Thread: Century of the Self Documentary

Originally Posted by Seraph

term farming. But now I read that you specifically point out about chemicals, and so I know, yes you do know something about it. The scope and scale of modern practices is orders of magnitude beyond prehistoric ecosystem impact.

It definitely is. Also, there are numerous other nasty ways that some of the major ecosystems are being adversely affected, something that was unimaginable before. Btw, I have an impression that those genetically modified goodies is just another attempt to escape the nasty chemicals used in production of the so-called "natural and organic foods", aren't they?

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Btw, I have an impression that those genetically modified goodies is just another attempt to escape the nasty chemicals used in production of the so-called "natural and organic foods", aren't they?

Ostensibly. In reality, look into what Monsanto is doing with gm seeds with respect to monopolization of AG. Farmers are unable to keep seed over winter, but must buy new seed for new crop season. They are using the licensing gimmick that software companies are using. The gm seeds are patented, and can only be purchased with licensing type agreement. And so MON comes out with another new improved gm seed type just in time to avoid patent expiry, and everyone has to buy. The gm thing is more about commercialization/monopolization than anything else.

Originally Posted by Seraph

We can discuss marginal tax rates and depreciation schedules if you wish. And corporate tax rates and exemptions if you wish, comparing to personal tax regulations. And how they relate to other policy issues, and other social issues. And how they lead inevitably to events, like poverty, or hunger, or protests, or not, as the case may be. How subjective is a balance sheet? The protests are subjective, the hunger and poverty are real, but the policy issues that lead to them are crystal clear and not subjective. Policy can be used to increase prosperity, subjectivity is not really required to improve the standard of living, if that is what is wanted. These issues are political, and sociological, and the numbers tell what is really going on. But if you are not used to examining such things, I suppose they might appear subjective.
In other words, you can tell objectively if a person is starving. It is not really subjective what needs to be done to fix the problem. The problem can be fixed objectively. But perhaps it is not generally known how the tax code relates to this and other issues. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. The power to tax is the power to destroy. Or to make flourish.
St. Paul didn't particularly care if people thought he was a fool, and so neither should I, I suppose. Knowing the tax code makes up for it, in my wallet.

Food is objective. Understood. We know where it comes from, how much it weighs, what it's made of. It's not a model or representation of nutrition - no, it's food. Objective.

Money? Not objective. Even its value and meaning are transient concepts. We can't say what it is, what it weighs, what it means - it's a model, and an inaccurate one - or at least a highly fluid one. It's mired in subjectivity, and that even still is an attempt at mathematizing and mapping the human value system, in which politics and money are both central, which one could equate to an ocean of mutable, shapeless subjectivity. We can try all day, but we aren't going to objectify the subjectivity of human value. Which is of course part and parcel with politics (leadership - kingship? alphaship?) and money (clams, koku, pork bellies?) ... What's the value of a pork belly to a hungry man? (Not a common question on wall st)

Many times in the history of humanity has someone claimed that their stone-tablet balance sheet, their abacus, their papyrus, notebook, i-pad, contained numbers that would objectively solve the financial problems of the leader/king/world.. Most recently, Greenspan.. all were wrong, as far as I know..

..and maybe it's just me. Maybe I fell and hit my head on the way to work today. But how could all of Politics and Money be objective? Why would we need a voting system, two parties, a system of checks and balances, an electoral college, and all that - if it were all objective, we would have one totalitarian leader, and no one would question it, because who could question the objective?

And, just a small example of subjectivity: "the power to tax" is mitigated by a subjective force called "the people's willingness to stand by and be taxed." To quote (probably to my ultimate demise - watch me get banned for quoting hip hop) Tupac: "Bush wanna throw down, he better bring the guns out - now they wanna ship me off to Kuwait - gimme a break - how much <stuff> can a <person> take.. - <forget> bailin' hay, I'm bailin' straight with an AK" ----> the subjective line of rebellion rests just beyond the "objective" threshold of taxation.. be it monetary, military, spiritual or property.. (And on close inspection I find that all the 'objective' in politics and money becomes 'subjective' when transmuted to such form by the human observer.)

