America: The Farewell Tour
dave23 said:
DaveSchmidt said:These threads are finally starting to consume themselves.
nan said:It's about here that I'd start questioning how sure I am that two commenters are the same person.
Oh, I thought it was directed at me.
nan said:
nohero said:Really nasty personal attack--you should apologize for that one--way over the line.
nan said:I knew some stoners back in college who would have discussions like that. They never could do anything practical either.
Two part Jimmy Dore interview with Chris Hedges. He goes into detail about the difference between corporate capitalism and neolibralism and more stuff. I'm still listening but I'm posting now because I know it's going to be good and interesting too and I might not have time to post later.
Anyway, I've been very busy at work--perhaps you think my career is not "practical" but I live on a much lower economic scale than you do and the practical is huge part of my life.
Lucky for me, the discussion continued before I had to respond.
nan said:
DaveSchmidt said:Oh, I thought it was directed at me. Still nasty and not accurate.
nan said:Can you suggest where apologies to Hedges and Dore, who were the subjects of the comment, should be forwarded?
nohero said:Really nasty personal attack--you should apologize for that one--way over the line.
nan said:I knew some stoners back in college who would have discussions like that. They never could do anything practical either.
Two part Jimmy Dore interview with Chris Hedges. He goes into detail about the difference between corporate capitalism and neolibralism and more stuff. I'm still listening but I'm posting now because I know it's going to be good and interesting too and I might not have time to post later.
Yes, in case it wasn't clear (I don't know why it wasn't clear) that was a comment on the video and the discussion in the video, not on you or your job.
If you don't like that, there are other options:
- That video is like the worst "Wayne's World" skit ever.
- That video is like Rupert Pupkin interviewing Professor Irwin Corey on politics.
- There's a Circle of Hell where the damned must endure the extended Director's cut of "Jimmy Dore interviews Chris Hedges".
Better?
nohero said:- There's a Circle of Hell where the damned must endure the extended Director's cut of "Jimmy Dore interviews Chris Hedges".
Better?
Oh, that's the one where they send the child molesters and people who talk at the theater.
nan said:Hedges has a much larger world view than you do. You seem to feel that had Hillary been elected, things would be fine now. That's magical thinking and far from what has been going on. Hillary and Obama are among those responsible for why we ended up with Trump. Trump is not a one-off--we were on the road to a Trump already. Voting for people like Hillary is never going to lead to wage equality or more Democracy or single payer healthcare. You think it is "practical" cause it makes you feel better, but the angry people who have lost their jobs to NAFTA and savings to medical costs are not going to see point of voting for another corporate Democrat. They are deluded that Trump is better, but you are deluded to think we have any kind of real choice. Clinton is better than Trump, for sure, but so much worse than we could have imagined some time ago. Hedges feels we need the kind of resistance that happened in during the Roosevelt presidency--with the Wobblies, Communists, Paul Robson, etc. The elites oligarchs need to feel fear. The "resistance" we have now is more of an "assistance."
If you paid attention to the substance of my earlier response, and not just to the fact that I disagree with Hedges, you'd see that I've already explained how he DOESN'T have "a much larger world view" than I do. He has a smaller "world view" with respect to the possibilities to effect change. His worldview excludes lessons from history.
You write: "Hedges feels we need the kind of resistance that happened in during the Roosevelt presidency--with the Wobblies, Communists, Paul Robson, etc." I just finished reading The Soul of America: The Battle for Our Better Angels by Jon Meacham. Like the latest Hedges book, it was written in the aftermath of Trump’s election. There’s a definite unspoken (and occasionally spoken) undercurrent in Meacham’s book about Trump’s approach compared to previous Presidents. More important, it notes how past really bad situations were addressed, usually by our less-than-perfect political leaders. One prominent example was the fight for the protection of voting rights. The imperfect President Johnson pushed through legislation to protect civil rights and voting rights. Protest and resistance (such as that of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr,) were not instead of political action, they were part of it.
