NYT Columnist David Brooks Compares Osama Bin Laden To "Lefty Blogs."

Bin Laden's actual agenda has far more in common with religious fundamentalists than with American liberals. The fact that somone like him may choose for his own reasons to talk about certain issues effects not even a tiny bit the facts surrounding those issues.

The odd part is that so many rightwingers seem to say ignore his propaganda unless they find it politically useful to divide the nation and distract it from real solutions.

Instead of focusing on rhetoric and who might say something we should focus on actions and reality.

The reality is that Osama Bin Laden wants to have a religious fundamentalist response to the freedoms we enjoy. Ironcally many right wingers like Dinesh Dasouza seem to agree with him that the real problem is freedom and liberals and the need to have everyone follow a certain fundamentalist religion.

Dinesh D'Souza actually likes the social agenda of Osama bin Laden, and has said that we incurred his wrath by letting our women get too uppity.

Trex, as someone who actually reads Dinesh D'Souza, I can tell you that your remarks are way off base. "Women get too uppity?" What hat did you pull that out of?

D'Souza has been fairly restrained and respectful towards Islam itself, even while criticizing it. He certainly does not endorse Bin Laden and his agenda. What D'Souza has said is that traditional cultures around the world, especially in Asia and Africa, view the corruption and sleaze of American culture with alarm, especially when they feel that the darker sides of American culture are being forced upon their own societies.

Pornography, prosititution, exhibitionism, voyeurism, perversion, and sexual slavery have absolutely nothing to do with the empowerment of women worldwide or the betterment of their plight.

Either you know nothing about D'Souza's writings or you are deliberately mischaracterizing his writings.

Tom @ 3.3

Well said . . . and a concern of many Americans as well.

Tom Bombaldi,

That does not address the fundamental premise of D'Souzas book, that Americans are to blame for 9/11. The fact is he is a polemical hack and this is well represented by the title which begins "The Enemy at Home".

Now he finds bin Laden to be "a quiet, well-mannered, thoughtful, eloquent and deeply religious person." ...We denounce him as a terrorist, but he uses "a different compass to assess America than Americans use to assess him.,, But in "The Enemy at Home," D'Souza's cultural relativism hardly stops with bin Laden. He finds Ayatollah Khomeini still to be "highly regarded for his modest demeanor, frugal lifestyle and soft-spoken manner." "

The "domestic insurgents" who, in D'Souza's view, constitute the cultural left want "America to be a shining beacon of global depravity, a kind of Gomorrah on a Hill." "I intend to name the enemy at home," D'Souza proclaims, and so he does. Twenty recent members of Congress, including Hillary Rodham Clinton and Ted Kennedy, are on one of his lists, and 17 intellectuals (one dead, one British) are on another, with similar numbers of Hollywood figures, activists, foreign policy experts, cultural leaders and organizations. Some of those he identifies — Noam Chomsky, Ramsey Clark, Ward Churchill — might not be surprised to find themselves here. Others — the sociologist Paul Starr, the historian Sean Wilentz, the clergyman Jim Wallis, the philosopher Martha Nussbaum — are less obvious candidates for inclusion. (One person, Thomas Frank, is mentioned on two different lists.) All these people might charge D'Souza with "McCarthyism" for supposedly exposing them, but he accepts the challenge. McCarthy, after all, was "largely right."

Pornography, prosititution, exhibitionism, voyeurism, perversion, and sexual slavery have absolutely nothing to do with the empowerment of women worldwide or the betterment of their plight.

Nope, however, neither do liberals support such things. D'Souza indicts as insurgents numberous liberals who support none of these things and blames them for 9/11. Meanwhile he admires these religious fundamentalists for their moral stands.

For a Stanford fellow, D'Souza shows a surprising ignorance of the growing literature on jihadist ideology. One has to ask which is more likely: that such authors as Steve Coll, Lawrence Wright, Peter L. Bergen, Marc Sageman, Jessica Stern, Richard A. Posner and Bruce Hoffman could have scrutinized al-Qaeda ideology and somehow failed to notice that bin Laden's main beef was with America's corrupt cultural left, or that the grinding sound you hear off in the distance is D'Souza with an ax. Or consider the work of another heavyweight, Michael F. Scheuer, the tough-minded founding chief of the CIA's bin Laden unit, who advocates the massive use of the U.S. military as our principal tool for fighting al-Qaeda. (D'Souza, oddly, lumps him in with a bunch of lefties.) "Bin Laden has been precise in telling America the reasons he is waging war on us," Scheuer has written. "None of the reasons have anything to do with our freedom, liberty, and democracy, but have everything to do with U.S. policies and actions in the Muslim world." There's a feisty and interesting debate among terrorism specialists about whether Scheuer has the balances right, but "The Vagina Monologues" isn't high on any serious analyst's list of al-Qaeda grievances.

