May you live in interesting times....

[ns2]

The title was an ancient Chinese curse.

http://politicker.com/2013/12/bill-de-b ... nal-hopes/

If you can sit back as a casual observer and not become too emotionally invested the current political climate is an interesting one to behold.

Is there really a progressive/liberal wave getting ready to sweep the country bringing the blessings of more big government programs to ourselves and our posterity? Following the election of a far-left president and the passage of Obamacare, the progressives appear to be more emboldened than ever to ram their programs down the throats of Americans who don't want them, as long as they can garner enough votes to win elections.

Will the Obamacare fiasco cause people to question the idea of big government and create more conservatives, or will the progressives be able to convince more people that the answers to the failure of big government is to double down with more big government?

Despite predictions I have heard over the years, I suspect that Libertarianism will remain a non-factor and the best we can hope for is that people will prefer big government conservatives to big government liberals.

Further reflection on the subject: This man would be under the careful watch of many government agencies today... http://jpetrie.myweb.uga.edu/TJ.html

[Pointedstick]

It is the nature of politicians to overstretch themselves when they thing they are at the height of their power. And it is also the nature of politicians to misunderstand the diversity of opinion outside of the circles they commonly walk in.

[dualstow]

Ive always thought the idea that this is a Chinese curse is an apocryphal one. Think about it: curser and cursee live in the same era. Unless maybe it's a guy on his deathbed cursing a child.

[ns2]

Ive always thought the idea that this is a Chinese curse is an apocryphal one. Think about it: curser and cursee live in the same era. Unless maybe it's a guy on his deathbed cursing a child.

Well, I heard it from the writer John Derbyshire who is married to a Chinese lady and lived there for many years himself so I thought it was authentic.

You could be right. For all I know it could be another  made up "It takes a village to raise a child" kind of saying.

[Jan Van]

Following the election of a far-left president and the passage of Obamacare, the progressives appear to be more emboldened than ever ...

Me thinks the far left would disagree with you on that...

Anyone capable of seeing President Obama’s policies and not be confused by the Democratic Party label or the fact that he is the first African American president would see that he is surrounded by Wall Street advisers – that he selected, that his health care law was implemented by a former health insurance company executive, that the outsourcing leader – General Electric – is his jobs czar and that his food czar is a former Monsanto executive.  But, for Obama to admit it makes the truth hard to ignore.

From: Obama: Republicans and Democrats actually are “fighting inside the 40-yard lines”? on key issues

They even have a t-shirt :-)

[MediumTex]

I agree that the Rs and Ds are virtually indistinguishable. Of course, I'm not too far left for either of them, but rather above them on the "Nolan chart".

That is one of the reasons that it always surprises me that a person can have such intense hatred for one political party without also hating the other political party as well.

If you believe that the government has most of the answers to society's problems, then the difference between Democrat and Republican isn't all that dramatic in many situations (once you put the rhetoric aside).

OTOH, if you believe that the government has good answers to VERY few of society's problems, then Democrats and Republicans should be equally distasteful, since they both want to intrude into your life in countless ways to create their vision of a better world and let you pay for it and coerce you into going along with it.

[Libertarian666]

I agree that the Rs and Ds are virtually indistinguishable. Of course, I'm not too far left for either of them, but rather above them on the "Nolan chart".

That is one of the reasons that it always surprises me that a person can have such intense hatred for one political party without also hating the other political party as well.

If you believe that the government has most of the answers to society's problems, then the difference between Democrat and Republican isn't all that dramatic in many situations (once you put the rhetoric aside).

OTOH, if you believe that the government has good answers to VERY few of society's problems, then Democrats and Republicans should be equally distasteful, since they both want to intrude into your life in countless ways to create their vision of a better world and let you pay for it and coerce you into going along with it.

Oh, that's easy. It's "your team" vs. "their team". Maybe the only real difference is the color of the jerseys, but have you ever seen what can happen if some poor guy who happens to be wearing the colors of the other soccer team sits in the wrong part of the stadium?

This "herd instinct" may have been a viable adaptation thousands of years ago, but now it's the greatest threat to mankind.

[MediumTex]

I agree that the Rs and Ds are virtually indistinguishable. Of course, I'm not too far left for either of them, but rather above them on the "Nolan chart".

That is one of the reasons that it always surprises me that a person can have such intense hatred for one political party without also hating the other political party as well.

If you believe that the government has most of the answers to society's problems, then the difference between Democrat and Republican isn't all that dramatic in many situations (once you put the rhetoric aside).

OTOH, if you believe that the government has good answers to VERY few of society's problems, then Democrats and Republicans should be equally distasteful, since they both want to intrude into your life in countless ways to create their vision of a better world and let you pay for it and coerce you into going along with it.

Oh, that's easy. It's "your team" vs. "their team". Maybe the only real difference is the color of the jerseys, but have you ever seen what can happen if some poor guy who happens to be wearing the colors of the other soccer team sits in the wrong part of the stadium?

