The New YouTube Populists: Michele Bachmann and Alan Grayson
In his book, The Populist Persuasion, Michael Kazin defines populism this way:
a language whose speakers conceive of ordinary people as a noble assemblage not bounded narrowly by class, view their elite opponents as self-serving and undemocratic, and seek to mobilize the former against the latter.
America has, of course, been rife with this stuff from the beginning, when we kicked out the Brits, through such stump stompers as Huey Long to the current exponents of the craft like Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck and, yes, even Barack Obama. The us-against-them view, in which the powerful are swindling the powerless, is both clearly anchored in historical fact and easily exploited to justify ideas that are not clearly anchored in historical fact.
But the times are also changing. There is a good graduate thesis to be written about the effect of a changing media landscape on populism. The Internet itself--with its empowerment of the rabble to the detriment of the powerful, e.g. any Swampland comment thread--is an inherently populist medium. At the same time, the ideological polarization of corporate-owned journalism--see Fox News, MSNBC--plays heavily on populist themes. And so we get breakout stars of Congress like Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., and Rep. Alan Grayson, D-Fla., who are new media populists to their core.
In the current issue of TIME magazine--subscribe here for $1.99--Jay Newton-Small and I look at how Bachmann and Grayson have exceeded expectations.
In another era, strident politicians on the ideological edges found themselves marginalized once they got to Washington, where power accrues to longevity--and longevity tends to mellow. But Grayson and Bachmann found a back door.
Populists have been doing it for years--telling the common man that politicians are against them or that the political process is a farce. The difference today is that politicians no longer need to broaden their appeal beyond a committed, activist base. And they know more precisely than ever what the base wants. The soapbox, which became the sound bite, thanks to radio and television, has gone interactive. If you say it today, the audience will come to you. "There is an interactive element to this. I spend enough time online to figure out what people are thinking," explains Grayson. "I think what the Internet has done is to make mass politicking something that can also be microtargeted."
Read the entire story online here.
For examples of YouTube Populism in action, click below.
-
1
Of course, your thesis doesn't really explain the pure entertainment factor. Michelle Bachman has much more to offer those who simply want to point fingers and laugh at the idiocy of their enemies. You have to admit that the right has much more of those kinds of buffoons on their side, especially since batsh#t crazy seems all you've got left.
.
Perhaps you might want to encourage fewer homeschoolers because its turning out to create an over abundance of grist for the mill.-
1.1
Michelle Bachman has much more to offer those who simply want to point fingers and laugh at the idiocy of their enemies
-
Sadly, Alan Grayson isn't much better. While I feel that the right tends to idolize their wingnuts instead of marginalize them, the left does produce their fair share of lunacy. The Truthers are a good example of this.
-
-
2
This is a better Grayson video.
Grayson is definitely a populist. And he doesn't always choose his words well, as he proved this week.
But he is a serious, intelligent person. Bachmann, on the other hand, is a lunatic, and many in her own party view her as such.
-
2.1
I think the Bachmann comment that:
.
...isn't it an interesting coincidence that the last Swine Flu epidemic was in 1970's during the Carter administration? Just sayin'...
.
YouTube Link
.
...says all you need to know about MB.
.
The fact that the outbreak occurred in 1976 during the Ford administration is of no concern to MB.
.
It's one thing to puch the envelope. It's another to LIE.
-
-
3
Thank goodness you wound up by saying that Obama does bad things too, by your lights - I would hate to think you missed a chance to snipe at him even though the subject of the article is two house members and he never even served in the House.
As to Bachmann, Bob Somerby beat you to it, and - surprise - did it better even though he was criticizing a NY Times profile. He raised appropriate questions. The Bachmann part is in the second part.
-
4
Richard Hofstadter is rolling in his grave.
.
Curious why you've got a direct quote from Grayson and only a quote from Bachmann's spokeswoman? Did she fear Time magazine's imaginary liberal bias? Or was it because while Grayson can say intelligent things like: "There is an interactive element to this. I spend enough time online to figure out what people are thinking," explains Grayson. "I think what the Internet has done is to make mass politicking something that can also be microtargeted," while Bachmann can only say things like “This [health care reform] cannot pass…What we have to do today is make a covenant, to slit our wrists, be blood brothers on this thing."
