Buzzflash interview.

Very good interview, and Thom outlines his opinions and methods pretty succinctly.
Listening to Thom's radio show every day (KTLK AM in L.A.) is, sadly, making me depressed. In each broadcast, Thom expresses his confidence that "a change is coming, and the nation is going to go in a better direction..." etc. This opinion takes about ten seconds of air time. Thom then spends the next three hours reporting how things are actually getting worse and worse and worse.

I won't stop listening, but jeeez...

I'll sign off by earning my name: Odds on Alberto Gonzalez serving out his full term as U.S. Atty. General: 85:15 in favor. ...I do not advocate gambling.

I'm just glad we can hear what he's saying. Otherwise we'd be stuck with Rush Limbaugh.

quote:

Originally posted by oddsmaker:
Very good interview, and Thom outlines his opinions and methods pretty succinctly.
Listening to Thom's radio show every day (KTLK AM in L.A.) is, sadly, making me depressed. In each broadcast, Thom expresses his confidence that "a change is coming, and the nation is going to go in a better direction..." etc. This opinion takes about ten seconds of air time. Thom then spends the next three hours reporting how things are actually getting worse and worse and worse.

I won't stop listening, but jeeez...

I'll sign off by earning my name: Odds on Alberto Gonzalez serving out his full term as U.S. Atty. General: 85:15 in favor. ...I do not advocate gambling.

Maybe he's trying to keep you motivated to stay involved! When I don't know what's going on the world, I tend to get a little lethargic. Need Thom to prod me along a little from time to time. Sometimes a little scarey, and always informative, fact based & researched. Best talk show host on the air. Here's all the bad stuff - & we can fix it!

Retired Monk
"Ideology is a disease"

Poly, Gnarly, I thank you for your kind responses. I just wish Thom would periodically mention some reason why he's so optimistic.

But you are both correct - He knows his facts, and listening to his show does instill a sense of community. One of the strategies of the righties is to make us all feel isolated, and therefore intimidated.
As for Rush - I'd rather just listen to Sportstalk radio - or fingernails on a blackboard, or...(you get the idea).

I posted this yesterday but the thread has been removed: Odds on Giuliani winning the GOP Presidential Nomination: 7-93. That is, a 7% possibility. Put a fork in him. ..I do not advocate gambling.

The realization of a true democracy in the US has always been sporadic at best. There have been long periods of tyranny and corruption culminating in the populace overthrowing that government. I believe, like Thom Hartmann, that we are on the verge of that happening soon.

Now, if the Democrats don't shoot themselves in the foot by helping the Republicans...

Gnarlodious, I hope you are correct about the sea change in our society.

In regard to your closing comment, I'd like to refer to Thom's Buzzflash interview (transcribed above). He reiterates his disdain for discussing politics as if it were sports - "my team versus your team". He points out that Faux News does that, that it's destructive, and it doesn't advance the understanding. ...And he's "spot on" about all that.

What he doesn't mention is that it's fun, it's engaging, and it wins elections.

Hence, your comment about Dems shooting themselves in the foot is entirely apropos.

With all humility, here are some helpful hints about how we might actually win something in 2008 (And I do apologize for the sports lingo):

1. We need to accept in advance that the Iraq occupation will not be a major issue in the 2008 election, and strategize accordingly. (No sense preparing to defend the run when your opponent throws the ball all day.) Thom himself recently explained on the air how the administration will accomplish this feat.

2. We need to also accept that there are many principled folks who won't vote democratic because the party isn't "pure" enough. They will vote for Ralph Nader and/or Ron Paul or whoever - God bless 'em. However, it might be worthwhile to point out to them that in politics, as in basketball, there are no "moral victories" - you're either a winner or a loser. (Damn! Another sports allusion! I just can't help myself.)

