Another example would be this economic crisis. It pretty much proves that a certain kind of neoliberalism doesn’t work, but the economists who pushed for the polices which created this mess still keep pushing their plan, saying “this time it’ll work.”

But it’s not just conservatives who are guilty of this. Whenever anybody gets too steeped into their own ideology, they’ll ignore quite a lot of contradictory evidence. Thus both McCain and Obama want to continue Bush’s “War on Terror” strategy, even though that imagery and those policies are ridiculous when going up against a foe that’s spread out among dozens of countries around the world. You might as well pursue the “War on Crime” by invading Chicago or New York.

Thus, people are still convinced that we just need to find the “right kind of violence” to put an end to violence.

Everybody is, potentially, guilty of this fundamentalist thinking, conservatives, liberals, independents, and radicals of every flavor.

“Of course my answer is that if somebody needs to pay a larger percentage of their income to provide the funds to do the things our government needs to do the the richer citizens should do it since they won’t be as severely hurt by the loss. Of course, that’s my view.”
And mine, as well. Better still, though, it should be the people on Wall Street who were gambling with other people’s money for so long. Personal responsibility includes facing the consequences of your actions, right?

Joe the plumber is another example of the same. Joe’s notoriety wasn’t caused by Obama supporters but by McCain’s decision to refer to him 20 times during the debate. It is only to be expected that the media even acting appropriately would check out Joe’s story. Undeniably, the media will go overboard as well, but that is not the fault of either campaign but the readers and watchers of the media sources that specialize in that kind of conduct.

But the simple thruth is that Joe’s story does raise questions about whether he really had a point at all. Of course, Joe had the right to ask the question no matter how he came in contact with the candidate and he didn’t have to be factually accurate in its presentation, though that would have been the decent thing to do.

It would be nice of the defenders would get their facts right and try to defend their positions from some degree of truth. Clearly Joe cannot function as a plumber for his employer if he is licenced to do so as Ohio requires. But that doesn’t concern us. It is also not true that Obama invaded Joe’s property to talk to him. Joe himself said that he approached Obama because he wanted to hit them with a question face-to-face to avoid the dancing that he has heard them do previously. The alleged tax lien and the assertion that he does not have the resources ar near term intent to engage in this hypothetical business purchase is also his business and I don’t realy care about these details of his life. If he was on the up-and-up there is no problem with anything he did and if you want to complain about his notoriety blame it on McCain who made him a household name.

What I do question and want investigated is the odd nature of this whole story. Let’s see. A guy who is not in a position to have to worry about an increase in taxes from Obama’s plan in the next year or to at least takes his one chance to talk to a potential president to express a concern about people much richer than he. His question is conveniently recorded while Obama’s responce is missed. Oh yeah, he’s a republican. And conveniently, this gets back to McCain in time for him to make a point of it for the debates. I find it suspicious and suspect that he was a plant. But so what if he was.

Having said all of thi none of it really matters. It was a valid question to ask and Joe’s personal details don’t impact the legitimacy of the question or the need for a valid answer to it. Of course my answer is that if somebody needs to pay a larger percentage of their income to proveide the funds to do the things our government needs to do the the richer citizens should do it since they won’t be as severely hurt by the loss. Of course, that’s my view.

I also find it extremely interesting how practically everyone is sure that the media is against them. The liberals complain that “the media” has been giving John McCain a free pass for most of his campaign. The conservatives complain that “the media” is lauding Obama as some sort of Messiah.

Farther out, you get stuff like this on the left: “White privilege is being able to make fun of community organizers and the work they do–like, among other things, fight for the right of women to vote, for civil rights, or the 8-hour workday, or an end to child labor–and people think you’re being pithy and tough, but if you merely question the experience of a small town mayor and 18-month governor with no foreign policy expertise beyond a class she took in college and the fact that she lives near Russia, you’re somehow being mean, or even sexist.”

And on the right, you get people complaining about headlines (related to the bailout) reading: “Capitalism triumphs over democracy.”

It suggests to me that people are unconsciously selective when they talk about “the media.”

