Dennis Loo

Sometimes asking for the impossible is the only realistic path

Dennis Loo

Dennis Loo
Location
Los Angeles, California,
Birthday
December 31
Title
Professor of Sociology
Company
Cal Poly Pomona
Bio
Author of Globalization and the Demolition of Society; Co-Editor/Author of Impeach the President: the Case Against Bush and Cheney, World Can't Wait Steering Committee Member, co-author of "Crimes Are Crimes, No Matter Who Does Them" statement, dog and fruit tree lover. Published poet. Winner of the Alfred R. Lindesmith Award, Project Censored Award and the Nation Magazine's Most Valuable Campaign Award. Punahou and Harvard Honor Graduate. Ph.D. in Sociology from UC Santa Cruz. An archive of close to 500 postings of mine can be found at my blogspot blog, Dennis Loo, link below. I publish regularly at dennisloo.com, worldcantwait.net (link below) and also at OpEd News and sometimes at Counterpunch.

FEBRUARY 28, 2010 11:58PM

Reflections on the Tea Party People/Movement

Rate: 17 Flag

"Many of the people coalescing around the Tea Party Movement, young and old, are at the beginning of their political awakening. They are angry and frustrated by what they see and rightly so. They're in the midst of a personal storm. They see their own little boats on the verge of capsizing and they're looking for the calmer seas of yesterday. Eventually many of them will realize that there are no simple solutions and reason will moderate their fear struck emotionalism."

--"William," Peoria, Illinois, in his comment at the New York Times, 2/16/10, in response to David Barstow's 2/15/10 article, "Tea Party Lights Fuse for Rebellion on Right." 

William recounts at the beginning of his comment his personal saga of holding up Goldwater signs in 1964:

"I remember in my callow youth, at eighteen, in 1964 standing on one of the main streets in Peoria holding my Goldwater sign aloft as Lyndon Johnson's motorcade drove by. I was against 'segregation' but nervous in an inchoate way that LBJ was proposing giving rights to blacks at the expense of the 'rights of white men' and would usher in a socialist revolution. I was afraid, even then, that some bogyman was going to take my guns, though I didn't have one and wasn't interested in buying one. It was just the prospect of not being able to wave one any time I wanted at some perceived threat that the Goldwater people had convinced me was an assault on my liberty and the beginning of tyranny. (It seems ironic now that LBJ gave me my first gun and provided me the training in its use.)

"I had little grounding in politics and almost no understanding what a modern nation state was about. I didn't realize that we had gone from an agrarian nation to an urban mass society where a highly structured hierarchy was required for cars to move seamlessly from New York to California and a coordinated system of higher education was necessary for all of the technological changes that were to improve my life in so many ways. I was wedded to the idea that if I followed the common sense of any 18th century yeoman farmer democracy would be saved. At eighteen, the life I'd known was changing all too rapidly for me and I was afraid. JFK was dead and LBJ was co-opting his magnificent political vision to his own unsavory ends. The draft and Vietnam were lingering in the not to distant future. The prospect of bombing North Vietnam 'into the stone age' seemed preferable to having to risk my own life in the much more reasoned approach of limited warfare in the world of international power politics."

William makes a number of very insightful observations about the Tea Party movement - the fact that the Tea Partiers are terribly new to political life/activism, that their world has been upended, for the most part because of the economic crisis, and in part, the lesser part, but a nonetheless prominent part, due to Obama's color, and the fact that they seek simple answers to very complicated problems. 

As someone from the political Left, I must add that the Tea Party people to a significant extent (since they are such a variegated and motley group) are responding with appropriate outrage on certain matters. The "Oath Keepers," for example, Frank Rich describes as "a rising militia group of veterans and former law enforcement officers who champion disregarding laws they oppose.” I am not an expert on the Oath Keepers, but I do not quarrel with their stand on what kind of orders they call upon law enforcement and military personnel to disobey: warrantless searches, arresting Americans as unlawful enemy combatants, or forcing civilians into “any form of detention camps.” Their recognition that such orders are coming - or here already - is correct. Warrantless searches have been going on since the passage of the Patriot Act. Treating Americans as unlawful enemy combatants, including ordering their assassination by Obama, has begun to happen, albeit in a small number of cases so far, and detention camps have been built and roundups conducted of thousands of suspected immigrants.

