Tuesday, April 15, 2014

A variant of Milgram

While looking at one of the posts today, I thought about something I saw in a psychology class years ago about the Milgram obedience study. There is a wiki link and also a youtube link that talks about it. Basically, the study allegedly meant to try and shed some meaning on why so many people obediently followed orders to commit atrocities for the Nazi's. Seeing this, amongst many other things, has made me very wary of any individual or group who uses a variant of authority to get people to do things or believe things they otherwise would not believe. I've certainly seen it in left leaning causes and I've also seen it much more recently in the alleged conservative movement.

In the video link, Milgram states, "What is it in human nature that allows an individual to act without any restraint whatsoever so that he can act harshly, inhumanely and in no way limited by feelings of compassion or conscience" Ever since Reagan, I think we have heard an endless wail that a faceless "Big Government" has devolved people and rid them of their sense of responsibility and need to work. Simultaneously, however, we have also been subconsciously fed a non stop drivel that if a person is not successful and wealthy, it is because they are stupid and/or lazy and should be looked down upon. While that may not have been Reagan's entire message, the passage of time has warped it even further and spawned a plethora of figures like the talk radio crowd and the icons of right leaning press and internet who are seen by their audience as undisputed authorities on every thought the founding fathers ever had while they were alive as well as undisputed authorities on what the founding fathers would say if they were alive today.

What scares me is the complete lack of individuality I see in many who ape and preach the words of the founding fathers rather than their own thoughts. More, what I really sense is that what many in that movement want is not so much a reduction in government, but rather a complete lack of any sort of social standard or need to consider anyone but themselves. Publicly, this is displayed as patriotism and defense of individual liberty. In practice, however, it is appearing to me as just a catalyst to justify a "Fuck you, me first" mentality. Something I always thought the founding fathers believed in was to be wary of ANY group that amasses power, especially when people begin to follow them blindly. For a select few, what Reagan started has been nothing short of a smashing success. Regulations are fewer, union membership is sharply reduced, pensions are extinct everywhere but in government, and at long last, those in poverty have come to be viewed as equal to an annoying case of herpes that never goes away.

Looking in the video, there are individuals actually laughing while trying to convince themselves that what they were doing needed to be done. Strangely, even while wages are being destroyed and the majority of this country's middle class is being hammered into nothingness even when they do work hard, a wave of people are willing to keep letting themselves be whipped into a frenzy of anger and hate toward whomever their leader tells them is the enemy. If you can succeed in creating that sense of victimhood/entitlement, you can eventually justify any behavior you want no matter how predatory or unrestrained it becomes. Going back to Milgram's question about what it is in human nature that allows this, I don't think there is anything in human nature that "allows" it. Rather, I think it is the destruction and overriding of human nature that causes it. If you can see someone as an equal, it becomes harder to hurt them and watch them suffer, especially when you directly benefit from it. If you see them as beneath you and as an object of contempt, you can crush them and feel justified in doing so. This is where I see our country headed today. It's the attitude we use to conduct our affairs in the greater world, and it's becoming the metric we use to govern at home.

60 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. Thank you William, for actually expressing something genuine.

      Delete
    2. Good post Max. I think they call us liberals sheeple. Never figured out how that doesn't turn around to be the same thing on the right. You know the Fox news sheeple. Immunity I guess.

      Delete
    3. Max would be a realistic centrist leaning left. You would be a sheeple.

      Delete
  2. False premise 1: "...who uses a variant of authority to get people to do things or believe things they otherwise would not believe."

    I think you're sniffing around near, but are missing bullseye. I don't think it's a true statement to say they wouldn't do or believe but for...

    The real issue is how does something "heinous" become mainstream acceptable...outside peoples' inner sick minds??

    I think to many, Nazi Germany is the case study, but we have so much more to examine. Most recently the Feds in Nevada.

    ReplyDelete
  3. False premise 2: "..and should be looked down upon."

    You inferred that on your own. Stupid and lazy? As a matter of fact that's the case. Both of these things are relative. IE, there is no absolute stupidity. Intelligence and motivation are but two pieces in the calculus of the point within the socioeconomic structure one will end up. Not many people "look down" on poor people. The Conservatives just understand that the government is not the entity that should be involved...especially to the great extent it is.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jimbo, I appreciate the response. To your fist point of this being a false premise,and that it doesn't hit the bullseye, I will actually have to agree, it's not the whole story. There is more to it. Still, your use of the Nevada case brings up a great point, first William and now you, neither of whom live anywhere near this case, have jumped on what the conservative authorities have deemed as just another example of government power gone mad. Conservatives are not unique in having their echo chamber, but once a proclamation has been made, the hive falls in line and starts shouting the outrage. I will probably make a separate post about this, but after reading a couple of articles on the rancher, he is a free loader and is a perfect example of what I am talking about. His words, "I will abide by any Nevada laws, but I do not recognize the government of the United States as even existing." This is fantasy and this is the kind of shit that gets people killed.

      He is not acting as an "authority" per se, but he is spouting the modern equivalent of what passes for libertarianism which is that you can do anything you want to and no one has any right to tell you what to do. He then issues a call to arms to other whackadoodles and demands that the local sheriff disarm the federal agents and give HIM their guns. The angry mob shows up in pure Alinski fashion and provokes a confrontation.

