Think he struck a nerve?

[shiny!]

The autograph line for Mark Levin's book, The Liberty Amendments, stretches on... and on... and on...

Has anyone here read it?

[lektrode]

Re: Think he struck a nerve?

The autograph line for Mark Levin's book, The Liberty Amendments, stretches on... and on... and on...

Has anyone here read it?

HILARIOUS!!! (in a good way, 'for a change we can believe in' )

MARK R. LEVIN HAS MADE THE CASE, IN NUMEROUS NEW YORK TIMES BESTSELLING BOOKS—MEN IN BLACK, LIBERTY AND TYRANNY, AND AMERITOPIA—THAT THE PRINCIPLES UNDERGIRDING OUR SOCIETY AND GOVERNMENTAL SYSTEM ARE UNRAVELING. IN THE LIBERTY AMENDMENTS, HE TURNS TO THE FOUNDING FATHERS AND THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF FOR GUIDANCE IN RESTORING THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.



For a century, the Statists have steadfastly constructed a federal Leviathan, distorting and evading our constitutional system in pursuit of an all-powerful, ubiquitous central government. The result is an ongoing and growing assault on individual liberty, state sovereignty, and the social compact

and i think a very strong case can be made that all this began, exactly 100 years ago -

when, once again, not coincidently(?)- a certain political group held power in all 3 branches of the .gov (just like in 2009/10 )

its also of note, that the last state to RATify this amendment is none other than the same one, that to this day -
STILL has no sales tax and no income tax...

and NO SEATBELT LAW (for adults over 18)

that would be the ole LIVE FREE OR DIE state, somewhat ironically named, that is for them who's doing everything in their power to muck up even this last vestige of freedom

[think365]

Re: Think he struck a nerve?

I haven't read it yet, but will. In the meantime, here is a review from a reader on Amazon which does a decent job of sumarizaing what the book is about:

Mark Levin is a radio host and a Constitutional scholar. Invoking Article V of the Constitution, which sets out methods for amendments, Levin has proposed a number of changes to term limits, taxation, restoring states' power and more.

Currrently, states' powers have been almost completely overruled by Federal laws and mandates, debt is out of control, stretching past two generations of American's ability to pay it off. Government spending is a significant proportion of GDP and the GDP itself is stagnating; is this caused by the heavy burden of non-productive government spending? Government regulation has even gone so far as to dictate what kind of light bulb can be manufactured and sold and choices in healthcare may soon be dictated by unelected bureaucrats. For those who think that this kind of centralized power is dangerous and even tyrannical, Levin's amendments seek to address the power that the Federal government has arrogated unto itself, a power that never was the original intent of the Founding Fathers and which reduces individual liberty significantly.

Levin's amendments include:

1. Term limits, including for justices.
2. Repealing Amendment 17 and returning the election of senators to state legislatures
3. A congressional supermajority to override Supreme Court decisions (overruling what could be a stacked court)
4. Spending limit based on GDP
5. Taxation capped at 15%
6. Limiting the commerce clause, and strengthening private property rights
7. Power of states to override a federal statute by a three-fifths vote.

These ideas will be opposed by those who favor central planning and a very powerful federal government, who believe that a few should decide the fate of many, who like the current system and the way it's headed. It will also be ignored by those who think that there is too much inertia to oppose the direction we're headed. It's true there are powerful forces at work fundamentally transforming the nation, but it's also true that there is a plurality of opinion throughout the US. For those who wonder how we've gotten to where we are presently, and how we might restore personal liberty and more localized government, where we have MORE of a say, not less, this is a very important book and worth reading and discussing.

[Forrest]

Re: Think he struck a nerve?

I agree with the amendments, but I see a really bad case of writer's cramp for Levine.

[vt]

Re: Think he struck a nerve?

Levine understands the constitution better than Obama; Mark conveys a much deeper knowledge of what the meaning of the document is and it's history.

[Woodsman]

Re: Think he struck a nerve?

Yes, he struck a nerve in the conservative choir as he always does.