The Tea Partiers cohere the extremely widespread and just outrage against the bailouts and the corporate control over the country. The 9/11 Truth Movement, which has its adherents among the TP’ers, gets some of its impetus from the simple fact that the government’s explanation for 9/11 violates the laws of physics in some important particulars. The Tea Party movement is both right-wing, especially in terms of its national reactionary “leaders” such as Beck and Palin and libertarian (thus, the popularity of Ron Paul), but it also overlaps with left-wing sentiments, despite its lily-white character.

Is a civil war coming? The Tea Partiers are getting ready for one. And they are probably right about that. Which way will they point their guns, will it be in the interest of reaction or the reverse? That question is unsettled because the forces in motion are complex, powerful, and unfixed. The situation is unstable. Some of the Tea Party people, only a part, but a distinct part, can potentially be won to a progressive, left-position. They aren’t all dyed-in-the-wool racists. Those who dismiss them as loonies are mistaking a part and an element of their movement for the whole. Emotion isn’t a bad thing per se. Passion is a good thing. It needs, however, to be based on a scientific and accurate appraisal of what’s actually going on. They won’t become more rational spontaneously, which is where I disagree with “William.”

The Tea Party movement reflects the fracturing forces of capital and imperialism as capital attempts to hold the center together, even as the forces of capitalism and its logic create greater and greater levels of instability through plunder and manifest and increasingly dramatic inequities. The GOP and the Democratic Parties are both in danger from this movement, even as the GOP tries to stoke, hijack, and control the Tea Partiers. The Massachusetts election of Brown demonstrates both the power of the Tea Party movement and the bankruptcy of their "rejection" of establishment politics by participating in electoral, establishment politics - how is electing a Republican any kind of repudiation of what is wrong in this country's political arena? 

The Tea Party movement also reflects, in part, the relative strength of the forces of the reactionary Right and the relative weakness so far of the Left. Imagine the impact if the genuine Left (needless to say I'm not speaking here of the Democratic Party as the Left) had the equivalent of Fox News and the pulpit that that network alone is. We don't have its equivalent, obviously, and we're not going to get it, either. But what we can do with even a modest increase in funding and participation in the Left by new forces is immense... 

 

Your tags:

TIP:

Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:

Comments

Type your comment below:
I find the tea party to be an intersting phenomena Dennis. It appears there are many who think it is spontaneous and organic, but just as clearly there are those who think they own it (read "Dick Armey"). So what is it really? Is it Armey and Co stoking existing passions? Is it a real concern for America, brought on by finding a Ron Paul in Congress? I dont have answers, I am very uncomfortable with what I see, however. Because in many ways, I think at its core it is racist. How could these same people sleep so quietly in the Bush-Cheney years only to awaken when a racially different person sits in the White House? That question makes the tea party movement feel as organic to me as my 5th grade chemisty set.
Tim: The demographics of the Tea Party movement are of people who aren't characteristically politically active and highly engaged. They are slow to move politically in such a manner, if at all. I'm not surprised that they didn't protest against Bush and Cheney's policies. If this demographic had done so, that would have meant that we had an entirely different political atmosphere and dynamic at work since they would have been among the very last to protest.

Is racism a factor among the TP's? Yes. Is it at the core? No, I don't think it is.
Dennis,
You might want to read this, it reminds me of some of what you're saying:

Chaos as an Everyday Thing
http://www.agenceglobal.com/Article.asp?Id=2261

Also I saw a recent interview with Chomsky where he was saying that the left should be the ones who are organizing the Tea Partiers; it is a big failure on our part for these people to have fallen into the hands of this movement...
Dennis Loo. I was thinking of you today while reading a Washington Post piece by R. Jeffery Smith titles`What can We Learn From John Yoo.

O wondered if you were still at Open Salon. I come and go, but wish I had more tome to research the mindset here. Tea Party Baggers?

I went to a gathering when the Tea Baggers first began their placard carrying and selling T- shirts. There was a local politician talking at a community college. I thought I'd listen. The Health conversation/discussion confuses me. I was shocked!

