Skip to main content

View Diary: What's Happenin'? Ham & Egg Justice Week 12.10.12 (54 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  good morning (14+ / 0-)

    i had a thought about the progressive "journalists" meeting with the POTUS ...I'm gonna guess that they are all in the top 2% and he was just reassuring them that their taxes weren't going back up to the Clinton rates and that the increase would only be for a year. And they all left the meeting happy and well fed...

    •  i probably should have put progressive in quotes (10+ / 0-)

      as well

      •  "Journalists" too needs to be in quotes. (5+ / 0-)

        ❧To thine ownself be true

        by Agathena on Mon Dec 10, 2012 at 06:24:54 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  If Kos himself doesn't pass the threshold... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        KBO, ZhenRen

        for progressivism, as you and those who tipped your comment seem to be indicating, then who does?

        Good heavens, folks, not even Ivory soap is that pure.

        How about I believe in the unlucky ones?

        by BenderRodriguez on Mon Dec 10, 2012 at 06:30:08 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well, I guess Kos can't help being an ex-Thug, (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Ginger1

          but he continues to be both a self-styled "libertarian" and forever wed to the two-party system. There's no indication that he isn't prepared to accept a "pragmatic compromise" with the deficit terrorists such as raising the Medicare eligibility age.

          When Markos firmly and unambiguously rejects even modest "tweaks" to what passes as the American safety net, when he passionately condemns endless war and the expansion of Empire...

          we'll talk.

          When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

          by PhilJD on Mon Dec 10, 2012 at 06:53:43 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  The whole (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          tardis10, Ginger1, Agathena, ZhenRen, KBO

          "purity" thing is really stale, Bender, and we can barely manage to push out a "Meh" in response to those claims anymore.  You guys really need to come up with some new memes if you want to get a rise out of us and stir the shit, which clearly is what you like to do.

          Plus, it's a community diary.  There is only one rule. No attacks or pie fights.  If you came in just to start a fight, best be leaving.

          We've got one or two corners where we can speak somewhat freely and yet the authoritarian self-appointed kos police still feel the need to try to shut that down too.  Amazing.  


          "Justice is a commodity"

          by joanneleon on Mon Dec 10, 2012 at 07:27:34 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  A few things... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            joanneleon, ZhenRen

            I respect the boundaries that are set for your diary series, and I don’t come here to stir up trouble.

            In the past, I’ve made comments in your diaries joking about my colorblindness, since you often feature quite colorful botanical-themed pictures, and I often have no clue what color the flowers are.

            And last week, in fact, I made a comment in a diary of yours that joked about the "fiscal cliff." My comment was even rec'd by eight of your pals:
            http://www.dailykos.com/...

            But today, when I saw the risible comment questioning Kos’ progressive bona fides, I couldn’t help but make a comment.

            Now, when you refer to me as being part of some "self-appointed Kos police," I actually find that offensive. Where do you get out of my simple comment that I’m attempting to "shut you down"? Exactly where would I have the power to do that, even if I wanted to (and I don’t)?

            How about I believe in the unlucky ones?

            by BenderRodriguez on Mon Dec 10, 2012 at 11:37:43 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Please (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ZhenRen, BenderRodriguez

              don't play dumb.   When you come in flinging the purity stuff, there is no question of what you are trying to do and while it doesn't raise anybody's blood pressure anymore like it once did, it's still an insult and it's the only reason that you came into the diary, as you admit.

              We welcome everyone in this diary series and that is sincere, and you know that because you have been here before and we enjoyed your visit and it was a friendly interaction and all that.  So we have proven that we don't discriminate in any way.  Everybody really is welcome. But the one thing, the only thing that we ask is that people don't just swoop into the diary with attacks and insults and though yours was mild, that's exactly what you did.

              So I do hope that you come back again, and you can post anything you want as long as it's not an attempt to insult or start a fight with somebody in our comment thread. That's it. That's all we ask.  We've had people come in and argue on substance, and that's welcome and all good. We've had people come in and post big pictures of President Obama with yaybama type messages and that's welcome too, and it's all good, as long as it's not an attack on anybody.

              So really, I do hope that you come again and join us in the future but let's keep it to a friendly thing just for this one place.  We can battle it out on issues in plenty of other places.  


              "Justice is a commodity"

              by joanneleon on Mon Dec 10, 2012 at 12:01:51 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  I think a bigger issue (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          joanneleon, BenderRodriguez, Ginger1

          regarding "purity" is the purity of loyalty to a party which seems to be more valued than the purity of ideals.

          The need for the occasional compromise anyone can understand; we all make little compromises every day of our lives.

          But when a political party engages in wholesale capitalization of almost all of its ideals, that isn't compromise, its corruption of the core philosophy to serve instead greed, profiteering, and gain for an elite that gets into political power.

          Most of the executive branch cabinet level officials, and most of the senate and the house, are millionaires.

          The slow creep of capitalization to Wall Street has been going on for decades, and has become so complete that the average Dem citizen has accepted this state of affairs as the norm. And those of us who say, "Wake up! Please become aware that this is out of control!" are not the purists in this situation. The purists, rather, are the party true followers who have confused pragmatism with outright complicity.

