Skip to main content

Do you know this feeling waking up in the morning and remembering the glimpses of happiness your dreams leave behind in your mind and make you get up smiling?

By the time you took your shower, hustled to work and turn on the radio … reality sinks in and the dream has vaporized into the fogs of your memory. Yep, no mercy with my dreams, they got their reality check promptly. That is what happened to me, as was to be expected, this morning listening to my beloved "Democracy Now" show.

Now, I need your help, because I, on the one side, respect both of the two men’s view points, I listened to this morning at Democracy Now, on the other side, I hate that I never can make up my mind, where I stand between the two sides. Because … that’s just the way it is. If I am honest with myself, I agree with both of them. But that leaves me somewhat paralyzed.

Amy Goodman (my female role model in journalism) had these two guests on her show this morning:

Michael Eric Dyson, professor of sociology at Georgetown University. He is a political analyst on MSNBC and Glen Ford, a longtime journalist and executive editor of BlackAgendaReport.com.

Their responses to the Obama’s speech at the convention couldn’t be more heated and opposing each other. Let me say, that I am grateful to have been able to listen to this broadcast. I value both sides’ view points and the fact that I can’t make up to make up my mind is difficult for me to accept.

So, this is to ask you for help making a decision about it, who is more right than the other of the two.

Here (starting at TC 17:16) are the introductory statements by Dyson and Glen Ford:

MICHAEL ERIC DYSON: Well, it was—it was electrifying, in the sense that Obama had before him the task of repudiating all of the myths and the lies and the deceptions and the deliberate distortions generated just a week earlier in the Republican convention, but also to rally the base, so to speak. And various aspects of that base had been either disaffected because they felt that they were marginal or that his progressive agenda that he had initially articulated had not come to fruition, but many of them had been chastened by the intransigence of a Republican Congress that refused to acknowledge anything of word that the man could put forth. So he’s operating in a very difficult zone. So he’s got to organize his resistance to the Republicans, galvanize the base, give a speech flowing enough in poetry but rooted enough and public policy. Starting with Michelle Obama a couple nights before that and then Bill Clinton himself, in his vintage form, Obama, I think, took the baton and ran the last leg, and did so with aplomb, with verve and with oratorical flourish.

AMY GOODMAN: Glen Ford, your assessment?

GLEN FORD: Well, it certainly isn’t the sports-like assessment that I just heard from the good doctor. But we at Black Agenda Report have for some time been saying that Obama is not the lesser of evils, but the more effective evil. And we base that on his record and also on his rhetoric at the convention. So, we would prefer to talk about what history-making events have gone down under his presidency.
He’s, first of all, created a model for austerity, a veritable model, with his deficit reduction commission. He’s introduced preventive detention, a law for preventive detention. He’s expanded the theaters of war in drone wars, and he’s made an unremitting assault on international law.And I think that possibly the biggest impact, his presidency—and I’m not talking about his—all this light and airy stuff from the convention, but actual deeds—I think probably what will go down as his biggest contribution to history is a kind of merging of the banks and the state, with $16 trillion being infused into these banks, into Wall Street, under his watch, and the line between Wall Street and the federal government virtually disappearing.

Well, that made me almost drive my car in the ditch. My ears were literally shell-shocked and the following discussion just was outstanding. Please listen to it. There is much more than the transcript on the website so far is giving you.

Just because I know that many foreign listeners from around the world would  not have many problems to support the view points of Glen Ford, I think this discussion is worth paying attention to.  

PS. The transcript of the whole exchange is not yet available. I can't write a decent diary. I wished someone would pick it up and write a better summary of both men's points of view.

I have to work and can't respond very easily to any comments you might have.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Seems like a false debate (6+ / 0-)

    The question was about the Convention.  Dyson answered straight up, and discussed what issues were at stake at the convetion, and the like the POTUS had to walk.  Ford didn't say a word about the convention, he went after the President's record.  That is certainly worth debate, but that wasn't the subject at hand.

    Minority rights should never be subject to majority vote.

    by lostboyjim on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 09:45:10 AM PDT

    •  but the subject will come up (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JTinDC

      and I don't think Amy invited both of them just to say that Glen Ford was "off topic".

      I understand if you don't want to discuss it before the elections are over, but that doesn't make the issues go away.

      •  What is your problem, really? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        eataTREE, gramofsam1

        I mean, I just don't get the level of indecisiveness here. One view is rooted in a realm of the real, on the ground choices we have and the other is based on the restructuring of political parties that is at best, a bell curve fringe view.  It's a great philosophical debate, but we don't have the luxury to engage ourselves in low percentage solutions. The mere fact that we have up to 40% of the American voting public who would vote clearly against their own interest to appease their tribal fixations is compelling enough for me to set aside this Obama is an effective evil meme because if that were really the case, then we are hopelessly doomed with no way out.

        I tend to have more hope than that.

        "No, I'm being judged against the ideal. Joe Biden has a saying: 'Don't judge me against the Almighty, judge me against the alternative." --President Barack Obama, 12/11/11

        by smoothnmellow on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 10:35:42 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I have no problem at all ... :) (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JTinDC
          One view is rooted in a realm of the real, on the ground choices we have and the other is based on the restructuring of political parties that is at best, a bell curve fringe view.  It's a great philosophical debate, but we don't have the luxury to engage ourselves in low percentage solutions.
          Relating to foreign policies, war policies, international law violations etc. the US has more choices than it claims. And so called bell curve fringe views have equal weight in their votes as much as the centrist votes of that curve. Why are you so afraid of fringe votes. They are fringe so they shouldn't scare you to the point that you have to give them NO weight.

          But in your system they have not the same weight, it seems.

  •  Both men's views (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mimi, stevej, GussieFN, tardis10, burlydee

    can be true -- and are. Obama (and Clinton) stirringly presented a vague we're-all-in-this-together liberal message that rallied Democrats, who are unified in their opposition to Republicans, but that also concealed the reality of Obama's Democratic Party, which is deeply militaristic and tied to Wall Street, and which did some bad things that a GOP president wouldn't not have been able to do, at least without stirring up a shit-storm among Dems. (I wouldn't use the word evil, because I don't think in those terms.)

    •  We are all (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tardis10

      chicken-hawk corporatists now seems to be the current theme. I do prefer the Dems on the other stuff though.