3. Thom's constant harping on how job statistics are misleading, real wages are stagnant or dropping, job security is a joke, and nobody has health insurance...etc. etc. ...Yes! Yes! Swing away, Hartmann! These are all issues where we can drive in some freakin' runs. (there I go again.)

4. - And this is the final tip for today - it helps to know who your opponent is going to be. .......And it probably ain't gonna be Fred Thompson, so don't bother studying tapes of his previous bouts. (Sorry - pugilism reference)
...Thompson's odds of winning the Republican nomination - 25/75. One chance in four. "A one way ticket to Palookaville."
Oh! I just remembered something funny: Everyone talks about how Thompson is so imposing and manly in all his TV shows and movies. ...True enough, but go rent Scorcese's remake of "Cape Fear". Fred is a real tough guy who's guarding Nick Nolte and family. That is, until Robert DeNiro sneaks up behind him and dispatches him with a piano wire. Poor ole' Fred never knew what hit him.

I do not advocate gambling.

Well, even little things might help.

I keep getting these silly surveys and appeals for donations from the Dem. Nat'l Committee. So, I fill out the survey and attach a note in big black letters: "I won't send you any money because I don't want one dime to go to Hillary".

The don't know I haven't the dime to spare, but maybe someone will get the message. And they pay the postage!

Retired Monk
"Ideology is a disease"

Polycarp,
I am so glad you posted! I encounter the same attitude about Hillary all the time.

What is it that people hate so about her?
Okay, not a fair question. You can't answer for everyone. But if you have the time and the inclination, I would like to know why you dislike her.

Please understand. I'm not trying to trick you or start an argument, ... no matter what your reasons are. In other words, there is no wrong answer. You are entitled to your opinion of her, whatever it is. I am honestly just curious. In fact, anyone else reading this - feel free to jump in and enlighten me on why you dislike H. Clinton.

I respect all opinions, especially from folks on this website.

oddsmaker,

quote:

What is it that people hate so about her?
...
I respect all opinions, especially from folks on this website.

This sounds very interesting (IMO).
Why not open a thread on such a subject?
I too have considered such a thread topic on occasions.

quote:

Originally posted by oddsmaker:
Polycarp,
I am so glad you posted! I encounter the same attitude about Hillary all the time.

What is it that people hate so about her?
Okay, not a fair question. You can't answer for everyone. But if you have the time and the inclination, I would like to know why you dislike her.

Please understand. I'm not trying to trick you or start an argument, ... no matter what your reasons are. In other words, there is no wrong answer. You are entitled to your opinion of her, whatever it is. I am honestly just curious. In fact, anyone else reading this - feel free to jump in and enlighten me on why you dislike H. Clinton.

I respect all opinions, especially from folks on this website.

Hillary doesn't have a strong stand against the war. As First Lady, she supported the Safe Families Act which has been a horror for Foster Children.

She doesn't address problems of overwhelming influence of corporations in the political dynamics of the country.

Worst of all, she reminds me of a cousin in body language and speech that I developed a terrible dislike for during her mother's dying days. (and I know this isn't reasonable).

She hasn't addressed the dismanteling of America's industrial base in order to "compete." Other industrized nations have seen no need to do this and they compete just fine. It's a staw man arguement to lower wages and go to the cheapest possible source.

A $100 dollar pair of shoes still costs $100, even though the labor may have been reduced to a dollar.

Hillary doesn't represent me, she doesn't represent the majority of Americans. She represents corporate America.

Retired Monk
"Ideology is a disease"

Polycarp:

Thanks for your reply. Good reasons all - even the resemblence to the icky cousin. ...That's fair in my book.
I had not heard of the Safe Families Act. I should educate myself on that one.
The other characterizations are ones I've heard before, and they are legit.
As I posted above, the odds are that the war will be on a "way back" burner come election time. (Still and all, she did vote for the original authorization, and some people will not forget that.) Thanks again.

