what is it with the tea-party?

[the_gloaming09]

ha... wow

[para-para-parrotdies]

Well yeah, I just feel like Europeans are treated with more respect by their governments. A great example of this is the airports. The airport in Denmark was a pleasure to pass through. I was treated kindly and everyone was very helpful. The airport in the US was hellish. Dozens of highly-paid thugs bossing people around, telling them to take their shoes and belts off, stand in a scanner, throw away all their liquids, questioning you about where you're going, who you're meeting, what you're doing. Not allowed to use your cell phone here, not allowed to take pictures there. Don't stand in one place too long. They even had one guy whose only job was to stand around telling people to smile and be happy. You know you're in a shitty situation when they actually have to TELL you to be happy.

 

You really seem to dislike America :(

[Saffire]

Well there are disadvantages to every country, obviously, but I'm critical of America now because it's heading pretty quickly toward fascism. That could be reversed, and I hope it is. But I doubt it.

[Tryptophan]

 

It's true, we live in a sad world. And it does keep me busy. And it's not only America. In Belgium, many Flemish people think it will be better when we get rid of the Walloons in the same way as republican Americans think it will be better when they get rid of the taxes.

 

But still, I'm so happy I live in Belgium and not in the USA (sidenote: even though our football team didn't qualify for a big champoinship again). We just don't have the culture of "everyone is responsible for themselves, for their achievements and for what goes wrong, take a gun to protect yourself from the other people and make sure the government doesn't take your freedom away". Sure, there are exceptions (cfr. above) but it's not as bad as in the USA. We don't have to be rich in order to go to college, for example. Yes, there is the Eurocrisis but that is just an example of how world economics are failing because capitalism doesn't work (anymore). I have to admit I don't understand much of those Wall Streetisms and shareholders and banks and holdings and stuff. But I think it has something to do with a small group of people (investors) who aren't democratically chosen but still rule the economics by playing in favour of their own particular benefit. Am I wrong?

Anyway, USA, especially right-wing kind of embodies these hypercapitalistic values and views.

 

I'd like to add that everyone in Europe seems to be more realistic than many Americans and we look at the Tea baggers as if they are a bunch of lunatics. I'm glad I live in Europe, I like Belgium.

[Gautama]

Hi Tryptophan, on a side note, how long have you guys in Belgium survived without government now?

[Tryptophan]

Hi Tryptophan, on a side note, how long have you guys in Belgium survived without government now?

 

I'm not counting days, but the election was in June last year, so 16 months. But things are moving, we will have a government soon, within a month. I guess. People here are being cynical about it. I don't like that.

[Gautama]

It's so interesting to see that things don't get utterly lost without one though, non?

[para-para-parrotdies]

Well there are disadvantages to every country, obviously, but I'm critical of America now because it's heading pretty quickly toward fascism.

 

Are there problems in the US? Of course, just like every other country, America has its own share of problems. But saying we're moving towards fascism? Not only is it actually insulting to those who currently or have previously lived in fascist regimes, it's just fear-mongering and a gross misinterpretation of the current economic and political climate.

[LoryABjerre]

I'm sorry but US not have a own culture. because is Europ that has colonized and who give their knowledge. so you know, Spanish, English, Italians, Irish, etc. ..

yes it is the small European states in a great america

,America has not built of ethics, was born in 1776 so young . to which is right or wrong. Valuers things the people, know life. you know the great thinkers Phylosopher.

well sure the Indians, but Europeans have put on the reserves.

 

I'll just say that US is ruled by money only politician controlled manipulated by the rich . and the people are not safe, so is violence.

[Saffire]

Are there problems in the US? Of course, just like every other country, America has its own share of problems. But saying we're moving towards fascism? Not only is it actually insulting to those who currently or have previously lived in fascist regimes, it's just fear-mongering and a gross misinterpretation of the current economic and political climate.

 

I disagree.

