You are gonna hate me now, but I grew up reading Dean Koontz and Stephen King years before the librarian at my middle suggested Lovecraft, so 12? My first Stephen King was Night Shift, with the eye in the middle of a mummified hand; Jerusalem's Lot ruined my ability to sleep. For some strange reason Lovecraft comforted me but King disturbed me lol -- My first Lovecraft reading was The Festival.

Anyway, it's my mom's fault, i jus read whatever she had lying around the house, which also included Mary Higgins Clark, Robert Ludlum, Danielle Steel, Michael Crichton, and who even knows what else.

Totally agree in having absorbed the material rather than fully understood. I mean shit, how does a 4th grader even under The Rising Sun? It's just shocking and strange. Like d3coding a new language.

I also read a lot of young adult thriller suspense books, notably Alfred Hitchcock's young readers books and short story collections. Ray Bradbury collections, random Asimov Foundation books, and old copies of Analog, that my dad would buy from local library sales. (Thas how poor people shop for books hahaha) He was the old school scifi guy, but not at all into horror.

I suppose I don't mind hacks. Reading the letters of Oscar Wilde changed my opinions on EVERYTHING. If Wilde belongs to the criminal class or what Danny Devito's character Frank terms the "Fringe" class, there must be some saving grace even in the intellectual crime of the hack writer.

Mark Blyth is my third favorite Scot, right after two brothers who are dear friends of mine. After his famous interview for Athens Live, every video of his released by the Watson Institute has pretty much been a must-watch, particularly his takes on "The Deplorables" and the Front Nationale.

I got his book "Austerity: The History of a Dangerous Idea" after it was praised heavily over at NakedCapitalism 3-4 years ago -- to me, there is no bigger compliment for an economist than praise by Yves and the commentariat over at NC.

His takes on the mercantilism of Germany are among the best, and by far the clearest. Bill Mitchell had some great pieces on it as well, but Blyth's capacity for facilitating understanding of these concepts is on a different level entirely.

So do I disagree with him on parts of his economic analysis? Yes, but only on the fringes where MMT/functional finance is concerned.

Check out the companion talk to his book:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQuHSQXxsjM

And a recent bit:
https://youtu.be/vGiHiZyKuAE?t=43m2s (juicy, this one)

@Jinx
my main point is the the fringe of both ends of the political spectrum dominate the discussion,and BOTH are fucking horrible,ill-thought,narrow-minded and petulant.

they are part of the disease.

not every person who identifies as left is a snowflake,nor is everyone who identifies as right a bed wetter.

i wrote extensively on why trump won,and would happy to share if you would like me to,but to answer your question:no.snowflakes are not to blame (and i am struggling how you conflated that to be honest).

i have been:pepper sprayed,maced and beaten by three cops.
i have been thrown in solitary for days without food or water,and no working toilet.
i have been punched in the face by a supposedly devout christian,and i have been publicly harrassed for mistaking a young woman for a man at a gay bar.

is there anything else you would like to know to assuage the MASSIVE presumptions you made in your comment?

look dude,if you can't see that both the ultra left and ultra right are fucking bonkers and have lost their way.they co not even come close to representing the majority,and by their behavior..i do not think they really care.

so why should we?
the people who recognize that shit has gone sideways.that the politicians are purchased corporate whores,and this binary politics is just a device to keep us divided.

i am an anarchist,but i am not stupid,and refuse to be coddled or manipulated into buying into shitty philosophies and even worse politics.

the ultra left are fucking cry-babies,and the ultra right neo-fascists are bed wetters.

and both have lost their way.

No, the teabaggers invaded the republicans and took them mostly far right but really deep into insanity, where they aren't right or left, just angry and lashing out while accepting no responsibility for their parts in problems. They are anti tax, but pro spending, anti big government unless it's a government project they support, then big government is what's needed every time, anti regulation unless it's a regulation against something they dislike (like abortion, relaxing drug policies, marriage, equal protection under the law, etc).

Every teabagger I've met (and there are many) has been at least as if not more racist, homophobic, and bible thumping than the media makes the 'party' out to be, including (sadly) many of my own family members. They are not the fringe, they are the base, you're either lying or don't know your own group. They are also just as dumb and/or stupid as they are portrayed, my favorite slogan is "keep your government hands off my medicare", clearly the woman carrying it was so dumb she didn't understand that medicare is a government program, just like 1/2 of you don't know that the ACA is Obamacare, but HATED Obamacare with a passion while insisting the ACA is great. Not racist? Then what? Just brain dead? It's this disconnect from reality and sanity that made me run from them as soon as it was clear where the party was going....it didn't start out like it ended up, it started out more like OWS.

