Now is the time for Get Out The Vote operations (4.00 / 2)

we're one year out from the next election.

There are a lot of people that "forget" to vote in off year elections, re-register after moving for employment/economic purposes. A goodly chunk of libertarians and greens who were scared into voting Democrat by the fascism of Cheney-Bush will forget the Big Picture and recall only the missteps of the Obama administration of finance and war.

It would be a great time to build those grass roots out-reach programs that can help folks at the neighborhood, town levels. Yeah, you get them to register, but you can also hook people up with fellow-travelers that can promote healthy eating, exercise, crafts, gardening, car-pooling, computer upgrade and repair, smoking cessation, literacy and on and on and on.

A lot of people are hurting right now, and a helping hand will be listened too when the time of decision comes.

---

by: Paul Goodman @ Sat Oct 10, 2009 at 12:17:04 PM UTC

Cannot be said often enough. (4.00 / 2)

The only way to beat a bully is to beat a bully.

I had to learn this the hard way back in high school.  I can understand how, if you're a liberal with the standard set of liberal philosophies, and you've never had to deal with bullies, you might not grasp the importance of that statement.  But the reality is, bullies don't think like us.

"If you talk to a man in a language he understands, that goes to his head. If you talk to him in his language, that goes to his heart." -- Nelson Mandela

Language in this context is not just words.  It's anything which communicates.  That includes actions.  The language of bullies is fear and violence.  If you want them to stop bullying, you have to speak in the language that goes to their hearts.  Otherwise, the best you can hope for is for them to ignore you.

Health insurance is not health care.
If you don't fight, you can't win.
Never give up. Never Surrender.
Watch out for flying kabuki.

---

by: Gabriel D @ Sat Oct 10, 2009 at 12:52:25 PM UTC

I Was Raised With Strong Pacifist Leasnings (4.00 / 2)

and I was lucky to be raised in a social environment that wasn't much more over-run with bullies than mine was.  But it was still incredibly difficult.

One bully in particular I remember, because I'd been doing as my parents taught me for some time, with no success.  Finally, I lost control, and just socked him once with all my might.  Knocked him right off his feet like it was a cartoon.  I could almost see the stars whizzing around his head.  "Shocked" and "stunned" doesn't begin to cover it.  But the best thing was that he just absolutely disappeared from my life.  One punch.  That's all it took.

I regretted having to do it.  But who could argue with those results?  And I had no more desire to do it again.

Of course, I much preferred the solution I came up with in 5th grade.  I became friends with the two biggest guys in class.  I mean "biggest" as in no one else came even close.  No special strategy on my part.  At first, I think they just saw that I needed it, but I was a wise-ass and they both loved to laugh, so we genuinely clicked.  

Problem solved.  

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Oct 10, 2009 at 13:31:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

In Ornstein's defense (4.00 / 1)

He has been one of the very few conservative pundits to have weighed in critically on the modern conservative era and its practices and practitioners, particularly in congress. He was especially critical of Bush era travesties such as the tax cut, Medicare D and bankruptcy bills, and the Schiavo hypocrisy, and before that of Gingrich & Co.'s legislative and political abuses. No cheerleader of modern conservatism has been he.

Having said that, though, he's really being a buffoon here for effectively equating what Grayson has been saying to "man-dog sex" and "sex with corpses orientation"--not to mention "traitor", "socialist" and "you lie!". Such implicit comparisons are simply and undeniably idiotic. As Zell Miller might have put it, were he sane and honorable, what do you want Democrats to respond with, spitballs? We want satisfaction!

In politics, policy, tactics and character are inseparable, and Ornstein should know this. In fact he DOES know this, as he's not an idiot. Why non-idiots like him feel the need to issue tripe such as the above is beyond me, since he knows full well that, even if most Repubs might not necessarily WANT sick, poor and uninsured Americans to die, they certainly wouldn't mind it if they did--and some most likely DO want these people to die. And Ornstein knows it.

Most likely yet more proof, as if we needed any, that acceptable beltway discourse is artificially and deliberately constrained, such that honest if colorful Dem language is equated with atrocious GOP behavior--if not seen as exceeding it. In DC, it's not what you say or do that matters, bUt who says or does it. And to most pundits, Dems are still arriviste usurpers who need mind their place lest they violate community rules.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

---

by: kovie @ Sat Oct 10, 2009 at 13:17:30 PM UTC

Yeah, Ornstein's A Grown-Up (4.00 / 1)

Shows you how ultimately useless they are.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Oct 10, 2009 at 13:33:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I was also very satisfied with Grayson's remarks (0.00 / 0)

but in no way does his approach work as a political strategy. The standard has to be civil discourse, and then there can be people like Grayson or others who push the boundaries and take personal risks to fight for a cause, leaving it up to the public to decide whether they are justified or not. Although I think 250 Grayson's would be awesome, it would fail as party.