 

America currently fits the definition of a fascist state. I can list a few examples off the top of my head:

 

1. Millions of peaceful people imprisoned for lengthy terms (even life) for using drugs. There are more black men in prison today in the US than black slaves in the 1700's.

 

2. Obama murdered two American citizens using a drone without due process or giving them a trial. The government has never revealed the evidence that supposedly exists against them. (Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan)

 

3. A direct violation of the US constitution saying that gold and silver are to be money (the existence of the Federal Reserve, which enables the government to debase the currency while outlawing settlements of debts in alternative currencies).

 

4. Multi-trillion dollar wars that never end. Currently the US has around 170 military bases sprinkled all over the world.

 

5. Authoritarian police who regularly brutalize civilians without repercussions. A good website documenting bad cops in the US is copblock.org

 

6. "Bailouts" for failing businesses. This is the textbook definition of fascism. Mussolini himself described it as a marriage between government and big business.

 

So no, I don't think it's over-the-top to describe America as fascist at all. It's quite appropriate.

 

Yes' date=' there is the Eurocrisis but that is just an example of how world economics are failing because capitalism doesn't work (anymore).[/quote']

 

The West is not capitalist. In a capitalist economy, there is no such thing as a "too big to fail" bank or business. And the market chooses the money, not governments.

 

There is a theory among some thinkers/analysts of current events... that the coming economic collapse is orchestrated and will be used by the elite to impose even more draconian and authoritarian laws on the people. The emphasis on the evils of "capitalism" and "Wall Street" are meant to distract you from the true source of the problems: central banking.

 

When there are economic problems, the elite will often try to distract the people with wars. So get ready.

[chuck kottke]

Basically, the Tea Party (the original subject I think..?) is a product of FOX so-called news or infotainment and backed primarily by the Koch brothers, purveyors of fine oil products. It's in essence a way to whip up a fury and distract the very people most adversely affected by policies run through congress by the moneyed elites. It's effective because it uses the most hype to attract the masses, and pastes labels of being all-American good-for-you proud and the natural choice for all true-red-blooded Americans. Macho and patriotic on one side of the coin, fear on the other, all spun so fast you can get easily lost inside the lies.. Marketing to befuddle and control the minds of the masses, which works on some, especially those who want to believe..

But it attracts many who are generally cynical of government for a variety of reasons, and are believing that there is a conspiracy out to get them, so they must rebel. They like the Gadsden flag, what can I say!gadsden-flag-dont-tread-on.gif (GIF Image, 500x333 pixels)

So they fall easily into the cajoling voices saying we need to get rid of government programs, give everyone the choice to do what they want. But what's missing is the reality that those programs are safety-nets for all citizens (especially for the working poor who often go for the Tea Party), without which we'd be in pretty rough shape during hard times.

I have neighbors who are Tea Party Types, proudly flying their Gadsden, American, and military flags, and you really can't talk sense to them about it, for they are the true believers. It's also kind of an avant garde thing too - sort of a "I don't care what you say, I'm sticking to this nutty thing" attitude, and so there! I think they secretly harbor some ill will to the public sector - maybe it was the teachers in school who tried to set them right, maybe it was that cop working for the government who stopped them more than once, maybe they think the teacher's unions get special treatment, so often they're looking for someone to tell them, "hey, it's ok to fight these government types!".

So they feel slighted and are therefore easily ushered into the Tea Party. They could have some legitimate beefs with the public sector, but the answer they're provided with is a side-track distraction, and that's hard to change.

What does make the difference is instead of worrying about the loonies, focus more on promoting the progressive agenda and getting organized to topple the moneyed influencers in our elections process - that's where the real answer is.;)

[Gautama]

^ That really seems to be the wisest thing to do, Chuck. I wish I had your focusing abilities!

Irritable stuff like this tugs me a lot.

[GazeboflossUK]

Vote Ron Paul

[Saffire]

Haha, I love you Gazebofloss.

