IRS Scandal: It's Okay because they All Do It?

[lektrode]

Re: IRS Scandal: It's Okay because they All Do It?

;)

[lektrode]

Re: IRS Scandal: It's Okay because they All Do It?

I've been thinking this a lot recently. The decline in sensible reporting in that paper has been very noticeable. It used to be a pretty reliable paper, if one with a pretty clear an unapologetic perspective. These days it's hard to find a piece there that's not steeped in bias.

It's a shame. We could really use a solid, investigative, member of the fourth estate on that portion of the political spectrum that can't easily be dismissed as obviously unbiased. But they're all slowly being taken over by extremists and/or shills.

+1
altho its nothing new for the lib's mouthpiece/bullhorn but... its supposed to be entertaining, isnt it?
;)

[astonas]

Re: IRS Scandal: It's Okay because they All Do It?

+1
altho its nothing new for the lib's mouthpiece/bullhorn but... its supposed to be entertaining, isnt it?
;)

Eh, I'm not a huge fan of the Times, and Krugman is certainly an ideologue. But at least they've managed to keep their editorial page separate from their news page. That's the wall that's been distressingly and dramatically torn down at the WSJ. They can't even get their facts straight anymore.

But like I said, I'm no fan of the Times, either. They used to have extensive and detailed investigative reporting, and foreign bureaus to collect new information. Now it's mostly A.P. rewrites. When they do manage to investigate, they can still do a pretty good job, but they just don't (and perhaps can't?) make it a priority in these leaner times.

I don't really care where a news source is on the political spectrum, as long as I am able to discern where it is, so I can take potential bias into account. But I do expect them not to lie to me about the facts. NPR does OK on the center-left, though it is occasionally duped (PlanetMoney especially). But I really don't see much of anything remaining to reliably provide a credible counterpoint on the center-right.

[Woodsman]

Re: IRS Scandal: It's Okay because they All Do It?

I have great respect for you, Woodsman, and I don't want you to take this the wrong way, but it would help me if you'd single out some part of Leftist spin and "shading and bending of facts"; it would allow me to more easily see your ability to cast off ideological blinders...

Raz, thanks for your thoughtful response. I appreciate your perspective. To be frank, it's not the first time I've received this sort of criticism. It's interesting to me that I've also heard this from friends who consider themselves liberals and Democrats!

When I was a cub reporter back in the day, I recall complaining to my editor that everybody I covered seemed to dislike me and sometimes even accused me of being biased (yes, I was that wet behind the ears). My editor shot back, "good, that means you're doing it right." I don't know if I believed that then or now, but taken in aggregate over the years I've come to see it as the natural inclination of people to defend their tribe and their intellectual and emotional investments.

Nevertheless, I find it increasingly difficult to employ the left/right classification when discussing *current* events. First, I'm never quite sure that when I use the terms, the person with whom I engage shares a similar understanding of what I mean. Obviously, that's not the case with you friend, but it happens with such frequency elsewhere that I find myself holding my tongue until I get a good sense of who I am speaking with.

Beyond that, I see precious little "left" at work in American political life these days. Now there's plenty of what Tom Wolfe once called "mau-mauing," especially when it comes to social progressivism and counterculture. What we know today as the left seems passionately engaged in questions regarding gender, race, sexual preferences, abortion, recreational drugs, alternative lifestyles, art, music, and all those things. While they are no doubt quite important to some individuals, advancing these things makes not the slightest dent in the status quo and neither does it do anything to address fundamental questions about who gets what and who does what to whom.

Could anyone seriously make the case that Locke, Montesquieu, Saint-Simon, Marx, or the other intellectual progenitors of the left had any of this stuff in mind? Surely not, but this "lifestyle left" seems to be the only functional and influential left wing in this country. How does gay marriage advance the cause of "the masses," I wonder? If I counted myself among men of great wealth, power and influence seeking means to protect and advance our status, I could hardly be more delighted to see the left reduced to such a state. The more Machiavellian among us would likely be actively promoting and supporting it.

Historical events seem to me a bit easier to make a meaningful distinction between an idea or man as being left or right. I can do that with confidence going back to before the French Revolution when the terms themselves came into being. As I come nearer to my own time, I find the terms increasingly less useful. It's become much more of a challenge to accurately classify the actualities and personalities of the day using this taxonomy.

Obama, for instance, is considered a man of the left; a socialist even. Yet it's my opinion that in the five years we've experienced so far, there's little meaningful policy I can point to and say that it is genuinely oriented to the left. Now depending on whom I'm speaking with, this opinion of mine is greeted alternatively 1) by blank stares or confusion from "low information" voters, 2) roars of laughter/frustration from conservatives or 3) irritation/dismissal by liberals.