This "herd instinct" may have been a viable adaptation thousands of years ago, but now it's the greatest threat to mankind.

Are you suggesting that from a moral and ethical perspective there is no difference between the Dallas Cowboys and the Washington Redskins?

[Libertarian666]

That is one of the reasons that it always surprises me that a person can have such intense hatred for one political party without also hating the other political party as well.

If you believe that the government has most of the answers to society's problems, then the difference between Democrat and Republican isn't all that dramatic in many situations (once you put the rhetoric aside).

OTOH, if you believe that the government has good answers to VERY few of society's problems, then Democrats and Republicans should be equally distasteful, since they both want to intrude into your life in countless ways to create their vision of a better world and let you pay for it and coerce you into going along with it.

Oh, that's easy. It's "your team" vs. "their team". Maybe the only real difference is the color of the jerseys, but have you ever seen what can happen if some poor guy who happens to be wearing the colors of the other soccer team sits in the wrong part of the stadium?

This "herd instinct" may have been a viable adaptation thousands of years ago, but now it's the greatest threat to mankind.

Are you suggesting that from a moral and ethical perspective there is no difference between the Dallas Cowboys and the Washington Redskins?

Of course not. Let's not get too extreme here. 

[Reub]

Personally, I think that there is a world of difference between the 2 parties. Obviously, they don't always live up to their core beliefs and this leads to distrust and a tendency to paint them both with the same broad brush.

[Pointedstick]

Personally, I think that there is a world of difference between the 2 parties. Obviously, they don't always live up to their core beliefs and this leads to distrust and a tendency to paint them both with the same broad brush.

What core beliefs? Until the civil rights act, the Democratic party was the party of big-business racist warmongers. And the Republican party was founded as an abolitionist party. It seems to me that the parties' "core beliefs" blow with the wind.

[Reub]

I am not looking back 40 or 100 years, PS. I am referring to large govt with an obtrusive nanny society vs. the opposite.

[Pointedstick]

I am not looking back 40 or 100 years, PS. I am referring to large govt with an obtrusive nanny society vs. the opposite.

I get that. And I'm highly sympathetic to that view. But I still don't see a lot of difference between the parties if this is the lens one looks through. Are Medicare and Social Security a part of the "nanny state"? Because I don't see either party lining up to scrap them. What about unemployment compensation? Same deal. And if you want to talk about a nanny state, how about militarized police forces necessary to fight the ridiculous drug war? Which party again was the one arguing forcefully against those?

There are differences between the parties on many issues, sure. But it seems like a lot of them are window dressing to distract people from (IMHO) the truth that both want an expansive federal government with a great deal of power over individuals that channels money to their particular favored groups.

[Reub]

I am not looking back 40 or 100 years, PS. I am referring to large govt with an obtrusive nanny society vs. the opposite.

I get that. And I'm highly sympathetic to that view. But I still don't see a lot of difference between the parties if this is the lens one looks through. Are Medicare and Social Security a part of the "nanny state"? Because I don't see either party lining up to scrap them. What about unemployment compensation? Same deal. And if you want to talk about a nanny state, how about militarized police forces necessary to fight the ridiculous drug war? Which party again was the one arguing forcefully against those?

There are differences between the parties on many issues, sure. But it seems like a lot of them are window dressing to distract people from (IMHO) the truth that both want an expansive federal government with a great deal of power over individuals that channels money to their particular favored groups.

PS, Medicare and Social Security are precepts of the nanny party that have become so ingrained in our society that they are not easily removed or even altered, as they are now trying to do with Obamacare. I do remember the anti-nanny party trying to allow individuals to invest in their own SS fund but that was demagogued by the nanny party and killed. Unemployment has been extended to a 2 year standard and is now used by the nanny party as a pathway to permanent disability insurance, insuring happy constituents. I believe that fighting the drug war is a relatively small issue and one could argue that it has merit and importance for our national security/integrity and is vital for protecting our youngins. A military drug war does not add to a nanny state nor is it on a scale with these gigantic, stifling govt programs that are pushed by one party ad nauseum.

[Libertarian666]

I am not looking back 40 or 100 years, PS. I am referring to large govt with an obtrusive nanny society vs. the opposite.

I get that. And I'm highly sympathetic to that view. But I still don't see a lot of difference between the parties if this is the lens one looks through. Are Medicare and Social Security a part of the "nanny state"? Because I don't see either party lining up to scrap them. What about unemployment compensation? Same deal. And if you want to talk about a nanny state, how about militarized police forces necessary to fight the ridiculous drug war? Which party again was the one arguing forcefully against those?

There are differences between the parties on many issues, sure. But it seems like a lot of them are window dressing to distract people from (IMHO) the truth that both want an expansive federal government with a great deal of power over individuals that channels money to their particular favored groups.