 

And the way to topple the "moneyed interests" is to topple the central banks. It's honestly that simple.

[chuck kottke]

Hm, the central banks have control of the money supply through the federal reserve, but no matter what happens, I think the moneyed elites will find ways to either prevent some toppling of the central banks, or block major changes in fed policy, non? How is this to be accomplished, and what's to stop the power elites from jimmying up the works? I am curious as to how and why, it's not my area of expertise, and yet it may hold a key to changing things.:inquisitive:

So I keep heading in the direction of election reform, so as to lessen the effects of money in and on elections, first by adding amendments to the US Constitution so that those common-sense rights to fair elections and firewalls to stop the revolving doors are put in place. Simply stating that corporations aren't people is, besides restating what should be obvious, seems to me too narrow a target, though it's a big issue to be addressed. Maybe stating that money isn't free speech is, though it seems that those with the money would find a way to side-step that, and thus maybe a broader amendment is needed to nail the problem down tight. So thus I lean towards fair elections, equal access to the press (TV, radio,... airwaves basically) for all qualified candidates, since that seems a way for all candidates to be heard in the public square, and reduce the influence of big money buying the most persuasive ads & airtime, which is currently the formula for success. Missing as well from the constitution is a clear right to diverse competition, the right to fair markets. It was the East India Company of old, and it's corrupt practices, that fueled the revolution for liberty, so including clear language to prevent virtual monopolies on media, energy, communications, and the like is essential for a strong and vibrant democracy. Those who control so huge a % of a given sector should be made to diversify their investments, so no one may wield such excessive power, for all power corrupts, and such absolute power corrupts absolutely.

All those things which the US government now possess and which were clearly to be prevented by the constitution - standing armies with bases in other lands, the use of excessive fines and punishments, a single seat of immense power, allowing giant corporations with virtually no public oversight to exist, the taking of private property without just compensation, usurpation of the right to be secure in one's home from unreasonable and unwarranted searches and seizures, ignoring the right to privacy, and the almost complete obliteration of the inclusion and equal merit of all rights not enumerated in the Constitution - all these things have been trampled upon brazenly by the plutocrats, the elites, through their puppet government, to the dismay of any free citizens.

So the government simply looks like a clearing house for whoever has the money to do whatever they want, and for wielding enormous power and playing geopolitical power games, the effects of which leave many seriously injured or dead, create dysfunction and disharmony in the world, and are clearly not policies any sane well-informed citizen would want.

But the one hitch pin that ties the wagon to the horses is the right to vote, and if we had a clean elections process with equal access for all candidates to the public square, and the right to limit the excesses of money in politics, firewalls between commerce and government, we can begin to get a handle on this gargoyle of greed and power damaging our world.

Sorry for the rant here, but it's just what I feel is intuitively wrong, and what might work to set in motion a process of reform.

All I can say is, Gautama, keep up the pressure on Wall Street! I really wish I were there now as well, my heart is in this battle to restore democracy.

[chuck kottke]

A big problem today, in our Orwellian world, is that the commercial media has become a vassal of empire, a tool of the elites to promote their policies and candidates.

Even if all candidates had equal access to the press for time, debates, messages, etc. - there still remains this corporate news machine which is in the business of promoting its agenda using the so-called news, or the infotainment industry, and its candidates of choice parrot its policy desires.

I'd like to believe everyone will start to dig for the truth, support independent investigative journalism, look into candidate financing, etc. but I think many will go the easy route and try and pick the sweetest lemons using their sense of how the candidate comes across on TV, and how the news portrays them.

Without independent investigative journalism, we might not be able to overcome the pull of the elites via the message machines. Fixing this is a real challenge, a chicken and egg problem of sorts since the reforms need to be from government oversight and antitrust actions to prevent single control over huge segments of the media, and regulation demanding that media journalism departments be freed from the overt control by their ownership.