Clearly, Obama has leftist credentials and many have made a case that he's a modern "red diaper" baby. Look back at the films of his performance in the primaries prior to his first term. Man, the guy could talk the leftie talk with conviction. I imagine hearing his words were like a cool drink to the remnants of principled leftists in our country.

But when I focus just on what he's actually done as president, it doesn't seem particularly leftist to me. In nearly all cases where government power is applied toward the benefit of a particular power group, I believe there is little substantive difference between what Obama does and what those immediately before him have done.

As I see it, where an issue is of no meaningful impact on the stability of the status quo, Obama is free to sound as leftie as he likes (gay marriage, abortion, even gun control). When the issue is substantive and advanced by powerful constituencies seeking to preserve and advance their interests, he seems to me utterly centrist and often quite conservative.

We could run the same thought experiment on the Bush side of the equation and I believe we'd get similar outcomes. But go back further. Was Nixon on the right? Sure, but he closed the gold window, established wage and price controls, established the EPA, signed an arms control treaty with the Soviets, cut the military budget, etc.

Gore Vidal once said we live in the United States of Amnesia whose emblem of state is a bird with two right wings. As criticisms go, I think that point is a fair one and consistent with our near term history. So too is your point fair and I will take the next opportunity to do just as you suggested. Thank you again for taking time to read and respond so thoughtfully, Raz.

PS: Functionally, I define left, right and center as so:
The right is always and ever associated with the interests of the upper or dominant classes, the left with lower economic or social classes, and the center with that of the middle classes. I find this useful inasmuch as it has held up over the centuries and is not tied to any place, period, party or policy. While admittedly something of an oversimplification, it does the job quite well for me, although I am open to suggestions for improvement.

[Woodsman]

Re: IRS Scandal: It's Okay because they All Do It?

American Thinker and American Conservative seem to do a good job, blogwise. TV news is lost and not worth the time and newspapers are quickly following suit. Thank the Maker (and EJ!) for iTulip and this forum.

[astonas]

Re: IRS Scandal: It's Okay because they All Do It?

American Thinker and American Conservative seem to do a good job, blogwise. TV news is lost and not worth the time and newspapers are quickly following suit. Thank the Maker (and EJ!) for iTulip and this forum.

Thanks for the recommendations! I did appreciate the article from the American Conservative that Raz posted a while back. I'll have to check that out in more detail, as well as American Thinker.

For completeness, what do you recommend on the center-left?

[doom&gloom]

Re: IRS Scandal: It's Okay because they All Do It?

*snip*

Obama, for instance, is considered a man of the left; a socialist even. Yet it's my opinion that in the five years we've experienced so far, there's little meaningful policy I can point to and say that it is genuinely oriented to the left. Now depending on whom I'm speaking with, this opinion of mine is greeted alternatively 1) by blank stares or confusion from "low information" voters, 2) roars of laughter/frustration from conservatives or 3) irritation/dismissal by liberals.

Clearly, Obama has leftist credentials and many have made a case that he's a modern "red diaper" baby. Look back at the films of his performance in the primaries prior to his first term. Man, the guy could talk the leftie talk with conviction. I imagine hearing his words were like a cool drink to the remnants of principled leftists in our country.

But when I focus just on what he's actually done as president, it doesn't seem particularly leftist to me. In nearly all cases where government power is applied toward the benefit of a particular power group, I believe there is little substantive difference between what Obama does and what those immediately before him have done.

As I see it, where an issue is of no meaningful impact on the stability of the status quo, Obama is free to sound as leftie as he likes (gay marriage, abortion, even gun control). When the issue is substantive and advanced by powerful constituencies seeking to preserve and advance their interests, he seems to me utterly centrist and often quite conservative.

*snip*

I would wholly agree with your assessment. Obama talks a good leftie game, but when the money is involved, e's no lefty, he's part of the kleptocracy. Even his signature ObamaCare is a gift of more cash to big business, and no great sakes for the little guy. Thus I too am continually amazed when the lefties defend him while he implements the same policies of BushII.

[don]

Re: IRS Scandal: It's Okay because they All Do It?

I would wholly agree with your assessment. Obama talks a good leftie game, but when the money is involved, e's no lefty, he's part of the kleptocracy. Even his signature ObamaCare is a gift of more cash to big business, and no great sakes for the little guy. Thus I too am continually amazed when the lefties defend him while he implements the same policies of BushII.