Haven't you been the one saying all left wingers are in perfect alignment with SJWs recently....repeatedly and smugly? Yes...that was you.

*facepalm

So the Republicans left the Conservatives and took the party to the left, meanwhile the SJW's took the Democratic party and drug it out to the WAY WAY out to the left?

In any effect, I agree with him in just about every way, and welcome him to come join us "tea baggers". We aren't nearly as racist, homophobic, or bible thumping as the media makes us out to be.

Not saying those people don't exist, but they are a really, really small fringe, and putting their identity on a whole group of people is like saying all left wingers are in perfect alignment with BLM or OWS groups.

The most interesting graph happens at roughly 4:38. 3.7 trillion dollars, made up of roughly 1/7th discretionary spending, 1/7th defense, and 5/7ths SS/Medi*/Interest.

The one philosophical holdout that I still appreciate about the GOP platform is generally smaller government. But for all they harp on that, they usually do jack shit to actually cut down on that total from the graph.

That huge 5/7ths portion is close to untouchable; or at least it would be political suicide to mess with any of that stuff. The only exception is the interest payments, which *do* have to be paid, but we could work to reduce the debt which would in turn reduce interest. How to do that? Raise taxes. And suddenly all the Republicans think it's a terrible idea.

That leaves the 1/5th from Defense and 1/5th from other Discretionary spending. To me, Defense is the obvious target. If you really want to tighten the belt and be fiscally conservative, do we actually NEED to spend all that on defense? Couldn't it be cut in half or even more drastically and we'd still easily be able to actually, you know, defend the country? But again, pretty much zero Republican interest in cutting Defense budget, unless you're a kooky fringe element like Ron Paul with zero intra-party backing.

So that leaves the 1/5th of Discretionary spending. And yeah, sometimes Republicans do actually make cuts here. At best, they cut "drop in the bucket" type stuff like mentioned in the video, with negligible effect on the budget and a loss of programs that are valued by some/many. At worst, you end up like KansasBrownbackistan, with zero budget for schools, etc.

That rift between party platform and actual action is the biggest reason that I tend to have *zero* interest in voting Republican for any national office, in spite of still being registered as a Republican. State offices (governor, state legislature, etc.) are slightly more palatable places to consider voting in an R, but not by much. I do think they tend to be good options for Local government offices, especially for more rural areas. On the other hand, D's tend to be much better at promoting things like Bond Issues for improving schools, maintaining infrastructure, etc.

It seems to me that the fringes have become the loudest voices in both parties, but it's the right who is legislating based on their fringe (no more global warming according to the soon to be defunded epa is just one good example of that). Fortunately, the far left can't implement their banning of words (legally) in the U.S.....our constitution makes that impossible.

Big government is bad, but then you need to actually look into which party grew government and spending, you'll find that they both are near equal these days, no matter what rhetoric they spout.

The civil war pushed us to think that the state's deciding everything with no federal protections for human rights leads to trouble....but I do agree there should be less interference from on high. Consider, if the state's were allowed to be self deterministic, Calexit or Wexit (what I call the plan for all West coast states to form a new country) would be a serious consideration for us and a likelihood.

I would say you seem to have it backwards, the left of today is actually implementing the plans of the right from 20+ years ago, not the other way around.

@enoch

No, are you are saying when you get to the far fringes of beliefs that ideas and beliefs get more... "far fringe-ish"? Tell me that isn't true! lol

I identify as a Conservative. I'm no bible thumping, gun wielding, racist lunatic though the media and liberals spew that far fringe as the "norm". Oddly enough, other than my acceptance of the idea of there being a God and that my rights come from Him and NOT Government, my beliefs have very little to do with religion.

And I doubt every Democrat is a anti-God, rioting, anti-white racist either. Although I do believe that currently the fringe left of the Democrat part is much more in power than the more moderate Democrats. In fact, I dare say the current Republican party is more like the old Democrat party of 20 years ago and the Conservatives like myself were left pretty much without a party at all.

And at the core, what is my personal belief? My belief is that big government is BAD for a free people. Smaller, more localized Government is better for a free people.

I see the US Constitution as a great guide toward what I would like the Government/State relationship to be. We should be 50 quasi-nations, loosely bound together by a common defense, common currency, and inter-state laws. Other than that, the Federal Government should be staying out of the way of the States.

Let California and New York embrace partial-birth abortions and let Texas ban abortions except in cases of life/death or whatever other reason they see as being reasonable. I don't care, I just don't want it in the hands of the Federal Government . There is no NEED for most of the crap we deal with every day to be a NATIONAL issue...

