I'm as giddy as the next fella about, gasp, Roberts putting his stamp on this. I'm still left wondering, when did Barack lose the ability to give an inspiring speech? I mean, it happened so slowly, but over the course of 4 years he went from JFK to John Kerry.

"Democrats--elect us because the other guys are nuts."

(In 1984, I participated in a high-school debate on Regan vs. Mondale. My team drew Mondale, and if you thought Kerry was lame, then you've never heard of Mondale. Maher's point above was pretty much our only available line of argument, and we got smeared. Listen also to Zappa's arguments from that time and realize that nothing has changed.)

I think the way I'd put it is that I disagree that "Hegelian dialectic" is being appropriately used in the video. Here is a nice concise introduction to the concept. It's an alternative method for reasoning, and therefore is about trying to reach a better understanding of truth -- it has nothing to do with psychology, politics, or trying to control people.

The triadic structure of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis can, if you squint a bit, be re-purposed as a general theory about how political and scientific progress happens. First you have a thesis (e.g. "property is the only right"), then you have an antithesis ("property is theft"), and once people realize that while both positions contain insights, neither absolute position is fully correct, and so we generate a new thesis that combines the valid insights of each -- a synthesis ("a right to property is one of many rights, and without limits can and will infringe on those other rights"). But that's not a Hegelian Dialectic, that's just a slightly stilted way at looking at how "classical" reasoning sometimes plays out in the real world.

All that said, none of this serves to support the thesis that modern conceptions of the political left and right have been invented in order to achieve some sort of nefarious synthesis. Worse, if you think it's a Hegelian Dialectical synthesis we're heading for, then not only is it not a Reichstag fire, it's a giant leap forward in humanity's understanding of itself, because we will have figured out how to simultaneously resolve the left's criticisms of society (not enough equality in wealth and power), and the right's (too many people disputing the rightful distribution of wealth and power that arises from market action), though personally I don't think the resolution of that thesis/antithesis conflict will result in synthesis, just in the right's thesis being discarded. Again.

Long story short, if this is the foundation for a conspiracy theory, it's already gone way out into left field before it's even gotten started.

In reply to this comment by enoch:
In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
The Shock Doctrine and disaster capitalism are a lot more precise concepts than this. The idea behind the Shock Doctrine isn't that all conceptions of left and right are a distraction from the so-called "real" issues, it's where you foment a series of national crises in order to subvert the mechanisms of democracy in order to implement radical policies that would only be acquiesced to when people were in a state of shock.

In the case of disaster capitalism, you actually get a nice feedback loop. Deregulate markets, newly deregulated markets crash and create an economic crisis, and new "reforms" which further deregulate markets are proposed as the solution to the crisis created by the last round of deregulation. See all economic policy proposed by Republicans since the 1980's for examples.

There's also a burden of proof fallacy at work here. 3 cherry-picked quotes from Bush and Kerry on Iraq does not a conspiracy make. The political divide in the country in 2004 over Iraq clearly had the "stay forever" and "get out now" poles to it. That the Democratic candidate was moderate and said merely "don't stay forever", is more a sign of there being a right-wing conspiracy rigging elections and corrupting the Democratic party, not that the very idea of left and right having policy disagreements is some sort of elaborate distraction.

The thing I'm sensing in a lot of liberals these days is the sense that even when we win elections, we're still pretty much getting Republican policies rammed down our throats. We're even doing this thing where we Occupy places in protest of the 1% corrupting our political process and subverting the will of the people...


hey man,
i cant tell if you are agreeing with the video or not.
i am going to guess on the negative.
which kind of confuses me because the video is really just laying out what the hegelian dialectic is and how it can be used to be a lever of control.(sans the ron paul filler at the end).
i found it a pretty short but succinct in its intended goal to educate.

your descriptions of "shock doctrine" and "disaster capitalism" are correct but your premise seems to ignore that both utilize the hegelian dialectic to execute properly in to a society.

example:
problem (thesis)<------------------> reaction (antithesis)

but what if the institution meant to execute the reaction is the very same institution which created the problem,and hence is in the position to offer a solution? a solution which may have been the very thing they were after in the first place?

see where i am going with this?
so while in one scenario the problem is a creation,a facade, (shock doctrine) and the other (disaster capitalism) is an opportunistic leap for control,BOTH utilize the hegelian dialectic to accomplish their goals.

i am not a huge admirer of hegel (ok,i think he is a cunt) but he did understand human beings and the societies they live in because his predictions have played out quite accurately,when placed in the right context.

my thinking behind posting that video was to help people become aware of those levers of control.the philosophy behind those who wish to dominate and control the masses.
the more you know and all that jazz.

once you understand the hegelian dialectic and HOW it is used,you will see it in places and used in ways that prior you would have thought impossible.
it is used by those in power often and extremely well.

anyways.i just wanted to drop a note to you because either i misunderstood your comment or i am just a tad retarded.
in either case my friend,know that i love your commentary and i especially love your optimism.
really..keep up the optimism.my cynicism needs a dose every now and then.
peace brother.