      False premise 2. I don't think I inferred that I think they are stupid and lazy at all. I was attributing that to the conservatives and you basically just made my point which is that you do in fact believe they are stupid and lazy. I will agree that intelligence and work ethic are only two of many variables that contribute to success. Here is a point I see sharp division on between liberals and conservatives, conservatives believe that pure free markets with no regulation will constantly force competition and block anyone from amassing unchecked power. I believe the opposite.

      At an extreme, you have communism or socialism, where the government controls everything. This doesn't work and I don't advocate for it. At the extreme, you have a business world that we see today. After the repeal of Glass/Steagall, banks went a merger mania. They didn't compete for market share, they simply bought it and dictated terms to customers. For the entire buildup of that housing bubble, you can't tell me that anybody at the top of those firms didn't know what was coming. BOOM. As time goes by, our wealth is becoming further and further concentrated in fewer hands. Look at our elected people, they are all wealthy. Though the majority of America is not wealthy, it is the wealthy who are writing our laws and ringing up the debt we all must pay for. Is government intervention the best solution to block trusts that simply suck money out of us while providing nothing in return? No, it's not. Will the market keep big business responsive? Also no.

      Delete
    2. False premise 2 had to do with the "looked down on" part. That was the inference I was speaking of.

      You'll have to forgive me as I struggle to make my points on my phone's keyboard.

      It's interesting that you don't see the connection between the Feds and the ranchers in the context of your complaint re "who uses a variant of authority. .."

      Further, how do you not attribute the blind sheep syndrome to Mick, who on another thread said they should be convicted and thrown in prison for "breaking the law"? Is it because Mick lives in Nevada?? I submit that the cries of "arrest that man!" are on the same lines but different point of "throw them in the furnace! "

      It's a matter of Tories vs Patriots. What happened in Nevada was the modern day equivalent of the Boston Tea Party. When Concord happens, its going to get ugly.

      Regarding you last paragraph, we are in agreement to the issue you describe. Particularly, power and money concentration. But it's the very fact that these markets are not free that we see the problem you describe. How does it follow to increase government control over something because of the problem of wealth and power in the government? ?

      Delete
    3. Well, I see it less in terms of outright controlling the market as opposed to saying there are limits. Limits to how much one company can control the market. Limits to how much leverage an institution can take. To purists, even this is too much. I don't see it as being economically stunting to tell a bank you cannot carry billions of dollars in face value of derivatives without some benchmark to value them by. Daily. I don't think it's oppressive to increase capital requirements when speculation is getting out of control. I don't think its oppressive to tell banks that you cannot lend money to people who do not have jobs and that you cannot lend them more than 2.5 to 3 times their income. As for the wealth in government, I believe that abuse of the wording of the first amendment has taken freedom away. I don't believe the founding fathers intended that money would be used to simply drown out any opposing voice with the people really getting a chance to decide whether they like a candidate or not. I could make a lot of examples, but I think this is the gist of it

      Delete
    4. "I don't see it as being economically stunting to tell a bank you cannot carry billions of dollars in face value of derivatives without some benchmark to value them by."

      Me either. You know what would have prevented that? A real market. One with consequences. Where a Jon Corzine would be in jail...at the least.

      " I don't think its oppressive to tell banks that you cannot lend money to people who do not have jobs and that you cannot lend them more than 2.5 to 3 times their income."

      Well, now you're just being a racist. I mean how do we delve in Cuomo's utopian "housing affirmaive action" nightmare if we don't force banks to do just that? ...And after the fact look at the symptoms and say "see free markets won't work".

      Delete
  4. I always thought the founding fathers believed in was to be wary of ANY group that amasses power, especially when people begin to follow them blindly"

    "..For a select few, what Reagan started has been nothing short of a smashing success. Regulations are fewer, union membership is sharply reduced,..."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So what makes the tea party right what makes the repubs right and what everyone else wrong. We all follow the political tenets of some party/group. The problem is teas etc do think they are far smarter and far superior and that is just not true. Many on here refer to me as a socialist communist, liberal and that is just not true. I am actually pretty middle of the road, don't believe in socialism communism etc any more then you do. We on the left understand the problems of the country we just see a different way of solving them. The whole tax and spend cliché is tired. Budgets have actually fallen under the past two democratic presidents. Yes even under Obama. Everyone of us knows that our budget problems didn't magically appear in 2009. Everyone of us knows that the recession of 2009 exacerbated the problems with our finances. We as a country will recover. We always do. Forcing the issue is just causing an un needed rift in the American population

      Delete
    2. "I am actually pretty middle of the road"

      Sorry, but as many times as I've told my wife I have a 9 inch penis, it's still not true.

      Delete
    3. Maybe it's just that I don't understand what 9 inches is?

