Monday, November 08, 2010

Burning Down The House

Back in the 90s, I bought my first house. It was in a shady section of east Memphis called Normandy Meadows, a nicely kept neighborhood consisting mainly of modest but well-constructed homes built in the 50s. I was fortunate to find a house owned by a single family who had collected forty years worth of receipts, proving the house was well maintained. After years of semi-reclusive apartment dwelling, I was so delighted with my backyard that I got a boxer dog and named him Floyd. My expectations for my new home were so high, I figured that if I began with a puppy, I could ultimately work my way up to having interactions with human beings once again; and if so, they could have a place to come and hang out. I looked forward to the joys and responsibilities of home ownership despite the retro kitchen, unchanged since the Elvis era.

It seemed no sooner had I taken occupancy, however, before I began having plumbing problems, like bathroom flooding and eternally dripping faucets. The plumber said the water pipes were rigged in a way that condensation from the air conditioner drained from the attic into the back of the porcelain throne. He used plastic piping to reroute the water across the attic floor and down the side of the house and installed a drip pan that needed periodic attention. A week later, I saw water spots and cracks in the living room ceiling and called an air-conditioning company to make an estimate on a home visit. The AC repairman couldn't believe that the unit was installed in the attic and imagined it had been like that for forty years. He placed plastic sheets beneath the pipes and informed me that soon, I was going to have to replace the entire system. My dreams of domestic tranquility were further shaken when a crack in the ceiling opened up as I scrambled for a bucket to contain the steady leak. It was early morning when Floyd and I awoke to a sudden crash from the other room that sounded like a meteor hit the roof. The entire ceiling in the living room had caved in covering the floor with soggy sheet rock and a substance that resembled oatmeal. The repairman just shook his head and said it probably took years for the ceiling to become so saturated.

I now had a new home that needed major repairs, so I became enraged at the house and decided to punish it. I called an air conditioning company whose main business was selling screen doors, and they didn't even believe in AC. I told them the stupid thing was broken and to go up there and do whatever it took to fix it, sort of like going to an auto mechanic and saying, "I'm not sure what the problem is, but spare no expense correcting it." Then I found the most fly-by-night contractors possible and they set about the business of disassembling my home to clear the attic of heavy equipment. When everyone was finished, the heat and air didn't work, holes in the ceiling revealed waterlogged crossbeams, and all the floors were warped from standing water. But I taught that damn house a lesson never to disappoint me again. When my anger had been sated, however, it was unlivable and I had to torch the place. As an American major said after the burning of a Vietnamese hamlet; "We had to destroy the village in order to save it."

Of course, I'm lying about that last paragraph. I did what any sensible homeowner would; I put the place in order and sold it. My point is, intentionally damaging the house you live in over some repairable internal defects, is the same logic voters just used in attempting to put our other house in order: the House of Representatives. It was a creaking machine before, but rather than oil the wheels of government to turn smoothly, the American people chose to throw a whole bunch of monkey-wrenches, collectively known as the Tea Party, into the gears. If the electorate's intention was to slow the Obama agenda, they may have succeeded in bringing it to a screeching halt. Future Speaker, Orange John Boehner has already announced his first legislative priority is to repeal Obamacare. Big mistake. Not only would the Senate refuse to consider such a measure, the president would veto it if they did. The electoral red sea of 2010 was about jobs and unemployment. Everyone has a friend or family member who has been dismissed, downsized, cut back, or cut loose, and people are fearful. If the new congress decides to waste time re-hashing a year's worth of jabbering over health insurance reform instead of instituting a jobs program, they will face a blow-back that would give Newt Gingrich whiplash.

