Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[redwallzyl]

relevant: http://www.npr.org/2015/10/15/448924058/journalist-describes-how-the-freedom-caucus-hijacked-congress

[Cthulhu]

On one hand, this kind of crash and burn might cripple the republicans forever and open up avenues for a real shakeup in the political composition.  On the other hand, they're clearly willing to bring the whole thing down if they can't get their way.

Calling them lemmings is an insult to lemmings

Caught a bit of our local NPR station interviewing John Hodgman, and he made an observation that rather succintly summed up the core problem in the US:

(and I'm paraphrasing here)
"There's a problem in this country where we tell people that money doesn't buy you happiness, that you can be happy without wealth. But what it doesn't address is that wealth buys you stability. It buys you not having to spend most of your waking moments worrying about whether you're going to make your bills this month. And there are people who have a vested interest in keeping people out of that level of wealth, because people vote mostly out of fear."

The more I think about it, the more I think he's spot on. If most people weren't 1-2 paychecks away from financial disaster, they'd be more rational and more open to proposals like subsidized healthcare or free education or environmental regulations. But when you keep people that on edge abut their security, even the smallest fee or tax seems like the straw that will break the camel's back. Conversely, if you're so far down the totem pole that government programs are the only thing keeping you alive, you're going to fight tooth and nail against attempts to scale back or remove those programs.

And we've got this "poor but happy" narrative in American culture that serves to pacify and shame people for wanting a more equitable distribution of wealth by equating it to greed and envy. If you're poor and want to be rich, you're greedy. But if you're already rich, then you just "worked hard and had great ideas". You're a "job creator", someone to be admired and respected.

We've fundamentally forgotten that the American Dream, the Horatio Alger story, is "rags-to-riches", not "rags-to-happy to just have a job, and really who needs money anyhow when I have all these wonderful commercial products to distract me?"

In keeping with that idea of politics and economy interlocked and codependent, here's an article by David Graeber on why we're not working 15 hours a week and why the decreasing need for manufacturing and agriculture has been met by an explosion in auxiliary jobs that aren't necessary.  Because if we weren't spending most of our waking hours doing mind-numbing and pointless tasks just to put food on our tables, we might have the energy to rethink how our system might be run.

[smjjames]

http://www.npr.org/2015/10/15/448924058/journalist-describes-how-the-freedom-caucus-hijacked-congress

Isn't Ted Cruz one of those?

[mainiac]

No, he is a Senator, they are in the house.

In keeping with that idea of politics and economy interlocked and codependent, here's an article by David Graeber on why we're not working 15 hours a week

https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/keynes/1930/our-grandchildren.htm

We aren't working 15 hours a week because Keynes expected a lower level of consumption then happened.  There were bullshit jobs when Keynes wrote his predictions.  That the average household would own 2 cars, a 2600 square foot house is something that maybe Keynes would have expected.  That a more productive society would be one that chooses to direct labor towards waitstaff, landscapers, maids and the like is not really in line with Keynes' predictions.  The word "service" never appears.  The word "education" never appears but quite a bit of labor these days goes to that.  The words "doctor" "medicine" and "health" dont and that is a substantial form of "consumption" that takes up a lot of labor.

[nenjin]

That was an insightful (transcript) read.

On one hand, this kind of crash and burn might cripple the republicans forever and open up avenues for a real shakeup in the political composition.  On the other hand, they're clearly willing to bring the whole thing down if they can't get their way.

What I took away from the article is this: we might be seeing the dissolution of the traditional Republican party establishment. One thing he kept hammering on in that piece: the Freedom Caucus/Tea Party Caucus is responsive to their base. Or at least appears responsive to them. They do what their constituents ask for: they make hell for the establishment of both parties.

That keeps getting them elected and reelected. Citizens United + Billionaire idealists has taken away the Republican establishment's biggest carrot. Money. If you don't need the establishment's money and thumbing your nose at them gets you re-elected.....that's seemingly a better strategy for getting elected than having to be a moderate, court women and latinos, negotiate, compromise.....And being shut out of the inside track in Washington? What does that matter if your plan is to say no unless you get exactly what you want anyways?

