Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Jonah Goldberg When Did the Rules Change?
When Rome was "falling," did it feel like it? When all of the tasty, leafy fronds started vanishing, did the dinosaurs say, "So this is what extinction looks like"? When British troops signed up for a quick war, they expected to be "home by Christmas." They certainly didn't say "goodbye to all that" -- in the words of Robert Graves -- until long after they realized "all that" had in fact disappeared.
I'm beginning to wonder if the political moment is much, much, more significant than most of us realize. The rules may have changed in ways no one would have predicted two years ago. And perhaps 10 years from now we'll look back on this moment and it will all seem so obvious.
In 2008, American liberalism seemed poised for its comeback. The pendulum of Arthur Schlesinger's "cycle of history" was swinging back toward a new progressive era. Obama would be the liberal Reagan...
As a conservative, I'm very reluctant to believe that the rules change easily or often. And there's no end of explanations for the political climate that would leave the rules intact.
In all, federal lobbyists’ clients spent more than $3.47 billion last year, often driven to Washington, D.C.’s power centers and halls of influence by political issues central to the age: health care reform, financial reform, energy policy.
That figure represents a more than 5 percent increase over $3.3 billion worth of federal lobbying recorded in 2008, the previous all-time annual high for lobbying expenditures. And it comes in a year when a recession persisted, the dollar’s value against major foreign currencies declined and joblessness rates increased.
In 2009's 4th quarter, lobbying expenditures increased nearly 16 percent over 4th quarter levels from 2008, whereas spending only increased about 3 percent from the 3rd quarter of 2008 to the same period in 2009.
The pharmaceutical and health products industry was followed last year in overall lobbying expenditures by business associations ($183 million), oil and gas ($168.4 million) and insurance ($164.2 million). In each case, the 2009 totals are greater than that of 2008. Electric utilities, at $144.4 million, placed fifth, although this industry's 2009 lobbying total is slightly off its 2008 pace.
Jonah Goldberg? Self-Defined Liberal? What?
As a conservative, I'm very reluctant to believe that the rules change easily or often. And there's no end of explanations for the political climate that would leave the rules intact.
The article sucked, it offered no real reasoning as to why the political climate has changed. Liberalism did seem poised for a comeback in 2008. Problem? Turns out the people who were running on such a platform weren't that Liberal in the first place. Turns out the people who were voting for bills and had a majority were not even Liberal for the most part but had no spine. What has happened since 2008 is a good example to anyone watching about how it's not about Liberalism or Conservativism. It's not about Democrats or Republicans. It's about Corporatism.
Federal Lobbying Climbs in 2009 as Lawmakers Execute Aggressive Congressional Agenda - OpenSecrets Blog | OpenSecrets
In all, federal lobbyists clients spent more than $3.47 billion last year, often driven to Washington, D.C.s power centers and halls of influence by political issues central to the age: health care reform, financial reform, energy policy.
That figure represents a more than 5 percent increase over $3.3 billion worth of federal lobbying recorded in 2008, the previous all-time annual high for lobbying expenditures. And it comes in a year when a recession persisted, the dollars value against major foreign currencies declined and joblessness rates increased.
In 2009's 4th quarter, lobbying expenditures increased nearly 16 percent over 4th quarter levels from 2008, whereas spending only increased about 3 percent from the 3rd quarter of 2008 to the same period in 2009.
The pharmaceutical and health products industry was followed last year in overall lobbying expenditures by business associations ($183 million), oil and gas ($168.4 million) and insurance ($164.2 million). In each case, the 2009 totals are greater than that of 2008. Electric utilities, at $144.4 million, placed fifth, although this industry's 2009 lobbying total is slightly off its 2008 pace.
It doesn't take a genius to realize that we the American people have been outfoxed by the Corporations this round.
And I find it amazing to this very day that people allow themselves to be led around like sheep on certain issues as if either party cares. The Democrats had the Congress and Presidency, did this pass Gay Marriage? No. Did they end the War on Drugs? No. The Republicans had Congress, the Supreme Court, AND The Presidency. Did they ban Abortion? No. Did they ban all of these things they want to ban today? No.
Both parties know if anything of actual value got done, then they would no longer be able to control people by having them hope that they will be the ones to do ___.
I haven't been around long in the background that is politics, but it doesn't take a genius to see that. And it doesn't take a partisan talking head like Jonah Goldberg who does nothing but profit off the continued divide to tell anyone that either.
