outrageous.
And any bonus at all paid for via TARP money is outrageous.
But unless you were buying and selling stocks, there were no "little people" paying these bonuses before the TARP money.
September 7, 2009 3:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is such an awesome comment, Stilli. Had I posted such a thing (and I wish I could tell a similar tale - but alas I can't just yet!), it would have been dismissed.
But because you posted this, you have now smashed people's simplistic notions of "wealthy people are bad".
Just to reiterate a few points in your post:
a) wealth is distributed exponential -- so while you are comfortable, you don't hobnob with the truly wealthy
b) it is possible to get ahead of things -- even in the last 3 decades of stagnation
c) you can't control circumstances, but you can respond intelligently to them
As I said, you are a giant at TPM -- and because of that fact, now you will have more than a few people pause and think before they post the classic rant memes because of this comment. That's really impressive and the whole point of an Internet forum.
Congrats! And congrats on being comfortable at this point in your life.
September 7, 2009 3:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
One last thought, Stilli:
Most boneheaded ideas people have about particular groups is because they have never met anyone of that group.
Racism comes to mind as a simple example.
But it occurs to me that many here who say "the rich suck" have never met anyone who they would consider wealthy. You may have opened up quite a number of eyes... and it makes me smile.
September 7, 2009 4:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is an interesting point. It raises the question, for me at least, do we need to have met or know someone to be able to consider the things they are doing or may have done? And if we happen to know a person how does that influence our objectivity? The two extremes for this could be how a parent sees their child and how that same parent sees the child of someone else. This holds true in a lesser way for persons we know as aquaintenances or friends. It's very apparent the closer we are to someone the less objective we are.
This makes a good case for our bank regulators not being a member of the fraternity of bankers. The same applies to insurance regulators etc etc. The same idea could be applied to our senators who are mostly of the class of wealthy persons and the plausible argument of them being unable to legislate objectively as it might apply to the vast majority who aren't wealthy.
It would be awfully difficult to refute this most evident and very human condition. To do so necessitates an unacceptable degree of dishonesty. I think we have an awful lot of structural mechanisms in government that promote this very dishonesty and which deliver as a consequence a horribly misdirected product. That we fail to recognize this in spite of its elegant simplicity is more than a little peculiar and certainly problematic.
September 7, 2009 6:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your analysis here is so simple, so clear and should be apparent to all those now in power.
It explains the problems in regulatory experience in this country.
I mean cheney makes one call the day he is appointed CEO of Halliburton, and they get a 2 1/2
billion dollar low interest loan.
Now that is an example of felonious conduct for sure, but that is why those companies wine and dine the federales.
Oh Frank is such a nice guy and all, he helped us out on that last contract, I would like Frank to get a piece of the action on the next big set of contracts coming down the pike.
My Anthro professors would gasp but I mean this is HUMAN NATURE.
September 7, 2009 6:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. And we discount the realities of human nature. Our representatives insist that the system works and has the requisite integrity. The facts argue against this statement and thus it is a lie or at least an obfuscation. Certainly there are rights to be observed but where it is evident that there is a certain corruption of those rights and where that corruption is demonstrably provable by observing the outcome produced, citizens MUST petition their representatives and demand a correction for the injustice committed.
When there is a resoundingly loud public outcry and where our elected officials demonstrate an uncertainty of their obligation to immediately correct a serious wrong, we have a very big problem. The financial crisis is a good example. It is very evident that our regulatory agencies failed miserably. Why then do we have a big argument over all of this? Congress modified the regulatory regime over the years which subsequently produced this awful outcome. Why is that so hard to understand? Or, as some people have stated, is congress actually corrupt? If so how can there be a redress of this when congress has relieved themselves of liability over the years. In our current circumstance the nation can't wait for an election to oust the criminals and restore a regulatory regime that is effective. We desperately need an automatic assertion of a public mechanism to provide for an accounting in the instance of a major screwup.
September 7, 2009 8:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
now you have me thinking? This gets into 'game theory' does it not? And big corporations have these 'checks' in a system so that the underlings do not steal; knowing that top management will steal and that well down the ladder individuals receive bonuses and everything. But I mean these independent contractors are hired and sent into 'field offices' to make sure the main source of paperclips is not the procurement officer's nephew.
In other words there are computer models for all of this.
September 7, 2009 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you hit on it precisely. The model we have was created long ago in a different time when people were more circumspect of their conduct. Even our more recent regulations are inadequate in light of what has gone on. We can't have a system that depends upon people to act a certain way when we know that having such an unreliable dependency just doesn't work in the face of power that has become corrupt. The thing is we have to recreate the rules and then attach this mechanism. Just attaching the mechanism to the current ethical circumstance won't work.
Naturally this is theoretical and I doubt such considerations would ever come to pass let alone become a reality. The norm is for power to end in a bad way before it can be rebuilt. We never fix anything unless it's absolutely broken. No matter how badly it's running. Or, like in the case of our cars, where we have regulations in the form of an annual inspection requirement to assure our safety. We need similar regulations for government to assure the safety of citizens and the country. Right now things are not just running badly. In my estimation government is pretty much broken. Bush having taken the nation to war under a false or at least unquestionably ambiguous pretense and the bankers almost completely trashing the global economy with neither having to answer for it is all you need to know.
September 7, 2009 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
It occurs to me that judges routinely recuse themselves when they are acquaintenances of persons who come before their court.
So I pose this question.
Why do we have so many people seeking to make acquaintenance of and solicit our congresspersons and senators? And, yes, offer them campaign contributions. If it is recognized you can buy a judge why is it not recognized you can buy a congressperson or senator for the very apparent purpose of 'buying' a law? In fact we have a system that endorses this very thing. Congress plays an equally important role in law as do the courts. Do they not?
September 7, 2009 6:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have a young friend in Italy who has a masters in political science and what they learn about our government from another perspective is that we are run by corporations. And so it seems...
September 7, 2009 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was going to respond to Stilli, but I do not want this to be taken personally.
Social class is not individual, any more than race is individual or sex is individual. These are status groups labeled and stereotyped and ideologically reinforced by cultural beliefs, and physically and socially structured by the organization of our social institutions. We populate these institutions as we populate the society. On one hand these statuses are within us in the most intimate of ways, and on the other they are beyond us and individually untouchable.