In effect they may be teaching the next generation of Republican politicians a different path to political power than what has worked in the past. It used to be you talked loudly about hot button issues, espoused your conservative purity and, once elected, you joined the establishment, learned how to play ball with it, got some cushy appointments and lobbying directed at you, yadda yadda...

They could be presenting a different, more attractive path to power now: Talk loudly about hot button issues, espouse your conservative purity, get elected....and then refuse to do other than create obstructions until the machinery of government breaks down. And you watch as the veteran establishment operators drop one by one, from old age, challenges from New-New Republicans, etc....Eventually, when everyone has been forced out of office as Boehner effectively was, your caucus will be the only one to turn to.

And to be honest....between my friends and I, we've long been saying that perhaps the only thing might actually change America at this point is a shitstorm of ruination. It might be the only thing that can truly unite people. In a sense that's what the Freedom Caucus thinks too. And it has the benefit of fulfilling the narrative their constituency thrives on. Obama will plunge America into a 3rd world hell hole, all security will be lost and it'll be the end of America as we know it. By fomenting that kind of chaos and trying to bring it to pass, the Freedom Caucus has basically created a political feedback loop.

Conservative constituency believes America is being ruined, will elect someone who says they will fight the establishment that's doing it -->
People like the Freedom Caucus campaign on fighting da power and bringing real change to America -->
They obstruct the function of government so things do get worse -->
Conservative constituency believes America is being ruined, will elect someone who says they will fight the establishment that's doing it -->
.....
Until America is a flaming shit hole and the only people left in power are the ones that caused it, and they're in charge now.

The fact half of these guys probably swear the Biblical End Times are right around the corner (still) is just icing on the cake.

Normally I'd say: gee, it'd be interesting to see what this plays out like with a Republican president. Except Trump would be exactly the Republican president they'd need. One who is universally hated, easy to obstruct at no political cost to themselves and who has the kind of ideas that really would wreck the country.

[Playergamer]

In non-election news, it's about goddamn time this happened.

that's a nice headline though. don't mention the guns in the headline, mention the flags.

i'm not saying that because i don't think the confederate flag is literally the most racist thing since hitler, i'm saying that because...

that headline implies these people were indicted by waving a confederate flag at a birthday party.

not convoying past, brandishing guns and making death threats.

great job cnn. you did it again.

[nenjin]

In non-election news, it's about goddamn time this happened.

that's a nice headline though. don't mention the guns in the headline, mention the flags.

i'm not saying that because i don't think the confederate flag is literally the most racist thing since hitler, i'm saying that because...

that headline implies these people were indicted by waving a confederate flag at a birthday party.

not convoying past, brandishing guns and making death threats.

great job cnn. you did it again.

The indictments charge 15 members of an organization known as Respect the Flag with violating Georgia's Street Gang Terrorism and Prevention Act and making terroristic threats.

I can see why they went with the headline, due to them belonging to a Flag group. But you're right, that is a bit of sensationalist headline writing.

[Willfor]

Oh no, an attention grabbing headline that may be misleading! I knew no good would come of those when they were invented 150 years ago.

[Frumple]

I'm sure town criers and messengers and whatnot were doing that centuries before 1865.

... bad things did indeed come from that, though. We can look at the misleading headlines of today and at least be somewhat comforted by the notably lower incidence of them leading to literal lynchings.

[mainiac]

In keeping with that idea of politics and economy interlocked and codependent, here's an article by David Graeber

I was trying to remember why I remembered the name David Graeber and finally I got it.  He is the author of the wrongest sentence on the internet.  Speaking of democratic organization he wrote:

Apple Computers is a famous example: it was founded by (mostly Republican) computer engineers who broke from IBM in Silicon Valley in the 1980s, forming little democratic circles of twenty to forty people with their laptops in each other’s garages.

Which contains six factual statements
1) Apple Computers is a famous example of democratic organization
2) Apple was founded by Republicans
3) The founders of Apple split from IBM
4) They worked in Silicon valley
5) Apple was founded in the '80s
6) They were working on laptops
... all six of which are untrue

Also I read his book but his book was not very memorable except for that sentence.  A bunch of logic along the lines of "XYZ happens in such and such poorly documented conditions so clearly we should think that way today."