I disagree, not with what you see or that you disagree with his ideas, I stated that up front. I do think it likely that we are in one of those paradigm moments though-which of course is unknown until completed. Unlike some more modest change times, we won't know except in hindsight.
Now did it begin with 9/11 or with 2008 economic collapse or with the elections? Perhaps 2000 elections? Dunno.
Will our country still be a democracy 10 years from now? Under the same parameters? Will there be an overthrow of the government? Will the government dominate to degrees we cannot fathom today?
I disagree, not with what you see or that you disagree with his ideas, I stated that up front. I do think it likely that we are in one of those paradigm moments though-which of course is unknown until completed. Unlike some more modest change times, we won't know except in hindsight.
Now did it begin with 9/11 or with 2008 economic collapse or with the elections? Perhaps 2000 elections? Dunno.
Will our country still be a democracy 10 years from now? Under the same parameters? Will there be an overthrow of the government? Will the government dominate to degrees we cannot fathom today?
No we're not. And here's why:
2000: Conservatives is on the ropes, George W. Bush wins
2004: Liberalism is on the ropes now, Bush wins again.
2008: Liberalism is on the ropes, Obama wins.
2010: Liberalism is on the ropes, GOP probably takes back the House.
Don't you realize it has to do with the Corporations which also happen to control the media? We each go back and forth, back and forth, back and forth. Bush was no Conservative, Obama is no Liberal. Yet, we are told they are such. We are told to believe as such at times from places like Fox News or CNN or whichever.
Government will not dominate overly for one of the last first things you said. They don't want to be overthrown. They'll push people to their point perhaps, but they won't go over. Sure, some people may try to overthrow in the long run, but they'll be put down faster than Old Yeller.
No, what you're looking at in 10 years is a Democracy that people no longer really control. All laws from the bottom up are decided in the backroom, with the American People still trying to get their foot in the door. Though the better question is in the last 110 years if it ever wasn't like that.
In your last paragraph you ask one question that is relevant, my answer is 'no', it hasn't been the same for 100 years. Doesn't mean those in power wouldn't have liked the same, but they didn't have the amount of power over the people. Not through taxes, legislation, arms of enforcement, etc.
Question for me is have we reached or are reaching some unsustainable threshold that will result in drastic change? Violent? Peaceful? Again, I dunno.
The decision of the United States Congress to pass the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 was based on hearings,[19] reports[20] and in part on testimony derived from articles in newspapers owned by William Randolph Hearst, who had significant financial interests in the timber industry, which manufactured his newsprint.[21]
Cannabis activist Jack Herer has researched DuPont and in his 1985 book The Emperor Wears No Clothes, Herer concluded DuPont played a large role in the criminalization of cannabis. In 1938, DuPont patented the processes for creating plastics from coal and oil and a new process for creating paper from wood pulp. If hemp had been largely exploited, Herer believes it would have likely been used to make paper and plastic (nylon), and may have hurt DuPont's profits. Andrew Mellon of the Mellon Bank was DuPont's chief financial backer and was also the Secretary of the Treasury under the Hoover administration. Mellon appointed Harry J. Anslinger, who later became his nephew-in-law, as the head of the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (FBNDD) and the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (FBN), where Anslinger stayed until 1962.[22]
Again, racism was part of the charge against marijuana, as newspapers in 1934 editorialized: Marihuana influences Negroes to look at white people in the eye, step on white mens shadows and look at a white woman twice.
Two other fear-tactic rumors started to spread: one, that Mexicans, Blacks and other foreigners were snaring white children with marijuana; and two, the story of the assassins. Early stories of Marco Polo had told of hasheesh-eaters or hashashin, from which derived the term assassin. In the original stories, these professional killers were given large doses of hashish and brought to the rulers garden (to give them a glimpse of the paradise that awaited them upon successful completion of their mission). Then, after the effects of the drug disappeared, the assassin would fulfill his rulers wishes with cool, calculating loyalty.
In your last paragraph you ask one question that is relevant, my answer is 'no', it hasn't been the same for 100 years. Doesn't mean those in power wouldn't have liked the same, but they didn't have the amount of power over the people. Not through taxes, legislation, arms of enforcement, etc.
Question for me is have we reached or are reaching some unsustainable threshold that will result in drastic change? Violent? Peaceful? Again, I dunno.
No, we haven't reached a threshold. Once the Republicans take back the house, eventually groups like the tea party will disappear satisfied as their leaders have told them mission accomplished. Then all this talk about fiscal responsibility, etc will disappear.