One answer is to support independent investigative journalism and analysis whenever you can.

The Tea Party is a FOX generated device, financed by the Koch brothers, so there's a perfect example of how the corporate media is a shill for a few wealthy elites, but that's just one example of a much larger problem, where all the candidates who hope to make it kowtow to the power brokers, for favorable air and press time, with attendant kick-backs if and when they become office holders.

One good thing coming from the discontent is a desire to seek the real truth, so hopefully all the protests over Wall Street will shake things up enough so these issues can no longer be ignored, and more and more citizens see the light. :sunny:

[Saffire]

>A big problem today, in our Orwellian world, is that the commercial media has become a vassal of empire, a tool of the elites to promote their policies and candidates.

Even if all candidates had equal access to the press for time, debates, messages, etc. - there still remains this corporate news machine which is in the business of promoting its agenda using the so-called news, or the infotainment industry, and its candidates of choice parrot its policy desires.

 

I agree with this, and I think the Internet is destroying the corporate media monopoly, slowly but surely. The Internet is like the new Gutenberg Press.

 

>Fixing this is a real challenge, a chicken and egg problem of sorts since the reforms need to be from government oversight

 

Chuck, this is where we have always disagreed. You think the government can be reformed to do good. I'm telling you the government is like a gang of rapists - you can infiltrate it and try to change them, but you won't be successful.

 

When we study human action outside of government (corporations, trade, etc) we are well-aware of the ever-present factor of human greed. But for some strange reason, when it comes to analyzing government solutions, people seem to forget this fact and we assume the opposite - that they're selfless angels.

 

The voting mechanism is not enough to keep politicians in check because voters aren't rational. They don't need to be, because there's no direct cost to them if they aren't (with the value of each individual vote being so low).

 

>The Tea Party is a FOX generated device, financed by the Koch brothers

 

I agree that the Koch brothers are a problem, and that they've co-opted the original Tea Party movement. They portray themselves as libertarians of sorts, but now they are a pro-war movement.

 

>One good thing coming from the discontent is a desire to seek the real truth, so hopefully all the protests over Wall Street will shake things up enough so these issues can no longer be ignored, and more and more citizens see the light.

 

Yes, this is happening, and the Internet is where people today turn for information. Especially young people. The elite, who have ruled with impunity since the end of World War 2, are facing their greatest threat to date: a well-informed populace. When the collapse happens, they'll offer the same tired, worn out solutions they've always offered: higher taxes on the rich, and a few more thousand "regulations" on top of the tens of thousands existing ones.

 

Only this time people won't be impressed. They'll be looking for real, fundamental change.

[Gautama]

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/07/financial-big-lies/

[Saffire]

Krugman is the biggest idiot since Keynes. Anybody who still listens to him is braindead.

[the_gloaming09]

The tea party to me seems like a sad excuse for racists against Obama.

 

I'm not saying they all are... but I find it extremely interesting how the Tea Party rose after Obama got into office since they talk about huge government spending when Bush was a huge spender in the first place.

[chuck kottke]

>A big problem today, in our Orwellian world, is that the commercial media has become a vassal of empire, a tool of the elites to promote their policies and candidates.

Even if all candidates had equal access to the press for time, debates, messages, etc. - there still remains this corporate news machine which is in the business of promoting its agenda using the so-called news, or the infotainment industry, and its candidates of choice parrot its policy desires.

 

I agree with this, and I think the Internet is destroying the corporate media monopoly, slowly but surely. The Internet is like the new Gutenberg Press.

> I agree, but how effective the internet is compared to major media has yet to be seen. I would like to think the internet will achieve that in time as well, but unfortunately at present a vast majority of citizens will watch TV or listen to the radio, making their choices from what they hear and see on the ads and in the limited debates. Since the last election, Karl Rove's targeting of several races in Wisconsin using vast sums of money from oligarchs proved successful, a bad sign if democracy is to yield better representation. And while many are computer literate, most are either semi-literate or pay no attention to computers; time will change that, but the here and now is where we are..