.
Pretty clear difference here: Grayson = populist. Bachmann = cult leader. -
5
Alan Grayson is a wacky populist. Michelle Bachman is a lying nutcase...
-
6
"The internet itself--with the empowerment of the rabble"
Uh, that would be us, the unwashed hordes. Exploring the joys of masochism are we MS? If that wasn't a plea for punishment I don't know what would be.
-
7
Michael, you have a "D" after Bachmann's name, FYI.
-
7.1
In this case, I believe it stands for "Dumb as a bush"
-
-
8
In another era, strident politicians on the ideological edges found themselves marginalized once they got to Washington, where power accrues to longevity--and longevity tends to mellow.
You might tell Barry Goldwater or Jesse Helms or Strom Thurmond that they need to mellow their strident racism that teeters at the edge of a sick ideology that their careers are going to be short.
-
9
If Bachmann is a Democrat. I'm so glad I left that crazy party.
-
-
9.2
I'm sure it means demented, not democrat.
-
-
10
"Rep. Michele Bachmann, D-Minn"
.
All those hours watching FNC and Glen Beck have had an effect. -
11
Don't. Feed. The. Troll.
-
11.1
Who's the troll? I've been up for over 25 hours and everybody looks a little strange to me.
-
-
12
Michael, a serious question. I know all reporting must have a both sides component to it. That being said, Michelle Bachmann is quite probably insane. Grayson is a rabble rouser who says inappropriate things at times.
.
It is not exactly a parallel. Also, pretending MSNBC (3 hours of Morning Joe) is an exact parallel of Fox news is another inexact metric.
.
Apparently, you all are contractually, spiritually, or legally bound to do these kind of things. A better example would be say comparing Michelle Bachmann to ex Atlanta Congress woman Cynthia McKinney. I would buy that one. But Grayson and Bachmann, is as they would say nutty as all get out. Grayson is not. I am not suggesting all conservatives are nutty. Bachmann is nutty, and you would not dare mention it.
.
As a serious dialogue, why can't you call nutty people out for being crazy, and why more of the he said/she said, this side and the other stuff? Just curious.-
12.1
I am saying Grayson and Bachmann, and separately MSNBC and Fox, are characteristic of the same trends, not that they are equivalent.
Like the difference between saying that Apples and Oranges are both fruits, and saying that the both taste the same.
-
12.2
Thank you so much for responding to commentary, Michael Scherer.
-
12.3
You're splitting hairs here to justify more of your compulsive phony equivalency. Your piece focuses on the similarities while ignoring the difference between a self-focused (moatly) truth teller and a guano-insane habitual liar.
Rationalize this bull$#!t "balance" all you like, MS. It still illustrates the absolute worst component of Village scribbling.
-
-
13
While you're exploring the theme of populism perhaps you'd care to take a look at the actual villians that end being cartoonishly depicted.
.
I'm willing to assert that there are two separate ways to be considered a member of the 'elite'. That is to be either Smart or Rich. Stirring up anger against rich people may create some moments of comedy but I happen to think that stirring up anger against smart people is downright dangerous.
.
When people are actively proud to believe things that are provably false, then we listen to what they have to say at our peril. -
14
Hey Michael, your last couple of articles have been joint articles. What's that like, do you enjoy working with JNS, KT, or others? Who does what? How much input do you give to the other's part and final say and what not? Just curious on the ins and outs of the journalism world.
-
15
Michael Scherer:
politicians on the ideological edges found themselves marginalized once they got to Washington, where power accrues to longevity--and longevity tends to mellow
It seems as if you are conflating populism with extremism, aren't you?
.
Isn't that premise --that populism is necessarily a function of (left or right) ideological extremes, or partisan extremes-- an ideological position itself?
.
Isn't it the position held by ideological centrists...and the professional ideology of the press corps?Populists have been doing it for years--telling the common man that politicians are against them or that the political process is a farce.
Is there something extreme about that position, i.e. is a position "on the ideological edges" inherent in that critique ?
.