And sure they had the amount of people over power through legislation. Arms of enforcement and taxes are not the way they control.
Here's one good example:
Legal history of cannabis in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The decision of the United States Congress to pass the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 was based on hearings,[19] reports[20] and in part on testimony derived from articles in newspapers owned by William Randolph Hearst, who had significant financial interests in the timber industry, which manufactured his newsprint.[21]
Cannabis activist Jack Herer has researched DuPont and in his 1985 book The Emperor Wears No Clothes, Herer concluded DuPont played a large role in the criminalization of cannabis. In 1938, DuPont patented the processes for creating plastics from coal and oil and a new process for creating paper from wood pulp. If hemp had been largely exploited, Herer believes it would have likely been used to make paper and plastic (nylon), and may have hurt DuPont's profits. Andrew Mellon of the Mellon Bank was DuPont's chief financial backer and was also the Secretary of the Treasury under the Hoover administration. Mellon appointed Harry J. Anslinger, who later became his nephew-in-law, as the head of the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (FBNDD) and the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (FBN), where Anslinger stayed until 1962.[22]
Why is Marijuana Illegal? - Drug WarRant
Again, racism was part of the charge against marijuana, as newspapers in 1934 editorialized: Marihuana influences Negroes to look at white people in the eye, step on white mens shadows and look at a white woman twice.
Two other fear-tactic rumors started to spread: one, that Mexicans, Blacks and other foreigners were snaring white children with marijuana; and two, the story of the assassins. Early stories of Marco Polo had told of hasheesh-eaters or hashashin, from which derived the term assassin. In the original stories, these professional killers were given large doses of hashish and brought to the rulers garden (to give them a glimpse of the paradise that awaited them upon successful completion of their mission). Then, after the effects of the drug disappeared, the assassin would fulfill his rulers wishes with cool, calculating loyalty.
Misinformation and abundant amounts of information are what we are dealing with today. A mix of 1984 and A Brave New World.
Jonah Goldberg? Self-Defined Liberal? What?
As a conservative, I'm very reluctant to believe that the rules change easily or often. And there's no end of explanations for the political climate that would leave the rules intact.
The article sucked, it offered no real reasoning as to why the political climate has changed. Liberalism did seem poised for a comeback in 2008. Problem? Turns out the people who were running on such a platform weren't that Liberal in the first place. Turns out the people who were voting for bills and had a majority were not even Liberal for the most part but had no spine. What has happened since 2008 is a good example to anyone watching about how it's not about Liberalism or Conservativism. It's not about Democrats or Republicans. It's about Corporatism.
Federal Lobbying Climbs in 2009 as Lawmakers Execute Aggressive Congressional Agenda - OpenSecrets Blog | OpenSecrets
In all, federal lobbyists clients spent more than $3.47 billion last year, often driven to Washington, D.C.s power centers and halls of influence by political issues central to the age: health care reform, financial reform, energy policy.
That figure represents a more than 5 percent increase over $3.3 billion worth of federal lobbying recorded in 2008, the previous all-time annual high for lobbying expenditures. And it comes in a year when a recession persisted, the dollars value against major foreign currencies declined and joblessness rates increased.
In 2009's 4th quarter, lobbying expenditures increased nearly 16 percent over 4th quarter levels from 2008, whereas spending only increased about 3 percent from the 3rd quarter of 2008 to the same period in 2009.
The pharmaceutical and health products industry was followed last year in overall lobbying expenditures by business associations ($183 million), oil and gas ($168.4 million) and insurance ($164.2 million). In each case, the 2009 totals are greater than that of 2008. Electric utilities, at $144.4 million, placed fifth, although this industry's 2009 lobbying total is slightly off its 2008 pace.
It doesn't take a genius to realize that we the American people have been outfoxed by the Corporations this round.
And I find it amazing to this very day that people allow themselves to be led around like sheep on certain issues as if either party cares. The Democrats had the Congress and Presidency, did this pass Gay Marriage? No. Did they end the War on Drugs? No. The Republicans had Congress, the Supreme Court, AND The Presidency. Did they ban Abortion? No. Did they ban all of these things they want to ban today? No.
Both parties know if anything of actual value got done, then they would no longer be able to control people by having them hope that they will be the ones to do ___.
I haven't been around long in the background that is politics, but it doesn't take a genius to see that. And it doesn't take a partisan talking head like Jonah Goldberg who does nothing but profit off the continued divide to tell anyone that either.