Ronald Rutherford:

I thank you for your response, re: Hillary. I have a feeling that Polycarp may have said it all, and speaks for many, or most, of the people hereabouts.
Moreover, I think I mentioned this political topic on the wrong forum. (I'm pretty new here.) I see there is much more political chat on other threads.
Best wishes to Thom while he's in Croatia this week, and I look forward to hearing about it.
I enjoy reading your posts, Ronald. Keep it up.

I'll tell you why I don't want Hillary as the candidate.

First, she is a corporatist, a DLC Democrat. She panders to corporate interests in order to raise funds. She will end up owing them if she is elected. She would argue that this is a necessary evil if she is to win. Reasonable people can disagree about this.

Second, as wife to Bill, she carries the taint of all the bad things brought about by NAFTA, globalism and all these other Tom Friedmanesque trade agreements. She hasn't said a word that I'm aware of about how she views these issues.

Third, while I personally am satisfied with her "disavowal" of her vote on Iraq, I would have preferred something stronger.

The last straw was the news that Hillary's Chief Campaign strategist runs a firm that specializes in union-busting. It brought back memories of the disgust I felt over Bill's association with Dick Morris. I don't know whether this is rumor or fact, but, as my mother used to say, "you are known by the company you keep".

Still, as I have written elsewhere, I will vote for the worst, bottom-of-the-barrel Democrat before I will vote for any candidate that will result in a Republican victory. William Jefferson For President! (just kidding)

P.S. Welcome to the board.

Artlo:
Thanks for your input, and your friendly words.

Of course, you are right about Hillary, as is Polycarp. And you nailed the reasons for her indebtedness to the corporations. It just costs way too much money to run for office; any office.

Sadly, progressive funding sources (moveon.org, Sierra Club, People for the American Way, etc., etc.) just can't measure up to the hundreds of millions which can be thrown at a campaign by corporations.

Sadly, there was, at one time, a pretty powerful and wealthy financial source for progressives. And this institution was reliably pro - middle class, pro - working people, and anti - corporate influence. It was known as "unions". It is too bad they have been decimated. ....And frankly it is, to me, infuriating that the downfall of unionism was accomplished by union members themselves, who voted overwhelmingly for Ronald Reagan (both times) and continue to vote (in lesser, but still suicidal, numbers) for this ghoulish administration.

I don't know what the salvation for progressives will be, but I agree with you, brother! Better the worst possible Jackass than the best smelling Pachyderm.

Some recent odds, by the way:
1. Odds of the Supreme Court overturning "Roe Vs. Wade": 99 to 1 (there's no doubt)
2. Odds of the U.S. bombing Iran before 1/09: 96 to 4 (a slight chance against)
3. Odds of the Iraq Occupation being an issue in the '08 election: 14 to 86. This is
something that Thom has already explained, so I can't take credit for it. The "war"
will be a non-starter for the democrats.
4. Finally, here's one that's not even close: The Republican nominee is Mitt Romney.
...Lead Pipe Cinch: Perfect Hair, Unlimited campaign treasury. That's right - I said
"Unlimited". You heard it here first. ...Well, okay, not "first", but I'm
guaranteeing this.

Artlo, I always enjoy reading your stuff. Keep on Postin'.
...As always, I do not advocate gambling.

Oddsmaker, figure this one. What are the chances of the U.S. taking a large enough progressive turn to keep from becoming a full-blown, repressive fascist state in the near future?

We're just short of a few of the defined characteristics before meeting all of the criteria.

Rutherford posted some interesting links and observations in another thread defining characteristics of a Fascist state as related to Hugo Chavez.

Resemblances to current U.S. society are rather striking and disconcerting up to and approving of torture as an instrument of national policy, and connections with ideologies of Fundamentalist Christian groups.



Re-posted:
quote:
Dr. Lawrence Britt, a political scientist, identifies 14 characteristics common to fascist regimes. See link below for original article and supporting links for each point.
http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm


http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/britt_23_2.htm

Analysis of these seven regimes reveals fourteen common threads that link them in recognizable patterns of national behavior and abuse of power. These basic characteristics are more prevalent and intense in some regimes than in others, but they all share at least some level of similarity.