      Delete
  5. And I'll let Uncle Milty finish explaining to you why you are wrong:

    "Well first of all, tell me: Is there some society you know that doesn’t run on greed? You think Russia doesn’t run on greed? You think China doesn’t run on greed? What is greed? Of course, none of us are greedy, it’s only the other fellow who’s greedy. The world runs on individuals pursuing their separate interests. The great achievements of civilization have not come from government bureaus. Einstein didn’t construct his theory under order from a bureaucrat. Henry Ford didn’t revolutionize the automobile industry that way. In the only cases in which the masses have escaped from the kind of grinding poverty you’re talking about, the only cases in recorded history, are where they have had capitalism and largely free trade. If you want to know where the masses are worse off, worst off, it’s exactly in the kinds of societies that depart from that. So that the record of history is absolutely crystal clear, that there is no alternative way so far discovered of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by the free-enterprise system."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This time Jimbo, I think you are sniffing around the bull's eye without hitting it. I kind of touched on this above. I personally don't believe that government is the the fountainhead (see what I did there) of answers to all problems. Governments don't create the innovation of a genius like Einstein. But a government program like the Manhattan project did yield a weapon that ended WW II. There have been countless examples of where the government provided funding or helped get something built that spawned countless further investment by the private market. Ford revolutionized the auto industry, but who gave him roads to drive on? After the crash in the 20's, we put in laws that strictly regulated the banking industry. Under Reagan, we undid the restraint of S&L's and effectively ended that industry and under Clinton, we undid Glass/Steagall and had similar results. The existence of greed is not the problem in my eyes and indeed, I agree it's makes people strive to better themselves. Again, nothing wrong with that. Where I diverge is that I believe we can put limits on how much power can be amassed through greed and hence, create a large society that is stable. Market forces will not do this.

      Delete
    2. Deftrue. is within the Constitutional directive of the Federal Government.

      Manhattan Project was decades after Einstein s Theory so there's no correlation between the two. I think they call it...A red herrimg.

      The idea that there would be no roads but for the Feds is...well...just wrong.

      And again, I agree with the identification of the problem, but the market will fix them if allowed to. Your contention that it won't directly contradicts more than what I know to be true. It flies in the face of Friedman's eloquence. What's missing in that quote, which may help, is the part where he says, "nirvana is not of this world". You are searching for that which does not exist...and at quite an expense.

      Delete
    3. Who would build the roads? The Walton family? Microsoft? I mean seriously. Because of a guy like Eisenhower, we have cross country travel. We'll just have to disagree if you are trying to convince me that the owners of capital would build a road anywhere BUT somewhere would it could make money for them. Do you want to live in a country where you get charged every day for every road you drive on? I don't. And, I wasn't really linking Einstein to the Manhattan project, but the point holds. Our biggest difference here, I believe, is that you see it as all or nothing and I believe there is a middle ground worth trying to reach. Every time we have rolled back some regulation, or opened our borders to "free trade" we have taken a step backwards as a country.

      Delete
    4. I'm not full tilt anarchist. I'll give you local and states can build roads. The current Feds should be decimated and relegated to the role of strategic enforcement in regards to specific corridors.

      Delete
    5. I'm not an open border free trader.

      Because it's an oxymoron as we currently have it.

      Delete
    6. I tend to agree that you aren't full tilt anarchist. Still, let's say the feds are not able to enforce any national standard on anything. Suppose some Christian Jihadists decide a given state will sell no birth control because God says it's wrong. Can you tell me honestly you don't think that some Southern States won't become little theocracies? If poor states want to simply run themselves into the ground because they don't want to pay for taxes and maintain roads and bridges, let alone education for their children, should we just say, "That's okay, let the free market make that entire state an abandoned parking lot with weeds poking through the asphalt."

      Because there are some rules and limits to our market place, I have a freedom that I can drive coast to coast, buy and consume things that I need and not have to spend hours driving around looking for safe food to eat or gas that wasn't brewed in somebody's back yard. It's not perfect by a long shot, but I think it's flat out impossible to expect that a country our size can survive a strong, single nation, if every single state runs itself like an independent country. You may not be an anarchist Jimbo, but I see anarchy as the logical conclusion to much of what I hear from the Libertarian crowd these days.

      Delete
    7. "Can you tell me honestly you don't think that some Southern States won't become little theocracies?"

      No, but I can tell you that you would have a much easier path to redress your grievance that I do now with the Satanic Jihadists in DC.

      " If poor states want to simply run themselves into the ground because they don't want to pay for taxes and maintain roads and bridges, let alone education for their children, should we just say, "That's okay, let the free market make that entire state an abandoned parking lot with weeds poking through the asphalt." "

      You mean like. ..dirt poor South Carolina? Those dummies don't even tax nobody like they should. And they don't even let unions run rough shod over everything. I know this because I live in Charleston.

      Wierd thing is that within 30 miles of my house there's Boeing, Nucor, Google, Alcoa, BP, DuPont, BMW, Bosch, Mead Westvaco. ..and on and on.

      Or should everywhere be like the utopian Mecca of Detroit??

      IE...check your premises.

      " and not have to spend hours driving around looking for safe food to eat or gas that wasn't brewed in somebody's back yard."

      Are you serious here? I thought Big AG was one of your personal bogeymen? ? GMO and all that. Heck, you half had me convinced that the Feds were truelly nefarious. ..but now I see we all have safe food because of them. God bless Obama.

      Delete
    8. "Or should everywhere be like the utopian Mecca of Detroit??"

      There's the all or nothing statement that really helps move the discussion along. Satanic Jihadists in DC? Really? You've kinda hit the trifecta there, unions, Godless Washington and of course, the right's favorite whipping boy Detroit. Fair enough retort for the theocracy comment is guess. Here's a different angle.

