An extension of Watching Apocalypse


    Fooling the fooler

    Share
    avatar
    dleet86
    Moderator
    Moderator

    Posts : 83
    Join date : 2016-12-23
    Location : Sweden

    Fooling the fooler

    Post by dleet86 on Tue Feb 07, 2017 12:10 am

    Or propagandizing the propagandizer. I see some MSM putting a tease out or piece of bait, to get the WH to correct their Putin position. The story line is "Trump is making Putin more famous and more important than he himself. Putin will be Time's man of the decade". Will trump bite? Or does putin have too much on trump? I think mainly money because he would pay no price for his piss fetish even in the evangelical crowd.
    avatar
    Ren's View
    Admin

    Posts : 248
    Join date : 2016-09-16

    Re: Fooling the fooler

    Post by Ren's View on Wed Feb 08, 2017 11:34 am

    This is one of those stray thoughts about which I've got nothing to work with.

    Now fooling with the propagandist, I have played that game with the Internet trolls and had a lot of fun doing it, eventually getting them so pissed off they actually tried to come after me and do me a kind of harm that is only psychological in nature, though they implied they would like to come after me in a physical way if they only knew where I live.  You can imagine how that turned out for them.  At Thom's.  That's how you get trolls banned.  Even the most sophisticated trolls.  They lose sight of their perspective and goals, which is to get under people's skins and get them to behave emotionally.
    avatar
    dleet86
    Moderator
    Moderator

    Posts : 83
    Join date : 2016-12-23
    Location : Sweden

    Re: Fooling the fooler

    Post by dleet86 on Fri Feb 10, 2017 12:03 am

    One of the authors in the Paris Review list of interviews advised on how to engage or disarm an ideological opponent. He said if the guy/gal was smoking a cigar (this is metaphorical as well as literal, though women have had cigars before) he would ask them for a light offering them a moment to aid a fellow thinker or appreciator of tobacco and bond psychologically.

    The current line of "If I can't ban Muslims it's your fault when the next attack comes and therefore I need not pay any attention to the PDBs" is my paraphrase but Chris Hayes said yesterday he's laying a predicate to escape blame and said the same thing I was thinking.

    He said predicate but calculus would work too, propositional calculus is logic. He has never taken responsibility for any of his numerous failures and even describes them as his actions being the only ones that didn't fail. It's almost as though he can predict a catastrophe is coming and is weaving his safety net now.
    avatar
    Ren's View
    Admin

    Posts : 248
    Join date : 2016-09-16

    Re: Fooling the fooler

    Post by Ren's View on Fri Feb 10, 2017 8:17 am

    I don't see where I need anything new, perspective or otherwise, to convince me that a Trump Presidency is a huge mistake and that the entire world may now be in deeper shit than it was before the election. I'm thinking about other problems.
    avatar
    dleet86
    Moderator
    Moderator

    Posts : 83
    Join date : 2016-12-23
    Location : Sweden

    Re: Fooling the fooler

    Post by dleet86 on Wed Feb 15, 2017 7:49 am

    Fools buy foolish reports. Did you know that all the protests are fake and are really Obama's secret organization? Wind surfboards now have cell phone holsters and chargers and are promised to be solar soon..don't spend more tah 30 seconds on this
    avatar
    dleet86
    Moderator
    Moderator

    Posts : 83
    Join date : 2016-12-23
    Location : Sweden

    Re: Fooling the fooler

    Post by dleet86 on Wed Feb 15, 2017 8:26 am

    Some other media bullshit that ratings prove people believe. Remember there is still 44% of the 25% that voted still believe the sex trafficking ring Hillary is running has gotten away with it.


    On the disgusting gutting of stream and toxic dump or silt cuts the cost for coal so solar has a cheaper competitor.
    I have another scenario I have been couching as rejected chapters in the dystopian USA from 2050 novel Splinterlands by Feffer. Since I have posted a feudalism comparison chart a step toward fiefdoms is in the 10th amendment push Ryan, Banon, Kochs, Devos, and others are seeking. from facebook to myself
    Devos, Ryan, Banon, and one of the trumps (and I mean one of the many inside donald) are seeking a feudal realignment using the 10th amendment to dump everything on the states. Devos can get the governors to agree to close DOE and turn their states into amway for charters. Ryan and the Goldman Sachs team with FIRE (finance, insurance, real estate) can arrange block grant models that could also be done in an Amway pyramid style insurance scheme funded with tax dollars. Some governors were quite happy to refuse free Medicaid expansion killing about 10,000 a year so choking off Medicaid further is easy and Medicare soon after, but at state levels, so WV's Appalachia and bankrupt KS should be models to copy. This follows on the transformation to feudalism. The states will be the fiefdoms like KS is to the kochs.