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
The Shock Doctrine and disaster capitalism are a lot more precise concepts than this. The idea behind the Shock Doctrine isn't that all conceptions of left and right are a distraction from the so-called "real" issues, it's where you foment a series of national crises in order to subvert the mechanisms of democracy in order to implement radical policies that would only be acquiesced to when people were in a state of shock.

In the case of disaster capitalism, you actually get a nice feedback loop. Deregulate markets, newly deregulated markets crash and create an economic crisis, and new "reforms" which further deregulate markets are proposed as the solution to the crisis created by the last round of deregulation. See all economic policy proposed by Republicans since the 1980's for examples.

There's also a burden of proof fallacy at work here. 3 cherry-picked quotes from Bush and Kerry on Iraq does not a conspiracy make. The political divide in the country in 2004 over Iraq clearly had the "stay forever" and "get out now" poles to it. That the Democratic candidate was moderate and said merely "don't stay forever", is more a sign of there being a right-wing conspiracy rigging elections and corrupting the Democratic party, not that the very idea of left and right having policy disagreements is some sort of elaborate distraction.

The thing I'm sensing in a lot of liberals these days is the sense that even when we win elections, we're still pretty much getting Republican policies rammed down our throats. We're even doing this thing where we Occupy places in protest of the 1% corrupting our political process and subverting the will of the people...


hey man,
i cant tell if you are agreeing with the video or not.
i am going to guess on the negative.
which kind of confuses me because the video is really just laying out what the hegelian dialectic is and how it can be used to be a lever of control.(sans the ron paul filler at the end).
i found it a pretty short but succinct in its intended goal to educate.

your descriptions of "shock doctrine" and "disaster capitalism" are correct but your premise seems to ignore that both utilize the hegelian dialectic to execute properly in to a society.

example:
problem (thesis)<------------------> reaction (antithesis)

but what if the institution meant to execute the reaction is the very same institution which created the problem,and hence is in the position to offer a solution? a solution which may have been the very thing they were after in the first place?

see where i am going with this?
so while in one scenario the problem is a creation,a facade, (shock doctrine) and the other (disaster capitalism) is an opportunistic leap for control,BOTH utilize the hegelian dialectic to accomplish their goals.

i am not a huge admirer of hegel (ok,i think he is a cunt) but he did understand human beings and the societies they live in because his predictions have played out quite accurately,when placed in the right context.

my thinking behind posting that video was to help people become aware of those levers of control.the philosophy behind those who wish to dominate and control the masses.
the more you know and all that jazz.

once you understand the hegelian dialectic and HOW it is used,you will see it in places and used in ways that prior you would have thought impossible.
it is used by those in power often and extremely well.

anyways.i just wanted to drop a note to you because either i misunderstood your comment or i am just a tad retarded.
in either case my friend,know that i love your commentary and i especially love your optimism.
really..keep up the optimism.my cynicism needs a dose every now and then.
peace brother.

The Shock Doctrine and disaster capitalism are a lot more precise concepts than this. The idea behind the Shock Doctrine isn't that all conceptions of left and right are a distraction from the so-called "real" issues, it's where you foment a series of national crises in order to subvert the mechanisms of democracy in order to implement radical policies that would only be acquiesced to when people were in a state of shock.

In the case of disaster capitalism, you actually get a nice feedback loop. Deregulate markets, newly deregulated markets crash and create an economic crisis, and new "reforms" which further deregulate markets are proposed as the solution to the crisis created by the last round of deregulation. See all economic policy proposed by Republicans since the 1980's for examples.

There's also a burden of proof fallacy at work here. 3 cherry-picked quotes from Bush and Kerry on Iraq does not a conspiracy make. The political divide in the country in 2004 over Iraq clearly had the "stay forever" and "get out now" poles to it. That the Democratic candidate was moderate and said merely "don't stay forever", is more a sign of there being a right-wing conspiracy rigging elections and corrupting the Democratic party, not that the very idea of left and right having policy disagreements is some sort of elaborate distraction.

The thing I'm sensing in a lot of liberals these days is the sense that even when we win elections, we're still pretty much getting Republican policies rammed down our throats. We're even doing this thing where we Occupy places in protest of the 1% corrupting our political process and subverting the will of the people...

>> ^bobknight33:

No conservative gives a rats ass if the President is black or for that matter anything else. We care about being conservative first. Obama is as left as they come. That's why we oppose him.
He is not center left. He is to the left of the left.He makes Ted Kennedy and John Kerry look ok. >> ^VoodooV:
proof that conservatives will put aside their supposed morality at the drop of a hat just to oppose a black man



Did you just admit that conservatives care more about conservatism than they do the country? Forgive me if I misunderstood you, but it's hard to take anyone seriously who thinks Obama is left of left.