Aren't you (perhaps unintentionally) demonstrating the politicization of the press corps' tendency to enforce the borders of what your friend Jay Rosen calls "the sphere of legitimate debate"?In the age of mass media, the press was able to define the sphere of legitimate debate with relative ease because the people on the receiving end were atomized-- connected "up" to Big Media but not across to each other. And now that authority is eroding.
.
1.) The sphere of legitimate debate is the one journalists recognize as real, normal, everyday terrain. They think of their work as taking place almost exclusively within this space. (It doesn't, but they think so.) Hallin: “This is the region of electoral contests and legislative debates, of issues recognized as such by the major established actors of the American political process.”
.
Here the two-party system reigns, and the news agenda is what the people in power are likely to have on their agenda. Perhaps the purest expression of this sphere is Washington Week on PBS, where journalists discuss what the two-party system defines as “the issues.” Objectivity and balance are “the supreme journalistic virtues” for the panelists on Washington Week because when there is legitimate debate it's hard to know where the truth lies. There are risks in saying that truth lies with one faction in the debate, as against another— even when it does. He said, she said journalism is like the bad seed of this sphere, but also a logical outcome of it.
.
2. ) The sphere of consensus is the “motherhood and apple pie” of politics, the things on which everyone is thought to agree. Propositions that are seen as uncontroversial to the point of boring, true to the point of self-evident, or so widely-held that they're almost universal lie within this sphere. Here, Hallin writes, “journalists do not feel compelled either to present opposing views or to remain disinterested observers.” (Which means that anyone whose basic views lie outside the sphere of consensus will experience the press not just as biased but savagely so.)
.
Consensus in American politics begins, of course, with the United States Constitution, but it includes other propositions too, like “Lincoln was a great president,” and “it doesn't matter where you come from, you can succeed in America.” Whereas journalists equate ideology with the clash of programs and parties in the debate sphere, academics know that the consensus or background sphere is almost pure ideology: the American creed.
.
3.) In the sphere of deviance we find “political actors and views which journalists and the political mainstream of society reject as unworthy of being heard.” As in the sphere of consensus, neutrality isn't the watchword here; journalists maintain order by either keeping the deviant out of the news entirely or identifying it within the news frame as unacceptable, radical, or just plain impossible. The press “plays the role of exposing, condemning, or excluding from the public agenda” the deviant view, says Hallin. It “marks out and defends the limits of acceptable political conduct.”You make the assertion that
Populists have been doing it for years--telling the common man that politicians are against them or that the political process is a farce.
.
The difference today is that politicians no longer need to broaden their appeal beyond a committed, activist base..
Are you seriously contending that only members of "a committed activist base" have minimal confidence in our current elite political institutions, including the Beltway press corps?
.
Have you seen Congress' approval numbers recently?
.
Have you seen yours?
.
Isn't it a perfectly reasonable, perfectly moderate --albeit populist-- position to take that "that politicians are against" common peoples' interests at any given time, "or that the political process is a farce."? Isn't it also perfectly reasonable to posit that the establishment press corps is an integral piece in that flawed, farcical process?
.
Isn't it an example of ideological rigidity to define away popular alienation from the state and other institutional powers as demagoguery?
.
Isn't the tendency for mainstream American journalists to write themselves and their vigilant maintenance of the definitions of "extreme" and "ideological edge" out of the political picture an extreme position that very few of your fellow citizens hold? Isn't pretending you don't know things when you do...you know, ideological?
.
Isn't the extreme application of your (the press corps') own ideology on display here, Michael Scherer?
.
...Or are you not somehow permitted to write about that?-
15.1
Don't have time now to respond to all your good questions. but i use the word "populism" here to describe a tactic, which is effective in this modern age. No doubt Obama populism--we are going to change washington, transform politics, etc--is different than Bachmann or Beck or Grayson populism.
As for the Rosen critique, I'd have to think about it. Think both Grayson and Bachmann are objectively outliers in style and approach, and suppose that my pointing that out brings a value judgement. Not sure if it follows, however, that this is oppression-by-media, because both Grayson and Bachmann are in many ways creatures of the same media.
-
15.2
Michael Scherer:
.
Thank you very much for taking the time to read through and respond to my commentary.
.
With respect to:both Grayson and Bachmann are in many ways creatures of the same media
, not to be contrary for its own sake, but isn't the point of your piece that they are not merely manifestations of the traditional media:
The soapbox, which became the sound bite, thanks to radio and television, has gone interactive. If you say it today, the audience will come to you.