This response sucks compared to the first one I wrote, but I deleted it.. It was not my intention to come off as an adversary.. I think we disagree, but that doesn't mean I can't be civil. =)

Originally Posted by kidkboom

Food is objective. &c...Many times in the history of humanity has someone claimed that their stone-tablet balance sheet, their abacus, their papyrus, notebook, i-pad, contained numbers that would objectively solve the financial problems of the leader/king/world.. Most recently, Greenspan.. all were wrong, as far as I know..

I think there is a little misunderstanding here. Greenspan made terrible mistakes. As far as I'm concerned much of Wall st. are criminal establishments, as indicated by so much documentation that they would never be able to refute. Saying that the tax policies tell us what is going on does not mean that I agree with all the tax policies. What I'm saying is you can sort much of the wheat from the chaff and the bluff and bluster in a straight forward way. For example Republican or Democratic leadership says something. But how much is it preaching to their respective choirs? It is very easy to tell objectively in implemented tax codes. What are the established political parties really up to? What do they say? What does the press say? There is a tremendous amount of confusion in political discussion, done on purpose I might add, for special interest purposes. But you can tell what is really going on by looking at things like tax codes, other policies are usually in line with these. That is, one can readily discern the true intents in politics by looking objectively at those sorts of things. That is the sort of real balance sheet inspections I'm referring to, not the fantasy creations of predatory financial interests of the likes of Wall st. It just so happens that some of problems can be solved by appropriate tax policies. But you've made up your mind. So why waste words? Some people think that government IS the problem. In my opinion, it is bad governance that is the problem, not good governance that is the problem. Some will say "but that's subjective". I'll tell you what I'm talking about from another field. It was known for many years that things like benzene, asbestos, and other chemicals were causing health problems for workers in many fields. It took many decades to ban them or restrict their use. Why so long? Is this really that subjective? The chemicals should have been restricted promptly. It wasn't something anyone could really argue about, it was completely obvious that the chemicals were causing problems. When things are actually known to be problems like benzene, asbestos and other carcinogens, they should be restricted. It looks objective to me. But industry slowed it down. This is bad governance. We also know of such things in taxation. Things that are bad for the economy. But special interests keep bad legislation on the books, and promote more. We know objectively that certain policies are problems, and they should be stopped. But people say, like the corporations dragging their feet about benzene and asbestos "that's just subjective". I think that perhaps the disagreement is more about definitions about what objective and subjective are, than about substance. But maybe you think asbestos is ok. I am for healthy and safe work conditions for workers. If workers say something in the work environment is causing problems they should be listened to right away, not seventy years later. The same goes for the economy. We know things in place right now are causing problems. It really is as clear cut as the cases about asbestos and benzene, even though it is in a different field. But special interests say "it's just subjective, you don't have any real proof that these tax loopholes are causing problems" Perhaps you don't know that Wall st. hedge fund lobbyists have been able to have enacted special low tax rates, that are lower than you and I could ever get for such high incomes as they get. Have it your way. Vote for agent orange if you want.
Try telling the kids up and down your street that money isn't what they think it is.

Quote from Mr. KBoom: "Many times in the history of humanity has someone claimed that their stone-tablet balance sheet, their abacus, their papyrus, notebook, i-pad, contained numbers that would objectively solve the financial problems of the leader/king/world.. Most recently, Greenspan.. all were wrong, as far as I know.." It's comical that you should whinge about Wall st. while spouting this stuff. The last thing that Wall st. wants is anyone fixing the system. Taxation is one of the ways that would clamp down on them, but you didn't bother to ask how. You didn't bother to ask how can taxation improve the economy. And now I certainly won't bother to tell you how.
I'm glad I know what's under the hood. I'm glad I listened to people and asked questions "how does that work? Why is it like that?" "That's interesting tell me some more about it." I'm glad I went to the library and looked things up. I know what's coming down the pipe.
But then I have no credibility. So why are you reading this? Try duking it out with this guy:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_K._Black

