OT – Who will run for President on the Republican side?

[eavesdropper]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=pri_dk]
Pri: This is just hilarious. So, if I’m reading this correctly, only “qualified” candidates need apply to hold the levers of government and the media should only give airtime to those “serious” enough to merit it…..Pick up a book on US History and read up on the utterly bizarre cast of characters that have made up this country’s elected officials and then come back and talk about Christine O’Donnell. Was she bugshit crazy? Yup. Did she every right to run for office? Yup. Its America, Chico, and if you wore a uniform, that is EXACTLY what you were willing to die for.

I don’t condone the nonsense emanating from the Radical Right, anymore than I condone it from the Loony Left. It is what simultaneously makes this country great, while periodically debilitating us, too. Underneath all the screaming and hysterics right now, the system is actually functioning just the way its supposed to.[/quote]

Allan, I don’t have an issue with people like O’Donnell or Palin or Bachmann running for office, or even with the media affording them exposure. What I do object to is journalists treating them with kid gloves, and the manner in which they present them as serious, qualified candidates who are on the same level as their opponents. As far as I’m concerned, when I see journalists and media outlets justifying a candidate’s refusal to answer legitimate campaign-related questions, or going along with their Twitter-only communication policy, or not calling a candidate out on an obvious falsehood, or smoothing over a candidate’s lack of knowledge in matters relating to foreign policy and the U.S. economy, or explaining away statements that are just plain batshit in nature, they’re acting as the candidate’s public relations representative, not as journalists responsible for reporting the news.

If the potential for disaster wasn’t so significant, it would have been funny to read the articles and reports on the above candidates, and observe the way in which the press/media presented them as qualified and high-functioning individuals. What is even more disgusting is the clearly favorable treatment afforded these ladies. Don’t believe it? Then someone needs to explain to me why Alvin Greene didn’t get the amount and the quality of MSM exposure that O’Donnell and Angle did. Instead, his candidacy was treated as a hilarious joke by the press, who focused on his lack of funds and backing, and his seeming inability to communicate, rather than on his platform, which, IMHO, was no more batshit than those of O’Donnell and Angle (hey, that is not an endorsement….of ANY of them).

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=eavesdropper]
Allan, I don’t have an issue with people like O’Donnell or Palin or Bachmann running for office, or even with the media affording them exposure. What I do object to is journalists treating them with kid gloves, and the manner in which they present them as serious, qualified candidates who are on the same level as their opponents. As far as I’m concerned, when I see journalists and media outlets justifying a candidate’s refusal to answer legitimate campaign-related questions, or going along with their Twitter-only communication policy, or not calling a candidate out on an obvious falsehood, or smoothing over a candidate’s lack of knowledge in matters relating to foreign policy and the U.S. economy, or explaining away statements that are just plain batshit in nature, they’re acting as the candidate’s public relations representative, not as journalists responsible for reporting the news.

[/quote]

Eaves: Let me turn this a little on its head, if I may.

You make a very valid point, but can we go a step further?

During the Obama Presidential campaign, he railed fervently against torture and the erosion of American civil liberties, specifically Gitmo and the two Patriot Acts. He also promised to close Gitmo and repeal the Patriot Acts. Clearly none of this has happened and, actually, we’ve seen a marked increase in various “sub rosa” activities, none of which bode well for privacy and civil liberties.

Shouldn’t this merit FAR more attention in the media than it does? It isn’t incorrect or inappropriate to point out that the MSM got positively dewy and moist over Obama during the campaign and much of that luster still remains. There really haven’t been hard questions on those programs and policies that continue to exert a very deleterious effect on American rights and liberties and it does beg the question: Why?

So, yes, your point about McDonnell et al is well taken, but what about the MSM and their nearly complete incuriosity about issues carrying far more weight than whether or not O’Donnell was a witch?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=eavesdropper]
Allan, I don’t have an issue with people like O’Donnell or Palin or Bachmann running for office, or even with the media affording them exposure. What I do object to is journalists treating them with kid gloves, and the manner in which they present them as serious, qualified candidates who are on the same level as their opponents. As far as I’m concerned, when I see journalists and media outlets justifying a candidate’s refusal to answer legitimate campaign-related questions, or going along with their Twitter-only communication policy, or not calling a candidate out on an obvious falsehood, or smoothing over a candidate’s lack of knowledge in matters relating to foreign policy and the U.S. economy, or explaining away statements that are just plain batshit in nature, they’re acting as the candidate’s public relations representative, not as journalists responsible for reporting the news.

