Monday Night Open Thread

I'm about to do a post on tonight's The Bachelor show, which likely won't interest anyone here.

So, here's an open thread where you can write about what you want. All topics welcome.

I'll be back after The Bachelor.

< SC Police: Phelps Off The Hook | Monday Night TV: New Bachelor Thoughts From Jesse Csincsak >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Average workers make less now than in 1973 (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 07:10:36 PM EST
    [Comment about family debt carried over from President's Day open thread: "average people are in debt because they can't make a living wage".]

    This story from McClatchy News (02/13/09) lays it all out:

    Workers have been sacrificing for years. Average worker paychecks are worth less now than in 1973, but CEOs and other rich Americans not only make much more, they pay less in taxes.

    Average full-time workers made $41,198 in 1973 and $37,606 in 2008, adjusted for inflation.

    CEOs made 45 times as much as workers in 1973 and more than 300 times as much as workers now. The top tax rate was 70 percent in 1973 and just 35 percent now; taxpayers pay the top rate on the portion of taxable income that falls within the highest bracket and pay lower rates on income below that. The top rate for capital gains on the sale of stock and other assets was 36.5 percent in 1973 and 15 percent now.

    Just read this (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by lilburro on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 08:07:52 PM EST
    From CBS.  So, we know this:

    Mohamed claims he confessed to being a terrorist only after he was brutally abused and tortured, and that both American and British intelligence officers were at least complicit in the torture.

    Lt. Col. Bradley says there is evidence to support his claims of torture and that it is in 42 classified documents held by the British government.

    Mohamed's lawyers and British media have sued in the British High Court to make those documents public.

    The British - and American - governments are fighting that on national security grounds. As the British Foreign Secretary David Miliband told Parliament that Britian's intelligence relationship with the United States is vital to the security of the United Kingdom.

    But apparently all that stuff about the intelligence relationship being affected?  Was a lie:

    Miliband pointed to a letter received from the U.S. State Department, authored by The Legal Advisor, John Bellinger III, on Aug. 21, 2008, to bolster his argument. The letter said, "...the public disclosure of these documents or of the information contained therein is likely to result in serious damage to U.S. national security and could harm existing intelligence information arrangements between our two governments". "

    That last sentence was interpreted as a threat by the British media and by the British High Court, which ruled that Mohamed's lawyers, with security clearances, could have access to the documents, but that they must not be made public. The court harshly criticized the American government for what it characterized as U.S. interference in British affairs.

    But a former Bush administration official with specific knowledge of the case, who requested anonymity, has told CBS News the letter was written at the request of the British government and that both the U.S. and British government wanted to ensure the documents remained secret. The British Foreign Office declined to comment on the record. [emphasis supplied]

    The stated reason that the UK judges declined to publish the information about Mohamed's treatment was that "it was not in the public interest to do this due to the potential impact on UK national security of US stopping intelligence sharing" (quote from the BBC)

    Not that there was something in the documents about Mohamed's treatment that would affect national security - but rather, based on threats - threats that were apparently manufactured by the US & UK governments.

    SOMEBODY should get in trouble for this.

    And we definitely should see these documents.  I posted this at my blog as well.

    If the Bush admin official is not a lying liar on this, then some sh*t should be going down.

    This could cause (none / 0) (#9)
    by scribe on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 08:39:12 PM EST
    the British government to fall.



    I think it could cause (none / 0) (#34)
    by lilburro on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 10:53:57 PM EST
    a number of things:

    The publication of the evidence in question;
    The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejecting the assertion of state secrets privilege by the Obama DoJ regarding Mohamed et al v Jeppesen;
    And hopefully some broader realization on the part of the US that there's no reason a lot of this stuff should be hidden - it should be all put out on the table.  With no immunity granted to the major players.

    This could be the thing that helps us ramp up pressure on the Obama DoJ to stop fiddling around and actually DO something re: Bush war crimes.  

    The Foreign Office admitted they asked for the letter (Guardian).  Blow whistleblowers, blow!