          "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

          by ZhenRen on Mon Dec 10, 2012 at 09:43:03 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  I made some comments... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          joanneleon, BenderRodriguez

          in another diary about the group of "journalists" who met with Obama, and who have remained silent of the meeting, which suggests being quiet about what was discussed was part of the deal.

          While I didn't really mean to come off as attacking Markos, I suppose some might take it that way. My remarks were clumsy.

          What bothers me about that meeting is that it is, once again, the elites having access to power (in return for silence), with the privilege of engaging in discussions about the fate of the nation and the planet, while the rest of us peons sit in the dark. It's reminiscent of the notion in earlier history of "representative democracy" in which only propertied male, white fat cats could vote, or of the senate membership, which was once made by appointment so that the common unwashed rubble could be kept out of the company of the wealthy, elite, presumably wiser souls who have better idea of how to govern.

          I know that the rationale some offered is that it is the same as a reporter getting information "off the record." But that is too easy as an explanation, because it ignores the the underlying quid pro quo that will always be an inextricable part of such access to power. This  wasn't an off the record discussion with some run-of-the-mill public figure. We're talking about the guy who has an arsenal of nukes at his finger tips.

          I would surmise the contents of that discussion was something like this: The mostly rich journalists were told that the administration's game plan is to raise taxes on the wealthy, but to try to hold the line on SS and Medicare, and that all the public comments made about cuts to the safety net are just posturing for purposes of negotiation. They were told to be patient, that Obama is doing the best he can in the face of Republican obstruction, blah, blah, blah.

          And the journalists all nodded their heads, dutifully signalling they "understand" the need for pragmatism in the process.

          It isn't only money that can be a bribe. It is also the exchange of favors, such as, Obama will let them all feel important and coddled, but to continue getting such access one had better be "reasonable." Let's not be naive. Of course this is implicit. It must feel amazing to be accepted as one of that lofty club that gets access to the White House. I've seen in my life all too often the affects on self esteem and egoism when people receive such flattery. No amount of inoculation protects most individuals from letting that kind of enormous recognition affect their views.

          If they were all truly representative of the poor and middle class, would they all agree to silence? I'll say this: Imagine if occupy were to have sent a representative to such a meeting (not that I am under the illusion they would ever be invited). In the spirit of Occupy and its ideals (not kowtowing to power and Wall Street) that representative would be expected to report to the people exactly what transpired. If that transparency were not allowed, no representative would be sent. And the reason they would refuse such stipulations is because Occupy rejects the status quo hierarchical approach. They wouldn't tolerate only one member having access to information, while the rest are left to guess.

          Good journalists used to keep a certain degree of distance from the objects of their reports. But when the journalists are now as rich or richer than the rich politicians they would write about, the whole notion of journalism is corrupted. How can it be trusted?

          (To be clear, I don't know if Markos is rich, and I assume he isn't. But most of the ones I saw on the list were well paid TV personalities).

          "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

          by ZhenRen on Mon Dec 10, 2012 at 11:39:59 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Isn't it common practice for presidents... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ZhenRen

            to meet, persuade, and curry favor with journalists? I assume this has gone on since the presidency of George Washington.

            I wasn't alive during JFK's presidency, but obviously he did a terrific job with the media, seeing how they turned a constant blind eye to what apparently was his ceaseless philandering.

            Honestly, I don't see the problem in various MSNBC folks, Kos, and others meeting with President Obama, and we can only guess as to what happened during their meeting.

            Who knows? Maybe they're all in the same fantasy football league.

            Seriously, though, it's laughable to question the liberal/progressive bona fides of Rachel Maddow and Kos, isn't it?

            Again, we can only surmise, but who's to say Occupy folks haven't met with Obama? My view of the Obama White House is that it leaves nothing to chance, so I would suspect that when the Occupy movement was gaining steam and seemed to have real momentum about a year ago, the White House took notice and meetings were held with Occupy representatives.

            How about I believe in the unlucky ones?

            by BenderRodriguez on Mon Dec 10, 2012 at 12:11:23 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  There are no official representatives (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ZhenRen, Ginger1

              for Occupy.

              There were attempts by some to elect delegates (or appoint themselves) to meet and negotiate with members of Congress but that was rejected.

              There are no elected representatives for Occupy.  They do have spokes councils, facilitators, working groups.  Press contact is handled by a working group for the original NYC group but other than that (and I think they are limited in how much they can "speak for" Occupy as well) there is nobody to meet with.  If the president wanted to talk to Occupy, he could come to a general assembly and get on stack and propose whatever it is he wants, or he could go to a general assembly and sign up to speak his piece.  

              And it's not laughable for different individuals to decide where on the progressive spectrum they think that people like Maddow or kos are.  And the whole progressive label is vague to begin with.  It has no formal party with a specified platform and different people have different definitions of what a progressive is.  We know what Progressives were in the early and mid part of the last century but today's progressives are largely undefined.  Probably the only thing that could be said definitively about modern progressives is that people use the label to avoid the "liberal" label that was disparaged for several decades so much that a lot of people grabbed onto something new.

