hello

@Osso
That's the girl. She's a movement conservative which is, axiomatically, bad news for democracy in the US. And the likelihood is that this cycle will see the Senate shift to GOP control. It's very close but bets run that way.

In 2016, the dynamics change and Republicans will almost certainly be in serious trouble with a lot of vulnerable seats and turn out patterns favoring Dems. Plus the near certainty that Hillary will be the candidate and that just loads the situation further in favor of Dems. But the next two years, if the GOP gains the Senate majority, will be seriously ugly - unless, that is, you prefer a government which is dedicated to eviscerating citizen government and turning even more power over to the wealthy and the powerful. It's not as if there will be more obstruction being that this can't really get worse than it has been (nor more purposeful than it has been). But committee chairs will all begin to look like that vile creature, Darryll Issa .

2 Replies

This is, indeed, strange. I'm constantly being accused of being a 'liberal' and a 'leftie' and even worse by people who know me personally. And this doesn't bother me; politically I am a tad left of center. So why is it that I find myself having so much more sympathy (and empathy) for George O'B than for Bernie L. on this thread?

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

Do you believe you are that much more sophisticated than the patrons of bowling alleys?

Well, as it happens, yes. Nothing like an absolute, of course, but overall I think I'd fall towards the better side of the bowlers' bell curve. Add in the modifier "Lubbock" and I'm likely helped out a bit more. Besides, bowling balls might be swarming with pesky little ebolas, I understand.

1 Reply

@Lustig Andrei,

It's probably my attitude.

2 Replies

@blatham,

Quote:

Sheesh. I might have gotten a more with it crowd if I'd walked into a Lubbock bowling alley

"with it", "WITH IT"??? Why not say 23 skidoo

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

"With" what? Do you believe you are that much more sophisticated than the patrons of bowling alleys?

Blatham is a legend in his own mind (sorry for the cliche' but even a cliche', if used enough, will fit well somewhere)

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Interesting. I had something else in there initially but edited to "with it" so as to lighten the load (if you will, and you may not).

But thank you for reminding me of that sadly departed idiom. I'll find a place to tuck it.

0 Replies

@blatham,

My experiences have pointed me in a different direction. I have learned repeatedly that good ideas and real wisdom can often be found where they aren't generally expected, and that many self-important members of supposed elite, "in" or knowing groups are merely empty vessels repeating shopworn banalities.

I've never been in Lubbock, so I'll confess some limitiations here.

I have been through Mill Valley, Belvedere, Tiburon and Ross across the Bay in Marin County many times. I remind myself that these are the folks who originally elected Barbara Boxer to Congress.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

You really have to play it that way again, farmerman?

And the reason I've never insulted you yet have been at the barrel end of a number of such cases from you is because of your greater humility?

1 Reply

@blatham,

Relax. farmerman gives no slack to anyone and jumps on pretense in any form. He's done it to (gasp !) me. ( and I deserved it ...sorta)

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Lubbock functions as a convenient trope in the manner of Catskill comics referencing New Jersey. I've only been through. On the other hand, I've lived in Texas for a year and will be going back for a couple of months after Christmas to live in Sherman. Not an Obama electorate.

As to bowlers as "regular folks", no kidding. As to the local plumber maybe displaying a better civic ethos and perhaps even a more open mind than a local dentist, no kidding again. I won't even point to that Joe guy.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

re farmerman
Nah. That's one too many such incidents.

0 Replies

@blatham,

blatham wrote:

@Osso
That's the girl. She's a movement conservative which is, axiomatically, bad news for democracy in the US. And the likelihood is that this cycle will see the Senate shift to GOP control. It's very close but bets run that way.

Why is it that politicians you oppose are "axionatically bad news for democracy in the US."?

One could make a very strong case for the proposition that the current crop of progressives in power have significantly deduced the democratic elements in an increasingly authoritarian and bureaucratic state. It sometimes appears that you throw out these phrases without considering what the words really mean.

blatham wrote:

In 2016, the dynamics change and Republicans will almost certainly be in serious trouble with a lot of vulnerable seats and turn out patterns favoring Dems. Plus the near certainty that Hillary will be the candidate and that just loads the situation further in favor of Dems. But the next two years, if the GOP gains the Senate majority, will be seriously ugly - unless, that is, you prefer a government which is dedicated to eviscerating citizen government and turning even more power over to the wealthy and the powerful. It's not as if there will be more obstruction being that this can't really get worse than it has been (nor more purposeful than it has been). But committee chairs will all begin to look like that vile creature, Darryll Issa .

Well some of those downtrodden folks (like Al Sharpton) are wealthy too - and unusually proficient tax evaders as well.

The past six years have been pretty ugly too with gross usurpations of power by the NLRB and many other administrative and regulatory arms of the government. We have seen repeated instances of serious corruption and prolongued incompetence in multiple departments of government, along with repeated stonewalling and obvious lies by senior officials with something to hide.

I'm not as confident as you that Hillary will survive or even persist politically.

The situation out there is ripe for unexpected change.

1 Reply

@blatham,

blatham wrote:

It's probably my attitude.

Naw. I think it's my good ideas, charm, and the memory of a very pleasant meal Andrew and I shared a few years back.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

Why is it that politicians you oppose are "axiomatically bad news for democracy in the US."?