    Social Security 'reform' - again (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 10:02:57 PM EST
    David Sirota has a post tonight at Open Left: Is the Team of Zombies Plotting An Attack on Social Security? Short answer - yes:
    Word has it that President Obama intends to appoint a task force the week after next which will be charged with "reforming" Social Security. According to inside gossip, the task force will be led entirely by economists who were not able to see the $8 trillion housing bubble, the collapse of which is giving the country its sharpest downturn since the Great Depression.

    But Sirota is uber confident that it won't happen because:

    I just don't believe that Obama will go through with it. I'm saying that not because I'm naive and think the president is just too good or moral a guy to propose retirement benefit cuts during a recession, but because I think the president is just too smart a politician...

    Well, David is certainly big on faith and hope, but where's the charity - for Main Street, I mean.

    Sirota's opionion is pretty meaningless (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by tigercourse on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 10:12:58 PM EST
    to me, but I don't think Obama would cut benefits either.

    I think Sirota's comments might be (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Anne on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 10:18:15 PM EST
    the very definition of naive - he's just not going to believe it?  Are his fingers in his ears?  Is he getting ready to close his eyes and do the la-la-la-la-la thing?

    Over and over and over again, we have seen Obama say and do things to attract Republican support, ignore the cries of protest from the left and resort to pragmatism that is just capitulation masquerading as cooperation; I have no reason to think he would not see Social Security reform as something he could use for political gain, but I have little confidence that it would not somehow end up getting away from him in a way that would not be particularly good for the people.

    I'm starting to think that we might need a lot of bright, shiny distractions to keep Obama's attention as far away as possible from health care reform; I am simply not interested in him convening some sort of pragmatic coalition that will make things worse.


    You don't want Newt Gingrich (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by ThatOneVoter on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 10:19:29 PM EST
    helping out with health care reform?

    There's just no reason to trust (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by ThatOneVoter on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 10:18:24 PM EST
    Obama on this subject in particular.
    Other areas, yes; SS, no.

    Now that Congress has passed the (none / 0) (#2)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 07:29:38 PM EST
    stimulus bill and the President will sign it in Denver Tuesday, why is the President trying to drum up support for the stimulus bill?  

    Maybe this is the part where (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Anne on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 07:42:09 PM EST
    we're supposed to clap our hands and chant something along the lines of "I DO want the stimulus to work, I DO want the stimulus to work."

    Or maybe it's all part of making us responsible for whether it works or not.

    Sorry for the snark; it's just been one of those days.


    You are such an Obot. (none / 0) (#5)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 08:18:41 PM EST
    Who knew?

    I'm not clapping my hands.  Don't want to end up in Kansas.


    Hey, it was news to me, too, lol (none / 0) (#6)
    by Anne on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 08:29:14 PM EST
    If you want to end up in Kansas, you have to click your heels together three times and say, "there's no place like home, there's no place like home."

    And you might need the ruby slippers, too.

    Wait a minute...since you mentioned Kansas, you must be the real Obot...hee hee.


    If you're posing the question... (5.00 / 0) (#7)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 08:29:35 PM EST
    ...in good faith, there's this.

    Colorado has been aggressive in what Ritter coined the "new energy economy" - investing in wind, solar and other renewable energy sources as a way to create jobs and reduce the country's reliance on foreign oil.

    The approach is a big part of the economic stimulus package sent to Obama's desk Friday. Colorado, for example, stands to receive more than $130 million for clean energy and weatherization assistance programs under the plan. It also includes tax incentives for renewable energy facilities.

    Ritter said the Obama administration was looking last week for a site in the Denver area that made use of renewable energy so the president could tout that portion of the package.

    I guess that explains why the bill- (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 08:41:54 PM EST
    signing will be in Denver.  (Although it seems to me the energy consumption to get there to sign the bill is pretty high.)  Am I incorrect though?  Does the President plan additional appearances outside of D.C. on behalf of the stimulus bill?

    Wouldn't you be (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by CoralGables on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 09:12:06 PM EST
    putting the President in a no win situation? If he travels to different states (and I believe Colorado will be his 4th since taking office) he's wasting energy. If he stays in DC he's locked away with the Washington elite and out of touch with mainstream America.