      I tried to find current links, but I here is one that fairly or unfairly makes me think critically of what Republicans AKA conservatives have to offer the rest of America http://www.povertyusa.org/the-state-of-poverty/poverty-map-state/#

      Here is another link that looks at the top ten poorest states http://www.cnbc.com/id/101068491/page/3

      And here is one last one http://money.cnn.com/2013/09/17/news/economy/poverty-income/

      On that second link, I wonder why there is such a stark line right through the center of the country that divides it economically. You may not be an anarchist Jimbo, but by default, my not agreeing with you 100% does not make me a statist marxist. I've been watching this stuff trend for a long time now. On that last link, I'm genuinely curious, why does the poverty rate suddenly start to fall in 1993 and stop on a dime in 2000 and start to climb again? I'm certainly not going to start some Clinton worship here, but I find it odd that with higher taxes, poverty rates could fall while the economy grew but subsequently the economy could go to total shit while taxes dropped to their lowest point in 60 years. Before you flex your fingers to start the angry retort, I'm not suggesting these are simply cause and effect relationships. IE if we just raise taxes, our economy will grow and poverty will fall. Conversely, however, we seemed to have gotten very little in terms of growth for lower taxes.

      Perhaps with all those companies in your state, you are on an upswing. The first and second link here, however, leave me wanting to ask more questions. Texas boasts about their low unemployment rate, but still maintains a poverty rate above the national average.

      Since we have opened our borders to allow the labor arbitrage with third world nations, we have destroyed our middle class. I don't think even you would disagree with that. This is, in part, what capitalism does. Do you think textile workers in your area were happy to see that happen? I'll be the first to admit that simply creating big government will not fix this. But by the same token, I don't subscribe to the belief that if we just end all federal oversight that everyone in America will suddenly smarten up, learn to compete and do what is appropriate for themselves to get ahead. I would venture to guess that you personally have done so, I have done so, but many can't or won't. Assuming they will just go away somewhere and die quietly is not going to happen. This may not be your problem now, but when the overwhelming majority of America falls into sharp poverty, it will be our problem. I think it's worth trying to use some federal oversight to not let it get to that point

      Delete
    9. "There's the all or nothing statement that really helps move the discussion along."

      Let's see, libertarian ideals lead directly to pure anarchy, but your ideals don't lead directly to Detroit? Got it.

      "Republicans AKA conservatives"

      Why are we still stuck on milk when we should be eating meat here? That's a Bible reference, but it means milk is for babes and when someone says Conservative = Republican (big R) I feel like I'm stuck trying to talk to my 12 year old nephew. I've tried hard here. The realities of the human condition can never be understood by humanists. "Nirvana is not of this world" Humans suck, save One. The only thing that can control "greed" is the natural laws of risk and consequence. At every level.

      Your maps of poverty are nice. I don't argue at all because I see it. What else would overlap? How about disproportionate blacks? I'm not interested in any conjuring of someone's imagination because the truth is South Carolina spends a ton - 30%+- more on trying, but failing to educate blacks. That's a fact from the state Dept of ed. Truth like this sounds racist, but it's cultural.

      Psychologically speaking, there is this fire within all men that burns until it is extinguished. Between government handouts and substances, the poor just don't burn.

      "On that last link, I'm genuinely curious, why does the poverty rate suddenly start to fall in 1993 and stop on a dime in 2000 and start to climb again?"

      I'll take the assumption that your statement here is 100% legit. Well, you have immediate and delayed affects. Taking from X to give to y will eventually come back. And never mind other economic factors, so many that all these charts and graphs are pure propaganda.

      Right now, "official" unemployment in poor old South Carolina is a full point less than the national average. But we've got tons of dummies...and I mean a lot. Whites, Blacks, Browns...doesn't matter. So we have poverty.

      "Since we have opened our borders to allow the labor arbitrage with third world nations, we have destroyed our middle class."

      Correct.

      "This is, in part, what capitalism does"

      No, that's what Cronyism does. The government subsidizes that heck out of illegals here in the US. As far as plants moving, well, that is nearly always a response to government. So Capitalism? Sure, in the sense that Capitalism obeys the laws of "economic physics" which will not be ignored.

      Ok, let's have plenty of Federal oversight. We should be up to our eyeballs in oversight at about 1% of the current cost.

      Delete
    10. The point I'm not able to make is that I just don't believe in utopia's, be they right or left. At one time, I believed that libertarian thought was something unique and different, and in principle, perhaps it is. In the real world, it's like everything else and the only real difference is who benefits and who doesn't. In our current reality, there is not a single ethnic or economical group that is not receiving a subsidy. The poor, allegedly, are living like kings on food stamps, the rich have become engorged thanks to a FED who prints money to keep asset bubbles inflated and on and on. I could come up with countless examples of every group. Likely, you could counter with a list that miraculously only contains people who don't support the Tea Party.

      This statement is excellent. "The realities of the human condition can never be understood by humanists." I'm not kidding, this is really good. A massive fault of the left, IMO, is that they believe otherwise. Objectively, I think the left makes the mistake of believing they can understand the best of it, while the right makes the mistake of believing they can simply ignore the worst of it. Neither sees anything but upside to their thinking.