It's because I think they are, by ideology, exactly that. It's precisely why I would oppose.

Quote:

One could make a very strong case for the proposition that the current crop of progressives in power have significantly deduced the democratic elements in an increasingly authoritarian and bureaucratic state.

Sure. Many do forward precisely that set of notions. But obviously I don't consider the case "strong" at all. I find it fallacious, almost always. Abortion restrictions and the thrust to remove this broadly as an option for women and organized, sustained moves towards voter suppression are paradigm examples of authoritarianism and the establishment of bureaucratic machinations to achieve an authoritarian end.

The large graph too general to speak to in any valuable way.

Re Hillary, we'll see. But at this point, it's difficult to discern from where your notions might arise. But it is not from polling of either Dem voters or the broader public. As bad as the next two years will surely be quite outside of electoral considerations, the run for the WH will make these years worse than anything we've seen. I think that's a certainty. 80% of outside ads (they'll only increase) are negative right now.

I do think you are right that the time is ripe for change. And I don't see the factors pushing that way diminishing. But my sense of all this concurs with Judt's. I don't think it is going to be good.

1 Reply

@blatham,

Quote:

As bad as the next two years will surely be quite outside of electoral considerations, the run for the WH will make these years worse than anything we've seen. I think that's a certainty. 80% of outside ads (they'll only increase) are negative right now.

Considering that even after the credit crash and the following Great Recession no one has bothered to lift a figure to reform the global economy makes this a pretty safe bet. Europe is looking the most unstable at the moment, but the next crash could come from most anywhere, at anytime.

Quote:

I do think you are right that the time is ripe for change. And I don't see the factors pushing that way diminishing. But my sense of all this concurs with Judt's. I don't think it is going to be good.

The elites lost control of the systems a long time ago, and now that the people have laregly figured this out they have lost most of their credibility as well. Even if the brain trust could figure out what to do they could probably not implement it, which is a moot point because they have no idea what to do to save the day.

We are all strapped in for the crash, the death of the current world order, and the rise of the next one. There is no preventing this now.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Considering that even after the credit crash and the following Great Recession no one has bothered to lift a figure to reform the global economy makes this a pretty safe bet. Europe is looking the most unstable at the moment, but the next crash could come from most anywhere, at anytime.

The global economy isn't organized by anyone. It is the sum or net effect of thew actions of people and governments throughout the world. Socialism and planned economies held China and Eastern Europe back for a few generations. That is gone now and they are growing. Meanwhile Western Europe is succumbing to the sclerosdis of aging populastions and social welfare states. The prospects for a prolongued Japan-like stagnation appear strong. Under the current administration we have tasken a large dose of the same poison and it is holding our post recession growth back at unprecedented levels. For this we have only ourselves to blame.

Interesting to note that our now entirely unionized Federal Bureaucracy has reached new, unprecedented lows for efficient performance and morale, while corruption, misuse of authority and organizational failures are at new highs.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

The global economy isn't organized by anyone

WEF, GATT. World Bank, IMF, IEA, and so on.

Quote:

Under the current administration we have tasken a large dose of the same poison and it is holding our post recession growth back at unprecedented levels.

It is a combination of previous growth rates having been obtained by unhealthy pump priming and a lack of faith in the current world order as well as those who manage it making those who hold the capital unwilling to put it at risk by using it. Considering that the current world order can not continue to exist without high growth rates this makes us doomed.

Quote:

Interesting to note that our now entirely unionized Federal Bureaucracy has reached new, unprecedented lows for efficient performance and morale, while corruption, misuse of authority and organizational failures are at new highs.

More interesting is that the newest addition, Homeland Security, is by far the worst. There are tons of problems here, not the least of which is that a large number of the staff knows full well how useless their work is, and how much money from the federal treasury they waste. The bosses embracing security theater to promote their political agenda has deep and long lasting costs.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Hi hawkeye
Economic questions and debates are outside of my zone of education and I tend to avoid them. I guess one has to accept that another financial crash will not be helpful but even aside from that unknown variable, other phenomena could get us to the ugly, dystopian place. The Pentagon, at least, is trying to confront the consequences of global warming. That's just one, if a key, looming yuck.

But I'm seriously concerned about American politics and the future of citizen government. The gears of governance are being purposefully jammed, demagoguery is all the rage (for electoral ends), and the advances in computer tech are setting up the framework for a police state (not just in the US, of course) and that one scares hell out of me - because too many who seek power and domination will find this all terribly easy to put to their uses.

America isn't going to quickly disappear as world hegemon. Too big, too rich, too invested in maintaining their place. I see China is about to attempt a lunar landing which is rather in the territory of symbolism but obviously they are the entity that will compete. The insane Muslims are just noise.

1 Reply

@blatham,

Quote:

But I'm seriously concerned about American politics and the future of citizen government. The gears of governance are being purposefully jammed, demagoguery is all the rage (for electoral ends), and the advances in computer tech are setting up the framework for a police state (not just in the US, of course) and that one scares hell out of me - because too many who seek power and domination will find this all terribly easy to put to their uses.

The Professor never seeing an argument for bigger government with more power that he can not promote while at the same time having absolutely no interest in effective/good/efficient government should scare the **** out of you. Oh, and that so few people seem to care.

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know