December 21, 2012

We need to work on eliminating the notion that conservatism has any value to humanity, other

than as something to be eternally recognized as deadly, and as something that needs to be kept in a secure and vigilantly monitored cage, and never let out of the cage.

The very essence of the difference between progressives and conservatives is economics. Progressives believe that economic engines must be strictly controlled and monitored in order that their primary function will be to best serve the interests of human beings and genuine democratic government. Conservatives believe in an unregulated free market, the consequence of which can only inevitably be some type of conservative political, social, and economic oligarchy.

There are other phenomena/noumena that may define progressives and conservatives to a lesser extent, but these phenomena/noumena are secondary to economics when we talk about potential systems for our country and planet. A healthy progressive economic system will necessarily lead to general progressive evolution and progress in the political, social, and environmental realms as well. A conservative economic system can only lead to regression in the political, social, and environmental realms, and will inevitably destroy the planet.

Generally speaking...

Today's progressives want to eliminate and replace institutions which are irrevocably corrupted, in order to institute a system that primarily serves the needs of human beings. Dennis Kucinich is an example of this type of progressive. He understands that regulating wealthy private interests is a primary avenue toward achieving a flourishing and sane egalitarian country and world.

Conservatives want to maintain and strengthen these institutions and allow the corruption within them to flourish unimpeded, in order to maintain a system that primarily serves the economic interests of a wealthy elite. Ron Paul is an example of this type of conservative. He talks a somewhat progressive game, but the heart of his philosophy is an unrestricted free market, which as I mentioned earlier, can only lead to general destructive conservative oligarchy.

Conflating the ideological stances of Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich might be fun for some, and right leaning moderates may use this conflation for subtle nefarious propaganda purposes in order try to denigrate the progressive positions of Rep. Kucinich, but in reality, Reps. Paul and Kucinich are at almost completely opposite ends of the progressive/conservative economic/political/social spectrum.

Economically speaking, all evidence points to the fact that President Obama is far more similar to Ron Paul in ideology than Rep. Kucinich.

The keys to instituting and maintaining a constructive and evolving progressive society that provides for the maximum rights and opportunities to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for the greatest majority of human beings are first preventing wealthy private interests from using wealth and deception to neutralize democracy, and then to democratically prevent regressive authoritarian personalities from assuming any positions of leadership.

Our current system requires revolutionary change ~ the complete abolition of some institutions, the alteration of others...and an understanding of the old saying "don't try to fix what ain't broke".

December 19, 2012

Excellent response, thanks, white-wolf.

(I think you know that I like and respect you as well. My post was partly in response to the irrationality and hypocrisy that I have been observing here at DU for the past few week. I almost slapped a sarcasm tag on my post because the reality is that banning all firearms ain't gonna happen, and banning all violent media ain't gonna happen either).

OK, in response to the content of your post:

So, then, can we apply the same reasoning you used in your response to folks who wish to own firearms for recreational, self-defense, or hunting purposes? I'm sure that we can find studies that prove that firearms ownership cause violence/don't cause violence as well; certainly the overwhelming majority of people who own firearms do not use them to harm others. Certainly, the overwhelming majority of people who watch violent or play violent media do not go out and harm others simply because they watch or participate in digital media violence.

I'd like to make an interesting observation here:

The number of mass murders has spiked enormously beginning with the Reagan era (1980). It would be interesting if there were a study done on a possible correlation between mass murders and Reaganism/conservatism. (Well, ya know...)

Anyway,

Aurora: Holmes, age 25

Killed: 12
Injured: 58



Newtown: Lanza, age 20

Killed: 27
Injured: 2



Oslo, Norway: Breivik, age 33

Killed 77
Injured 242

Anders Breivik Played World Of Warcraft 'Full-Time' For A Year

Columbine: Klebold, age 17. Harris, age 18

Deaths 15 (including both perpetrators)
Injured 21



Totals for the 5 mass murderers, in 4 respective incidents, whose violent actions were probably influenced, in varying degrees, by violent media:

131 people murdered
323 people injured

Harmless folks that own firearms don't believe that they should have their firearms made illegal and confiscated.

Harmless folks that enjoy interacting with violent media don't believe they should have their sources of violent media made illegal and confiscated.

Certainly, these different phenomenon can only be conflated to a certain degree, but still, there are valid arguments pro and con for both.