    •  so, do you think that the timing of (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tardis10, JTinDC

      promoting Glen Ford's views is hurting the intentions of the Obama messages he gave in his address? Or do you think Ford's positions have no chance to be "accepted" by a large enough group of people in the US, so that they just will be denied any attention ?

      What drives me nuts in your electoral system is that Ford's views have no political party platform. In a parliamentary system, he would be heard clearly, as there would be an third, fourth and other electable party supporting his side.

      The compromise between his views and such of Dyson's would happen after the elections. If supporters of Ford's criticism would win a seat in parliament they would have their influence however minimal perhaps, but they would not go down under.

      That's something which irritates me a lot here in the US system. Here any critical voices are discarded as being negligable, just because everybody fears taking them into account would hurt the vote for the "lesser evil".  And that I think is so wrong with your system.

      •  Well that's just it. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mimi, burlydee, gramofsam1

        Ford's solution, as is some other progressives is that we need a party to reflect his views that are not beholding to corporate structure.  The reality is that in this country, people aren't ready or willing to abandon the political structure that we currently have.  Hell, half of America's eligible voters don't even vote.  Maybe if Ford has success in convincing them to join his movement, then maybe he will get somewhere, but not with the folk who are currently aligned with our two party system.

        "No, I'm being judged against the ideal. Joe Biden has a saying: 'Don't judge me against the Almighty, judge me against the alternative." --President Barack Obama, 12/11/11

        by smoothnmellow on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 10:48:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  You accept Ford's framing (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gramofsam1, elmo, Cedwyn

      that one way or the other, Obama is evil? whether lesser or more effective?

      Ds see human suffering and wonder what they can do to relieve it. Rs see human suffering and wonder how they can profit from it.

      by JTinDC on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 10:09:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah, this is kind of the flip side (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        tytalus, JTinDC, Cedwyn

        of Colbert's "George Bush- great president or greatest president?"
        Except this isn't funny.

      •  I am not interested in frames ... and don't care (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JTinDC

        for their wording, as they always are attention-hunting, but that's about it. Of course Obama is not evil. It's ridiculous for you to assume that just by listening to Ford's viewpoints, I support a stupid frame created for the purpose to get my ear.

        I don't want to neglect the actual criticism, just because someone "frames" them with sensationalistic words that plays with your emotions.

        Both sides, left, right, and center, do that all the time. Why should I be more sensitive against "frames from the left" than I would be with "frames of the moderates"?

        You can't look beyond an obviously sensationalist frame?

        •  You highlighted the portion of his words (4+ / 0-)

          accusing the president of being "a more effective evil."

          What was your purpose in doing that?

          And, by the way, I see Ford's critique of the President as about as accurate as Clint Eastwood's, although I do give Ford credit for being coherent, unlike Clint.

          •  I didn't highlight that, Ford did. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JTinDC

            And Ford made it clear why he said that.

            Why do you ask me for my motivations to post this diary ?

            I don't ask you for your motivations to discard Ford's criticism in comparing them to Clint Eastwood.

            My motivations, if I had specific ones to begin with, was to point to view points of people, who are disregarded by many, before they even had made an effort to listen to them.

            If you don't want to listen to them, fine. Don't listen, but don't declare other people, who do want to listen to them, as having "suspicious" motivations.

            •  Sorry (0+ / 0-)

              but I think you misunderstand me. By "highlight" I meant you bolded the text. You went through and bolded specific portions of the interview. When I follow your link to the text of the interview, those portions are not bolded. You did do that yourself, right?

              And I am still interested in hearing what your motivation was, what you thought might be accomplished.

              And, by the way, asking a question is not accusing you of  suspicious motivations, which you put in quotations as if I actually accused you of that. I think if you take a look at my comment, you will see that there is no such word  there.

              I will freely offer my motivation in pointing out that Ford's critique is inaccurate: I believe facts matter in our public discourse, and I think there are far too many people in the public sphere today who are lazy and sloppy with them.

          •  ok, I see now where I highlighted that in the (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JTinDC

            quote and Understand what you were referring to. I just highlight because I suspect that most people don't read longer quotes to the end. It didn't have any meaning other to make sure you catch the context of the quote in the title.

        •  Backpedal much? (nt) (0+ / 0-)

          Visit Lacking All Conviction, your patch of grey on those too-sunny days.

          by eataTREE on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 11:08:52 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  mimi, I didn't suggest you did. my reply was (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mimi

          ro mizner's comment.

          Ds see human suffering and wonder what they can do to relieve it. Rs see human suffering and wonder how they can profit from it.

          by JTinDC on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 11:58:14 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  This Topic is For November 7th. (10+ / 0-)

    Our immediate choice is between surrender vs probable defeat. It's only 2 more months and then with the acute crisis past we can see if anybody has any ideas for establishing a responsible democracy south of Canada.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 09:54:16 AM PDT

    •  I agree, as indicated in my question (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mannie, JTinDC

      to david mizner.

    •  I agree. What's infuriating (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mimi

      is that at the point when we have the most power to express disapproval of certain policies--in the months leading up to an election, and while casting our ballots--we very sensibly are least willing to use that power, because the alternative is so very, very much worse.

      Those who care about these issues will lose all leverage to affect them after November 7th. And yet still ... you're right.

      Losing on austerity, drone wars, preventative detention, the preferential prosecution of whistleblowers instead of the people who committed the crimes they're whistling about ... all of those loses are worth it, considering the Republicans.

      "Gussie, a glutton for punishment, stared at himself in the mirror."

      by GussieFN on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 10:13:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  So start hammering the shit out of issues on Nov 8 (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        tytalus, G2geek, mimi

        Ds see human suffering and wonder what they can do to relieve it. Rs see human suffering and wonder how they can profit from it.

        by JTinDC on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 10:16:42 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Sure: and lose. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mimi

          That's exactly what I expect people will do, despite knowing it's a fool's errand. On November 8, nobody needs the wild-eyed idealist crazies who care about this shit.

          It's like saying, 'After you sign the employment contract, then ask for a pay raise.' It just doesn't work that way. People for whom these issues matter will get curb-stomped.

          The alternative, however, is so much worse that there's really no reason to object right now. That's just the reality.

          "Gussie, a glutton for punishment, stared at himself in the mirror."

          by GussieFN on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 10:25:22 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Another plausible alternative (7+ / 0-)

            is to work for changes like those through Congressional elections. A more liberal Congress will demand more of the change we want, and allow Obama to compromise further in their direction than to appease the current crop of tea-soaked nutbags.

