4 months later, another storm of the century

How many storms of the century do we have to have in a short period before the republicans concede that something unusual might be going on with the climate?

That doesn’t imply any particular course of action, but it is a good baseline for having some rational discussion on the subject.

Advertisements

Republicans- new PR campaign or actually caring?

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/04/politics/cantor-gop-makeover/index.html?hpt=hp_bn3

So what is this makeover, is it all sales or are they going to actually care about people. 

Real conservatives had a sense of duty to the people and tried to protect the common people from the worst depredations of the classical liberals.  

The real, historical right wing conservatives had political positions that the modern fake conservatives now denounce as socialist or worse.

But he original conservatives thought that the elites had a duty to protect the welfare of the general population.  It wasn’t about equalizing.   The nobility saw the protection of the masses as one of the duties of their station.  It was reinforcement or proof that they were the elite.  In some ways feudalistic thinking was better for the population than the business thinking of the industrial revolution- the masses had not been considered disposable commodities by the nobility. 

When we hear about liberals, conservatives and Marxists what we hear today is mostly garbled propaganda.

In the heyday of these ideologies, in the 19th century, the conservatives or right wing was in some ways ideologically closer to the Marxists than the liberals.

The conservatives were more aligned with the crown in Britain, old money and conservative ideals that descended from the feudal system. 

The feudal system like all systems with degrees of slavery had one thing that has always been missing from the liberal anarchist faction, a sense of duty to the lower classes.  

The liberals at that time were the business class that was usurping the power from the traditional upper class.  

“Liberal” at that time did not have the connotation of “socialist”, quite the contrary.  At the time it meant “person who uses labor at or below subsistence levels until it breaks, then disposes of it in the garbage as a waste product”. 

Classical liberalism is about business being allowed to do whatever it wanted, regardless of the consequences.  So that meant that if working 6 year olds for 36 hour shifts until they died was the most profitable way of doing business, that was what you did. 

“Conservative” has a double meaning of course that the modern “right wing”- more accurately “classical liberals”- have wanted to adopt, suggesting that they are adopting cautious, incremental approaches, which they are not, at least not with regard to economics.  

The so called “conservatives” of today are not economically conservative either any traditional sense of the word.  

They could properly be described as “social conservatives” because they are opposed to change in civil liberties for various groups, but opposing e.g. gay rights does not magically transform one into a fiscal conservative. 

The dominant present day use of the term “conservative” is a nefarious advertising tactic where you take the central defect of your product and attempt to neutralize it through branding.  

For example, “it tastes fresh because it’s frozen”.  

One that used to annoy me was “Best Buy”- maybe 5 years ago they seemed to have the worst prices around.  “Best Buy” in reference to standardized items that are identical between competing stores has the implication “best price”.  

Opposition to any regulation of business at all is an extreme, anarchistic version of classical liberalism.  Calling that conservatism is Orwellian doublespeak. 

“Liberal” also has a double meaning, which is trickier than that for “conservative”.

The general connotation of the word is about freeing people from restrictions, which may be in terms of greater economic liberty, or free speech, or anything else that might be restricted.  

It is not the opposite of “conservative” per se and some liberalisms are in conflict with other liberalisms.  For instance, are you more concerned with the liberties of workers or the liberties of corporations. 

The association of liberal ideas with racial rights, gay rights, women’s rights etc. conflicts with social conservatism.  

And classical liberals slurring Democrats as “liberals” is really about creating a kind of conflation.

Traditional Democrats are either conservatives or socialists, not classical liberals.  So why call them liberals?

Because of another nefarious advertising strategy, conflation and association.  

It makes no sense to say that you should not support Democrat economic policies  because they support gay rights and latino immigration.  

That kind of argument doesn’t hold any water if it is processed in the cortex, but if you tie the word “liberal” to base fears about different groups that are processed in another part of the brain and then anchor it to an entire platform including unrelated issues, you can get the same emotive response to the entire platform. 

It’s a brain hack.

Getting back to the article about new republican speeches, do the republicans just want to sound caring, or what are they proposing to change? 

If they adopted the true conservative duty for the elites to ensure the welfare of the masses, which is not the same as socialism, that would be wonderful.   That element in politics is sorely missed.  

Smoke and mirrors has limits.  Bush senior’s talk about caring may have helped him get one term but it was limited in impact because there was no follow-through.

