While I'm a bit skeptical about spend spend spend, I do know we should be spending on infrastructure as investment, which legitimately can be seen as like a mortgage for home improvement...in this case, national improvement. Not only repair and upgrade of existing structure but in particular a high speed passenger rail system across the whole nation. Literally I have zero choice for passenger service from northwestern Wisconsin to East Tennessee except driving my car...no train, no bus, no direct plane...and I don't like plane transport. It's also highly polluting compared to rail...thus rail a good investment. Where would we be without the national highway system? I remember how it was before--barely workable.

These idiots would trash the constitution with an amendment to require a balanced budget...which would preclude large national investment projects. Please note that most of those investment projects merely jump start what becomes private business. Where would East Tennessee be without the federal investment in the Tennessee Valley Authority? I'm not sure about what future NASA makes possible, but I believe it has been worthwhile investment. The internet makes possible multiples curriculum plans and materials that could enable individualized education and degree of choice and own direction with teachers becoming coaches instead of dictators down one limited path. It would have to be funded and guards in place that it is truly multiple choice not dictated path. With virtual space as new frontier who knows what's possible for individualism in the future for all people?!

Thank you, Marvin for posting your idea. Some of us old geezers have some intriguing POSITIVE ideas...as opposed to all the negatives from the extreme rightwingers.

Jon just catching up to this post and found it so ironic that you brought up the high speed rails as I was just discussing this with someone this morning. I read that Japan is offering the US a deal to help with the project, I believe to try and produce and sell their trains. It would go from Baltimore to Washington. Maybe this can be the beginning.
We definitely could use a train going from east to west. Not only would this cut down on our consumption on fuel, as a jet can burn 20 gallons of per second, it would cut down on pollution. Flying planes are very cost ineffective, where as they serve a purpose over water, over land is another matter, it not very practical and doesn't go much faster than the train.

If we can produce funding for a war, let us substitute it for advancement in infrastructure.

Jon just catching up to this post and found it so ironic that you brought up the high speed rails as I was just discussing this with someone this morning. I read that Japan is offering the US a deal to help with the project, I believe to try and produce and sell their trains. It would go from Baltimore to Washington. Maybe this can be the beginning.
We definitely could use a train going from east to west. Not only would this cut down on our consumption on fuel, as a jet can burn 20 gallons of per second, it would cut down on pollution. Flying planes are very cost ineffective, where as they serve a purpose over water, over land is another matter, it not very practical and doesn't go much faster than the train.

If we can produce funding for a war, let us substitute it for advancement in infrastructure.

No offense taken. The answer is simple; I have pointed it out to you repeatedly in these posts. Extreme is extreme. A leftist extremist displays the characteristics defined in the 12 points as does any extremist regardless of their particular special interest.

I have capitulated admitting that right wing extremism has, as your initial post demands, damaged the country. That is the subject of your post and is, as far as it goes, indisputably true. You asked no question that invited debate. There is, therefore, nothing to debate. My bad for thinking that was the objective.

In other words you want me to justify their actions? Or like the NEA, keep silent about C Score, and Common Core? Of course you heard today about Holders' orders to ignore Black crimes and disturbances in schools? Like Trevon: three counts of assaulting white students, Nothing done or reported, one count of assaulting a bus driver, presumably while driving a bus load of children, nothing done or reported, then possession of drugs and stolen property and (either, your choice) possession of a weapon or burglary tools. Finally expelled! But his records hidden! But texted about by all the other students! After looking at the map...my wife lived across from that school and I lived about two miles away, lots of relatives attending that school!

RIGHT WING EXTREMESTS
The purpose of this group is to discuss right wing extremism and its impact on American politics.
A technical name for right wing extremists is Authoritarian followers and they can be described by the twelve indicators following: If you are able to read this through the definition of Authoritarian follower, and attempt to understand it, even while you may disagree with it, you are extremely unlikely to be an authoritarian follower. True Authoritarian followers find it impossible to read through and comprehend it or to see it in himself.