In contrast to the Hedges book, Meacham has an actual conclusion (the Hedges book just stumbles into a conclusion at the end of a long final chapter entitled “Freedom”). As part of the conclusion, Meacham writes:
We have managed, however, to survive the crises and vicissitudes of history. Our brightest hours are almost never as bright as we like to think; our glummest moments are rarely as irredeemable as they feel at the time. How, then, in an hour of anxiety about the future of the country, at a time when a president of the United States appears determined to undermine the rule of law, a free press, and the sense of hope essential to American life, can those with deep concerns about the nation’s future enlist on the side of the angels?
He then proceeds with a series of prescription, evidencing “a much larger world view” than Mr. Hedges. Here’s the first:
Enter the Arena
The battle begins with political engagement itself. Theodore Roosevelt put it best: “The first duty of an American citizen, then, is that he shall work in politics; his second duty is that he shall do that work in a practical manner; and his third is that it shall be done in accord with the highest principles of honor and justice.”
Those who disdain the arena are unilaterally disarming themselves in the great contests of the soul, for they are cutting themselves off, childishly, from what Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., called the “passion and action” of the age. Politicians will disappoint; that’s inevitable. But they will also, from time to time, thrill.
I don’t think that "had Hillary had been elected things would be fine now". I do KNOW, however, and you do as well, that if she had been elected there are some questions we would not be debating. We would not be debating how some of my spouse’s high school students have had their future prospects dimmed because they’re Dreamers and they are out of luck under Trump. We would not be debating how to strategize against Supreme Court nominees who want to overturn decisions protecting women’s rights, LGBT rights, or civil rights. We would not be debating how to protect health coverage for all Americans, instead of debating how to make the system better. We would not be debating over how to deal with the United States walking away from the Iran nuclear deal. There’s a lot more that we would not be debating; but, since we have to, it’s better to be involved in the political process, than to follow Mr. Hedges’ advice.
South_Mountaineer said:
dave23 said:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouroboros
DaveSchmidt said:These threads are finally starting to consume themselves.
nan said:It's about here that I'd start questioning how sure I am that two commenters are the same person.
Oh, I thought it was directed at me.
So do you deny being the same poster as nohero. Just wondering?
nohero said:
nan said:Hedges has a much larger world view than you do. You seem to feel that had Hillary been elected, things would be fine now. That's magical thinking and far from what has been going on. Hillary and Obama are among those responsible for why we ended up with Trump. Trump is not a one-off--we were on the road to a Trump already. Voting for people like Hillary is never going to lead to wage equality or more Democracy or single payer healthcare. You think it is "practical" cause it makes you feel better, but the angry people who have lost their jobs to NAFTA and savings to medical costs are not going to see point of voting for another corporate Democrat. They are deluded that Trump is better, but you are deluded to think we have any kind of real choice. Clinton is better than Trump, for sure, but so much worse than we could have imagined some time ago. Hedges feels we need the kind of resistance that happened in during the Roosevelt presidency--with the Wobblies, Communists, Paul Robson, etc. The elites oligarchs need to feel fear. The "resistance" we have now is more of an "assistance."
If you paid attention to the substance of my earlier response, and not just to the fact that I disagree with Hedges, you'd see that I've already explained how he DOESN'T have "a much larger world view" than I do. He has a smaller "world view" with respect to the possibilities to effect change. His worldview excludes lessons from history.
You write: "Hedges feels we need the kind of resistance that happened in during the Roosevelt presidency--with the Wobblies, Communists, Paul Robson, etc." I just finished reading The Soul of America: The Battle for Our Better Angels by Jon Meacham. Like the latest Hedges book, it was written in the aftermath of Trump’s election. There’s a definite unspoken (and occasionally spoken) undercurrent in Meacham’s book about Trump’s approach compared to previous Presidents. More important, it notes how past really bad situations were addressed, usually by our less-than-perfect political leaders. One prominent example was the fight for the protection of voting rights. The imperfect President Johnson pushed through legislation to protect civil rights and voting rights. Protest and resistance (such as that of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr,) were not instead of political action, they were part of it.