It works like this:

1. Mark writes a book.
2. Threshold Editions - not coincidentally the publisher of his dad Jack Levin's books - prints it up and distributes it.

Note that Threshold is an imprint that specializes in conservative authors and counts in its stable the likes of Karl Rove, Herman Cain, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Christopher Buckley, Reid Buckley, Dick Cheney, Lynne Cheney, Mary Cheney, S.E. Cupp, Arthur B. Laffer and Stephen Moore.

3. Rush and Sean tell their audience what a masterpiece it is and that they should run out and by two today.
4. Audience reflexively complies and then

a. Reads it in a day (half a day if you skip the large block quotes).

b. Enjoys the warm, easy feeling of satisfaction at having their biases confirmed.

c. Carries on with their world view and premises unchallenged.

5. Mark cashes check and begins thinking about his next book.

Levin is not a political philosopher or even an analyst. He's a polemicist, a propagandist and a one trick pony. Read one and you've read them all, literally, as he loves to quote himself extensively. I read "Ameritopia" (from the $1 remainder bin at B&N) and I'm still annoyed that I won't ever get those hours back.

Friends, not a single page from Levin's output rises to the level of thought we read daily here at iTulip from EJ and the Select members. What I read was a colossally bad, ideologically driven mishmash of selective quotes and misquotes, misinterpretations and outright mischaracterizations intended to convince the innumerate that 2+2 indeed equals five.

For instance, Mark blames Plato for providing the intellectual foundations of our present crisis. Of course, it seems Mark has only read "Republic" and conveniently leaves out every quote or idea that doesn't portray Plato (and Karl Popper, of all people) as a proto-Stalinist. Anyone with an undergraduate's knowledge of Plato's (or Popper's) ideas would quickly see the book as essentially useless and move on. Mark, for instance, sees the roots of Islamic fundamentalism as emanating from the "Republic". Oh brother.

This in my opinion characterizes Mark's work. It, like the rest of Threshold's output, is expertly crafted to address a specific target and ignores pretty much everyone else. That might be great publishing and make for lots of cabbage, but it's lousy political theory and philosophy.

And who are the targets (or more accurately, the marks)? They are the denizens of talk radio and Fox News - the legions of easily irritated, low information conservatives whose thinking is entirely bounded within an ideological snow globe - hermetically sealed, transparent and easily shaken up, simple in composition and low on detail.

If I can make a humble suggestion, the next time you want a read that seeks to take a comprehensive look at some of the themes that Mark likes to scream about, consider Morris Berman's "American" series and perhaps his "Question of Values."

[shiny!]

Re: Think he struck a nerve?

Yes, he struck a nerve in the conservative choir as he always does.

It works like this:

1. Mark writes a book.
2. Threshold Editions - not coincidentally the publisher of his dad Jack Levin's books - prints it up and distributes it.

Note that Threshold is an imprint that specializes in conservative authors and counts in its stable the likes of Karl Rove, Herman Cain, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Christopher Buckley, Reid Buckley, Dick Cheney, Lynne Cheney, Mary Cheney, S.E. Cupp, Arthur B. Laffer and Stephen Moore.

3. Rush and Sean tell their audience what a masterpiece it is and that they should run out and by two today.
4. Audience reflexively complies and then

a. Reads it in a day (half a day if you skip the large block quotes).

b. Enjoys the warm, easy feeling of satisfaction at having their biases confirmed.

c. Carries on with their world view and premises unchallenged.

5. Mark cashes check and begins thinking about his next book.

Levin is not a political philosopher or even an analyst. He's a polemicist, a propagandist and a one trick pony. Read one and you've read them all, literally, as he loves to quote himself extensively. I read "Ameritopia" (from the $1 remainder bin at B&N) and I'm still annoyed that I won't ever get those hours back.

Friends, not a single page from Levin's output rises to the level of thought we read daily here at iTulip from EJ and the Select members. What I read was a colossally bad, ideologically driven mishmash of selective quotes and misquotes, misinterpretations and outright mischaracterizations intended to convince the innumerate that 2+2 indeed equals five.