Status groups, and the structuring around them, are quite remarkable. In very real ways, they create separate worlds. The experiences we have and how we interpret them; what is understood as "common knowledge" and what "everybody knows" is different; what resources people have to draw on is different. Therefore, men really do experience and see a different world than women; people of color experience different worlds than the nominally white; the wealthy experience a different world than those of other classes and the working class experiences a different world than the middle class or the poor.
We live in a society that structures social classes. Who is in them, what those people are doing, what social resources and opportunities we have access to, where we live, and on and on. Social class is so much more than how much money one makes. It impacts almost every area of our lives.
Because social class is so interwoven in our lives, and because our cultural myth is that we choose our social class and therefore it is ours in a personal way, there is a temptation to see social class as individual. In fact, in this society we are encouraged to see almost everything through a personal lens - including our social class.
Therefore, if we try to talk about sexual inequality and sexism then you must hate "men" which means you hate ALL men, and you hate men individually. The reality is that the structuring of sex based status places men in a position of privilege relative to women. Neither men or women chose to be born that sex, but entered a world that operates in such a way that creates the inequality. Some men (and women) may consciously and deliberately engage the sexist system to advance their personal power and status - most do not. People are not good or bad people because of their sex, but that doesn't make the system go away. It also does not mean that people are immune from playing their roles within that system participating in "natural" (that's the way things work here) ways.
The same is true of social class. I do not hate individual people with wealth. I do hate a system that structures, rationalizes, and normalizes, significant inequality, and then pretends that social class is in the hands of the individual.
Let me give a personal example of wealth. I have a dear friend who is "wealthy" and comes from a family who is wealthy. He was raised with privilege. He went to the best schools finally going to college with his family easily footing the bill and allowing him to live in style while there. He became an interior designer and did fabulously well. His base clientel was the social network of his very well to do family.
Larry, ultimately told his family that he was gay at which point they disowned him. They couldn't take away the $5 million trust fund from his grandfather who had passed (all the kids got these trust funds), however, his father did take him out of any inheritance chain in the family.
Larry works hard for his money, and he is a very good interior designer. He makes very good money - when he has the contracts. However, more than once he has talked with me about how poor he is. During one slack business period he was actually in tears about his poverty status. We were sitting in the house he owned outright in an exclusive outlying area of Tucson, Arizona. The walls covered with art insured in the tens of millions of dollars. We sat side by side on his custom built and upholstered couch (which he had bragged he got at a bargain for $18,000) and having a heart to heart over the economic straits he was in.
The economy was in a down turn (1991) and he hadn't had a big contract in about six months. He had been forced to cut back his landscaper to once a week, he was considering buying a washer and drier rather than having all of his laundry done by a dry cleaner (who actually irons his t-shirts). He was virtually penniless. He had only a base income of about $5,000 a month (what was coming in from the trust fund at that time), the "paltry" investments he had. It had gotten so bad that he only had $50,000 in ready cash stored in the floor safe in the bedroom (his comfortable amount was $200,000). He was at a point where he was going to have to cut back on the services of "his people" (his maid, landscaping crew - who usually came in twice a week to water his house and outdoor plants - pool team, etc.etc.)
I listened to all of this and tried to be consoling. I cringed at the the tacit ownership of the "my people" discussion. I do love Larry after all, and he truly is a good person. However, inside I was screaming. he had more in his emergency cash floor safe than I made in 3 years of hard work. He had more money coming in on a monthly basis than I could imagine at that time. Just coming in like the damn lottery, and he was "broke."
However, in his eyes (and his world) he was on the brink of penury. Even though for most folks they would have to move WAY up to be at his monthly level - this was a real issue for him. In fact, it is a real issue - and a real world view - for many of the wealthy.
Different worlds.
So folks might say "the rich suck" the same way someone might say "men suck," and it is not necessarily a personal thing but a status thing. It is about the system and what it creates - not necessarily about individual (rich poor men women white not white gay not gay ...)
September 7, 2009 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Rowan...even if you had addressed it to me, I would not have found it offensive. I appreciate your POV and it certainly has merit. Perhaps the best thing for me to do is to stop "labeling" myself and just go about my life doing the best I can. It's just hard sometimes when you see conversations like this and realize YOU fit into the category of people that are being demonized and not have a reaction to it.
Perhaps we could all make an effort to stop attacking groups as a whole and start using language like "SOME rich people suck" and "SOME poor people are lowlifes" and "SOME politicians are dishonest blood suckers." :-)
September 7, 2009 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
YES!
Well said!
September 7, 2009 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
On one level, I would say "yes" to what you say. On another level, I would say that perhaps you missed my point. As a class, the rich have privilege that goes well beyond what they may or may not have personally "earned;" whether they are good people or not; whether they care about others or not. Class is not about the individual in this context any more than whether one belongs to the status of male or female is individual.
To say "some rich people" takes us back to the personal definition of social class and not towards an understanding that it is beyond the personal. We receives the privileges (or lack thereof) of our social class no matter our PERSONAL character.
September 7, 2009 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
But we are not in a "caste" system here. We have the ability to move from class to class, as evidenced by several people here, some moving up, some moving down, and there is always a fear of moving down, and often a desire to move up, so "personal" as in how we are, and how we treat others remains important.
September 7, 2009 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well Still, for all intents and purposes, we are.
As far as classing moving up or down, "down" is the dominant trend. Has been for decades. Now, you might not want to see that, but 90% or so of your fellow citizens, have and do.
If you and yours crossed societal boundaries, you need to understand that you are an exception. A fortunate exception.
September 7, 2009 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent find on that report Bwak. Should go in the "myth busters" category.
September 7, 2009 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
=D
Thanks
Between this and the productivity/unemployment/wages data, I have a hard time understanding those that want to protect the very wealthy. They hardly need any help.
The rest of us do, though.
September 7, 2009 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hereby recommend this comment, and the link. Because I've already read it.
September 7, 2009 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
No Stilli, we are not (quite) a caste system. And yes personal effort and decisions do make a difference. However, "hard work" and "desire," while important, also occur within the context of class and life condition.
To pull oneself up by one's bootstraps is difficult to say the least. People fall in social class through no fault of their own sometimes, and rise in class sometimes for things which have little to do with them personally.