Exploding the Obama Myth - to little or no avail

Obama's Arctic strategy sets off a climate time bomb

US National Strategy for the Arctic Region prioritises corporate 'economic opportunities' at the expense of everyone else





Shell's drilling rig Kulluk aground on the southeast shore of Sitkalidak Island about 40 miles southwest of Kodiak City, Alaska, January 4, 2013. Photograph: Zachary Painter/USCG



One week ago, the Obama administration launched its National Strategy for the Arctic Region, outlining the government's strategic priorities over the next 10 years. The release of the strategy came about a week after the Office of Science and Technology Policy within the Executive Office of the President at the White House Complex hosted a briefing with international Arctic scientists.


Despite giving lip service to the values of environmental conservation, the new document focuses on how the US can manage the exploitation of the region's vast untapped oil, gas and mineral resources in cooperation with other Arctic powers.
US hinges success of Arctic strategy on diminishing sea ice

At the heart of the White House's new Arctic strategy is an elementary but devastating contradiction between what President Obama, in the document's preamble, describes as seeking "to make the most of the emerging economic opportunities in the region" due to the rapid loss of Arctic summer sea ice, and recognising "the need to protect and conserve this unique, valuable, and changing environment."


Despite repeated references to "preservation" and "conservation", the strategy fails to outline any specific steps that would be explored to mitigate or prevent the disappearance of the Arctic sea ice due to intensifying global warming. Instead, the document from the outset aims to:

"... position the United States to respond effectively to challenges and emerging opportunities arising from significant increases in Arctic activity due to the diminishment of sea ice and the emergence of a new Arctic environment."

In other words, far from being designed to prevent catastrophe, the success of the new strategy is premised precisely on the disappearance of the Arctic summer sea ice.



The document identifies three main US objectives in the region: advancing US "security interests" by increasing US military and commercial penetration "through, under, and over the airspace and waters of the Arctic"; pursuing "responsible Arctic region stewardship" by continuing to "conserve its resources"; and strengthening international cooperation to advance "collective interests" and "shared Arctic state prosperity" - all the while, somhow working to "protect the Arctic environment."






Obama is and has been 100% in the pocket of Big Corporations, from the TBTF Banksters to Big Oil to Big Pharma to the Arms makers. That's why the never-ending wing-nut claims go on and on - they can't attack his corporate lip lock, because they agree with all of it, so they make up shit - like the birth certificate, too much spent on Air Force One, the Muslim decoder ring, giving away Alaska to Russia, the 1st Lady has a big ass, etc. They're bankrupt, like Washington, and as much a stooge as the Prez.

[vinoveri]

Re: IRS Scandal: It's Okay because they All Do It?

PS: Functionally, I define left, right and center as so:
The right is always and ever associated with the interests of the upper or dominant classes, the left with lower economic or social classes, and the center with that of the middle classes. I find this useful inasmuch as it has held up over the centuries and is not tied to any place, period, party or policy. While admittedly something of an oversimplification, it does the job quite well for me, although I am open to suggestions for improvement.

I would suggest that based on your definition there are very few true leftists (at least in larger organized forms). Orthodox Judeo-Christian tradition, to the extent it is practiced is certainly leftist based on your definition. Even the traditional "liberal-leftist" in my memory, while actively lobbying for the workers, pushed only for improvements in their lots, e.g., working/living condition, e.g., higher wages, lower work weeks, laws against slumlords etc - all these may appear good to the leftists and undoubtedly did "empower" workers with more, but IMO a better system is one put forth by GK Chesterton and based on catholic social teaching where everyone has property ownership and free access to capital - easier said than done I know but its system which naturally mitigates against these class formations as it opposes both big government and big business.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism

[Woodsman]

Re: IRS Scandal: It's Okay because they All Do It?

Thanks, Vinoveri. The definition, if I recall, was Seymour Martin Lipset's. I agree that - in America, at least - there are relatively few "true leftists" in larger organized forms. Morris Berman in his book "Why America Failed" does a good job of explaining his views of the historical realities that makes this so. Fundamentally, he calls America a nation of "hustlers" that elevated pursuit of personal gain to the highest virtue and this is a key reason why left-oriented ideologies never took strong root here. I'm seriously oversimplifying his thesis here, but you get the drift.

And as you say, if we were to accept the definition, then indeed Christian and Jewish social teaching could be characterized as such. There have been multiple papal encyclicals from Leo XIII to Benedict XVI that provided guidance to Catholics that could be characterized as evidencing a center-left orientation. Jewish ethical and social have the concept of tikkun olam, or healing the world, where such concepts - by no means exclusive to a leftist orientation - of justice, righteousness and freedom come together in a vision of the ideal world.

I'm familiar with Chesteron and Distributism and admit that I find much that's good in both.

[Woodsman]

Re: IRS Scandal: It's Okay because they All Do It?

