The phrase is being used as shorthand by some prominent conservatives for a kind of closed-mindedness in the movement, a development they see as debasing modern conservatism’s proud intellectual history. First used in this context by Julian Sanchez of the libertarian Cato Institute, the phrase “epistemic closure” has been ricocheting among conservative publications and blogs as a high-toned abbreviation for ideological intolerance and misinformation.
Conservative media, Mr. Sanchez wrote at juliansanchez.com — referring to outlets like Fox News and National Review and to talk-show stars like Rush Limbaugh, Mark R. Levin and Glenn Beck — have “become worryingly untethered from reality as the impetus to satisfy the demand for red meat overtakes any motivation to report accurately.” (Mr. Sanchez said he probably fished “epistemic closure” out of his subconscious from an undergraduate course in philosophy, where it has a technical meaning in the realm of logic.)
As a result, he complained, many conservatives have developed a distorted sense of priorities and a tendency to engage in fantasy, like the belief that President Obama was not born in the United States or that the health care bill proposed establishing “death panels.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/28/books … amp;st=cse
Is it possible Mr. Sanchez is a victim of the very malaise he sees in an entire group of people? I doubt all conservatives believe Obama isn't American born, in fact I know for certain Beck doesn't believe that. As fare as the death panels go, well that was to a degree hyperbole, but then we had to pass the health care reform bill to see what's in it right? So who knows there are literally hundreds of new agencies commissions and panels formed by the passage of the health care bill and they will be monitoring and advising on policies of all kinds, we may find "death panel" to be nor far from reality as the consequences of this horrible law become evident.
give that man another cup of coffee! JACKPOT!
An 'epistemic closure' is not limited to the conservative camp.
Many mindsets operate via the tactic.
Epistemic = Of or relating to epistemology
Epistemology = The philosophical theory of knowledge
Ergo an 'epistemic closure' is a foreshortening, an abbreviating of knowledge - anyone who prevents open debate is guilty of epistemic closure
And all fanatics use the tactic to silence their critics
Very true. Many on the far left also suffer from "epistemic closure."
Fortunately, the far left comprise a tiny segment of the overall left, where there is a diversity of opinion and healthy debate is respected. This is in stark contrast to today's right, which is dominated by the far right, who squelch any dissenting reasonable opinion.
Much of it may have to do with the conservative's inability to accept or develop new ideas
I would agree. However its not specific to the right. Keith Oberman comes to mind. Al Gore, Michael More, Garapalo... I could go on. It's like you said in an earlier post. Each generation has a group that believes the world is going to hell in a hand basket....
Bottom line, if the fringe on each side weren't listening to them, there would be no discussion here. What fun would that be?
Here is what I recommend for both sides. First start the morning off with Fox News/CNN. Then, grab a cup of coffee and read the NYTIMES/Washington Post. Now, though out your day alternate between NPR and RUSH. Ignore all the drama. Seek to understand the issues, do not fall prey to rhetoric!
I can buy that, except I have several other calls on my time--Honey-do's, etc. I listen to Limbaugh on the car radio occasionally, but he's not good for my blood pressure.
Why not ask what you really think: Are conservatives really as stupid as I think they are?
No offense meant but Julian Sanchez is and always has been a 'nut'.
I believe David Frum and even Ross Douthat have said the same thing, in their more honest recent moments.
Untethered from reality--most definately!
Beck is seriously deranged.
He fake cries for god's sakes!
Has people on hand for it!! "Bring me my tears."
Epistemic closure isn't just a malady of the right. You seem to suffer from a serious case of it yourself.
Good thing I'm not in front of an audience of millions every night huh?
And on the radio for four hours everyday as well.
And you can multiply that by Rush, Hannity, Ingraham...and really how long before Palin gets her own radio show? They control the medium.
Yes, they are destroying any trust that people have in conservatives...could this be the motive?
They have responsability for the words they use and the actions that may result from their destructive propaganda.
If they control the media it's because of the ratings they get, and if their ratings are that good it's because their views reflect those of the majority of Americans.
What are liberals for? More government, more regulation? And what does that lead to? More corruption, and less freedom. Liberals are totally lacking in any logic or common sense and that's why they get poor ratings and no one listens to them.
Their ratings are better for the same reason that American Idol gets better ratings than anything on the Discovery channel -- listening to Rush/Savage/Beck and the like doesn't require much thinking. It's much easier to listen to a one-sided rant devoid of subtle intellectual thought than to tune in to a thorough, multi-sided policy discussion. Conservative talk radio panders to people's intellectual laziness.
A one sided rant? Well what happened to Air America? Wasn't that a one sided rant? Let's not forget Bill Mahr or John Stewart, MSNBC, Chris Matthews, Olberman, Maddow, either. Oh but I suppose they're more thoughtful and intelligent and listening to them requires one to be capable of "thinking".
I agree with you about Keith Olbermann. Maddow and Matthews might have a political slant, but they do their homework and don't invent facts and propagate them on the fly. Maher and Stewart are satirists.
Compare this to the entire FNC who are the TV version of conservative talk-radio. Again, even right-wing intellectuals are critical of it.
Oh they do their home work but the conservatives, what, just make up stuff?? Really??? You really believe that???