Two examples. Both I and my foster sister come from the lower class. Both of us were in the foster care system. We are 3 years apart in age (I am older). I look white - she looks dark. I have above average IQ and no learning disability. She has average intelligence and a learning disability. I am lesbian and she is heterosexual. We had no control over any of these things. Others made decisions that affected our lives, and these combined with choices we made, and it put us in two different situations.
I was "smart" and got along well with adults - particularly teachers. I got lots of positive strokes and encouragement in school. RaeLene was determined to be "slow." In GRADE SCHOOL she was taken out of class to help at lunch times in the cafeteria. Missing class did not help her education and she got further and further behind. Our foster parents saw nothing wrong with giving her "skills." Ultimately she dropped out of high school.
She married a guy who was a mechanic and lived in a rural area in Missouri. She went to work in a factory nearby where she worked for 15 years (until it was moved out of the country - they made heels for shoes). She then went to work at another factory where she worked for 17 years. Her highest wage was $12.50 an hour - after 17 years. She was forced into early retirement because her body broke down. She worked a lot - many times 60 hours a week on production lines with 5 minute breaks and "line meetings" that were held at the lunch break. She had two kids. She and her husband have rented their entire lives - not being able to pull together the money to buy a place.
I worked hard too. Lots of really crappy, hard, and sometimes demeaning jobs (graveyard security at a sports area, door to door sales, packing plant, nude model for art classes, etc). I struggled to get through college. In and out as I could afford it. Finally getting my doctorate at the age of 42 (still paying on my school loans). I got some better jobs along the way working in information technology. Up until about 5 years ago, most of my working life I held at least two jobs, and sometimes three or four. I have arrived at an insecure middle class - economically. I have never in my working life taken a "vacation" in the sense that is usually meant. Having come up with a rather debilitating health condition last spring, my big fear is that it will end my career. If it does, then I will pretty much be back in the ranks of the poor. I have some savings - about 3 months worth. I am too young for social security, and what I would get from disability wouldn't make the house payment.
I think that both my foster sister and I are hard workers, and good people. We have both made sacrifices. My life and my foster sister's life could not be more different. It is not for lack of effort or desire that she never moved far beyond the poverty ranks. If she had not had the combined income of her husband, she definitely would have stayed on the borders of poverty.
This is a personal example, but hardly unique. In fact, I think it is pretty common. The system is not structured so that everyone can succeed. It is structured to maintain the different classes - as classes. Yes some move up and some fall down. Yes sometimes that has to do with their personal effort and decisions. But the reality is that lots of people do all the things they are "supposed" to do - and more - and do not get the benefits of that with increased economic status. Most do all the prescribed things, and work hard, to stay in the same class they were born into.
September 7, 2009 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I, too, had to be exceptional to get from my rough circumstances to a brighter place. I think we are failing as a society if you have to be exceptional to be comfortable. If we agree that the system is unfair and we all want to fix it, why is it so controversial to say that tearing down those who have already made it - of their own accord or otherwise - is not the most strategic way to go about doing that?
I hear a lot of commentary that seems to belittle the idea that we can use the existing system in such a way as to more easily create the sort of America we would all see exist. It is always more difficult and dangerous to tear something down with the hope that what rises in its place is more just.
The inverse is just as likely true, our own revolution as a rare exception to the rule.
What happens when those who might offer a different take on things stop offering their views and allow the democratic party to go up in a self-righteous blaze just like the GOP these last 40 years? Do we see a repeat of 1994? That seems the most likely result unless the democratic faithful can help Obama pull a Reagan and most liberal policy ideas won't accomplish that goal.
Facts are the country is still divided, so if progress is the goal then strategy is most certainly the most important trait for progressives to learn right now.
September 7, 2009 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is another great story about the mobility possibilities that existed in spite of the past 3 decades. While it doesn't justify where we are, it does speak to the fact that if the top 1% owned 33% (the rough historical number) of the country's wealth (and I reiterate much of that is illiquid), then we would be doing fine indeed.
This speaks to modest tax reform to get those who own the most of America to pay their reasonable share.
September 7, 2009 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I bet we could solidify the Estate Tax and Capital Gains Tax in exchange for a more equitable Income Tax which affects far more people, thus making both conservatives and liberals happy.
September 8, 2009 8:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
One of the things I love best about TPM is meeting such a variety of real people and getting to know their stories.
It has advanced my knowledge of what is going on in our country far more than anything else I have read, and made me a more empathetic person than I would otherwise be.
If we could all spend more time walking in each other's moccasin's...Thank you for letting me walk in yours for just a moment.
September 7, 2009 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are right, Still, that you and your husband did earn it. I don't think anyone feels a resentment about a person, like you, who has.
It is the miscreants on Wall Street who claim to have "earned," say, a $22 million dollar bonus in one year, who evoke ire. "Earn" is simply the wrong verb for them to use. If they merely said, instead, that they were "paid" such a bonus, it would reflect the facts without attaching an apparent and inaccurate sense of entitlement or smug self-satisfaction to the pronouncement.
I've been rich. I've been poor. Curiously, rich was better from the standpoint of sleeping at night -- but not just because there was security in having "a room (or rooms) of one's own" and never having to think about how the bills would be paid. Being rich, successfully, as you know, means sharing with those who are not, whether paving the way for one's children so that they can help others in turn, or helping whomever as one can.
Sadly, I suspect -- in fact I know -- that many of the bonus boys on Wall Street sleep well, too. Despite the fact that they have no desire to help others, but rather, seek new ways to exploit.
September 7, 2009 1:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
You read my mind. ha
When you think of the ups and downs...
I mean, life sure aint boring. hahah
One of us needs to do a post on earning. What does earning mean anyway?
September 7, 2009 2:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
CT's misdirection in this thread is pissing me off.
This is not about rich versus poor. It is about the inequality of wealth distribution. It is about wage stagnation. It is about increase of workhours for diminishing returns.
If we hate the fucking rich it is hecause the system favors the highest echelone of wealth in a manner that is killing this country. And the study of finance and economics has become ideological. Instead of professors we have mandarins and high priests that back a political system.