For instance, Mark blames Plato for providing the intellectual foundations of our present crisis. Of course, it seems Mark has only read "Republic" and conveniently leaves out every quote or idea that doesn't portray Plato (and Karl Popper, of all people) as a proto-Stalinist. Anyone with an undergraduate's knowledge of Plato's (or Popper's) ideas would quickly see the book as essentially useless and move on. Mark, for instance, sees the roots of Islamic fundamentalism as emanating from the "Republic". Oh brother.

This in my opinion characterizes Mark's work. It, like the rest of Threshold's output, is expertly crafted to address a specific target and ignores pretty much everyone else. That might be great publishing and make for lots of cabbage, but it's lousy political theory and philosophy.

And who are the targets (or more accurately, the marks)? They are the denizens of talk radio and Fox News - the legions of easily irritated, low information conservatives whose thinking is entirely bounded within an ideological snow globe - hermetically sealed, transparent and easily shaken up, simple in composition and low on detail.

If I can make a humble suggestion, the next time you want a read that seeks to take a comprehensive look at some of the themes that Mark likes to scream about, consider Morris Berman's "American" series and perhaps his "Question of Values."

Thank you, Woodsman. I was afraid of this. Most of what's being published or aired in the political field these days is nothing more than pandering to people who want their biases confirmed; those ideological snowglobe thinkers, whether they be conservative or liberal. It's a great image. I'm going to steal your phrase and call them snowglobe thinkers from now on. Thanks also for the book recommendations.

[lektrode]

Re: Think he struck a nerve?

Thank you, Woodsman. I was afraid of this. Most of what's being published or aired in the political field these days is nothing more than pandering to people who want their biases confirmed; those ideological snowglobe thinkers, whether they be conservative of liberal. It's a great image. I'm going to steal your phrase and call them snowglobe thinkers from now on. Thanks also for the book recommendations.

+1
altho i enjoy having my biases challenged rather than confirmed (why i watch PBS news, not fox, the few times a month i actually watch tv news) - and woody certainly does that _very_ well - his review here is precisely what i expected - now we need, as paul harvey used to say: The Other Side of The Story.

[Woodsman]

Re: Think he struck a nerve?

Remember that old Kinks song, "Predictable"? Guess I'm a one trick pony, too.

I mean, we talk about this enough and it gets to the point where people start to act as if there exists these things called "conservative truths" and "liberal truths" too. If I could find someway to excise those words from my language I would, but then what else to use?

As for the rest of the story, I'd love to see it. But what if the other side of the story is just as I suggest?

Can all political questions be phrased in a dualist, either/or, conservative/liberal fashion? Is that even preferable? And does limiting debate to two predicable sides and only two make it more easy or less easy to frame the narratives to exclude certain POVs? Does this framing limit solutions to only those acceptable to the defenders of the status quo?

And why is it that someone like Mark Levin can be granted a national radio audience, be provided opportunities to publish and distribute nationally, gain support from moneyed interests to fund foundations and non-profits, yet still have such demonstrably weak arguments and such a peculiarly ahistorical view of events? Yet a man like Berman, whose scholarly credentials speak for themselves, works in utter anonimity without a radio show, a book marketing machine, and no foundation or think tank who will touch him?

If Mark thinks the mainstream "liberal" media are ignoring his work, well he's in good company with the likes of Berman and Sheldon Wolin. But Berman won't be invited on Rush, Sean won't recommend his books, and the Kochs won't fund a think tank for him to lead. And yet all this is done for Levin and so much more. If the media is so liberal, then why isn't someone like Berman or Sheldon Wolin or Chris Hedges front and center every day?

[vt]

Re: Think he struck a nerve?

Well other than FOX the media IS liberal:

MSNBC, NBC,CBS, ABC, CNN, NYT, Washington Post, etc., etc., etc.

But unlike the authors you cite the MSM is dedicated to sound bites so they don't lose the low information listeners to boredom.
(There are low information listeners on both sides of the political spectrum). You have to have sound bites and marketing of media personalities to pay for all the FIRE and ohter oligarchic industry advertising that pay the big bucks to the MSM.