?
.
Anyway, I hope that you do think about it, especially your notion that there is style and approach that are "objectively outliers", i.e. that would somehow be both popular and marginal in a theoretical world in which there didn't exists an establishment political press corps that felt the need to create or enforce the boundaries of acceptability in our public discourse.
.
Thanks again for the good faith response to Socratic inquiry, Michael Scherer. -
15.3
Stuart,
.
I thoroughly enjoyed reading your essay, especially the quotes and observations about the MSM's gatekeeping of the current two-party system in America.
.
Dunno if you've been keeping track, but in the recent federal elections in Germany, both the left-wing "Die Linken" and the right-wing "FDP" parties made significant parlamentary gains - into the double digits - at the expense of the conservative CDU/CSU and, more so, the liberal SDP.
.
Upon reflection (yet again), it's hard to imagine a scenario in which a 3rd or (dare I say it!) 4th party would/could emerge in the US. I have blamed this situation on the 2 parties, and I still believe this to be (mostly) the case.
.
However, your piece draws attention to the fact that the 2 parties' exclusionary practices are aided and abetted by the media!
.
And, sad to say, the YouTubes, which could in so many ways be the conduit for Mr. Smith - the common man - to get to Washington, are apparently seen by the Gatekeepers as a populist attempt by the citizenry to end-around the media, and, thus, deny the MSM of their rightful place as annointers of Serious People in Government.
.
Time to find some bourbon... -
15.4
kbanginmotown:
.
Thanks so much for taking the time to read my entire comment. -
15.5
Come on - the two party system isn't maintained by the press. We elect representatives by a plurality of votes - there is no proportional representation. This naturally leads to a two party system.
-
15.6
Stuart, Right they are creatures of online populism and "controversy" magnification by the big media. But Rosen's formulation mostly describes an older model of the media as a mainstream outlet, a model which TIME still basically subscribes to, but which much of the rest of corporate media does not. So Rosen's "sphere of deviance" idea probably has to be adjusted for large corporate mass media organizations that are no longer playing referee but embracing, and therefore, magnifying deviance of one sort or another. Here I am thinking, obviously, of FOX which is eager to embrace Bachmann and MSNBC which is eager to embrace Grayson. This behavior is caused by the same atomization trends that Rosen trumpets. So the difference between old and new, big and small, media blurs.
-
15.7
The sickest and most destructive aspect of the "sphere of deviance" is the corporate media's utter failure to truthfully identify “political actors and views which journalists and the political mainstream of society [should] reject as unworthy of being heard.” FOX is leading the pack in that sort of moral and journalistic deviance. MSNBC is a much better example, that you should lump them together tells us exactly where your sphere is.
-
15.8
Michael Scherer.
.
Not to make you come back here and read this, but I agree with you that:Rosen's "sphere of deviance" idea probably has to be adjusted for large corporate mass media organizations that are no longer playing referee but embracing, and therefore, magnifying deviance of one sort or another.
, and that "adjusted" is the correct term.
.
Thanks again.
-
-
16
I'll check out Kazin, but you're not quite accurate here. Grayson's something -- maybe a populist, maybe a lefty, maybe just a screamer, but Bachmann is something very different.
You'd be much more accurate here to describe her (or Beck) as a "Patriot" or a "Constitutionalist." Note the use of upper case. These are very specific groups w/ a very particular canon, and Bachmann's babblings are chapter and verse from the canon, which includes:
- The gov't is a gangster operation which exists only to steal the little people's money
- The Federal Reserve is unconstitutional
- The Fed uses inflation as a means to steal from the public
- The 16th Amendment (Income Tax) was never properly ratified and thus the Federal income tax is illegal
- Gov't by the common man (read: Joe the Plummer) was really what Madison envisioned.
- Obama's not an American citizen, and this itself has thrown us into a constitutional crisis
- Gun rights are sacrosanct (natch)
- Bill Clinton was a serial rapist, drug runner, and murderer (ie, Vince Foster...and possibly many others!)