This whole parlor trick of "the rich are people too" is misdirection. For every Kroc and Kennedy there is a Lay or Madoff. It isn't the people, it is the unregulated system of mystical self-interest. Labor Day is a reminder of the sacrifices made to create a new reality that is heing dismantled.
And you, CT, have proven yourself a sycophantic Dr. Strangelove. You have made your opinion known that the masses are useless eaters that shouldn't procreate. Leave the birthing to those that can sustain it... The few elite bloodlines that think and behave in a pure rational manner.
I am putting words in your mouth, but damned if I can derive anything else in your arrogant statements and manners. Underneath all of your words is a disgust for the tired, huddled masses. Better that we love and obey the rich because Darwin dictates that they are the fittest.
You are spiritually malnourished.
September 7, 2009 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, Zip, how do I fit into this? I was once a part of the poor, huddled masses, and were it not for my husband's financial discipline probably would be. The poor huddled masses do not disgust me, but I'm glad I'm no longer poor, and I'd like to see a day when even the "poor" have "enough."
September 7, 2009 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stilli, you shouldn't take this personally. I think what Zip says here says it all:
When we talk about "the rich" we're really talking about the greedy rich who feed off the backs of the rest of us.
I don't care how much you have, or how much anyone else has, as long as they're not bent on slitting our throats to get more of it.
Where do you stand? Right where you are. Nobody is sitting in judgment of you, and I know from your past posts that you would never sit in judgment of anyone else.
I appreciate this post. I think it brought out some really insightful comments (for the most part) and that makes it especially worthwhile.
September 7, 2009 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stilli, you are not to blame. I would never blame you. Few would.
Your pensions, if private, could just have easily evaporated in the scams going back three decades.
But your responsibility is to be lauded. We NEED PEOPLE TO BE RESPONSIBLE, TO ACT RESPONSIBLY, TO LIVE RESPONSIBLY.
Me, I consider myself a member of the undeserving poor. I made poor choices. Many of them.
But there are throngs who have acted responsibly their entire lives and have nothing. Entire life savings, pensions investments....gone. evaporated into the mist created by an unfeeling and uncaring oligarchy.
September 7, 2009 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are not in the top echelon of wealth. Is your husband part of the fortune 500? Why are you lumping yourself in with a fraction that your are not a part of? I guarantee that are are closer in scale economically to me than to Scaife, Murdoch or Steve Jobs. Hell, they aren't quite in the top echelon.
I thought that this thread had already done a good job of isolating the scale of elite that have lost scope. So I am sorry if you think I am including you into the status of wealthy. You're not. Not until you have the government not only listening but actively bending truth and law to benefit your interests. It is more than taxation. It is the restructuring of the economic engine to favor speculation and third world labor.
September 7, 2009 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Zip,
Stilli never said she was "wealthy" and in her quote fully shows she recognizes that wealth is distributed exponentially.
What are you proposing, Zip, if different than taxation? Would regulations of the sort we had 30 years ago be enough? I don't think anyone would have an issue with that statement. However, 30 years ago the wealthy still controlled 66% of the wealth in the country.
Are you happy with that percentage or do you want to go further?
Who here at TPM is proposing that the government seize property to redistribute it?
September 7, 2009 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
What do I advocate?
1. The dismantling of the military industrial complex. No more foreign adventures.
2. The EFCA
3. Trade taxes and penalties for businesses that outsource beyond a percentage dictated by business type.
4. Separating retirement from the market.
5. The creation of a labor index
6. Educational emphasis on ecology
7. Return of Fair Use
8. Universal Health Care independent of employment
But all changes begin with the first. The root of our problems as a nation lies in our bloated defense budget.
September 7, 2009 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
The dismantling of the IMC is an interesting idea - I'm not even sure to what extent it should be dismantled. But it's surely an impractical one and not likely to happen any time soon. It does, after all, provide jobs to all of those people who used to go into agrarian lifestyles. And these larger companies provide healthcare benefits.
Let's start with an easier one:
Retirement:
When Social Security started, life expectancy was about 60 (give or take). Now it's about 77 (give or take).
So, what should the retirement age be? Same? The system is clearly insolvent for that. Raised? That clogs the system for people trying to find jobs.
Once upon a time, families truly lived together at nuclear units -- and the grandparents and parents and kids would be under one roof. The notion of supported retirement is relatively new. It allows us flexibility in not having to live with family. But there is a clear tradeoff as well -- someone has to foot the bill.
I know you will claim that if you dismantled the IMC, we would have plenty of money for retirement. But we don't know that's the case. In fact, it's possible that this source of "wealth" might vanish as quickly as the "peace dividend" did in the 1990s.
There is no free lunch. Is "retirement" a "right"?
September 7, 2009 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
A good question...
We've worked on our genealogy quite a bit the last few years, going through old family pictures and letters and found some interesting stuff..
My husband's either grandfather or great grandfather (I forget which) worked on building the railroad in the Idaho area. He quit working winters when he was in his mid 70s, and finally quit working all together in his early 80s! My how things have changed. :-)
It would not surprise me at all if we go back to multi-generations living together once again. We did it for a couple of years with our daughter, (we call it doin' the Walton's thing)and actually enjoyed it quite a bit. Our oldest granddaughter still remembers it and said the other day that she liked it better when we all lived together.
With the increase in life span, something is going to have to give. There just isn't enough money to support everyone for 20 years after age 65, but not enough jobs for people to keep working...
Interesting dilemma.
September 7, 2009 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess because I AM in the "percent" category that is considered "rich," and therefore being demonized.
I didn't pull the numbers out of my behind, I researched them.
If we are only talking about the "uber rich" then we need to SAY that. I KNOW I am not that kind of rich. I have little "power" attached to my financial status.
It boils down to words having meaning...It's hard sometimes to be that specific, but unless you are, a lot of people are painted with a brush they don't deserve to be painted with, just as in Rowan's discussion about not all men being pigs, just because some are.
September 7, 2009 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Zip, another beautiful essay.
Networks are able to put ads on the airways selling sponges on a stick. The 'air is free' as they say. Without access to the airways the networks would not be here. We own the airways and we give access to corps for free.
Trucking companies cannot make money without roads and bridges. Sure, they pay extra fees for licenses and such but this does not generate enough money for infrastructure maintenance.
Fed EX COULD NOT SURVIVE IF THERE WERE NO PUBLIC POST OFFICE for a score of reasons.