Time will tell, but then again regarding the tea parties I believe you were one of those who said they'd be gone more than a year ago, instead they just keep rolling along and gaining steam.
In all honesty, I'm really clueless to outcome, I recognize my own tendencies to see what I wish or fear.
The article sucked, it offered no real reasoning as to why the political climate has changed.
Time will tell, but then again regarding the tea parties I believe you were one of those who said they'd be gone more than a year ago, instead they just keep rolling along and gaining steam.
In all honesty, I'm really clueless to outcome, I recognize my own tendencies to see what I wish or fear.
I don't believe I said they'd be gone yet. Once a election or two passes, they will be gone though. Much like the movement in the 90's. Political Movements such as these start off as anger usually fall one way or another or never get off the ground.
The article sucked, it offered no real reasoning as to why the political climate has changed.
Translation: Doggie the Bubble Mod didn't grok it.
Here's a reading assignment (a bit long) which might help him if he bothers to read it with an open mind:
The American Spectator : America's Ruling Class -- And the Perils of Revolution
Richard MELLON Schaif's The American Spectacle is even less credible than Goldberg.The article sucked, it offered no real reasoning as to why the political climate has changed.
Translation: Doggie the Bubble Mod didn't grok it.
Here's a reading assignment (a bit long) which might help him if he bothers to read it with an open mind:
The American Spectator : America's Ruling Class -- And the Perils of Revolution
Richard MELLON Schaif's The American Spectacle is even less credible than Goldberg.The article sucked, it offered no real reasoning as to why the political climate has changed.
Translation: Doggie the Bubble Mod didn't grok it.
Here's a reading assignment (a bit long) which might help him if he bothers to read it with an open mind:
The American Spectator : America's Ruling Class -- And the Perils of Revolution
America is ruled by the 60 Families, AKA The Establishment, one of which is the Mellon family. No informed person would expect media controlled by the 60 families to tell the truth about who really holds the reins of power in America.
If you truly wish to learn the truth, I would recommend the books, "The Rich and the Super-Rich" and "America's 60 Families," both by Ferdinand Lundberg. They are both out of print but used copies can be had from Amazon.
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_c_1_11?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=ferdinand+lundberg&sprefix=ferdinand+l&ih=13_1_1_0_0_1_1_0_0_2.15_822&fsc=17]Amazon.com: ferdinand lundberg: Books[/ame]
The corporate monopolists have ruled this nation for more than the past 100 years. You underestimate their power. They control both Parties and all the major media. They pay no taxes and have learned to CONTROL their monopolies through phony charities and the banking cartel.In your last paragraph you ask one question that is relevant, my answer is 'no', it hasn't been the same for 100 years. Doesn't mean those in power wouldn't have liked the same, but they didn't have the amount of power over the people. Not through taxes, legislation, arms of enforcement, etc.
The corporate monopolists have ruled this nation for more than the past 100 years. You underestimate their power. They control both Parties and all the major media. They pay no taxes and have learned to CONTROL their monopolies through phony charities and the banking cartel.In your last paragraph you ask one question that is relevant, my answer is 'no', it hasn't been the same for 100 years. Doesn't mean those in power wouldn't have liked the same, but they didn't have the amount of power over the people. Not through taxes, legislation, arms of enforcement, etc.
As long as the 60 families rule there will be no change.Richard MELLON Schaif's The American Spectacle is even less credible than Goldberg.Translation: Doggie the Bubble Mod didn't grok it.
Here's a reading assignment (a bit long) which might help him if he bothers to read it with an open mind:
The American Spectator : America's Ruling Class -- And the Perils of Revolution
America is ruled by the 60 Families, AKA The Establishment, one of which is the Mellon family. No informed person would expect media controlled by the 60 families to tell the truth about who really holds the reins of power in America.
If you truly wish to learn the truth, I would recommend the books, "The Rich and the Super-Rich" and "America's 60 Families," both by Ferdinand Lundberg. They are both out of print but used copies can be had from Amazon.
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_c_1_11?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=ferdinand+lundberg&sprefix=ferdinand+l&ih=13_1_1_0_0_1_1_0_0_2.15_822&fsc=17]Amazon.com: ferdinand lundberg: Books[/ame]
Being so smart and all, you might suggest that others read a variety of points of view. In my op though the point wasn't Goldberg's thinking, rather the thesis of possible paradigm change in US political/economic reality.