Even in your example above, you mentioned punching someone in the face, which is against the law. Surely you don't advocate changing the law to allow people to punch each other in the face when there's disagreement? These kind of tactics, as was your case, are typically one-off actions, not the general rule. Supporting that rule doesn't mean you support slavery, that's preposterous.

Your argument actually resembles the defense of torture. Proponents argue that torture is sometimes necessary, such as in the famous ticking time bomb situation. And because they find a situation in which it might be useful, they advocate an institutional and legal approach to torture.  

It's the same argument, at least with respect to your face punch because in fact I don't find any parallel whatsoever between what Grayson did and being violent. He just told the truth and may have possibly broken congress decorum. He didn't really say anything offensive in my opinion. Portraying his words as a violent retort draws an unfortunate equivalency with Republian tactics.

 

---

by: frankenheimer @ Sat Oct 10, 2009 at 14:37:46 PM UTC

Self-Defense Isn't Against The Law (4.00 / 1)

Even in your example above, you mentioned punching someone in the face, which is against the law.

Sheesh!  Not to mention I was maybe 8 at the time.

And yes, I was mighty pissed off that the grownups allowed kids like me to live in a such a violent, lawless state.  I'm planning a diary about that tomorrow, btw.

I find it more than passing strange that you take a childhood incident I mention in a comment, strip it of its obvious context ("I'd been doing as my parents taught me [i.e. not fighting back] for some time"), and interpolate it back into the diary as if it were my main argument.

This sort of intellectual dishonesty seems to be perfectly normal with you.

I can't help but wonder why.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Oct 10, 2009 at 15:12:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

And claiming someone would support slavery is intellectually honest? (0.00 / 0)

I suppose I took exception with that rhetorical move because it was applied to me last week by either you or one of your surrogates when I raised the point about the importance of civil discourse. "Oh, you support civil discourse? I guess you wouldn't do anything about slavery." It's a Republican tactic by the way. Associate people to the worst someone can imagine. Kind of like the left being associated with traitors for opposing the war. Come on Paul, that's a cheap tactic and you know it.

---

by: frankenheimer @ Sat Oct 10, 2009 at 15:24:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

But I'm strongly in favour of what Grayson said (0.00 / 0)

I just don't consider it beating anyone, just being honest. I guess honesty sounds harsh in that context. Don't see any parallel at all with what he did and the bully tactics of the Republican party.  

---

by: frankenheimer @ Sat Oct 10, 2009 at 15:29:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes, It IS Intellectually Honest (0.00 / 0)

The Norm Ornsteins of JQ Adams' day hated him.

So, your excuse for lying about my argument today is that someone made what you saw as an unfair argument last week?

The problem here is that we have a clear-as-day example of you utterly misrepresenting my argument right in front of us, and we're supposed to take your word about some argument last week, that you can't even remember well enough yourself to say who made it?

You do see the problem with that, don't you?


"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Oct 10, 2009 at 15:46:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I didn't mispresent your argument in this discussion. (0.00 / 0)

You presented a childhood story in order to draw a conclusion that supported your diary argument:

The only way to beat a bully is to beat a bully.

That's what you did, you beat a bully by socking him in the face and you found the results positive. I don't see how anyone could interpret your story as not being supportive of your diary conclusion, which is that this type of action is occasionally called for.

So you're wrong that I misrepresented your argument. I stated quite clearly that Grayson's tactics, just as punching someone in the face, might work under certain circumstances, but that it would definitely not work as the norm.

As for who said what a few weeks ago, how is that an issue? It concerned you and the way you respond to comments. Someone implicitly likened my criticism of your approach to supporting slavery. It's just an odd coincidence.

Bah.

And what makes you think Paul Rosenberg in 1825 would have opposed slavery? It's terrible rhetorical tactic and shouldn't be used. It assumes our consciousness transcends culture and history.    

---

by: frankenheimer @ Sat Oct 10, 2009 at 16:04:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

And by the way I thought Ornstein's argument was dumb (0.00 / 0)

not because of the point you made, but because it's clearly disingenuous. He doesn't care about civil discourse. In fact, he clearly supports the same predicate you're in favor but in the other direction. It's not so much that he would not oppose slavery, it's that he would vigorously support it.

 

---

by: frankenheimer @ Sat Oct 10, 2009 at 16:11:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Frankly, frankenheimer, (0.00 / 0)

this is a stretch: In fact, he clearly supports the same predicate you're in favor but in the other direction. I don't share Paul's bleak assessment of your motives or your honesty, but after reading your comments over the past couple of weeks, it does seem to me that you're more fond of the false analogy than Paul has ever been.