In contrast to the Hedges book, Meacham has an actual conclusion (the Hedges book just stumbles into a conclusion at the end of a long final chapter entitled “Freedom”). As part of the conclusion, Meacham writes:
We have managed, however, to survive the crises and vicissitudes of history. Our brightest hours are almost never as bright as we like to think; our glummest moments are rarely as irredeemable as they feel at the time. How, then, in an hour of anxiety about the future of the country, at a time when a president of the United States appears determined to undermine the rule of law, a free press, and the sense of hope essential to American life, can those with deep concerns about the nation’s future enlist on the side of the angels?He then proceeds with a series of prescription, evidencing “a much larger world view” than Mr. Hedges. Here’s the first:
Enter the ArenaI don’t think that "had Hillary had been elected things would be fine now". I do KNOW, however, and you do as well, that if she had been elected there are some questions we would not be debating. We would not be debating how some of my spouse’s high school students have had their future prospects dimmed because they’re Dreamers and they are out of luck under Trump. We would not be debating how to strategize against Supreme Court nominees who want to overturn decisions protecting women’s rights, LGBT rights, or civil rights. We would not be debating how to protect health coverage for all Americans, instead of debating how to make the system better. We would not be debating over how to deal with the United States walking away from the Iran nuclear deal. There’s a lot more that we would not be debating; but, since we have to, it’s better to be involved in the political process, than to follow Mr. Hedges’ advice.
The battle begins with political engagement itself. Theodore Roosevelt put it best: “The first duty of an American citizen, then, is that he shall work in politics; his second duty is that he shall do that work in a practical manner; and his third is that it shall be done in accord with the highest principles of honor and justice.”
Those who disdain the arena are unilaterally disarming themselves in the great contests of the soul, for they are cutting themselves off, childishly, from what Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., called the “passion and action” of the age. Politicians will disappoint; that’s inevitable. But they will also, from time to time, thrill.
It's like you read these book and they do not penetrate. Obviously, something about Hedges got to you because you have read a few of his books, and you rarely give the time of day to anyone who did not vote for Hillary. But, Hedges, with his uncomfortable, religious, and well-educated (Harvard and the NYTs) views must have been more difficult for you to dismiss than Jimmy Dore. Kind of funny, that Jamie puts Hedges in with the Russian Subforum because, as even you must admit, Hedges is not going to be anyone's stooge. So, I told you that I'm glad you read Hedges and I am and I understand that his conclusions are not easy to hear.
But, I just don't see how your vote for lessor evil and things will better world view is larger than Chris Hedges's analysis of late stage corporate capitalism/unrelenting imperialism. You don't even acknowledge that neoliberalism exists, never mind that it has usurped our Democracy, eaten it whole and spit it out for breakfast. You just skim over that part and quote flowery bon mots from Oliver Wendell Homes, Jr. Like I said at the beginning: does not penetrate.
You are right to think that the Dreamers would have fared better under Hillary, but you seem to forget all the homeowners that were screwed during the banker bailout, the increase in wealth inequality, mass incarceration and all the children blown to bits in Yemen and increasing wars and expanded surveillance and much much much more that existed before Trump. You were not posting about those things. You do not acknowledge that those things led to Trump getting elected. Even the environment was not getting so much better before Trump, despite that weak Paris accord. Trump is accelerating the decline much faster, for sure, but we were well on the road to Hell before him.
nan said:
South_Mountaineer said:So do you deny being the same poster as nohero. Just wondering?
dave23 said:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouroboros
DaveSchmidt said:These threads are finally starting to consume themselves.
nan said:It's about here that I'd start questioning how sure I am that two commenters are the same person.
Oh, I thought it was directed at me.
