• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Deconstructing "Progressive " thought

E.R. Campbell said:
The POTUS should have and could have sent the Congress a budget that served the people's needs: major cuts to unaffordable 'entitlements,' major cuts to the defence budget - including, probably, a strategic plan to disengage from West Asia and, yes, < gasp > a new, national VAT, modeled on Canada's reasonably (not perfectly, not even well) structured HST. That would have been leading. Instead Obama choses to play politics - to fiddle while America burns.

Look, Bush was not a good president, he wasn't even just an OK president; but Obama is not any, not one iota, better.

Political irresponsibility in the USA has reached epic proportions - amongst both the Democrats and the Republicans, including some/many/most of the Tea Party people.

Obama is America's Pierre Trudeau - a dilettante; someone, additionally, who has, in the great Isiah Berlin's model, the intellectual characteristics of a hedgehog: one "big" idea that precludes considering lesser things, like the economy or the national interest. For Trudeau it was destructive nationalism - something which never, much, existed in Canada, hors de Québec; for Obama it is redressing some of the grievances of poor, urban, black Americans. Trudeau managed to reduce Canada from a prosperous, 'leading' middle power to a debt ridden international lightweight (in fairness, he didn't do it alone and Mulroney did not reverse the "project' when he could have done so - Canadians liked Trudeau's vision, poisonous to their own best interests though it was); Obama may do the same for America; charisma is a terrible thing.

I agree with much of this - as I suggested in the post responding to Haletown, the problems facing the USA are broad, and they need a lot of bold - and likely extremely unpopular, some would say politically suicidal moves to accomplish - including a VAT of some sort for example - a move which allowed Canada to deal with its budget problems.  In fact, when we look at the deficit we face now, the two GST cuts made by the Harper government, which did little to improve the position of the vast majority of Canadians, seem silly.  I did a little bit of math a while back on how much those cuts did for me in terms of my actual disposable income (and I make a pretty good amount of money), and it was negligible.  In many cases, retailers just sucked up the difference on a lot of small ticket items anyhow, and even with the income I have, a big chunk of it goes to things like my mortgage and groceries, or into long term savings, and what's left at the end that's "discretionary spending" accounts for not a tremendous savings.  It certainly didn't have any stimulative effect in terms of changing my consumption preferences - but the aggregate impact on the federal budget was still large.  I'd have been content with large surpluses paying down the national debt over a cut - or at least, an income tax cut - ideally in the form of raising the basic personal exemption.

Obama was elected, in part at least, as sort of a "pendulum" effect.  He was charismatic when the nation needed it - but I think a large part of his shortcomings come from the reality that many had unrealistic expectations about what he could actually accomplish in the political reality of the US.
 
Exactly, Bruce.

The tirade (which I admit I got a little too wound up about, mea culpa and I will watch my tone going forward) I made wasn't attacking any individual's posting, but rather the recurring theme particularly in discussing American politics, when a blogger makes a ridiculous claim (which is the case in the blog post being discussed, which turned a RFP from the USAF for some sort of means of managing virtual personas, the reason for which isn't discussed), into some sort of drivelous claim that Obama intends to create some sort of army of propaganda bots on the internet.  The source of this claim was indeed a blog reflecting little intelligence, and it was presented by whomever as some sort of serious subject to discuss.  Thus I mildly lost my mind.

It seems, however, that we've gotten back on track, which is good.

Bruce Monkhouse said:
I'm sorry but I must ask who considers a 'blogger' a source anyway?

IMO, a blog is no more, or less, a source than the comments section of CBC so here we are again......
 
Redeye said:
... Defence spending is a massive, massive contributor to the US deficit, and it is a very difficult political animal to tackle.  Obama's budget did include some cuts to program spending, but without tackling the might military budget and trying to figure out further reforms to entitlement programs, which is a substantial undertaking, there's little room for him to move.

"Defence" is a very important sector of the US economy - a HUGE employer and, indirectly, a large "earner" of export dollars - although they are, in[color] about[/color=yellow] 60% of cases, subsidies from the US taxpayer "laundered' through foreign aid and foreign capitals. Major cuts to US defence spending are on a par with a major cut to oil ands production in Canada.