            "If God dropped acid, would he see people?" -- Steven Wright

            by tytalus on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 10:33:34 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yeah, that works sometimes. But often (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mimi, tytalus

              the same dynamic plays out there. Like we'll support GWB-supporter and Independent Angus King in Maine instead of a Democrat. Go Manchin! That's just life. There's no reason to pretend (amongst ourselves) that Obama hasn't dropped the ball on some big issues, as long as we still work like crazy to re-elect him. The 'lesser of two evils' means exactly the same thing as 'the greater of two goods.' Only Manichean (sp?) Republicans don't see that, I think.

              Of course that 'amongst ourselves' is doing a lot of work there ...

              "Gussie, a glutton for punishment, stared at himself in the mirror."

              by GussieFN on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 10:40:45 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Lesser of two evils (3+ / 0-)

                means understanding that neither of one's choices look perfect, acknowledging such 'dropped balls' as are there. Although it is interesting the way you seek to define Angus King via one (real damn stupid) action rather than consider more of his record. But you got me curious, and learning about him was interesting.

                "If God dropped acid, would he see people?" -- Steven Wright

                by tytalus on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 11:01:10 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  He's very much in the (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  mimi

                  Snowe-Collins tradition of Maine 'moderation.' Republican with a smiling face. Against raising the minimum wage twenty-five cents and--well, this pretty much sums him up. If I still lived there, I'd vote for him instead of the Democrat, just like so many Dems vote for Cutler instead of Mitchell--and we got LePage. I learned my lesson. I'll vote for bad over worse every time.

                  "Gussie, a glutton for punishment, stared at himself in the mirror."

                  by GussieFN on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 11:12:45 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

  •  It's pretty late in the game (11+ / 0-)

    to spend a morning kneecaping the president.

    •  What is the meaning of kneecaping ? /nt (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JTinDC
      •  The applicable meaning in this context is (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gramofsam1, virginislandsguy, Anima, mimi

        to strike a low blow not allowed by the rules of fair combat.

        If you are the President's ideological opponent, you need to own that and admit it. And you need to admit that the consequences of opposing President Obama are likely to be the election of President Mitt Romney, with everything that entails for the United States and the world at large. And you need to realize that if you are ideologically opposed to the election of President Obama, you are in ideological opposition to the great majority of the people here on this website.

        Instead you come here telling us that Obama is evil and going to give the power of the Federal Government away to the big banks, but insist you're still our ally and how dare we suggest that the anti-Democratic propaganda you come bearing is harmful to the cause? Basically, you are hear to sandbag us without declaring your opposition: hence, a low blow, a kneecapping. Another phrase we use to describe this situation is "concern trolling".

        I like how you keep running away from the actual words that YOU QUOTED IN A POSITIVE CONTEXT IN YOUR DIARY. If you thought that they were sensationalistic or described the issues poorly (and they are and they do), why'dja write a diary about how we need to listen to them? You argue from both sides of your mouth.

        Visit Lacking All Conviction, your patch of grey on those too-sunny days.

        by eataTREE on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 11:43:36 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Sorry, but I've spent enough of my life listening (15+ / 0-)

    to "moral purity" leftists who don't have a good thing to say about any politician who works within "the system" or tries to compromise with the other side. What do the luminaries at the "Black Agenda Report" assert that Obama should have done about the collapse of the banking industry, Al Queda, or America's spiraling budget deficit? Are there real, feasable solutions that the President could have reasonably chosen, that they would have been happy with? Or, having themselves up as the "righteous critics" of all the perceived evils of Western Civilization, were they prepared to reject anything Obama did out of hand as being more of the same from the same "evil" system?

    Yes, radical leftists don't like Obama. In fact, they hate Obama, because in pushing moderate-liberal policies that have a real impact on the problems that matter in people's lives, Obama makes radical solutions (from ANY end of the spectrum) less attractive. So no, you are not going to hear a ringing endorsement of Obama from them: Remember, the only person the extremist hates more than the opposing extremist, is the moderate.

    When the Far Left starts advancing policy solutions that actually are policy solutions rather than hypocritical moral grandstanding, I'll start listening to them. In the meantime I turn extremists -- from EITHER side of the spectrum -- off of my radio.

    Visit Lacking All Conviction, your patch of grey on those too-sunny days.

    by eataTREE on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 10:00:31 AM PDT

    •  WELL SAID! n/t (8+ / 0-)

      Never underestimate stupid. Stupid is how reTHUGlicans win!

      by Mannie on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 10:07:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I don't support putting someone's views down (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JTinDC

      as "moral purity" leftists. It's a no-no way of arguement imo. I can understand that his criticism of how Obama has handled the collapse of the banking industry is a bit ... illusionary.... but in other areas he is "on target" in many ways in the mind of many non Americans. Of course Americans can afford to just "not listening" to those. They are not dependent on those "other non Americans", a condition they have never gone through.

      Bullying someone down as "righteous critic of all the perceived evils of Western Civilization" is ridiculous, if a majority of other civilizations in the world think that the criticism is justified and politically necessary.  Unless people of opposing view points go to war, they all end up making compromises in reality, that doesn't mean that you can't make the opposing view points clear in discussions and take them seriously.

      •  Citation needed. (2+ / 0-)

        First, that a "majority of other civilizations" or even "many non Americans" agree with this guy. That is a bare assertion on your part for which you've provided no evidence. For that matter, one is tempted to ask why the opinion of "other civilizations" and "non Americans" is important with respect to domestic American policy. Even if "non Americans" from "other civilizations" did broadly agree with the "Black Agenda Report", (a proposition I find dubious) the truth is not a function of majority opinion or popularity contest.

        There is nothing whatsoever that obliges me to take the opinions or ideology of radical leftists seriously. Their ideas are unrealistic and, as I have said, rooted in a desire to engage in moral grandstanding. Their messengers engage in dishonest debate, and much like their counterparts on the right, their arguments consist of unsupported appeals to fear. (Merging of the banks and state! Obama will disappear the Federal Government!)

        I don't support defending one's ideas by taking personal offense when those ideas are attacked, but at least I'm aware that I don't in fact get to tell other people what to do or how to argue. I find that false comity and an appeal to "niceness" is the first refuge of those with weak ideas that won't stand the light of rational scrutiny. Also, you are making your agenda somewhat apparent here: though your story is framed as "I heard this on the radio, what do you guys think?", you clearly have a leftist agenda and are actually here to tear Obama down. Which makes you dishonest and disingenuous; I'll take being a "bully" (laughable), thanks.