I was yelled at just because of my hick farmer slovenly boondocks dress?
Odd?

If Boo Boo is allergic to certain insects. Yoo allows insect torture occur. So - the USA government let's a inmate suspected "bagel terror " have some bed bugs, stink bugs, sleep deprivation, and other death-threatening interrogations. The he/she will talk? GADS.
Odd.
I doubt any Intelligence is anywhere today in America? I include me. War gathering information is a JOKE. The Joke is DoJ. Pathetic. What will future sociologist write ref. The time of idiocy? If we aren't all in caves and climbing Yoo Trees?

Today reading the News?
When people in government "leading America in a unsustainable economy" and are speaking of the Torture-memo of 2002 Office of Legal Council, that Yoo wrote:`

"Graphic and disturbing" ...

said The Director of National Intelligence,

Dennis Blair,
David Petraus,
Robert Mueller,
etc.,
Who can understand any of these critters. I'm too sleepy to make any more sense than I never do anyway? History was always this goofy? O humans?
Dennis Loo.
Thanks for you,
but not Mr. Yoo.
Art, You make more sense than Your unpretentious manner allows You to.



Thank G-d You're back, Professor -- You've been missed.


rated
"They won’t become more rational spontaneously, which is where I disagree with “William.”"

That's my worry. They and I may actually agree, in principle, on many things. But they are all too willing to be lead by people who are seeking to direct that anger against agents of actual change.
Sean: I've gone to read the article you suggest by Immanuel Wallerstein, "Chaos as an Everyday Thing." In it he says:

"I have seen only two intelligent statements about the election results in the United States.

"One was by Barack Obama himself: 'The same thing that swept [Republican] Scott Brown into office [in Massachusetts] swept me into office. People are angry, and they're frustrated.' And the second was by African-American op-ed columnist in The New York Times, Charles M. Blow. He called his op-ed 'Mobs rule.' He said: 'Welcome to the mob: an angry, wounded electorate, riled by recession, careening across the political spectrum, still craving change, nursing a bloodlust.' First they elected Obama; now they're rejecting him. Why? 'The mob is fickle.'"

It's true that Obama got elected because people were a) fed up with Bush, and b) alarmed at the financial crisis. But they're not now angry at Obama because they're "fickle." They're mad at him mainly because he hasn't delivered on what he claimed he'd deliver on. Now I hasten to add that a generous portion of this hostility to Obama is racism, but remember that Obama won the election among white voters too, so this racism wasn't showing itself the way it is being expressed now. The racist subtext is more a proxy for class divisions than it is out and out racism.

In other words, people have a lot to be angry at Obama for, and justifiably to a significant extent. The Town Hall health care fracases wouldn't have been so nearly as successful if Obama had come into health care reform by a) pushing a public option, and b) using his popularity, remember when he had it?, and slamming the reactionaries for their stand. He could still do this now and he could turn the tables on them and change the situation, but of course, he's not going to do this. The point is, Obama is substantially to blame for the situation and it isn't just the reactionary Right who have created this.

Thank you Art and Mark!

Fudo: The Tea Partiers are naive politically. Extremely naive. They're completely new to politics. So their gullibility to the fascists who seek to lead them and who are pandering to them and stoking their fear and anger is to be expected at this point. But they're not necessarily all going to stay this way. As you become involved in politics you can, and many will, learn some things. I find it interesting how resistant they've shown themselves to be so far to being corralled. The situation is complex and these forces are being pulled in sharply different directions. They aren't just one or another thing. They can't be pigeonholed and simply written off.
when you say people are, perhaps, naive politically, you're putting a lot of faith in not only their capacity to learn, but what, exactly they'll learn.

I've seen rants by people who didn't just regurgitate talking points, but had a bevy of facts and figures at their fingertips - they'd clearly done some research. They still take positions like real health care reform could be achieved with tort reform, or the "everyone for themselves" anti-social dogma that refuses to "contribute to someone else's benefits." They are, after all, still people.

What I think angers a lot of us (those of us who're ideologically progressives) is we believe, not only are our arguments reasonable, not just logical, but we believe that if they're explained clearly enough, reasonable people would be in agreement.