When a mortgage company fires ten thousand people and turns around and gives out bonuses to 'the managerial class', THIS IS WRONG.
I shall ponder this further. But what has happened is that the government delegated the right to redistribute income to the corporations all the time telling us that those corporations will act in good faith.
The good faith left us a long, long time ago.
September 7, 2009 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again, Dick, you are wrong!
The frequency spectrum is controlled by the government and licenses must be bought (through the government) to access it.
It this picking things apart? No. It's trying to show that thought needs to go into posting.
September 7, 2009 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
As you wrote:
Yes, you are!
All the rich are not evil. Nor all the poor are noble.
Humans are animals and there is plenty of historical and scientific evidence that given similar opportunity will tend to act in predictable ways.
I do take offense at being told I support eugenics ("Leave the birthing to those that can sustain it... The few elite bloodlines that think and behave in a pure rational manner.")-- I haven't even come close.
But the fact is that there are too many of us. And nature will take it down, one way or another. If we don't control ourselves, the physical world will.
Let's tie this all together:
We are talking about wealth redistribution and inequities. Yet how many here at TPM see themselves as part of the problem? Because they are. They have greedily gobbled up the wealth (resources) from future generations. Why? Because they could. Because they exist now and feel they have a right to procreate -- simple because they want to.
We often hear about "how can people with so much be so greedy?"
The answer lies within. Because anyone who wants children or grandchildren goes through the same thought process. To understand "them", understand yourself. To understand their feelings of compensation, understand your desire to create more humans.
Rich people are people too. And people who exist now in a time of plenty are people too.
The rich appears to starve the poor. And the present appears to starve the future.
It's all about dealing with the circumstances you are given and how you react to them.
I feel rather spiritually full.
May I suggest reading Marcus Aurelius's Meditations?
September 7, 2009 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
When you wake up in the morning, tell yourself: The people I deal with today will be meddling, ungrateful, arrogant, dishonest, jealous, and surly. They are like this because they can't tell good from evil. But I have seen the beauty of good, and the ugliness of evil, and have recognized that the wrongdoer has a nature related to my own-not of the same blood or birth, but the same mind, and possessing a share of the divine.
Yes, I do believe this is how you wake up in the morning, CT. I'm thinking there are better ways to greet the world.
September 7, 2009 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've read them... But thanks for the reccomendation.
I believe that we can live and sustain ourselves from what is available. I trust Fuller when he stated that we can sustain tens of billions provided we live according to our means. His work is deeply important to the debate.
But I still think that the "rich are people too" is misdirection. I am not sure if you mean that human nature requirea collectice vigilance or if we should be empathetic to the needs and desires of the best as well as the least among us... I have seen you obliquely use either in order to have the discussion both ways.
I advocate for a systemic discussion. When the system exists to be exploited, it is time to address the system regardless of who benefits. Our current system benefits an incredibly tiny minority and is built on an usustainable consumption/production pyramid that is going to end life on this planet by fire or ice. And class warfare is a key social control mechanism that perpetuates this menace.
September 7, 2009 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, you sort of Fermat'ed us once with "Fuller tells us so, but I don't have the time to write a column about it."
Why not post a blog?
What I see here are many people who are angry in their life status or the way their life turned out. They like to vent against "the rich" as if they will be able to remake society without "the rich". Or better still, be "the rich" themselves.
The rage is impotent because the people here posting won't go the step required (prudently so) to suggest a Marxist revolution. I suspect it's because (a) they, too, have things to lose if that happens and (b) they know intuitively that they are in a fringe minority at best.
We agree that a huge shift in the present order is coming because our economy is built on a scheme requiring continued exponential growth of population. I'm betting that water issues will end up being the real tipping point in things. (What did Fuller say about water?) And then we will have mass die-off... forced upon us.
But as you can see, people here are in self-denial about these key issues... so how does one go about fixing simple things like wealth distribution?
September 7, 2009 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
A. I don't think many of us are "sorry" about the way our lives turned out, and if we were, we'd go to school and get degrees or whatever else is needed to get us ahead. I think the anger we feel towards the very rich (i.e., the Madoffs and those like the Madoffs who take their money and send it to offshore accounts to avoid taxes) is justified. And NO, we do not want to be "like them". No way in hell do we want to be like them.
B. No, we don't want a Marxist revolution, but we DO want change. That's why we voted the way we did. Of course that change won't happen overnight, and of course we can lose sight of it all too easily, which is why we all keep harping about the need for it.
C. While all you do is promote your five favorite books and the fact that we cannot continue to multiply (especially given water shortages, yes), the rest of us are pointing out other concerns, which are just as important as YOUR concerns.
D. In response to your personal comments to just about everyone here whom you see fit to lecture as if you raised them from birth and therefore have some right: You are not the end all and be all and the sage of TPM. You do not know us each personally and, in my opinion, should stop trying to put your little digs in about each of us and our Achilles heels AS YOU SEEM THEM, and start feeling and caring more and thinking less. Because thinking clearly is clearly NOT your forte.
So how do we start dealing with wealth distribution? Why don't you clear your mind and read this entire post and all of its comments over again, and give it some thought and then maybe write your own post about it?
September 7, 2009 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Taxes.
September 7, 2009 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with bluebell...taxes. The constitution gives the government of we the people the right to regulate the economy for the common good.
So...
TAXES!!!
September 7, 2009 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously? Did someone steal your log-on information because this sounds nothing like the Zipper I have read on so many other threads. If anyone was likely to get CT's point, I figured it would be you. Perhaps Gasket.
Stoking populist anger against such a diffuse target may feel good but the collateral damage involved in bringing the mob to life has always proved way worse than the patience required to create sustainable changes.
The guy certainly didn't deserve any of that very personal ad hominem attacks based on what I read, but maybe I am just a little thicker skinned than the average "progressive" around TPM.
September 7, 2009 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Damn! Your writing has gotten quite eloquent, Jason. Had I written this in the beginning (rather than ask people to think about Robespierre) I think I would have gotten my point across better!
September 7, 2009 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Better not bring up Stalin! Next thing you know, you'll be accused of calling every one commies.
September 8, 2009 6:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
PS: Thanks for the compliment. The next step is to start posting video blogs. Step three, take Glenn Beck's job and bring some sanity back to the GOP.