        Visit Lacking All Conviction, your patch of grey on those too-sunny days.

        by eataTREE on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 11:04:46 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Oh Lordy ... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JTinDC

          1. I can make bare assertion and base my personal opinions on anectdotal experiences. It should be obvious that I am an older non American with lack of proper facts, research and power of wording. No need to put me down because of it. You can't give evidence for the opposite of what I asserted. So, we are even.

          2. "Other civilizations" are important, because the US is involved in influencing them through their policies, if to the better or to the worse is in the eye of the beholder. Do you have the capability to look at the effects of US policies through the eyes of peoples of "other civilizations"? I would doubt it. But you could make an effort, if you wanted to. And btw I put quotation marks around my words, because I know I lack of better words to express what I can't.

          3. "Non Americans" are important, because they are dependent in their livelihood and security on what the US policies are. You think they are not important to you, because the US policies so far, and Americans themselves, are NOT dependent on non-Americans?  Americans have never had the experience to "kiss ass" to non Americans, never have been bombed on their own soil and quite clearly a lack of experiences to be not a super power but a dependent and a victim. The only time you became a victim was at 9/11 and in Pearl Harbor.

          4. Why do you care about moral grand standing of the left, if you moral grandstand your own opinion in a similar fashion?

          5. I don't understand your last paragraph. My English isn't good enough for it. I have absolutely no agenda whatsoever. I have very weak ideas, sure, I wouldn't have written this diary, if I had stronger ones. I think I wouldn't have posted a question, if I were clear about the answers. So what? Rational scrutiny? You provided it in your response? I don't see it.

          6. I have a leftist agenda, because I like to listen to Democracy Now and hear voices that I can't hear anywhere else? I have to ask, what does it mean to have an agenda? Is it something dangerous or suspicious? I am an agenda-less person with a mind that sometimes thinks about the things that surround me in my life. Any problem with that?

          7. I am here to take down Obama? Oh well, what else should I have expected to hear? So sorry that I started this comment. I love Obama more than any politician I have known in my life. Get over it.

          •  D'accord, parlons français.... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mimi

            que tu ne peut pas blâmer les problemes linguistiques pour ton rhétorique fallacieuse.

            Les anecdotes ne sont pas le même chose que de données. Et le charge de la preuve incombe à la personne qui déclare un fait. Si tu veux affirmer que les plupart des gens d'autres pays sont d'accord avec l'extrême gauche, tu as besoin de le prouver.

            On ne peut pas dire que les gens ou les pays d'autres n'ont pas importance générales. Et en plus, c'est vrai que les actions des États-Unis ont un effet sur le reste du monde. Tu peut avoir des opinions sur les politiques Américaines, je ne me fâche. Mais tu me dis que je dois croire la politique extrême gauche seulement parce qu'elle est populaire avec les "non Americans" et les "other civilizations" (pas si populaire que tu dis, je pense, moi). Même si c'est vrai, ce n'est pas une raison suffisante en soi pour adopter les croyances de l'extrême gauche. Il souffre de préjugés anti-américains, et ne peut pas voir quelques choses de bon aux Etats-Unis, seulement les mauvais choses; il y a une bonne raison pour un Américain à se méfier de l'extrême gauche. Si tu veux d'argumenter cette cause, tu as besoin des arguments plus forts que "Nous elle croyons; pourquoi pas vous?"

            Je ne fais pas le "moral grandstanding". Le différence première entre l'extrême gauche et le libéralisme pragmatique est que nous pensons d'abord à des mesures concrètes, pour aidez les gens maintenant. C'est l'extrême gauche qui fait la pleurnicherie sur le Mal, et attaque les dirigeants qui essaient d'améliorer les choses pour travailler dans (et avec) un monde imparfait. À appeler Barack Obama mal et dire qu'il veut fusionner le gouvernement et les banques, et ne proposer pas aucune des autres solutions en dehors des politiques d'Obama: ça c'est montrer les pretentions morales pour la galerie.

            Tu as une arrière-pensée à gauche parce que tu prétends aimer Barack Obama, mais tu arrives lendemain de sa nomination pour réélection, et écrire une article en lui appelant "mal" et lui accuser de vouloir mettre fin au Medicaire et au Sécurité Sociale. Si tu es vraiment un "agenda-less person", tu ne devis pas penser beaucoup aux conséquences de vos actions. Mais ne suis pas sûr que je te crois; je crois que tu es un propagandiste de la gauche ici pour l'attaquer Obama. Et je crois que tu comprends bien ce que vous dites, et pourquoi nous sommes répondu de cette façon.

            Visit Lacking All Conviction, your patch of grey on those too-sunny days.

            by eataTREE on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 02:38:21 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  why do you think I am French speaking? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              eataTREE

              I am German. It's in my profile. What's that all about?

              Should I answer to your French comment in German?
              I think I won't be that impolite. So let me just say this:

              Si tu veux affirmer que les plupart des gens d'autres pays sont d'accord avec l'extrême gauche, tu as besoin de le prouver.
              I didn't say the are "les plur part des gens d'autres pays sont d'accrod avec l'extreme gauche". I said "if a majority of other civilizations in the world think that the criticism is justified and politically necessary." That doesn't mean that the majority in other countries support the view points of the extreme left. What this says is just that in most countries open leftist criticism is not something that needs to be oppressed or ridiculed in a democracy, nor is it to be feared a priori. That is something very different as you try to suggest. You are trying to bully me for having written about the view points of someone, whose political view points you find unacceptable. First of all you can find them unacceptable, but you can't bully me for having written about them. That's two different things. And whereas I accept the formert, I don't accept the latter.
              Mais tu me dis que je dois croire la politique extrême gauche seulement parce qu'elle est populaire avec les "non Americans" et les "other civilizations" (pas si populaire que tu dis, je pense, moi). Même si c'est vrai, ce n'est pas une raison suffisante en soi pour adopter les croyances de l'extrême gauche.
              Again you twist the meaning. Would you quote me with my English sentence where I said you need to believe in the policies of the extreme left, because they are popular with non-Americans? If at all I suggest it is reasonable or advisable at least to listen to those, which doesn't mean you have to believe in them. I doubt that in France or Germany a person who writes a little diary about a discussion between someone who criticizes Obama from the left and someone who defends him would have been accused of having done something bad. So, I think you are overblowing your assumptions about my intentions.
              il y a une bonne raison pour un Américain à se méfier de l'extrême gauche. Si tu veux d'argumenter cette cause, tu as besoin des arguments plus forts que "Nous elle croyons; pourquoi pas vous?"
              I asked a question. I didn't give an argument. Your response to my question, is not to give reasons, why Americans must be cautious in trusting the extreme left, but to say "why are you even ask this question?"