Add to the fact that not all of "them" are entirely reasonable (the ones who won't let "facts" or "mere theories" get in the way of what they believe), add to them the ones who reason from a different perspective, rightly or not.

You're putting a lot of faith in the notion that people will want to learn and understand. People are lazy, and would rather have someone else do all the heavy lifting/thinking for them. I've worked in computer support long enough to know most people, all but the most curious, don't care to know how the machine works - let alone how to make better use of it, or how it can make their tasks easier - they want to know where the "send e-mail" button is. "Just show me which buttons to press, and let me get back to my job."

The people behind Beck, O'Rly?, Tancredo and Palin, the ones with the real, actual control, have jumped right in and are showing these people, like lab rats, which buttons to push.
Occam:

I don't think it's faith that I'm arguing for in relation to the Tea Partiers. I think it's a political assessment of a movement that by all accounts, including in their own self-accounts, is extremely variegated. They are less uniform than any other movement that I know of or have ever known.

Do most people lack curiosity and do most people want easy answers? I think so, yes. Does this mean that the entire movement can be characterized in that way? Wouldn't that be too pat, too easy, an answer to see them all this way?

Again, as I said in this comments thread, this is a demographic that is normally very quiescent politically. It is very uncommon for them to be mobilizing with this degree of energy. Their initiation comes from Fox and the earliest stirrings were astroturfing. I don't see it as that anymore. Witness the fact that Ron Paul is far more popular than Palin, for example. Ron Paul is a libertarian. Palin is a proto-fascist.

What people will learn isn't only dependent upon their predisposition to learn. Circumstances will force people to learn certain things, whether they want to or not. It's true that individuals can remain deaf and dumb to many things if they truly are willfully stupid, but this doesn't describe everyone in this movement. I'm resisting what is a pretty pronounced tendency in especially liberal, progressive, and radical views of the TP'ers to paint them as one thing. They are not.
You missed me, didn't you, CA? : )

I continue to wonder whether you really are tongue-in-cheek since your comments contain (inadvertently or purposefully?) the seeds of their own refutation. Witness this one: "As to your insinuation that the 9/11 building d[e]molitions violated the laws of physics..." Why do you refer to it as "demolitions" if you think that 9/11 happened exactly as our government says it did? A fire that is producing black smoke - as can be seen in the photos and video of the Twin Towers after they were hit by the jets - means that it is oxygen starved. Jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough, even if it weren't oxygen starved to weaken or bring down the steel supports....

That the Oath Keepers are motivated by a Birchian view of the dangers of One World Government, and that the Tea Partiers are one and many opposed to Big Brother/Government, doesn't make them wrong about everything. The fact that the Oath Keepers are hostile to Muslims generally (if this is true), doesn't alter the fact that the nature of capitalism-imperialism is that once the capitalists/government have demonized the "Other," they will proceed to go after those who thought they were previously safe as one of "Us." Oath Keepers' credo that they will refuse to imprison any Americans as an unlawful enemy combatant, round people up into detention camps, or participate in warrantless searches doesn't square with your dismissal of them as being motivated solely by anti-Muslim sentiment.

What people see as the reason why things are going on is analytically distinct from the events that are propelling them into political motion about those events. Your view that corporate capitalism is invincible is wrong not only as to corporate capitalism (Hitler and Mussolini lost, remember?) but it is wrong in principle about anything. Nothing is invincible.
Let's have a longer time frame here than the past few hundred years, shall we? Humans have been around for millions of years, and hunting and gathering societies for two million by themselves.

Class societies, of which capitalism is but a small part, have been around for around 5% of human societies' existence. How does less than 5% of humanity's history, in which the existence of capitalism itself has been contested, compare to the other 95% in which classes themselves, let alone capitalism specifically, haven't existed? How does even 5% constitute the rule about how people will organize themselves? If it was so inevitable and so invincible, how come it's only been around, contested and crisis ridden, for such a short time? If it's so great, how come it's full of troubles, witness the Tea Party movement alone, let alone all else...
The liberal left isn't entertaining enough to pull off 3 hours of talk radio or prime time on MSNBC. Liberals are relegated to spin, not facts.
T.S. -

Conservatives are funnier than the left? That's funny!

