New Thinking Part II – Podcast 453

New Thinking Part II. Tyranny of The State? Browsing through today’s headlines yields a mix of factional outrage and emotion. Whether it’s the President issuing executive orders to ‘end’ mass shootings, or activist ranchers from Nevada showing up in Oregon to occupy a federal wildlife facility, or the UK parliament debating whether to ‘keep Donald Trump out’, it seems like the political world has gone crazy. With more and more people doing anything and everything to get on TV, or get clicks, eyeballs, ears, or supporters to show up at controlled events, one wonders whether the proverbial mob, feared most by the founders, has finally reared its ugly head. The second installment of the Bob Davis Podcast series ‘New Thinking’ looks at the desire factions seem to have to coerce ‘someone’ to ‘do something’ and the hypocrisy implicit in those demands. More ‘action’ these days is being taken by courts, unelected councils and boards controlling huge sums of money, their own police forces, are issuing edicts local towns and villages have to comply with. Local princes hold councils, in secret and behind closed doors to pound elected officials into submission. Protests are mounted by factional fronts with hashtag names and shadowy backing, all with the goal of dominating local or national television coverage. Presidential candidates vow to reverse executive orders of previous presidents, make promises that can’t and won’t be kept, and set unrealistic goals. Aren’t the people in this country supposed to be in charge? Isn’t the government supposed to protect our rights? How do we get things back on track when people operate on loose facts, when debate is a contest for the most slicing snarky comment, and name calling is the order of the day? Sponsored by Ryan Plumbing and Heating of Saint Paul and X Government Trucks.



I read the NY Times article on the Itasca group and it’s just unfortunate that the Times doesn’t have the ability or want (or both) to ask any of the questions that this podcast brought up. The glaring example of the problems and self-interested motives of a group like this is used in the article with the bridge, only the writer knows so little about the reason that bridge failed to understand that he/she is providing credible arguments against having a wanton un-elected cabal wave their magic wands behind the scenes. You can’t make that up. Yay, we got a perpetuous gas tax for infrastructure updating to combat engineering errors, or an expensive answer to a non-existent issue. Thanks Itasca Group? I’m sure there were no self-benefits to pushing this tax through to address a “problem” that didn’t exist.

I read a follow-up piece on Gawker that at least points out some of these glaring omissions in the Times piece by saying, “It is an eternal wish of the elite political press that a group of terribly smart “non-partisan” people with solid credentials and good intentions will just step in, take charge, and fix all our problems, partisanship and politicians be damned. This is a profoundly anti-democratic impulse, but because the sorts of elites we’re talking about consider themselves beyond and above ideology, they don’t generally understand that they’re expressing an ideological preference for oligarchy.”

An un-elected group of elites influencing politicians outside of the public forum is now celebrated by the NY Times? Good news for the Koch’s and Steyer’s of the world as far as their treatment by the NY Time’s goes…

Leave a comment


email* (not published)