@bcglorf
i have no issue with disagreement.
i have read many of hedges books,and to see his evolution over the years really should not surprise anyone.

we all have an evolution of sorts when we continue to investigate,and challenge our own preconceptions.the intelligent man or woman,will accept this new information,and change their conclusions accordingly.the hyper-partisan and/or rigid fundamentalist,will dismiss this new information because it conflicts with their dearly held preconceptions.

some people struggle with a changing landscape,and prefer to reside in their own comfort zones.

i like hedges because he challenges and criticizes power,but he also tends to speak in apocalyptic verbiage.

i also respect hedges because he does back up his opinions with actual sources.now we can disagree with his conclusions,but how he came to those conclusions,he is quite clear.

on a side note:i cannot watch or read hedges for extended periods due to the fact that what he is pointing out is so damn depressing.

but he is incredibly consistent in regards to criticizing power.

which,in my opinion,is so very vital in these times,because we see the majority of corporate media revealing a reverence and fealty to corporate power.

chris hedges has earned my respect.
but i do not demand that everyone read or listen to him.

and speaking only for myself,i refuse to dismiss a viewpoint simply because it may be on a venue of questionable intent.
i read the american conservative,though this is a website funded by pat buchanon.i do so because the american conservative produces some damn fine content,with journalists who source their material.

i may disagree with their conclusions,but i cannot ignore the quality of their work.

this is the same reason why i no longer do work for crooks and liars and the young turks and good god..SLATE.does this mean that everything they produce is utter shit?

no..of course not,but they all have taken a book out of the FOX model, and became hyper-partisan,faux outrage machines.

now let us take this video,which so happens to be on RT.
what is it that hedges is saying that is WRONG? or false? or a lie?

i have no issue with disagreement,nor skepticism,but is anything he is saying really that controversial?
what is he saying that should be dismissed?
should his words simply be dismissed due to him being on RT?

if we refuse to accept the words,or conclusions from any public personality,simply because of the media that they happen to be on,then..in my opinion..we relegate ourselves to a handful of outlets,and it diminishes the conversation.

is it any wonder or surprise that those academics that are critical of power are NEVER seen on corporate media?
that those brave and courageous journalists and academics are forced to the fringes in order to get their messages out.

we can disagree with their messages and conclusions,but for us to even have the OPTION to disagree.they need a media outlet in order to even put the word out.

do you see what i am saying?

i am probably wording this wrong,and producing more confusion than clarity,but when the corporate media controls who and what gets to be discussed,debated and argued.then THEY are the ones who set the agenda.they are the ones who set the lines of discussion and the parameters of that discussion.

and people like hedges have not been invited to the table for decades.

it appears that any journalist,or academic that is critical of power are relegated to the fringes.

you will never see noam chomsky on FOX,or MSNBC,or CNN.

but you will see them on independent media.
such as democracy now,or the real news and yes...venues like RT and aljazeera english.

i probably totally messed my point up,but it is in there somewhere.
i am just gonna stop right here,because now i am just rambling.

@newtboy
i agree in theory,but disagree in practice.
as i stated in my comment:discernment.

it appears we approach news and journalism differently.

i do not consume the institution,but rather the individual reporter.which is why i will watch a report by shepard smith from FOX,but ignore anything by tucker carlson or bill o'reilly.

the HUGE mistake you make about hedges,is just that,an assumption.

chris hedges mistake.
is the same mistake that other media personalities have made,such as cenk uynger when he was on MSNBC.

hedges criticized power.
in fact,in the run up to the iraq war hedges was pushing out story after story that was highly critical of the bush administration,and..ironically..was using the very intelligence reports that you mentioned.he was challenged by the new york times editorial board to either cease and desist,or face disciplinary action.

he chose to retain his integrity,and honor his father (great story right there,he always chokes up when telling it) and walked away from a successful career,full of adulation and respect,rather than bow at the foot of the kings throne and kiss the feet of the powerful.

the man has guts,in spades,and i admire him very much.

but if you think my opnion is biased,then let us take phil donahue who was hosting the most popular show on the newly founded MSNBC.

he too,was critical of the bush administration and had guests on that were countering the avalanche of white house narratives flooding the cable news networks.

he was fired,while simultaneously hosting the most popular and highest rated shows on MSNBC.

what i am saying,is exactly what hedges is saying:
criticize power and you will be branded,blacklisted and shunned from the "mainstream media".you will be relegated to the fringe for your defiance to power.