Originally Posted by Seraph

.... Quote from Mr. KBoom: "Many times in the history of humanity has someone claimed that their stone-tablet balance sheet, their abacus, their papyrus, notebook, i-pad, contained numbers that would objectively solve the financial problems of the leader/king/world.. Most recently, Greenspan.. all were wrong, as far as I know.." It's comical that you should whinge about Wall st. while spouting this stuff. The last thing that Wall st. wants is anyone fixing the system. Taxation is one of the ways that would clamp down on them, but you didn't bother to ask how. You didn't bother to ask how can taxation improve the economy. And now I certainly won't bother to tell you how.
I'm glad I know what's under the hood. I'm glad I listened to people and asked questions "how does that work? Why is it like that?" "That's interesting tell me some more about it." I'm glad I went to the library and looked things up. I know what's coming down the pipe.
But then I have no credibility. So why are you reading this? Try duking it out with this guy:William K. Black - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I've bothered to ask how taxation would clamp down on "Wall st." I may not have developed an emotionally-charged interest in this issue which I consider to be penultimately grey and emotionless - for instance, I would not stay up late at night reading economics books by candlelight, because they're not enthralling to me - but aside from that, I'm a good student and a good learner. A more fitting point might be the generally nebulous nature of these sorts of abstractions. If you were to gather any ten thousand people from anywhere in the world (outside of upper-class suburbs near to Ivy-league colleges, I suppose) those ten thousand people would, by and large, NOT understand what you're talking about. The same can be said about most economic writing that has been put to paper in the last several decades.... I'm not the oddity, or an ignorant person, to not readily know "what's under the hood." Rather you're the oddity, as a person who knows "what's coming down the pipe."

And what I've noticed about people who know "what's coming down the pipe" is that they primarily don't "bother" to tell the rest of us what exactly it is that they know.

I've already stated, or at the very least had meant to, that I agree with you that certain realities, like asbestos, are largely objective - given that the majority of people don't want a random, pointless and difficult-to-explain death - but should we lay some of these other objectivities out into plain sight, and put them into words that the rest of us 9,999 people could digest, then I suspect we'll find that these issues are largely NOT objective. Until we've done so, this is only a guess on my part.

And as for the credibility - rather than considering who's right or wrong, maybe we should consider for a second whether telling someone that they have no credibility, whether it's you OR me saying it, is perhaps beyond the boundaries of what's polite and proper in discussing an issue.

Tell you what: If I were to pay you for this premium information, let's say, $50, to go over with me for an hour what you know, would you then be willing to tell me what you know? It certainly sounds like valuable information, especially if it has the power to predict what's coming in the future. I would be willing to pay for that kind of an inside track.

Or if that's not a good method, maybe you can suggest a book, a writer, or even a topic wherein I should begin my research. Then we can speak again in the future, and maybe I will have risen myself up to a level of knowledge that will allow us to more freely discuss this topic. It's not fair that a person as educated as you should have to discourse with a person who merely desires to know what's going on, and has not "bothered" to do the proper research to follow in your footsteps.

In shorter words... How does this work? Why is it like that? It's interesting. Tell me some more about it.

It's good to see that you have watched the century of Self, Hanna, but it still hasnt knocked any sense into your head. You understand how people are manipulated but you are still manipulated.
This talk of left and right is meaningless. The USA does not make its own foreign policy and neither does any one else. The BBC, CNN, FOX are controlled. Listen to what Ronald Reagan said in 1964:
YouTube - &#x202a;Agenda 21: Deliberate Flooding of America's Heartland by Army Corp of Engineers - Alex Jones Tv 2/2&#x202c;&rlm;

He was talking about a former plan which is the same as the current NWO plan to get people off the land and into the cities called Agenda 21.

And as far as "taxes". Read the report from the Reagan era. It was called the Grace Report. It reports that 100% of income taxes pays off the federal debt (which is the debt that is the accumulating interest paid the US central bank, the Federal Reserve. ALL of our INCOME taxes is paid to the Federal Reserve for them to print the money. The tax is NOT used for what you think it is used. Almost all countries are using a similar bank and they are ALL connected and OWNED by the same people!)
Read page 6 and 12 of this PDF file of the actual Grace Report. http://dl.dropbox.com/u/12098298/Gra...m%20Report.PDF

Foreign politics is meaningless. Why do you think that Obama is not doing what he said he would do.

