[FoRK] "A budget deal that reduced the deficit"

Jeff Bone jbone at place.org
Sat Jun 26 05:12:10 PDT 2010

On Jun 26, 2010, at 5:33, Russell Turpin <russell.turpin at gmail.com>  

> On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 10:27 PM, Jeff Bone <jbone at place.org> wrote:
>> .. That you completely ignore the numerous examples I've provided
>> where faction heads specifically reject the social conservative line
>> baffles me. ...
> We were discussing deficits and Medicare. I pointed out what Bachmann
> and Palin had to say about those subjects, specifically, without any
> reference to social conservatism.
> It's plausible to say that the tea parties are focused on financial
> issues. It's NOT reasonable to say "ignore Palin and Bachmann when
> discussing the tea parties."

So you keep asserting in order to support this hysterical guilt by  
association. (Really, your derangement syndrome might be better termed  
"nutty social conservative female politician derangement syndrome".)

EVEN IF they are sympatico with some factions, your biggest problems  
with them would seem to be the very things denounced by the folks that  
have put together the largest and so-far best funded and apparently  
serious coalitions.

Ignore the side-show rather than obsessively focusing on it.

Instead of guilt by association, speculation, innuendo, rumor, and  
propagating all the related hysterical mythemes already furiously  
stirring through the clearly agitated media, how about some sober  
engagement on the substance?

Take the contract previously linked.  If taken as an honest and  
complete set of *goals*, and assuming that the supporters *will* make  
a good faith effort to work towards them, with awareness and  
acceptance of the implications, if enabled to do so --- with which of  
those goals do you take issue?

I signed it.  That doesn't mean I'm a subscriber for life.  If and  
when its authors and promoters start showing any behavior counter to  
those goals, I'll have a problem.  But I'm not going to take Bob  
Cosca's Che-Guevara-loving word for it.

> By all accounts,

That's just the problem.  Most "accounts" are horseshit, coming  
straight from the horse's ass(es) for whom Obama is the dream of a  
lifetime - biased folks now terrified that an angry and ignorant  
public is going to undo their grand renewal of the previously-failed  
progressive experiment.  That you can't see the clear axe-grinding  
evident in these accounts is surprising.

Go straight to the horse's mouth.

I suspect that you and I abhor largely the same set of possibilities.  
The difference is that you seem to be allowing others' biased and a  
priori judgments about what is happening to substitute for your own  
usually-impeccable judgment.

If and when your (= my) fears become substantiated by the real actions  
and statements of the real players involved, I'll be the first one out  
the door. Bet on it. I'm almost always the canary in the coal mine.   
But until then, a little (or even a lot of) anti-Washington  
establishment, anti-governmentalist, pro-fiscal responsibility  
sentiment, forcefully and loudly expressed, is a good,  
counterbalancing pushback to the prevailing trends and biases, IMHO.   
Even if said sentiment is bundled with a few flaws.

You can't eliminate bias in government in a democracy; and note the  
relationship between the biases of government and the biases of the  
governed are different and the relationship complicated and unstable.

The best you can hope for is some kind of engineered dynamic  
equilibrium.  This is a useful tool for this purpose at this time,  
just as e.g. Kerry (for whom I voted, for this very reason, despite  
broad disagreement with him) would have been in '04.  The most  
dangerous situation we can put ourselves in is giving any one part of  
the increasingly arrogant, extreme and disconnected establishment  
unchecked power.

We've stupidly done that twice in the last ~decade.  Let's make an  
attempt to restore some balance and agree on some goals that take  
economics, liberty and the effectiveness of large-scale centralized  
government as evidenced by real historical and quantifiable facts  

No more plenipotent technocracies, oligarchies, and so on... Of any  
prevailing flavor.  I don't like theocracy, cronyism, imperialism,  
fascism, OR socialism.

I expect you would probably concur with that statement.

But those are the ice cream flavors we've been given to work with  

Perhaps pouring a steaming helping of little-l libertarian chocolate  
syrup, even if it's nutrition-free, over the top might melt the whole  
into a gooey but somewhat more palatable mess of a sundae.

Or at least neutralize the ability of any of the other parts to keep  
causing stomach aches.


More information about the FoRK mailing list