              Why? Because I like to understand it.

              Le différence première entre l'extrême gauche et le libéralisme pragmatique est que nous pensons d'abord à des mesures concrètes, pour aidez les gens maintenant. C'est l'extrême gauche qui fait la pleurnicherie sur le Mal, et attaque les dirigeants qui essaient d'améliorer les choses pour travailler dans (et avec) un monde imparfait. À appeler Barack Obama mal et dire qu'il veut fusionner le gouvernement et les banques, et ne proposer pas aucune des autres solutions en dehors des politiques d'Obama: ça c'est montrer les pretentions morales pour la galerie.
              Well, I can understand that you find those viewpoints bizarre. To call them "pleurnicherie" (whining cry-baby so to speak) is as overblown as calling Obama 'the more effective evil". Just by writing about Glen Ford doesn't mean I support that formulation. There are ponts in his arguments, especially vis a vis war policies, foreign policies and international law that have nothing to do with "pleurnicherie".
              Tu as une arrière-pensée à gauche parce que tu prétends aimer Barack Obama, mais tu arrives lendemain de sa nomination pour réélection, et écrire une article en lui appelant "mal" et lui accuser de vouloir mettre fin au Medicaire et au Sécurité Sociale.
                 

              You make assumptions about me that I reject. You have no reason to come up with those. I didn't call Obama bad or evil, others used that wording, not me. I put a question mark behind the title of my diary and asked for your opinion about it. I didn't ask for being accused by quoting Glen Ford to be a supporter of his wordings, nor all of his political view points. That's reading assumptions into my comment.  

              Si tu es vraiment un "agenda-less person", tu ne devis pas penser beaucoup aux conséquences de vos actions. Mais ne suis pas sûr que je te crois; je crois que tu es un propagandiste de la gauche ici pour l'attaquer Obama. Et je crois que tu comprends bien ce que vous dites, et pourquoi nous sommes répondu de cette façon.
              Believe what you want. So, Amy Goodman is also a "propagandiste de la gauche" for attacking Obama, because she invited Glen Ford into a discussion ? I understand why you respond in your fashion very well and you are free to attack me for whatever reason, but certainly not for the reason that I am an attacker of Obama. That's an insulting assumption on my motivations that I resent point blank.

              I hope you are satisfied finding out if I understand French or not. What else do you like to know about me?

    •  you're simply not paying attention (0+ / 0-)
      He’s, first of all, created a model for austerity, a veritable model, with his deficit reduction commission. He’s introduced preventive detention, a law for preventive detention. He’s expanded the theaters of war in drone wars, and he’s made an unremitting assault on international law.  And I think that possibly the biggest impact, his presidency—and I’m not talking about his—all this light and airy stuff from the convention, but actual deeds—I think probably what will go down as his biggest contribution to history is a kind of merging of the banks and the state, with $16 trillion being infused into these banks, into Wall Street, under his watch, and the line between Wall Street and the federal government virtually disappearing.
      these are all things Obama chose to do...

      Obama chose Geithner & Summers & Bernanke (and Gates)

      Obama supports indefinite detention and evisceration of notions of justice and the rule of law.

      Obama chose to prosecute the very whistleblowers he praised as a candidate.

      Obama chose to assume the power to assasinate american citizens without due process of law.

      Obama continues to assert state secret privileges to deny justice to individuals who had their lives destroyed by illegal US actions...

      Obama chose to create Simpson-Bowles commission and is begging for an opportunity to enact a Grand Bargain which, on his own terms, will be represent a giant ass-f*cking for the middle class.

      as many have pointed out, Obama's self-professed policy prescriptions are to the right of Nixon.

      if there were such a thing as a non-insane republican, they would look just like Obama...

      i don't hate Obama.  he seems very nice, but many of his policies are wrong... morally and legally and, due to the fact they are coming from a Democrat, will have the effect of cementing what should be unacceptable republican polices into our nation.

      so YES, there are things he could have and should have done better and if you don't know what they are by now you clearly haven't been paying attention.

      No System of Justice Can Rise Above the Ethics of Those Who Administer It. (Wickersham Commission 1929)

      by No Exit on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 10:28:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  just to be clear. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        eataTREE

        obama's not evil and compromise is inevitable, but the criticism is not that he's compromised his positions, but that he is beginning from positions that are both wrong and republican.

        and, yes, he's better than r.money, and, yes, i plan to vote for him (again).

        but, no, i am not enthusiastic about voting for a man who openly proclaims his allegiance to a moderate republican platform and who is entrenching truly evil policies of torture, indefinite detention, assassination and government secrecy....

        No System of Justice Can Rise Above the Ethics of Those Who Administer It. (Wickersham Commission 1929)

        by No Exit on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 10:32:09 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I appreciate the clarification, and I'm glad you (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gramofsam1, JTinDC, mimi

          reject the ridiculous notion that Obama is evil. I will try to respond in a similarly even handed fashion.

          1) Yes, it is absolutely the case that Obama was and still is too close to the banking industry. However, I see this as being an area in which he has already been responsive to opposing political pressure and where he will continue to move in the right direction if we keep applying pressure. "I endorse Obama and find considerations of the question of whether or not he is evil to be almost offensively counterproductive" does not mean "I agree wholeheartedly with the man's every stance".

          2) Regarding drone strikes, indefinite detentions, and War On Terror issues generally: I perceive both the moral issue and the civil rights issue that has upset you guys here. There is a problem. The thing is, this modern state of affairs where the biggest military threat to our nation are groups of non-state actors holed up in remote and lawless corners of the world, is new, and we need to come up with a solution to it. W. Bush proved that the solution is not "invade every country where terrorists camp out, plus some other countries"; call me a heartless, imperialist warmonger if you will, but I'm not sure the best solution to the problem of terrorism in the modern world ISN'T to blow them up with aerial drones. It's still violence and warfare but the net misery caused to both sides seems markedly less. (Mind you, this maybe is where the Far Left and I part ways philosophically: I'm always for Less Misery because I believe we will never actually achieve No Misery.)

