Humorless Politics Thread

[fonpr]

Think this is great: http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/obama-cries-as-he-thanks-campaign-staff-after

It is. Gee, he sure is an evil guy, isn't he?

Looking at people through this lens tends to dehumanize them.

Very good point, Inspector.

Sometimes I feel like an oddball in here, living my life between the 40-yard lines.

Killing someone with a knife is much more difficult than killing someone with a gun.

Even with a gun, you have to be in the proximity off your target.

Drones turn the targets of killing into little more than abstractions.

[Shaggy 2 Grote]

Although, Fredericks, I've heard the guys doing the drone bombings from offices in Northern Virginia or wherever have rates of PTSD just as high as actual combat soldiers.  Perversely, this gives me hope about human nature.

What fascinates me about all this is that the Republican party has been following the same strategy as Rush Limbaugh -- as his audience dies out, instead of trying to find a new audience, he's doubling down on the crazy stuff to get whoever's left to keep listening for longer.  Obviously there's no exact equivalent for electoral politics -- maybe a deeper commitment from a smaller and nuttier group of people?  I would love to think that the Republicans will become more moderate or disappear, but they're good at gaming the system (the House might be Republican until 2020 because of gerrymandering in 2010), voter turnout is going to be really low in off-years or possibly even the 2016 election, and voters have short memories -- they can run on a platform of hate and then find someone like W., who before 9/11 basically ran as Clinton without the sex, and many people will forget or ignore party affiliation.  But part of me hopes the country will become more like California and it'll take the GOP 40 years to smarten up.

[Shaggy 2 Grote]

Also: if you read all the way to the end of that NY Mag piece, clearly Eric Dondero doesn't understand how either drowning or gravity work.

[fonpr]

Although, Fredericks, I've heard the guys doing the drone bombings from offices in Northern Virginia or wherever have rates of PTSD just as high as actual combat soldiers.  Perversely, this gives me hope about human nature.

I suggest this is due to the power of empathy. 

Thanks, mirror neurons!

[buffcoat]

Although, Fredericks, I've heard the guys doing the drone bombings from offices in Northern Virginia or wherever have rates of PTSD just as high as actual combat soldiers.  Perversely, this gives me hope about human nature.

What fascinates me about all this is that the Republican party has been following the same strategy as Rush Limbaugh -- as his audience dies out, instead of trying to find a new audience, he's doubling down on the crazy stuff to get whoever's left to keep listening for longer.  Obviously there's no exact equivalent for electoral politics -- maybe a deeper commitment from a smaller and nuttier group of people?  I would love to think that the Republicans will become more moderate or disappear, but they're good at gaming the system (the House might be Republican until 2020 because of gerrymandering in 2010), voter turnout is going to be really low in off-years or possibly even the 2016 election, and voters have short memories -- they can run on a platform of hate and then find someone like W., who before 9/11 basically ran as Clinton without the sex, and many people will forget or ignore party affiliation.  But part of me hopes the country will become more like California and it'll take the GOP 40 years to smarten up.

Cogent.  I think 2014 is going to be bad for the Democrats.  I wouldn't be surprised to see 12-20 years of Democrats winning Presidential years and the GOP winning off years.

The great hope of it all is that people who are 65 this year are much more liberal socially even than people who were 65 last year, and you can play that out until you get to, er, the end.  Which is where the (seemingly) sudden national change on gay marriage comes from.  Most people don't change their minds - opponents die and proponents become eligible to vote.

[Steve of Bloomington]

Think this is great: http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/obama-cries-as-he-thanks-campaign-staff-after

It is. Gee, he sure is an evil guy, isn't he?

Looking at people through this lens tends to dehumanize them.

Very good point, Inspector.

Sometimes I feel like an oddball in here, living my life between the 40-yard lines.

Killing someone with a knife is much more difficult than killing someone with a gun.

Even with a gun, you have to be in the proximity off your target.

Drones turn the targets of killing into little more than abstractions.

Targets of killing were little more than abstractions during strategic bombing campaigns of WWII. They were from that height just a bunch of buildings, and without the connections and quick flow of information and photos we have today, it was very easy for those not directly involved to ignore the reality.

[fonpr]

Targets of killing were little more than abstractions during strategic bombing campaigns of WWII. They were from that height just a bunch of buildings, and without the connections and quick flow of information and photos we have today, it was very easy for those not directly involved to ignore the reality.

Excellent point, SoB.

Perhaps, I should see drones as a more humane way of killing the enemy, less collateral damage.

I don't.

[Steve of Bloomington]

Targets of killing were little more than abstractions during strategic bombing campaigns of WWII. They were from that height just a bunch of buildings, and without the connections and quick flow of information and photos we have today, it was very easy for those not directly involved to ignore the reality.

Excellent point, SoB.

Perhaps, I should see drones as a more humane way of killing the enemy, less collateral damage.

I don't.

I understand where you are coming from, fonpr. I recently witnessed a discussion where a young engineering type explained that while he always loved airplanes, it seemed most opportunities for making a living would involve working for the military and as a pacifist he just didn't want to pursue it. At this point he was encouraged by another party to be 'ethically flexible' and then a person working for the military explained that 'wars are a lot cleaner now', at which point I pretty much wanted to throw up because the euphemisms and denial were getting out of hand.