      Delete
  6. everything runs on greed hence we have govt regulation. Finally you get it. If people could be trusted to do the right things, economically, to the environment, morally, to each other all regulation could vanish just as you would like. We expect that but it isn't reality. But that ain't never gonna happen.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Well, at least you got through the first sentence.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Max is being cute again with his use of Reagan in the context of the Nazi's. He never tires of rewriting history from his Marxist perspective.

    This is a total pile of bull shit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. i.e. Max and ric spout a never ending list of platitudes about unions and our wonderful union. Yet when others band together to participate in our democracy they spew a never ending bilge calling us Nazi's, Tea Bagger's, extremists, terrorists,,,,

      Delete
    2. Nope, not comparing Reagan to Nazi's at all. While your outrage is understandable William, why is it that you are so annoyed at being called names but feel no restraint whatsoever to label me a Marxist and extremist. I mean, you've literally done this here in just two comments. First you tag me as an extremist and then bitch that you are oppressed.

      Delete
    3. Oh excuse me Max. I thought you were proud of your Marxist roots.

      Delete
    4. When you have nothing to say William, you simply start calling people Marxists. In all honestly, I've read nothing from Marx in my entire life while conversely, I have read just about everything that was available by and about Ayn Rand up til the mid 90's when I came to realize she was just as utopian as anyone she criticized. Reading Rand, and eventually finding the same flaw it took Greenspan 40 years to figure out, has as much to do with my outlook today as any left leaning shit I have ever read.

      Delete
    5. William I don't ever recall platitudes to the union. I worked one job union and hated every minute of it. Not a fan but still see the need in this country to keep employers especially in certain industries in check. Goes back again to doing the right thing. Wealthy people cannot be trusted to do it without checks on their greed.

      Delete
    6. Every other word out of your mouth is about preserving Lincoln's "union" ric. Citizens having no right to determine their own destiny's. This is directly in opposition to our Declaration.

      As for wealthy people being more or less greedy than those less fortunate,,,,,, proof?

      Delete
    7. Max we know you hate Reagan. No need for you to pretend.

      Delete
    8. Now we get to the real reason, I've pooped on your Reagan shaped cereal. To describe my feelings toward Reagan as hate is incorrect. Ted Cruz and Rick Perry are fucking douchebags, there's two punks that could describe worthy of hate. Reagan, to some degree, reminds me of Clinton. He was in the right spot at the right time to take ownership of out comes that had already been brewing, especially the fall of the communism and the Soviet Union. Reagan was a master salesman, and he was also a massive deficit spender who was a stunning example of Keynesian economics. He talked one thing, but did entirely the opposite in reality and still managed to convince millions that their lives had changed for the better.

      I don't hate him because in reality, the man that is idolized and worshiped like Chairman Mao did not exist.

      Delete
    9. Rick Perry is douchie. But Ted Cruz? Must be that he's a dangerous genius to the left.

      I loved watching Ted Cruz vs Diane Feinstein. Friggin hilarious.

      Obama is who you should hate of anyone. For being as big a crony as anyone else despite creating the facade he was something entirely different to his sickophant followers.

      Delete
    10. Well said Jimbo.

      Politicians are at best disingenuous, Obama a perfect example. Maybe a chameleon would be a better description which fits most politicians.

      Delete
    11. Yeah Max, Cruz wants us to follow our constitution. That makes him a d-bag in your eyes. Says more about you than it says about him.

      And your opinion of Reagan is such a friggin hoot! What were you about 10 when he was in office? Listening to your democrat daddy explain what a bad man he was for not negotiating with the USSR? The man freed more people than any person in the history of the world and you call him a simple showman.

      What a friggin hoot you are Maxie pad!

      Delete
    12. Yeah, you still have nothing to say but name calling. How old were you when Reagan was king? Were you even born? I went in the Army in 1986 and I well remember the effect the cold war had on our psyche. Everything we did in training was with an assumption that it would be Russia we would be fighting. That thinking was in place well before Reagan came along and got a bunch of Marines killed in Beirut while trying to make the middle east bow in fear to our supremacy.

      One of many differences between you and me William, that I've mentioned countless times before, is that you have no ability to be objective and utter so much as a peep of criticism for your political hero's. This makes you nothing more than a mirror image of the alleged blind Marxist/Communist/Socialist sheeple that you believe this country is packed with. Many things that started under Reagan have come back to haunt us. Not all of them were from his direct orders, but the culture of that time bred a contempt for any sort of restraint which has been taken to a ridiculous extreme by the tea party types.

      Jimbo, Cruz isn't really dangerous in my book because he will never have appeal on a national level. What bothers me so much about him is that no matter what situation he is in, he perpetually has that stupid look on his face that he is in pain. He looks and talks just like that hack Mr. Hainey from Green Acres and sounds like a whining bitch. He's like Ron Paul though, he will never be anything more than a man from a protected district who can say whatever he wants without fear of ever being challenged.

      Delete
    13. RR was the giant of my time (and yours) Max. No revisionism will ever outweigh the facts on the ground.

      Oh I forgot, it was Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter that really set down the markers for the defeat of the Iron Curtain, the end of the Cold War, and the booming free market of the mid eighties. Yeah right!

      Well, well, well,,what have we here now, Obama v Putin. How're we making out under your star Max?