Essentially D'Souza explains why he hates the left and why he believes it to be an enemy and then assumes that Bin Laden must have the same view as D'Souza about the left and therefor the left is to blame.

Its a scream for attention.

Even many rightwingers agree: See, e.g. from HughHewitt blog at townhall.com

First, a disclaimer – I love making fun of lefties. As a matter of fact, the interests I list on my MySpace.com homepage are extreme sports, getting ink done and slagging on liberals. So you might think that Dinesh D'Souza's new book, "The Enemy at Home" would be right up my alley. Quite the contrary, I found "The Enemy at Home" to be intellectually obtuse, poorly informed and, most importantly, an irresponsible exercise in putatively conservative bomb-throwing.

With a few exceptions, such as Kathryn Jean Lopez at National Review, prominent conservatives have excoriated D'Souza's tome. Writing about D'Souza in The New Republic, Sullivan mentions "the occasional sharp attack from the libertarian right"; he does not recognize the sharp attacks that have come from such decidedly non-libertarian rightists as the Hoover Institution's Victor Davis Hanson, New Criterion editor Roger Kimball, Powerline blogger Scott Johnson, and National Review's Stanley Kurtz. D'Souza has not quite become a pariah on the right, but the majority of conservatives have strongly rejected his thesis as a right-wing variation on what they call the left's "blame America first" mentality....It is equally unhelpful of D'Souza to deny the obvious: The best hope for peaceful coexistence is for the Islamic world to embrace modernization and individual liberty, not for the West to turn its back on those values.

In other words, you haven't read the book, but you Googled up a few negative reviews of it and did some cutting and pasting.

I'm just surprised he didnt use some catchy little phrase
"convert or it is going to hurt"

That's actually pretty funny, Joules.

Rebecca:

Do you REALLY believe Bin Laden has those concerns?

If so, well, I have some property in Florida you may wish to purchase.

He mentions those "concerns" because he KNOWS that those on the left will identify with him if he shows concern.

Sheesh, it's all about marketing, and seems you may have bought it lock, stock and barrel.

Bin Laden threw out those red herrings to deceive the gullible and to muddy the water. He is a clever provocateur and master manipulator. He is about as concerned about those issues as he is about whether or not Charlie Frye will last another week as the Browns' Quarterback.

He is about as concerned about those issues as he is about whether or not Charlie Frye will last another week as the Browns' Quarterback.

I agree you are almost certainly correct. Furthermore, I think virtually everyone in the country sees it this way, and yet so many rightwingers around here still take the opportunty to try to score cheap political points.

People like David Brooks should stop playing such ridiculous games.

wmolaw,

You completely miss the point which is that the comments of David Brooks are ridiculous.

Instead you seize upon semantics and then proceed to make leaps.
The coment you responded to was about faulty logic.

Sheesh, it's all about marketing, and seems you may have bought it lock, stock and barrel.

Ill correct the semantics for you.

Bin Laden says he is concerned about global warming
Bin Laden says heis concerned about the dangers of unchecked capitalism
Bin Laden says heis concerned about the mortgage crisis in America

You and many right wingers leap to the conclusion that liberals have something in common with Osama bin laden.

Catch:

In this world, it seems, what you say is what you get.

And, again, like Jack you take Brooks comments too far. He didn't say "liberals," and he didn't say "democrats," he said:

message to "lefty blogs," saying the al Qaeda head is like "one of these childish people posting rants at the bottom of the page."

Now, you have to admit, you have seen a million of them haven't you? Those who post as if they are reading Das Kapital or its equivalent.

If one finds oneself delivering the same message as Osama bin Laden, it's time to change the message.

If one questions their own values and bases their argument as being the opposite of what ever Osama bin Laden happens to say, its time to bring back reason and rationality.

Your approach is illogical and ridiculous. Realtiy is not defined by being the oppositie of what Osama Bin Laden says and anyone who says so is playing into a ridiculous game.