          Now, that being said, we need a legal framework where the President CAN order an anti-terrorist strike in a timely fashion, but CANNOT just order the death of anyone anywhere for any reason at any time. I don't know what that legal framework might look like, but I do know I haven't heard any ideas from you guys on the Left, who tend to be horrified by the very prospect that America might need to kill anyone, anywhere, ever.

          3) The bit about Nixon is basically just an anti-Obama talking point. Nixon inhabited an entirely different political universe than does Obama, and the range of options open to him was likewise utterly different. You guys on the Left seem to forget sometime that we still live in a democratic country where there has to be government by consensus, and a hundred million conservatives of various stripes are included in that consensus. And those conservatives have moved to the right since Nixon, who at any rate was one of their own and whom they trusted to implement many "liberal"-seeming policy initiatives. Obama enjoys no such happy set of circumstances; he has to deal with conservative hardliners who hate him and won't give him an inch. So I find the comparison to be inapt.

          4) That Obama is secretly itching to destroy Medicare and Social Security seems to me to be about equivalent to claims that he is secretly Muslim. Nothing in his public statements or political record supports the claim; to the extent that it has any source at all, it's based on leaked negotiations taken out of context. When negotiating, one makes a variety of statements and proposals, not all of which are deeply reflective of the true desires of your heart; this is why negotiators are diplomats and not purveyors of brutal honesty.

          I'm paying attention just fine, dude. I support Obama because -- wait for it -- I support Obama. I am not supporting him out of some lesser-evil calculus or because I like his smile. I know what the guy has done and I'm comfortable endorsing him. Don't fall into the radicalism trap of thinking there is something wrong with everyone not as radical as you are.

          Heh. Sorry for the novel. If you actually read through to the end, I'm flattered :D

          Visit Lacking All Conviction, your patch of grey on those too-sunny days.

          by eataTREE on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 12:08:13 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well I read through to the end- (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JTinDC

            and thank you- you've said what I'm feeling and you've said it better than I could.

          •  We are not that far apart... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            eataTREE, mimi

            And I hear what you are saying.

            1. We agree on the banking...

            2. On dealing with terrorists, you are dealin with law enforcement issues and strategies.  You don't invade a country... And you don't, in fact can't militarize the problem.  Again, there probably much we can agree on.

            3.  It's a cop out to say well Richard Nixon lived a different time.  It shows exactly how far the democrats have strayed from what they had to stand for.  I still support what they used to stand for and as Michael Moore points out most Americans still do.

            4.  I don't think Obama wants to eviscerate these programs and, yes, they need tending to, but the level of benefits hey currently provide are embarrassing for a country this wealthy and any reduction in benefits is unwarranted and unnecessary.  

            0

            No System of Justice Can Rise Above the Ethics of Those Who Administer It. (Wickersham Commission 1929)

            by No Exit on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 07:30:29 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Amen to that, and also.... (10+ / 0-)

      ....  as a leftie who's grounded in reality, it's clear to me that what we need to do is:

      1)  Send Obama back to the White House with a ferocious mandate.
      2)  Elect more better Democrats in the House & Senate.
      3)  Move the political center of gravity inexorably leftward.
      4)  Follow up with mass nonviolent protests that are strategically timed to mesh with other activities.

      In short, we have to be willing to really work for it.

      Thumb-bouncing doesn't cut it.  Yowling from the sidelines doesn't cut it.  Pontificating doesn't cut it.  Third parties don't cut it.  

      The way forward is to be as relentless as the flow of water, seeking out every crack and crevice, wearing down every obstacle in its path.  

      "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

      by G2geek on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 10:44:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Third parties would cut it, if they were given (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        tytalus, burlydee, JTinDC

        a chance in your electoral system. They have no chance by design of the system. That's most probably the only problem I have.

        Otherwise I agree with you very much.

        •  the whole third party issue is toxic as hell here (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          tytalus, mimi

          .... and actively supporting third party candidates for national office is a bannable offense thanks to Nader 2000.  

          However I think it could be useful to have third party and independent candidates running for local offices, at the same time as having lefties taking over the local Democratic Party county committees.  

          That combination would enable the Democratic Party committees to move to the left, and when it starts there, it percolates up to the level of state and national races.  

          "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

          by G2geek on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 02:17:04 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Classic conundrum (7+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tytalus, Mannie, tardis10, mimi, No Exit, elmo, Cedwyn

    It reminds me of conversations with friends in 1968 and in 2000 who predicted that the election of the blatantly WORSE of the two evils put forth by the major parties would  result in a major reaction AGAINST what they represented and how they would rule and FOR progressive policies.   How'd that work out?

    To go back further historically, I'm reminded of the internecine warfare among progressive/left parties in Weimar Germany.   Which worked out even worse.  

    My personal solution:  Work for &/or contribute to truly progressive candidates (there are SOME -- e.g., Capuano & Warren where I come from) and vote for the lesser of two IMMEDIATE evils when you have to (i.e., when it might affect the electoral college outcome) but not when you don't have to (e.g., where I come from).  (Of course, I have to admit that's worked out easy for me personally -- I'm 65 & have voted for a Dem only TWICE for Pres. &, of course, never a Rep.  Someone who lived in, say, VA would've had to have held his or her nose a lot more often.)  

  •  That Ford insists on labeling Obama as evil (8+ / 0-)

    should answer your question, mimi. Just because Obama hasn't solved every issue the way we would like for it to have been solved and ignore the good he has done and then call him evil? C'mon. That's childish.

    We can be critical. We can be disappointed. But calling the president evil is just patently ridiculous and I personally find it difficult to muster the energy to have a conversation with or listen to the ravings of anyone who talks such utter nonsense. That's no different from tea baggers claiming he's a secret Mulsim terrorist.

    Ds see human suffering and wonder what they can do to relieve it. Rs see human suffering and wonder how they can profit from it.

    by JTinDC on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 10:06:04 AM PDT

    •  ok, but you have to admit that someone (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JTinDC

      who calls the vote for Obama a "lesser evil" is still talking about some degree of "evilness".  So, all of it is just  to hyper up the differences to get listened to. The left voice in America is shrill for a reason.

      If someone mistakes me posting this diary as being a supporter of people who think Obama is evil then I just give up. I am disappointed in some of Obama's decisions, but, oh my golly, can you imagine a life without disappointments? They are the salt of life, no? I am very happy with a lot of Obama's actions. Why should this even be a problem?  