    I read that Eleanor, FDR's "legs" (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 09:24:31 PM EST
    traveled hundreds of thousands of miles during the Depression to represent him, to be out there with Americans to lift their spirits.  It worked well.

    So yes, Obama needs to be out there somewhat -- but he also needs to have someone to represent him when he needs to be in Washington.  Or vice versa.  Say, didn't he say he picked a VP who could do so?

    There may be a new game coming:  Where's Joe? :-)


    It wasn't just to represent him. It was also (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by tigercourse on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 09:30:10 PM EST
    reconnaissance to see which areas/people were the hardest hit and needed the most help. There's a joke in "Guess who's coming to dinner". The main character asks his secretary to call Eleanor in Phoneix but the secretary just misses her. So he tells her to call her tomorrow in Dallas and if that doesn't work, the next day in Detroit (not the right cities, but you get the idea).

    That was (none / 0) (#33)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 10:48:45 PM EST
    representing him, yes.

    When he is going to lift spirits? (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by BrassTacks on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 10:40:54 PM EST
    I would LOVE to hear some uplifting things from him, some hope that this recession won't last forever, some optimism.  That's what a leader does, gives people hope and encouragement.  I sure hope he begins that message soon, before people are so discouraged that they give up.  That's not what we need.

    I don't want a cheerleader in the WH; (none / 0) (#35)
    by Anne on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 10:57:03 PM EST
    I've started to worry that he's "this" close to telling us all to get out to the mall to do some shopping - especially since the folks in Vegas were beside themselves that he was discouraging people from going there.

    What a leader does is take control; he doesn't just stand on the sidelines and comment on the progress that others are making.

    Maybe it's just me, but I don't get the sense that he really feels what's going on out here in the real America; I think it would go a long way if he could channel some of the anger that people feel, but he seems too intent on not making the Republicans mad to risk being visibly angry at what he has inherited from them.

    Sometimes I feel like Obama thinks this is like one of those corporate trust-building retreats, or that it's a giant community organizing experiment - I don't always get a sense of him actually being invested in the heart of what's going on.

    I need more action and less talk.  No pom-poms, please.


    Anne, this is the flaw (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 12:45:04 AM EST
    in your strategy of not watching the news or reading it.  You are absorbing the media's scare headlines but not the details.

    Does Obama "feel in his gut" what's going on with us?  I don't know and I honestly don't care, as long as he does the right things.  Whether his judgment is right or not is another question, but I (no Obama supporter, as you know) have at this point complete confidence that he's absolutely determined to fix this if it's fixable.

    I agree, we need a bit more encouragement, but it's a very difficult line to balance on between making sure the urgency is there and the credibility, and being encouraging.  Bush (actually I and II) was eviscerated by most of us for being cheery when things were obviously heading down the tubes.  I actually give Bush Jr. a break on that because I'm sure every economic advisor he had was telling him not to encourage doom and gloom for fear of making things worse.

    I actually do think Obama should find a way to enocourage people to go shopping. Those of us on the margins or in danger of losing our jobs should keep our pennies, but there are a lot of wealthy, secure people in this country also sitting on their money who could perfectly well afford to spend some of it, but we literally have "recession chic" right now where well-to-do people are restricting their spending and hiding their Gucci bags for fear of being seen as out of touch.  Those people need to get out their damn wallets since the rest of us don't dare.


    Excuse me, but the fact that I don't (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Anne on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 06:49:34 AM EST
    spemd a lot of time watching Brian Williams give me 30 seconds of "news" about a particular issue does not mean I'm not reading about it or otherwise educating myself about it; I think I am less likely to "buy into" the media spin because I don't allow them to manipulate me into thinking that what they are telling me is what I need to know.  If I have learned anything over the years, it is that if I want to know what's going on, I can't depend on the news to tell me - they're just telling me what they think I should know, and how I should feel about it.

    So, what's Obama supposed to do, tell people to go shopping, but only if they can afford it?  Doesn't he run the risk of a backlash from those who think the rich always get stuck having to do more than everyone else?  

    We've just come out of an administration where, no matter what the economic news, Bush and his people told us the economy was strong, that things were going great - gee, that helped a lot, didn't it?