Originally Posted by kidkboom

...In shorter words... How does this work? Why is it like that? It's interesting. Tell me some more about it.

I'll send you some links, things to read, videos. Too much to send in one go.

Quoth Hanna: " Huffington Post is notoriously right wing though."
In show business, that's called "Comedy Gold".

Sgt. Cold. The mid-west US is a flood plain. That's where all the good soil came from. If the levees weren't in place, it would flood every year. It's called geology, not NWO. People that live there are rolling the dice every year.
Alex Jones? Seriously?

Originally Posted by capecoddah

Quoth Hanna: " Huffington Post is notoriously right wing though."

In show business, that's called "Comedy Gold".

The phrase that came to my mind was "Oh no she di'int!"

[Rolling my eyes, and rolling my entire head, in the stereotypical manner of every "inner city" African-American woman as portrayed by Hollywood.]

In short, I would agree with Capecoddah that relatively few people in the U.S. (namely, those VERY VERY far to the left) would locate the Huffington Post anywhere "right of center" on a political map.

I know some far-right conservatives who would describe the Huffington Post as a swarming hive of Bolsheviks; political moderates would probably describe it as "center-left". (And I suspect the actual owners/editors of the HP would prefer to describe themselves as "centrist, but left-leaning," instead of "centrist, but right-leaning.")

Of course, these things are relative, and for some people, there are single-issue "litmus tests". For example, I have some online acquaintances who think that any politician who favored an end to "Не Спрашивать, не рассказывать", and thus supported openly gay people in the military, must be RABIDLY LEFT WING -- even if that politician is solidly conservative/traditionalist on same-sex marriage, abortion, welfare policy, environmental regulations, gun control, drug legalization, etc., etc.

From the other side, several years ago I briefly worked at a national political magazine called The New Republic. (I was in the business/advertising department, not the editorial staff.) It is, on almost all matters, considered to be "center left" by American standards -- however, I also have acquaintances who call it a "right-wing rag" because of the magazine's position on just one subject: Israel/Palestine.

"They WARNED Us! Maybe Now You Will Listen! " The part of speech by President Kennedy is a quote taken out of context. It is misappropriated/misused.

http://web.mac.com/jubileemasonry/iW... 4 27 1961.mp3

Full speech:
Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen:

I appreciate very much your generous invitation to be here tonight.

You bear heavy responsibilities these days and an article I read some time ago reminded me of how particularly heavily the burdens of present day events bear upon your profession.

You may remember that in 1851 the New York Herald Tribune under the sponsorship and publishing of Horace Greeley, employed as its London correspondent an obscure journalist by the name of Karl Marx.

We are told that foreign correspondent Marx, stone broke, and with a family ill and undernourished, constantly appealed to Greeley and managing editor Charles Dana for an increase in his munificent salary of $5 per installment, a salary which he and Engels ungratefully labeled as the "lousiest petty bourgeois cheating."

But when all his financial appeals were refused, Marx looked around for other means of livelihood and fame, eventually terminating his relationship with the Tribune and devoting his talents full time to the cause that would bequeath to the world the seeds of Leninism, Stalinism, revolution and the cold war.

If only this capitalistic New York newspaper had treated him more kindly; if only Marx had remained a foreign correspondent, history might have been different. And I hope all publishers will bear this lesson in mind the next time they receive a poverty-stricken appeal for a small increase in the expense account from an obscure newspaper man.

I have selected as the title of my remarks tonight "The President and the Press." Some may suggest that this would be more naturally worded "The President Versus the Press." But those are not my sentiments tonight.

It is true, however, that when a well-known diplomat from another country demanded recently that our State Department repudiate certain newspaper attacks on his colleague it was unnecessary for us to reply that this Administration was not responsible for the press, for the press had already made it clear that it was not responsible for this Administration.