      Strangely enough the wording in political discussions in the US is always sensationalistic and over-emphasizing to the point of ridicule. Why?

      Because nobody really cares about other people's thoughts and doesn't think he has to listen? Why is it that the US is the only country I know of that has constantly to deny the left a voice and need to ridicule them? Nobody in Germany or France would lift a finger to put some leftists down as "moral purity" hawks. They just wouldn't vote for them, if they didn't agree with them and that's it. But at least you COULD vote for them in a parliamentary democracy if you wanted to. Here you can't and that's why the people here in the US have shrill voices. Why aren't you ashamed of your lack of democratic process in your electoral system?

      •  Pardon me, ma'am (1+ / 0-)

        but it is Glen Ford who came up with the 'more effective evil' for Obama, i.e. just as evil as Romney but better at it. That is clearly worse than the 'lesser of two evils' concept.

        While you're complaining about the ridicule and sensationalism in our political rhetoric, please understand that you're arguing with folks who agree with you. It's just that in this case, the ridicule came from the left -- and you chose to emphasize it.

        "If God dropped acid, would he see people?" -- Steven Wright

        by tytalus on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 10:51:46 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I am not sure I understand you (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          tytalus, JTinDC

          yes, of course Ford came up with the expression of "more effective evil" for Obama. It's a damning formulation, for sure, annoying and irritating.

          That's why I think one should listen to why he came up with that formulation. And because this came from the left and at a time and place where nobody likes to hear the "internal" damning opinions from the left among the Democrats, doesn't mean that I emphasize it, but also shouldn't mean that I am an evil person to just write a diary about it.

          •  Putting that where you did emphasized it (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mimi, JTinDC

            That's all. I chose not to address motive (good/evil), because I wasn't sure. It's a subtle difference between asking questions to annoy folks, and just asking them, not meaning anything by it. Based on your other comments I am inclined to believe you meant no offense. But perhaps you can see why some folks might have seen it that way, from the emphasis.

            I checked your link, and read more of the transcript -- came away kind of disgusted with Glen Ford, but then I already knew enough about him to be disgusted (shrug). I share much of Ford's frustration with the policies he cites, but when Michael Eric Dyson repeatedly tries to elicit answers, solutions, he gets none.

            Will Ford admit, for example, that Obama is about as progressive as we can get elected President right now? Will he get involved in governing or just attack? Will he choose powerless idealism or doing something as opposed to nothing? And Dyson gets back waves and waves of unrelenting criticism, no answers, no solutions. Just a Platonic ideal of liberalism that can barely get a few seats in the House, much less get in the White House.

            Thankfully I get to vote for one of those House reps, Raul Grijalva.  :)  I'd put money on Glen Ford being able to find fault with him too, though.

            I am still critical of the President, but that problem is why I ceased to be 'a critic.'

            "If God dropped acid, would he see people?" -- Steven Wright

            by tytalus on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 12:33:08 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I think the only differences we have is in (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              JTinDC, tytalus

              the amount of being upset over Ford's opinions. It's clear I am a foreigner. I have difficulties to understand the, at least for me, unbelievable amount of fear or distgust for anything that comes from the hard left among moderate progressives and democrats. To me it's irrational. And my suspicion is that the whole thing just developed to be the case, because any third party votes cause by design of your electoral system the danger that the "less evil" person doesn't get elected into office.  

              The only reason why I really wanted to post this diary is, because I believe average Americans don't know how foreigners think. Or may be in general don't give a damn about it. And in the end I think that is a danger. But that's just me. And I am just an average non american housewife sitting at the kitchen table trying to understand my neighbors next door.

              •  About the party/primary system... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                mimi

                I think you're right, and it seems particularly prone to abuse here in Arizona, where fake candidates intended to siphon votes away have become fairly common. Russell Pearce used one last year to try to save himself from a recall.

                For my part, what distrust I may feel towards some fellow liberals, I think I explained above. I would like to think that it's rational, but I could be wrong.

                "If God dropped acid, would he see people?" -- Steven Wright

                by tytalus on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 02:07:26 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  Evil is a charged word. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        tytalus

        Best to save for referencing the GOP.

        As for the shrill voices of the left, they are relatively new to me, over the last 3 years, and they've been shrill about Obama, never about the GOP that I've seen so that's been hard to take. Because I'm very pleased with the big improvement and the shrill left comes across as impatient brats. I try to be more understanding, but 2 mos from election day is tough.

        Things have been really screwed up, deeply screwed up, for a really long time. So much so there may be things Obama can't fix anytime soon or may be can't fix at all. I'll be thankful for what he's able to do and trust he'll do as much as he can.

        I look forward to seeing what can be done with a progressiive president who has solid progressive housa and sen majorities with no filibuster to get in the way. If we could get and hold that for 4-6 years we could really get some stuff done. If we had that chance and blew it? Then the shrill left would have another voice to add to their ranks.

        I love the way you describe France and Germany. It is shameful that Dems have allowed the GOP to make a mockery of our system of government. Their lack of spine and blind dedication to collegiality have contributed greatly.

        Ds see human suffering and wonder what they can do to relieve it. Rs see human suffering and wonder how they can profit from it.

        by JTinDC on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 11:54:11 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  ~~~~~~~~~ (3+ / 0-)

    Who names their pony Monty?

    by bubbanomics on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 10:19:12 AM PDT

    •  I don't know what you try to say with this (0+ / 0-)

      is my diary so terribly evil that you have to shoot me for it?

      •  ? (6+ / 0-)

        silly picture for,  IMHO, a silly diary.  No shooting (or evil, on your part or Obama's) involved.  

        Who names their pony Monty?

        by bubbanomics on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 10:32:39 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I admit that being silly appears to be (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bubbanomics, JTinDC

          a feature of my brain sometimes, especially if it's confused by American political talking heads from the right and left, that means always all the time.

          You think I could become a US citizen with such silly thoughts? I am just trying the waters here, you know.

          Yesterday night I decided to become a US citizen and with my heart for the underdogs, which usually tends to be more left-leaning ,at least from where I come from, I just need to know ... you know... if I am too wrong-lefted for the people, who decide if I am a good enough American loving patriot to become one of yours.

          You think I have to erase my diary ?