It will be interesting to see how the Tea Party newcomers get along with established Republicans. The country is still in a time of crisis and in desperate need of legislative compromise, but the Tea Party enters Congress with a mission; destroy Obama. If they could only snap out of it and see that Obama is more like Eisenhower than FDR, they might try to work with him for the common good. But don't expect any New Deal programs like the Civilian Conservation Corps, which built public works and parks, or the Works Progress Administration, which hired the unemployed to build roads and bridges, (literally paving the way for the Eisenhower interstate system), coming out of this Congress. Their job is to slow down the workings of government and create enough political potholes for Obama to be defeated in 2012. The president either has a strategy, or he's a slow learner. He continues to extend an olive branch to the opposition and they continue to beat him with it. Speaker-elect Boehner often refers to himself as a "Reagan Republican." Unfortunately, he no longer means the former president, but his wife, Nancy, whose simple philosophy has encapsulated an entire political movement into three words; "Just Say No."

34 comments:

Cousin Cliff said...

Good analogy. Could have been written two years ago. The President and the Democrats had two years and alienated most of the country, as shown from last week's election (and particularly seen at the state level). I am very pleased with the results. Let's see if the Republicans can do any better. If not, we might seewaw for a while until one of the parties realizes that this is a centrist country, which does not want to be lead from either the far left or the far right. I'll take the least extreme, and prefer a little right of center. I'm fiscally conservative, strong on defense, want less governmental interference in our lives, and socially moderate.

Anonymous said...

Cousin Cliff, your post is a masterpiece of political moderation and sanity. You have succinctly stated my political posture. I hope that doesn't embarrass you. How can you be related to Sputnik and be so sane and balanced? I always appreciate your input. As an aside, it is interesting that liberals always think that it is the conservatives who should compromise. As long as Obama and the Dems keep moving to the left, there will be no grounds for compromise. This is not stonewalling. It is fulfilling the will of a center right electorate who have had enough of the Marxist drift that the country has been taking since FDR. The Dems would do better at the polls if they could ever bring themselves to govern the way that 'we the people' want them to and quit doing everything in a command and control style...'eat what has been set before you, or else!' This posture is true of them on a number of different levels. Given free reign, they will be setting your thermostat, ordering your food for you, telling you what to wear, how to think, etc. Their mode of governing is to say that the beatings will continue until morale improves. The Dems seem to have forgotten that our form of government is by and for the people, not by and for politicians, special interests, and globalist interests. Both parties need to re-learn that. The lefties will be crushed again in 2012. We are reloading for the next assault. In 2012, Obama will be a one-termer. The sleeping giant has awakened, is pissed, and has put on his ass-kicking shoes. Since the country won't be fashioned to please Sputnik, maybe he could form a commune where the members can play out their left-leaning agenda. Come to think of it, that would be a good idea for all lefties. Maybe if they can form their own communal utopias they will leave the rest of us alone.

ghg said...

Great piece, RJ.

I am not happy for a few reasons.
1. Obama had an opportunity that was squandered by trying to hold hands with psychopaths. (figuratively, but you get my point.) What a waste of history and future to not have driven his agenda down the throats of the illiterate right and moved them and us kicking and screaming into a more decent society. Medicare for all. Re-redistribution of the wealth from the recent 1920s like redistribution in order to retake from those who have been soaking the uneducated to pay for education of an electorate who will understand that two plus two equals.....something approximating four. An energy policy that is sustainable.

He didn't say "Please be quiet, any who would get in the way of this agenda. I have votes. I have momentum. I have intelligence. I will force this issue. You will be voted down and I will speak to the American people every week to let them know exactly why I am doing what I'm doing and why I continue to say that those who stand in the way of this agenda are standing in the way of the American people."

Nope. He tried to hold hands with used car dealers and waitresses from Irish bar/restaurants posing as servants of the people.

2. Democracy only works in an educated electorate. Too bad, America. Too bad for me. Too bad for my kids and grandchildren.

Discouraged doesn't cover it.

Anonymous said...