If you do then I don't think you're being honest with yourself. You are allowing you own views to color your beliefs, which everyone is guilty of to some degree. I'm sure they all do their homework, but its the way they present their conclusions, which are undoubtedly colored by their own views and prejudices that is the problem. You really need both sources to reach thoughtful conclusions, and a good deal of skepticism and common sense.
Might? Might have a political slant? Journalists? That is too funny. Oberman and Maddox are a joke, a slapstick joke, their shows will be replayed as political comedy in re-runs.
Maher calmed his so-called filthy satire down for several months when there was so much talk about ... FCC changes that will bring about control of media, can't recall the right terms, I'm not terribly intellectual and have forgotten.....but Maher is back on track for some time now, quite confident, and sadly repetitively sick, last time I checked -- fortunately, I don't subject myself to his shows anymore. Call him a satirist all you want, the things that man says are sick, and he most certainly has the intent to influence the thinking of others to his vision of the world, and he has a big audience I'd imagine.
Beck is over the top too much, no doubt, but he makes very good points a lot of the time, and he wasn't exactly in Bush's camp either, and I think this country needs Beck to present the other side of arguments, be they liberal or conservative or whatever. Hannity is an avowed Republican. So you have Hannity for one hour in contrast to multiple hours of clear liberally slanted news reporting......
Actually you are - considering the traffic hubpages receive.
ABC,CBS,CNN,NEW YORK TIMES,PLUS ALL THE NATIONAL NEWS MEDIA
HAVE SIDED WITH THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION AND THE LIBERAL LEFT.
EXCLUDING FOX NEWS.
THEY SPEW THEIR PROPAGANDA DAILY, YET THE CONSERVATIVE NEWS OUTLETS SHOULD BE SHUT OFF. BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR.
IF THEY TAKE FREEDOM OF SPEECH FROM ONE THEY TAKE IT FROM ALL. YOU ALWAYS HAVE THE OPTION TO CHANGE THE CHANEL OR SHUT YOUR TV OR RADIO OFF.
You're wrong. It was orchestrated.
How else do you explain that in a "Liberal" state like Masschusetts, there is no liberal talk radio? Are you saying people wouldn't listen?
3% of people are Republicans...why are the companies catering to 3% of the population?
Because they are spreading an ideology, that's why.
It's not liberals vs republicans...it's freedom versus iron grip.
And gvt is trying to free us from the iron grip of corporate control.
Now who sounds like they're untethered from reality? Take off the tin hat and look around. The majority of the media has a liberal bias and transmits a liberal message. If conservatism is spreading, particularly in THAT environment, that has to tell you something, that what the liberals are selling, most aren't buying and I think you'll see the evidence of that come the mid-term elections.
There is a tendancy for hypocrisy from both sides. Myself ,being fiscally conservative but rather socially liberal (gay marriage, abortion etc) tend to see this more evident when one party or another feels that they are loosing their hold. This was true of the Republicans during the last election and is certainly true of democrats/liberals now.
Liberal dominance of the media was perfectly fine but ONE conservative station is somehow dangerous? Glen Beck (who is 75% a fool in my opinion) is unhindged or dangerous but Matthews and Olbermann are perfectly ok? Bush is a murderer and a war criminal but Obama, who has #1 taken credit for the surge in Iraq and the relative success there and #2 escalated military action in Afghanistan, is just a victim of his predecessor, even after over a year has passed? Really?
Every group has their whack-jobs and for every nutcase on the right who is talking about his militia the left has some animal rights bomber or Code Pink "citizens arrest" loon crying about the souls of trees. How about we all use a little bit of intellectual honesty and stop pretending like the other side has the monopoly and idiots, criminals and scum.
How liberal can something that's run by corps and their CEO's be. I rely on NPR for my news because I don't see the kind of influence I see from ABC, CBS, etc (FOX News(?) being the worst offender, IMO)
In my area I'm lucky that there's a station that devotes a little bit of time to allow for a working class voice. And there's always what I like to call the "micromedia", sites like Real News and Shared Sacrifice.
"Because they are spreading an ideology, that's why."
That is why most of the ridiculous right wing noise comes from one person with several avatars - one little voice with jackboot background music.
This is the same formula as the ridiculous promotion of failed Christianity with BS science and noise.
We're still waiting for rebutal from HubPages' conservative intellectuals...
(whistling and tapping fingers)
"We're still waiting for rebutal from HubPages' conservative intellectuals..." Are there any?
(Sorry. There are several, many of whom I respect, but I couldn't resist the set-up. )
Indeed there are. They probably won't reply here though.
I'll reply...With questions those of you on the Left need to answer...but I know you won't because it will show you what you truly are politically...And the truth is exceptionally ugly.
What is an American?
Do you think America should emulate the failed policies of Europe or Venezuela?
Do you believe government IS the answer? Do you truly believe the politicians have your best interest at heart?
Is there a psychological reason to be so trusting in an entity that has no reason to know your name, but willingly takes money from you before you ever see your paycheck and then asks you to give more when they misspend what they have already TAKEN?
Why has it taken so long for Democrats to regain power only to start losing it just as quickly? Could it be they are deemed too unrealistic of an ideology to be taken seriously?