How silly.
nan said:It's like you read these book and they do not penetrate. Obviously, something about Hedges got to you because you have read a few of his books, and you rarely give the time of day to anyone who did not vote for Hillary. But, Hedges, with his uncomfortable, religious, and well-educated (Harvard and the NYTs) views must have been more difficult for you to dismiss than Jimmy Dore. Kind of funny, that Jamie puts Hedges in with the Russian Subforum because, as even you must admit, Hedges is not going to be anyone's stooge. So, I told you that I'm glad you read Hedges and I am and I understand that his conclusions are not easy to hear.
I read lots of things. I prefer it to watching YouTube videos. Call me crazy. It has nothing to do with Hedges "getting to me". I read his books to see if my initial impression of him was correct. Turns out, it was. There's nothing in the books to "penetrate" through, as I've explained in prior posts.
As for this: "But, Hedges, with his uncomfortable, religious, and well-educated (Harvard and the NYTs) views must have been more difficult for you to dismiss than Jimmy Dore." In a word, No.
HIs "uncomfortable" views don't make it difficult to dismiss him. I don't need him to tell me about bad things happening to people. His nihilism may seem uncomfortable, but I dismiss it as just his schtick as he tries to justify the corner he's put himself into the last few years (again, as evidenced from his last two books).
What you call his "religious" views don't make it difficult to dismiss him. Those don't come through at all, beyond some name-dropping here and there. But "sociopathic" is still a better description of his approach than "religious", as I've mentioned before since he gives little regard to the consequences that result if people follow his "preaching". I can easily dismiss him because whatever credentials he has, he doesn't use what he learned to construct his arguments.
Just FYI - I'd previously read one of Hedges' earlier books, where he contends with the ideas of Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, et al., entitled I Don't Believe in Atheists. I've read much better counter-arguments to Mr. Harris etc., including an excellent one by a self-described agnostic, which I'd recommend: Reason, Faith, and Revolution: Reflections on the God Debate by Terry Eagleton.
So, definitely a "No" that his "religious" views make it difficult to dismiss him.
As for what you call his "well-educated" views, see my prior post about his complete inattention to history, which I would expect a "well educated" person to at least take a stab at.
It's clear that with me reading his books, and you watching his videos on YouTube, we're not going to reach a meeting of the minds on this.
nohero said:
nan said:It's like you read these book and they do not penetrate. Obviously, something about Hedges got to you because you have read a few of his books, and you rarely give the time of day to anyone who did not vote for Hillary. But, Hedges, with his uncomfortable, religious, and well-educated (Harvard and the NYTs) views must have been more difficult for you to dismiss than Jimmy Dore. Kind of funny, that Jamie puts Hedges in with the Russian Subforum because, as even you must admit, Hedges is not going to be anyone's stooge. So, I told you that I'm glad you read Hedges and I am and I understand that his conclusions are not easy to hear.I read lots of things. I prefer it to watching YouTube videos. Call me crazy. It has nothing to do with Hedges "getting to me". I read his books to see if my initial impression of him was correct. Turns out, it was. There's nothing in the books to "penetrate" through, as I've explained in prior posts.
As for this: "But, Hedges, with his uncomfortable, religious, and well-educated (Harvard and the NYTs) views must have been more difficult for you to dismiss than Jimmy Dore." In a word, No.
HIs "uncomfortable" views don't make it difficult to dismiss him. I don't need him to tell me about bad things happening to people. His nihilism may seem uncomfortable, but I dismiss it as just his schtick as he tries to justify the corner he's put himself into the last few years (again, as evidenced from his last two books).
What you call his "religious" views don't make it difficult to dismiss him. Those don't come through at all, beyond some name-dropping here and there. But "sociopathic" is still a better description of his approach than "religious", as I've mentioned before since he gives little regard to the consequences that result if people follow his "preaching". I can easily dismiss him because whatever credentials he has, he doesn't use what he learned to construct his arguments.