[/quote]

Eaves: Let me turn this a little on its head, if I may.

You make a very valid point, but can we go a step further?

During the Obama Presidential campaign, he railed fervently against torture and the erosion of American civil liberties, specifically Gitmo and the two Patriot Acts. He also promised to close Gitmo and repeal the Patriot Acts. Clearly none of this has happened and, actually, we’ve seen a marked increase in various “sub rosa” activities, none of which bode well for privacy and civil liberties.

Shouldn’t this merit FAR more attention in the media than it does? It isn’t incorrect or inappropriate to point out that the MSM got positively dewy and moist over Obama during the campaign and much of that luster still remains. There really haven’t been hard questions on those programs and policies that continue to exert a very deleterious effect on American rights and liberties and it does beg the question: Why?

So, yes, your point about McDonnell et al is well taken, but what about the MSM and their nearly complete incuriosity about issues carrying far more weight than whether or not O’Donnell was a witch?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=eavesdropper]
Allan, I don’t have an issue with people like O’Donnell or Palin or Bachmann running for office, or even with the media affording them exposure. What I do object to is journalists treating them with kid gloves, and the manner in which they present them as serious, qualified candidates who are on the same level as their opponents. As far as I’m concerned, when I see journalists and media outlets justifying a candidate’s refusal to answer legitimate campaign-related questions, or going along with their Twitter-only communication policy, or not calling a candidate out on an obvious falsehood, or smoothing over a candidate’s lack of knowledge in matters relating to foreign policy and the U.S. economy, or explaining away statements that are just plain batshit in nature, they’re acting as the candidate’s public relations representative, not as journalists responsible for reporting the news.

[/quote]

Eaves: Let me turn this a little on its head, if I may.

You make a very valid point, but can we go a step further?

During the Obama Presidential campaign, he railed fervently against torture and the erosion of American civil liberties, specifically Gitmo and the two Patriot Acts. He also promised to close Gitmo and repeal the Patriot Acts. Clearly none of this has happened and, actually, we’ve seen a marked increase in various “sub rosa” activities, none of which bode well for privacy and civil liberties.

Shouldn’t this merit FAR more attention in the media than it does? It isn’t incorrect or inappropriate to point out that the MSM got positively dewy and moist over Obama during the campaign and much of that luster still remains. There really haven’t been hard questions on those programs and policies that continue to exert a very deleterious effect on American rights and liberties and it does beg the question: Why?

So, yes, your point about McDonnell et al is well taken, but what about the MSM and their nearly complete incuriosity about issues carrying far more weight than whether or not O’Donnell was a witch?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=eavesdropper]
Allan, I don’t have an issue with people like O’Donnell or Palin or Bachmann running for office, or even with the media affording them exposure. What I do object to is journalists treating them with kid gloves, and the manner in which they present them as serious, qualified candidates who are on the same level as their opponents. As far as I’m concerned, when I see journalists and media outlets justifying a candidate’s refusal to answer legitimate campaign-related questions, or going along with their Twitter-only communication policy, or not calling a candidate out on an obvious falsehood, or smoothing over a candidate’s lack of knowledge in matters relating to foreign policy and the U.S. economy, or explaining away statements that are just plain batshit in nature, they’re acting as the candidate’s public relations representative, not as journalists responsible for reporting the news.

[/quote]

Eaves: Let me turn this a little on its head, if I may.

You make a very valid point, but can we go a step further?

During the Obama Presidential campaign, he railed fervently against torture and the erosion of American civil liberties, specifically Gitmo and the two Patriot Acts. He also promised to close Gitmo and repeal the Patriot Acts. Clearly none of this has happened and, actually, we’ve seen a marked increase in various “sub rosa” activities, none of which bode well for privacy and civil liberties.