Remember, part of what forced up the US deficit was the Democratic Congress elected in 2006 forcing the Iraq War to be included in the budget instead of keeping it "off the books".  Many on the right seem to like to claim that this means that the Dems caused the deficit.  They didn't.  They just forced it to be recognized.

Correct. The US Congress was driven to a rare burst of fiscal "responsibility" because it was in the Dems' partisan, political interests to do so.

The CBO (which is non-partisan) ...

The CBO may be non-partisan but it is not highly regarded for the rigor of its analyses. Being non-partisan is nice; being right is better. It would be nice if the CBO was right more often.
...
Er, this is false.  Obama's much-vilified financial reform bill actually deals with this, to an extent.  "Race based laws" is a not-so-slight exaggeration of the "Equal Housing Lender" program, which was itself established to deal with egregious discrimination in the mortgage market.  Both sides of the spectrum bear responsibility for the mess in the US mortgage markets, and more reforms are needed.  One thing I'd like to see proposed to deal with the deficit is the end to mortgage interest deductibility in the US - but it, like the military, is political kryptonite.  Not so long ago I read an interesting article, I think in The Economist, about all the policy efforts in the US to encourage home ownership - it contrasted them with Canada, which hasn't got things like deductibility and noted that home ownership rates in Canada are about the same.

Agreed, mostly, but Clinton and Bush and now Obama are still trying to play fast and loose with actuarial facts without agreeing to recognize, much less pay the real costs involved. I have no brief for or against giving black people pots of money to waste in the name of home ownership - just as long as we don't pretend it is, in any way at all, good policy.
...
 
I'll only note the interesting contrast in reactions between a verified and publicly displayed death threat to Conservative blogger Ann Althouse and the reaction to alleged threats (which oddly no one seems to have screen shots of) to Professor Piven after her speech advocating political violence was highlighted by Andrew Breitbart.
 
Thucydides said:
I'll only note the interesting contrast in reactions between a verified and publicly displayed death threat to Conservative blogger Ann Althouse and the reaction to alleged threats (which oddly no one seems to have screen shots of) to Professor Piven after her speech advocating political violence was highlighted by Andrew Breitbart.

False: Here's the screen shots: http://mediamatters.org/blog/201101140032
 
Even better, though, is the case of Indiana Deputy Attorney General Jeff Cox, who was just sacked for a series of blog and Twitter posts, including one suggesting that "live ammunition" be used against protestors in Wisconsin, comparisons of the SEIU to the Sturmabteilung (SA), and various other totally inappropriate remarks which he actually claimed he would defend when exposed by Mother Jones magazine.

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/indiana-official-jeff-cox-live-ammunition-against-wisconsin-protesters

Interestingly, he didn't reveal his position or in any way make the suggestion that he was officially representing his office, which could allow him some sort of redress... however, the fact that he - a government official - was making those statements at all, even on his "own time" is still disturbing, and I suspect that's why he's been "invited to pursue other employment opportunities".
 
TheHead
I'm saying the user who posted the blog should be banned, he obviously didn't read it.

I am the user who posted. You voiced your concern twice via deduction of points.  Getting incensed at postings in a forum is your privilege.

Speak to management re banning.

In case you missed it, the post stated "A Blog" and "Another Blog" with links, not a reference for, example, like QR & O's.

You also missed that the post was tongue in cheek.

I will continue to watch FOX News thank-you very much as well as subscribe to FNN in March.

Happy trails!
 
Actually I made a typo.  "Shouldn't"  be banned.  Also don't backpeddle now you and I know it wasn't meant to be tongue and cheek.  You thought the blogger was serious and now when proven wrong you're trying to play it down.  Trust me I know people like you watch Fox. Tides go in, Tides go out. Can't explain that.
 