I still own a rifle. It's a .270 caliber Remington Gamemaster pump action rifle. A hunting rifle. I haven't fired it since 1984. It's packed in wheel bearing grease and buried in a plastic case approximately 800 miles from where I currently live. I don't really need it anymore, and because I've done a fair amount of traveling and moving since 1984, I did not want to drag it around, but did/do not want to sell it. I grew up in the country, and used that rifle to help feed my family. I hate killing animals for food, and have been a vegetarian for decades now. But back then, I was a woman from a unique rural background placed by fate in very unusual circumstances and needed to feed my family. A deer is a lot of free meat, especially if you poach them and can often walk out your back door and shoot one in a matter of hours. But I have never had any desire whatsoever to ever to use a firearm to harm anyone. And the world has changed drastically since then.

I don't play video games, and I try to avoid other violent media. I don't enjoy these things, and I don't want the violent images or simulations to affect my consciousness. However, if I did enjoy violent media and interaction with violent media, would the pleasure and satisfaction I got cause me to fantasize on the rush and thrill of translating my fetish for media violence into real life? I like to think I'm not that person, that it wouldn't. I have no proclivities toward violence, no mental illnesses, and am actually certifiably sane, healthy, and "well within the normal range" (well,ok, maybe they got that one wrong, lol ...) according to several in depth psychological evaluations and tests that I have had access to and engaged because I wanted to. But if I had been immersed in violent media, would I be a different person? Would I not not be certifiably well within the normal range"? Or if I had some latent mental illness or proclivities toward violence previous to watching/interacting with and enjoying violent media, would they have caused me to consider translating my desire into some fantasized higher degree satisfaction of acting it out in real life violence, and then getting a gun or bomb and living out the fantasy?

Thoughts generally precede actions, and we learn from our experiences. An unstable person might very well translate violent media interaction into violent fantasies, go get some guns, and then translate their violent fantasies into acts of violence in real life. We know how destructive sexual fantasies in the minds of unstable people can result in physical harm to others. There is no reason to believe that destructive fantasies of violence would be much different.

So what do we do? Mass murders are increasing at an alarming rate.

It seems a compromise of carefully and effectively regulating both may be the most constructive means of reducing the number of occurrences of mass murders/acts of violence in the future. A transformation from lingering Reagan/Bush conservatism into a much more progressive national collective consciousness might play a big part in reducing the violence as well.

But it is crystal clear that something must be done.

The hearts of every decent person in the world were broken by the loss of those beautiful children, and all the ramifications of their loss to their families, and indeed, all of us, because of that awful tragedy Connecticut. Personally, I'm even willing to ban both firearms and violent video media if that is what it takes to ensure that no more beautiful little kids will be taken from us in this manner. I'm done.

December 15, 2012

A BASIC CALL TO CONSCIOUSNESS

I've always been supportive of people being able to keep firearms for hunting. But nowadays...there's just waaaay too many deranged people in this country, and they should not have access to deadly weapons.

But please, please, please, wake up, folks. Yes, it's partly the guns, but the reality of this phenomenon is that this insanity goes so much deeper than just the guns. These chronic killings are a symptom of a much more deadly and insidious pathology.

(This Haudenosaunee Address to the Western World was first articulated to an array of NGOs at the United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland, October 1977)

December 9, 2012

Yep. If we want change, we have to continue to make it ourselves, because conservatives

and their beloved 1% masters are going to fight progressive change every step of the way. The Democratic party primary system is one way that the conservative flying monkeys of the Military Industrial Complex establishment keep the 1% safe from democracy.

Information, communication, and the internet are our best weapons for negating the lies, propaganda, stupidity, corruption, and authoritarian needs of conservatives and conservatism. We have just recently killed off Reaganism with information and truth.

Before we had widespread internet, conservatives could use TV media and AM radio as a means of propaganda to brainwash enough of the population to maintain the status quo of the Military Industrial Complex. Now, the internet is our means of countering their disinformation program.

We see conservatives on this board (and everywhere else) repeatedly using the most awful and transparent bullshit propaganda to discourage the proliferation of progressive Democrats, progressive activism, progressive activists, and support of progressive activist groups, such as Occupy and Anonymous. The thing is, most people can see through their disingenuous bullshit, because now we have the ability to immediately and directly expose it for what it is. Not to mention that they make such shameless fools of themselves that it is embarrassing to watch.

Conservatives and conservatism get totally exposed as fraudulent when exposed in the light of information.

Their only option for survival now is to find a way to control the flow of information on the internet, and then institute it. And this is one reason why they hate Anonymous, wikileaks, Julian Assange, etc and are smearing Julian Assange, etc., on a daily basis. As long as we have independent citizen's watchdog individuals and collectives on the net, we will have a means of exposing the lies of the conservatives, and a means to struggle to keep the internet open and free, in order that it may continue to provide us with a free flow of information and communication that is not controlled and altered by wealthy private interests and their conservative flying monkeys.

This is one huge reason that, IMO, Anonymous is so very important at this time history.