Shouldn’t this merit FAR more attention in the media than it does? It isn’t incorrect or inappropriate to point out that the MSM got positively dewy and moist over Obama during the campaign and much of that luster still remains. There really haven’t been hard questions on those programs and policies that continue to exert a very deleterious effect on American rights and liberties and it does beg the question: Why?

So, yes, your point about McDonnell et al is well taken, but what about the MSM and their nearly complete incuriosity about issues carrying far more weight than whether or not O’Donnell was a witch?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=eavesdropper]
Allan, I don’t have an issue with people like O’Donnell or Palin or Bachmann running for office, or even with the media affording them exposure. What I do object to is journalists treating them with kid gloves, and the manner in which they present them as serious, qualified candidates who are on the same level as their opponents. As far as I’m concerned, when I see journalists and media outlets justifying a candidate’s refusal to answer legitimate campaign-related questions, or going along with their Twitter-only communication policy, or not calling a candidate out on an obvious falsehood, or smoothing over a candidate’s lack of knowledge in matters relating to foreign policy and the U.S. economy, or explaining away statements that are just plain batshit in nature, they’re acting as the candidate’s public relations representative, not as journalists responsible for reporting the news.

[/quote]

Eaves: Let me turn this a little on its head, if I may.

You make a very valid point, but can we go a step further?

During the Obama Presidential campaign, he railed fervently against torture and the erosion of American civil liberties, specifically Gitmo and the two Patriot Acts. He also promised to close Gitmo and repeal the Patriot Acts. Clearly none of this has happened and, actually, we’ve seen a marked increase in various “sub rosa” activities, none of which bode well for privacy and civil liberties.

Shouldn’t this merit FAR more attention in the media than it does? It isn’t incorrect or inappropriate to point out that the MSM got positively dewy and moist over Obama during the campaign and much of that luster still remains. There really haven’t been hard questions on those programs and policies that continue to exert a very deleterious effect on American rights and liberties and it does beg the question: Why?

So, yes, your point about McDonnell et al is well taken, but what about the MSM and their nearly complete incuriosity about issues carrying far more weight than whether or not O’Donnell was a witch?

[Arraya]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] Underneath all the screaming and hysterics right now, the system is actually functioning just the way its supposed to.[/quote]

I agree with this, but probably not in a much different way than you do.

The real division in America today is not between Democrats and Republicans, but between average citizens and the corporate and financial elite.

We have all become pawns and serfs in a game of pseudo democracy rigged by the corporate state.

No amount of massaging the propaganda line or finger pointing is going to be able to rectify the growing obvious discrepancy between what the bottom 80% experience every day and the media created fantasy world paraded across TV screens in dramas, sitcoms and mass media commercial culture. The future is coming into view and something has got to give.

[quote=eavesdropper]When I have a completely close-minded far-Right FoxNews true believer pull out the “elitist-intellectual-ivory tower academic” label, I tell them that I can’t help it if I’ve made a point of making education/the search for knowledge a lifelong pursuit, and I’m not about to apologize for it. [/quote]

What’s driving that narrative, Eaves? Go deeper.

All our political institutions are now being either overrun by, or co-opted by the dictates of the corporate and national security state. What are the liberals doing? Complaining about the “dumbing down” or lack of critical thinking of Americans. Well where did that come from, eh? They don’t wanna go there.

http://www.joebageant.com/joe/2010/12/america-y-ur-peeps-b-so-dum.html

If you hang out much with thinking people, conversation eventually turns to the serious political and cultural questions of our times. Such as: How can the Americans remain so consistently brain-fucked? Much of the world, including plenty of Americans, asks that question as they watch U.S. culture go down like a thrashing mastodon giving itself up to some Pleistocene tar pit.

One explanation might be the effect of 40 years of deep fried industrial chicken pulp, and 44 ounce Big Gulp soft drinks. Another might be pop culture, which is not culture at all of course, but marketing. Or we could blame it on digital autism: Ever watch commuter monkeys on the subway poking at digital devices, stroking the touch screen for hours on end? That wrinkled Neolithic brows above the squinting red eyes?