"Obama had an opportunity that was squandered by trying to hold hands with psychopaths. (figuratively, but you get my point.) What a waste of history and future to not have driven his agenda down the throats of the illiterate right and moved them and us kicking and screaming into a more decent society. Medicare for all. Re-redistribution of the wealth from the recent 1920s like redistribution in order to retake from those who have been soaking the uneducated to pay for education of an electorate who will understand that two plus two equals.....something approximating four. An energy policy that is sustainable."

Is this socialist or what?

Never has a president been so thoroughly rejected on substance.

Chris Ellis said...

I happen to admire Obama and am grateful both for his political vision and his recondite mind and remarkable civility amid so many simple minded yahoos, many of them now in Congress.
Obama will prevail. As GW Bush might put it, any brown-skinned man from the mean streets of Nairobi who gets himself elected president of the United States by a significant majority, and who within the first year of office effects passage of universal health care that every president since Johnson has attempted without success, is no one to misunderestimate.

Anonymous said...

Hey Sput, you and the other lefties implied that the Tea Party is an irrelevant bunch of bigoted, racist, hate-mongers who have no political clout. Now you seem to think otherwise, at least in terms of their clout. And just think, they are just getting started. By election time in 2012, they will really be a force to be reckoned with. Can't you folks do better than to call them names and stick out your tongues at them? It looks like your 'political Woodstock' was as impotent as you once claimed the Tea Party of being.

Paul Revere said...

Dr. Gregg, now you are showing your true colors. Are you not a well-to-do doctor? Have you been soaking the uneducated to gain an unfair wealth and power advantage over them? If having wealth offends you, give all your money away or are you a hypocrite as well? Your arrogance and elitism are staggering. You think that the yahoos (according to your perspective) who make up most of America need to be dragged by the scruff of their necks to fulfill the utopian visions of your ilk? Sounds pretty Stalin like to me. You speak with disdain of used car dealers, waitresses and other blue collar types. And you are supposedly an egalitarian? You say that the American electorate is uneducated simply because they don't agree with you? Thanks for showing us your true colors...the worst type of Bolshevik imaginable. I am stunned, but thanks for taking off the mask. You have said in effect, 'We elites know what is best for you and will drag you illiterates kicking and screaming into our vision of America, because we are superior in every way to you genetically challenged troglodytes'. America needs to understand that your view is shared by most of the liberal elites and constitutes a grave threat to both freedom and prosperity. Your view is command and control on steroids. Again, I am aghast. By the way, are you the one who thinks that we need to get rid of 'this nation thing'? And you imply that you are the one who is well educated. This is proof that there is a vast difference between acquiring knowledge and wisdom. If a bird had your wisdom it would fly backwards.

Anonymous said...

Paul Revere my feelings exactly. I have always felt O himself is clever but has very little if any wisdom. Dr Greg is a "Minnie Me" Obama.

Anonymous said...

Correction Mini-Me

Anonymous said...

Paul Revere brought up a good point. Why do liberals tend to think that those who don't agree with them are uneducated and ignorant? That makes it easy to understand why liberals are often called elitists. I have come to believe that liberals are arrogant snobs, hypocrites, and authoritarians. GHG thinks that democracy is threatened by those who are uneducated, meaning those who do not agree with him. How pathologically arrogant is that? I would say that democracy is being threatened by elitists who view most of humanity as fools who need to be forcibly dragged to the 'right' solutions. I also think that GHG's pity for his children and grandchildren is misplaced. I think that the real pity has to do with who their father and grandfather is. The horror is that he may be making psycho-spiritual clones of himself. More elitist authoritarians. That is where the threat to democracy lies.

Anonymous said...

"Why do liberals tend to think that those who don't agree with them are uneducated and ignorant? "

Because they so often prove themselves to be.

Anonymous said...

Anon 2:43 pm, you paint with an overly broad brush don't you? There are tens of millions of people who disagree with the liberal/progressive establishment. Did you notice the recent elections? How many of these tens of millions have you interviewed in order to establish that they are ignorant and uneducated? What's that? You say that your contention is baseless and that you haven't interviewed anyone or even read much in the way of current events? Then you must be demonstrating your own ignorance, bigotry and dishonesty. This is typical of the liberals I have known.

performs said...