Why does a political group believe enslaving the poor by further downtrodding them with government assistance and keeping the inner-city parents from seeking better education avenues for their children? Could it be that educating the inner city and the poor will lead them to find out what deconstructionist Liberals and Democrats truly are?
If "Change" went to Washington then why did he need all of mine to create more of the same? If politicians create and pass bills deemed "for our own good", but will not include themselves in the governmental abyss they create for us, why should they read the bill in the first place? Is it because they don't care what happens to us as long as they keep pirating tax money to whatever special interest, lobbyist, labor union or media mogul that happens to keep them in power.
Do you vote for a candidates because of their race? Do you scream racism when someone disagrees with this President? Why is there a long standing leader of the KKK in the Democratic party?
Is it kosher to wish there were more dead Americans by the hands of the terrorists during 9/11? Why did a huge number of leftists pick the side of our enemy and wish for more troops to die? How can you say you support the troops, but hate the job they must do?
Why do liberals and Democrats think terrorists who will kill women and children deserve special rights held by Americans, but want to have the right to kill an unborn child who has done nothing wrong.
I can go on and on and on....I hope this answers your question as to why we think you are dead wrong...But I am sure the answers to these questions will only make you see the backside of your eyelids and your answers to the same will be just as dark.
It's true, but they don't live in any bigger fantasy world than do the liberals who think they can pay for everything anyone ever wants and that the unicorns and fairies will cover the cost someday.
We're all screwed.
In that way, liberals are no different at all from conservatives; it's just a matter of what things they'd like to borrow to pay for. Conservatives want to start trillion-dollar wars against everyone who's said something insulting about the US or an ally.
Again with the wars. Remember Congress was controlled by the democrats for the last 2 years of the Bush Presidency and could have voted to stop funding the war. Remember too that many of the democrats voted FOR the war, including Hillary Clinton.
Most conservatives are NOT in favor of war.
Not true. You might be an exception, but most self-identified conservatives are in favor of war.
Yours is just NOT an informed opinion, it is however an opinion not a fact. I don't think ANYONE is in favor of war.
Conservative DO accept the responsibility of government to defend our freedom as a necessary evil. That's very different then being in favor of war.
Was the Iraq War a necessary war to defend our freedom?
That is a question worthy of it's own thread, but certainly you can't base your claim that conservatives are pro war based on that adventure.
I think a valid argument can be made either way. My opinion, knowing what I know and believing what I believe is that it was NOT necessary to protect American freedom. As far as I'm concerned we can pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan right now.
But if you are going to claim that conservatives are pro war based on that then I would argue that the democrats are no better and perhaps even worse. Was the Baltic war necessary to protect our freedom? Clinton was involved in something like 40 military adventures during his presidency and that was when the world was at peace!
The Iraq War was the singular conservative "policy idea" of the past decade. It was championed by the conservative elite, popularized by talk radio & FNC, and still enjoys majority support among self-identified conservatives...even though the primary rationale for it was completely bogus and its cost, approaching $1 trillion, far exceeds its projections.
To compare Clinton's military "adventures" (transient bombing in Serbia and Tanzania, if I remember correctly) with the $1 trillion 7-year Iraq War fiasco doesn't make an ounce of sense.
It most certainly does in the context of your claims that conservatives are "for" war.
As I pointed out, only congress can declare war, and the democrats voted along with republicans in support of the Iraq war, in other words it was bi-partisian, yet you want to make it conservative. Funny thing is, we are still at war with congress and the white house controlled by the democrats. Indeed, Obama has ordered a surge in Afghanistan and has stepped up drone strikes in Pakistan, so I could make the case that Obama is expanding the war.
I agree completely that many Democrat Congresspeople voted for the war. I believe most have regretted the decision, unlike the Republicans. And if you can't learn from your mistakes, you're bound to repeat them.
Okay so now you want to claim you know what's in the hearts of Republicans, and Democrats? I suppose anyone that voted for the war could use the excuse that they were lied to or were given bad intelligence, but that would be a real cop out, an admission that they too didn't do their job and relied on others to make their decisions, similar to Pelosi claiming she didn't know about the waterboarding. It's all lies, all of it!
Sorry, I meant that some Democratic Congresspeople have come out and said they regretted the decision; as far as I know, no Republicans have.
Congress's "decision-making" was indeed shamefully negligent or duplicitous.
I applaud your criticism of Democrats' conduct in government. One can only wish conservatives were just as critical of Republicans.
Ah but I do! I opposed the war in Iraq, the Patriot Act, the signing statements Bush used to skirt the law, and his unfunded medicare spending. I did not vote for Bush in either election. Of course that's all history now and we have to deal with the present remembering the lessons of the past. We have to deal with certain truths about human nature. Evil exists and under the right circumstances will emerge. Power corrupts. Government is force. Empower government and evil and corruption will emerge. Expand government and freedom shrinks. These are realities regardless of what party you support.
" I believe most have regretted the decision"
A policy idea that the MAJORITY of Democrats voted for and who had the same intelligence reports that Bush had....how about you all own that?
Most libertarians are not in favor of war. The foolish Iraq invasion was fomented in large part by Neocons. Most conservatives I know are warmongers. (The rest are whoremongers. :-))
That explains it Bill Clinton IS a conservative.