PS, Medicare and Social Security are precepts of the nanny party that have become so ingrained in our society that they are not easily removed or even altered, as they are now trying to do with Obamacare. I do remember the anti-nanny party trying to allow individuals to invest in their own SS fund but that was demagogued by the nanny party and killed. Unemployment has been extended to a 2 year standard and is now used by the nanny party as a pathway to permanent disability insurance, insuring happy constituents. I believe that fighting the drug war is a relatively small issue and one could argue that it has merit and importance for our national security/integrity and is vital for protecting our youngins. A military drug war does not add to a nanny state nor is it on a scale with these gigantic, stifling govt programs that are pushed by one party ad nauseum.

Of course you can excuse away the near-identity of the two parties to the benefit of "your team". But in fact PS is correct that they are much more alike than different if you watch what they do, not what they say.

In particular, the drug war, far from being unimportant, has been the vehicle by which our privacy and right to be unmolested in our homes have been taken away, as well as the reason that the US has the greatest proportion of its population in prison of any so-called developed country. And that has been primarily the doing of the Republicans.

[Pointedstick]

Reub, it sounds like you're saying you mostly agree with the Republicans, and there's nothing wrong with that. But realize that a lot of what you're agreeing with could easily be classified as government nanny-statism.

You said yourself that the drug was could be classified as "for the children." Doesn't that sound pretty nanny-state-ish? I get that you think it's a good thing, but agreeing with a government policy doesn't automatically mean that that government policy isn't big government nanny-statism.

Same with SS and Medicare. Just because your favorite party seems to like them, that doesn't mean they're not big government nanny-statism. The programs' age or popularity shouldn't really matter to the issue of what they are, right?

[Jan Van]

You said yourself that the drug was could be classified as "for the children."

The following is not directed at you Pointedstick...

Does that mean that whoever favors the war on drugs thinks that government knows better what is good and bad for their children in that area?

I was taught in school alcohol is a hard drug and weed is a soft drug (how about you, Rien, if you're reading this). I teach my child what is right and what is wrong behavior concerning both these drugs. But our government seems hell bent on filling our prisons with people who get involved with soft drugs. One reason we now incarcerate 25% of the worlds prisoners...

Land of the Free? US Has 25 Percent of the World’s Prisoners

[Reub]

Reub, it sounds like you're saying you mostly agree with the Republicans, and there's nothing wrong with that. But realize that a lot of what you're agreeing with could easily be classified as government nanny-statism.

You said yourself that the drug was could be classified as "for the children." Doesn't that sound pretty nanny-state-ish? I get that you think it's a good thing, but agreeing with a government policy doesn't automatically mean that that government policy isn't big government nanny-statism.

Same with SS and Medicare. Just because your favorite party seems to like them, that doesn't mean they're not big government nanny-statism. The programs' age or popularity shouldn't really matter to the issue of what they are, right?

I said that the war on drugs, whether correct or incorrect, is a relatively small issue and should not be viewed on the same level as the nanny party's gigantic, overbearing nanny-state policies such as SS, Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, along with all of the other giveaways that are doled out to insure dependence and votes. It's just not in the same league.

[Pointedstick]

I said that the war on drugs, whether correct or incorrect, is a relatively small issue and should not be viewed on the same level as the nanny party's gigantic, overbearing nanny-state policies such as SS, Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, along with all of the other giveaways that are doled out to insure dependence and votes. It's just not in the same league.

I disagree. The war on drugs has been responsible for filling our prisons up with nonviolent offenders, thereby bringing them into contact with and transforming them into real criminals. It's been responsible for destroying African-American society. It's caused an insane amount of border violence and caused millions of Mexicans and Central Americans to flee their drug-war-torn nations and become illegal immigrants. It's lead to the creation of really, really awful drugs like meth in an attempt by drug dealers to circumvent the border violence. It's contributed heavily to the destruction of our 4th amendment privacy rights. It's been responsible for the militarization of the domestic police force, the acceptance of the police home invasion "no-knock raid", all of which have destroyed public trust in the police force. This isn't minor stuff!

[Libertarian666]

I said that the war on drugs, whether correct or incorrect, is a relatively small issue and should not be viewed on the same level as the nanny party's gigantic, overbearing nanny-state policies such as SS, Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, along with all of the other giveaways that are doled out to insure dependence and votes. It's just not in the same league.

I disagree. The war on drugs has been responsible for filling our prisons up with nonviolent offenders, thereby bringing them into contact with and transforming them into real criminals. It's been responsible for destroying African-American society. It's caused an insane amount of border violence and caused millions of Mexicans and Central Americans to flee their drug-war-torn nations and become illegal immigrants. It's lead to the creation of really, really awful drugs like meth in an attempt by drug dealers to circumvent the border violence. It's contributed heavily to the destruction of our 4th amendment privacy rights. It's been responsible for the militarization of the domestic police force, the acceptance of the police home invasion "no-knock raid", all of which have destroyed public trust in the police force. This isn't minor stuff!

+1