Epiph:

Cough cough.

Ever hear the radical Islamists talk about Hollywood "pornography"?

So if Bin Laden says that rock music and dancing is evil - it is good?

kf:

Except that's not what OBL said in '04. Read the transcript.

It's true that the SCLM presented it as you say, but that's not what OBL said.

6.5

Sooooo, bin Laden is praising the tactics and policies of the Democrats because he wants to war to continue?

Epiphany, this war was his STATED goal. He figured that after defeating the USSR in Afghanistan he was on a roll and could take out the other secular super power while he was at it. But he needed to hit us with a provocation serious enough to draw us into a war in the middle east, where he knew damn well that a western, Christian army would be perceived as an imperialist occupier that would provoke an insurgency. And he knew we could never beat an insurgency.

By the way, spare me the "backstab" argument. The USSR permitted absolutely no public debate of its Afghanistan policy, it controlled the news that the media was allowed to print, and it still got its commie ass whupped by the mujaheddin.

If one finds oneself delivering the same message as Osama bin Laden, it's time to change the message.

Puhleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeez. And the Democrats are flying airplanes into buildings?

Simplistic reasoning.

However, I'm surprised you didn't jump on this one first, Epi. Given your propensity for sensationalism, this would have been right up your ideological alley.

Epiphany, this war was his STATED goal.

Good point, trex. If anyone is furthering bin Laden's cause it's the idiot in the White House. The Iraq war has succeeded in making the United States one of the most hated countries in the world. We are now less secure than we were in the days following 9/11.

I wouldn't be surprised if bin Laden were living in Bush's basement. After all, Bush doesn't seem to be looking very hard for the guy these days.

Bush is giving bin Laden exactly what he wants

And Bin Laden is doing the same to the left in this Country.

I wouldn't be surprised if bin Laden were living in Bush's basement. After all, Bush doesn't seem to be looking very hard for the guy these days.

Actually, I think he is living in a dacha owned by George Soros.

Oh God, wmolaw. I'm so glad you're who you are. I thought you were winsomecowboy, one of my FRIENDS.

Those "w"s can be tricky when you're not paying attention.

Whew.

I feel better aready.

already

And by the way, wmolaw:

Bush is very cozy with the bin Ladens. I think one of them named their baby Bush bin Laden. So yeah, I STILL think he's in the basement.

Yes, wmolaw. Explain please.

What I am saying (tell me, am I actually speaking to open minds? With Rebecca, I seriously doubt it given the tone of her comments), is that Bin Laden is trying to hit the "hot issues" that the lefties are so zealous about.

And by doing that, he is marketing himself to that group. I take it you don't see that.

Do you really believe he gives a damn about global warming? If so, as I said, I got some land in Florida, a mite soggy, but hey, it will appreciate.

Kill:

You have a point. Frankly, though, I believe there is more to this than you think.

I agree that a majority of Americans think that way, but not all by a long shot, especially on the left. I believe that many on the left think that Bin Laden is fighting, if not a "just" war, then one with which they really don't have any problem.

This is especially true of those on the left who have become rabidly anti-Israeli/anti-jewish.

It is a continuing theme I have read in many blogs, "all bin laden wants is for the USA to leave Saudi Arabia. And we shouldn't be there anyway. The only reason we are in the ME is to support Israel," etc., etc.

I think you are ignoring that undercurrent on the far left side of the aisle.

Kill:

My point about that is that those who actually believe that bin laden will cease and desist if western forces are pulled from Saudia Arabia are self delusional. Why then do they believe that? Oops, guess I answered my own question.

And, btw, who is he to say what should or should not be? Someone with a gun?

If one finds oneself delivering the same message as Osama bin Laden, it's time to change the message.

bin Laden is anti-abortion and anti-gay-rights. Maybe there is another group that needs to change the message.

wmolaw, many others are taking care of the bulk of your points fairly well, so I'll just point out one thing:

This is especially true of those on the left who have become rabidly anti-Israeli/anti-jewish.

Not thinking "oh, I totally heart everything Israel is doing right now" doesn't mean someone hates Jews. Get a grip.

My point is, that anti-semites are using that blind for their racism.

And it is, in fact, correct. Although it may not mean it all the time, it means it most of the time.

My point is, that anti-semites are using that blind for their racism.