“The president either has a strategy, or he's a slow learner. He continues to extend an olive branch to the opposition and they continue to beat him with it.” Another option is that he may resort to Clinton’s strategy and out-Republican the Republicans. Obama is not putting up a fight for progressive agenda items; probably because he doesn’t think he can win, and this will make him look weak. The insanity of this is that he allows himself to be weak in order to avoid appearing weak. Personally, I am not concerned with the outcomes of the political process as much as I am with the awareness and critical thinking that would take place should Obama and other politicians stand up for the “decent society,” ghg mentioned. Stop playing pathetic political games, find out what is going on, and stand up for some creative solutions with open minds and hearts. If we do not get on the same page and on the same team, we are doomed to remain addicted to indulgence in conflicts, hatreds, and wars.

As regards ghg’s attitude and suggested methodology, driving down throats and such, it appears to have become tainted by the “hate your enemy and you become him syndrome.” Isn’t it quite useless to attempt to force others to be decent, to live in accord with lasting values, to hold in reverence other beings and things, or to recognize that attachments and fear lead to a craving for control and the illusion of certainty? There are means to conquer one’s enemies that don’t resort to anger, violence, or intimidation. The best of these means work toward making them friends.

Anon says, “GHG thinks that democracy is threatened by those who are uneducated, meaning those who do not agree with him. How pathologically arrogant is that?” Not anymore arrogant than your belief: “I have come to believe that liberals are arrogant snobs, hypocrites, and authoritarians.” Speaking of beliefs, I think it is worthwhile to look at a definition of “education.” One I heard that appeals to me is: Indoctrination teaches you what to think; education teaches you how to think. Examine the statements on this forum (Thanks, Sputnik.) for whether they are superficial, sound bite, emotionally charged rhetoric, or heartfelt, creative, thoughtful ideas that seek to resolve problems while maintaining connections.

performs said...

“The president either has a strategy, or he's a slow learner. He continues to extend an olive branch to the opposition and they continue to beat him with it.” Another option is that he may resort to Clinton’s strategy and out-Republican the Republicans. Obama is not putting up a fight for progressive agenda items; probably because he doesn’t think he can win, and this will make him look weak. The insanity of this is that he allows himself to be weak in order to avoid appearing weak. Personally, I am not concerned with the outcomes of the political process as much as I am with the awareness and critical thinking that would take place should Obama and other politicians stand up for the “decent society,” ghg mentioned. Stop playing pathetic political games, find out what is going on, and stand up for some creative solutions with open minds and hearts. If we do not get on the same page and on the same team, we are doomed to remain addicted to indulgence in conflicts, hatreds, and wars.

As regards ghg’s attitude and suggested methodology, driving down throats and such, it appears to have become tainted by the “hate your enemy and you become him syndrome.” Isn’t it quite useless to attempt to force others to be decent, to live in accord with lasting values, to hold in reverence other beings and things, or to recognize that attachments and fear lead to a craving for control and the illusion of certainty? There are means to conquer one’s enemies that don’t resort to anger, violence, or intimidation. The best of these means work toward making them friends.

Anonymous said...

I painted with too broad of a brush. I should have said that the liberals that I have personally known have been arrogant snobs, hypocrites, and authoritarians. Arrogant because they tend to think that those who see things differently are somehow inferior, or as Gregg would say, uneducated and ignorant. Hypocrites for a number of reasons and due to personal observations. One thing that bugs me about the liberals that I have known is that they profess a love and concern for minorities, but I have NEVER witnessed any of my liberals acquaintances inviting minorities into their homes or having any meaningful realtionships with them. They appear to love minorities in the abstract. They tend to live in gated communities or the safe suburbs, and don't give much at all for charitable purposes. I regard them as 'limosine liberals'. I feel sure that Sputnik is not guilty of these hypocrisies, though. Authoritarianism is one of the chief attributes of progressives and always has been. They do not believe that the common man will use his freedom 'correctly' and must be nudged, if not coerced, to do the 'right thing'.The last point would not be challenged by anyone who knows anything about progressivism. All progressives are liberals, but not all liberals are progressives. Having said all of this, I do confess that I painted with too broad of a brush. All liberals are not arrogant snobs, hypocritical, and authoritarian. Just the ones that I have known personally. So, I stand corrected.