Bill O'Reilly - now there's a laugh riot.
I like your take Dennis, I hope you are right in what you say... I've been taken in somewhat by the center-right idea of the MSM (that the American people lean rightward) I must say. I hope they are wrong, but so many people have been so propagandized (and government has been demonized) for so long that you'd have to think this virulent propaganda has made substantial inroads.

p.s. I've heard for a long time that a majority supports single-payer (I think around 60%), but it seems almost as soon as Obama got going with this reform it was 50% or slightly over that at best... I wonder if it's b/c this plan was never single-payer, or if when the right-wing attack machine went into effect they had some success?

p.p.s. There's also the idea of in the crafting of the legislation people's stomachs were so upset by the process that the numbers went down...
Sean:

The support for single payer was high and it continues to be high. The decline in support for health care reform is principally the fault of Obama not approaching this question properly and aggressively. Secondarily, as a result of his failure to do so, the right made headway in their lying/distorting/fear mongering. But this path of the Democratic Party leadership is par for the course nowadays since they are unwilling to break decisively with the reactionary/fascist right. That would be a winning strategy because the fascists at the head of the GOP and related reactionary formations like Beck et al are fundamentally weak, cowardly, and able to get their way only by not being called on the carpet for their transparent lies. But to adopt a strategy that would truly take on the reactionaries would mean a mobilization of the populace that the Democrats fear even more than they fear the fascists.

CA: Nice to have a sponsor among the fascist ranks! LOL.

As to your statement: "all the technical, scientific, economic advances that we cherish...from modern medicine to autos and lasers and assembly likes (maybe not so cherished by some, hmmm), etc.,... and the robotics, new energy sources, etc., all these occurred and will continue occurring in a corporate/capitalist framework."

Again, you ought to take a longer time frame in your assessment. Science, innovation, invention, and technical developments predate capitalism and exist alongside capitalism at this time. They don't owe their existence to capitalism overall and in fact capitalism represents a major hindrance to their further development at this point. In the earlier stages of capitalist development it is true that capitalism spurred more innovation, but that is also true of other epochs of human existence, some of which I mentioned previously. It is true that capitalism has been a powerful spur. But it is also true that it now blocks the full development of these things - witness, to take just one example, its spectacular failure to eliminate unnecessary deaths due to lack of access to clean drinking water. Why? Because it's not profitable enough for them. The actual inventors of new products are usually not the ones who benefit from these things. To take another example, a fairly trivial one by comparison, a long time ago someone developed the ability to make panty hose that doesn't run. Why can't women buy this product anywhere? Because it isn't being sold because it would be contrary to the profit-motive. I could go on and on in this vein. Look at the unnecessary misery being caused by the operations of this grand system that mandates that people should go hungry, be tortured, suffer needlessly, so that a relative privileged few can live lives of obscene luxury.
If you can point out one successful liberal radio or TV talk show I would consider your point but you can't and so I won't.
T.S.

Well, what a successful refutation you make! I suppose then I won't point out shows such as SNL (which has been on the air for decades and has historically been more progressive than not), or The Daily Show, or The Cobert Report, or Rachel Maddow. Nor will it be meaningful to point out how much of comedy historically is not conservative in nature, in large part because poking fun at the oppressed in general isn't as funny as doing the same to the comfortable. Because all of that would be impossible to say, since you tell me so, so I won't.
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
Reality Refutes A 9/11 Conspiracy Claim

One of the core claims of the 9/11 "Truth" movement is that the explosion and flames resulting from the ignition of jet fuel carried by the airplanes that impacted the twin towers could not generate enough heat to fatally weaken the buildings' steel structure. But this is just what happened Sunday when a tanker carrying 8,600 gallons of gasoline crashed and exploded.

Two connector ramps of the Bay Bridge MacArthur Maze, located near Emeryville, collapsed Sunday morning after an explosion and fire.