- FDR was a socialist and stole US citizen's gold (this last is kinda sorta accurate, btw)
- Trilateral Commission, Bilderburg, etc, are manifestations of a shadowy New World Order overseen by George Soros and others
- etc etcI make no comment as to whether I think these Teabaggers are crazy or not -- I just report; you decide.
But they're not populists.
-
16.1
But they're not populists.
.
Sure they're populists.
.
They're just rightists, too.
.
Part of the issue with traditional Marxist-derivative critiques of the right (not saying that's you, just saying) is that these people are merely unconscious pawns of authority, when in reality they're not.
.
The grass roots rightsts are just as populist as this guy: link, just as organically manifested, just as deeply connected to ordinary people.
.
Some populists are more correct, more in touch with reality, more committed to empiricism, more devoted to enlightenment-era progress, more deeply connected to what works than others. The rightists in Kansas who reject natural selection theory being taught in biology class to their kids are populists.
.
The popular right is the popular right. -
16.2
Fair enough. One is a subset of the other.
I think what I was trying to get at, though, is that at the extreme edges there's a difference. For instance, standard run-of-the-mill populism has probably been around since the 1st government was formed, and it's usually a variety of unfocused grievances: "the gov't sucks, wall street sucks, taxes suck, the big guys are screwing the little guy," whereas Bachmann has embraced a very specific and particular fringe subculture with its own dogwhistle rallying crys ("gangster gov't", "the founding fathers", "we the people.") and the core belief at the heart of it is not "the gov't sucks," but rather "the gov't is conspiring to kill you."
I think it's a lot more dangerous and, frankly, for a US politician, disgusting.
(And yes, I agree, you could say the same thing about Wright.)
-
16.3
Point taken.
-
-
17
I feel bad for younger people growing up now. They've got two generations of de-evolution to look forward to. Those of us in our 50's have about ten years and then another 10 years when we'll be so heavily medicated that we wouldn't notice an alien abduction.
-
18
Trust me folks, its not an accident that Mickey chose this particular juxtaposition. while Grayson may choose his words less careful than he should on occasion, the purpose of putting him up against Bachmann is to intimate that he is indeed comparing crazies against each other. Mickey, of course is being just a tad disingenuous when he claims not to be doing exactly that. After all there are no coincidences in journalism when they are taught to relay stories using the fewest number of key strokes possible and editing is part of the exercise. If he didn't want to draw that conclusion than Bachman would not have been used. the trouble is that Grayson might be loud and populists but he's also honest and intelligent. He exposes the rights hypocrisy every chance he gets and it would be helpful to paint him as a nut to be ignored.
-
18.1
Dee,
I can appreciate your comments and I agree MS is using the equivancy of Grayson and Bachmann to show that he is "balanced" in going after the left and right.
You point out that Grayson is attacking the hypocrisy of the Right, but you have to admit there is hypocrisy on the Left as well.
I think Grayson is over the top. ("The Republican plan if you get sick is to die soon.") But I like him because Republicans get a case of the vapors whenever he speaks while ignoring how bombastic they are normally in talking about Obama.
I think the difference is that Bachmann is as dumb as rocks. I saw her on Youtube and when one of Obama's cabinet members (I think it was the Secretary of Energy, but I am probably wrong) and when he couldn't answer her question, she thought she had scored some points. The problem was to answer her question, he would have to explain grade school science that even my 3rd grader already knows and it would have taken an hour to explain to her what every middle school kids knows.
Michelle Bachmann is an embarassment for me, being a native of Minnesota. My best friend back home is a very right wing conservative (he's the Nazi, I'm the Communist) and I asked him was there any politician he liked. (I had pointed out that I had a higher opinion of John McCain than he did, but he was going to vote for McCain while I was not.) He told me he only liked two politicians and one was Bachmann.
Personally, I think he was saying that to get my goat. I can only hope he is not that delusional or that stupid.
-
-
19
Scherer is swindling us! That $1.99 subscription is for six weeks and then they charge you $20. It's not a bad deal but they can automatically re-up you forever at whatever price they want if you're say, too busy to know when your subscription is up and, heck... the intro offer is at 33 cents an issue. It then jumps to 70 cents. Again, both good deals but come on Michael! Your link is a clear bait and switch! Bad salesman!
