"It must be nice, to ignore all that while insulting those of us who still live in our own purgatory hoping one day to the same access as everyone else in this country…"
That quote from findyourinnerrockstar, referencing her own struggles with the 'mentality' of Birthers and today's VJ news glut, inspired me to write again.
Van Jones, Van Jones, Van Jones. That's all we seem to hear today. I am listening to Fox News - sigh - and I finally hear the end of the statement that has gotten so much play: "...Republicans are assholes..."
Okay, 10 or 15 years ago, that would have required censorship, and for a highly educated public servant with far reaching responsibilities , and who presumably possesses a vocabulary that reflects his status as graduate of a top tier law school - Yale - Van Jones should not have said that.
Moreover, he should have been able to more skillfully avoid doing so. It offends my sensibilities - and I was raised on a steady diet of crude TV shows: Married With Children, The Simpsons etc. I also grew up in Berkeley (where the YouTube vid was shot) and Oakland, CA and seriously doubt that the people there are as unsophisticated or laissez faire as his poorly chosen words indicate.
Yet, in this day and age, the word ass**** is said on cable of course, and less frequently, on network television as well. For those who care, which despite all appearances to the contrary, does NOT include Fox, the rest of that quote follows.
"...Republicans are assholes...AND Barack Obama is not an asshole."
I found that important piece of the puzzle conspicuously absent in the earlier broadcast, at 2 this afternoon EST. Are we so overloaded with information that we can't include a full sentence not requiring context, but rather the completion of the sentence itself?
OMG, WTF, CMEO4USA (cry my eyes out.)
Actually, I kind of hope that Barack Obama is capable of being one. If, as VJ suggested, he is not - then he is in for a rude awakening if he intends to play the game with the Big Boys on Capitol Hill while remaining the gentleman he was on the campaign trail (90% of the time.) It's time to break out the big stick, even if it requires not walking so softly.
I really want to see him use some of the slick attorney strategies I hope he knows, and is certain to need, in order to circumvent the assholes who would stand in the way of the reform 1.0 that our country needs, and much of the world may and perhaps must follow.
By that, I mean how can we at once be 'a shining light of democracy' and a world leader if we cannot even stand up to our own leaders when they represent an affront to the Constitution we charge them to both affirm and uphold, and the Constituency that depends upon them for a voice, and frankly, for protection from the interests they are lobbied by? Our country is one large constituency, as divided as we are - because we do all decide what our future is, and because it must be that way. From energy, food and water needs, and as top tier consumers, we must lead since the world cannot afford that we wait to follow.
Selective civic participation and compartmentalized intelligence are the ugly side of modern uber-connectivity and more pointedly, the stress placed on the importance of uninterrupted communication, without effectively self/social-monitoring the quality thereof. Not everyone has to be an Einstein, Hemingway or Vidal, but we must do our part. Contrary to what current trends suggest, an oft overlooked hallmark of our current level of civilization, is that the hyper-valuation of communication sans content yields what it will always yield - nil.
Truncated sentences are called phrases, expressions or idioms (or as my grammar teacher reminded me so often, sentence fragments) - but only if they have meaning. Speaking in truncated sentences begins with the goal of efficiency, but ends up being lazy and sounding plain stupid.
At the end of the day, the fringe of the left is not the fringe of the right; read, the two poles play by different rules GENERALLY. On the other hand, the left has people who play dirty, just as the right does. The difference is in the extremism employed by the right and in my view, the fanciful claims that pass for arguments and in some cases for some audiences, even pass for facts. Truncated thinking serves no one.
Had Van Jones said that Barack Obama is a gentleman or person of integrity, while the Republicans historically would kick a man when he's down, he would be more likely to still have his job.
ApacheSavage:
Thanks, apachsavage - I agree. Van Jones is/
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Emily Holleman
Rw005g
Don Rich
DJohn
ali b
Ron Powell
Salon.com
Comments
She said that parents should have to sign a permission slip to have their kids listen to Obama's speech on Tuesday. I went onto to talk about "My Pet Goat", Bush's speeches to school children, and even how Reagan talked about tax cuts for the rich during his address to the nation's school children.