Nevertheless, my purpose here tonight is not to deliver the usual assault on the so-called one party press. On the contrary, in recent months I have rarely heard any
complaints about political bias in the press except from a few Republicans. Nor is it my purpose tonight to discuss or defend the televising of Presidential press conferences. I think it is highly beneficial to have some 20,000,000 Americans regularly sit in on these conferences to observe, if I may say so, the incisive, the intelligent and the courteous qualities displayed by your Washington correspondents.

Nor, finally, are these remarks intended to examine the proper degree of privacy which the press should allow to any President and his family.

If in the last few months your White House reporters and photographers have been attending church services with regularity, that has surely done them no harm.

On the other hand, I realize that your staff and wire service photographers may be complaining that they do not enjoy the same green privileges at the local golf courses which they once did.

It is true that my predecessor did not object as I do to pictures of one's golfing skill in action. But neither on the other hand did he ever bean a Secret Service man.

My topic tonight is a more sober one of concern to publishers as well as editors.

I want to talk about our common responsibilities in the face of a common danger. The events of recent weeks may have helped to illuminate that challenge for some; but the dimensions of its threat have loomed large on the horizon for many years. Whatever our hopes may be for the future--for reducing this threat or living with it--there is no escaping either the gravity or the totality of its challenge to our survival and to our security--a challenge that confronts us in unaccustomed ways in every sphere of human activity.

This deadly challenge imposes upon our society two requirements of direct concern both to the press and to the President--two requirements that may seem almost contradictory in tone, but which must be reconciled and fulfilled if we are to meet this national peril. I refer, first, to the need for far greater public information; and, second, to the need for far greater official secrecy.

The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it’s in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.

But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country's peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In times of "clear and present danger," the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public's need for national security.

Today no war has been declared and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.

If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of "clear and present danger," then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.

It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions--by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.

Nevertheless, every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security--and the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion.

For the facts of the matter are that this nation's foes have openly boasted of acquiring through our newspapers information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through theft, bribery or espionage; that details of this nation's covert preparations to counter the enemy's covert operations have been available to every newspaper reader, friend and foe alike; that the size, the strength, the location and the nature of our forces and weapons, and our plans and strategy for their use, have all been pinpointed in the press and other news media to a degree sufficient to satisfy any foreign power; and that, in at least in one case, the publication of details concerning a secret mechanism whereby satellites were followed required its alteration at the expense of considerable time and money.

The newspapers which printed these stories were loyal, patriotic, responsible and well-meaning. Had we been engaged in open warfare, they undoubtedly would not have published such items. But in the absence of open warfare, they recognized only the tests of journalism and not the tests of national security. And my question tonight is whether additional tests should not now be adopted.

That question is for you alone to answer. No public official should answer it for you. No governmental plan should impose its restraints against your will. But I would be failing in my duty to the nation, in considering all of the responsibilities that we now bear and all of the means at hand to meet those responsibilities, if I did not commend this problem to your attention, and urge its thoughtful consideration.

On many earlier occasions, I have said--and your newspapers have constantly said--that these are times that appeal to every citizen's sense of sacrifice and self-discipline. They call out to every citizen to weigh his rights and comforts against his obligations to the common good. I cannot now believe that those citizens who serve in the newspaper business consider themselves exempt from that appeal.

I have no intention of establishing a new Office of War Information to govern the flow of news. I am not suggesting any new forms of censorship or new types of security classifications. I have no easy answer to the dilemma that I have posed, and would not seek to impose it if I had one. But I am asking the members of the newspaper profession and the industry in this country to reexamine their own responsibilities, to consider the degree and the nature of the present danger, and to heed the duty of self-restraint which that danger imposes upon us all.

Every newspaper now asks itself, with respect to every story: "Is it news?" All I suggest is that you add the question: "Is it in the interest of the national security?" And I hope that every group in America--unions and businessmen and public officials at every level will ask the same question of their endeavors, and subject their actions to the same exacting tests.

And should the press of America consider and recommend the voluntary assumption of specific new steps or machinery, I can assure you that we will cooperate whole-heartedly with those recommendations.