"You authorize TIME to charge your credit/debit or PayPal account now at the price above and then before the start of the first 6-month term (28 issues at $19.95) and, without interruption, for all subsequent terms at the low subscriber rate then in effect unless you tell us to stop. You may cancel at any time during your subscription by contacting customer service and receive a full refund on all unmailed issues. If your credit/debit card or PayPal account cannot be charged, we'll bill you directly instead."
-
19.1
I regularly buy cds and mp3s from music producers I wish to support, even though I can obtain those products at no charge.
.
But what on earth would I do with a magazine?
.
I can't use a magazine at all, and it actually provides negative value for me, since I must physically throw it away.
.
I can't forward the magazine to somebody who I know would like it, I can't copy n paste the magazine into commentary at another magazine, I can't search the magazine, I can't assemble quotes from it, I can't file it in a way that's instantly retrievable, I can't turn it into text-to-speech and listen to it as a podcast when my eyes are occupied, I can't do anything with it except swat at mosquitoes or something unrelated to the content.
.
I "subscribe" to Salon.com, though. They don't make me buy pieces of worthless paper.
.
They also have Glenn Greenwald write for them almost every day. Sometimes he thoughtfully answers my commentary, too. -
19.2
…stuart, this may be a literal case of “the object you desire.” We can choose to read a novel on a kindle or …in a book. We can get around town on a bus, bicycle, econobox car, sports racer, or motorcycle. I spend lots of time online but do prefer the physical handling of books, turning pages, etc., so I own a lot of them …and fave magazines too. Not much TIME though, sorry, although I have KT's family cover story issue. I think there will always be some physical printed media. Remember also that electronic media can get screwed up too. Used-up newspapers and magazines are great for draining fried / grilled foods, wrapping gifts, making crafts, etc. – as many uses as you wish. Maybe it's just whatever we value most.
-
19.3
deconstructiva, I'm with you on this one. I like to have magazines and hold them while I'm reading. Maybe it's my generation. I have thousands of books. We have a library and it's full. One of our living rooms has floor to ceiling bookshelves in it along three walls and they're filled too. I also have dozens of large boxes in a storage room filled with books. This place will go up like a torch if it ever catches on fire.
-
19.4
It sounds like we may be distant relatives, sacredh. I'm not quite to the "ceiling to floor" bookshelves, but I'm young yet, and I don't doubt I'll be there in a few decades.
.
It's to the point where a house looks strange to me if it doesn't have at least a few books sitting around. -
19.5
Cliff, you should see our movie and cd collections. We have over 8000 movies and 3500 cds (5000 if you count the ones we burned from friends).
-
19.6
indeed there is fine print. would recommend that everyone read it. But you can cancel after 6 weeks, and just $1.99.
-
-
20
This is an interesting article but I think the "mainstream" press in general is guilty of this trend as well.
For something to be newsworthy it has to have a broad element of sensationalism attached to it, or these days, no matter how pertinent, it just does not get heard or read.
There are so many things about the Health care bill and the President that are newsworthy BUT they have not been sullied by “death panel screeches” or claims that the President is all charm and no depth so we do not read about such issues and they are never subjected to a thorough analysis.
Okay, the manipulative wolf.. I mean emm person at the helm of “Fox News” (Roger Ailes) was part of the 1968 Nixon Presidential campaign and I am told that he made an art of orchestrated press conferences (among other questionable "press actions") for Candidate Nixon.
However, for some reason, his vitriolic campaign against the Obama administration has not merited any further digging about his past conduct because nothing about his role during the Nixon campaign has been sensationalized by any vocal politician or talking head-- so relevant pertinent issues which will create a clearer picture of the Fox News Network and the objectives of its leadership is not widely discussed nor considered issues worthy of an in depth review.
Despite the negatives though, one thing that amuses me tremendously is that I do not have to look for laughs on the Jay Leno show or on such “funny man” shows, these days everything in so called "Real Media " news has the potential to be downright hilarious or funny (absurd)
. Any minute now, I am expecting Glenn Beck to be featured prominently on this site and elsewhere wearing his underwear on his head and spewing some nonsense or the other about how this somehow relates to the Healthcare bill. I am not kidding either; the claims are getting increasingly outrageous and almost every "talking point" related to this bill and other serious matters, no matter how foolish the claims maybe, is deemed newsworthy and worth debate and analysis. Chaos!!