With drones I don't see them as 'better' but I confess that following the 'Shock and Awe' cluster bombs of Obama's predecessor as Republicans like to refer to him, or Vietnam-era carpet bombing, I just didn't experience the level of outrage with drones that others do. Perhaps I'm desensitized or being cynical in my own way. Anyhow. Can anybody still hear me over 'Bad Company' at this point?

[wood and iron]

Targets of killing were little more than abstractions during strategic bombing campaigns of WWII. They were from that height just a bunch of buildings, and without the connections and quick flow of information and photos we have today, it was very easy for those not directly involved to ignore the reality.

Excellent point, SoB.

Perhaps, I should see drones as a more humane way of killing the enemy, less collateral damage.

I don't.

I understand where you are coming from, fonpr. I recently witnessed a discussion where a young engineering type explained that while he always loved airplanes, it seemed most opportunities for making a living would involve working for the military and as a pacifist he just didn't want to pursue it. At this point he was encouraged by another party to be 'ethically flexible' and then a person working for the military explained that 'wars are a lot cleaner now', at which point I pretty much wanted to throw up because the euphemisms and denial were getting out of hand.

With drones I don't see them as 'better' but I confess that following the 'Shock and Awe' cluster bombs of Obama's predecessor as Republicans like to refer to him, or Vietnam-era carpet bombing, I just didn't experience the level of outrage with drones that others do. Perhaps I'm desensitized or being cynical in my own way. Anyhow. Can anybody still hear me over 'Bad Company' at this point?

I agree. I mean, all I think about is Dresden. So it goes.

[Keith Whitener]

... he was encouraged by another party to be 'ethically flexible' and then a person working for the military explained that 'wars are a lot cleaner now', at which point I pretty much wanted to throw up because the euphemisms and denial were getting out of hand.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/10/obama-nobel-peace-prize-a_n_386837.html

[not that clay]

Look, it's always one damned thing or another. If the left sat on its hands waiting for Jesus to win the primaries we'd never have civil rights, health care, gay rights, etc.  There's never been a president without blood on his hands, even the few liberalish ones:

FDR: maintained Jim Crow, Japanese-American internment
Truman: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Johnson: Vietnam
Clinton: Iraq sanctions
Obama: drones

At least the trend is down.

[dave from knoxville]

So, since a precedent has been set for killing innocents, it's OK to continue?

[cavorting with nudists]

So, since a precedent has been set for killing innocents, it's OK to continue?

The question is, what are you going to do about it, given that one of two parties is going to control the White House: one that has blood on its hands, or another that positively glories in wading through the stuff?  Which of those two do you think is relatively more persuadable on the subject?

If ending drone strikes was a driving passion in my life, one that I was willing to devote a lot of energy and time to, I would vote for the persuadable party and then spend the next four years (or however long it takes) trying to persuade them, through the hard work of organized political pressure.

I'm not that guy.  But what I won't do is pretend I contribute anything whatever to the cause by casting a protest vote that may make me feel like a rad, principled dude but is no more real-world consequential than getting a tattoo that says I AM A RAD, PRINCIPLED DUDE.

If I voted for Jill Stein, my vote would simply have been sucked down a hole. I can pretty much guarantee you that right now, not a single person of power or influence, anywhere, is thinking thus: "Well, Obama beat Romney by 4 million votes, but when you add in the 400,000 votes Jill Stein got, he has an even bigger mandate to go progressive than may appear at first!"

If I voted for Obama, even in a solid red or blue state, my vote added to his popular margin, which under present circumstances did mean something.  I did not want to see the media clusterfuck that would ensue if, as seemed possible, he won in the electoral but lost in the popular.  When the polls all forecast a 70% vote for the Democrats, get back to me about a protest vote for the Greens.

Except even then I wouldn't do it unless their candidate gave me a convincing reason to want her in power--like competence at running a large and complicated organization, a cool hand in a crisis, the ability to deal effectively with a contentious opposition, or at least the intelligence required to edit the Harvard Law Review.  Sound instincts aren't the only thing I want in a president.

[dudep]

At the risk of derailing this conversation (my bad), did anyone catch wind of the new project being organized by friend of the show David Rees?  This tumblr post gives plenty of details but the gist is that personal debt is traded like any other commodity, so it might be a worthwhile experiment to buy some up (for cheap!) and then abolish it.  You can donate if you're so inclined, and check the links if you are in the NYC area because the benefit they'll be throwing there sounds pretty spectacular.

[buffcoat]

At the risk of derailing this conversation (my bad), did anyone catch wind of the new project being organized by friend of the show David Rees?  This tumblr post gives plenty of details but the gist is that personal debt is traded like any other commodity, so it might be a worthwhile experiment to buy some up (for cheap!) and then abolish it.  You can donate if you're so inclined, and check the links if you are in the NYC area because the benefit they'll be throwing there sounds pretty spectacular.

I saw this too.  I haven't done any kind of analysis, but on first blush this sounds brilliant.  My guess is that the creditors may come up with something to block this, but I can't say off the top of my head why.

N.B.  They can't buy up specific debt, so they're buying in general, at random.  I'm interested to see what this means for people.  If someone has $200K in debt and they are able to discharge $20K of it, I wonder how much relief that provides.  Of course it would be more impactful to discharge $20K of someone's $30K debt, but I think that's not possible at this point - otherwise, parents would pay for their kids debt at $.05 on the dollar.

It seems like a good "stick it to the man" sort of thing - I'm curious to see how it benefits real people (and if the charity or the individuals are able to tell).