Zarathustra said...

Performs, you seem to be a little more focussed. Have you been doing the concentration exercise that I recommended? If so, keep it up. Eventually your thoughts will become more cogent and carry more power for that reason. You are apparently extremely right-brained. You use a lot of abstract, touchy-feely terminology. Your contributions will become more effective when your ideas become more grounded. This forum is more rational than it is affective. It is not a creative writing forum. What I am trying to say is that your delivery is more poetic than substantial. But that's fine if that is the way that you want it. I am just trying to be helpful.

Anonymous said...

Earlier this morning while in full lotus and in diamond samadhi, I was reflecting upon the comments that Gregg had expressed in a previous post. Then, suddenly I was awash in a bolt of the purest white light. The light illumined my mind to see the profound wisdom in something that Gregg had said. I finally understood the resisitance of those who oppose my point of view. The simple, yet profound, truth is that those who disagree with me are either stupid or inadeqately educated. Then I was touched by profound compassion as I realized that these less evolved beings are not able enter the shrine of my superior understanding. I saw that it would take supernal patience and love as I attempted to shepherd them to the threshold of the temple of wisdom in which I dwelt. I grasped what Gregg was trying to say, but there remained a problem. Gregg is one of those less evolved beings who cannot appreciate my pearls of wisdom, as are most of the other denizens of this blog. I will commence immediately to step down the content of my thought processes so that lesser evolved beings can be enabled to share, if on a diminished scale, a small glimmer of my right thinking. Thank you, Gregg, for initiating my new found illumination. Now the question is how can I conduct someone who needs millions of years of evolution to the threshold of my wisdom. I envision it to be about as difficult as teaching a cockroach table manners. The challenges are immense. I think that I will start by speaking to you in momosyllables. My new approach will borrow from the old Dick and Jane readers. I will start all of my future commentaries with the salutation, 'Behold ye stupid and uneducated beings. Your Master is about to speak. Fight to maintain a glimmer of consciousness as I attempt to facilitate your evolution.' I think that I am going to like being a progressive.

Anonymous said...

Behold ye stupid and/or uneducated neophyes. Your Master is going to cast a pearl of wisdom before you in the hope of facilitating your evolution. Here is today's seed thought for meditation: 'Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, screw you'. There is much wisdom on many levels in this saying. Strive to evolve. It gets lonely at the top. However, I fear that it will take hundreds, if not thousands of incarnations for you to converse with me as equals. So, be diligent.

Gimme a break said...

You want to chastise the Republicans for spending time repealing healthcare instead of focusing on jobs, yet you were silent while Obama ignored the need to create jobs, while he shoved healthcare down our throats.
Seems hypocritical to me.
Oh and the olive branch thing. He didn't extend anything until he got nhis butt handed to him last week.

Anonymous said...

Wow! Gimme A Break, you nailed it. You shot down Sputnik's spin and bullshit in just a very few words. I am going to have to add you to my watch list. Way to go! You and Alan and Cousin Cliff add desperately needed balance to this
one-sided apologetic for all things Democrat.

Anonymous said...

Behold ye stupid and/or uneducated neophytes. Your Master commands you to meditate upon Gimme A Break's wise words. Learn what a discerning eye can reveal. If done properly, this should knock a couple of incarnations off of your evolutionary path. At the very least, it should make you a little less stupid and ignorant.

performs said...