Boy I never thought I would say this:
I miss slick Willy.
Then maybe you should expand your base of interaction with people. Many conservatives were sick of the war and in disagreement with Bush on the war, and many of them voted for Obama for that very reason alone.
And it is hard to fathom a greater whore-mongering group than extreme left wing liberals of any generation or political race who court the vote of the poor on the basis of lies and manipulation and old-time hoedown politics at the union refinery gates and everybody yall meet up and we'll pick you up and take you to the polls and take care of you forever. Intellectual liberals have no clue what really happens.
If you're talking about populism, then that's squarely in the GOP (Grand Old Populists) camp now. And they're just as phony as the populist liberals you characterize in your post.
Yeah but at least a conservative starts a war and then can pillage and pilfer from the conquered lands. It may be a total a-hole way to approach things, but there is at least a plan for recouping loss.
The liberal way just... like, has no plan at all for repayment.
Conservative plan: Borrow + killing and exploitation + repayment = our nation grows, someone else's nation is screwed.
Liberal plan: Borrow + giving it all away = our nation is screwed.
Need a plan with nobody getting screwed... but then, the only system that ever started with the pretense of not screwing anyone was when the Catholic church adopted that policy and we all know how that worked out. So, ... yeah.
Obama hates white people
Obama wants to kill your gramma
Obama wasn't born here
Obama is a muslim
Obama is a socialist
Obama is a marxist
Obama is trying to indoctrinate children
Obams wants kindergarden kids to learn about sex
Obama hates the military
Obama is anti-American
You really believe THAT?
I believe Obama is a socialist or at least has socialist tendencies and I have found plenty of evidence to support that view.
I doubt he hates white people, but the did leave any mention of them out in his recent call to voters to get out to the polls.
The rest of that stuff is just silly, at least the way you posted it.
If Obama is pro-American, why does he believe that America needs to be "fundementaly transformed"?
The fact that polls on issues he is putting forward show that he is promoting unpopular positions shows that he has an agenda that is being pushed through regardless.
He knows that he's got to hurry, because the word is out and the rubber stamp is running out of ink.
Indoctrinating children; the progressive agenda is promoted through academia. He may not be indoctrinating (he meaning the progressive movement's frontman) your children, but he is indoctrinating their teachers.
Muslim? I don't think he's willing to give up enough control to be involved in any religous commitment.
Socialist; hmmm... Redistrbution of wealth comes to mind.
The rest is silly, but the record of how he stands on these is alarming.
If we do not embrace change then we go extinct. If you cannot see that there are elements of American culture and way of life that need changing then maybe you are on the way to extinction.
Obama changing aspects of what is America in a changing world IS being pro-American, whether he is changing the right things in the right way may be up for criticism but at least he is changing things ?
Remember, many cons don't accept evolution, you expect them to believe a country needs to.
and a GREAT CAMPAIGN STRATEGY.
Hey....you remind me of a white dog......
Not changing to accomodate reality is called insanity.
Some would say it could be called religion, or fundamentalism.
It does at times seems to be a major component of conservative thinking.
If someone is alive, dying is change. If a machine works well, breaking down is change. A mutation that causes the early death of an organism is also change. Changing from denying women the vote to granting them that right that they deserved was a good thing. If the sun were to implode tomorrow that would be a change but it would not be so good for life on earth.
Change can be for the better, or it can be for the worse. Rejecting change for the better is not a good idea. Embracing change uncritically is an even worse idea.
Or in other words: Change for the sake of change is stupid.
Whose reality? The reality of the majority of Americans being quite displeased with the 'administration' of the affairs of their country? What an inane statement.
Reality is the world we all live in of which America is just a small piece - and the noisy, but pretty stupid, right wingers who shout loudest are an even tinier piece of it all.
When any one thinks that nothing they do should be changed they are on their way to divorce - for countries the same, it means isolated and friendless and poor.
So you could get real with the childish wordplaying and help your country by changing your tired old tune to start with.
It seems politics has become about who can slam who in the most entertaining way. I can't take republicans seriously when I see them laughing, joking, yelling, crying and name calling. If you turn the volume off on the television you can tell what party there from just by how they dress and the animated way they act. I'm just plain tired of it.
" I can't take republicans seriously when I see them laughing, joking, yelling, crying and name calling."
How about when democrats do the same? Can you take them seriously?
I once had an epistemic closure...
but it was nothing that a couple of bowls of bran cereal couldn't fix
It's one of those buzz phrases that sound highly technical and conceptual but actually mean something really mundane. In much the same way that "quantitative easing" actually means "creating money out of thin air".
The originator(s) no doubt hope this new buzz phrase will use up loads of column inches and divert people's attention away from issues that actually matter. Or am I being too cynical?
Ralph, I clicked on that link and read what the NY Times had to say. Interesting.
Everyone is in attack mode waiting for the first conservative to give a rebuttal?
baiting, waiting, fishing?
Let's see - If someone was to post a link to a Lou Dobbs rant about how evil the proposed immigration reform is - suggest that the plan is an atttempt to leagalize immigrants who will stuff the ballot box - and the rant is from 2007 about the plan that Bush and McCain supported..