    No one knows what the future will bring.  No one knows whether this stimulus package will work, or how long it will take to see positive effects on the economy.  People aren't spending because they don't know what's around the corner.  People who have jobs don't know whether they will still have them a week from now or a month from now.  "Rich people" are probably among the most highly leveraged, and even though their lifestyle suggests they have money to spend, I think appearances are deceiving and they may be, in terms of cash flow, much worse off than one would think.

    I did not mean to suggest that Obama doesn't want to fix this - of course he does; I'd just rather see pictures of him hunkered down in the Oval Office, burning the midnight oil, than I would see him in campaign mode, which always seems to be more about him than about us.


    But, given that every state will be getting (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Anne on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 09:30:38 PM EST
    stimulus money, should we expect to see Obama in all of them, happily touting whatever projects each state is undertaking?

    Maybe it would be more cost-effective and more environmentally friendly to have the president appear via a remote connection on a Jumbotron than it would be to have Air Force One and the enormous presidential detail traveling to all 50 states.

    I know presidents have always done these sorts of things, but maybe it's time for a change.


    We've already spent something like 11 (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by tigercourse on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 09:32:27 PM EST
    billion dollars on the President's helicopters. He should get to fly around in them.

    Oh, right - forgot about that. (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by Anne on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 09:34:58 PM EST
    What was I thinking?

    Do they have (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Spamlet on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 07:22:35 AM EST
    fake Greek columns?

    No, Bush Ordered Them (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by daring grace on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:02:31 AM EST
    So they are

    "Equipped to deflect missile attacks and capable of waging war from the air..."


    But Maybe Not (none / 0) (#50)
    by daring grace on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 09:59:21 AM EST
    According to this NY Times article, he has frozen the badly over-budget project to reconsider it.

    Maybe we can start (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by CoralGables on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 09:41:51 PM EST
    at the state level:

    Florida's little-known lieutenant governor, Jeff Kottkamp, billed taxpayers $425,000 for 365 flights on state planes during his first two years in office.

    Two-thirds of the flights involved getting Kottkamp to and from Fort Myers, where he and his wife own a $1.4 million house. State planes flew empty one-way 70 times to pick him up or drop him off in his hometown, flight records show

    Son of a ***ch. (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 12:47:16 AM EST
    The sense of entitlement is just breath-taking.

    Why isn't Crist reining this moron in?


    Crist is just as bad (none / 0) (#56)
    by Amiss on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 03:31:59 PM EST
    For that matter so is Obama, where did he make his stimulus appearance? Fort Meyers. I live just outside Tallahassee, one of the poorest if not the poorest regions of Florida. These days you do not see the Governor or the Lt. Governor actually living in the homes that our taxes pay for. Instead we have to pay for their "fun in the sun" mansions and trips they take occasionally to tend to actual state business. I have yet to see Charlie Crist give an interview in Tallahassee.

    He doesn't like being in the WH (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by BrassTacks on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 10:38:13 PM EST
    The President and Michelle would rather not be in Washington.  Plus, he loves campaigning.  It's what he does best.  We all like to do what we're good at.  I would expect that he will spend most of the time campaigning for what he wants done.  That's what he likes to do.  

    Being in the White House, working on bills, and negotiating with Congress, having meetings, all the real work stuff,
    not really his thing.


    I think that is his point of view, given (none / 0) (#14)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 09:13:12 PM EST
    his comments in Elkhart.  

    Four states in four weeks (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by CoralGables on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 09:28:15 PM EST
    does have him on pace to cover the country in his first year in office. I would suspect travel with mostly open forums like his trip to Fort Myers, Florida can help prevent the Bush bubble from ever closing around him.

    Agreed (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 12:31:16 AM EST
    I think it's a little weird to be going off to sign bills elsewhere, and it could get pretty quickly out of hand.  But I think, if anything, he should have done more of this kind of thing while the bill was being debated, and I'm not at all unhappy he's continuing to advocate for it even afterwards.  There's a major propaganda war going on about it with the Republicans, and anything he can do to counter it is good-- especially since the Congressional Dems. are, as usually, sitting around with their mouths hanging open and incapable of defending it themselves.