Or are you just trolling like QM, spouting stuff you know isn't true just to rile the sift up?

Or are you so deep in the bubble just nothing is getting through.

But by all means, keep painting this absurd picture of left wing radicalism and slippery slopes to socialism. You're just fracturing your party even more and ensuring Obama's re-election. The more you double down on this personal vendetta against Obama, the more you ensure you're going to lose.

As for your 2nd quote. Maybe you're right, but in your utopia, the EPA would be gone, thus ensuring that no one would be safe to fish Or maybe I could just buy fish from a corporation, but with no gov't oversight, the fish will probably make you sick, thus ensuring you're bankrupt for life and can never improve your life. Right Bob?

No conservative gives a rats ass if the President is black or for that matter anything else. We care about being conservative first. Obama is as left as they come. That's why we oppose him.

He is not center left. He is to the left of the left.He makes Ted Kennedy and John Kerry look ok. >> ^VoodooV:

proof that conservatives will put aside their supposed morality at the drop of a hat just to oppose a black man

Two things:-

(1).....I SERIOUSLY expected the top of her dress to drop

(2)..... She's the DOUBLE of Kerry Katona

^Upvoted^

'related videos - UF Student tasered at John Kerry Speech'

good call siftbot

Are you biased

Of course. Everyone is biased. Only the news media runs around pretending that they are completely ‘unbiased’, and no one believes them anymore.

Paul Krugman…best summary

I have difficulty taking anyone seriously who holds up Paul Krugman as an example of accuracy and fairness. The man is left wing shill and has a long history of saying anything and everything to spin for his bias. In this case, he’s ignoring years and years of violent threats and hate speech from the left towards the right. His opinion on this matter is worthless.

deliberate misreading of John Kerry

Bill Maher: You could have went to New Hampshire and killed two birds with one stone.
Kerry: Or, I could have gone to 1600 Pennsylvania and killed the real bird with one stone.
How is that not creating a ‘toxic environment’?

I guess when a liberal says crap like that it is just innocent ha-ha funny, right? When someone like Beck does it, then it's 'evil, poisonous, right-wing extremist rhetoric', eh wot?

Even a casual breeze through the news media, the political world, and the blogosphere proves the left is just as guilty as the right of 'polluting the political environment with hateful images and rhetoric'. Spin away if it soothes your guilt, but the reality is plain and only those blinkered by their own bias can pretend otherwise. I don’t pretend that there isn’t some nasty rhetoric that comes from the right. Why does the left always try to pretend away their hate?

The Krugman article can be found in full here, and I think it's the best take on the blame-game portion of this insanity I've seen yet.

@Winstonfield_Pennypacker, you continue to be the poster boy for confirmation bias. Your examples of "violent rhetoric" from the left are limited to a deliberate misreading of John Kerry saying something about "killing the real bird with one stone" right after being asked a question that contained the phrase "killing two birds with one stone" four years ago, and some graphical joke from Craig Kilborn (who I guess is supposedly a liberal?) ten years ago, and then a bunch of people who I've never heard of.

What's the matter, can't come up with anything substantial?

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

there is also no doubt (and Palin is just the most recent/glaring of the lot) that the Right has been the primary source of it
Completely disagree. The political left is the source of tremendous amounts of hate speech and angry rhetoric. I am not going to say that are the 'primary' source, because both sides are equally apoplectic. I consume media from a variety of sources. I don't just look at MSNBC, CBS, ABC, FOX, AP, Rueters - I also look at a cross section of sites of varying political tilt. From Brietbart on the right all the way to the KOS on the left, I see a swatch of it all. And in all honesty and candor, it is NOT the political right that is "the primary" source of angry rhetoric, and certainly not Sarah Palin. There's plenty to go around all sides in this particular smorgasboard.
Do we forget - or do some choose to ignore - the bile and venom the left has been spewing, especially during the Bush years? My memory is not selective, and I remember very clearly the left was calling for Bush assassinations, burning him in effigy, making threats, calling for violence, and otherwise vomiting out hate speech against Bush & Bush supporters for well over 10 years now.
Pictures of Bush decapitated... Images of him in a guillotine... T-shirts wanting him executed... John Kerry saying he 'could Kill Bush, no problem'... Craig Kilborn saying, "Snipers wanted" by a pic of Bush. Alan Hevesi who said he 'would put a bullet between his eyes'. Charles Karel Bouley who wants Joe the Plumber 'dead'. Fiengold who said "Republicans aren't human beings and they should be exterminated before they cause more harm". Chris Matthews who said, "Someone's going to jam a C02 pellet into Limbaugh's head and he's going to explode like a giant blimp - that day may come and we'll be there to watch." DLC blogs that use the same sort of target map Palin did... http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253055&kaid=127&sub
id=171 And I have not even begun to scratch the SURFACE of the left-wing hate that is pervasive in the media and political culture.
So please - no peddling of the liberally biased fantasy that it is "only" the right or "primarily" the right that is wallowing in this cesspool of hateful rhetoric. No. The left has been revelling in the same filth for decades. This isn't some sort of right-wing malady. It is a problem that pervades both sides in equal levels of commonality and severity.