Definitions of Authoritarian Followers:

1. Authoritarian submission. Authoritarian followers submit to the people they consider authorities much more than non-authoritarians do. In this context, authoritarian followers seem to believe without question whatever their chosen authorities say. Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, various religious groups, the House and Senate GOP leaders, Sen. Grassley from Iowa, Rep. Bachmann from Minnesota, and of course Sarah Palin can say whatever they want about their opposition, and the followers will accept it and repeat it. The followers don't find out for themselves what is really in a bill, what a treaty actually specifies, or whether taxes have really gone up. They are happy to let Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin do their thinking for them. It has gotten so bad that their leaders casually say preposterous things that are easily refuted, because they know their audience will never believe the truth, or even hear it.

2. Fear. Fear constantly pulses through authoritarian followers, and Tea Partiers are mightily frightened. They believe President Obama is a dictator. They also think the country will be destroyed by its mounting debt. They readily believed the health care proposals provided for “death panels” that will euthanize Downs syndrome babies, “put Grandma in the grave,” and place microchips in each American so the government can track us. Conservative leaders especially vilify Barack Obama, recently calling him in the space of two days the “most radical president ever” (Gingrich) who is “inflicting untold damage on this great country” (Limbaugh) and is inviting a nuclear attack on the United States by indicating we won't hit back (Palin). The people who authoritarian followers know well what button to push first and hardest among social conservatives, and they work it overtime. And they know spreading fear “works” with others as well.

3. Self-righteousness. Self-righteousness runs very strongly in authoritarian followers, and combines with fear to unleash aggression in them. The followers commonly describe themselves
as “the good Americans,” “the true Americans,” “the people,” and “the American Patriots.” They could hardly wrap themselves in the flag more thoroughly or more often than they do. Theirs is the holy cause. They believe they are the only ones who can save the country.

4. Hostility. Authoritarian aggression is one of the defining characteristics of authoritarian followers. Do authoritarian followers seem particularly aggressive? They angrily call people who disagree with them “Liars,” “Communists,” and “Traitors.” 5. A lack of critical thinking. Authoritarian followers have more trouble thinking logically than most people do. In particular, they tend to agree with sayings and slogans, even contradictory ones, because they have heard them a lot. Thus authoritarian followers reflexively, patriotically thump that the United States is the best country on earth, but as well that it is now an Obama dictatorship. They also have extra trouble applying logic to false reasoning when they like the conclusion. A ready example can be found in their assertion that Obama is a socialist. They have heard this over and over again from Rush Limbaugh, etcetera, and “so it must be true.” But Obama has never advocated state ownership of an industry. He certainly did not advocate state ownership of health insurance, and eventually even backed away from the “public option” (that most Americans wanted) which would have let the government as well as private companies offer health insurance. 3

6. Our “biggest problem.” Authoritarian followers will readily believe that lots of things are our “biggest problem.” It can be drugs, the decline of religion, the breakdown of the family, you name it. Thus it was not hard to get followers worked up about, of all things, a plan to improve health care to the levels found in other industrialized countries. Yet Tea Partiers believe the passage of the health care bill marks the end of liberty. But they could just as easily have been led to believe that climate change legislation, nuclear disarmament, gay marriage, or taking “In God we trust” off the money would sound the death knell for America. In earlier eras it could have been sex education, Sunday shopping, the 40-hour week, or a Catholic president that would lead to our doom.

7. Compartmentalized thinking. Authoritarian followers can have so many contradictory beliefs and “biggest problems” because their thinking is highly compartmentalized. Ideas exist independently of the other ideas in their head. Their thinking is so unintegrated because they have spent their lives copying what their authorities say, without examining whether the ideas fit together sensibly. And followers say over and over that the Democrats are installing a dictatorship, but they demonstrate every time they demonstrate that Americans still have all the freedom of speech they ever had. And one notes the health care reforms bear a striking resemblance to Social Security and Medicare—which many of the protestors happily enjoy and would never give up.

8. Double Standards. Highly compartmentalized thinking makes it easy for authoritarian followers to employ double standards in their judgments. Followers protested about the federal deficit growing by unprecedented leaps and bounds under Obama. But it grew by unprecedented leaps and bounds during George W. Bush's presidency, also. Followers have asserted that the Obama administration has too much power and is taking away our Constitutional rights. But they did not cry out when President Bush set up illegal domestic spying operations. Followers howled, on cue, when the Senate used the reconciliation process to pass health care reform. How loudly did they howl when the Republicans used reconciliation to pass George W. Bush's tax cuts? It’s pretty clear that many, many followers aren’t really against the things they say they’re against.