But a more reasonable explanation is that, (A) we don’t even know we are doing it, and (B) we cling to institutions dedicated to making sure we never find out.

As William Edwards Deming famously demonstrated, no system can understand itself, and why it does what it does, including the American social system. Not knowing shit about why your society does what it makes for a pretty nasty case of existential unease. So we create institutions whose function is to pretend to know, which makes everyone feel better. Unfortunately, it also makes the savviest among us — those elites who run the institutions — very rich, or safe from the vicissitudes that buffet the rest of us.

Directly or indirectly, they understand that the real function of American social institutions is to justify, rationalize and hide the true purpose of cultural behavior from the lumpenproletariat, and to shape that behavior to the benefit of the institution’s members.

Interestingly, both author Joe Bagaent, self described redneck socialist and Chris Hedges, liberal Author, former NYT writer, devout Christian and graduate of Harvard Divinity School both have come to the same conclusion. Liberals stopped being liberals 40 years ago. Hedges adds the the only difference between a liberal and conservative in todays America is a conservative has values worth fighting for.

Carlin said something to the effect of what the American ruling class DO NOT want is a nation of well informed, critical thinkers.

[Arraya]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] Underneath all the screaming and hysterics right now, the system is actually functioning just the way its supposed to.[/quote]

I agree with this, but probably not in a much different way than you do.

The real division in America today is not between Democrats and Republicans, but between average citizens and the corporate and financial elite.

We have all become pawns and serfs in a game of pseudo democracy rigged by the corporate state.

No amount of massaging the propaganda line or finger pointing is going to be able to rectify the growing obvious discrepancy between what the bottom 80% experience every day and the media created fantasy world paraded across TV screens in dramas, sitcoms and mass media commercial culture. The future is coming into view and something has got to give.

[quote=eavesdropper]When I have a completely close-minded far-Right FoxNews true believer pull out the “elitist-intellectual-ivory tower academic” label, I tell them that I can’t help it if I’ve made a point of making education/the search for knowledge a lifelong pursuit, and I’m not about to apologize for it. [/quote]

What’s driving that narrative, Eaves? Go deeper.

All our political institutions are now being either overrun by, or co-opted by the dictates of the corporate and national security state. What are the liberals doing? Complaining about the “dumbing down” or lack of critical thinking of Americans. Well where did that come from, eh? They don’t wanna go there.

http://www.joebageant.com/joe/2010/12/america-y-ur-peeps-b-so-dum.html

If you hang out much with thinking people, conversation eventually turns to the serious political and cultural questions of our times. Such as: How can the Americans remain so consistently brain-fucked? Much of the world, including plenty of Americans, asks that question as they watch U.S. culture go down like a thrashing mastodon giving itself up to some Pleistocene tar pit.

One explanation might be the effect of 40 years of deep fried industrial chicken pulp, and 44 ounce Big Gulp soft drinks. Another might be pop culture, which is not culture at all of course, but marketing. Or we could blame it on digital autism: Ever watch commuter monkeys on the subway poking at digital devices, stroking the touch screen for hours on end? That wrinkled Neolithic brows above the squinting red eyes?

But a more reasonable explanation is that, (A) we don’t even know we are doing it, and (B) we cling to institutions dedicated to making sure we never find out.

As William Edwards Deming famously demonstrated, no system can understand itself, and why it does what it does, including the American social system. Not knowing shit about why your society does what it makes for a pretty nasty case of existential unease. So we create institutions whose function is to pretend to know, which makes everyone feel better. Unfortunately, it also makes the savviest among us — those elites who run the institutions — very rich, or safe from the vicissitudes that buffet the rest of us.

Directly or indirectly, they understand that the real function of American social institutions is to justify, rationalize and hide the true purpose of cultural behavior from the lumpenproletariat, and to shape that behavior to the benefit of the institution’s members.

Interestingly, both author Joe Bagaent, self described redneck socialist and Chris Hedges, liberal Author, former NYT writer, devout Christian and graduate of Harvard Divinity School both have come to the same conclusion. Liberals stopped being liberals 40 years ago. Hedges adds the the only difference between a liberal and conservative in todays America is a conservative has values worth fighting for.