Just FYI - I'd previously read one of Hedges' earlier books, where he contends with the ideas of Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, et al., entitled I Don't Believe in Atheists. I've read much better counter-arguments to Mr. Harris etc., including an excellent one by a self-described agnostic, which I'd recommend: Reason, Faith, and Revolution: Reflections on the God Debate by Terry Eagleton.
So, definitely a "No" that his "religious" views make it difficult to dismiss him.
As for what you call his "well-educated" views, see my prior post about his complete inattention to history, which I would expect a "well educated" person to at least take a stab at.
It's clear that with me reading his books, and you watching his videos on YouTube, we're not going to reach a meeting of the minds on this.
So we don't have a huge wealth gap, the US is not an imperialist monster, the working class and poor are not suffering horribly, mass incarceration no biggie, and neolibralism/end-stage capitalism does not exit? Is that a "No?" You dismiss Hedges, but you never counter any of his real arguments.
sbenois said:
nan said:How silly.
South_Mountaineer said:So do you deny being the same poster as nohero. Just wondering?
dave23 said:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouroboros
DaveSchmidt said:These threads are finally starting to consume themselves.
nan said:It's about here that I'd start questioning how sure I am that two commenters are the same person.
Oh, I thought it was directed at me.
Yup, let's see what he says.
nan said: So we don't have a huge wealth gap, the US is not an imperialist monster, the working class and poor are not suffering horribly, mass incarceration no biggie, and neolibralism/end-stage capitalism does not exit? Is that a "No?" You dismiss Hedges, but you never counter any of his real arguments.
The point isn't how Hedges describes the problems in, and the deficiencies of the government of, the United States. The point is my disagreement with how he proceeds from there. If I took too many words to explain that in earlier posts, I guess that's on me.
nan said:
sbenois said:Yup, let's see what he says.
nan said:How silly.
South_Mountaineer said:So do you deny being the same poster as nohero. Just wondering?
dave23 said:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouroboros
DaveSchmidt said:These threads are finally starting to consume themselves.
nan said:It's about here that I'd start questioning how sure I am that two commenters are the same person.
Oh, I thought it was directed at me.
My counsel to anyone would be to deny being me. Trust me on this one.
sbenois said:
Are you Jimmy Dore?
Their arguments may be identical, but Ms. Nan does have an actual sense of humor.
nohero said:
nan said:My counsel to anyone would be to deny being me. Trust me on this one.
sbenois said:Yup, let's see what he says.
nan said:How silly.
South_Mountaineer said:So do you deny being the same poster as nohero. Just wondering?
dave23 said:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouroboros
DaveSchmidt said:These threads are finally starting to consume themselves.
nan said:It's about here that I'd start questioning how sure I am that two commenters are the same person.
Oh, I thought it was directed at me.
Yeah, well, that pretty much settles it for me.
nohero said:
nan said: So we don't have a huge wealth gap, the US is not an imperialist monster, the working class and poor are not suffering horribly, mass incarceration no biggie, and neolibralism/end-stage capitalism does not exit? Is that a "No?" You dismiss Hedges, but you never counter any of his real arguments.The point isn't how Hedges describes the problems in, and the deficiencies of the government of, the United States. The point is my disagreement with how he proceeds from there. If I took too many words to explain that in earlier posts, I guess that's on me.
So, he's right, but voting for the lessor evil will work out in the end? Huh? That does not compute.
nan said:
nohero said:So, he's right, but voting for the lessor evil will work out in the end? Huh? That does not compute.
nan said: So we don't have a huge wealth gap, the US is not an imperialist monster, the working class and poor are not suffering horribly, mass incarceration no biggie, and neolibralism/end-stage capitalism does not exit? Is that a "No?" You dismiss Hedges, but you never counter any of his real arguments.The point isn't how Hedges describes the problems in, and the deficiencies of the government of, the United States. The point is my disagreement with how he proceeds from there. If I took too many words to explain that in earlier posts, I guess that's on me.