I watch a lot of news especially during the Bush era. I've seen Bush compared to Hitler and Monkeys and stuff...I have never seen some of the shit you're talking about and you know why...because it wasn't trumpeted in the media. Hatred against Obama and racism is put on our TVs almost like it's a great thing...even defended and encouraged in some cases.

So yes the Left does have it's crazies and they do say stupid fucking things...but no, it's not Equal...not in coverage not in reaction. Any study of the media would tell you this but you're probably a bit busy.

there is also no doubt (and Palin is just the most recent/glaring of the lot) that the Right has been the primary source of it

Completely disagree. The political left is the source of tremendous amounts of hate speech and angry rhetoric. I am not going to say that are the 'primary' source, because both sides are equally apoplectic. I consume media from a variety of sources. I don't just look at MSNBC, CBS, ABC, FOX, AP, Rueters - I also look at a cross section of sites of varying political tilt. From Brietbart on the right all the way to the KOS on the left, I see a swatch of it all. And in all honesty and candor, it is NOT the political right that is "the primary" source of angry rhetoric, and certainly not Sarah Palin. There's plenty to go around all sides in this particular smorgasboard.

Do we forget - or do some choose to ignore - the bile and venom the left has been spewing, especially during the Bush years? My memory is not selective, and I remember very clearly the left was calling for Bush assassinations, burning him in effigy, making threats, calling for violence, and otherwise vomiting out hate speech against Bush & Bush supporters for well over 10 years now.

Pictures of Bush decapitated... Images of him in a guillotine... T-shirts wanting him executed... John Kerry saying he 'could Kill Bush, no problem'... Craig Kilborn saying, "Snipers wanted" by a pic of Bush. Alan Hevesi who said he 'would put a bullet between his eyes'. Charles Karel Bouley who wants Joe the Plumber 'dead'. Fiengold who said "Republicans aren't human beings and they should be exterminated before they cause more harm". Chris Matthews who said, "Someone's going to jam a C02 pellet into Limbaugh's head and he's going to explode like a giant blimp - that day may come and we'll be there to watch." DLC blogs that use the same sort of target map Palin did... http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253055&kaid=127&subid=171 And I have not even begun to scratch the SURFACE of the left-wing hate that is pervasive in the media and political culture.

So please - no peddling of the liberally biased fantasy that it is "only" the right or "primarily" the right that is wallowing in this cesspool of hateful rhetoric. No. The left has been revelling in the same filth for decades. This isn't some sort of right-wing malady. It is a problem that pervades both sides in equal levels of commonality and severity.

Answer: "Cheese, wine and rubbish." - Question: "What three words best describe France?"

That's precisely what I thought as well, and what I presume most folks have thought. Incidently, it was answered by Jeremy Clarkson more than once over the years, particularly when they had a piece about Renault, Peugeot or Citroen on Top Gear.

Anyway, Frankie does rip a lot on Kerry Katona - and it gets better every time.

Remember Frank Luntz? The Dark Lord of Semantics? ... he'd likely appreciate that title.
Very smart man; focuses on the inherent emotion of words with little regard to their information content.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz
(nice discussion about Orwell in that article, actually)


I was actually thinkings about similar things earlier this week; what do you think about this...

Q. Why can't liberals sell ideas as well as conservatives right now?

A. Smarter liberals oppose or are critical of using deceptive, emotionally manipulating words to sell their ideas, and don't as often fall in line with talking points that use this tactic. This is possibly due to a recognition that transparency is required when you want government influencing society. OR may simply be due to liberalism being tied to empathy.
Smarter conservatives are not as concerned about transparency or educating people on the issue; they have re-learned that directing the power of emotion is much more efficient and effective, and can be essentially mined from focus groups and applied broadly.


Q. What should liberals do to better sell their ideas?

A. Seek professional help; be concise, and go with humor and sincerity 9 times out of 10 (think John Stewart, but rapid online focus-grouping things for lameness). And once there is a message convince other liberal leaders of the value of that message with your survey/focus-group data and just REPEAT IT, don't expound on things and go all John Kerry, just FOCUS ON THE MESSAGE. Don't make bumper stickers; keep cool and stay classy.