Carlin said something to the effect of what the American ruling class DO NOT want is a nation of well informed, critical thinkers.

[Arraya]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] Underneath all the screaming and hysterics right now, the system is actually functioning just the way its supposed to.[/quote]

I agree with this, but probably not in a much different way than you do.

The real division in America today is not between Democrats and Republicans, but between average citizens and the corporate and financial elite.

We have all become pawns and serfs in a game of pseudo democracy rigged by the corporate state.

No amount of massaging the propaganda line or finger pointing is going to be able to rectify the growing obvious discrepancy between what the bottom 80% experience every day and the media created fantasy world paraded across TV screens in dramas, sitcoms and mass media commercial culture. The future is coming into view and something has got to give.

[quote=eavesdropper]When I have a completely close-minded far-Right FoxNews true believer pull out the “elitist-intellectual-ivory tower academic” label, I tell them that I can’t help it if I’ve made a point of making education/the search for knowledge a lifelong pursuit, and I’m not about to apologize for it. [/quote]

What’s driving that narrative, Eaves? Go deeper.

All our political institutions are now being either overrun by, or co-opted by the dictates of the corporate and national security state. What are the liberals doing? Complaining about the “dumbing down” or lack of critical thinking of Americans. Well where did that come from, eh? They don’t wanna go there.

http://www.joebageant.com/joe/2010/12/america-y-ur-peeps-b-so-dum.html

If you hang out much with thinking people, conversation eventually turns to the serious political and cultural questions of our times. Such as: How can the Americans remain so consistently brain-fucked? Much of the world, including plenty of Americans, asks that question as they watch U.S. culture go down like a thrashing mastodon giving itself up to some Pleistocene tar pit.

One explanation might be the effect of 40 years of deep fried industrial chicken pulp, and 44 ounce Big Gulp soft drinks. Another might be pop culture, which is not culture at all of course, but marketing. Or we could blame it on digital autism: Ever watch commuter monkeys on the subway poking at digital devices, stroking the touch screen for hours on end? That wrinkled Neolithic brows above the squinting red eyes?

But a more reasonable explanation is that, (A) we don’t even know we are doing it, and (B) we cling to institutions dedicated to making sure we never find out.

As William Edwards Deming famously demonstrated, no system can understand itself, and why it does what it does, including the American social system. Not knowing shit about why your society does what it makes for a pretty nasty case of existential unease. So we create institutions whose function is to pretend to know, which makes everyone feel better. Unfortunately, it also makes the savviest among us — those elites who run the institutions — very rich, or safe from the vicissitudes that buffet the rest of us.

Directly or indirectly, they understand that the real function of American social institutions is to justify, rationalize and hide the true purpose of cultural behavior from the lumpenproletariat, and to shape that behavior to the benefit of the institution’s members.

Interestingly, both author Joe Bagaent, self described redneck socialist and Chris Hedges, liberal Author, former NYT writer, devout Christian and graduate of Harvard Divinity School both have come to the same conclusion. Liberals stopped being liberals 40 years ago. Hedges adds the the only difference between a liberal and conservative in todays America is a conservative has values worth fighting for.

Carlin said something to the effect of what the American ruling class DO NOT want is a nation of well informed, critical thinkers.

[Arraya]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] Underneath all the screaming and hysterics right now, the system is actually functioning just the way its supposed to.[/quote]

I agree with this, but probably not in a much different way than you do.

The real division in America today is not between Democrats and Republicans, but between average citizens and the corporate and financial elite.

We have all become pawns and serfs in a game of pseudo democracy rigged by the corporate state.

No amount of massaging the propaganda line or finger pointing is going to be able to rectify the growing obvious discrepancy between what the bottom 80% experience every day and the media created fantasy world paraded across TV screens in dramas, sitcoms and mass media commercial culture. The future is coming into view and something has got to give.

[quote=eavesdropper]When I have a completely close-minded far-Right FoxNews true believer pull out the “elitist-intellectual-ivory tower academic” label, I tell them that I can’t help it if I’ve made a point of making education/the search for knowledge a lifelong pursuit, and I’m not about to apologize for it. [/quote]

What’s driving that narrative, Eaves? Go deeper.