I think this is outrageous. As an American (and parent of a second grader), whether I agree or disagree with whoever is the president at the time, I feel it is important for my child to hear the President of the United States speak.
She could not back up her argument with sound reason or facts, while I suggested she might want to read up on history (not necessarily American History though it is a good place to start) to understand that as a concept, united we stand, divided we fall. I also mentioned that she should travel abroad and if she really wants her mind to be blown to read up on Russian history from the Czars through the Revolution and beyond... Not that she even probably could find Russia on a map to begin with.... Nut another topic for another day
I also went on to add that we may not agree with our leaders, but they are still our democratically elected leaders, (unlike bush was in 2000 I added). As a parent, I personally want my child to hear the voices of adults in authority other than my own so they can form their own opinion.
Here is the crux of the matter. Republicans have a very difficult time taking in new information, processing new realities nor acknowledging that which makes them uncomfortable or insecure (whether their sexuality or belief systems.)... New information is reacted to. Why on earth would a parent be fearful of a presidential message of doing well in school, working hard and making a better America for tomorrow?
Education is fast becoming the enemy of the far right in my mind. Why else would they fight so hard against evolutionary facts, scientific proof of global climate change ,and the global reality that we are not the end all be all, ALWAYS most correct about the politics of the world. It is like a form of scapegoating, narcissism, and an utter inability to self reflect and say, we can do better or we're sorry. This is what is going to get us into trouble down the road. People call Obama a baby killer because he supports safe, legal access to abortion clinics. But can they tell me how many thousands of Iraqi babies died during Bush's war? A war of choice, and bullshit and distraction... How come really babies on the ground don't count, only the mythical babies in women's wombs?
Which brings me to another Republican issue and my rebuttal, Why wouldn't and shouldn't we be pro-business and pro-environment? We encourage good business practices, people make money and help the environment for our children's children? Why wouldn't anyone be for that? What purpose does it serve to keep blowing the tops off of mountains to get coal in Appalachia? What is left? Was it really, really worth it?
I could go on and on, obviously. :)
Great post! Keep writing my friend and thank you for being on here !
I cannot think of one thing that you wrote that I disagree with. Wonderful post, pif. I wish more people were reading it. But as you know it takes time to build a readership and you have more important things to do now.
I have missed you. A breath of fresh air and balanced sanity in a world too often gone mad.
Monte
Thanks, apachsavage - I agree. Van Jones is/
Thanks, apachsavage - I agree. Van Jones is/
Thanks, apachsavage - I agree. Van Jones is/
Thanks, apachsavage - I agree. Van Jones is/
Or, as a Neo-Con might say, why do you censor me? Free Speech, Down with Castro's crony! Free Speech!
Wow! I guess I can turn it off...;0
I will turn it on again tommorow after school, and try again.
Thanks, apachsavage - I agree. Van Jones is/was a divisive person, and perhaps compartmentally intelligent insofar as he is well educated. That he proved himself poorly versed in what it takes to lead - to deprioritize one's own agenda - is no excuse. Specifically in his case, the precarious nature of his history of making arguments amounting to seeking retribution for the ills wrought upon some of the 'subprime' members of our society; the less-powerful interest groups.
This is of course, kind of like the pot calling the kettle black - the rub not so much that the pot is black too, but that the pot insists on pointing out that the kettle is not a pot, whereby all ensuing differences are justifiably turned into titanic ideological battles mired in...nothingness. Therein lies, I think, the slippery slope, precipice and ultimately the demise of the Republican party's basis for mosts of its arguments.
Whether it is anti-government, anti-regulation, anti-civil unions, anti-abortion, there is no moral, ethical or logical basis used as the foundation for their ideological platform. My point in this post was not to let Van Jones off the hook or to justify his hiring - as some of our more right of center companions here may postulate; but rather, to draw attention to the fact that whether you are right or left of center you are in the midst of compatriots that are guilty of holding opinions - both public or private - that defy defensibility or even understanding.
To move forward, we all need to dig in, think clearly and communicate those thoughts even more precisely to those among us whose intellectual tendencies have proven stubbornly resistant to Change, logic, integrity, decency, Social responsibility, collectivism, public health, public education, or any other dirty words knocking about the recesses of their closed minds.