I really like this quote from one of H20 Man's DU essays ~

"Keep on fighting the Good Fight, my forum friends. This is a unique period in our history. And no state or federal official or agency is going to “save” the United States. But we will. Believe it."

“Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government.” ~ Jefferson

December 8, 2012

The Democratic coalition is growing inspite of, and not because of, conservative intervention in our

Democratic party affairs.

The reason we are so far behind so many other countries with respect to social issues is because the few conservatives in the Democratic party have had inordinate amounts of control in the Dem party, as well as having had full control of the GOP. Conservatives have been holding social progress back forever. In recent times, with respect to the Democratic party, most notably beginning with the Reagan Democrats in 1980.

It could accurately be said that conservative Democrats have been largely responsible for holding back progress on social issues in the US for the past 30+ yrs.

And Clinton signed DOMA, DADT, and NAFTA into law, for godsake.

Conservatives have almost universally prevented minorities from gaining equal rights throughout American history.

As a liberal LGBT brown skinned female Democrat, I would greatly prefer that conservatives had absolutely no power over my life and affairs whatsoever, and do not appreciate advocacy or support of any conservatives or conservative ideas in this progressive Democratic forum in any way shape or form whatsoever.

There is a reason why the GOP is completely made up of conservatives.

Conservatives are the people that the GOP totally exists for.

December 8, 2012

It is the broad spectrum of Democrats who believe that the needs of human beings are more important

than the profit needs of wealthy private interests, and wish to see this belief and desire translated into policy.

That's actually the majority of us; unfortunately, it is the neo-liberal Third Way types who have the money behind them to run for office and get media attention who are too often elected and therefore maintain the status quo control of government and policy by wealthy private interests.

For example:

Who is it that has consistently allied with the GOP and prevented the Democratic party from drafting and/or passing progressive legislation?

DLC. Third Way. Moderates. Centrists. Blue Dogs.

Did/do the majority of the people of the US want a progressive universal public health care system? Yes.

Did we get it? Nope.

Why?

Because Blue Dog "Democrats" simply kept progressives from ever even bringing it to the table.

A Democrat can be "moderate" without being a wealthy private interest serving neo-liberal. Unfortunately, from my POV, we have learned to define "moderate Democrat" as a Democrat who places the interests of wealthy private interests over those of the people, rather than as a Democrat who may simply have a few conservative views on social issues such as on choice or gun control, and who is somewhat fiscally conservative economically without being a corporatist.

If the Third Way party split from the Democratic party, we'd see a large influx of Independents into the Democratic party, and possibly a substantial number of Greens as well.

It is the Third Way types who have led to the widespread perception that the Democratic party is really no different than the GOP. If the Third Way left the Dem party, the Democratic party would rapidly become the party of the people once again, with FDR era type majorities supporting us, because we'd be rapidly enacting and passing constructive legislation in accordance with the genuine majority will of the people.

We are seeing a rise in popularity of the Dem party right now, and this is largely due to Democrats taking progressive stands on issues. This is what the majority wants, and if Democrats continue to pass progressive legislation, we could crush the GOP and Third Way party into insignificance.

I fervently hope the Third Way party splits from the Dem party.

Good riddance.

It's exactly like FDR said back in the day ~

"In the century in which we live, the Democratic Party has received the support of the electorate only when the party, with absolute clarity, has been the champion of progressive and liberal policies and principles of government.

The party has failed consistently when through political trading and chicanery it has fallen into the control of those interests, personal and financial, which think in terms of dollars instead of in terms of human values...

...The Democratic Convention, as appears clear from the events of today, is divided on this fundamental issue. Until the Democratic Party through this convention makes overwhelmingly clear its stand in favor of social progress and liberalism, and shakes off all the shackles of control fastened upon it by the forces of conservatism, reaction, and appeasement, it will not continue its march of victory."

December 2, 2012

"All that is required for evil to prevail is for good people to do nothing." ~ Albert Einstein

Your OP distincly implies that we are foolish for supporting a populist uprising against fascism.

This is a progressive board. The most hard core progressives here hate fascism and despise fascists to the very core of their being. For some of us, our burning hatred of fascism is deeply rooted in the unspeakably wicked horrors that fascists perpetrated on the world in the 30's and 40's. Most particularly for what they did do to Jews, and other minorities at that time. For what they did to your family, and so many other families. For the inhuman things that they did to our world. It is difficult not to be inflamed with rage when thinking about these things. We never want to see anything like this again. (Personally, I view all fascists as filthy, vile, destructive, monsters, and am pretty much repeatedly on record here as strugging full time to eliminate RW ideology, which is the core of the diseased black heart of the fascism of the Nazis, from the collective thought processes of the world, ASAP if not sooner).