All our political institutions are now being either overrun by, or co-opted by the dictates of the corporate and national security state. What are the liberals doing? Complaining about the “dumbing down” or lack of critical thinking of Americans. Well where did that come from, eh? They don’t wanna go there.

http://www.joebageant.com/joe/2010/12/america-y-ur-peeps-b-so-dum.html

If you hang out much with thinking people, conversation eventually turns to the serious political and cultural questions of our times. Such as: How can the Americans remain so consistently brain-fucked? Much of the world, including plenty of Americans, asks that question as they watch U.S. culture go down like a thrashing mastodon giving itself up to some Pleistocene tar pit.

One explanation might be the effect of 40 years of deep fried industrial chicken pulp, and 44 ounce Big Gulp soft drinks. Another might be pop culture, which is not culture at all of course, but marketing. Or we could blame it on digital autism: Ever watch commuter monkeys on the subway poking at digital devices, stroking the touch screen for hours on end? That wrinkled Neolithic brows above the squinting red eyes?

But a more reasonable explanation is that, (A) we don’t even know we are doing it, and (B) we cling to institutions dedicated to making sure we never find out.

As William Edwards Deming famously demonstrated, no system can understand itself, and why it does what it does, including the American social system. Not knowing shit about why your society does what it makes for a pretty nasty case of existential unease. So we create institutions whose function is to pretend to know, which makes everyone feel better. Unfortunately, it also makes the savviest among us — those elites who run the institutions — very rich, or safe from the vicissitudes that buffet the rest of us.

Directly or indirectly, they understand that the real function of American social institutions is to justify, rationalize and hide the true purpose of cultural behavior from the lumpenproletariat, and to shape that behavior to the benefit of the institution’s members.

Interestingly, both author Joe Bagaent, self described redneck socialist and Chris Hedges, liberal Author, former NYT writer, devout Christian and graduate of Harvard Divinity School both have come to the same conclusion. Liberals stopped being liberals 40 years ago. Hedges adds the the only difference between a liberal and conservative in todays America is a conservative has values worth fighting for.

Carlin said something to the effect of what the American ruling class DO NOT want is a nation of well informed, critical thinkers.

[Arraya]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] Underneath all the screaming and hysterics right now, the system is actually functioning just the way its supposed to.[/quote]

I agree with this, but probably not in a much different way than you do.

The real division in America today is not between Democrats and Republicans, but between average citizens and the corporate and financial elite.

We have all become pawns and serfs in a game of pseudo democracy rigged by the corporate state.

No amount of massaging the propaganda line or finger pointing is going to be able to rectify the growing obvious discrepancy between what the bottom 80% experience every day and the media created fantasy world paraded across TV screens in dramas, sitcoms and mass media commercial culture. The future is coming into view and something has got to give.

[quote=eavesdropper]When I have a completely close-minded far-Right FoxNews true believer pull out the “elitist-intellectual-ivory tower academic” label, I tell them that I can’t help it if I’ve made a point of making education/the search for knowledge a lifelong pursuit, and I’m not about to apologize for it. [/quote]

What’s driving that narrative, Eaves? Go deeper.

All our political institutions are now being either overrun by, or co-opted by the dictates of the corporate and national security state. What are the liberals doing? Complaining about the “dumbing down” or lack of critical thinking of Americans. Well where did that come from, eh? They don’t wanna go there.

http://www.joebageant.com/joe/2010/12/america-y-ur-peeps-b-so-dum.html

If you hang out much with thinking people, conversation eventually turns to the serious political and cultural questions of our times. Such as: How can the Americans remain so consistently brain-fucked? Much of the world, including plenty of Americans, asks that question as they watch U.S. culture go down like a thrashing mastodon giving itself up to some Pleistocene tar pit.

One explanation might be the effect of 40 years of deep fried industrial chicken pulp, and 44 ounce Big Gulp soft drinks. Another might be pop culture, which is not culture at all of course, but marketing. Or we could blame it on digital autism: Ever watch commuter monkeys on the subway poking at digital devices, stroking the touch screen for hours on end? That wrinkled Neolithic brows above the squinting red eyes?