Perhaps there will be no recommendations. Perhaps there is no answer to the dilemma faced by a free and open society in a cold and secret war. In times of peace, any discussion of this subject, and any action that results, are both painful and without precedent. But this is a time of peace and peril which knows no precedent in history.

It is the unprecedented nature of this challenge that also gives rise to your second obligation--an obligation which I share and that is our obligation to inform and alert the American people to make certain that they possess all the facts that they need, and understand them as well--the perils, the prospects, the purposes of our program and the choices that we face.

No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition and both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed.

I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers--I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise man once said: "An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it." We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.

Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment-- the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution--not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply "give the public what it wants"--but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.

This means greater coverage and analysis of international news--for it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news as well as improved transmission. And it means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security--and we intend to do it.

It was early in the Seventeenth Century that Francis Bacon remarked on three recent inventions already transforming the world: the compass, gunpowder and the printing press. Now the links between the nations first forged by the compass have made us all citizens of the world, the hopes and threats of one becoming the hopes and threats of us all. In that one world's efforts to live together, the evolution of gunpowder to its ultimate limit has warned mankind of the terrible consequences of failure.

And so it is to the printing press--to the recorder of man's deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news--that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent.

Originally Posted by Sgt. Cold

"...the Reagan era. It was called the Grace Report..."

Why did Reagan waste money for something the GAO and CBO tell us in better detail? Some of us know more about this than you think.

On the political leanings of Huffington post:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia on Arianna Huffington

A popular conservative commentator in the mid-1990s, she adopted more liberal political beliefs in the late 1990s.^[1] She is the ex-wife of former Republican congressman Michael Huffington
Huffington rose to national prominence during her husband's unsuccessful Senate bid in 1994. She became known as a reliable supporter of conservative causes such as Newt Gingrich's "Republican Revolution" and Bob Dole's 1996 candidacy for president.

She is Greek upper middle class. Practically every single person from that background is very, very right wing (that's why they had that horrible military government for so many years). She married a Republican and moved to the US... Plus I have read a bit of Huffington Post for as long as I could take it. It's very right wing.

Originally Posted by Hanna

On the political leanings of Huffington post: ... [Arianna Huffington] married a Republican and moved to the US ... It's very right wing.

Is "HuffPo" very right wing, or is Hanna very Scandinavian, and also very unfamiliar with the concepts of "Rockefeller Republicans" and so-called RINOs?

Originally Posted by Throbert McGee

Is "HuffPo" very right wing, or is Hanna very Scandinavian, and also very unfamiliar with the concepts of "Rockefeller Republicans" and so-called RINOs?

I don't think all Scandinavians are leftists, I believe it's just some of them who are. Otherwise it wouldn't be one of my favorite regions in Europe.

I don't know what a RINO is, and I do not closely follow US politics.
But it's the US (and its fans wannabees, like Eric) who are a bit out of synch, not Scandinavia.

I'm also reminded of the "Briggs Initiative" -- a notorious anti-gay proposal in 1978 that would have banned homosexual teachers from working in California public schools (i.e., kindergarten through 12th grade).

True, it was sponsored by a Republican politician (named Briggs, obviously!), but the proposed law went crashing down in flames at the ballot -- after another Republican politician (named Ronald Reagan) bluntly denounced the initiative in a newspaper editorial.

(Many California gays were so pleasantly shocked by Reagan's public support for them, in opposition to religious conservatives from his own party, that it led directly to the founding of the "Log Cabin Republicans", a nationwide group that attempted to "build bridges" between the GOPers and the LGBTers. Arianna's ex-husband Michael Huffington is, by the way, a member...)

Arianna Huffington is what we call a "Lear Jet Liberal". She has enough money to feel bad for the unwashed masses and figures everyone else does too.Like the Massachusetts Senators John Kerry and Ted Kennedy. Tax and spend liberals.
Massachusetts has the beginning of "Universal Healthcare" too. No one asked, they just told us what was best for us. I am now mandated, by law, to have health insurance that also pays for people that can't afford it. I could barely afford it before, now it's killing me.

I could go on, but I have to close out the books after working 12 hours today. I figure 3 of those hours went to pay for insurance.