No reasonable amount of increased taxation is going to save the US from its overspending problem - and that is the problem.  In terms of basic governance, the Obama administration has failed, in epic proportions.  It wasn't necessary to have Sun Tzu or Clausewitz available to select the aim for the single most critical problem facing the US in the final months leading up to the 2008 election cycle.  Guess what - if you're that stupid or ideologically hidebound, you don't get to claim credit for brilliance, no matter how many ivy-league fartcatchers run around polishing your knob: you're incompetent.

Politicians partake of two skill sets: "campaign", and "govern".  Successful politicians by definition must have the former.  Not all have the latter.  Obama does not have the latter.  All he knows how to do well is sell himself.

The claim that the US deficit was "forced up" by Congress putting the war costs "on budget" is merely amusing to the informed.  Bush's budget submissions to Congress - which are requests, not orders - did not include the costs; but the appropriations were passed quite openly and the costs of the war were always "on budget" at year end.  People who are serious about discussing US federal finances need to stop pretending the president's budget submission is anything other than a starting point for discussion.  What matters are the resolutions and appropriations passed by Congress and the legislation signed by the president, and the year-end financial statements.  It is like the mythology that Bush is somehow responsible for the FY 2009 budget - yes, he submitted a budget proposal on schedule (Feb 2008); then Congress punted on 9 of the 12 appropriations until after the 2008 presidential election and Obama signed the final bill.  It takes rock-bottom stupidity to promulgate myths like "off-budget Iraq war spending" and "Bush's FY 2009 deficit".  Guess what: when the budget is in your party's hands for over 12 months and you sign it into law, your party owns it.

Regarding PPACA, what the CBO said is that given the assumptions, the legislation reduces the deficit.  The CBO also essentially said, in their own circumscribed way, that the assumptions are horsesh!t and not to be taken seriously.

There is a point at which it is helpful to cut away the bullsh!t and see what is actually there.  Some commentators on this thread aren't there yet and are merely spinning plausible tales based on talking points and less than starkly truthful creative representations of the facts.
 
Brad: you've made some good points here.  The reality is that the situation faced by the US is complex and there are no easy solutions, and certainly no one party has all the answers.  The problem is that for politicians, they're only ever in "campaign" mode, governing is rarely done by anyone.  There's a reason that the civil service exists, it actually looks after most of the day-to-day operations of any given country.

It's precisely for this reason that the US' situtation looks bleak: no one who is realistically just campaigning can afford, politically, to make the bold suggestions that need to be made to make the changes necessary to try to put the financial house in order.  Those things include massive cuts to the military, pushing ahead with even more healthcare reform, making some sort of changes to entitlements like social security, etc.  While politicians might talk about these things, it's not really popular to do them.

Imagine the shock I had listening to The Current the other day when Rand Paul was being interviewed and finding myself agreeing with him on several points.  He's basically something of a fringe wingnut, but has the privilege of having enough "fame" to be able to make bold statements about things that most others simply won't.
 
IF there is independent confirmation, then this is the most toxic story I have come across in a long time (stay tuned):

http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/03/07/oregon-state-republican-candidates-children-expelled-as-retribution/

Oregon State: Republican candidate’s children expelled as retribution?

Update: I’m looking for more information, and if possible, independent confirmation of this story.  Email me at crmpjm AT gmail DOT com if you can get me anything.  Confidentiality will be respected if desired.

Look, this is from World Net Daily, not my favorite source, but a lot of this actually reminds me of things I saw in graduate school.  Here’s the story, think for yourself.  If it’s true, it’s just beyond reprehensible.

Art Robinson writes:

    In an effort to do my part in rescuing our country from the out-of-control Obama administration, last year I ran for Congress in Oregon’s 4th District against 12-term incumbent, far-left Democrat Peter DeFazio, co-founder of the House Progressive Caucus.

    On Nov. 4, 2010, as soon as the election results were in and they were sure their candidate had won, faculty administrators at Oregon State University gave new meaning to the term “political payback.”

    They initiated an attack on my three children – Joshua, Bethany and Matthew – for the purpose of throwing them all out of the OSU graduate school, despite their outstanding academic and research accomplishments. OSU is a liberal socialist Democrat stronghold in Oregon that received a reported $27 million in earmark funding from my opponent, Peter DeFazio, and his Democrat colleagues during the last legislative session.