But a more reasonable explanation is that, (A) we don’t even know we are doing it, and (B) we cling to institutions dedicated to making sure we never find out.

As William Edwards Deming famously demonstrated, no system can understand itself, and why it does what it does, including the American social system. Not knowing shit about why your society does what it makes for a pretty nasty case of existential unease. So we create institutions whose function is to pretend to know, which makes everyone feel better. Unfortunately, it also makes the savviest among us — those elites who run the institutions — very rich, or safe from the vicissitudes that buffet the rest of us.

Directly or indirectly, they understand that the real function of American social institutions is to justify, rationalize and hide the true purpose of cultural behavior from the lumpenproletariat, and to shape that behavior to the benefit of the institution’s members.

Interestingly, both author Joe Bagaent, self described redneck socialist and Chris Hedges, liberal Author, former NYT writer, devout Christian and graduate of Harvard Divinity School both have come to the same conclusion. Liberals stopped being liberals 40 years ago. Hedges adds the the only difference between a liberal and conservative in todays America is a conservative has values worth fighting for.

Carlin said something to the effect of what the American ruling class DO NOT want is a nation of well informed, critical thinkers.

[briansd1]

[quote=Arraya] Carlin said something to the effect of what the American ruling class DO NOT want is a nation of well informed, critical thinkers.[/quote]

There is truth in that a docile populace is more productive (more likely to work, and less likely to complain). That in turns creates more wealth for the society.

A servant who is an intellectual and reflects upon class discrepancies is less likely to work with a smile.

The French are poorer than we are because they think too much and work too little.

What is the balance between working and thinking? If you think too much, then you can’t work. But if you don’t work, you don’t have money. And if you don’t have money, you need to work but then you can’t think.

Service in America is better than in Europe because the workers think that will move on to bigger and better things (a myth Arraya pointed to). But without that myth, servive will be worse.

[briansd1]

[quote=Arraya] Carlin said something to the effect of what the American ruling class DO NOT want is a nation of well informed, critical thinkers.[/quote]

There is truth in that a docile populace is more productive (more likely to work, and less likely to complain). That in turns creates more wealth for the society.

A servant who is an intellectual and reflects upon class discrepancies is less likely to work with a smile.

The French are poorer than we are because they think too much and work too little.

What is the balance between working and thinking? If you think too much, then you can’t work. But if you don’t work, you don’t have money. And if you don’t have money, you need to work but then you can’t think.

Service in America is better than in Europe because the workers think that will move on to bigger and better things (a myth Arraya pointed to). But without that myth, servive will be worse.

[briansd1]

[quote=Arraya] Carlin said something to the effect of what the American ruling class DO NOT want is a nation of well informed, critical thinkers.[/quote]

There is truth in that a docile populace is more productive (more likely to work, and less likely to complain). That in turns creates more wealth for the society.

A servant who is an intellectual and reflects upon class discrepancies is less likely to work with a smile.

The French are poorer than we are because they think too much and work too little.

What is the balance between working and thinking? If you think too much, then you can’t work. But if you don’t work, you don’t have money. And if you don’t have money, you need to work but then you can’t think.

Service in America is better than in Europe because the workers think that will move on to bigger and better things (a myth Arraya pointed to). But without that myth, servive will be worse.

[briansd1]

[quote=Arraya] Carlin said something to the effect of what the American ruling class DO NOT want is a nation of well informed, critical thinkers.[/quote]

There is truth in that a docile populace is more productive (more likely to work, and less likely to complain). That in turns creates more wealth for the society.

A servant who is an intellectual and reflects upon class discrepancies is less likely to work with a smile.

The French are poorer than we are because they think too much and work too little.

What is the balance between working and thinking? If you think too much, then you can’t work. But if you don’t work, you don’t have money. And if you don’t have money, you need to work but then you can’t think.

Service in America is better than in Europe because the workers think that will move on to bigger and better things (a myth Arraya pointed to). But without that myth, servive will be worse.

[Author]

Posts