September 8, 2009 8:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Dd
'We' also bailed out the poor banks and wall street... 'welfare for the rich'
and the rub is they were bailed out while their get rich lending schemes caused many Americans who had saved their entire lives to be robbed of a large percentage of their savings and retirement.
And even though we have more homeless children than ever, and more and more without health care or jobs... we keep providing that 'welfare for the rich' because they are 'too big to fail'.
Apparently even with the biggest disparity ratio ever, perhaps due to their devaluing of the dollar, those wealthy people and institutions really need our help Dd.
Now the president wants to talk about increasing 'savings'... with 'what' incentive when it can be so quickly gauged by the next 'make the rich, richer scam' and devaluing of the dollar?
There is such a tremendous amount of abuse and injustice that has been and is being directed at the American people.
Where will we find justice? How do we start making things better?
September 7, 2009 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I sure do not know. Some good comments from Richard, and Zip and TPC, and Obey, Rowan (of course)Q....You know we must discuss individual responsibility as Stilli has discussed.
There could be many avenues available to proceed.
One thing we can do in our blogs is just to ignore CT. What a waste of virtual ink. hahahaha
I listened to, of allpeople, Geitner yesterday in a BBC interview and he made me feel better. Maybe I am just a sap...
But Zip and Obey and some others are pointing to the need for a SYSTEMATIC change. Let us discard some old concepts that just screw us all.
The manner in which the managerial class is paid.
Or the bonus provisions for employees of health insurers...the more people you kill the more money you make.
That is systematic Sync.
See?
I am posting the rest of this blog in a couple of hours. I attempt to be a little 'lighter' and I would hope to do away with rancor. But the rancor involves two people who really enrage a lot of people. hahahaha
I was going to do a list of proposals...nothing like Krugman could do. Just a brief examination, summary. Maybe next week.
But the onus of health care alone on smaller business is incredible.
And our tax structure needs an entire rework.
Maybe a series of ten posts? Depending upon what others do.
September 7, 2009 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Artappraiser said a few days ago something to the effect that being "friends" on sites like this inhibits the free exchange of ideas (I hope that my internalizing of the remarks didn't land too far off the mark, and if they did I apologize for using your name, but I didn't want anyone to think it was an original idea!) and to some extent that is true.
It keeps people from standing up and saying "enough already!" for fear of alienating a friend. I am guilty of it, as are many of us.
It shouldn't be necessary to monitor each other's behavior, and it wouldn't be if we were all responsible for our own.
I would propose that we institute a statute of limitations on bad behavior, say 6 mo. or a year...that gives everyone the ability to rehabilitate themselves, and not have to constantly defend themselves from accusations of wrong-doing long ago.
I would also propose that we treat each other more civilly, even if that civility has not been earned. When discussions devolve into personal attacks, no matter who is doing the attacking or for what reason, it takes the enjoyment out of the discussion. Attack the idea...not the person.
Even the most creepy among us have a good idea now and then. It would be awful not to consider the idea, just because of who proposed it.
There is no point in taking sides. There is enough blame to go around, and I HATE having to choose between friends. It isn't right, and it certainly means that artappraiser's suggestion has validity, because if I weren't friends with so many of you, I would probably jump in and say knock it off!
This is a little microcosm of the country. There are angers building up that don't need to be there. IMHO we need to keep our eyes on the prize, which is a better America. We come at the goal from different perspectives, but we aren't advancing our cause by sniping at each other.
Oh, GAWD, I sound like someone's mother...
September 7, 2009 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
YOU ARE SOMEONE'S MOTHER AND THERAP AINT HERE NO MORE. AHAHAHAHAH
September 7, 2009 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you Stilli.
To be honest, I really appreciate it when someone points out to me things I am not seeing even if I have some resistance to it and that is not usually offered when we are all just being 'nice' and enjoying being friends.
However the manner in which a person directs their observations about what I may not be seeing can make all the difference in the world as to whether I 'can' see what they are saying or not and whether they are really offering anything of value.
It is highly unnecessary to 'get personal' when we are discussing ideas and perspectives.
September 7, 2009 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excusing poor behavior is akin to endorsing it.
Just sayin.'
September 7, 2009 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I in fact agree that expressing boundaries is completely appropriate. And I am not referring to any comments in this particular blog as there is much here I chose to not to read.
However to be truthful, I also observe that perspectives of what is 'poor behavior' can be skewed by the information we have and do not have and is often overlooked and excused by those we consider friends...just sayin'.
September 7, 2009 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well as you "didn't read it," I would take this comment as not terribly informed.
As I said, excusing bad behavior is akin to endorsing it. There are far better posters that get beat up regularly for what you are accusing the majority here (Liberal bloggers) of doing, but I don't see you sticking up for them.
Personalizing is something we all tend to do infrequently. When it becomes a habit, it is a problem, and there is no real advantage to defending that.
It makes you appear to have giant, self-inflicted blinders on. I do wonder why that is.
September 7, 2009 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's interesting to me Bwak is that you judge me and 'accuse' me of doing things such as 'accusing' which I have not done here from my perspective. This has happened between us before and I am inclined to believe it has to do with assumptions, projections, lack of information, lack of clarity perhaps on my part, and things I 'haven't' said that to you seem 'implied'.
Just because I was uninterested in following the back and forth of some of the commentary here is an interesting reason to call me 'uninformed'.
Your suggestion that I have blinders on is interesting to me for I could say that while I consider you very intelligent and knowlegable there are times I might say the same of you Bwak. Perhaps we all have some blinders?
I am not here to defend anyone. I was simply following a train of thought from Stilli that I found here and have seen her write elsewhere.
For the most part I find your perspectives and judgments of me quite perplexing but at least interesting for me to explore to some extent.
September 7, 2009 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Synch:
It's interesting to talk of boundaries.
I believe this is part of the problem with having TPM be confused with a Facebook site. The friends are sending out all kinds of info to each other -- that perhaps should find another forum.
However, compounding this is the fact that many people here (and this blog is exhibit A), post very personal stories to justify or explain or motivate their political statements. And that's fine, but... there is a down side to that as well.
This topic was broached last weekend... seems people are more aware of it now.