You remind me of certain feminists I knew 20 years ago, who were so upset about the callous disregard of their agenda in the national discourse, that they kept pulling up the stakes around the perimeter of their argument and moving them further out. I was sympathetic, but when one of them in an argument with me, confidently asserted that a knowing wink from a male asshole was a form of rape, or that all men rape their daughters, I had to wonder whether the word rape meant anything at all to her any more, except a sign of her abiding anger and distrust.

Paul indulged himself in a parable. Everyone but you seems to have understood it, and drawn the correct inference. Why are you so interested in making a mountain out of a molehill? Despite Paul's misgivings, I think that this is more a question for you than it is for the rest of us.

---

by: William Timberman @ Sat Oct 10, 2009 at 16:39:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What is the false analogy I made? And what was the correct inference? (0.00 / 0)

I would be interested in knowing. I'm arguing against using the "I guess you would support slavery" argument whenever someone supports civil discourse, just as I'm against using the "I guess you support terrorists" argument whenever someone opposed war. That's one point I made and I think it's fairly important to certain progressives.

The second point I made is that I don't think Grayson's approach constitutes bullying.

What is your position on both of these points? They are both reasonable points and deal with the substance of Paul's diary. They might not be popular points at this site, but they are not wild accusations. It's kind of condescending to be told I'm making a mountain out of a molehill because I disagree with an argument, but I guess that's par for the course at the "open" left.  

I'm also fairly confident no feminist told you a wink counts as rape, and if they did, that's truly a disturbing story that has absolutely nothing to do with our current discussion since I'm doing nothing of the sort. I simply demonstrated that certain tactics are valuable and interesting precisely because there are certain rules in place that make them stand out. Supporting those rules does not diminish the value of the gesture (for someone who agrees with them) or make one an implicit supporter of slavery.

But you don't beat a bully by beating a bully. You beat them by supporting a system of values that makes the bully stand out as an aberration and reprehensible. And occasionally, if the opportunity presents itself, and it's necessary, you sock them.  

---

by: frankenheimer @ Sat Oct 10, 2009 at 17:10:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The artful -- well not THAT artful -- dodger (0.00 / 0)

You've equated beating the bully with a punch in the face. You choose to ignore the metaphor, and attack the offense against civil society which never existed in Paul's argument in the first place. As for I'm also fairly confident no feminist told you a wink counts as rape, your confidence is misplaced, and calling me a liar doesn't help your case, at least not with me.

---

by: William Timberman @ Sat Oct 10, 2009 at 17:21:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I equated the situations, not the act. (0.00 / 0)

Both situations involved acting against a bully by applying the tactic of a bully. Both situations involved transgressing rules (the law, decorum). That was the "correct" inference from Paul's story. And also, that the tactic worked. Surely you don't disagree that's the correct inference, do you? Maybe you can share the correct inference with us rather than withholding it?

As for calling you a liar, I'm sorry that's what came across. Consider it retracted.  

---

by: frankenheimer @ Sat Oct 10, 2009 at 17:38:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Okay, fair enough (0.00 / 0)

As I see it, the heart of the argument is this: a commitment to peace and civility does not require you to endure provocative, even threatening gestures while refraining from any provocations of your own. History is clear that doing so is tantamount to surrender to the status quo, and the bullies which its defenders from time to time feel justified in unleashing on those who would challenge it.

The abolitionists, the suffragists, the African National Congress, the SCLC's lunch-counter sit-ins, the Vietnam protests with their Hey, hey LBJ, how many kids did you kill today? are ample testimony that the art of self-defense requires far more than turning the other cheek. Sometimes it requires a certain lack of taste, sometimes a willingness to flirt with temporary disorder. Restoring balance to the body politic requires both sensitivity and moderation, a careful assessment of ends and means; in short, it requires good judgment, even under duress.

You accuse Paul of adopting the tactics of his enemies, and therefore becoming like them. He accuses you of something bordering on bourgeois prissiness, and wonders if you're just a more-subtle-than-normal concern troll.

Perhaps if the argument were pursued in a little more depth, the rest of us could judge who holds the moral high ground here, if anyone. Forgive me for thinking, though, that compared to the larger issues under consideration, this isn't really as important as what we're all trying to defend.

---

by: William Timberman @ Sat Oct 10, 2009 at 18:22:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

If you don't think conduct is a big issue (0.00 / 0)

and worth considering then that's fine. There's no possibility of argument. I've conceded many points, admitted mistakes and expressed self-doubt. I have not insulted anyone's intelligence by calling them lazy or compared them to supporters of slavery. That's my conduct. I've also said I enjoy Paul's diaries immensely and that I've learned a great deal from them. I'm also not opposed to protests and civil disobedience or taking up arms if the situation calls for it. However, if Orenstein would have supported slavery because he (if we take him at his word) supports civil discourse, then that means the vast majority of progressives would have done the same.