And white racists are using illegal immigration as a blind for their racism. Ah yes, this must mean that we can equivocate "racists" and "those who are against illegal immigration."

And it is, in fact, correct. Although it may not mean it all the time, it means it most of the time.

I'd like to see you try to support that statement.

And white racists are using illegal immigration as a blind for their racism

Of course, you give no citation, but expect me to provide you with one? A dodge?

I find that funny. You can believe it or not. Up to you. All it takes for evil men, is for good men to do nothing.

Many seem bent on "doing nothing" in this Country and elsewhere around the world.

.O.K.:

I don't really want to denigrate Newsvine, but there's The Newshour with Jim Lehrer on PBS AND the New York Times with their combined audience and readership, and then there's a few hundred NV regulars.

OK, I find it interesting that it's okay to equate GW and those in his administration with Hitler, or any other horrific person, but for a person to equate Bin Laden with far left bloggers, is a no no.

Why the hell is that. Frankly, I don't care for GW, didn't vote for him second time around, but am disgusted by what I hear the lefty freaks rant about, calling Rice his whore, etc., etc., etc.

And then they whine when people call freaky lefty utopiasts (who have no agenda except hate everything), what they are?

I just don't get it. Fact is we face horrific issues and we need people in government who can and will address these issues, even if the manner of potentially solving them are not popular.

You can't conduct a country by polls, you just can't do it, especially not a Country like this.

Agree/disagree, fine. But the hatred evidenced towards GW and his entire admin has been so corrosive I am not sure this Country will survive it, frankly. For it will be tit for tat, ad infinitum, and all we will get as politicians are those who govern by the polls to keep their power sinecure.

I despair. Look who we have running for president on the pub and dem side? Are these the "best" this Country has to offer? If so, all of us are in deep @!$%#.

wmolaw:

OK, I find it interesting that it's okay to equate GW and those in his administration with Hitler, or any other horrific person ....

It's not okay. It's not not okay. It's IRRELEVANT to what Brooks said.

If it's not okay, then why don't I hear more remonstrances about it on the Vine?

Sure, it's irrelevant to what Brooks said, but it is merely a symptom of the way political and public discourse has gone. Brooks is doing what the others are doing (he has to make a living also), he is trying to be heard, and if it takes some weird analogies to do it, he will do it.

That's my point. Discourse is down the tubes. It's either "my" way (take your pick of what side you want to be on (see Rebecca above)) or it's the highway.

There ain't much thought anymore Jack, not much thought at all, especially on the Vine.

But, hey, you're still cogitating, which is a good thing.

The weather is finally coming around to real golf weather. Man, am I looking forward to 55 degree mornings, with a high of 71!

Tiger got it done again today, of course Phil wasn't in the field.

wmolaw:

Because all remonstrances all the time is not only boring, it distracts from the substantive issues in contention.

In this particular case, it's the illogic and ignorance of the charge that's significant, not malignance of the association. Anyone who would make the association between bin Lidan and the Democrats doesn't understand bin Laden.

That was a hellava a round Tiger played, and I I think I burned out my clicker going from the Red Sox to the Patriots to Tiger.

The Pats are so good it's scary.

Jack:

first off, did Brooks refer to the "democrats?' I don't think so. He referred to:

Last night on PBS' The NewsHour, New York Times columnist David Brooks compared 9/11 mastermind Osama bin Laden's latest video message to "lefty blogs," saying the al Qaeda head is like "one of these childish people posting rants at the bottom of the page."

If they are the democrats in your eyes, well, I got nothing further to say.

A 63 anywhere is remarkable, though Tiger has always played well at Cog Hill.

Man, Michigan and Notre Dame are having a tough time of it! My old man (a die hard Michigan fan) must be going nuts in his grave! Happy at what is happening to Notre Dame, crying and rolling over as to what is happening to Michigan!

wmolaw:

He obviously meant the "left blogosphere" and the left blogosphere is mostly Democratic.

I need to go to confession or something to get Notre Dame back on the right track.

Tom:

So much for the idea Belichick was sandbagging with Randy Moss. He was.

:^{)>

Well, that was a good article Kill. Thanks for linking it to me.

I would like, one day, to discuss with you what I see as the real reason for the "rise of the executive branch." I think that is a fascinating subject, and one which is very important but largely ignored.