Of course, the other answer is that everybody’s right in thinking that they’re being disenfranchised. Most mainstream media, left-wing, right-wing or independent are principally interested in maintaining the status quo, which is in hardly anybody’s best interests.

I must laugh though, at this notion that Barack Obama is a socialist or a Marxist. It’s as ridiculous as accusing John McCain of being a right-wing libertarian. They’re both political moderates. Their politics are the politics of the status quo, with some slight changes. You’ll notice how even mildly radical reformers like Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, and Mike Gravel got bounced off their respective tickets early in the game. The more radical would-be politicians sign on with a third party, which is even less likely to get them anywhere.

As I side note, don’t you think it’s a little immature to refer to try to conflate Barack Obama with a former Iraqi dictator just because they share a name? With all the good ways to criticize him out there, why settle for such a totally irrational and meaningless one?

As to Joe … sure, he had the right to ask Senator Obama about his tax increase, although if he was speaking hypothetically, he should have made that clear. (Does anybody happen to have any figures on just how many small businesses do make $250,000 or more per year?) Does he warrant this much media attention? On either side of the aisle? I doubt it.

The thing about Presidential politics is that both sides are on the lookout for any missteps (or something that can be successfully construed as a misstep) from the other party’s candidate, and then milk it for all that it’s worth. Obama was pictured wearing a turban, and he’s darker than a tanned Caucasian. He’s a Muslim! (And therefore a terrorist, as those two terms are, of course, interchangeable.) McCain referred to Obama, a person of color, as “That one.” He’s a racist! And so on ad nauseum.

CL, personal responsibility is a great concept. “You are personally responsible for the reasonably predictable consequences of your own actions” is a great motto to live by.

However, would you agree that not all negative circumstances we encounter are our own fault? Were the Africans in the 1600s-1800s responsible for their own slavery?

Here’s a little more complicated example. After the abolition of slavery, many southern states passed segregation laws to keep Africans and other people of color disenfranchised. Often, when the blacks tried to stand up for their rights, they were harassed, beaten, even lynched by poor whites. Now certainly, what the whites did was wrong, but was it their fault that they’d grown up in a society that had taught them from the cradle that blacks were vicious, stupid, lazy, no good, and generally inferior?

Or a let’s take a more contemporary example. Am I responsible that Congress passed the bailout? For that matter, am I responsible for being born in a country which has such a crazy economic system as to bring about either the bailout, or the circumstances which led to it? I can’t see how. But will I have to deal with the consequences (including the taxes to recoup from this monumental spending spree)? You bet I will.

So what’s your perspective there?

Allow me to edit to show your hypocrisy:

“You and your [Democratic] friends encourage your supporters to live irresponsibly by encouraging them to play the blame game. Its gotta be the [greedy corporations'] fault. Or [George Bush], or my [racist] next door neighbor, Sic Willie, somebody!!! Because it cant possibly be my own fault.”

Your comment is a joke. The Democrats created the victim culture that is strangling our country. One of the key components of conservatism is personal responsibility. RINOs often deviate from this to be sure, but Dems don’t even pretend to care about such issues.

Your comment, not surprisingly, makes no sense. What was Joe “honest” about? His prospective business purchase? Maybe the income he will make from this business? This guy just like many is lying to himself about his finances. Im sure he has a 60″ flat screen in his doublewide and a 2008 F-350, with stacks of credit card bills to match. It is perfectly healthy to “dream” big, but living outside your means and dreaming that you already are big is irresponsible. You and your GOP friends encourage your supporters to live irresponsibly by encouraging them to play the blame game. Its gotta be the media’s fault. Or Congress, or my next door neighbor, Sic Willie, somebody!!! Because it cant possibly be my own fault.

And as to your left field abortion comment, I was referring to future children, not his current children. Although, from the looks of them, he might want to consider cutting the cord or finding a new mate.

So Joe is “a prime example of what is wrong with America [because he complained about a] policy that does not apply to him.”

Martin Niemoller is rolling over in his grave at that one.