“Master” Anon, before you get your kundalini in an uproar, instead of grasping on to Gimme’s line, “seems hypocritical to me,” you may wish to consider whether the basis for what he says is true. As regards the healthcare debates and plan creation, my recollection was that the insurance agencies were invited to give a lot of input, while the single-payer folks couldn’t get their foot in the door. Does it really matter so much if Obama is Dweedle-dee or Dweedle-dumb? Appeasing the BigBiz Boys is simply a major part of one’s indoctrination into the corrupt political culture, and apparently it is not easy to resist.

In our country, if one gets sick, whether they have a health insurance policy or not, there is a great chance the result is having to go into bankruptcy. This is very different than in many other more civilized countries where, if one asks a citizen, “How many people go bankrupt each year on account of becoming ill?” they chuckle and think you’re nuts. It would be great for most people concerned if we were to cooperate around the universal need for staying healthy and healing illness. However, this practical arrangement would impinge upon those who wish to feel superior to others by having things that others cannot. This attitude, whether held by rich and not rich, is destroying our society.

Anonymous said...

Performs, I won't argue with what you just said except for the last comment. I prefer free market solutions to the health care issue. The Republicans are responsible for the current health care fiasco, because they didn't develop free market solutions to the health care crisis when they could have. I am in my mid-sixies and have not known anyone so bogus as to feel superior to others because they have something that others do not have. But then I lived my entire adult life by the ethic of simplicity and did not rub shoulders with money freaks. In fact, I didn't own a home until I was 46 years old. I relate to neither materialists nor progressives. I am a poor libertarian nature boy. From experience I despise government, though I know that some of it is necessary. As an aside, I look askance at New Age, because I was deeply involved in a New Age cult for 9 years. After I got out it was like waking from hypnotism. By the way, your last posting was quite clear.

Anonymous said...

If any of you progressives would care to check out one of your movement's 'bibles', take a look at a book entitled 'Cosmic Consciousness: A Study in the Evolution of the Human Mind' by Richard M. Bucke. It was published in the early 1900's and was very popular amongst the progressives of the era. I am fortunate to have an original copy of the book, because an uncle of mine was a professor of American literature and philosophy and gave my father a copy long ago. The premise is that consciousness evolves, and that certain individuals thoughout history transcended self consciousness to enter cosmic consciousness. His thesis was that someday every human would possess cosmic consciousness just as every human now possesses self consciousness. Be prepared for the fact that he was virulently racist as nearly all progressives were in the early days of the movement. It should be apparent that if consciousness is evolving, then some are at the upper end and some at the lower end. This premise would lead some to a de facto embrace of racism. This is why the book 'Bell Curve' raised such vehement protests when it was published. the premise of that book is that intelligence is skewed statistically by race...hence the title 'Bell Curve'. It is a good thing to be aware of your movement's history. Hitler developed his theory of race from some of these evolutionary teachings, most notably from Blavatsky's 'The Secret Doctrine'. After Hitler's Holocaust the progressives had to go underground with their ideas about race and eugenics. My concern is that these ideas may resurface if the progressives gain global power. It is certainly something to consider.

Anonymous said...

One more thing. Recently some geneticists claimed to have identified a gene which inclines people to become liberal/progressive. If this should turn out to be true, just think of what a liberal regime could do with that knowledge. They could solve many of their problems simply by aborting every fetus that does not have the liberal gene. The eugenics of the future will be very high tech. Geneticists have completed the human genome and are currently perfecting techniques whereby certain genes can be removed and replaced by 'designer' genes. Man will soon be able to manufacture 'designer' humans. Think of all the mischief that could come from that. Gregg would be overjoyed by the fact that stupidity will some day be eraticated. One question remains...what if his progeny don't make the cut?

performs said...