Heat from the fire, which reached temperatures estimated at up to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit, caused the metal bolts and girders on the highway connector ramp above to melt. The overpass then gave way and collapsed.

http://preciouscargo.blogspot.com/2007/05/reality-refutes-911-conspiracy-claim.html
Peter: I'm not a structural engineer, but you aren't either judging from your profile. Any one can see two things from the publicly available footage of the WTC fire on 9/11. First, the fire was oxygen starved, which is why it was mostly black smoke, which means the fire was substantially below what the jet fuel was capable of potentially burning at. Second, the fire wasn't uniform throughout the floors it was on, nor was there a fire throughout the building. Even assuming that the fire burned hot enough to damage the steel girders (which were, remember built to withstand forces considerably higher due to their elevation and the wind forces and load than the second story freeway bridge in the accident you bring up), why didn't the building sag unevenly rather than come down in some 11 seconds perfectly uniformly?
I'd be interested in hearing your views on the programming of our "Democracy Now!" This may be viewed online as well as in the mainstream. Broomfield, CO's own KBDI Channel 12 has it on 5 evenings a week. Does this not suffice as far as the Left's viewpoint? Can it not act as a preservative in the midst of this chaos we call political upheaval?
Perhaps if we call for moderation, even those hellbent on murder may be mollified. Those mollifying forces here may include you and me. I hate to think what we are coming to, but I know I'd rather remain true to the American ideal that freedom is a right than capitulate, to knuckle under, if you will, or even bow to, the authority which says we are not free enough.
Religious differences aside, it did seem to me we lost the point of the whole conversation around whose rights are lost when we bomb a Vietcong soldier, citing his differing religious proclivities as one reason for commandeering his way of life. The same must be said about our global community's Muslim population.
Time for a stand in strength, I think. This may take many forms. However, it won't be complete till we tell ourselves we must keep the peace together as well as striving for better days ahead.
I would welcome your comments here or elsewhere in Salon's forum for change.
Peace to the factions of right and left.
PW
PW: Thanks for your comments. The ghettoization of views that has resulted from the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine - people only hearing the views of those they already agree with, and being given pat answers that scapegoat certain groups for the troubles they are experiencing - furthers the agenda of the reactionary right. Imagine Rush or Beck having to contend directly with opposing views on their own programs. Their acts would be exposed as just that. What we're up against is very daunting because the right has been able to amass so much power and the airwaves and media more generally are so much in their hands. Democracy Now! and other programs like that are, as you indicate, part of the path out of this.

As we agree, there are ways to win over some of those who are now being won to reactionary stands, but it's going to be a hard road navigating these terrible times. I'm not for moderation in its own right and as a principle, but what I am for is the truth and for what's just. We have to uphold and fight for those principles in the face of a tremendous amount of static and smoke and mirrors and repression.
"they seek simple answers to very complicated problems."

Poignant - much of what I've been thinking. I hear them, but I see a lot of immaturity and blind absolutes and think they are a movement of grandiosity rather than stable change.

Rated highly.
Dennis -

Just read over the comments. In reference to the physics of the Twin Towers collapsing, there is a great book called, "Physics for Future Presidents: the science behind the headlines" by Richard A. Muller which I found to be very clear about how the collapse happened.

In short, "there was no time for the fuel to mix well with air, so the fireball was not really an explosion, at least not the kind that does enormous extra damage...In the WTC fireball, the expanding gases were subsonic (slower than sound velocity), and mostly the just passed around the support columns, as subsonic gases will do...that's why there was no loud boom...The stell columns were covered with insulation and were designed to maintain their strenght for 2 to 3 hours of ordinary fire (not jet fuel fire)...The rate of burning was limited by the avilability of oxygen, not of fuel. Low air means a longer burn, and that gave the heat more time to penetrate the insulation...when the temp of the of the columns reached 1500F they weakend enough to become vulnerable to buckling.

He shows pictures of the South Tower indicating how one side's support beam 'buckled' before the other, which you can clearly see in the photo. The result was like an avalanche as the resistance which has built up isn't gentle - it causes a sudden collapse.

Great book and important to know the science behind these things. My $.02.
Dennis

Always good to hear your opinions, welcome back

As someone who lives among the tea partiers, and generally supports them, I believe you and many progressives are missing the effect of worldview on politics. The specific worldview concerns religion.

I don’t claim to have any great understanding of what it feels like to be a strict materialist/humanist/sectarian (Secular Humanist?) All the Secular Humanists ( to lump them together much as one might say “Christians”) I know are vehement that “Secular Humanism” is NOT a “Religion” to which I must simply say, nonsense. The old “looks like, walks like, quacks like” test applies.