1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism. From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.

2. Disdain for the importance of human rights. The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.

3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause. The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the people's attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice-relentless propaganda and disinformation-were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite "spontaneous" acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and "terrorists." Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.

4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism. Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.

5. Rampant sexism. Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.

6. A controlled mass media. Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes' excesses.

7. Obsession with national security. Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting "national security," and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.

8. Religion and ruling elite tied together. Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite's behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the "godless." A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion.

9. Power of corporations protected. Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed states), but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of "have-not" citizens.

10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated. Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a vice.

11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts. Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national interest or they had no right to exist.

12. Obsession with crime and punishment. Most of these regimes maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. "Normal" and political crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or "traitors" was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power.

13. Rampant cronyism and corruption. Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.

14. Fraudulent elections. Elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the desired result. Common methods included maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite. Dr. Larry Britt's 14 Characteristics of Fascism.

Retired Monk
"Ideology is a disease"

How about those Supreme Court Justices! Today's decisions on free speech and taking our tax money and giving it to Evangelical Christions. I'ld say that they're getting closer and closer to where they're going. Gettin' scarier and scarier.

quote:

Originally posted by artlo:
How about those Supreme Court Justices! Today's decisions on free speech and taking our tax money and giving it to Evangelical Christions. I'ld say that they're getting closer and closer to where they're going. Gettin' scarier and scarier.

Absolutely scary giving tax money to Evangelicals!! They should give it to monks living outside of their monasteries.

Govrnments aligning themselves with religious groups usually have an alterior motive...and it isn't in "doing good". See number 8 above.

Retired Monk
"Ideology is a disease"

There are dozens of "if the public only knew about this" issues with this administration. How do you think this faith based stuff would play with the public if it were fully aired?

(I have to admit that I know absolutely nothing about the life of a monk. I'm an atheist, but I think I can identify with the contemplative nature of the calling. Perhaps we just contemplate different flavors of existence. There is an abbey not far from where I live. The beauty and perfection of the grounds are just stunning to see from the road. My impression is that monks earn the most honest of all livings. I'm not sure that the rest of us can say the same.)

quote:

Originally posted by artlo:
There are dozens of "if the public only knew about this" issues with this administration. How do you think this faith based stuff would play with the public if it were fully aired?

(I have to admit that I know absolutely nothing about the life of a monk. I'm an atheist, but I think I can identify with the contemplative nature of the calling. Perhaps we just contemplate different flavors of existence. There is an abbey not far from where I live. The beauty and perfection of the grounds are just stunning to see from the road. My impression is that monks earn the most honest of all livings. I'm not sure that the rest of us can say the same.)

Contemplations probably begin at two very opposite extremes. If continued from two opposite points of reference, they tend to come to a middle ground...a meeting at the center.

Retired Monk
"Ideology is a disease"

This extra-ordinary site is incompatible with conflict!!! But, the water will flow...

quote:

Originally posted by GoodBusiness:
This extra-ordinary site is incompatible with conflict!!! But, the water will flow...

Water flow tends to be resisted by rocks in the stream. Ultimately, the rocks are eroded away and the water flows more smoothly.

The huge boulders of absolute monarchies gave way to the smaller ones that we have now. The flow is never stopped. You can't stop the flow of water. Even the largest dam ultimately crumbles.

Life is kind of like that...individually and as a species. When a dam crumbles, there is period of chaos and misery. The larger the bursting dam, the greater the chaos..then the water flows more smoothly again...until another dam is built.

Retired Monk
"Ideology is a disease"

I feel like taking a dip, this summer,
with a buddy!!!

Well, with a crumbling dam, you may have no choice! Hope it's in summer, not winter.

Retired Monk
"Ideology is a disease"