Anyway, naturally, a lot of us had hoped that more progressive Egyptian democrats would take power. Unfortunately, different fascists retook control of Egypt, and most of us recognize that these fascists may be more of a threat to Israel. This is deeply regrettable, and your feelings are understandable, PCIntern.

But for you to chastise us for cheering on the democratic uprising of the Egyptian people is misguided, IMO.

It's literally a God damned shame that the German people, that the people of the entire world, did not engage in a mass populist uprising against the fascists in the 1930's. Maybe things would have unfolded differently if they had.

Hopefully, the Egyptian democrats will succeed the next time they go after the fascists. Hopefully, all of us will succeed the next time we go after the fascists.

"All that is required for evil to prevail is for good people to do nothing."

November 29, 2012

If someone *KNOWS* it is wrong, then why would they rape someone?

Maybe it's more like they've been told that it is wrong, but they don't really understand and believe that it is wrong, and they rape because they simply want to, and simply hope they don't get caught.

In their minds/consciences, their crime is not the act of raping someone. To them, their only crimes are getting caught, and punished, for raping someone. Later remorse is not due to the harm that they caused to another person, but only because they are personally being harmed because they are being punished for the harm they have caused.


Although I believe that there are flaws in Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, it appears to me that his theory is a fairly accurate overview of factors that comprise the developmental process of what is generally known as a "conscience". It may be that rapists are way down on this scale of "self actualization"; like toddlers, (and conservatives ~ sorry, I know I'm being bad, heehee)) they act upon unconsidered impulse rather than consideration based in a conscience based in a healthy developed ethical belief system.



It's possible that one of the reasons that some individuals who remain in the lower, tiers of this scale of self actualization is because they have not examined their thought processes with any serious and objective scrutiny, and subsequently never recognized the negative institutionalized and/or enculturated mores that comprise deeply rooted parts of their belief systems.

Institutionalized, enculturated misogyny, may also play a part in why some rapists rape women. They are told it is wrong to hate women, but many of the underlying misogynistic societal/cultural factors with which they have been imprinted in infancy and adolescence are so strongly rooted in their consciousness that they are unable to even recognize their own perception of women is as a group that is naturally inferior.

It is very possible that, in our society, institutionalized/enculturated misogyny is primarily the product of widespread Judeo-Christan dogma, dogma that is illustrated in the examples below. These just a few examples among a multitude of examples of Judeo-Christian dogma, (and Islamic dogma as well), that perpetrates and promotes the continued institutionalization and enculturation of misogyny and homophobia in many modern societies.













And on and on and on and on, ad nauseum.

My point, relative to your question, is that maybe we need to adopt a new perspective and approach to understanding and educating all age groups about ethics, misogyny, homophobia, racism, etc. ~ because far too many individuals are apparently not getting the idea that these things they do, and why these things they do, are ethically wrong.

November 28, 2012

"Misogyny is ALWAYS going to be a problem here in DU"

Yes, I totally agree, and the reason for that is institutionalized and enculturated (meaning socialization: the adoption of the behavior patterns of the surrounding culture) misogyny. Many people have difficulty recognizing misogyny within their processes and behaviors, simply because misogyny has been a cultural norm for their entire lives, and for thousands of years prior, so they generally don't recognize the latent misogyny within themselves, at least until some life changing event leads to an epiphany (ie a sudden realization about the nature or meaning of something) and reveals to them the existence of their own unrecognized misogyny.

And this phenomenon is not just a "man thing", it is frustratingly prevalent among women as well, although it appears to be a bit more common among men.

Thank you so very much for posting the jury results, and for your candid response to my question as well.

November 27, 2012

I got pictures! But the thing is, on that first night, s/he told me that s/he was an angel!

By morning, I knew beyond all doubt that s/he wasn't lyin'. Yep. mmmm, uh-huh..definitely an angel.

But, alas, because I was born LGBT, I cannot prove that our encounter made me gay; it simply made me very, very, very....very, very, very, very glad that I am.

Poor, misguided Contessa has it all backwards, an unfortunate trait that all ignorant, hateful, bigoted RW conservative religious people share.

?
Caption: RW conservative christian homophobes perform
Ceremony of Hate at Church Services in rural Westboro, Kansas.

You see, sadly, they believe that the devil is god, that god is the devil. That hate is Love, and that Love is hate. Naturally, therefore, they see angels as demons, and demons as angels. It's really very sad. Tragic, in fact. And extremely deadly.


This fact is as plain as day to every reasonable human being.

Anyway...oh...hey, I gotta go. I hear the beating of giant wings outside my window...