>Fixing this is a real challenge, a chicken and egg problem of sorts since the reforms need to be from government oversight

 

Chuck, this is where we have always disagreed. You think the government can be reformed to do good. I'm telling you the government is like a gang of rapists - you can infiltrate it and try to change them, but you won't be successful.

> Assuming it's uncontrollable Jay, I cannot believe that. The blue glove isn't a bad thing if you know how to use it. What must happen though is to reform the campaign system, open up access for all candidates and get rid of the buying of our government, plain and simple. When those elected are accountable to us and do what is right for all, then the government can once again be a force for good.

When we study human action outside of government (corporations, trade, etc) we are well-aware of the ever-present factor of human greed. But for some strange reason, when it comes to analyzing government solutions, people seem to forget this fact and we assume the opposite - that they're selfless angels.

> Well, that may be the case as well, which is why I believe in reducing the military budget, for all these excesses in militarism are enriching the few at the expense, and lives of, many. But the way to control the internal greed factor is to ensure better checks and balances, better ways to assess merit and efficiency, and so forth. Less government is a good thing, if the money saved actually went to the working classes and not to the investment class, since it is actual spending on purchases made domestically that stimulates the economy. But in down economic times, both may be appropriate, for the government is, as Robert Reich believes as well, the purchaser of last resort. Better we purchase things that truly improve our world - more fresh water, less war machines; fix those roads and bridges.

The voting mechanism is not enough to keep politicians in check because voters aren't rational. They don't need to be, because there's no direct cost to them if they aren't (with the value of each individual vote being so low).

> I disagree. Voters, if given honest information and no spin, make good decisions. Rational decisions happen when sound information and education allow for logical choices to be made. But if we allow the mainstay to be political ads paid for by the deepest pockets, we get the sharks that hide in those pockets in power. Hm, well there is a cost, but when the information is so twisted, the voters make choices based on false and limited knowledge, and absent that, they rely on gut instincts. The harder pressed citizens are, the more persuadable by emotional appeal people are, but worst of all, the plutocrats simply hedge their bets and buy off most candidates, so the majority of all candidates have to kowtow to the all powerful. One win here or there won't change much - we need to make the whole process open up so honest candidates who represent the citizens become the more favored candidates.

>The Tea Party is a FOX generated device, financed by the Koch brothers

 

I agree that the Koch brothers are a problem, and that they've co-opted the original Tea Party movement. They portray themselves as libertarians of sorts, but now they are a pro-war movement.

> yes indeed.

>One good thing coming from the discontent is a desire to seek the real truth, so hopefully all the protests over Wall Street will shake things up enough so these issues can no longer be ignored, and more and more citizens see the light.

> That's a good point, I was thinking the same thing - if nothing else, it stirs citizens into looking deeper into issues, more for underlying root causes.

Yes, this is happening, and the Internet is where people today turn for information. Especially young people. The elite, who have ruled with impunity since the end of World War 2, are facing their greatest threat to date: a well-informed populace. When the collapse happens, they'll offer the same tired, worn out solutions they've always offered: higher taxes on the rich, and a few more thousand "regulations" on top of the tens of thousands existing ones.

> Thurston Howell has been ruling for longer than that! Well, maybe his daddy and granddaddy back in the Haavard days... :laugh3: They ruled with impunity in the 1880's and at turn of the century; labor movements clipped their wings.. True, the internet generation will change things for good, I believe as well - hooray for the internet! I haven't a problem with wealth, but with wealth that is ill-gotten or earned in excess of one's true worth; as Gandhi famously said, one of the 7 deadliest sins was wealth without work.

Only this time people won't be impressed. They'll be looking for real, fundamental change.

Viva La Revolution!

:cool::cool::cool::cool::cool::cool::cool::cool: