Indifference

I’m not saying who @#*>&% is. It really makes little difference, or indifference as the case may be. It goes back to the “one eye blind” myopia that has infected so much of America. We just refuse to see any other opinion or facts but our own. How much longer can it last?

This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Indifference

  1. Chris Peterson says:

    “One-eye-blind myopia”

    What America needs is a little Skull Love.

  2. Michael Anderson says:

    Bob, as you know I am involved with the NU Debate team and The Union Editorial Board published a wonderful kudos for their accomplishments on April 28th:
    http://www.theunion.com/opinion/our-view-considering-both-sides-what-a-concept/

    Here is one of the board’s more pertinent comments: “In our current political climate, we are regularly rushing to our positions — typically aligned with our party preference — start with the opinion and reach for facts that will support it. But members of the [NU] debate team must start with the facts in order to fully understand the opinions on both sides of the issue. They don’t dismiss a viewpoint because it’s a conservative or liberal perspective. They don’t shout over each other to ‘win’ the contest on volume rather than points. And there’s certainly no ad hominem attacks or trolling when a pair of debate teams get together. These students don’t have time for any of that nonsense, as they marshal their arguments through thoughtful consideration of the pros and cons, which likely helps them respect the fact that people can see things differently. And it doesn’t make them bad people. What a concept.”

    What a concept indeed.

  3. rl crabb says:

    Every day I hear the complaint from disaffected voters that the Democratic Party needs to go all out left wing socialist if they ever hope to become the majority again. The problem, according to most, is that government is owned by corporate America, and that money is the root of all political evil. If there were limits to Big Money contributions, politicians could spend more time legislating instead of fundraising.
    Unlike many states, Democrats in California spend much of their time legislating without much pressure from the state’s floundering Republicans. The problem here is that all those wonderful programs are very expensive. The Bernie faction believes the taxpayers (especially those fat cat tech billionaires) are ready and willing to start writing checks.
    The Old Party regulars aren’t so sure. They remember how Nixon and Reagan won forty-nine states, and Jerry recalls how the Jarvis Gang shot down the property tax boogieman.
    Yeah, I know. Times have changed. Or have they? Look who’s running the country now.
    I didn’t stop voting Democrat because the party didn’t give me enough perks. I quit because they’ve been passing themselves off as a centrist party when it’s become obvious they only see compromise as a temporary impediment to their goal, which is the same as the Bernie socialists. The Bern-bots just want it faster.
    I’m a minority in California, but in places like Michigan and Pennsylvania, there are many former Democrats who still believe in basic capitalism and aren’t quite ready for a radical change, especially if it’s going to lighten their bank accounts.
    Like me, they’re all for clean energy and equality for all people, regardless of sex, color or planet of origin. But when they see some of the politically correct madness that tends to blame all the evils of the world on white people, especially white men…well, it dampens their enthusiasm to say the least.
    Here’s a little light reading from Matt Tiabbi on the subject… http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/taibbi-the-democrats-need-a-new-message-w484569

    • Chris Peterson says:

      The war between the capitalists and labor has been going on for a long, long time. The parties used to be divided along the same line; Republicans/business, Democrats/labor. But, like you, I left the rat pack years ago when I realized that neither party was looking out for the folks in the middle. And the reason for that, in my opinion, is exactly what you say is not the problem; outright graft and corruption.
      The middle class is being decimated by the tug-o-war between the two factions; one that takes gobs of money from business interests, the other from labor cabals. One funnels money to the very top, the other funnels it to the very bottom. Many businesses have the luxury of being the recipient of both; as in Walmart, which receives huge tax cuts and tax abatements, while at the same time their labor is subsidized with food stamps from you and I. In effect, we’re paying out the nose and out the ass at the same time.
      This latest budget proposal from the Trump White House not only sells out the very people who voted for him, it’s an asinine return to the old trickle down bullshit. The only difference this time around is that it blatantly calls for draconian cuts to the bottom to pay for it. Pretty frickin’ evil, but at least it’s not pretending to be anything it’s not.
      And call me a bot if you please, but I supported Bernie because I could see this current President rolling back decades of environmental protections, opening parks for fracking, dumping sludge into streams, pushing more money from below to those above making unheard of profits already, and basically being the “I have no idea what I’m doing, but rich people are going to come out of this richer” candidate. Bernie, as a democratic-socialist, is way closer to the norm of our nations character than Trump could ever hope to be, and a swing of the pendulum in his direction would have been tame compared to what is happening now.
      If you don’t see what Trump is doing on a daily basis as “radical change”, then I guess I can understand why you think Bernie is too radical.

      • rl crabb says:

        In this particular post I’ve been addressing the left side of the fence. I believe Bernie was an honest candidate, but perhaps too far left for prime time.
        Actually Trump has been true to his campaign rhetoric for the most part, but he’s WAY too far to the right for me. Not to worry, I’ll be rendering him and his pals in unflattering positions in the long days to come.

  4. Chris Peterson says:

    Guess I’ll be spending the next couple weeks redacting all my cook books.

  5. rl crabb says:

    Even if you agree with Hanson’s criticism of the Democratic shift toward vulgarity and radicalism, what planet has he been living on in the last year? When he points out that the party rejected centrism, is led by geriatrics, has been seduced by celebrity, and is given to wild conspiracy theories, did he somehow miss the Trump campaign? Jeez Louise!!! …http://www.nationalreview.com/article/448084/progressive-media-democrats-form-new-anti-trump-party

  6. Chris Peterson says:

    It’s the new Republican narrative; that Trump has done nothing out of the ordinary for any in-coming President, and all of the criticism is not only unfounded; it’s a liberal conspiracy fueled by a liberal media and ginned up by celebrity socialists.

    I especially like his awkward tip o’ the hat to Fox who, although he admits even their coverage was 51% negative, kept the overall negative numbers down by not being totally honest with their viewers.

    The article reads like someone who is trying desperately to take O’Reilly’s spot as the #1 choice of replacement for Spicer’s job by supporting Trump’s own argument that, “I don’t suck at my job, everyone else sucks at theirs’.”

    And it brings to my mind the old Benny Hill joke, when his wife says, “I’ve got the body of an 18 year old,” to which he replies, “Well, you better give it back; you’re stretching the hell out of it.” Trump is nothing but a 270 lb. bag of shit in a $1200 suit.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

What is 10 + 11 ?
Please leave these two fields as-is:
Please solve this math problem so we know that you are a human :-)