           

          •  oh, no, you don't have to erase. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mimi, tytalus

            I think you'll find that many of Obama's most ardent supporters consider themselves to be to the left of him (and many by a goodly margin).

            not sure there's a good-enough-American-loving-patriot test?  Were it written by the right, this blog would not exist.  As Bill Murray said in stripes "We're Americans. mutts. we got kicked out of all the good countries" or something like that.  Don't worry about it.

            The comment above mine is perhaps the best explanation.  stick around.  it's an e-ticket ride around here.

            Who names their pony Monty?

            by bubbanomics on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 12:30:40 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  You aren't silly, mimi, and neither are your (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mimi, tytalus

            thoughts. And I can sure see why our politics seem silly to you because they seem silly to me too. Well, maybe more sad than silly.

            Ds see human suffering and wonder what they can do to relieve it. Rs see human suffering and wonder how they can profit from it.

            by JTinDC on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 01:11:11 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I agree on the sad part with you ... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              JTinDC

              but I was very happy yesterday, and I knew, it wouldn't last long. I am just too easily sad. I have not this ability like many Americans have to just get high on running for my dreams.  The fact is that I still feel very foreign to this country and that it is not easy for me to hancle. Thanks for your kind words.

              •  I'm sorry I didn't mind my tone better (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                tytalus, mimi

                in my initial comment. It's been an emotional week. Things went well at the convention and the mood has been pretty positive here at DKos, but a few diaries popped up that looked like they might derail the good spirit, whiich freaked me out.

                I didn't realize there was quite the language/culture barrier, and on top of that, one of my teeth was giving me fits at the time I came into the diary and if I don't pay attention, pain can make me snippy. If I'd been in a better frame of mind and no pain I'd have taken a much kinder tone.

                I also should have made a point of sharing with others that I had the pleasure of meeting you face to face at the DC/MD/VA meet-up in SS last month. Had I not come into your diary being able to put a face with a user ID I may not have cared as much about tone at all, poor reflection on me, but worse would be the hurtfulness to the lovely person you truly are. Our country is a better place for having you in it..

                Ds see human suffering and wonder what they can do to relieve it. Rs see human suffering and wonder how they can profit from it.

                by JTinDC on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 02:26:58 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Oh really, now I can't put a face to your (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  JTinDC

                  handle. What a pity. :-)

                  I apparently don't sound that "extreme leftist and dumb" in real life, as I do if I post comments here. Or may be people realize that I just can't understand them because I am "foreign" and are so polite not to say what they think about me.  

                  Where were you sitting ? May be we meet again in another meet-up and I just can express myself a little bit better about what sometimes irritates me and have a hard time with.

                  What it comes down to is that I think people like Glen Ford shouldn't arouse so much negative feelings among Democrats. May be I just don't understand how this need for unity against the real enemy, the GOP policies, is so big, that any controversy among Democrats would trigger such a strong reaction with the intent to silence or ridicule people like Glen Ford. It's the system that makes it so, not your personal opinions. At least that's how I explain it to myself.

                  And my tone isn't much kinder too. If someone comes down hard on me when I don't see what I have done wrong, I respond not that nicely either.

                  Why not rather talk about how to bring the critics like Glen Ford into cooperation with the Dysons of the Democratic Party? Are you really afraid that the Republicans will use those internal debates to divide you? I mean,  you think Republicans can do that successfully? Under theses circumstances I would understand your opposition to even mention other voices like Glen Ford's, but then I have a hard time to believe the Republicans could just be so successful in their divisive efforts. That may be just my naivety.

                  Anyhow, nice to have met you without knowing who you are ... :)

                  •  I was the guy with the pony tail, glasses, and a (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    mimi

                    fresh scar with stitches on my left cheek. We didn't get a chance to talk directly to each other, but we had exchanged a couple comments the week before the meet-up.

                    Ds see human suffering and wonder what they can do to relieve it. Rs see human suffering and wonder how they can profit from it.

                    by JTinDC on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 06:17:27 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Also (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    mimi

                    You bring a really fantastic fresh perspective to the table. I appreciate what you've had to say and I've learned a lot from it.

                    As for the Republicans and how we react to them, I'll tell you, mimi, they are an evil crafty bunch and yes, believe it or not, there are ways they've messed with our heads and made us really suspicious even of each other. It gets out of hand, way out of hand.

                    What freaks some of us out is there are some who think it would be better for Obama to lose so things would get so bad that it would spark a revolution. But most on the far left aren't that extreme, thank goodness.

                    Anyhow. look forward to seeing you at our next meet up.

                    Ds see human suffering and wonder what they can do to relieve it. Rs see human suffering and wonder how they can profit from it.

                    by JTinDC on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 06:42:13 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I am looking forward to seeing you again too (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      JTinDC

                      as for those "revolutionaries" ... imagine you would go to Germany and had to judge some "revolutionaries" and if they are dangerous, ridiculous or reasonable leftist leaning people. I guess it would not be as easy for you to distinguish between them as for someone local like me. Same way it's not easy to judge for me here who is who. It's just tough.

  •  As we approach the election (10+ / 0-)

    increasingly people on the Far Left (and I include myself in that designation on most days) will be increasingly upset as they see Dems rally behind Obama.  Many times. they will turn their anger at Dem voters who they cast as sheep.  I see three basic problems with their criticisms.  

    1.  They never present a viable alternative besides dropping out of the system.

    - the problem is this is people aren't going to take a blind leap of faith into the unknown.  

    2.  They don't recgonize that a vote for the president isn't a total endorsement of his policies

    - calling everyone a sucker and an obamabot b/c they support the President is a funny way to garner support.  It also fails to recgonize that other people can see the contradictions in the president's own policies but simply choose to resolve those contradictions differently within themselves.  

    3. They continually fail to acknowledge the major differences in the parties instead focusing only on what they see as what the parties agree on.

    - And by doing this they alienate many of the people with whom they could ally because they simply won't acknowledge the real problems outside of there sphere.

    I will believe a 3rd party or left wing challenge to the current party structure is serious when they start running down ballot candidates in races they can win.  Support the CBC and the Progressive Caucas in the house.  Add to their numbers.  Try to get a few greens elected.   Sitting back and bitching about the system has accomplished nothing in the last 40 years.  

  •  They overestimate the power of shrill. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eataTREE

    You hit it with perfect pitch.

    Ds see human suffering and wonder what they can do to relieve it. Rs see human suffering and wonder how they can profit from it.

    by JTinDC on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 02:35:15 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site