Jack, what about "lefty" don't you understand? Unless you are saying "lefty" equals "democrat."

Now, if that is what you are saying then that's a whole nother can of spam.

Jack, what about "lefty" don't you understand? Unless you are saying "lefty" equals "democrat."

Its vague and could mean just about anything. What exactly does lefty mean, it seems to change depending upon whatever is convenient at the moment.

Which blog exactly are we suppossed to conclude? Its inneundo and a slur.

Its inneundo and a slur.

Now, I will agree with you there. The question is against whom is it a slur? I really don't think that he was equating those to whom he was referring to dems.

But, if you think he was, and Jack does too, then I guess the message he gave was one which you took to be dems.

Lefty: (n) a person who disagrees with me, whom I do not wish debate but would prefer to insult, as it reminds me of a more comfortable time when I was in grade school and didn't have to think so hard. Also why I hit the Oxycontin so hard.

The Limbaugh Dictionary and Coloring Book

Interestingly enough, a similar definition of "righty" can be found in the Ralph Nader Pop Up Book.

LOL.

You know, I listened to Limbaugh once, years ago, in a car in which I was riding. Got really fed up with the "I told you so" format, and never listened to him again, and couldn't give less of a damn.

I am a book on tape guy in the car. I haven't listened to radio in my car for years and years.

.O.K.:

Yeah. One standard for those who who actually affect the civil discourse, another for those of us who delude ourselves into believing we affect the civil discourse.

Moreover, you could've held Brooks to the "standard" you're pretending to uphold.

Has no one seen this?

A Californian heavy metal fan, who converted to Islam and became the first American to be charged with treason in half a century, has been fingered as the author of Osama bin Laden's latest video lecture - which left the terror chief sounding like an anti-globalisation protester.

US loner helps bin Laden to taunt Bush

The California connection helps explain the bad dye job and the plucked brows.

OK-What Brooks said was ignorant

I did.
It is ignorant for Brooks to compare leftists to Bin Laden. It is equally ignorant for the Huffington Post, with many readers, to compare Bush to the Nazis. No rational person could believe either of these extreme comparisons. Whether it's done on Newsvine or the New York times, it's still wrong and ignorant.

.O.K.:

I did.

So why not stop there? What possible relevance does what somebody says on the Huffington Post have to what Brooks said on the Newshour?

Jack:

You saying the "huffington Post" has no gravamen? Funny, I see it mentioned, discussed, quoted all the time, even on tv. Why is that?

Kill,

You and Jack make a good point about it being a person who may affect people vs. NV'ers, but it is all part of the same thing. Look at the public discourse today, it is pitiful, and getting worse, especially on the lefty side.

Soros is calling Petraeus a traitor, etc., etc. Hillary is actually "middle of the road," in the dem party (mostly because of the polls). It's chic to call GW and his admin names.

Whatever happened to disagreeing without being disagreeable? We can argue all day long when this began in our government (frankly, I believe it began with the fight by the dems against certain SCOTUS appointments) but the fact is clear, there are no "lines" in political debate or even in "news" casting anymore.

wmolaw:

You saying the "Huffington Post" has no gravamen?

Compared to the New York Times and the Newshour on PBS?88

Actually, the HuffPo has a better record simply because they've publicly repudiated comments that were clearly over the line (the thread that occurred when that bomb went off near Dick Cheney in Afghanistan) whereas nobody at PBS, the NYT, Fox News or the WSJ has repudiated this garbage about bin Laden.

I had to laugh. Compared to the NYT? YOU BET!

Hell, hate to say it but the NYT is really losing readership and it is for a reason. It's become so one sided, even in its reporting, that it is damned near unreadable anymore. And, their crossword puzzles have even gone downhill.

PBS gets battered day in, day out, and with some justification.

We just need to read this place for how FoxNews gets battered.

Frankly, the WSJ is the best out of all those. Hope to hell it doesn't change. I still haven't gotten over it going from one section to what, three now?

wmolaw:

Oh, don't be silly. The NYT losing readers still has millions of more readers than the HuffPo and far more influence. Same with the Newshour.

If the two were a graph, the NYT line would be going down, the HuffPo line up. Maybe they haven't met yet, but they will.

I find it fascinating as to how the Net is changing the way we think and interact. Seriously here, would be worthwhile to do some research. Been thinking about writing an article about it.