He's "right" in the sense that he accurately described things. He's neither the first nor the only to do so. His "not voting" prescription, his "nonvoting resistance" concept, and his insult to African Americans that they should "unilaterally disarm" and not use hard-won voting rights, are stupid.
I'm really tempted to use stronger language. I'm astounded that he can describe people who are really hurting (and in fact claim to have befriended them), and then treat them like so much "collateral damage". For Hedges, they're "expendable" in a Trump presidency, in favor of his "larger goal" of seeing things get so bad that "revolution" comes (whatever the frick that is supposed to look like, since he never explains that).
I'm definitely tempted to stop commenting on this thread. Nothing has been written to defend Hedges from the criticisms here, or even pointing to what he's written that contradicts what I've written about his books. If you're really sticking with the "lesser evil" responses, here's how Hedges describes Trump (the "greater evil") at page 43 of America: The Farewell Tour:
Trump is the face of our collective idiocy. He is what lies behind the mask of our professed civility and rationality – a sputtering, narcissistic, imbecilic megalomaniac. He wields armies and fleets against the wretched of the earth, blithely ignores the catastrophic human misery caused by global warming, pillages on behalf of global oligarchs, and at night sits slack-jawed in front of a television set before opening his “beautiful” Twitter app.
All in all, if you say the alternative was just a "lesser evil", you'll have to convince me why that's so bad. If you want to point me to language in the books that contradict me, fine. Otherwise, if the response is just another version of "you want the lesser of two evils", save your fingertips from typing it.
nohero said:
nan said:He's "right" in the sense that he accurately described things. He's neither the first nor the only to do so. His "not voting" prescription, his "nonvoting resistance" concept, and his insult to African Americans that they should "unilaterally disarm" and not use hard-won voting rights, are stupid.
nohero said:So, he's right, but voting for the lessor evil will work out in the end? Huh? That does not compute.
nan said: So we don't have a huge wealth gap, the US is not an imperialist monster, the working class and poor are not suffering horribly, mass incarceration no biggie, and neolibralism/end-stage capitalism does not exit? Is that a "No?" You dismiss Hedges, but you never counter any of his real arguments.The point isn't how Hedges describes the problems in, and the deficiencies of the government of, the United States. The point is my disagreement with how he proceeds from there. If I took too many words to explain that in earlier posts, I guess that's on me.
I'm really tempted to use stronger language. I'm astounded that he can describe people who are really hurting (and in fact claim to have befriended them), and then treat them like so much "collateral damage". For Hedges, they're "expendable" in a Trump presidency, in favor of his "larger goal" of seeing things get so bad that "revolution" comes (whatever the frick that is supposed to look like, since he never explains that).
I'm definitely tempted to stop commenting on this thread. Nothing has been written to defend Hedges from the criticisms here, or even pointing to what he's written that contradicts what I've written about his books. If you're really sticking with the "lesser evil" responses, here's how Hedges describes Trump (the "greater evil") at page 43 of America: The Farewell Tour:
Trump is the face of our collective idiocy. He is what lies behind the mask of our professed civility and rationality – a sputtering, narcissistic, imbecilic megalomaniac. He wields armies and fleets against the wretched of the earth, blithely ignores the catastrophic human misery caused by global warming, pillages on behalf of global oligarchs, and at night sits slack-jawed in front of a television set before opening his “beautiful” Twitter app.All in all, if you say the alternative was just a "lesser evil", you'll have to convince me why that's so bad. If you want to point me to language in the books that contradict me, fine. Otherwise, if the response is just another version of "you want the lesser of two evils", save your fingertips from typing it.