/chuckles..i find it interesting that pretty much everybody uses the term "mainstream media" to epitomize:lazy journalism,propaganda,fake news and yet the media THEY choose to consume..well...thats not mainstream at all.the media THEY choose to consume is top notch journalism.

i am not saying my choices are right,but i do choose them carefully.i do not subscribe to institutions but rather individuals who have proven the test of proper journalistic integrity:chris hedges,matt taibbi,bill moyers,henry giroux,laura poitrus,jeremy scahill,amy goodman,paul jay

you may notice that every one of these people are critical of power,and that..my friend..is the basic premise of the fourth estate.

the washington post,along with the new york times and wall street journal have become rags.just my opinion,feel free to disagree.

I don't really care what his fans said on Twitter or anywhere else for that matter. Unless he explicitly instructed them to go out and harass somebody you can't realistically hold him responsible for the actions of others.

1:1 example? Were we even reading the same article? The bulk of the article describes how the Baphomet board on 8chan used publicly available information, possibly gleaned from thunderf00t's video, or perhaps not, to target Jennifer Keller and her business. The folks over at Baphomet were really just doing this for their own amusement, here's a quote from the article.

" I'll save the trouble that I'm a bit of a thunderfag and while I understand he's a cucked shithole obsessed with Anita Scamkeesian, the fact they will get him fired merely on the base of their hurt feelings kind of ticked me off. "

I should also take a moment to point out that Jennifer Keller aka 'Laughing Witch' on YouTube along with others engaged in a letter writing campaign to try and get Phil Mason 'thunderf00t' fired from his job. Now I don't know about you, but I would call that harassment. I find that kind of behavior unacceptable no matter which side you are on. But there she was, down in the trenches slinging shit right along side the other trolls and misanthropes.

As for specious arguments, the focus on minor details and painting whole groups of people with a broad brush, Sarkeesian and company do all of these things. Sarkeesian criticizes an industry and thunderf00t attacks her criticisms and questions her rationale. But supporters will try to draw attention away from his arguments by calling it an attack on her.

You want to hold thunderf00t responsible for the actions of trolls and MRA wack-jobs, but are you willing to hold Sarkeesian responsible for the actions of feminism's lunatic fringe?

The muslim world? Is that like a less wacky Disneyland? Do you have any idea how many different types of muslim there are in the world?

The notion that they collectively have one agreed view on the west is a pretty big indicator that someone hasn't a fecking clue about the subject. For example, do you think every Catholic has the same views as the pope? Why should muslims be any different?

Do you expect the 'head' muslim to call a press conference?

"Ladies and gentlemen, thanks for attending. As you know I have been appointed spokesperson for all 1.6 billion muslims. I had a chat with all of them this morning and here's what we all think."

And for Peter's sake, if you're going to criticise the example for being unrepresentative of the average muslim meeting a rich celebrity, don't choose fucking Mosul as your counter balance. Occupied as it is by the most fringe religious extremists in the world who think nothing of killing people who agree with them. The overwhelming majority of people in Saudi on the other hand are normal, every day folk going about their lives in pretty much the same way you or i do. Like the overwhelming majority of Americans do.

It's like contrasting someone who believes in social justice with an ultra left wing terrorist. One is an average person with an average person's reactions to, say, meeting celebrities. The other is a lunatic who might do anything to make some obscure point that only makes sense to them. Bullshit argument.

The whole lot of them acting like a bunch of fucking kids, not a single one deserves any praise for how they acted. But I don't know how anyone can criticise the two idiots screaming at each other, waving their arms around and go on to credit the idiot screaming fat fuck making the entire thing worse. Ready for a fight? She was my hope to be the sensible one in this testosterone filled dick measuring contest. She's a social justice advocate, you'd think she might not body shame someone. This is bread and butter for her rivals, they'll use this against her for years - hypocrite!

Spitting, swearing, screaming, gatecrashing, name calling, physical intimidation.... they have all damaged their own reputations.

This is why people don't give a flying shit about politics anymore - they all act like children. This isn't how civilised people behave.

It also makes independent news sources look like sensationalist, fringe bullshit. TYT should be ashamed, this is exactly what the establishment wants - discredit the independent news, ween the proles back on to the mainstream propaganda. It's not just their reputation they're fucking with. You all gave them exactly what they wanted!

"Trumps brand of right-wing, racist, anti-immigrant demagoguery isn't American; it's a European import"

Well, if by that you mean that the Europeans who came to America originally brought this, then yeah, but other than that, you're talking shite, Sam.

American is just as good as Europe with anti-immigrant rhetoric. The difference is that in modern Europe, these guys are mostly fringe parties rather than one of the two mainstream parties.