     I write possibilities when they come to me so I don't forget them. Unless they are that wretched and they should be wiped clean from all memories.
    avatar
    Ren's View
    Admin

    Posts : 248
    Join date : 2016-09-16

    Re: Fooling the fooler

    Post by Ren's View on Wed Feb 15, 2017 8:56 am

    This is the internal picture I'm looking at, and why this constant ridicule of a large sector of the American body politic doesn't work for me:

    This large cluster of working class "fools" who are now identified with the right, and increasingly the alt right, was created by what took place in the early seventies in the Democratic Party.

    I've talked about the Powell Memo and how that laid out a blue print for corporate take over.  If you want to talk about fools, let me point out the fools in the Democratic Party who put forth their own version of a Powell Memo.  One of those was a Democratic power broker by the name of Fred Dutton.  The title of his Democratic version of a Powell Memo manifesto is: Changing Sources of Power: American Politics in the 1970s.  In it he defines the new direction for the Democratic Party.  He was able to do this by being an integral part of the McGovern Presidential campaign.

    Two very significant things occurred to change the Democratic Party at precisely the same time the Powell Memo was changing the power structure of the Republican Party, which on that side, served to put the corporate oligarchs back at the fore front (like they were during the Guilded Age) while the Democrats were about to begin a project of appealing to the white collar technocrats who were once at the forefront of the Republican Party. In a sense, this is the detailed footprints of how the nation began to move to the right.

    The first was critical.  It would be like the redistricting that Republicans have pulled off to put their voters in position to vote in their candidates.  The Democrats through the McGovern Commission, through a series of reforms, changed the Democratic party's nominating system in a way the shut out the powerful labor organizations that at the time were at the hierarchy positions in the Democratic Party.  The reforms did nothing to ensure representation for working class people.  The demoralization that took place among the working class, couple with the anti Vietnam sentiment of the educated professionals that were behind George McGovern sent many of the blue collar voters to the Nixon camp. 

    One thing you can't mess with without serious repurcussions is a whole class's way of getting a sense of worth.  In this case it was worth derived through serving in the nation's military and thus cementing their patriotism.  For many Americans, patriotism is a kind of class badge.  It's a metaphor well beyond reasonable deconstruction.  Especially deconstruction through association with failed war.  Some of us questioned that form of patriotism, but the class of blue collar vets who do not is a much larger number.  You add to that the elements of programmed faith that you get through religious organizations and the error of "reforming" how leadership was to be chosen within the Democratic party begins to emerge.  But it took years for a Clinton power move allied through the Democratic Leadership Committee, now utterly bereft of the once powerful labor movement, to emerge with that error as part of who they now were: ie, the professionals of a new, labor sneering class. 

    Guess what the response to that might be from people who do not hold college degrees and do not work in good paying white collar jobs.  Can anyone guess why a slew of voices spouting hate against "liberals" might begin to find an audience they could shape with that hatred?  I can.  My own roots are from that white trash blue collar constituency.  And I look at the ridicule that's coming from those who now align themselves with an elite, technocratic class that inhabits the upper crust decision making of the Democratic party and I see a huge mistake along with a kind of conformity to a way of thinking that speaks of a form of authoritarianism reflected in the word: hegemony.

    The second was the rise of the urban professionals within the Democratic Party that resulted. Remember the Yuppies?  That was the first wave of this new type of urban professional Democrat.  YUPies: the Young Urban Professionals.  Gary Hart, the Clintons, a bunch of highly educated professionals who took the leadership of the Democratic Party from the New Deal blue collar Democrats emerged.  Carter, it turns out, was the archetype of these Democratic technocrats.  That was one of those changes, the other was the actual realization by the Labor Unions that they were being displaced.  Al Barkan, director of the AFL-CIO's Committee on Public Education said in 1972: ‘We aren’t going to let these Harvard-Berkeley Camelots take over our party.’  But they did.  This is from Byron Shafer, Quiet Revolution: The Struggle for the Democratic Party and the Shaping of Post-Reform Politics (Russell Sage Foundation, 1983), pp. 7:

    Byron Shafer wrote:

    Before reform, there was an American party system in which one party, the Republicans, was primarily responsive to white-collar constituencies and in which another, the Democrats, was primarily responsive to blue-collar constituencies. After reform, there were two parties each responsive to quite different white-collar coalitions, while the old blue-collar majority within the Democratic party was forced to try to squeeze back into the party once identified predominantly with its needs.


    Celebrating the rise of the smart people in the Democratic Party today only enhances that slamming of the party's door in the face of the working class that took place while the Powell Memo was being enacted upon by the corporate oligarchs of the nation.   The Democratic party I saw expressing itself during the latest Clinton run, and at its celebration of her rise to the party's candidacy last summer, that sort of coincided with the end of the Hartmann message board, with all the fear that we who found Clinton despicable would only enhance the Trump candidacy, is that celebration of the educated elite technocrats that so many people find despicable now in this country.  They may not be as articulate as the smart people in expressing themselves, but their feelings of being left out are quite real.  The new alt right, with hucksters like Steve Bannon at the helm, are offering them a hand.  They are therefore laughing at all the fumbling, bumbling educated elite right now. To them, anyone that can make fools of these elitists is a kind of hero. And many are probably looking forward to those elitists being brought down into the rising sludge where they've been for quite some time now.

