Archive for the ‘OWS’
This is such a spot-on observation/consideration by Krugman:
What about being able to find work? Suppose you have an expensively acquired degree, and the only jobs out there are part-time gigs at minimum wage. You might not take those jobs; in that case, is it really true that you canâ€™t find work? Alternatively, you might indeed take such a job; is it really right in that case to say that you did find work?
Also interesting from the 2004 Obama, distinguishing between “Separation of Church and State” and avoiding/eschewing the “abandoning of the role of faith in politics” as some tend to do when explaining their working out of that “separation”.
in my own public policy, I’m very suspicious of religious certainty expressing itself in politics.
Now, that’s different form a belief that values have to inform our public policy. I think it’s perfectly consistent to say that I want my government to be operating for all faiths and all peoples, including atheists and agnostics, while also insisting that there are values tha tinform my politics that are appropriate to talk about.
For me, there’s always an artificiality to that separation; that this is an INTELLECTUAL separation that really is simply a linguistic slight of hand that ignores the inevitability of one’s values shaping the policy. Those “values” go deeper than the stump speeches. They express themselves also in attenuating the policies to align with the economic/political pressures to keep on top and “remain viable” as a politician. We’ve heard it: “If you don’t get re-elected, then what good can you accomplish”. Words which smack of “working within the system” to the point of acquiescence, therefore solidifiying one’s perpetuation of it. I hear this from hard-core Obama supporters all the time.
don’t say, as Hayes does, that he believes achieving racial progress is just a matter of having the right conversations.
The things Conor Friersdorf claims Rand Paul believes that supposedly shoot down Chris Hayes saying the above are , again, things SAID. Paul SAYS stuff. But the behavior and advocacy are simply not there. The attempts to roll back Voting Rights, the absence of anything concrete to back Main Street, REGARDLESS of what he CLAIMS to believe, are simply not arguments against Hayes’ charge.
In effect, Friersdorf takes things said in conversation/speech, and uses them to try to defend Paul against charges (legitimate and fitting IMO) that Paul thinks you just have to change how you talk about things, when that is exactly what he’s doing when he says what he “believes” and then votes with the right wing on numerous economic matters.