Neil Young perhaps put it best:

     There’s a thousand points of light

     For the homeless man

     We’ve got a kinder and gentler machine gun hand

Three Wolf Moon meme, a lesson for republicans

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Wolf_Moon#section_1 This over the top t-shirt sparked a ton of internet comedy and snickering after somebody made a fake review suggesting the shirt needed more wolves in it and they should glow in the dark. It is hard to explain why it is funny, but it is. It is trying to look intense with massive overkill and so descends into unintentional self parody and looks as garrish as a velvet Elvis print. Turn to the republicans and the reaction of the hillbilly cannibal types to the election loss. Their reaction, instead of acknowledging that they have turned into a dangerous self parody of a political party, is along the lines of “the shirt needs more wolves and they should glow in the dark”. Except that they actually mean it.

GOP Senators Skeptical Of Susan Rice As Potential Pick For Secretary Of State: via HuffPost

GOP Senators Skeptical Of Susan Rice As Potential Pick For Secretary Of State: via HuffPost http://huff.to/Zu5YsA I can think of a dozen reasons why the administration would cooperate with the CIA to give an incorrect statement. It’s covert operations. The public aren’t entitled to accurate information. Providing accurate information gets people killed and derails investigations. John McCain is a traitor. This isn’t a spinoff CIA-Kardashian where a secret is something between you and your ten million closest friends. The public is not supposed to know about the existence of the operation, let alone the details. And the republicans whine about why the CIA has difficulty getting good intelligence. You can’t conduct a covert op live on CNN. This isn’t entertainment. Even having a congressional committee on intelligence in the present form is an unnecessary security risk. Look how leaky things got with the manufactured scandals recently. If ten people know about something these days that’s as good as publishing it on the internet. McCain and the republicans will undermine american operations and get americans killed if they think that they can work that into so much as a dust mote sized advantage. Just a bunch of filthy traitors.

News Outlets Held Back Detail Of Benghazi Attack At CIA’s Request: via HuffPost

News Outlets Held Back Detail Of Benghazi Attack At CIA’s Request: via HuffPost http://huff.to/QZUBUG More important for the republican con artists to try to score political points than to protect overseas operations. They were probably hoping to hide behind the secrecy to defraud the public, hoping that the agency’s secrecy would prevent the public from knowing they lied until after the election. It doesn’t help these agencies’ operations to have traitors at home put them under a spotlight and spread false news to discredit them.

More lies from Republicans lead to Benghazi potential security risks

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/01/intelligence-official-offers-new-timeline-for-benghazi-attack/?hpt=hp_t3 So now the Republican fraudsters have compelled the CIA to respond publically to their lies, potentially putting more lives and operations at risk. There is now more information about American security methods publically available and the terrorists now know, if they didn’t already, that there was a CIA safe house within a mile of the embassy, which had a lot of activity on the night in question. Having to reveal security information publically to refute Republican liars benefits America how? When people have to go on the record, they aren’t just on the record for the US, they are on the record for the world, and for the terrorists, too. Sensitive security debates should not be held in public to improve the election chances of criminals and traitors at the expense of everyone else including risking the safety of agents, armed forces, etc.

Romney declares war on GM and Chrysler

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/30/auto-companies-hit-back-against-romney-ads/ What does Romney have against auto manufacturors? First he was ready to let them go under in 2008, now he, who masterminded the export of US jobs at Bain, is falsely accusing GM and Chrysler of doing the same. One reason why people should read Mein Kampf is to be able to spot Nazi propaganda methods in action. The difference with modern Nazis is that they purport to be allies with the jews- although they adopt policies that will eventually lead to the destruction of Isreal- and the muslims are the new scapegoat and on the other side of the scapegoating the entire political spectrum from left wing to moderate republicans are lumped together as commies working in a vast conspiracy to end civilization. Some people have already mentioned the parallels between the “neoconservative” elements and the Nazis but then chickened out and apologized. If you look at right wing methods today you shouldn’t be seeing only parallels with the Nazis. You should be seeing identity. That Romney and the neocons are a threat to assume power using the exact methods advocated by Hitler and Goebbels, especially the “big lie” technique, shows that these methods of mass manipulation are still effective and we must be eternally vigilant. Hitler didn’t start with a military more powerful than those of the rest of the world combined. The seriousness of the danger cannot be overstated.