Skip to main content

View Diary: BREAKING: Office of the Director of National Intelligence Statement (217 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Obervations (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TheMomCat, quagmiremonkey, DeadHead

    (1) I see quite a bit of right wing arguments here being passed off as progressive. I saw a diary earlier, unrelated to this issue, about Cuomo of New York pushing for a "free tax zone" which is actually a rightwing ploy that if someone took 10 seconds to Google it would know that. I guess my point is that there is nothing unique about this diary in the sense of right wing frames. I don't think that its reducible to a few. Probably not the majority,b ut certainly significant. Of course, not be rude, some of this comes down to the ignorance of the speakers who may be passionable about politics, and likes their labels such "progressive" or "Democrat" whatever they think that means, but don't seem particularly interested in anything beyond winning. Which is odd to me only in the sense that they personally aren't winning unless they are shills since most of the policies being pushed don't benefit the vast bulk of Americans.

    (2) The general impression I get from other sites when this site comes up is that it has jumped the shark. There were always fights, but the "reality based" party however weak it was in the past is now even weaker.

    (3) Frankly I think there is a sizeable number of Americans whether they are Republican, Democratic Independent or whatever that's so indoctrinated from the last 40 years that they are pretty much ready and primed for an authoritarian take over. They clearly aren't interested in democracy as far as actually using that word as its defined no matter what they label it.

    I also think that there are a sizeable number who are like me- tired. So, we don't do much to change things because frankly we look around asked what exactly are we trying to save?

    Here's a question- even if you win all of this- if you get the NSA's tactices out in the open and in front of the courts, do you think you can win?

    •  on 1 (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      quagmiremonkey, DeadHead

      yes, we are a big tent, so we see what to me is too much right wing garbage. but it's still the minority, and we are a big tent.

      on 2, i think that as long as we have fpers like armando, bbb, hunter, joan, laura, mb, shanikka and others, we'll be fine. the community itself will improve right around january 2017...

      and 3, yes- i think the authoritarian tendencies are obvious. i've been quoting dostoyevsky's grand inquisitor, not to mention kafka, lately. ionesco also comes to mind.

      can we win? i don't know. i do know that two friends of mine got legally married today, and just a generation ago that would have been a far-fetched dream. i do know that this country started with slavery encoded in the constitution, that the first two presidents wanted to end free speech and a free press when the nation was still in its diapers, and that what we now know as our national borders were defined partially through policies of genocide. people in this country have been overcoming seemingly impossible odds literally since day one. can we win? i don't know. i do know that we can't afford to stop trying.

      The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

      by Laurence Lewis on Sun Jun 16, 2013 at 10:31:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  In reverse order (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TheMomCat, quagmiremonkey, DeadHead

        (1) Those are cultural wins. Not economic, and at its heart, the privacy issue is really about an industrial complex that makes money off of fear. White working class voters and some white professionals may think the industrial complex cares about cultural issues, but the truth is whether for or against, its a side note. not the main attraction. Here's the reality: As Senator Warrent points out- our courts have become more corporate and business friendly, not less. this is including "liberal" senators who will vote for gays to have the right to marry while voting for corporations having the right to screw us over, including gays. on economic issues that affected us all. This is true across the board- whether in the Congress, the Presidency or the Courts. We are losing economic ground because of structural changes, but also because of the fact that  we should be moving towards a stronger welfare state as those structural changes are happening. That's about as likely to happen as a unicorn.

        (2) Kafka mixed with Orwell and a mix of Brave New World

        (3) I am not so sure about 2017. I think they will transfer this to the wider party. Theya re true believers.

        •  and 3 (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          quagmiremonkey, DeadHead

          true believers, but necessarily in the party. i have zero doubt that many would follow their hero into the republican party, if he decided to switch. not all, but many.

          2) yep.

          1) even on the economy, think about where we were in the first gilded age. we certainly made huge strides from there, but now, since carter deregulated the airlines, and then the full assault that began with reagan, we've been regressing. if not stopped, i do think it will reach a breaking point. we have elected some genuine progressives in the past several years, and hopefully that will continue. but people stripped of economic basics won't put up with it forever. the questions then will involve numbers and how sophisticated and aggressive will be the means of repression. i hope enough people in washington will be forced to wake up before we start answering those questions.

          The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

          by Laurence Lewis on Sun Jun 16, 2013 at 10:55:51 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Economy (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            TheMomCat, quagmiremonkey, DeadHead

            How can you solve a problem you don't even understand?

            You aren't in the economy of the 20s, or 50s, or even 80s.

            We are a post industrial economy in which robots (yes I know that sounds sci fi, but it really isn't- we have reached a flexition point where tech such as this is destroying jobs more than replacing them), high productivity, global competition, and a million other things means basing economic security on jobs will increasingly be a mistake.

            Each sucesssive recession the job market for average Americans has gotten worse.

            Any policy coming out of DC that doesn't createa s tronger welfare state on the economic front isn'tlikely to change thinks that much.

            I also don't have you faith that you've elected progressives,w hatever that means, who will actually fight for policy reform that's going to change much

            Finally I do not share your faith in the American public. they are likely to choose facism as they are to choose healthier strategies. People are more likely in fct to make bad decisions understress than goood ones

            •  to simplify it (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              k9disc, quagmiremonkey, DeadHead

              i think people might accept fascism as long as their economic needs- and some of their wants- were sated. that was one of the fears and arguments against the new deal, from that era's more radical left. but unless it reverses, the economic warfare has reached a level where radicalization will become inevitable. i don't think radicalization necessarily will turn out well, but i do think upheaval will become organic, widespread, and impossible to stop. at that point, i would not predict where it would end.

              The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

              by Laurence Lewis on Sun Jun 16, 2013 at 11:09:42 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I would not either (0+ / 0-)

                It can go good or bad.

                Basically I think the solution is a stronger welfare state because we already have 5 billion people and only 3.5 billion jobs on the planet, or something like that- I know the difference is  a scale of a billion jobs needed to take up the slack

                On top of that, we are going to have more people and we are probably going to have fewer jobs. That's just where things are heading technologically (eg- in 50-100 years- all of manufacturin as we know it may not exist at all)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site