I don't know what you mean by insulting African Americans. Hedges teaches in prisons and most of his writings are about how the predatory power of the elite crush the poor and powerless. He does not think of these people as collateral--he's merely facing the reality that we are being crushed by great forces and that the small acts of voting for lessor evil will not save us. You seem to think they would be fine if Clinton was president. He would call that magical thinking. Of course he says Trump is beyond horrible, but he knows it was the system that created Trump. He's not a one-off. You can not acknowledge that Hedges is right and still believe the world will be better if our next president is a Clinton/Obama/Biden corporate Democrat. It will be four years of a slightly better situation (with the same complacency we had during the Obama years) and then another Trump or worse will be elected. We are sliding into facisim and voting for corrupt Democrats is not enough to stop that. At least there should have been a massive uprising against the DNC when they lost to a psycho orange reality star and refused to change and even doubled down. But, barely a peep and people like Debbie Wasermn Schultz, and Nancy Pelosi, and Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton are considered part of the "Resistance" when they are really part of the "Assistance."
DNC this, DNC that. Blah, blah, blah.
Where exactly is the great bluish Bernie Wave that is going to help the Democrats take the Senate and the House in 3 weeks? "America's most popular politician" has had two years to build on all of that super infrastructure and excitement that you seem to think is out there and yet:
Of the 435 seats up for grabs in the House, Team Bernie Bot is only running/endorsing 30 whole people. And that includes the space cadet in the Bronx.
And in the Senate...35 up for grabs and it's Bernie and Beto and that's it.
So stop whining about the DNC. If we have any hope of stopping the madman in the White House, it won't be coming from Bernie Bot world - it's going to be from the heavy lifting and organizing of the DNC.
No thanks to you or Jimmy ******* Dore.
Since this thread is already in the "Russia-related" cornfield, I can share this RT video.
In light of the recent news of the Trump administration rolling back hard-won gains by the trans community, I thought we could look back at when Chris Hedges cared (or at least pretended to care) about discrimination against them. nohero said:
Since this thread is already in the "Russia-related" cornfield, I can share this RT video.In light of the recent news of the Trump administration rolling back hard-won gains by the trans community, I thought we could look back at when Chris Hedges cared (or at least pretended to care) about discrimination against them.
Chris Hedges does care about the trans community; he just does not think voting for corrupt Democrats is going to save us or them in the long run. He looks at how the Democrats caused Trump to be elected and how we are on a path to facisim and we need major revolt is there is any chance to turn things around. Voting Democratic will not fix income inequality or probably even the health care crisis or the environment. It would temporarily slow or halt legislation like Trump is proposing about gender, but people would be lulled in to complacency (as they were during Obama's presidency) and then shocked when another Trump-like person gets elected in the next election.
nan said:Chris Hedges does care about the trans community; he just does not think voting for corrupt Democrats is going to save us or them in the long run. He looks at how the Democrats caused Trump to be elected and how we are on a path to facisim and we need major revolt is there is any chance to turn things around. Voting Democratic will not fix income inequality or probably even the health care crisis or the environment. It would temporarily slow or halt legislation like Trump is proposing about gender, but people would be lulled in to complacency (as they were during Obama's presidency) and then shocked when another Trump-like person gets elected in the next election.
Ms. Nan has provided an example of what I dislike about the Chris Hedges approach. First, I can't get on board with an argument that amounts to, "It's not important that Trump wasn't stopped, because if he was stopped that would enable someone just like him to be elected next time." Leaving aside the logic, that just accelerates the arrival of Trump-like policies, which isn't a good thing.