    In terms of what exactly these people in the Trump Administration are up to?  I'm sure it has something to do with making more money.


    Last edited by Ren's View on Thu Feb 16, 2017 7:39 am; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    dleet86
    Moderator
    Moderator

    Posts : 83
    Join date : 2016-12-23
    Location : Sweden

    Re: Fooling the fooler

    Post by dleet86 on Wed Feb 15, 2017 11:24 pm

    Very good summary Ren. That's also why a two-party system is a failure in offering a representative form of government. A Parliamentary system can offer real representation and doesn't rely on bribes in most of the OECD member's systems.

    http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/does-susan-sarandon-still-think-trump-could-bring-the-revolution-878254147749 has Josh Fox also. Both are speaking of divestiture as a viable strategy easily applied. There are so many alternatives to every product that advertises on fox, or is a bank thief. Credit unions are morally superior and cheaper. Co-ops work too.
     
    Note at about 06:00+/- they begin using frack instead of fuck. I have been waiting for this and been typing clusterfrack for a couple of years. Fox and Hayes both adopted the logical comparison. Fracking is injecting an unkown liquid into a tight receptor sometimes with force which sounds similar to rape. Fucking is fun, fracking is not.
    avatar
    Ren's View
    Admin

    Posts : 248
    Join date : 2016-09-16

    Re: Fooling the fooler

    Post by Ren's View on Thu Feb 16, 2017 8:44 am

    I had a discussion with one of my acquaintances from our local, recently organized Willapa Bay Resistance group about just that topic: that is, changing from this bipolar presidential republic system to a parliamentary system in order to broaden the political voice to something a lot more inclusive of the variation in perspectives now present.  Not surprisingly, being the microscopically-oriented, therefore compartmentally-focused person he just happens to be, he could find nothing but fault with a parliamentary system, thus agreement about it's democratic superiority could not be achieved.  Nevertheless, I think the consensus in the world would be in agreement.  Whether the U.S. could ever muster up the sense to change before it collapses is a pressing question.

    What I'm looking at in your link is something like this: Chris Hayes is what I would identify as a status quo/consensus technocrat journalist.  He's allowed a platform by being middle of the road enough to be hired by a corporate media agency, he's not even vaguely in touch with what his guests are trying to say.  He's getting upset because he is not an investigative journalist trying to understand and report on a broad and growing revolution that's arising in response to a clumsy ass clown, who less than 36 percent of the voting population voted into office (source).  His point that the American people voted to frack themselves is what I would call a typical status quo argument.  It's like saying that someone who doesn't get an education and doesn't rise up the ladder of meritocracy is to blame in a system where getting a good degree is impossible for everyone for a huge variety of reasons, not to mention that a meritocracy is defined by hierarchy and that in any hierarchy all cannot rise to the top levels at the same time. It's an absurd argument.  It makes me want to scream when I hear it.  But most of the ruling technocratic class has been making that argument about the increasingly large group of have nots for years. That is, if you are a have not in this country, you have only yourself  to blame.  The status quo is oblivious to the plight of ordinary people.  Clinton illustrated that back in 1992, just after he was elected:

    Thomas Frank wrote:

    EVERY MAN A YUPPIE

    In reality, remember, Bill Clinton owed his election to hard times and his remarkable ability to make people think he cared about their suffering. With an assist from the plain-speaking billionaire Ross Perot, Clinton succeeded in winning back many of the working-class voters his centrist, technocratic predecessors had lost to the Republicans.

    Once elected, Clinton expressed his thoughts in a December 1992 speech to his “economic summit.” Here is how he proposed to deal with the various economic problems he had identified on the campaign trail:

    Our new direction must rest on an understanding of the new realities of global competition. The world we face today is the world where what you earn depends on what you can learn. There’s a direct relationship between high skills and high wages, and therefore we have to educate our people better to compete. We will be as rich and strong and rife with opportunity as we are skilled and talented and trained.


    I put Clinton’s line about “what you earn” in italics because it may well be the most important passage of them all for understanding how his party— how our entire system— has failed so utterly to confront income inequality. It’s a line Clinton repeated a number of times in the course of his years in government,* and here, in a single sentence, is the distilled essence of the theory that has governed the politics of work and compensation from that day to this: You get what you deserve, and what you deserve is defined by how you did in school. Furthermore, this is supposedly true both for individuals and for the nation. Everyone says this. Barack Obama says it, David Brooks says it, George W. Bush says it, even Wisconsin governor Scott Walker says it, by implication, when he demands that the mission of the University of Wisconsin be changed from the “search for truth” to making people employable.