      Syria - Putin
      Crimea - Putin
      Southeastern Ukraine - Putin

      ??? - Obama

      Delete
    14. "Cruz isn't really dangerous in my book..."

      Are these sorts of superficial things the reason I think Obama sucks? Is it because of his big dopey ears? Or his hem and haw err and uhh? Or heavens forbid..that he's BLACK (tm)?

      Or is it that what comes from his mouth I find repulsive?

      Do you think you could find it within you to look past all of Cruz' Green Acrey-ness if he was saying all the right things. .In your book?

      And why you are wrong about him not having national traction is because the idea that Ron Paul is a kook is itself a relic.

      If Obama has done anything good, it's that he has shown people who look exactly why you don't give away power...not even to "your guy"

      Either "Cruz" is the future or the grand experiment is over. And that's the truth

      Delete
    15. Obama is hated for a host of reasons and plenty of them are downright stupid and in some cases, yes, it is because he is black. For the purists, I see the appeal in Cruz, he won't go anywhere near the middle, which is why he would never win a presidential election. In this case, it's much less my personal views than a simple matter of history. Whether we are center right or center left is immaterial because the operative word there is center. This country will not elect a far right or far left candidate.

      In one of Rand's books, she talks about how small fringe groups, rather than the large political parties, eventually drag the large political parties and ultimately the country into directions it really doesn't want to go. The reason they succeed is that they don't have any responsibility for anything. They an stay ideologically pure and basically make any claim they want. Conservatives of today are so far right of Reagan, they are almost leftist. Reagan was not a Ted Cruz, but that doesn't stop the Cruz's of the world from claiming otherwise.

      Delete
    16. Why not list some of the reasons people dislike Obama instead of because he's black?

      How about abuse of power?
      How about his non enforcement of the laws or enforcement of only the laws he likes?
      How about his changing laws for political expediency.
      How about the lies to push his agenda?
      How about use of the EPA, IRS to push his agenda?
      How about his non transparent administration, blocking congressional investigations?
      How about his divisive politics?

      The list is endless.

      Have other presidents used similar tactics? Yes but somehow the media has given him a pass as you do. With the media pass non reporting of the events keep the public in the dark.

      This president has taught America he can do what every he wants and be unchallenged. Can't take him to court as congress has no standing to force him to do his job. The next president can take the obama example and push the envelope. Will you complain if it's a republican?

      Delete
    17. Respectfully Lou, I simply disagree. There is nothing in your list that was not uttered about Republican presidents, particularly Bush. The Bush/Cheney administration was as heavy handed as any, and the mainstream media did nothing to stop it. What leads to abuse of power? Can we honestly sit back and say that congress has nothing to do with it? I could come up with a list of shit Obama has had to put up with no other recent president has, but why bother. If you lean right, regardless of how far, you hate Obama, it's that simple. Likewise, it was the same under Bush. To me, Bush Sr. was the last honest POTUS we had and he was also the last great generation POTUS we had. From Clinton on down, it has been boomers and no matter which party they belong too, they do whatever the hell they want.

      Tell me with a straight face Lou that Bush and Cheney and Boehner, McConnell do not practice divisive politics. Obama, surprisingly, has passed an occasional agenda that is in line with Democrat principles. The rest of the time, he has sucked up to Wall Street and the military industrial complex and yes, to John "I'm happy cause I got 90% of what I wanted" Boehner. Again, though you and I agree on quite a bit, Obama is one person you cannot cut an ounce of slack to or give the benefit of the doubt.

      Delete
    18. Where did the practice of divisive politics start? Was it the marginalization of the republican party with Nancy and the super majority in the House? Can you honestly say that it started before that? Politics have always been one of the nastiest professions that is well rewarded to the professionals that occupy Washington.

      Take 2 giant steps back. Clinton as reprehensible as his morals were still knew how to compromise to get things done. Bush as reprehensible as he was also compromised to get things done.

      In all honesty, I find little Obama has been willing to compromise on that he actually came out on the short end. The sequester which was his idea and the compromise didn't last long and has been dismantled.

      Name 1 social program by any other administration that didn't have bipartisan support.

      Which president that used executive orders to circumvent established law.

      Which president ignored a law he signed and changed it to fit his needs.

      Hate Obama, no, I hate what he has done to this country. Under Bush as despicable as he was, Did the left hate the right as much as today? Did the left demonize the wealthy to the degree we have today? Has the left always hated business as they do today.

      As bad as Bush was, Obama is far more polarizing than any president that I can remember. Look at his comments, rarely a day goes by where he doesn't bang on the Repub's, not that they don't deserve much of it. You don't build a coalition in Washing with the rhetoric he uses. Leadership comes from the top. Not the top of the House or Senate, from the top. If both sides don't win, neither side wins and certainly Obama will not win.

      As far as cutting Obama some slack, the man has had every opportunity to be the great uniter yet has chosen a different path where only he wins.
      Maybe your right, maybe it's this generation of politicians, me, me, me that is the problem.




      Delete
    19. For comparison sake, Obama is still Bush in number of executive orders issued by >100. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php

      I think it's disingenuous to say leadership begins at the White House and say it's up to Obama to be a uniter when people like McConnell said from day one that his goal was to make Obama a one term POTUS. The idea that Obama has destroyed the country is as ridiculous to me as the claim from the left that Bush destroyed the country. You know my spiel Lou, it hasn't changed, our government is no better and no worse and certainly no less divisive then the bitter people who voted to send them there. You want divisive, listen to a couple hours of Sean Hannity or any other left or right talk radio idiot. THAT's where a lot of this shit comes from.