And secondly, if people on this site believe we are confronting a situation equivalent to slavery, why don't they make that case? I think that would make a very important argument worth debating since -- if true -- would force people to fight much, MUCH, more vigorously.

---

by: frankenheimer @ Sat Oct 10, 2009 at 19:12:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Humbug! (4.00 / 1)

I was simply recounting a learning experience from my childhood.  Presuming that I haven't learned anything else since then--and therefore advocate socking bullies in the jaw--is simply ludicrous.

And what makes you think Paul Rosenberg in 1825 would have opposed slavery?

Because I've spent my whole life trying to look at the world that way.  Instead of projecting myself back in time, I've looked at those who right back then, and asked, "What would they do today?"  And not just the enlightened white dudes like Wilbeforce and Franklin, but the slave rebellion leaders, who really drove the debate from the farthest margins.  "What would Nate Turner do?  What would Gabriel Prosser do?  What would Denmark Vessey do?"  That's how I try to live my life.

I know I can't do that, because my life is not theirs. It's far more comfortable than they could ever dream of.  But I can try to live my life so that future generations will have it that much better still.  

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Oct 10, 2009 at 16:37:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ok, I guess it's ok to call people slave supporters then. (0.00 / 0)

I don't get it. The last thing that comes to mind in reading Orenstein's disingenuous chatter is support for slavery. That this comes so easily as an accusation, sometimes of progressives, is what I find odd.

Bah.

You don't find these points important, that's fine. I guess I'm missing the point and will fall in line. Believe me, it troubles me that I'm always missing the point. Serious reflection required.

---

by: frankenheimer @ Sat Oct 10, 2009 at 17:23:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

If A Nation Is Judged By How It Treats The Least Among These (0.00 / 0)

I don't get it. The last thing that comes to mind in reading Orenstein's disingenuous chatter is support for slavery.

then how people's attitudes on any matter measure against the yardstick of slavery is always a valuable and important question worth considering.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Oct 10, 2009 at 17:46:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Any matter? (0.00 / 0)

Am I the only one troubled by this view?

And secondly, what exactly is the yardstick of slavery? 99.9% of progressives today would have done terrible things at various points in history had they lived back then simply because they would have adopted the reality and the implicit conventional wisdom of the time, along with limited tools for critical thinking. That yardstick only works if we think of consciousness as permanent and not contingent on culture and history.

That being said, I'm fairly certain I'm supporting terrible things for the same reason, and that frightens me.  

---

by: frankenheimer @ Sat Oct 10, 2009 at 18:03:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not At All (4.00 / 1)

That yardstick only works if we think of consciousness as permanent and not contingent on culture and history.

That yardstick works as an invaluable tool to break ourselves out of the prison of our unexamined thoughts.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Oct 10, 2009 at 18:11:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Mortgage Rescue (4.00 / 2)

Because Obama just couldn't stand to help ordinary American's that's why, fool!

Any clue why the Obama plan seems to be failing?  I'm personally using what Obama set up, so I know it exists and works.  Is it just too hard to find out about or too hard to qualify?

Thanks to Obama, our mortgage payments are cut in half for 6 months.  If my wife finds a job in that time period, everything will be perfect.  Even if not, it is a huge help.

---

by: Mark Matson @ Sat Oct 10, 2009 at 15:28:17 PM UTC

Who Knows About It? (4.00 / 1)

Compared to who knows about the Wall Street bailouts & who's been inundated with phony scams?

It was not a headline news program.  It was a fine print program.  And apparently that's the way Obama wanted it.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Oct 10, 2009 at 15:35:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Some banks aren't playing square (4.00 / 1)

Big surprise, right? I've got a friend in southern CA who's been trying for months to get Wells Fargo to agree to a mortgage modification. Lost paperwork -- twice -- their computers failing to remember who she is and when she first filed -- three times. Well, we'll just have to go back and start over, I guess -- once. Also, Jenny was working on that, and she's out sick today -- more times than there were fingers to count them on.

Then I read that Wells Fargo is among the banks which aren't cooperating. No on seems to know why. I sent her a link to the article, thinking maybe she could apply to whoever wrote the damned thing in the first place and add her name to the list of people willing to testify. It's enough to make you as mad as a teabagger.

Did I just say that? Silly me, huh....

---

by: William Timberman @ Sat Oct 10, 2009 at 15:53:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Precisely (4.00 / 1)

It's all down in fine print land.  And little folks never fare well in that kind of territory.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Oct 10, 2009 at 16:29:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]