September 7, 2009 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not quite sure what you are referring to specifically CT.
I do not have an issue with people being familiar and intimate with each other on TPM.
I also would hope that it would not prevent people who want to write objective and in depth blogs an various issues from blogging here.
I think everyone can find a way to co-exist.
September 7, 2009 8:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know of no other way to post than by using personal stories. Why should anyone listen to what I have to say if I can't show that I know what I am talking about?
September 7, 2009 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's nothing wrong with it, Stilli. However, you shouldn't be surprised if someone remembers your story and then brings up a detail or two if relevant in another comment, that's all.
I've certainly had people bring up past insights on me in responses -- totally legitimate.
My point is that if someone identifies themselve as living in NY City and then someone later on says, "Well, of course you'd say that since you live in NYC..." the first person shouldn't be surprised. Or talk that the discussion is somehow now personalized.
September 7, 2009 9:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed and accepted...!
September 7, 2009 10:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am mainly inclined to write based on my direct experience too Stilli as it is my experience that I absorb/retain more information and achieve more transformation from in person experiences than I do from books.
September 7, 2009 11:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
No argument from me, Synch. You might want to check out my response to Still's response to you.
September 7, 2009 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
To clarify here:
What I meant to say is that it is not necessary to 'attack personally' when discussing perspectives and ideas. I can see the way I stated it reads as though I am criticizing 'being personal with each other' which is not what I intended.
September 7, 2009 11:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I understood what you were saying way up there, but thanks for clarifying...
September 7, 2009 11:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, I think this is our fundamental disagreement, Still. I think they do. I think people need to be "fired up." There has been a fundamental unfairness to labor for far too long.
I don't consider you to be part of that small minority I call the rich. I don't think you'd be capable of paying people as little as you could get away with, or anyone you love screwing someone to get ahead. These people exist, and some of us work for them, and fear them.
No one else thinks you are one of "them," either. You keep what you have earned and feel good about it. It is not your fault others aren't as fortunate, I didn't mean to imply it was. It is just a fact that gets overlooked, especially by those who've never known real tragedy. I'm not saying that I have, but I have known and seen others who have. My heart and sympathy will always be with them, it's how I am made.
I would rather give my awkward, and rather plain-spoken voice to those to weary and embattled to raise theirs. The uber-rich, (not you, them) don't need anyone defending them.
September 7, 2009 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
ack!
*too weary
September 7, 2009 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not talking about anger towards the situation and the people who are perpetuating it, I am talking about anger toward each other here on TPM. I agree whole-heartedly that we aren't going to get very far without anger directed at malfunctioning systems and the people in charge of them.
And thanks for the clarifying words...I think we ended up on the same page.
September 7, 2009 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice thoughts, Stilli, but you are talking about demonizing people, and this is how it starts: CT posts something insulting like this to Dickday:
See? Just a reasonable guy offering a completely reasonable and constructive criticism. Then, the sucker-punch:
Please note that he did NOT demonize DD. He didn't curse at him, or anything. But his supercilious and demeaning language got the food-fight going. Who can stand back and ignore such obnoxious shit as that?
But then he steps back, all innocent, and others (like you) blame the rest of us for taking the bait. Passive-aggressive posters like CT should really be ignored, but we're not in the business of ignoring what people write around here.
I'm not sure I get what you mean here:
What people are you 'not' talking about if they are posting here at TPM?
September 7, 2009 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
You should check out DonDi's most recent blog. For about a day, Dick was following me around. I ignored it for a bit, then I simply decided a response was necessary. You may question the logic of my actions, but my book recommendation dealt explicitly with the topic he asked.
The moral to the story is you have to keep the big picture in mind -- not just the parts you want to see.
Just like I've been saying about other topics.
September 7, 2009 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
1st of all, I am not blaming anyone for anything.
The devolution of these threads is distressing to me. I would prefer to discuss things to resolution in a calm manner, much the way Chicken and I did. We had a difference in point of view, but we talked it out, and came pretty close to a meeting of the minds, I think. If either of us had gone off half-cocked, we could have ended up screaming at each other, but we didn't.
I recognize not everyone is the same in the way they approach conflict. I prefer a win-win solution and relative consensus building. If, in the course of a discussion I realize the conversation is devolving into a battle, I will suggest a "let's agree to disagree" approach. I don't feel the need to have a winner and a loser, like some do.
The only time I used the word "demonize" was in referring to the feelings of some about the rich, which is really directed to the "uber rich" but it wasn't portrayed that way, not to anyone's behavior towards each other, here.
I happen to believe there is some bad behavior going on in this thread, but I am attempting to stay away from assigning blame, because no one put me in charge, or asked my opinion,(and I am trying to stay out of the fray,) while at the same time pointing out that if we all monitored our own behavior, we could avoid the nastiness. The people who are misbehaving know who they are. They don't need my blow by blow analysis of who said what 1st and who was only defending themselves or vice versa...
As far as the anger I was referring to, I was pointing out that getting angry with each other here isn't advancing our cause. I believe the anger at the situation (the growing disparity between rich and poor) and the people who contribute to the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, is warranted. If it came across as anything other than that I apologize for not speaking more clearly. (notice that I didn't make a non-apology apology, by saying I'm sorry if you did not understand, or if you were offended.)
September 7, 2009 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now we are seeing comments like "Some of my best friends are..."
You know what words to fill in.
We are now seeing qualifiers -- which is a good first step in sorting out the issues. It's no longer "the rich suck"... that's definite progress. (Thought it's unfortunate some see a scrutiny of that line as a "defense" of the rich.)
If 33% of the wealth in the country has always been controlled by the top 1% of the country (more or less), are people here advocating a redistribution away from that status quo?
For all the discussion here, I have yet to see an answer to that question -- no matter how many times I pose it. I'm not even looking for a solution (yet). I just want to know what people are really after.
September 7, 2009 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I propose that the 1% controlling the top give up 33% each.
September 7, 2009 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
What.....no takers?
September 7, 2009 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seconded...
September 7, 2009 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvvD3NO9O0Q
September 7, 2009 9:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am angry. I am angry.
Why am I angry.
We had a president who took us to war under a flagrantly ambiguous pretense of a threat that the U.N. told the world didn't exist.