The thing about the Net is you can limit your exposure to "news" to exactly what suits your political leanings. You don't need to worry about looking at the other side as the sites you go to don't have to be "neutral" and even though they may say they are putting out "news," they are really just propagandizing.

A fascinating issue. One we see here on the Vine, frankly. When we first came here, the "conservatives" on the Vine were few and far between, and pretty "nice," as they had to be. Then came the rock and rollers from the old forum and suddenly folks were complaining about how their nice, little, homogenous "niche" was getting all roiled. We still see it.

I wonder if people understand that by just reading/thinking what their political leanings lead them to, they really ain't "getting smarter."

Kill:

Actually, I would love to see that. I am not sure there is such a huge difference as you suggest.

I am sure you are aware the NYT is pretty much free on the Net. They are even stopping their premium service, I understand. So, that issue is put to bed. The paper version is a different issue, ain't it?

Now, what I would love to see the numbers between, say, the NYT and the WSJ on the net. The NYT is free, the WSJ is pretty much all pay.

Wonder where they would come out? Of course, it is not exactly apples and apples as the WSJ does have a business slant to it.

Now, that was weird. Spend five minutes typing out a response, hit the post comment button, and BANG, it was gone.

Anyway, in a nutshell, the NYT on the net is now free. They are even stopping their premium service.

And would love to see the numbers, do you have links to them?

That may be true. I suspect though that some hard print companies will survive, and thrive, for there are many who prefer to have the paper in their hand. In fact, I am one of them.

I used to suscribe to the NYT paper edition, but quit about a year ago. The writing in it had deteriorated significantly.

Tom:

While Osama hates the Left for its cultural values ....

Well, Yes. And he hates the Right for its Capitalist values.

Jack:

Tom has a point, amazing that folks don't see his message (or refuse to acknowledge it) for what it is, pandering to the left.

How does that make you feel?

Wmolaw:

Yeah, well, it's a little too late for Tom to have a point.

If Bush and everyone else in the right-wing noise machine had made the point years ago--like when bin Laden's '04 video came out--it might've meant something.

But they didn't. They wanted to exploit it to lie about what bin Laden said about Bush and Kerry because they wanted to win an election.

As I have said time and time again, politicos suck, are dangerous, and will destroy this Country sooner, rather than later.

But I think the point is still valid, and OH SO CLEAR when he starts to spout about GW and unchecked capitalism! I mean, come on!

Jack:

By the way, heard from CSK the other day (he calls about once a month or so, sometimes more). He's doing well. Seems he is a pretty constant guy at DailyKos, now THERE"S a surprise!

The "neocons" are not in the ascendancy right now in the Bush administration or in popular public opinion. And, surely you do not suggest that there is collusion between Bush and Osama bin Laden? As you know, Osama was disowned by his family many years prior to 9/11.

Tom,

Quite honestly I am not quite sure what to make of OBL. He seems like such a convenient figure for so many people to make use of. Given that so much of his funding runs through Swiss banks, who is to say who his real backers are? As a person of some independent wealth he can finance some activities himself, but ongoing military operations require some significant cash.

And that's to assume that OBL is alive. We have no firm assurance of that. Doubles are easy to arrange. Not being able to confirm his whereabouts is convenient for any number of people. With no real physical presence to speak of his image can be manipulated easily by anyone.

The truth seems to be that nobody really knows who he is or what he is doing. So any assumptions would seem to be premature.

Good post Partisan.

Thanks!

The fact that Osama has not yet been caught and that he can sit over there wherever he is and taunt Bush is actually NOT convenient to Bush and the administration; it is a millstone around their necks.

it is a millstone around their necks.

How many millstones do they have?

The Iraq war is the biggest millstone.
The failure to provide leadership at homeland security is another.
The rapidly expanding deficit is another.
The repeated failure to keep promises and lost of trust of the American people.

What is about the only thing this administration has going to justify its policies?

Fear. Thats part of the irony, that Osama Bin Ladin and Bush have in common - that their most public enemy is also one of their greatest sources of political support.

lisa:

Ideologically, the bit about interest-related debts and mortgages is straight out of classical fundamentalist Islam.

It does rather hint that the video was made within the last four weeks, though.

We lefties are anti-capitalism?

Don't you all work on communal farms? :-p

TJG -

We lefties are anti-capitalism?

You mean you're not?

Nope, nor are any Dems/liberals I know.