At the behest of *more powerful* interest groups/ lobbyists (their party leaders in the case of birthers, Neo-cons, the religious extremists in and Wall Street) only *corporate* socialism is permitted. They bought Neo-liberal economics hook, line and sinker.
Heaven forbid that someone have an idea that works for the many at the expense of the few. Van Jones should not have been appointed at all, perhaps, and certainly would have been justifiably cut from the squad for having said MUCH worse, far earlier. Recognize this though above all else I have rambled on about - timing in dropping this bs bomb in the midst of the health care debate was critical. You can quote me on THAT ;). Oh, and Michael Steele often speaks without deconstructing the illegitimacy of his claims, or the absurdity of their black and white inaccuracy.
FindYourInnerRockStar :
"whoever is the president at the time, I feel it is important for my child to hear the President of the United States speak."
I agree - though in the interest of full disclosure, I do not have children yet. Apart from that, I agree with the innocuous objection to a potentially partisan speech - on principal. I understand and agree with worrisome parents who sincerely believe that their children are succeptible to indocrination through propoganda. I saw no sign however, that that is what was in store for the children. Once the speech was up on the website, the parents in question could make a well-reasoned decision; which brings me to the next point.
"She could not back up her argument with sound reason or facts, while I suggested she might want to read up on history..."
To suggest that this other citizen should read history, requires that 1. she is intellectually curious, and 2. that she cares more about her civic responsibilities than who the advice is coming from. Then she might do it, but I quite doubt it. We are in the middle of another Hatfield-McCoy moment in our history, one that has been building silently over the centuries of our country's inception. Looking back further, our country's inception grew out of ideological differences between...well, you know that story. Problem is, it is you and I who are having this conversation, and 'she' is nowhere to be found.
This moment is nothing new, and was in fact encouraged if not orchestrated posthumously by our founding fathers. The subtle but potentially *revolutionary* development here, is that today's citizens - for all our informational sophistication - can still choose to opt out of the debate, and fall instead to the conquering melee of liberty-brokers and power-mongerers. To not realize that they choose to go down with the sinking ship, is effectively relegating yourself to copilot.... Co-piloting with them in autopilot mode won't help anyone.
I am for pushing a progressive agenda through and leaving the masochists and self-flagellators out in the cold. a la "Trading Places".
"...want my child to hear the voices of adults in authority other than my own so they can form their own opinion."
They want their child to have equal opportunity to be Stepford Surrogates of the Republican Incubus, just as they were, period. Perhaps not literally true, they do want to control their childrens' influences, rather than simply guiding them. Ignorance is fiercely protective of its progeny.
"Republicans have a very difficult time taking in new information, processing new realities nor acknowledging that which makes them uncomfortable or insecure..."
Again, Ignorance is fiercely protective of its progeny.
"Why on earth would a parent be fearful of a presidential message of doing well in school..."
(See above; Post title)
"Education is fast becoming the enemy of the far right"
Even more fitting here - Ignorance is fiercely protective of its [potential] progeny.
"...shouldn't we be pro-business and pro-environment?" Of course we could and should, and actually must. Its been over 30 years since the proposal of the possible depletion of the ozone layer and its implications. Presently, however, somehow our politicians and world leaders can collectively justify not having done much to push beyond Bush 2's refusal to sign off on the Kyoto protocol.
If we have elected representatives, who are in turn only figureheads who have become quite adept at posturing - allowing themselves to be pushed into postion on the chessboard - then who is left to actually do anything of substance? The election last year underscored a divide nationwide, amounting to more or less 50/50 - those persuaded by arguments not undergirded by symmetry with historical accuracies, and those not.
Either way, the latter will have to decide to speak softly or use the big stick.
Monte:
Thank you, and It is very good to be back. You will be happy to know that I am currently studying Ethics in the context of philosophy - truly honing my skills of persuasive argumentation through the use of reason. I wonder how much good it will do me when speaking to the other 50% I suppose though, at the end of the day, that if I can help to increase the collective need for sound arguments coming from all aspects of the political system in this country, I will have been of some use.