We had and continue to have government regulatory agencies that cater to corporations in a way that is undeniably harmful to the majority of Americans.
I am angry. I am ANGRY!!!
I can think of no purely logical, unemotional element to indicate I should not be angry. And worse yet, it makes me ill that government has done, and is still doing, these things in my name and in the name of every citizen.
When I last went to cast my vote it was without the intent to grant my government the authority to lie, cheat, steal or kill.
September 7, 2009 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hear, hear!!!!!!!!!
September 7, 2009 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Lis. Happy Labor Day.
Fired UP!!!
September 7, 2009 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
FIRED UP!
Me too!!
Happy Labor Day to you, too.
September 7, 2009 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
No argument, though you appear to be on the wrong side of this one from my perspective.
I was simply defending common sense, which has nothing to do with CT's honor and everything to do with the comment he made, which was hardly controversial. I have been just as quick to defend others who are routinely caricatured as a way to avoid real discussions, even if I disagree with everything they say.
It isn't the opinion that is hypocritical. It is the idea that anything you don't agree with should be met with the same "douchey" tactics as the people we are all "fighting" to mitigate their already outrageous amount of influence.
If the democratic party becomes no better than the crazy-ass GOP we just got rid of, what hope do any of us have of moving beyond this paradigm into an era of truly affective politics? I would submit that we have zero chance in an atmosphere that continue to be polarized for no reason.
Just look at the reception I have received over and over again from the über liberal choir at TPM when I agree with most, if not all, of their underlying goals. Biting off one's nose to spite one's face doesn't even begin to describe it.
September 8, 2009 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
PS: Sorry for some of the "air" quotes. I got this thread confused with another conversation on another blog full of the same sort of knee-jerk responses and was quoting the vitriol I faced as an example of poor tactics.
September 8, 2009 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really don't use the term "douchey," jason. In fact, I'm pretty sure this is the very first time. I tend to use the word "troll" because it fits behaviors like stalking and baiting people.
And I actually don't fight the way you say I do. Again, you're more than welcome to review all of my past comments, but you won't find an ample arsenal of what you're looking for. I don't need (let alone expect) people to agree with me (why should I? I don't agree with lots of them), and I am selective in my eviscerations. But I dispense quite a bit of praise as well, and not just the great-blog-because-you-think-like-me! variety.
Sometimes I push people to push themselves to write better. It frequently has more to do with flaws in the writing (especially if it's something regurgitated from the MSM) than with flaws in the person. Of course people rarely take criticism of their writing very well; they get personally insulted, defend their work as it stands, and call me a douchebag. I don't care about that, because I know they might edit themselves better the next time they post, even if they hate my guts in the moment. Writing is hard work, and I've dealt with enough writers to know something by now about human nature and pride when it comes to writing.
And no, I'm not saying I'm a saint or that I comment only on people's writing. However, I let lots of stuff go by, like the tmccarthy comment thread about abortion you referred to (by the word "douchey").
Meanwhile, I can't imagine what you define as "common sense" coming from clearthinker, unless you confuse baiting someone with common sense. Those two links are classic clearthinker baiting, and I simply decided to play rodeo clown for quinn's sake and to distract the bull. Not everything has to do with DC politics; some of what goes on here is personal or community politics.
September 8, 2009 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
You missed my clarification and apology as I didn't mean to imply these were your words. Had it posted to the right thread, you would have understood that I was quoting others and not yourself.
Where we are coming into odds is your continued defense of the people that do use those terms. Quinn has been baiting both CT and myself for months. Linking to a couple out-of-context quotes that came at the long game of Pin the Tail on the Conservative doesn't negate the basic common sense nature of the vast majority of what CT has to offer, despite your own apparent disagreement with those points.
No, wait. You have made many of the same points yourself, so I can only assume you are disagreeing for disagreement's sake.
September 8, 2009 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't miss your clarification and apology, I was simply underscoring it.
I can't know if quinn has been baiting you for months because I haven't read every comment in every post every day. I spend time on a few posts and that's it. I don't even know most of the references to other threads and discussions that clearthinker, Bwak, wwstaebler, and others are making in this thread.
As for clearthinker's baiting of quinn, I find it inexcusably lazy that Americans like clearthinker can't make time for Canadian politics and are gauche enough to admit it. Canada borders our country, for crap's sake. But, hey, most Americans are inexcusably lazy about American politics, so I must remember to set my standards much lower when dealing with the natives. However, if clearthinker can't be bothered with learning about Canadian politics, he hasn't got a leg to stand on in his criticism of quinn. Talk about hypocrisy!
September 8, 2009 9:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is exactly the sort of thing I am talking about.
You are clearly smart enough to pick up on trends, and you don't have to read every comment on every day to see a pattern of consistent and relentless baiting of me and CT and a handful of others by the self-appointed TPM Goon Squad, of which you sometimes get deputized into but are rarely as willing or as eager of a participant.
Here is what I told quinn when he pulled the martyr's bit on the abortion thread:
By this point my normally stable aplomb has completely left me, but I still don't use profanity and insults to make a point. Either does clearthinker. Or Lalo. I do my best to use reason and I think the other do as well. As do you most days.Perhaps the republican posters will throw out a couple of zingers meant to get a rise and the occasional far right commenter stumbles in from time to time, but there is a group of perhaps a dozen "left-leaning" bloggers, most zipping past in their Hoverounds, who use pulled quotes and purposeful misunderstanding as way to derail many threads. They use classic troll techniques from word one. They take the game from thread to thread. They push and they prod and they punch people in the nuts until someone finally blows up
At that point, they change tactics completely and "reasonably" complain, "Why are you being so mean! You always get personal!"
Frankly, it would be funny as an SNL bit if it wasn't so damaging to what this country is trying to achieve. TPM is quoted on the corporate media now so I suspect the audience is much larger than the hundred or so dancing clowns who provide the entertainment portion of the show. I know most don't acknowledge the fourth wall of our audience, the ones that keep the lights on around here, but that makes all TPM liberals the public face of the democratic faithful for moderates who can still be converted to progressive causes.
With the reception other moderates conservatives get around here when they dare to poke their heads out, though, I suspect many a lurking republican thinks the democratic party is full of a bunch of lefty Limbots.
September 9, 2009 8:27 AM | Reply | Permalink