See what happens when you use talking points to figure people out?

Speaking for myself and myself alone, I think that profit at the expense of the future of humanity (i.e., the environment, the debt enslavement of the middle and lower classes so that corporation-entities with special privileges and the ruling aristocratic class which picks American politicians for us to choose between because those of us in the "herd" are too uneducated to have real democracy) sucks. Then again I believe in the anarchist principles which Gandhi advocated, where cooperation is key. I believe that "Gross National Happiness" is more important than GDP (see the nation and King of Bhutan).

Not that capitalism is bad. We just need a steady-state economy in my opinion, with currency that is not "fiat" based.

Oh, I definitely am not for unfettered capitalism. I think businesses need regulation if for nothing more than to prevent them from returning to the days of "anything goes."

Ah Jones Girl:

The devil is always in the details, eh?

You are not anti-capitalism but would require regulations so as to prevent a return to the "anything goes" time.

Well, ust what regulations would you propose? One saying "don't go back to anything goes?"

That ain't the way it works. The ability to regulate, is the power to control and destroy. This is a fact. We see it in all sorts of business environments.

I would agree that regulation is needed, but I believe it is only needed in the areas of pollution, those areas that affect our society as a whole, not one segment of it. When you begin regulations that affect only a segment of society, you aren't "regulating," you are controlling and directing for specific advantage.

the debt enslavement of the middle and lower classes

It's become increasingly more apparent during the recent subprime loan debacle that this "debt enslavement" is primarily the fault of the victims themselves.

We just need a steady-state economy in my opinion, with currency that is not "fiat" based.

You're actually against economic growth and advocating economic stagnation? That rather reduces the market to a zero-sum game, and I doubt you really want that.

As for the gold standard, I agree that while our current fiat standard is possibly more fragile, it's also more controllable than a standard pegged to a natural resource.

I'm pretty much a diehard capitalist, but I still believe we need antitrust regulations.

I, for one, don't think that the days of Standard Oil represented the golden age of American economics.

As another example, we still need enforced prohibition of industrial espionage and insider trading. If you think regulating those means an inevitable conclusion of "control[ling] and destroy[ing]", so be it.

The ability to regulate, is the power to control and destroy. This is a fact. We see it in all sorts of business environments.

I would agree that regulation is needed, but I believe it is only needed in the areas of pollution

First, unrestricted and complete regulation without check is the power to control and destroy - thats not the way our system works.

As for your personal belief that pollution is the only area needed for regulation, you are certainly entitled to your opinion but you provide no actual basis to agree.

Your arbitrary definition of "segment" is a semantics.

Catch:

First off as to pollution, my bad. I didn't mean to say the ONLY area, it was to be an example. Re-reading it I see my fingers really didn't convey what my brain meant, though I think the next phrase kind of explained.

those areas that affect our society as a whole,

First, unrestricted and complete regulation without check is the power to control and destroy - thats not the way our system works.

Bullcocky, as they say. All you need to do to destroy a business is one tiny regulation, if it is one that hits the jugular. We have seen it time and time again. Regulation tends to benefit big business, not small businesses, which is why I never understood the anti-corporatists being in such favor of constant regulation. I guess they just don't understand business. Take SOC, for example. Is it expensive for billion dollar companies, sure. But they can afford it. But take a "publically traded" company with gross revenies of 200 million, with slim margins, and you have just wiped out any profit that company can make, period. I see it all the time in my practice.

If you wish to further consolidate power into the hands of the huge corporations, just keep on regulating.

If you wish to further consolidate power into the hands of the huge corporations, just keep on regulating.

First, regulations help prevent the consolidation of power into the hands of the huge corporations. Is it perfect? Nope. Do they use their influence and power to try to do the opposite? Of course. In the absence of regulation, would they be unable to consolidate power? Hardly. Historically they did so in previous eras of less regulation.

Second, if you really want to further consolidate power into the hands of the huge corporations, keep doing what the Bush administration has done and elect another President just like him.

Catch:

First, regulations help prevent the consolidation of power into the hands of the huge corporations.

I really disagree. If anything, the costs imposed by regulation as a whole is a hurdle which many small companies just cannot climb over. It is true in many, many walks of life. I understand you may be speaking of anti-trust laws, but they are merely meant to stop three HUGE companies, from becoming ONE, and being the only game in town.

Historically they did so in previous eras of less regulation.