              If we are using the previous Progressive party or faction as a measuring stick, then most of today's "influential progressives" don't come close on issues of war, civil liberties or economics.  Not even close.


              "Justice is a commodity"

              by joanneleon on Mon Dec 10, 2012 at 12:26:22 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I agree with you on the word "progressive." (0+ / 0-)

                Words such as liberal, progressive, even conservative no longer have any meaning because they seem to mean different things to different people.

                I find it kind of annoying, actually, especially when someone uses "liberal" or "conservative" in a knee-jerk, disparaging way. I don't think "progressive" has an immediately negative connotation yet, but I'm sure it will in time.

                If the Occupy movement has no official representatives, as you claim, my question for you is, "Why?"

                Time will tell, of course, but it strikes me as odd that a movement would be leaderless, and I just can't help but think that it's not as leaderless as you claim. Someone's running the show somewhere along the way.

                How about I believe in the unlucky ones?

                by BenderRodriguez on Mon Dec 10, 2012 at 02:24:18 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  You can't envision a leaderless movement (0+ / 0-)

                  because you're not informed about how this works, and hierarchical organization is all you know.

                  It works through community sharing of the decision making process. Every human being has a right to determine the course of her or his existence. And this can be accomplished through communal approach to making important decisions. It isn't necessary to have a king or chief to tell us how to live. We can discuss issues, through a process of consensus, to decide how to go forward. We don't need dictators.

                  There are of course, voices of clarity that stand out in any movement. Such voices, however, are not "in charge" but rather find influence by consensus. It is different from a society that appoints leaders by propagandistic campaigns every few years, in which people can lie or say nearly anything in order to sway voters.  It is far more enlightened, and it works, when people are dedicated to make it work.

                  "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

                  by ZhenRen on Mon Dec 10, 2012 at 05:06:39 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Oh my (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              BenderRodriguez

              So, simply being "common" is enough to justify corruption of the press, or the gamesmanship of the rich and influential? That is a blatant logical fallacy.

              Sure it's common practice. That does not make it beyond criticism. The fact that it is common gives even more reason to object. If it were rare, I doubt it would be a controversy.

              And no, it isn't laughable to question the "bona fides" of any journalist. MSNBC is known for its partisanship and its rather unquestioning bias in favor of the President . And Kos would ban anyone who supports a third party.

              One can't claim to be progressive if one supports nearly anything offered by the party they would support. Being a progressive requires a certain degree of adherence to progressive policy more than purity of loyalty to party personalities. And that requires a certain amount of independence to achieve.

              If one ignores such things as human rights abuse, war crimes, kill lists, violations of international law, hints to cut the social safety net, and constant appeasement to Wall Street, all so as not to inconvenience a sitting democratic president, one's support of progressive policy is compromised.

              Maddow has mostly been a shill for the President.

              As to your comments about Occupy, you really ought to get some experience with the movement before presuming to speak as if knowledgeable. Occupy is based on transparency and a horizontal, non-hierarchical approach. So far, we don't have representatives in the traditional sense, for the most part, and if we did, they would be required to report to the group of their activities. If they refused to do so, and held the position as if a trusted elite, they would be immediately subject to recall and would be replaced. It is a movement without rulers and bosses, and thus we don't have secret negotiations going on between elites. We have no elites.

              "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

              by ZhenRen on Mon Dec 10, 2012 at 12:36:56 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Journalism (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                ZhenRen

                I think that Glenn Greenwald gives some really good insight on journalism and citizen journalism in this interview. The whole thing is good but I particularly like the part that starts at the 2:35 mark:

                Same with this interview with Jeremy Scahill.  Again, all of it is  great to listen to but especially beginning at the 6:00 mark on journalism.

                What we are seeing from the front page here and now with Maddow too and other MSNBC personalities is not journalism.  It is advocacy.


                "Justice is a commodity"

                by joanneleon on Mon Dec 10, 2012 at 12:58:10 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I can't see your videos... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  joanneleon

                  but I agree with you that Rachel Maddow is an advocate, not a journalist.

                  MSNBC has emerged as the answer to Fox, but, in fairness to Maddow, I've never caught her in a lie or manipulating video or perfoming any of the other shenanigans that Fox does on a daily basis. So, yes, she's an advocate pushing an agenda, but at least she's not a liar.

                  I haven't listened to NPR on a regular basis for years, as I used to do, but from what I remember they were the best, as far as mainstream journalism went, at being fair and truly journalistic. That may or may no longer be the case, but at least it used to be.

                  How about I believe in the unlucky ones?

                  by BenderRodriguez on Mon Dec 10, 2012 at 02:30:33 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Same here (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    BenderRodriguez

                    I used to rely on NPR.  

                    But over the past decade they have shifted more and more to the right and in general have degraded.  I hardly listen to them at all anymore except for shows that I want to listen to in the car.  It's really a shame.  I now cobble together my news via internet video news segments  like DemocracyNow and a number of others, and I rely on foreign press for a lot of my news like Reuters, Guardian, AJE, et al.  


                    "Justice is a commodity"

                    by joanneleon on Mon Dec 10, 2012 at 04:18:57 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site