Does that qualify as Estemic Cloture?
Ummmm, I would have to agree that legalizing 20 million people who vote 90% for your party might be a little of a political ploy....
YOu string together so many misstatements as an example or Estemic Closure it's hard to know where to begin.
1) I don't know where you get the 20 million number. If they are undocumented how do you know how many there are? (Glenn Beck?? OK.)
2) The video of Dobbs was from 2007 - a bill sponsored by McCain and supported by McCain and Bush. (Hint: Those are not democrats.)
3) At this point there is NO immigration bill in Congress. So there is no bill that will legalize 20 million people.
4) What has been discussed by Obama is *some* method of dealing with however many undocumented workers there are that will put those who seek citizenship " to the end of the line". Obama's words not mine.
So from the purely cynical political point you are coming from those undocumented workers can't have any effect in the 2010 or 2012 elections because they can't be processed for either election cycle except in your mind.
Dum Dee Deeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeer
I am thinking that you are combining my post with others above. I was only responding to your post.
1. Number vary from 10 million (CBS) to over 25 million (Heritage Foundation) my guess is they are in the middle somewhere. AZ has around 500,000 according to pretty much every report I have heard and CA around 4-6. But the number does not really matter does it?
2. No one said anything about 2010 to 2012, I do not think the movement for amnesty is that short sited, I will give you credit for that.
3. McCain , though a great man is essentially a democrat that likes guns. Hardly a true conservative (and yes, I know Reagan oversaw a amnesty, and it was a HUGE mistake.) Bush was a joke on immigration and the biggest reason I switched to a independent was the Republicans refusal to cater to anyone other that businesses who wanted cheap labor when it came to immigration.
4. Who cares if there is a immigration bill. We have laws on the books that the Federal government has refused to enforce. We do not need new laws, we need to enforce those that we have. We can talk about reform when we actually have tackled securing the border. Anything else is just lip service. If you are not enforcing the law and have no barrier to entry why would we be stupid enough to think that new laws would be enforced anymore than current laws?
5. Come on, we all know exactly what the majority of both parties have wanted for years, amnesty. I do not care what color lipstick you put on it, still a pig. Here is the end of the line.
*Enforce the immigration laws, if you are here illegally then you get deported.
* SERIOUS fines and even prison time for businesses who knowingly (i.e. they do not use the current, in place systems for verifying eligibility to work)
* Why is it so hard for people to understand that people who break the laws should be punished/sent back. Most other countries, including Mexico do it.
First, I want to acknoledge an honest attempt to engage on the subject.
I think we agree we don't know how many people are in the US illegally.
I think we agree that the penalties ought to be severe for employers who are exploiting illegal labor.
I'm OK with enforcing the border - I am not an open-borders advocate. My biggest concern is how to do it in a way that works and doesn't break the bank.
I am in favor of deporting any illegals who commit a felony in the US. (I know you want to deport all of them. I disagree.)
Heres a hypothetical to chew on. If there are 20 million and it costs $5000 per to find,captrure, house, feed and legally process those 20 million, the bill comes to 100 Billion. I suspect that's still a low-ball number.
Here's my big problem. Illegal immigrants are a distraction - an obession for some - from the big problem. Over a period of 20 years big corporations exported our manufacturing base to China where a Communist government enforces wage controls (like 30 cents per hour). Big business in America doesn't want us to discuss the REAL reason real wages have fallen in the US. This isn't liberal spin. David Frumm wrote about it in a column this week on CNN. He's a loyal Republican.
Hispanics in the US are a distraction for the populace, just like the Jews in Germany in the '30s. The Nazis made the Jews the scapagoats for all of Germany's problems with great success. Conservatives are doing the same with Illegals in the US.
Instead of investing in America in a real way, Goldman Sachs is inventing exotic betting games which don't represent capital working in a tangible way. We are going to have to get back to being a country that makes good stuff and pays a decent wage to the working stiffs who make it. Chasing Mexicans is a distraction from that mission.
Wow it is nice to actually have a discussion and not just yell, shriek and throw verbal feces at each other
I don''t think we need to deport everyone. Dry up the jobs and the bulk of the problem will go away, but when people are found to be illegal, we need to deport them. I do not even advocate increasing actual sweeps etc. Prosecuting employers and actually deporting those arrested for crimes along with securing the border would be a minimal cost (to your point on costs) and I believe would address the bulk of the problem and issues.
I do not think that illegals are even the largest of our problems, but, being someone who lines within 100 miles of the border, they are a serious issue for many people and one that needs to be addressed.
To your point about real wages, removing exploitatively cheap labor from our work force would of course provide upward pressure on wages. The main issue is that last decades cheap labor which may have made a life for themselves can almost never truly gain better wages due to the next wave of those looking for work at whatever the scum that hire and abuse them will pay. There is no end to this problem as there is always some other country with workers willing to kill themselves for $20 a day.
This is what you consider an honest attempt to engage on the subject? Do you even realize what you have said, suggested, implied?
Have you any idea that it was under the Clinton Administration in 1998 that Brooksley Born, chairwoman of the Chicago Federal Trade Commission, attempted to have new regulatory oversight implemented because of the new and creative derivatives entering the market, that had already caused great financial losses to many who did not understand what they were buying and it was clear to hear the problem would magnify -- the Clinton Administration shot her down, closed the book, and wouldn't hear it. Why? They took orders from their financial keepers.