As I said, I am not against all regulation, but have you read the Federal Register lately? The fact is, as I stated, government does have a role in this area. Clearly, monopolies, while the road to the creation of a monopoly is great for the general public as a whole, once the monopoly is created, the public gets it in the neck.

But regulations, the enormous plethora of regulations which apply to companies, are hamstringing the ability of smaller (by comparison of course) companies to compete with, say, the Exxons of the world.

Second, if you really want to further consolidate power into the hands of the huge corporations, keep doing what the Bush administration has done and elect another President just like him.

Had to laugh, knew you would have to get in an unsupported GW slam somehow, someway. How many times do I have to tell you and others, I ain't a GW supporter, haven't been since before the last election in which I DID NOT vote for him.

But, I understand the deaf ear thingie. Seems to happen alot on the Vine.

If anything, the costs imposed by regulation as a whole is a hurdle which many small companies just cannot climb over.

What small companies? Upon what do you base this? The question is whether overall they do more harm than good. You agree that regulation is good in some areas so its a cost benefit analysis for each regulation. The current process is skewed in favor of small businesses in the extensive evaluations that have to be done.

Had to laugh, knew you would have to get in an unsupported GW slam somehow, someway. How many times do I have to tell you and others, I ain't a GW supporter, haven't been since before the last election in which I DID NOT vote for him.

But, I understand the deaf ear thingie. Seems to happen alot on the Vine.

NIce rant of course, I never said you voted for Bush, nor did my comment. Imagined claims happen a lot on the vine. Perhaps you wouldnt get so upset about things if you didnt read into them. You refelxive claim that it is an unsupported slame is odd, do you really honestly disagree that his policies have favored large corporations or are you just looking for something to argue about. You can write all you want that you didnt vote for Bush, I didnt say you did. You must see a lot of things on the vine you dont like.

Why is the Presdent relevant? The obvious point is that there are a lot of other reasons for the consolidation of power of large corporations and that regulations are hardly a significant cause. The Bush administration has cut back on a lot of regulations at the bidding of giant corporations that help them expand their power as well as increased poluting.

You claim that anti-trusst only impacts mega corprations but anti-trust isnt the only regulation that impacts a multitude of anti-copetentive behviors and predatory practices.

But regulations, the enormous plethora of regulations which apply to companies, are hamstringing the ability of smaller (by comparison of course) companies to compete with, say, the Exxons of the world.

Hamstring? Somehow Exxon managed to make record profits. What exactly are these regulations and how do they hamstring other companies without affecting Exxon?

Catch:

As usual, we seem to be talking at cross purposes.

What small companies? Upon what do you base this? The question is whether overall they do more harm than good. You agree that regulation is good in some areas so its a cost benefit analysis for each regulation. The current process is skewed in favor of small businesses in the extensive evaluations that have to be done

What, you want me to make a list? Come on, get with it. I base this fact on numerous articles (and personal experience with many, many companies in the 20 million to 200 million gross revenue area).

And the question is not, and should not be the "overall" good. The question should be, what effect does it have on what segments of the economy. And if the effect is detrimental in some segments, without commensurate benefits in that section, how do we alter the law to be more appropriate and fair.

And the current process is not skewed towards small businesses. Where the heck do you get that?

And as to your gratuitous slam, well, we will let that speak for itself.

Hamstring? Somehow Exxon managed to make record profits. What exactly are these regulations and how do they hamstring other companies without affecting Exxon?

Let's take SOX for example. The cost of complying with SOX is quite large. I have a client who, as I said, makes about 200 million in gross revenue, an electronics distributor so it has very small margins. It went "public" about five years ago, though it's stock is not very active and is actually held almost entirely by funds. Due to it having to comply with SOX, it spends approximately 1 million a year on such compliance. Due to that expenditure (which is completely useless as concerns this company), it has lost money the last two years. Even if a full audit had been made (not a review or compilation), it would have made at lesat 800K each year.

The cost to Exxon of complying with SOX, on the other hand, is a mere drop in the bucket compared to its gross revenue and, in fact, compared to its net revenue. Moreover, SOX, in relation to Exxon is much more important because of the number and disparity of shareholders.

If you can't see how a cost of a million dollars to a 200 million gross revenue company affects that company more than a cost of ten million to a company like Exxon, then, as I stated above, we are talking at cross purposes.