The language of politics.
 

It is probably time to abandon the language of moderate and extreme. We all like to think our ideas are the central important ones. That conveniently makes our ideas the moderate ones. In this country moderates have supported slavery, kings, forced sterilizations, NA genocide, invasions, and thousands of insults large and small to minorities of race or belief.

Moderate, a wise man once said:

Label your ideas better. If you, like me, want all religion out of our government from the Congressional Chaplain to the pledge to the flag you are an extremist in this country. The language that places your idea central ends the conversation, it does not start it. This is coming from a guy who is also an extremist on freedom of speech.

Je Suis Charlie

I think in politics, the labeling of ideas is *crucial*.

I think it's so important that one's political opponents will strive to name your ideas for you, to your maximum detriment, of course.

Je Suis Charlie

Spot on. If you label your position accurately enough the other guy can't do it.

I have no ideas, only demands. :fuse:

Whacko moderates.



There's a fragrance that's here today, and they call it — Charlie!

May I label this "hate speech"...

Billy Graham Jr wrote on Facebook.

ETA: His post received 74,000+ "Likes"

Sure, label it anything you wish. I'll call it, pandering to the group from whom all blessings flow, as I almost always follow the money first. ;)

Right, there's a guy who knows which side his bread is buttered.

"... the Keystone jobs bill..."

I noticed that the Republican responseS omitted entirely the word "pipeline" in reference to this subject. They're trying to rebrand the Keystone Pipeline project, changing the association in people's minds between this project and oil, tar sands, environmental hazards, and global warming to one of "jobs". Ok, fifty jobs. 50 jobs is the number of jobs that the pipeline will require for its ongoing function. The construction of the pipeline will require more jobs, but those are temporary.

This is an example of the language of politics. It's not a pipeline, it's jobs. Why does President Obama hate America? [/sarcasm]

It's interesting this pipeline would move Canadian oil right into the refineries in Texas, which just happen to sit in a free trade zone. They can refine it and sell it on the world market without a penny going to the USA. No taxes, no fees, not even a thank you Ma'am.

I didn't realize that. I am not surprised by the.... Thoroughness of the legal and economic infrastructure that has been built up to retain the MAXIMUM POSSIBLE monies despite the obvious connection to the local, state, and national interests. Just, wow.

This article is just giving an example in Rep/Dem procedural tactics
of what goes around, comes around... or payback's a bitch

risk

well stated Spexxvet. that's exactly the crucial point. corporations have lots of attributes, humanity not being among them, but one of their core functions is to privatize rewards/profits and socialize risks/costs. let's face it, stuff is gonna happen. that stuff might be good, oil flows, money flows, etc. good stuff is channeled to the corporation. there might some good stuff that happens that will go to the public, though in this example I can't really think of anything. jobs don't count, a job is an expense the company incurs to make more money more easily. now I benefit from a job, but it's not just an objectively good thing. witness the lust for automation and self service that permeates, just saturates our culture; there are self service options everywhere, the grocery store, the gas station (when was the last time you had someone pump your gas for you? let me guess, when you were in New Jersey or in Oregon, right? me too.), even stupid Applebee's has a touch-screen-card-swiping-order-taking-payment-accepting tablet doodad right on the table? I digress. Jobs don't count as good things for everyone. corporations would get that task done without creating a job if they could find a way to do so. in most cases, having a person do the job is just the least costly way to get that done.

but the costs and risks are shunted away from the corporation to the greatest extent possible. cops patrol the streets keeping order around the refinery? but not paid with revenues by the entity enjoying that protection. cleanup crews kept on standby? not paid for by corporations. etc, etc.

we all understand this, and I'm ok with the basic structure. capitalism is good. but the importance of balance is often overlooked. when the balance is too far in either direction, it's bad for the ones holding the crappy end of the stick.