Hypocritical citizens (letter in SF Chronicle)
After listening to the election ads and all of the arguments about government these days, I have come to the conclusion that average citizens are miserly narcissists who, though they want a living wage, a good retirement package and a comprehensive health care system for themselves, do not want the people who work for them to have the same benefits.
They expect something for nothing, demand that the government meet their needs but complain when it costs them something in return. They impulsively vote based on innuendo and incomplete and or inadequate information. Democracy is dependent on an informed and educated electorate. I am afraid this may not be the case in America anymore.
Robert Thomas, Castro Valley

“Dear Tea Party: You will now get yours”
http://www.sfgate.com/columnists/morford/

“My concern is that these ideas may resurface if the progressives gain global power. It is certainly something to consider.”
There may well be people who consider themselves to be a participant in a “Progressive movement,” I am not one of them. For me, real progress will come from humanity ceasing their struggle for power and control, and find that real freedom, peace and happiness is to be found within oneself. Choosing the power of love over the love of power will go a long way toward ending the chaos and misery in the world. Individuals experimenting in their daily lives with this choice are bringing about a transformation which includes many creative, problem-solving movements.

Anonymous said...

The progressives will win in the short run. Hell will have its day. But, they will not prevail. Darkness will never overcome Light.The Author of the universe will rise up and shake the fleas and ticks off.

The Watcher said...

Ever wonder why leftists are in bed with radical Islam? Here is a clue. George Soros has said that the biggest obstacle to the realization of the New World Order is the USA. The leftists have taken the position that 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend', at least temporarily. The leftists are enabling radical Islam in order to help them bring America down so that the New World Order can come into being. They figure that when that day comes and they have no further use for radical Islam, they can do whatever it takes to eliminate them. When all power is consolidated on a global basis, nothing will be able to resist their power, including Islam. Eventually the progressive dream will be realized...'designer' humans (eugenics is guaranteed) giving their all to the collective. Those who don't will be liquidated. The progressive endgame will be what amounts to a glorified ant hill... a classless, completely homogenized global society in which individual freedom and private property will be a thing of the past. The ants will be ruled with a merciless and unrelenting iron fist. And somehow progressives think that this will be better than what we have in America and the rest of the free world, what is left of it that is.

Anonymous said...

I just wish you libs would admit you are socialists like Lawrence O'Donnell did. At least O'Donnell has the balls to just come out and say it. And yes I listen to Glenn Beck but I do have my own thoughts.

performs said...

Quote from George Lakoff: “As it turns out, human beings are not the rational creatures we’ve so long imagined ourselves to be. Ideas, morals, and values do not exist somewhere outside the body, ready to be examined and put to use. Instead, they exist quite literally inside the brain—and they take physical shape there. For example, we form particular kinds of narratives in our minds just like we form specific muscle memories such as typing or dancing, and then we fit new information into those narratives.”
Watcher, it seems clear to me that the narrative from which you think and speak is that the world is an all-out, cut-throat competition for gaining more or ultimate power and control. This narrative, as I understand it, is more in line with the neo-liberals and neo-cons than it is for progressives.
Even if it were what the progressives desire, they are so split into various types and unorganized that they can barely muster enough team energy to create, a statement of values to get behind, much less, a dominant movement.
Watcher, what you say you fear, the ant hill, homogenous life with few choices is already in process brought about by Big Biz (Agri, Pharma, Media, Retail, Energy, Communication/Transportation, etc.). So no worries here, Mate.

The Watcher said...