      We all look backward at history and try to interpret it. Kingston and others here are quite fascinated by the actions and thoughts of the founding fathers. I'm more interested in recent history. Jimmy Carter's malaise speech, to me, is a bit of a seminal moment. That was definitely an unhappy time. We'd had a POTUS resign, we'd lost in Vietnam, we were getting raked by the Saudi's for our ignorant and consumptive ways. Regardless of what people think of Carter personally, I think that speech absolutely nailed the sentiment of the times, and America didn't want to hear it.

      Reagan, IMO, offerred American a choice, stick with Carter and misery, or go with Reagan and never apologize for anything again. I see that election as having little to do with either man individually but everything to do a burning desire in this country to want to FEEL great without actually suffering and doing the work our grandparents did. Reagan doesn't mark the start of divisiveness to me, but by the time Newt Gingrich hit the scene, the seed of divisiveness was in full bloom and it's been that way ever since.

      We could go tit for tat for multiple posts on who is more divisive Lou, it wouldn't address what i think is the real issue.

      Delete
    20. Why would you for a minute think I would defend Bush?

      It's not the number of executive orders but the content.
      Some of my Fav's.
      * Executive Order 10990 allows the Government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports.

      * Executive Order 10995 allows the government to seize and control the communication media.

      * Executive Order 10997 allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels, and minerals.

      * Executive Order 11000 allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision.

      * Executive Order 11001 allows the government to take over all health education and welfare functions.

      * Executive Order 11002 designates the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons.

      * Executive Order 11003 allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft.

      * Executive Order 11004 allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate and establish new locations for populations.

      * Executive Order 11005 allows the government to take over railroads, inland waterways, and public storage facilities.

      * Executive Order 11049 assigns emergency preparedness function to federal departments and agencies, consolidating 21 operative Executive Orders issues over a fifteen-year period.

      * Executive Order 11051 specifies the responsibility of the Office of Emergency Planning and gives authorization to put all Executive Orders into effect in times of increased international tensions and economic or financial crisis.

      * Executive Order 11310 grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in Executive Orders, to institute Industrial support, to establish judicial and legislative liaison, to control all aliens, to operate penal and correctional institutions, and to advise and assist the President.

      * Executive Order 11921 allows the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency to develop plans to establish control over the mechanisms of production and distribution of energy sources, wages, salaries, credit, and the flow of money in U.S. financial institutions in any undefined national emergency. It also provides that when the president declares a state of emergency, Congress cannot review the action for six months.

      I particularly liked the immigration and minimum wage E.O's.

      Leadership always starts at the top. The President sets the tone for the relationship with congress. Unfortunately Barack had a democratic house and senate which gave him everything he wanted for 2 years. When things changed he didn't.

      We get what we vote for. People wanted change with obama, they got change. In 2010 they wanted change and it happened in the house. It will be interesting to see the results of the next election as to how much change or no change in the results. The country is in the pendulum swing and the pendulum is swinging in farther arcs. The swing from Clinton to Bush to Obama. 2016 will be interesting to see where it falls.

      The divisiveness is a direct result of the people we send to Washington. The House, Senate, the President all have divisive politicians. I blame you personally for Dirty Harry (LOL), maybe the TP whack would have been better. His little speeches hiding behind the legal podium of the Senate is beyond unconscionable. But this is what the people want so it's what we get.

      Imagine what would happen tomorrow if O sat down with the republicans (not just Boehner) and instead of lecturing them, said what can we do to get things done. I know I cannot get everything I want, lets work together and get some things you want and some things I want. Would the world implode?

      Delete
  9. The reality is the people will not unite to back one candidate. In Colorado, the Tea Party candidate pulled 10% of the vote in the Governors election. The TP's refused to back the conservative candidate and we ended up with Hickenlooper O's 3rd choice for a Dem to run.

    Having said that 2016 will likely be a rerun of Colorado election, with the dem taking the election. Then people will stand around and make excuses, not conservative enough, not a TP candidate, a Rino, etc.

    Having said that look forward to 4 additional years of a dismal economy after O leaves town.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Having said that, check back with me in a year and a half as the election season is like Christmas. Christmas shopping starts in August this year.

      Delete
    2. From the outside, the conservatives, teas and general Republicans are suffering from a serious case of cognitive dissonance. Each of these groups has a slightly different outlook and each one of them is a purist who will accept no compromise to their views. Look at the beat down Rand Paul is getting for calling bullshit on our war mongering and for calling bullshit on the premise that we can make the world bow to our whims simply by flexing muscle. One author, I think, said that it "deReaganized" him. To win the primary, a Republican will have to dive into the whackadoodle cesspool publicly in the primary, and then come out and try to convince everyone in the middle he didn't mean all that other shit he said, AKA Romney's 47% speech. The only difference is that this, the Dems have to do the same.