    Frank, Thomas (2016-03-15). Listen, Liberal: Or, What Ever Happened to the Party of the People? (pp. 54-55). Henry Holt and Co.. Kindle Edition.

    Almost half the eligible voters didn't even bother to vote they are so disgruntled with the system.  Their disgruntlement doesn't even register as a voice of democracy in a status quo-dominated two party system.  Chris Hayes is a status quo perpetrator of double-bind speak.  Forcing someone into a double bind has been shown to induce a kind of schizophrenia.  In this case it could be seen as a national schizophrenia. Careful use of a double bind by a Zen master nudging a student towards enlightenment is one potentially positive use of the double bind; but that is not the situation we are looking at here, and Chris Hayes and his ilk are no Zen masters.  Frustration at being offered a double bind, a refusal to act on it doesn't have a voice in a presidential republic headed for a dictatorship:

    Wikipedia writers wrote:

    Criticism and disadvantages (of a presidential system)







    • Tendency towards authoritarianism — some political scientists say presidentialism raises the stakes of elections, exacerbates their polarization and can lead to authoritarianism (Linz).
    • Political gridlock — the separation of powers of a presidential system establishes the presidency and the legislature as two parallel structures. Critics argue that this can create an undesirable and long-term political gridlock whenever the president and the legislative majority are from different parties, which is common because the electorate usually expects more rapid results from new policies than are possible (Linz, Mainwaring and Shugart). In addition, this reduces accountability by allowing the president and the legislature to shift blame to each other.
    • Impediments to leadership change — presidential systems often make it difficult to remove a president from office early, for example after taking actions that become unpopular.


    Tendency towards authoritarianism






    A prime minister without majority support in the legislature must either form a coalition or, if able to lead a minority government, govern in a manner acceptable to at least some of the opposition parties. Even with majority government, the prime minister must still govern within (perhaps unwritten) constraints as determined by the members of his party—a premier in this situation is often at greater risk of losing his party leadership than his party is at risk of losing the next election. On the other hand, winning the presidency is a winner-take-all, zero-sum game. Once elected, a president might be able to marginalize the influence of other parties and exclude rival factions in his own party as well, or even leave the party whose ticket he was elected under. The president can thus rule without any party support until the next election or abuse his power to win multiple terms, a worrisome situation for many interest groups. Yale political scientist Juan Linz argues that:


    The danger that zero-sum presidential elections pose is compounded by the rigidity of the president's fixed term in office. Winners and losers are sharply defined for the entire period of the presidential mandate... losers must wait four or five years without any access to executive power and patronage. The zero-sum game in presidential regimes raises the stakes of presidential elections and inevitably exacerbates their attendant tension and polarization.

    Constitutions that only require plurality support are said[by whom?] to be especially undesirable, as significant power can be vested in a person who does not enjoy support from a majority of the population.

    Some political scientists say that presidential systems are not constitutionally stable and have difficulty sustaining democratic practices, noting that presidentialism has slipped into authoritarianism in many of the countries in which it has been implemented. According to political scientist Fred Riggs, presidentialism has fallen into authoritarianism in nearly every country it has been attempted.[2][3] Political sociologist Seymour Martin Lipset pointed out that this has taken place in political cultures not conducive to democracy and that militaries have tended to play a prominent role in most of these countries. On the other hand, an often-cited[by whom?] list of the world's 22 older democracies includes only two countries (Costa Rica and the United States) with presidential systems.

    (Source)

    I keep the above in mind at all times while I'm thinking about the U.S.'s presidential republic system.  All the factors involved in turning it into the mess we now have are in the back of my mind, including the work I did on the Unitary Executive that has been so instrumental in bringing out presidential powers and putting them in play since the so-called Reagan revolution.

    Around 2.4 million people who even bothered to vote this last election, didn't mark their ballot for the president.  Meanwhile, Chris Hayes, who has been give a national stage allowing him to be a status quo centrist ignoring the undemocratic reality of the U.S., is shouting over Susan and Josh that the American people voted to Frack themselves.  I'm rising to borderline schizophrenia while watching.

    "There are things that don't get covered because there are things that don't get covered."  -- Chris Hayes. 

    Brilliant.

    ogun
    Moderator
    Moderator

    Posts : 88
    Join date : 2016-10-14

    Re: Fooling the fooler

    Post by ogun on Sun Feb 19, 2017 5:25 am

    Never to worry though, we've got the trumpkof to inform us bout things that don't get covered.

    Yo doug did ya survive the terrorist attack? https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/19/sweden-trump-cites-non-existent-terror-attack

    Sponsored content

    Re: Fooling the fooler

    Post by Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Mon Jul 24, 2017 11:51 am