Progressivism isn't a formal, hierarchically organized movement. There are countless progressive orgnizations which cooperate with one another, however. It consists of a large number of people who have shared beliefs, convictions and goals, sort of like the Tea Party. You can think of them as an anti-Tea Party. You will have to do your own research into progressivism. You can decide for yourself whether or not you agree with their ideas. The quest for power and control is as old as man. The players have changed throughout history, but they all share a kindred spirit. The major players in the modern world are the Islamofascists, the progressives/Marxists, and what remains of those who oppose them. Others might identify the players differently, but bottom line the quest for power and control is a very real and deadly game. I respectfully disagree with your estimation that the progressives are not a dominant movement or force. I can almost hear the chortles from the progressives on this blog in regard to that contention. They are extremely powerful and pervasive. You are right about big business, but you may not be aware of the collusion between big government and big business. It will take a large, sophisticated infrastructure to manage and provide for a global population as global governance comes into being. Power comes from government and the economic engine that is big business. Big business is slavering over the thought of all the cheap labor that will someday be theirs. The danger is unbridled power once that power is consolidated on a global basis. Anyone who thinks that that is not a threat to humanity is naieve. One more thing. Don't be fooled by the tired saying that the Republicans are for big business and the Democrats are for the little man. Both parties are driving America off of a cliff. Progressives run the Dems and strongly influence the Repubs. Politics is a situation of paying too much attention to one hand (party) while not being aware of what the other hand (party) is doing. The Dems and Repubs are more of a one-two punch to America. They are more concerned with their own power trips than they are about the country. You don't really think that we are in the mess that we are in because of one party do you? That is my biggest beef with Sputnik. I don't know if he is ignorant or bull shitting everyone.

performs said...

My concern and purpose for sharing in these types of conversations is to bring an awareness of how and what we think. It is important to examine the attitudes and values one embraces as well as those embraced by others, as they precipitate patterns of thinking and behavior. Unless one discerns and chooses consciously, which is a process, one functions from habit. These habits are picked up unconsciously unless one is paying attention. We all harbor conflicting desires and values that remain in the unconscious mind, but that trigger emotions of depression, anger, embarrassment, etc. Resolution of these conflicts offer great healing within one’s self and between others. This may be a bit unfocussed--sorry, no time to expand as I have to get off the computer.
Getting back to political world, I see things as Dean Baker describes it in a recent article:

“As we all know, there is a major philosophical divide in US politics. On the one hand, there are those who think it is the role of government to help ensure that the vast majority of the population can enjoy a decent standard of living. On the other side are those who believe the role of government is to transfer as much money as possible to the rich and powerful. The latter group seems to be calling the shots these days.”

The Watcher said...

Dean Baker's statement is ludicrous. Most conservatives and most Republicans are everyday people. Why would they want to transfer money to the rich and powerful? They are interested in keeping as much of it as possible out of the hands of the government and in the private sector (their own bank accounts) to spend as they see fit. Conservatives would rather choose the causes that they give to rather than send the money to the government where at least 50% of every dollar is rat-holed and mispent. Baker's sorry attempt to foster class warfare is transparent. 90% of the adherents to either political party are ordinary folks of ordinary means and both parties have their fat cats.

performs said...

“Dean Baker's statement is ludicrous. Most conservatives and most Republicans are everyday people.” Baker’s statement didn’t mention Republicans or conservatives; it is about the conflicting attitudes as to what the role of government should be.
“Why would they want to transfer money to the rich and powerful?” If “they” happen to be politicians, it is because they will receive something in return for the favors rendered or threats withdrawn. If “they” are consumers, they believe what they are told in the ads, that they are receiving more for their dough, as in: “low prices,” “buy now--pay later,” “you deserve this.” There is also an unconscious fear, I believe, that if “they, the gummint” start taking from those richer and more powerful, then what chance will I have of keeping mine and, further, what is the point of wanting to be rich and powerful myself if it will be taken from me, and that is the point, right?
The way I see it, the bulk of what is “rat-holed and mispent” by our current corrupt government officials is the transfer of wealth to the rich and powerful in the form of contracts, deregulation, privatization, tax give-aways or as Bush used to say, “tax relief.”
An important point is that the attitudes mentioned in the Baker statement are held by those who embrace and identify with them regardless of their circumstances. Competitive, unenlightened self-interest has adherents who are both rich and poor. The same goes for those who identify with their fellow beings through brotherly or sisterly feelings of love and concern. It all has everything to do with love versus fear than more wealth/status versus less.