      For the people that still believe president's control the economy, a flacid economy may hurt the Dems. That said, I think you and I agree on most of this Lou, we are living in a post bubble world where labor from around the world can be exploited for pennies on the dollar. What was the economy like after six years of Republican control of all three houses? This is what it looks like when bubbles pop. For the moment, there is trillions of dollars of available capital in business coffers and in the hands of the uber rich. Eventually, when people stop living in debt and start choosing to spend their dollars more wisely, investment will return. Taxes will have zero to do with it. Politically, we don't have the will to now turn around and punish multinationals after letting them write the trade policies that allowed them ship our production base away from us and dump goods here without any sort of tariff. We could fix some of this, but that would be anti-capitalist and our people would be spared the richly needed kick in the ass they need from competing with a third world teenager making 40 cents an hour.

      Delete
    3. President control the economy.

      An interesting perception as they stand up and take a bow every time great news is released and point the finger when things are bad. Ask GW? LOL.
      Reality, in normal circumstances they do have a marginal effect on the economy via regulations, policies. When the economy is limping like today, the effect is much more pronounced. Maybe it's the constant stream of presidential noise from the podium that keeps the attention focused of the big guy. In any case he's get's the credit good or bad today.

      And you are certainly correct, we are living in different times. The free trade agreements have brought cheap goods to the US however the cost has been high with jobs being our biggest export. The challenge for the next president will be how to turn it around. Will it be new trade agreements where imports=exports or tariff?


      Delete
    4. Of course they stand up and take credit or pass blame, that's what being a politician is all about :> Like everything else, I see this as a situation where the same solution does not work in every situation. When the top marginal rate is 70% or above, I would agree that lowering taxes will probably spur some investment. In our current reality, and I know no one agrees with this, we have both substantially lower regulations and taxes than we did 30 years ago. But, I don't want to keep pounding this point.

      Your second para hits on something that I think is related to my first para. Basically, there is no free lunch and no matter the reality, there is always a segment of this country in search of a free lunch. When taxes are too high and you are using them wisely to build schools, bridges and hospitals and what not, you eventually reach a point where those with capital stop investing. You may have a ton of infrustructure along with well educated people, but no situation to put all those good things to use.

      At the other extreme, which is where i think we are now, we have stopped taxing to pay for those things, let our infrustructure fall into disrepair but instead of seeing investment from the holders of capital, we see hoarding and strategies that arbitrage labor costs and tax laws between America and the rest of the world. Now we have less infrustructure, lots of unemployed and underemployed. A single question I keep asking is, how can our economy grow when people are broke and have little chance to move up and make more money? We have gone from one extreme to the other.

      In Reagan's day, there was some logic to lower taxes and deregulate. At this point, I think we would just devolve further. At this point, I think the correct policy is to punish excess, reward investment in THIS country and stop letting multinational companies dump in our marketplace without paying a cent towards its upkeep. But, instead of pursuing a discussion that asks "What is best for the stability of our country in 2014", we are locked in a truly pointless struggle of trying to make the world of 2014 function like the world of founding fathers.

      Delete
    5. "At this point, I think the correct policy is to punish excess, reward investment in THIS country and stop letting multinational companies dump in our marketplace without paying a cent towards its upkeep."

      In other words, Tax and Spend.

      "Tax receipts on pace to hit record $2.7T this year, congressional report says"

      "The expected tax boost comes after Congress and the White House struck an eleventh-hour deal at the start of the year that allowed for an increase in tax rates for top earners, and for the expiration of a 2-point payroll tax cut."

      "The president got $650 billion of higher taxes on the American people on January the 1st,"

      "The IRS has benefited from a bounty of sources, from increases in corporate income taxes to increases in estate and excise taxes."

      "An additional 3.8 percent tax on dividends, interests, capital gains and royalties--that was embedded in the Obamacare law--also took effect this year."

      "Meanwhile, spending is on pace to hit $3.55 trillion in 2013, roughly what it was in 2012. According to the CBO, that represents 22.2 percent of GDP -- "a share that is still larger than in any year between 1986 and 2008.""

      Delete
    6. Max,

      You hit the nail on the head.

      We need to revise the corporate tax code. Most countries have a territorial system. Among G-7 countries, only the U.S. has a worldwide tax system. Among OECD nations, 26 have territorial systems including Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, Spain, and the United Kingdom. Eight OECD nations have worldwide systems, including the U.S., Greece, Ireland, South Korea, and Mexico. The other OECD nations with worldwide tax systems have top tax rates far below the top U.S. corporate tax rate.

      http://taxfoundation.org/article/global-perspective-territorial-taxation

      Delete
    7. The posts above are enlightening. The views range from the profound to the shallow, from reasoned argument to vitriolic abuse. All of them have a value in the debate we are allowed to have. It illustrates our built in greed and intolerance with each other that we all fail to acknowledge the fact that the debate here is actually possible.
      I wonder what the citizens of China and the Russia of the last century would think if they read our posts? Would such readers instantly rise up and demand the "Rights and freedoms" granted under your constitution? Perhaps they would simply shake their heads and feel sorry for a culture which permits so much freedom, particularly for those who can never appreciate the pain and irritation of the shackles they wear themselves.

      Happy Easter and cheers from Aussie

      Delete
    8. Happy Easter King.

      The reason we do it with passion is that we the people understand:
      "Those who have known freedom and then lost it have never known it again.” ~ Ronald Reagan

      And one other gem:
      “I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them” President Thomas Jefferson

      Delete