A few months after her spanking, the Clinton Admin. repealed Glass-Steagall and deregulated the financial industry allowing even more creative financial instruments to be traded un-checked. The Clinton Admin. reveled in the wealth created by the tech bubble, and Democrats like to pretend he was somehow instrumental in this bubble of prosperity -- and that's bunk, but a whole 'nother topic
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-warn … rs-2009-10
It's all about choices you know, epistemic closure or spontaneous cranial emissions, two different symptoms of overexposure to bovine smoothies (Congressional speeches, political newscasts, and such).
There are conservative intellectuals? Have they gone over to the left-wing dark side? I though that they had died out with William Buckley. I certainly haven't seen much evidence of them.
Several who have a shred of integrity have bailed on the GOP--Frum and Bartley and a few others whose names escape me. Bush and company turned several of them off for various reasons.
Ralph: Interesting....there are no "conservative intellectuals", geez, are we sterotyping just a tad?
It would be nice, and validating to the liberal view as intellectually legit, if any of you would ever recognize that liberals are not all good and conservatives all bad in their view of major issues and their actions. There is merit to both sides, as in most major differences of opinion.
It is amusing that the really off base comments of Doug haven't been addressed except by me. Instead there has been an abrupt change of thread, and that is in no way validating to the liberal viewpoint, no matter how many comments any lib makes in the hopes that the disturbing comments aren't read again. The whole -read the beginning, read the end, to get the gist- habit of humans, must get tiresome for manipulators. But then no doubt I am quite wrong, given my intellectual deficiencies.
You would all serve your party better by actually engaging in real discussion, rather than behaving in the exact manner that you baselessly denigrate conservatives.
I haven't noticed anybody saying all conservatives are bad. I certainly don't believe that. True conservatives are few and far between these days. They are being drowned out by the likes of
Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and many in the Congress who don't strike me as true conservatives who are concerned enough about the public interest to put it ahead of what they perceive as their political interest.
So, the only good conservative is a "true conservative" ... would those be the rare 'intellectual' conservatives you spoke of in the post I commented upon? and perhaps you now grant still exist and haven't jumped ship? and if so, how would you define a true conservative, and do you think a true leftist liberal could ever find common ground with a true conservative?...... perhaps over ice cream or beignets together in a Louisiana drizzle.....perhaps we could reach a meeting of the minds?
To think that either party does not have the American public interest in mind over political interest, at least part of the time, is really sad, and I think likely accurate -- in regard to both.
No offense, but you should take your own medicine.
The whole debasing of the discussion began with the craziness by the Republicans after they lost.
You kind of get what you give, you know?
And before that, they were debasing the "Liberals" who were speaking out against Bush...so really what do you want?
Good treatment for bad?
I would say since it was you righties who started jumping ugly, it's up to you to end it.
This is so funny. The conservatives control the radio, and are now starting to control the TV with Foxnews. But the newspaper industry is going in the crapper.
I guess these guys just get all of the audiences because of their lies.
Or what could it be because the audiences is tired of the lies of the mainstream media.
I wonder which it could be. Are the people stupid or smart?
I believe you got it!
People want to be lied to so they watch FOX news!
Makes so much sense!
WELL...Stupid is kinda harsh? Most conservative are drawn to the Fox media bacause they suffer from the "PT BARNUM SYNDROM".
Rush even addmitted he caters to the dregs of society for a buck. I don't remember the exact phrase or date, so don't come back at me with those same silly, distracting questions. Somebody knows it anyway. I just wanted to add to all the very cool phrases I read in this Tread. Good job Mr. Deeds!
Have I understood you corectly?
One tv network is "control the tv"?
What about all the other networks?
Ratings are based on viewership, or popularity. People must like what they're hearing.
I'll bet the "other networks" would love to have the same viewership.
They appeal to the baser nature of people. And it makes people feel superior to put others down.
You can watch Beck and Hannity or listen to Limbaugh and rail about all the dumb Americans who are just too out of touch to see the truth; that is,
Obama is an Indonesian Muslim terrorist who wants to destroy America.
Anyone who can't see that is a liberal elite intellectual snob.
Head of Tea Party Express Mark Williams SAYS that Obama is an Indonesian Muslim...
Palin says he pals around with terrorists....
ALL of them say Obama wants to destroy America...that's why they want him to fail.
Felon Oliver North was on Hannity SAYING Obama is anti-American...
What are you not getting?
Fox news hosted the first big tea party...Glenn Beck was host, and he was calling for Palin for president in 2012...Palin works for Fox. Hannity works for Fox, and also hosted a tea-party....where he used fake news-clips to boost the attendance. North is a correspondent for Fox.
They are linked with them, however it was they got there. Because some say that Fox hi-jacked the tea-party. But do it they did...when you say "tea-party", I think of Fox news and Sarah Palin.
And it's a continous anti-Obama agenda going on over there.
Dare I say unAmerican?
Let me help you out before I get another gray hair waiting on a reasonable response from you.
No it is not the position of FOX news that Obammy is an "Indonesian Muslim terrorist who wants to destroy America."