Second, and more important, we're back to the "collateral damage" situation. I've noted how protected and privileged Mr. Hedges is. In his philosophy, we don't care that there are adolescents in schools who are uncertain about their gender or sexual orientation, and who might need protection from bullying. Trump's policies take the government out of the business of protecting those children. In contrast to Mr. Hedges, I'm not willing to sacrifice them, or anybody else, on the altar of "we need a major revolt".
nohero said:
nan said:Chris Hedges does care about the trans community; he just does not think voting for corrupt Democrats is going to save us or them in the long run. He looks at how the Democrats caused Trump to be elected and how we are on a path to facisim and we need major revolt is there is any chance to turn things around. Voting Democratic will not fix income inequality or probably even the health care crisis or the environment. It would temporarily slow or halt legislation like Trump is proposing about gender, but people would be lulled in to complacency (as they were during Obama's presidency) and then shocked when another Trump-like person gets elected in the next election.Ms. Nan has provided an example of what I dislike about the Chris Hedges approach. First, I can't get on board with an argument that amounts to, "It's not important that Trump wasn't stopped, because if he was stopped that would enable someone just like him to be elected next time." Leaving aside the logic, that just accelerates the arrival of Trump-like policies, which isn't a good thing.
Second, and more important, we're back to the "collateral damage" situation. I've noted how protected and privileged Mr. Hedges is. In his philosophy, we don't care that there are adolescents in schools who are uncertain about their gender or sexual orientation, and who might need protection from bullying. Trump's policies take the government out of the business of protecting those children. In contrast to Mr. Hedges, I'm not willing to sacrifice them, or anybody else, on the altar of "we need a major revolt".
Hedges gave up his cushy job at the New York Times because they wanted him to lie about the war in Iraq. He works at RT now, hardly a status position--on MOL that gets you put in the sub basement. Not so protected and privileged. Also hypocritical on your part, given your support to vicious warmongering Democrats. You seem to only care about people who live here. When Obama or Clinton, et all cause the deaths of so many in Honduras, Yemen, and all the other countries US Imperialism visits you declare them "highly qualified" to be president. Seem you are the one living the cushy life, while Chris Hedges teaches in prisons, where so many are serving long sentences thanks to draconian rules leading to mass incarceration put in place by you know who. Not seeing that bothering you, or what about the people at Standing Rock -- not a peep of support from you there. So, get off your high horse and stop promoting voting for Hillary Clinton as a benchmark for decency. She's very evil lessor evil and you should not be surprised that the person who would give up a New York Times job to keep his integrity will not betray his conscious to vote for a corporate warmonger either.
A provocative Chris Hedges interview with Glen Ford on the "Con of Diversity."
Glen Ford, executive editor, Black Agenda Report, talks to Chris Hedges about the history of affirmative action, reparations, and the con of diversity in America.
I heard a Barack Obama statement on the radio this morning, which is a succinct refutation of the "voting doesn't matter" nihilism:
"As a fellow citizen, not as an ex-president but as a fellow citizen, I am here to deliver a simple message, and that is that you need to vote because our democracy depends on it."
nohero said:
I heard a Barack Obama statement on the radio this morning, which is a succinct refutation of the "voting doesn't matter" nihilism:
"As a fellow citizen, not as an ex-president but as a fellow citizen, I am here to deliver a simple message, and that is that you need to vote because our democracy depends on it."
Voting does not insure democracy. It is a part of democracy, but if you don't have democracy already, voting is not going to fix it.
We have had several MOL discussions on MOL about neoliberalism. Here is a basic primer on the topic.
ON CONTACT: A History of Neoliberalism, Part I
David Harvey, Distinguished Professor of anthropology and geography at City University of New York and author of "A Brief History of Neoliberalism" argues with Chris Hedges that Neoliberalism, the manta of the global corporate elites, has created the worst income inequality in American history.
nan said:
nohero said:Voting does not insure democracy. It is a part of democracy, but if you don't have democracy already, voting is not going to fix it.
I heard a Barack Obama statement on the radio this morning, which is a succinct refutation of the "voting doesn't matter" nihilism:
"As a fellow citizen, not as an ex-president but as a fellow citizen, I am here to deliver a simple message, and that is that you need to vote because our democracy depends on it."
My god. How pathetic.
Featured Events
-
Go "Back to the '70s" with The Maplewood Glee Club and Special Guests from CHS
May 19, 2024 at 4:00pm
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Advertisement
These threads are finally starting to consume themselves.