Secular Humanism provides all the belief systems and functions of a religion. So I will address it as such ( The fact that Materialists have a monopoly of “TRUTH” (Science?= TRUTH? Really? Since when?) on their side hardly distinguishes them from any other religion- it rather is one of the very loud “QUACKS” by which the genre “Religion” is usually distinguished)

I am presuming most Progressives are “Scientific Rationalists/ Materialists/Secular Humanists” and as such believe that ( as a friend of mine once expressed it ) “ Once he’s DEAD , he expects to be DEAD for a very long time.”

And I have always felt, “how sad” – and how frightening to believe that this is the only life and it is generally meaningless and too soon over.

(As an aside on the humor thing-An attitude like that would kill my sense of humor too—but then black humor and joyful “making fun” are different genres- I like Lenny Bruce for “Dark Wisdom” ( Any N****s here tonight?) but it’s definitely Jeff Foxworthy for “Wry Fun” (You too, just might be a Redneck- even if your neck is a rather deep brown))Chris Rock is also good at this.(Your neck might not be a dark brown like mine but you know what I’m talking about-)

I don’t tell it lightly, but since none of you here are likely to show up at my church and tattle on me, I’m a Deist- not a true Christian”. (Though I can and do say I try to be a follower of Christ, when questioned.)

The point is that aside from the fact that I believe everyone creates their own heaven or hell, I don’t so much believe in an “Afterlife” as I see no convincing evidence that “Life “ ever ends- anymore than you die when the Mario you’re operating dies in a video game.

I bring that up not to argue the point, but rather to make a point.

I’m coming up on my three score and ten, and I don’t really expect to be here more than another 10 to 15 years at most.

My attitude toward death is that of a curious and eager to learn school boy who’s put in a rather satisfying and mildly productive day and is watching the clock tick down towards the final bell that will let me go home.

Do all conservatives feel that way? Of course not.
The difference is that, push comes to shove, most teabaggers feel that when death takes them, they have the assurance that they have a home to go to.

Hence, all this “WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE!!! “( -----if we don’t pass health care, if we don’t pass cap and trade, if we don’t let the government run the economy, if we don’t let the scientific nanny state dictate our every thought and action) nonsense gets more than a little annoying.

Give me Liberty or give me Death becomes more of a Lifestyle choice than anything else….it is not terrifying to someone like me who doesn’t fear death, but who DOES get aggravated when people start talking about how he must become a slave so that he can at least live on his knees…..After all what choice does he have?- If the choice is that he will obey the “Experts” or be absolutely and utterly destroyed for all eternity, versus obey them or he’ll get to go home from school an hour early, ….. Those two propositions have very different “fear” factors.

We’re all gonna die? Tell me something I didn’t know. Get used to it. See you in the locker room. Meanwhile quit trying to get me as worked up as you appear to be. It doesn’t help and it makes me think you’re trying to put something over on me.

As for the government and what tea baggers hope to accomplish? - an analogy.:

When my kids ( A pair of six year old neutered male cats- One red, one black,- perfect Scorpio twins- very much like Congress) get to growling and hissing at each other to the point I can’t hear myself think, a well reasoned “SHUT THE FUCK UP!!) usually sends them scattering to the hills and does wonders for my ability to concentrate on actually doing something.

I have yet to actually have to make them shut the fuck up. I wonder if they think I have the “Right “to? Or whether I can? Oh well, that’s why we have elections- or if necessary, revolutions. If I go home before this sorts out, somebody tell me what happens, (when I see you in the locker room.- hey, just cause you don’t believe you have a home to go to, doesn’t mean you actually have to be homeless, you can always stay at my Father’s place -he loves everybody)
Token: Glad you stopped by. Been waitin' for you. The difference between science and rationalists and religion is not that we think we have the truth and faith-based perspectives don't. The difference is that how you arrive at truth is either through investigation and testing or through faith.

For rationalists, you can judge actually test whether your proposition is true or not against objective criteria that can be applied and tested by anybody else using the same criteria. It doesn't, in that instance, require or rest upon any faith. It rests on reason and the existence of an objective reality outside of our consciousness.