That is something you created in your head!
OhKay...as soon as you show me this:
"You must be watching MSNBC's version of what FOX news say's".
When did msnbc say that fox said that obama was an indonesian muslim terrorist?....a little tongue in cheek there maybe? ok for me too?
Here's what Williams really said, and it was on CNN! My goodness....Clinton Network News:
Tea party leader calls Obama a welfare thug
By: Devona Walker
"Tea Party leader Mark Williams called President Obama an "Indonesian Muslim turned Welfare thug," last night on Anderson Cooper 360 in a segment where he was trying to deny any racist motivations behind the Tea Party protest.
Williams denounced those carrying blatantly racist signs against President Obama during the tea parties as "no more part of the mainstream of America than the hippies who wear nipple clips and feather boas in San Francisco streets during so-called peace demonstrations."
"What you're saying makes sense to me here when I'm hearing what you say but then I read on your blog, you say, you call the President an Indonesian Muslim turned welfare thug and a racist in chief," Anderson Cooper said."
He says thug Palin says terrorist....it's all semantics. And since this thread is about conservative epistemic closure, this is right on topic!!!
"You can watch Beck and Hannity or listen to Limbaugh and rail about all the dumb Americans who are just too out of touch to see the truth; that is,
Obama is an Indonesian Muslim terrorist who wants to destroy America."
I stand by that.
That is their version of Obama.
Now perhaps you can answer these;
Since Obama's pick as the Democratic nominee, I have read and heard discussed on Fox and various other sources that he is not born here, he was schooled in Madrassas, he is gay, he did cocaine in the back of a limo and had sex with a gay man, he ordered the murder of a gay man with whom he had an affair, he is a socialist, a marxist, a muslim, he hates white people, doesn't care for the troops and is anti-American.
This is the face of the right in this country. Any blatant lies in this message?
Hilary was behind that garbage?
I don't think so. She was guilty of this;
"hard working middle class white Americans" .....or something along those lines...her and Bill played on racism. But I never heard her mention his birth, his gayness, his murdering someone or his being socialist...those all came from neo-cons.
Obama in a turban: Barack accuses Hillary of smear campaign after circulating photos of him dressed as 'a Muslim'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … z0n0FoQnQT
And, your point?
"But I never heard her mention his birth, his gayness, his murdering someone or his being socialist"
Here's their newest one:
Fox's Wendell Goler asked a question using the "some people say" formulation to claim that the BP oil spill is President Obama's Katrina, clearly hoping to put Robert Gibbs on the defensive. Gibbs wasn't having any of it, though, and fired straight back at Goler, ripping Fox for giving Michael "Heckuva' job" Brown an open forum to push the conspiracy theory that the BP spill was an act of sabotage welcomed by the White House. (Update: This is also known as "going BP truther".) --Daily Kos
Rush implied it in his show today too.
So, now BP and Halliburton are off the hook...it wasn't cutting costs to increase profits, it was Obama who "sabotaged" the oil rig huh?
And who would do something like that? Why, Terrorists!!!!! Does than mean that Obama is a Terrorist???
hmmm, sabotage, terrorist, sabotage, terrorist, sabotage, terrorist...keep sayin it over and over and over. And they will.
Are you getting sleepy America? Very sleepy......
George Pataki too?
My my...who's next? let's guess...Guiliani!
Right! So why do the baggers keep repeating it??
I'm going to call in Russsshhhhhh's show and aks him....think he'll let me on?
Ahahahhaha...that's a good one. Russsshhhhhh talking to someone who thinks he's a wet noodle.
Never happen. He'd just hang up at the mention of anything unRushish.
Well, if I was a betting woman, I'd make a bet with you....bet that all these Repub/Baggy senators will start saying Obama sabotaged the rig too....
The propaganda-du-jour. Led by who? Why, Fox "News"! We spew, you regurgitate.
You and Rush are reasonable? You are being ironic, aren't you? I understood that intellectual is a bad word associated with those evil liberals. You'd better watch out or you will get in trouble with Sarah, Rush, and Beck if they hear about your heresy. You have a radio show? For crap's sake, Rush is contagious!
Yeah...here's reasoned and careful thought: "The president just came out in support of increased drilling for oil. Now he's going to sabotage the rig so he can destroy the oil- drilling industry."
Makes sense to any reasonable and thinking person...NOT.
But they don't care. They'll repeat it and repeat it and repeat it...hey, maybe Orly Taitz can bring the proof onto Hannity's show.
Doesn't have to be true. Doesn't have to have an IOTA of truth to it...they will spew it anyway.
Let's just throw it out there and see what sticks to the wall.
And how do you like this? We are getting Beck's show here on our local tyranny-talk radio! So now we have the GOP local man, Beck, a Tea-Bagger, Rush, Ingraham, a Boston GOP, Savage, a California GOP, then finally some relief with coast-to-coast- am.
That's your freedom of speech. All the GOP money can buy. Phew! Glad I live in a "liberal" state!
Maybe you should lay off politics for a while since it seems to upset you so much. Besides, it really gets in the way of "love and togetherness"
Trying to open that closed door x..who do you think has BOLTED it?