9. Feeling empowered when in groups. Authoritarian followers seem to want to disappear as individuals. They are not comfortable taking stands on their own, or acting alone. Instead they seem fulfilled simply by being part of a large, powerful movement on the march. experiments have shown that authoritarian followers are highly conforming. Being in a crowd of fellow-believers also helps them maintain their opinions.

10. Dogmatism. We also know that authoritarian followers lead the league in being dogmatic. When their leaders set their opinions for them, those opinions are set in stone. Experiments show that nothing (aside from their authorities) can convince them they are wrong. If overwhelmed by logic and evidence, they simply “castle” into dogmatism. This is probably because they don't really know why they believe what they believe. They didn't figure it out for themselves; they Xeroxed what their authorities said.
.
11. Ethnocentrism. Authoritarian followers are notably ethnocentric, constantly judging others and events through “Us versus Them” lenses. They largely choose their friends according to their beliefs. They stick to news outlets that tell them what they want to hear. They live in a polarized world, divided into their in-group, and out-groups consisting of everybody else. They stress in-group loyalty, and try to keep their distance from the out-groups. They wrap themselves in the flag so tightly, everybody else is outside it. They have very definite out-groups. This fierce in-group orientation, along with the followers‟ need for external confirmation of their beliefs, explains why Fox News has such a big audience compared with other outlets, why Sarah Palin's, Glenn Beck's, and Ann Coulter's books leap to the top of the best sellers lists, and why “hate radio” is so popular. Authoritarian followers have to get their ideas “validated” by others more than most people do. So they constantly seek out sources of information that will tell them they are right. It amounts to in-group in-breeding of the intellect. Research shows that less authoritarian people are more likely to consider different sides of an issue, and figure things out more for themselves.

12. Prejudice. Studies have found that authoritarian followers are among the most prejudiced people in society. It is the nastiest aspect of their ethnocentrism, and one they insistently deny—to others and to themselves. And they really do not realize how prejudiced they are, compared with others, because they associate so much with other prejudiced people. So their prejudices seem normal and perfectly justified to them.
Notes: Congratulations, If you have read the entire post, It is very safe to say that you are not an authoritarian follower.
These characteristics are excerpted and modified from an article titled, Comments on the Tea Party movement at http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/drbob/Comment%20on%20the%20Tea%20Party.pdf

OK, this is ironic. There's considerable support for NSA in the mainstream but disapproval by both ultra right and ultra liberal. In this case, I'll refrain from use of extremlist and nutty labels because the disapproval extends into merely right and left and, while there are rightwingnut conspiracy story lines about NSA, of course, much opposition is only about potential abuse and constitutional violation, not a wicked intent. There is also question as to effectiveness of stated intent to trace or prevent terrorism. Some overseas efforts beyond terror search.

Jonathan,
I agree with most all of what you wrote. Freedom and security are a delicate balance. I don't know all of what NSA is doing in its spying program, but it makes me a bit nervous that there doesn't seem to be adequate oversight. I think you would agree that secret programs can go out of control very easily and destroy democracy. A very good reminder of this is the speech by Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men. It is on Utube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FnO3igOkOk.

Secrecy may protect a society against its enemies but it also protects itself all too often from the truth. Alan Wolfe


Perhaps I'm the only one on this thread for NSA programs? Not an easily justifiable matter but for the next two or three decades we will need to follow muslim world developments closely and other geopolitical connections--a matter of national security and interests and the future of freedom and self-government. Ironic that universal search is potentially or actually contradiction of freedom in principle, especially internal search, like slavery and then segregation were contradiction of equality. If intent and application are limited and end intended and effectiveness improved, I approve guarded continuance if for no other reason than to know the technology that presumably others will have and develop the counters to. There are indications technology to break codes, a very large & complicated technological undertaking, is underway and if so it is a matter of security of anything coded, military and/or national or individual credit and banking...and thus essential to know to defend against hostile disastrous use toward us. Technology has promise for future of civilization but threat until assurance of international security. In the meantime I will trust American sincerity and mission. I consider these NSA programs wrong in principle, dangerous, but pragmatic necessity of time and circumstances. Maybe this should be a separate thread and if someone wants to post it as such, go ahead.