    Thus, Democrat activist David Hamby and militant feminist and chairman of the nuclear engineering department Kathryn Higley are expelling four-year Ph.D. student Joshua Robinson from OSU at the end of the current academic quarter and turning over the prompt neutron activation analysis facility Joshua built for his thesis work and all of his work in progress to Higley’s husband, Steven Reese. Reese, an instructor in the department, has stated that he will use these things for his own professional gain. Joshua’s apparatus, which he built and added to the OSU nuclear reactor with the guidance and ideas of his mentor, Michael Hartman, earned Joshua the award for best Masters of Nuclear Engineering thesis at OSU and has been widely complimented by scientists at prominent U.S. nuclear facilities.

    Meanwhile, faculty member Todd Palmer notified four-year Ph.D. student Bethany Robinson (OSU grade point average 3.89) that he was terminating her thesis work and taking all of her work in progress for himself. Some of Bethany’s graduate work has already been used, without credit to Bethany, in the thesis of another favored student now recently hired on the department faculty. …..

    My children and I attempted to counter all these actions against us as they unfolded, but were initially uncertain as to their ultimate intent. All became clear, however, when OSU faculty administrators abruptly took a further and very serious prejudicial action toward Joshua. At that point, OSU Professor of Nuclear Engineering Jack Higginbotham, who was privy to all of the meetings and actions, warned us and came to our defense.

    Professor Higginbotham, who also serves as president of the OSU Faculty Senate and director of the Oregon NASA Space Science Consortium, has been a member of the OSU faculty for 24 years. He has held many responsible positions in the university and has received numerous professional awards. Moreover, he is very widely admired for the many instances in which he has given special help to students at OSU. This is a man who thinks always of his students and never of himself.

    Professor Higginbotham warned us that faculty administrators at OSU were working to make certain that Joshua, his sister Bethany and, if possible, his brother Matthew never receive Ph.D. degrees in nuclear engineering from OSU, regardless of their examination, academic and research performance. Professor Higginbotham then reviewed with us the details of the plan to destroy the education of these students and advised me to do anything I could to protect my children.

    Since November, a remarkable battle has been raging within OSU. I considered an immediate public exposure of this plot and warned the faculty of this possibility, but instead my family and I decided to try to prevent a scandal at OSU and save the students within the confines of OSU. We fought these unprincipled academics on their own ground and held them off for four months. That effort is, however, now failing, and Joshua and Bethany are both slated for dismissal from the department of nuclear engineering very soon. Also, unless action is taken immediately, Professor Higginbotham’s career will be completely destroyed.

I recommend reading the whole thing, but this paragraph in particular rings true:

    OSU administrators think they can violate ethical academic standards of professional conduct, break formal OSU rules and regulations, and even violate U.S. laws with impunity because, in any resulting litigation, they would be defended by lawyers from the Oregon Department of Justice, assuring that only students with huge sums of money and many years to invest in litigation can oppose them. The Robinsons do not have those huge sums of money, and, moreover, they want to complete their education – not receive money in exchange for the destruction of their education and opportunities.

That’s pretty much exactly something I heard: “You can sue us and make us give you money, but you can’t make us give you a degree.”
 
Maybe you should wait till stories are confirmed before you post them.  Some users may think they're true.  Well looks like the conservative blogosphere has blown up and is already reporting this as fact.  Not very suprising there.
 
http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archives/2011/mar/statement-regarding-recent-internet-postings-art-robinson
Statement regarding Internet postings by Art Robinson
3-7-11

Note: A more concise version of this statement is available at http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archives/2011/mar/statement-regarding-recent-internet-postings-art-robinson-0.

CORVALLIS, Ore. -- Political candidate Art Robinson published material this past weekend with regard to the status of two of his adult sons and one adult daughter who are graduate students in Oregon State University’s Department of Nuclear Engineering and Radiation Health Physics.  Robinson made a number of allegations with regard to the students’ experience at OSU and further allegations regarding the university’s relationship with U.S. Rep. Peter DeFazio.