Meanwhile, daily, it appears real news remains largely marginalized and pertinent matters are frequently glossed over.
*Sigh*, hopefully, following articles like this and some I have seen over the past few days some will focus on "real news" and spend less time on the "pull the plug on grandma" marching band
LM
-
21
Populists have been doing it for years--telling the common man that politicians are against them or that the political process is a farce.
Weird, I thought it was demonstrable fact that politicians are against us and the political process is a farce.
Witness:
.
The Obama Administration dealing behind closed doors with drug companies
.
Near unanimous political support for the War on Drugs
.
The Obama Administration's embrace of Bush-era civil rights violations (in direct contravention of numerous campaign promises)
.
30 GOP politicians voting to keep gang rape covered up
.
High levels of opposition to cutting back orders of F-22s-
21.1
" .. 30 GOP politicians voting to keep gang rape covered up .."
I suppose that none in this gang of 30 has ever been gang-raped.
Laws and Morality: A student at that citadel of enlightenment and activism, UC, Berkeley witnesses a 9-year old girl being raped and subsequently killed by his college friend who stalked her into a ladies' bathroom. He says and does nothing. The student goes on merrily with his studies at UCB.Laws, Society and Alienation: A 15-year old girl in California is beaten, gang raped and left for dead as passerby look and cheer and even join in. The unconscious kid is rushed to emergency. None of the onlookers called the police - or intervene.
The spectators in this crime sport are not charged because the victim is over 14 years old.Did the presence of the onlookers exacerbate the situation?
[Does the presence of, and the cheer from spectators have an effect on the players on the filed? Does the presence of spectators elevate the level of violence in violent sports? If so, shouldn't the spectators be considered 'accessories'?
Why would we charge Osama's driver with anything if he was just a spectator?
The spectators in the rape cases could have done something to put a stop to the crimes or save the victims. They didn't. When is it OK to stand by and watch and when is it not? When is it OK for legislators to (wilfully/implicitly) OK a heinous act?]
-
-
22
" .. empowerment of the rabble to the detriment of the powerful, e.g. any Swampland comment thread--is an inherently populist medium. .. "
Hey!
Did MS just call me a, eh,a, .. a bad word?That is a low blow, MS ...
-
23
[...] activists will walk the halls of Congress in protest of health care reform. Conservative YouTube populist Michele Bachmann described the whole idea on with Fox News's Gretchen Carlson. (Fun fact: Bachmann [...]
- michaelscherer Speaking of Mars, these may be the best lyrics of any non-Dylan song: http://bit.ly/4nfnz5 - 7 hours ago
- michaelscherer Mars is super cool. http://bit.ly/4b0IBH - 8 hours ago
- michaelscherer My favorite newish piece of political rhetoric in Obama's speech today: "waxing political." Sort of like waxing lyrical, except not. - 12 hours ago
Most Popular »
- Sex and 'The Saboteur': Dev Talks Nudity in New Game
- My Life as a "Science Fetishist"
- Top 10 Shows of 2009: The Best, and the Rest
- Is the Public Option Dead? Plus, Amendments That Might Actually Matter
- CNN Poll: Man Made Global Warming Takes a Hit
- A Jobs Speech with Elbows
- The Top 10 Games of 2009
- War of the Supermen: Q&A With Matt Idelson
- Best of the Decade: Sci-Fi Movies
- The PlayStation Turns 15, We Reminisce
- That Viral Thing: Facebook's Secret Code
- College Degrees More Expensive, Worth Less in Job Market
- The Truth Behind the Leaked Climate-Change E-Mails
- Mexico Witness Protection: Corrupt Program, New Killings
- India's Friends: Dinner in the U.S., Dessert in Moscow
- Afghanistan War Surge: Might the Taliban Compromise Now?
- Helicopter Parents: The Backlash Against Overparenting
- Taiwan: World's Lowest Birthrate Could Affect Society
- U.S. Doesn't Know Where bin Laden Is; Time to Let Go
- How Strong Is the Evidence Against Amanda Knox?
Quotes of the Day »
RSS