[misko27]

Couple of new stuff from the swirling vortex of information and madness that is the 2016 campaign:

• Paul Ryan is still deciding. And there is still no alternative. If he decides not to run, there will most likely be a free-for-all. It's not even clear whether they will use a caretaker Speaker or keep Boehner on the job temporarily.
• Rand Paul, on the other hand, insists that he's still in the running. I recall another candidate who kept insisting this. But he's back in Texas now.
  
• Bush, taking a page from Newt Gingrich's wildly successful 2012 campaign for the Presidency, has noted that a moon colony is a pretty cool idea.
  
• We got an FEC report, and more interesting then who has raised money, is who hasn't. Jim Gilmore is literally spending his own money to stay in the race. Why do that Jim? Jindal is also low on funds.
  
  On the democrats side, Biden remains inscrutable despite being substantially hurt by the recent debate, Sanders has a lot of cash on hand now, and Clinton is no doubt prepping for the disgraced Benghazi commission interview of her next week.

[Cthulhu]

Ouch.  I read an intro to his book on debt, not much else.  That sentence sounds familiar though.  I like the basic idea of a gift economy.  Or if not that, then some kind of non-capitalist market system.  I'm sure there is one.  And if the republicans do detonate the US, well it was fred turner or something that said america's early years were all about experimentation.  We'll figure something out.

I'm drunk now, so take anything I say with a grain of salt.  It's a long story.  Not drunk enough that I can't type, but pretty fucking drunk.

Ted Cruz isn't technically part of the fuck the universe caucus but he's cut from the same cloth.  The I'd rather burn the whole thing down than give an inch cloth.  I read an article about it, pretty solid?  Or convincing?  That Ted Cruz has decided if he can be as much of a melty-faced fuckler as possible he can sell that as being an "outsider" in washington.  And that's his whole thing.  He'll hold the budget hostage over basic women's healthcare cause he thinks people will vote for his wax-sculpture-left-out-in-the-sun looking ass.

Nenjin's thing reads pretty true though, about what the freedom caucus's plans are.  Remember the fiscal cliff?  These dickloafs would rather evaporate billions (or trillions?) in treasury bonds and blow up the world's economy than compromise with Barack (Hussein!!1) Obama.

[smjjames]

Couple of new stuff from the swirling vortex of information and madness that is the 2016 campaign:

• Paul Ryan is still deciding. And there is still no alternative. If he decides not to run, there will most likely be a free-for-all. It's not even clear whether they will use a caretaker Speaker or keep Boehner on the job temporarily.
• Rand Paul, on the other hand, insists that he's still in the running. I recall another candidate who kept insisting this. But he's back in Texas now.
  
• Bush, taking a page from Newt Gingrich's wildly successful 2012 campaign for the Presidency, has noted that a moon colony is a pretty cool idea.
  
• We got an FEC report, and more interesting then who has raised money, is who hasn't. Jim Gilmore is literally spending his own money to stay in the race. Why do that Jim? Jindal is also low on funds.
  
  On the democrats side, Biden remains inscrutable despite being substantially hurt by the recent debate, Sanders has a lot of cash on hand now, and Clinton is no doubt prepping for the disgraced Benghazi commission interview of her next week.
  

From what I've read of Gilmore, he's basically giving a middle finger to the system, or at least he thinks he is.

Also, Pataki looks even worse off than Gilmore is.

@Cthulhu, yeah, Ted Cruz is of the same mentality as those Freedom Caucaus guys.

Gilmore probably gets a medal for sheer tenacity, but yeah, I don't see Jindal and Pataki sticking around for much longer.

[redwallzyl]

oh look trump being offensive again.

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/10/15/448718726/south-korea-trumps-where-are-you-from-moment

[RedKing]

No?  Either you earn your own wealth or die in the gutter.

Ladies and gentlemen, the New American Dream, courtesy of 50 Cent.