    I wholeheartedly agree. (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by DeborahNC on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 01:47:12 AM EST
    If he doesn't continue to advocate on behalf of himself and the bill, the Republicans will pummel it to bits with their criticism and ridicule.

    I've always said that Republicans can't be bipartisan unless the other side is conceding, and this recent episode just supports my position. However, I think that they're putting themselves on the line with such a strong assault on the president and this bill, because if the economy improves, even in small increments, they will have mud on their faces.

    They will expose their inner selves--dark and oblivious to the needs and cares of average Americans.


    Don't know... (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 09:27:04 PM EST
    ...but I hope he does.  There's more to America than DC and I'd rather he converse with our neighbors than the Beltway crowd.  

    Like CG said--he's darned if he does and darned if he doesn't with some people.  I'm not one of those--I want him out making his case to the public, not to a bunch of blow-hards in Washington.  


    Wasteful (none / 0) (#15)
    by squeaky on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 09:15:52 PM EST
    (Although it seems to me the energy consumption to get there to sign the bill is pretty high.)

    It is a but a fleck of dust, compared to the $130 million  in government revenue generated by the entitlement.  

    Colorado has been aggressive in what Ritter coined the "new energy economy" - investing in wind, solar and other renewable energy sources as a way to create jobs and reduce the country's relianCce on foreign oil.

    The approach is a big part of the economic stimulus package sent to Obama's desk Friday. Colorado, for example, stands to receive more than $130 million for clean energy and weatherization assistance programs under the plan. It also includes tax incentives for renewable energy facilities.

    59,000 jobs in the state. Money slated for Colorado includes*:

    • $612 million for a "state fiscal stabilization fund" for school districts, public colleges and universities and other "high-priority needs" such as public safety

    • $404 million for highway funding

    • $180 million for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (formerly known as food stamps)

    • $130 million for energy and weatherization assistance programs

    • $104 million for investment in mass transit

    • $34 million for law enforcement, including grants to fight Internet crime against children and domestic violence

    • A tax credit of up to $400 for workers who make less than about $75,000 per year, or a credit of up to $800 for married couples filing jointly who make about $150,000 or less.



    More stimulus bills to come (none / 0) (#30)
    by BrassTacks on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 10:29:37 PM EST
    This was just the first one.  Team Obama is hoping for many more.   There's still the housing problem, the auto workers, and health care.  All of those will require LOTS more money.  This bill is just the beginning of the money he wants.  He'll be campaigning for a long time for more money for his various bailout probrams.

    If he has a way to reinvest any (none / 0) (#44)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 08:05:10 AM EST
    income from this one back into another one, I'm all for it....'cause this one doesn't feel like it is nearly what is needed. And, maybe this one will show clearly what worked and needs more, and what didn't so more isn't thrown that way.

    Gas prices are going up while oil prices are going down, and states are talking about taking more taxes, which will surely zero out any benefit to the taxpayers from the stimulus cuts.

    I'm bothered by Obama's need to gather crowds of adoring fans. These trips of his seem to be more for his people to see him than for him to see them. I will change that thought if I hear he tours some hard hit companies and neighborhoods in the Denver area while he's there today.


    DoJ yanks contemnor prosecutors (none / 0) (#8)
    by scribe on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 08:38:23 PM EST
    from the Ted Stevens case.

    Apparently, their conduct was even too much for DoJ to continue covering for them.

    New DOJ. (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 08:42:31 PM EST
    The damage is done (none / 0) (#12)
    by andgarden on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 08:43:59 PM EST
    I'd actually like (none / 0) (#24)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 10:01:20 PM EST
    someone to tell my why ODS statements about Obots are okay- I mean its ironic that people who whine so much about CDS have no problem displaying symptoms of ODS?  I mean are Clinton people Hilltards?

    There will always be (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Fabian on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 07:54:38 AM EST
    a politics of personality.

    The politics of personality is centered around the person, not their policies.  It's a feature of authoritarians who not just like or prefer, but literally need a strong leader to make them feel secure.  And a certain percentage of the population are authoritarians and probably always will be.  It's just the way their brains are wired.

