The Smallest Minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities. - Ayn Rand
I do give a damn who has caused it Kevin, and I know their names.
It's NOT, as Paul Ferrell is suggesting, a left-right dichotomy, but an authoritarian-liberatarian rift, and both of our big parties have been heavy-handed when their times' have come around.
I hate them for it.
sorry I couldn't take Ferrel's commentary seriously as soon as he said "teabagger"
Ferrel lost all credibility with me when he claimed to be about to read the minds, and did it just as accurately as Markadelphia:
"So the bullying Right, the insecure, defensive and full-of-hate, dark side of the Party-of-No-No has decided to be the champion-of-the-return-to-the-glory-days ... and they are itching for new wars."
Teabagger? Screw him...wanting to be taxed less and demanding that the government spend less is a better solution than anything Ferrel said. He is a damn fool.
Believing that we "need" regulation is always a tell. Whenever someone says that I know one of two things, they are a fool, or they are complicit.
"GOP Tea Party of No-No"?
Kevin, that shrill little crybaby was barely readable. I'm not sure what planet he's writing on, but it ain't Earth.
Believing that we "need" regulation is always a tell.
I won't call that complete in itself. But it's easy enough to confirm, because it seems the vast majority of those who think we need more regulation are also against strict enforcement of what regulations we already have.
Larger body of rules+less consistent enforcement=despotism, every single time, without exception.
As it pertains to Coming Economic Carnage, there's something called the Jean Dixon phenomena, which basically states that a few high profile, splashy predictions will create the impression of predictive credibility that sweeps a plethora of missed predictions under the carpet.
Now, I've been reading well reasoned predictions of Coming Economic Carnage, backed by verifiable facts, for as long as I can remember being able to be aware of such things, which goes back at least to the Carter administration. I vividly remember being a rather shaken 6th or 7th grader whining "but I don't waant to live through another Great Depression" to my Dad, who grumbled some autere sentiment at me.
On the economic front, there's lots of noise competing with signal. Sooner or later, though, one of these predictions is going to be right.
During our current epoch of vulnerability, being human, we assess these predictions to be more credible than during eras of plenty, which adds to the sense of impending direness.
That being said, Math is Math, and *something* has got to give.
>>"Yes folks, in 10 short years hatred has transformed America,"
>>"When did this shift into hatred begin? The timing is painfully obvious. No, not the new Tea Party. America’s hatred surfaced a decade ago when we arrogantly labeled an “Axis of Evil,” then went to war under false pretenses."
Whatever his qualifications as an economic pundit, Farrell's credibility as a social observer is in the tank, if for no other reason than his belief that the animosity generated by the collision of worldviews only goes back a mere 10 years. Even within that 10 year timeframe, he also shows breath taking ignorance of and failure to comprehend the history he lived through and witnessed. America didn't roll out one day and say, "I'm going to arrogantly declare enemies where there aren't any". America spent some time considering that giant smoking craters that had been burned into the middle of her cities, and decided that the swamp that bred that disease needed some draining.
Sorry, y'all, but I should have included this: "Don't worry so much about the content, listen to the tone." You've got an obvious left-leaning economist type predicting the same thing as the right-leaning anarcho-capitalist types, just from different premises. Again, we're a nation of pissed-off people in a world of pissed-off people, and the two sides are (for want of a better description) Thomas Sowell's Constrained vs. Unconstrained. Each is pissed that the other is obstructing their desires; the Constrained are pissed because the Unconstrained want to control our lives, the Unconstrained are pissed because the Constrained are finally throwing up effective roadblocks. Add to this the (IMHO) inevitable economic catastrophe looming, and you've got Tough History Coming.
As "Ironbear" wrote about 2003, "The heart of the conflict is between those to whom personal liberty is important, and those to whom liberty is not only inconsequential, but to whom personal liberty is a deadly threat."
Farrell's a dotard who is upset that he's probably not going to get to enjoy a quiet dotage.
That said, read Denninger's first three or four October 1 posts. Not pretty.
"We're not voting our way out of this."
Remember this when you go to the polls next month. You no longer have to settle for the "lesser of two evils". You can now vote your consience and not feel guilty about it.
"...and not feel guilty about it."
I never have.
the same old "Global Warming will cause massive wars over dwindling natural resources" we've been hearing for years.
Which totally ignores the fact that water wars (and wars over other resources, like farmland and slaves) have been going on all over the globe for thousands of years.
It also totally ignores the point that WW3 started with the Arab invasion of Israel in 1948 and has never yet stopped, in fact we've all this time denied we're at war with the Arab world at all when they've made it perfectly clear they're at war with us and it's a total war, a war of annihillation.
Farrell is trying to play to both sides of the audience to minimize his chance he'll be in the first groups up against the wall when it all comes down.
Late to the party, but I see everyone was just as impressed with Farrel as I was. Almost as hard to choke down as Bill Ayers, but with 2/3 less bombing. Same amount "oppressors vs. oppressed" crap.
However, Kevin, you're right to point out that both "right and left" for lack of another term, see the same tough history coming. As Geek says, the math is inevitable. IMO, there are two possibilities: outright collapse of the economy, with the Fed.gov right behind, or an economic "death in slow montion"; see Japan.
The founding fathers would be the first to tear down our existing government for the tyranny it is.
"We're not voting our way out of this."
That doesn't mean the next vote won't be interesting:
It's short enough to quote in its entirety:
"In March 2004, when Barack Obama was a candidate for the U.S. Senate in the Illinois Democratic primary, he excoriated President George W. Bush for creating a "jobless recovery." The month he said that, 334,000 new jobs were created—none of them temporary Census ones—and unemployment was 5.8%.
"That was then. Now the unemployment rate is 9.6%, and tomorrow's jobs report is unlikely to be much better.
"Many other Democrats piled on Mr. Bush at the time. "Mr. President, where are the jobs?" Rep. Nancy Pelosi asked on CNN in October 2003. "The American people will not settle for—nor should the Republicans celebrate—a jobless recovery." That month saw 203,000 new jobs and 6% unemployment. Her party would kill for such a rate today.
"Instead, they will be killed at the polls. This election's top issue is the economy, and the Democrats are being held accountable for its poor performance. After all, the party controls the White House and Congress and passed all the spending and stimulus measures it could dream up."
Well, except the routine budget bills which fund the gubmint. They had no time for routine stuff; it was all about plunder, their special interests, and wet dreams.