For instance, you and I and anyone else for that matter can check out how fast an object falls through space and find that we arrive at the same answers. We similarly can measure the decay rate of carbon and we'll get the same answers. That's why scientists can state with certainty how old something is. It doesn't require faith or intuition. It can be demonstrated definitively.

While social science deals with human behavior and not inanimate objects, and therefore cannot establish with the same degree of certainty how humans will behave, it is scientific in a manner similar to meteorology. We can say probabilistically that certain behaviors will occur under certain circumstances. We know, for instance, through experiments what proportion of people will give wrong answers to simple questions that they KNOW are wrong, but do so because confederates in the experiment have been told to give the same wrong answer, and the non-confederate individual wishes to conform to the group. We can see what proportion of people will conform and which proportion will break with the group. We can't know which individuals will do so necessarily, but we do know ahead of time that a certain rough percentage will do such and such.

If the criterion isn't science and is faith, then there is no way to test whether something is true or not. It all comes down to simple belief and if it's only belief, then all beliefs are equally right or equally wrong. Muslims believe that Christians are condemned and Christians believe that Muslims are going to hell. There's no way to choose here because it's all based on faith. I could say that I believe in a Six Foot Bunny who is my invisible companion. On the basis of faith, you have to take my word for it.

What I don't know from your comments is why you raise the religion/faith question in connection with the issues in my post. Please clarify.
Dennis

I bring up religion/belief systems to point out the problem of trying to be exclusively rational in attempting to deal with or understand people who lean toward a magical (intuitional) belief system.( The SPOCK syndrome)

I read your reply to my comment yesterday and got to thinking about belief systems ( i deal with them in the context of artificial intelligence)and wound up writing a blog length essay on the difference between belief systems that are founded on magical thinking (most) and those that attempt to be based on rationalism ( which I lumped together as secular humanists.) I sent this to you by OS PM if you are interested

This was an essay i've neant to write for a while, but I don't post much at OS, it's occasionally interesting to see what oxen make of
lead pellets as an item of diet (to avoid the pearls before swine cliche) but mostly if they eat them it just makes them sick, and it's a real chore to sort out and clean off my lead pellets when I go to cast them into toy soldiers. (we aren't yet to the stage of needing to cast bullets- respectful communication between opinions is the way to avoid the need)

In the essay, which I decided to call "The Conscience of a Wingnut" ( in homage to Barry Goldwater) I try to deal with how magical thinking (intuition) validates the individualist way of existence. In that most tea partiers are by definition individualists, it isn't stramge to me that they and Progressives ( who tend to be Rational Collectivists in my experience) wind up talking past each other all the time.

Human REASON requires the use of both "Magical Thinking" iintuition ) and "Legalistic Nonsense" ( Rational symbolic Logic)
We are blessed with Both- we must use them in concert rather than decrying those whose experience and "common sense" lead them to be able to get through a day without more than a few grunts of language ( or a logical syllogism ever passing through their head) on the one hand, or those self centered Lawyers
and Scientist "Experts" who sit around all day debating how many CO2 atoms can dance on the head of a pin( and should the co2 molecules be allowed to dance or must they ride bicycles?) while taxing us for the lavish quantities of Whiskey and dancing girls necassary to cool and soothe them from their Herculean labors, on the other.

Common sense is the belief in experience and intuition. It has a lot in common with Temple Grandin's "Thinking in Pictures" It defines our Reality and gives us a place to stand.
Rationality is the lever by which Archimedes and his Ilk continue to move the world (Sometimes to my Horror- a lever and shaky premises on which to stand are a dangerous combination, especially when used to pull apart the premises we occupy.)


Human Wisdom consists of carefully considering what both experience (Intuition) and Symbolic Logic tell you about a situation.

My suggestion to anyone who sincerely wishes to communicate with Tea Partiers ( or any individualists) is to forget about being Rational- To assert the primacy of synbolic Logic over experience just makes you an infuriating fool in his eyes.
Wisdom consists of being Reasonable. Especially when your opponent is being irraational
If you then insist that your opponent be Reasonable (NOT "Rational") he will be more inclined to comply.