    Authoritarians are more often found on the Right, rather than the Left.  However, authoritarians can accept a strong leader of any political persuasion because it is the person and the authority they represent that is important, not the actual policies.  In other words, authoritarians are rarely truly issue oriented.  They tend to take on the policy stands of leaders that they admire.  It can be fascinating to watch them switch between policies that are light years apart, simply because their Leader did or because they found a new Leader to follow.

    Hillary supporters often admire her for her wonkery, her mastery of policy and issues.  In other words, Hillary supporters are usually strongly issues oriented and not authoritarians.

    Obama was bound to attract authoritarians.  He has the right combination of charisma and speaking skills.  What exactly Obama says doesn't matter so much to an authoritarian as how Obama says it.

    "Obot" is simply shorthand for an Obama supporter who has strong authoritarian tendencies and is caught up in the politics of personality.  Actual issues and policies are not important to them.  Having a strong Leader who makes them feel secure and comfortable is important.

    If you want to talk about politics with such people, the important thing to do is to talk issues and policies ONLY.  If you talk about the politician, then the authoritarian will feel compelled to dismiss any criticism or attack the critic of their Leader.  This tends to lead to an unproductive discussion.

    Any questions?


    Many HRC Supporters (5.00 / 4) (#52)
    by daring grace on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:21:09 AM EST
    who are still angry about the primaries seem unable to understand that most Obama supporters did NOT hate (then) Senator Clinton and do not hate Secretary Clinton now. Me, for instance.

    There's no question there was (and continues to be) derangements on both sides. And it's amplified in the overheated incubator that is the blogs culture.

    But the majority of the supporters of both candidates I encountered in offline life just wanted to get a good Dem (as opposed to a clueless Repub) elected to start undoing the damage done in the last eight years.


    What A Load of BS (none / 0) (#45)
    by squeaky on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 08:18:58 AM EST
    But it's my BS (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Fabian on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 08:27:38 AM EST
    and I'm proud of it!

    Authoritarianism has been studied and documented.  One of the features of an authoritarian is their mastery of cognitive dissonance - holding two contradictory beliefs aka pretzel logic.


    The studies are interesting (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 08:52:30 AM EST
    such as Adler's; he identified the authoritarian personality, or one with  
    the "will to power over others," as a central neurotic trait, usually emerging as aggressive over-compensation for felt and dreaded feelings of inferiority and insignificance. According to this view, the authoritarian need to maintain control and prove superiority over others is rooted in a worldview populated by enemies and empty of equality, empathy, and mutual benefit.

    Applied to blogs, this explains a lot -- and a couple of commenters we know.

    CC, question... (none / 0) (#54)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:55:51 AM EST
    About "the authoritarian personality", is it your understanding that the type is also more prone to violence on a personal level, in addition to being more supportive of violence as an act of the state?

    That is my understanding, although I don't have a readily available link at the moment. IOW, I'm looking to avoid going through books in deep storage.


    Well, BS It Is (none / 0) (#47)
    by squeaky on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 08:48:51 AM EST
    But it is sort of hilarious, not that it has any truth to it, but because it is so obviously self serving is a parodic sort of way.

    jeralyn, a technical issue: (none / 0) (#38)
    by cpinva on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 12:45:19 AM EST
    if you've not done so already, i strongly urge you to acquire an external hard drive, both for additional storage and backup purposes.

    i just bought a 1tb drive from newegg, reformatted it to NTFS (it came as FAT32, don't ask me why.), and proceeded to backup my HD. using a USB 2.0 connection (it also has eSATA, assuming i can find a long enough eSATA-to-SATA cord), what had taken 4.5hrs previously, took roughly 30 minutes.

    it went so fast, i couldn't follow it with the naked eye, so i dressed one!

    having had to re-image recently, this drive was well worth the less than $100 cost.

    Jeralyn, a content issue: (none / 0) (#53)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:48:24 AM EST
    Your site moderation is one of the things people always say they like best about TL. Respectfully, please continue to monitor our comments for ad hominem attacks, name-calling, troll rating - the usual stuff that can make a thread really unpleasant to read if left unchecked. Thank you again for keeping this forum civil.

    I deleted the comment (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 12:40:27 PM EST
    with Hilltard. No name calling please.