[lektrode]

Re: Think he struck a nerve?

Well other than FOX the media IS liberal:

.... have to have sound bites and marketing of media personalities to pay for all the FIRE and ohter oligarchic industry advertising that pay the big bucks to the MSM.

+100

which then 'forces' the political class to raise BILLIONS to campaign for (re) election every 2 years (even on the 4yr sched)
which then flows _directly_ to.....

ta da!!

that very same lamestream media industrial-complex and their bunch of (vastly) overpaid 'personalities' (talking heads, chosen for their photogenics, vs their journalistic abilities, never mind their selective-amnesia on any topic that doesnt advance The Agenda)

and THEN we get to hear all about how their 'news' (propaganda, designed to stir up the 'activist' industrial-complex) is somehow sacrosanct and 'threatened' by outfits like fox??? (or levin's backers/publishers...)

uh huh....

and the same crowd typically bitches about the 'undue influence' of religion in politix
(esp the 'rightwing' vers, but certainly NOT the PC variety - no siree) etc, when IMO,
its CELEBRITY WORSHIP that causes far more damage...

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Think he struck a nerve?

Always have to laugh whenever someone claims the Washington Post is liberal.

Fred Hyatt and the Editorial page? Nope*
Publisher Katherine Weymouth? Nope**
Technocrat Marcus Brauchli? Hardly


*During this time The Post has also taken traditionally conservative or neoconservative positions on numerous issues: economically, it has defended a Republican initiative to allow Social Security personal retirement accounts, and has advocated for several free trade agreements. With respect to foreign policy, it supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq, penning 27 editorials supporting the invasion.

**On July 3, 2009, The Politico website uncovered the story that Weymouth had planned a series of exclusive dinner parties or "salons" at her private residence, to which she had invited prominent lobbyists, trade group members, politicians and business people. The cost of attendance to the parties was up to $250,000 per individual, with the events being closed to the press and the public. Politico's revelation sparked controversy in Washington, as it gave the impression the parties' sole purpose was to allow a select group of Washington insiders and business people to purchase face time with Post reporters.

[vt]

Re: Think he struck a nerve?

The Post has ebbed and flowed between one of the more liberal to being more balanced in the 55 years I've been a subscriber. But over the past 5 years the slant has definitely been to the more liberal agenda:

"In a November 16, 2008, column, The Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell stated: "I'll bet that most Post journalists voted for Obama. I did. There are centrists at The Postas well. But the conservatives I know here feel so outnumbered that they don't even want to be quoted by name in a memo".^[53] Responding to criticism of the newspaper's coverage during the run-up to the 2008 presidential election, Howell wrote: "The opinion pages have strong conservative voices; the editorial board includes centrists and conservatives; and there were editorials critical of Obama. Yet opinion was still weighted toward Obama. It's not hard to see why conservatives feel disrespected".^[53] According to a 2009 publication, in the blogging community, liberal bloggers link to the Washington Post and New York Times more often than other major newspapers; however, conservative bloggers also link predominantly to liberal newspapers.^[54]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Post

The New York Times is a complete lost cause for balance.

[lektrode]

Re: Think he struck a nerve?

guess it would be quite interesting - considering who's looking to become their boss - unless'n a'course he fires em all - (never mind who's on the ABOD, noted in bold, about 1/2 way thru the burton op/ed) - to know who was invited to these little soiree's ?

but it never occurred to me the wapo was 'liberal' - other than the fact that another paper/site that eye frequent has suddenly started to feature wapo op/eds on the left-side of their own op/ed page ?? (with krugman quite prominenly/frequently on the other side of the spread)

but what do i know...

[Woodsman]

Re: Think he struck a nerve?

With liberals like this, who needs conservatives?

"Bomb Syria, Even if it is Illegal
There are moral reasons for disregarding the law, and I believe the Obama administration should intervene in Syria. But it should not pretend that there is a legal justification in existing law. Secretary of State John Kerry seemed to do just that on Monday, when he said of the use of chemical weapons, “This international norm cannot be violated without consequences.” His use of the word “norm,” instead of “law,” is telling."