Oh come on, so many people are so wrapped up in "their side" or "their party" that they cease to even use reason, they do not even think through the topics. For either side to say that the other has the monopoly on idiots is just plain dishonest. Beck, Rush and Palin are 75% fools as are Mathews and Olbermann and many others.
My side, your side, gets nobody anywhere. the VAST majority of rational people do not think we should not enforce our borders, let anyone run around at any time with no need to prove who they are and let anyone who wants to come across our borders (if you fly here you need ID and no-one seems to think that is "racist." On the other side, the VAST majority knows it is wrong to stop someone because of their color or the language they are speaking.
Does anyone really have a problem with police, when they have arrested or are questioning someone for breaking a law (even a traffic law)asking that person for ID? I would say that would make sense and the AZ law should be amended (and it may have been) to say that. ANYONE breaking a law will be asked to provide ID. If you have ever been outside of the US you know that you get asked for ID and your passport all the time, I get asked EVERY time I go to Mexico...they must be racist huh?
Bolting the door is not a "sides" issue. There are freedom killers on every side.
It's just that Fox and the current Republican bunch of bananas is the freedom- killing machine right now.
Yes, they need to take your liberties again....under the guise of patriotism and saftey....as always.
Why don't we legalize drugs...that would help. 90% of the problem would go away.
Stop selling so many guns with 0 checks whatsoever.
NAFTA needs to be re-vamped to benefit the workers as much as the owners.
Stop hiring illegals.
A lot more you could do than arresting someone for "looking" suspicious! No crime needed....
The rift created by free trade: The first rift this implies is between people who obtain most of their income from work and people who obtain most of their income from returns on capital. People in the latter category obviously want all labor to be as cheap as possible. People in the former category want the labor they consume (directly or embodied in goods) to be as cheap as possible, but the labor that they produce and sell, namely their own wages, to be expensive.This implies the possibility of an electoral coalition in which one part of society treats itself to cheap foreign labor at the expense of another. (http://www.freetradedoesntwork.com/Exce … _Ch_12.pdf)
Good point lovemychris
The dialectic you highlight is why the trade union movement went from a progressive force in the evolution of capitalist society to a conservative force...
In the discourses of socialism, communism, and anarchism theorists refer to the situation you describe as 'the class war', the ever-present differential interests of capital and labor...
National media always sides with power. EVERYone and their mother was all for the Iraq "war".
There is NO liberal media.....save msnbc, and even they cow-tow to the right. Print you can find liberal, but not tv or radio.
And who said anything about shutting anything off?
It's libs who have been shut off..shut out, and shut up.
Phil Donahue, when he had his show, had to have 2 conservative people to every 1 liberal...they bent over backwards to be "fair" (this from the movie OutFoxed).
And I was a talk-radio fan since 85...they always had many points of view...until the early 90's and then it gradually became all right all the time. And Bush in 2000 made it more so with help from Focus on the Family and Family Research Group.
You can say it's a money thing, but I don't buy that. It's a concerted effort to push the republican big business agenda. imo
Know where I got my anger towards Saddam Hussein? PBS.
Who in the media takes the side of the Palestinians??
Who is questioning the up-coming "war" with Iran?
No one...they are all bowing to the same old power.
Where's a Liberal?? (I don't get msnbc anymore, so I really can't speak for them....my friend e-mails me if she hears anything),,,So maybe they are Liberal, but then why do they have Joe Scarborough on in the morning?
As far as I can tell, it's right,right and more right. Even the lefties are right!
I agree with you. The consolidation of the media industry reveals 'a concerted effort to push the republican big business agenda'. We see the same agenda in Australia. What is more, the agenda is not new. Nor is the power to influence, or the ownership of the means to influence in new hands. The power shape history through the grand narratives belongs to the owners of capital. That is why many post-modernist political activists construct petite-narratives. A plethora of labor voices is the only counter to the volume of the hegemonic voice of capital.
Viva la difference!
We've all been out shopping for a talking bird - perhaps a red Macaw, or a really purty red Amazon parrot. We're hoping we can teach them to type and take our place in the HP forums and randomly post repetitive rhetorical phrases and questions while we're hard at work actually writing.
by Mike Russo5 years ago
I have been in many controversial political discussions on hub pages. I consider myself a centerist. I believe we need both some components of socialism to provide the things that we can't do as individuals and...
by SparklingJewel7 years ago
Blogger Alan Caruba summarizes what is going on and warns us that this struggle is about so much more than so-called "health care reform"... it's a battle for the soul and the future of this great...
by ptosis3 weeks ago
The "million-dollar question" about the Facebook ads centered on how the Russians knew whom to target. How did the Russians knew where to direct their ads? The Russian bought Facebook ads to amplify political...
by crankalicious5 years ago
My unbiased description is this: liberals turn to government to solve their problems. Conservatives turn to business to solve their problems.
by Denise2 weeks ago
I know what right wing conservatives would say to this, but liberals. Answer this.You live in a subdivision consisting of twenty one houses, each with large families and each has only one spare bedroom with the...
by Susan Reid3 years ago
excerpted from Liberals pride themselves on being tolerant. Are they really just suckers?"Does fear and intolerance actually work better? I find it interesting (not surprising) that research actually shows...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.