Federal law prohibits institutions of higher education from discussing matters concerning our students with anyone other than the student himself or herself without the express consent of the student involved. Given that, OSU will not comment on any allegation regarding the Robinson students or share any personal information concerning them other than the limited “directory information” allowed by law to be shared.

Robinson’s material singles out several individual faculty members for criticism. The university has found no factual basis for the accusations made against those faculty members. OSU is proud of its education and research programs and faculty in Nuclear Engineering and Radiation Health Physics and of department alumni, many of whom hold leadership positions in government and private sector organizations.

OSU will not comment on other allegations made in the Robinson posts other than to say the claims made therein are baseless and without merit.

As a leading public university ranked highly for its graduate student success as well as research and instructional efforts in the Dept. of Nuclear Engineering and Radiation Health Physics, OSU is dedicated to excellence in its teaching, service and research missions. OSU graduate students enjoy a wide range of resources to facilitate their success academically and personally. University processes for graduate students who are experiencing difficulty in school or with personal matters are well established and readily available to every member of our graduate student body.

The relationships between graduate students and OSU faculty are highly collaborative, involving adult-to-adult communication and scientific problem solving. In each of those relationships, expectations for each party reflect the time-tested academic traditions of America’s more than 3,000 institutions of higher education.

OSU graduates nearly 1,000 graduate students each year, about one-third of whom earn doctoral or terminal degrees. For many generations, those students have typically progressed to success in the private sector, careers in public service or work within academia.

Finally, OSU works closely and routinely with elected officials at the federal, state and local level, as well as their staff members.  In all of these dealings, the university adheres to the highest ethical and professional standards and follows all appropriate laws governing the conduct of public universities and their representatives with governmental representatives. Any allegation to the contrary is unfounded.

About Oregon State University: OSU is one of only two U.S. universities designated a land-, sea-, space- and sun-grant institution. OSU is also Oregon’s only university to hold both the Carnegie Foundation’s top designation for research institutions and its prestigious Community Engagement classification. Its nearly 24,000 students come from all 50 states and more than 90 nations. OSU programs touch every county within Oregon, and its faculty teach and conduct research on issues of national and global importance.

[quote/]
 
TheHead said:
Maybe you should wait till stories are confirmed before you post them.  Some users may think they're true.  Well looks like the conservative blogosphere has blown up and is already reporting this as fact.  Not very suprising there.
And then, Oregon State [the accused] reports "we can't actually say anything substantive, but 'nothing to see here'," and because it agrees with your worldview, you deem that as "confirmed" and worthy of post.

Feel free to Google "double standard." As you have said, not very surprising there.


Back to <ignore>
 
When did I ever confirm Oregon's post?  I'm mearly posting their response to the allegations made against them.  Don't jump to conclusions.
 
So you see absolutely no dichotomy between telling Thucydides not to post unconfirmed information, yet 12 minutes later you post an equally unsubstantiated report, saying you're not confirming or denying the info?

:facepalm:



Since you obviously didn't look up "double standard," I suspect "dichotomy" will elude you as well.
 
  You mean to tell me there is no difference between a posting of an official source and a source that doubts its own validity?

  Yikes. 
 
For what it's worth. I don't believe for a minute the obsfucation coming from the University. It is a typical hide behind protocol, CYA piece IMO. I would expect if they were blameless, they'd have a court order against Robinson, or at least a statement from thier lawyers.

So you tell Thucydides not to post something because you refuse to believe it, I guess I can tell you the same about your article.

Good for the goose and all that.
 
For my having pointed out the vacuous logic of your slam at Thucydides, your 'rational and informed' response is to.....
MilPoints // -150 // TheHead thought you were Trolling and noted "" about your post titled Re: Deconstructing \\\"Progressive \\\" thought.
...take MilPoints, with an implied "oh...oh ya!" 
:rofl:

Thank you for proving my point regarding the fact that your emperor is intellectually naked much more eloquently than I ever could.  ;)
 
That was for your constant condecending tone :)

  I responded.  You just ignored my question.
 
Back
Top