That's a bit stickier. In terms of newspapers, there's The Guardian in the UK, but the opinion is that of late it is more center than left. God knows if there is an American equivalent. Is there a center left in America? I tease, but it seems the center left slid over a few inches to the right the past few decades ;).

Blogs are a bit easier, but again, the center shifts from place to place depending on your perspective. There's Common Dreams, Alternet and Truthdig but I can't rightfully call them center left. The challenge is that rightist and conservative ideas are dominant in America and so most any publication that departs consistently from this inevitably will be characterized as simply left without nuance or qualification. I would characterize The Huffington Post and NPR, for example, as generally center-left (again, by US standards) but I expect that many would disagree with that. Then again, I've heard Time and Newsweek once characterized as center left!

[astonas]

Re: IRS Scandal: It's Okay because they All Do It?

Thanks for the info, Woodsman. Looks Like I have some digging to do.

[BuckarooBanzai]

Re: IRS Scandal: It's Okay because they All Do It?

I would wholly agree with your assessment. Obama talks a good leftie game, but when the money is involved, e's no lefty, he's part of the kleptocracy. Even his signature ObamaCare is a gift of more cash to big business, and no great sakes for the little guy. Thus I too am continually amazed when the lefties defend him while he implements the same policies of BushII.

Obama is a Marxist; to anyone who bothers to think it through, it's obvious based on who raised him, where he was raised, and who his early-life mentors are. His entire life history from age 18 to when he became a US Senator is completely obscured; there is a reason for that. He would be completely unelectable otherwise. It's the "dog that didn't bark," for you Sherlock Holmes fans.

Obama isn't part of the kleptocracy, as far as it goes. He simply subscribes to the practical realities of implementing a Marxist state on top of a formerly free market state: you give the capitalists plenty of rope to hang themselves.

Obama-- or should I say, Obama's handlers-- are very good at separating the ideological from the practical. They use their communist ideology to advance the security state, to advance the indoctrination system (K-12 and higher education), and to nationalize the economy (empower the fed, turn the healthcare system into a ward of the state, etc etc). But they are eager to work with corporate interests in the short term in any way that helps those corporate interests advance a long-term communist agenda that will, of course ultimately prove antithetical to the corporate system at large. This is absurdly easy for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is corporate America's inability to focus longer than 3 months into the future.

Obama has done outstanding work in destroying the USA over the last 4 years. The fact that so few people recognize this fact is a testament to the success he has had. I find it interesting that he has hit so many stumbling blocks recently; Obama's opposition has been so utterly incompetent to date that I am forced to conclude that his handlers might be dissatisfied with him in some way, and are either testing him, or maybe even throwing him under the bus. This seems unlikely, and the optimistic part of me wants to believe that there is a remnant of patriots inside the federal govt and/or military that are finally making some headway. Maybe it took them 4 years to find each other, because it is certain that the mainstream opposition (Republican party) has been completely co-opted, neutered, or outright hijacked.

[astonas]

Re: IRS Scandal: It's Okay because they All Do It?

I would wholly agree with your assessment. Obama talks a good leftie game, but when the money is involved, e's no lefty, he's part of the kleptocracy. Even his signature ObamaCare is a gift of more cash to big business, and no great sakes for the little guy. Thus I too am continually amazed when the lefties defend him while he implements the same policies of BushII.

I suspect the reason he gets as much latitude as he does is the persistence of memories of the Bush/Cheney disaster. But as those memories continue to fade, Obama will increasingly be seen and remembered as a disappointment, even by the left. That's to some extent no surprise, given how high the expectations started out, but I think in time he won't even be seen as mediocre. He really has continued to entrench and enhance regulatory capture, and the domestic security apparatus, which lots of people started out thinking he would dismantle.

His career, like so many, peaked the moment he got a Nobel Prize.

[lektrode]

Re: IRS Scandal: It's Okay because they All Do It?

I suspect the reason he gets as much latitude as he does is the persistence of memories of the Bush/Cheney disaster.

that and the collective amnesia of most of the chattering class, esp the lamestream media - who cant seem to find much of _anything_ to complain about - well, cept maybe few of em

But as those memories continue to fade, Obama will increasingly be seen and remembered as a disappointment, even by the left. That's to some extent no surprise, given how high the expectations started out, but I think in time he won't even be seen as mediocre.

+1
but increasingly?
i'm waiting for the (latest) WPE award

esp after this little commentary...

He really has continued to entrench and enhance regulatory capture, and the domestic security apparatus, which lots of people started out thinking he would dismantle.

His career, like so many, peaked the moment he got a Nobel Prize.

ahh... that explains a few things purrrfectly...