By irishguy

July 8, 2009 7:20 AM | Link to this

It’s still number one on Amazon this morning, a lot of folks must like it.

By Raoul

July 2, 2009 1:43 PM | Link to this

Thanks Mark for your description of what ‘Progressive’s’ stand for. It’s about what I figured it is…Americans who have forgotten that what sets us apart from the rest of the world is PERSONAL FREEDOM AND LIBERTY! While our system has always produced winners and losers, it is profoundly true that individuals can choose the path that makes them winners, from inner city ghetto kids, to farmers, innovators, manure shovelers, brick-layers, up to wealthy nee’r do wells. Your progressive movement seeks to impose fairness where it doesn’t occur naturally, from the individuals making choices. It leads to nanny state governance where re-distribution of wealth masks a feeling of guilt. What is the end game for Progressive politics? I think we see it in moribund Europe, where striving for excellence has been replaced by a tired acceptance of mediocrity. I reject it on the principle that America has uniquely rejected it. Let there be winners and losers, and let’s teach our children to win.

By TRS

July 2, 2009 12:28 PM | Link to this

Mark - appreciate your synopsis about progressives. It does help understand your overall philosophy. Such labels are broad based and I doubt if anyone fits them all to a “t”. For instance as a conservative I have some libratarian views as well. We all have differing cores. At my core, I am a Christ follower - warts and all. I do not believe we were founded as a Christian nation; but, it was a central influence to the founding father’s principles. These early thinkers, having come out from under the tyranny of the king, were convinced that for democracy to succeed, it must be held acountable to the authority of a higher ethical and spiritual standard - the “Natural Law” and the “laws of Nature’s God” and that is why I am a fiscal and social conservative. Certainly the “fathers” were not perfect and should not be dieified, but they understood the importance of not leaving mankind to his/her own devices, which often plays out in greed, corruption, pride and a thirst for power. While the vast majority of those in the public and private sector at all levels go about doing their jobs to the best of their ability, the same greed, corruption, etc, which we both decry, exists in both. The difference to me - government can make laws and exert power whereas corporations are limited and can even be held accountable as with Madoff; but, the government can declare itself free of accountability and in extreme circumstances could even declare itself “king” if given to much power. While some may think that is alarmist, history has shown cautious skepticism of government to be healthy. That is why I believe a national government should be the smallest government possible. I don’t believe governments or parties solve problems - people free of governmental constraints do. For instance, government cannot decree technologies for alternative fuels exist; but, demand will ultimately bring about such technologies. In essence, I ascribe to the theory that any government thats big enough to give you something is also big enough to take it away. I agree that Wall St ran amuck and part of that “small government” of today should provide better oversight; but it must do so cautiously so as not to hinder the economy from working. I also believe government fueled the fire with sub primes and exerted its powerful influence to convince lenders to cease good business practices in lending. In essence, both systems are imperfect but in my view government can do far more harm if given to much power. War is hell. I have lost friends to it; yet, judgments must be made in defending the country and often they are not clear cut or easy. Protecting and defending is built into the constitution as a primary responsibility. As for immigration, Reagan said, “a country that can’t control its borders isn’t really a country anymore” so I believe in legal immigration. Our country was built on it. I also believe in lower taxes, but for all. The greatest benefit a nation can give its people is the ability to secure a job and support his family. Like it or not, that is best accomplished by those with wealth who can invest and create jobs. Government cannot do so in the long term. When we “war” against the weathy, they seek ways to preserve their wealth rather than invest it. Case in point, there is alot of money on the sidelines right now. Frankly, I’d prefer they ditch the whole tax system and go to a fair or flat tax with no exemptions except for the poor. If you want to remove corporate influence, then do so by removing the things which they can influence such as tax codes. To track some of your other thoughts, I recognize the plight of the Palestinians. As soon as they recognize Israel’s right to exist, many problems could be solved. Until then, Hamas and such are making their own bed. Conservatives believe in common sense conservation. I also believe in prudence in my personal spending, self reliance and personal responsibility in the actions I take. In sum, I write these things not to convince or create another “tiff” between us; rather, just to explain my worldview and how it might differ from yours. In many ways, we have the same goals but differing means of going about achieving them. Mark - I would ask of you a serious question. Its not meant to create conflict, but answer my curiousity. You are an articulate spokesman of your views and write well. I claim no innocence in using heated rhetoric at times and have broken my unwritten rule of not responding right away on more than one occasion. That being said, I try steer away from extreme words such as liar, stupid, etc. In this post you referred to Hillary as “a liar”. I am certainly no one to tell you how to write but do wonder why one of your abilities in writing chooses to use such “extreme” words?

By Mark from St Paul

June 30, 2009 4:48 PM | Link to this

As for “progressives” being “conservative,” I think I can speak to that issue, having been among the first to re-adapt the label of “progressive.” From 2002-2006 it was used only by online activists like myself who were fed up with liberal Democrats and who wanted a Democratic party that could win elections and solve problems created by corporate control over our government. Progressives are conservative on spending, liberal on social issues. They are conservative on foreign policy (war has always been seen as a liberal/radical response to foreign threats), liberal on immigration. Progressives embrace America as a melting pot, want to cut taxes on the poor and middle class, and believe that laws that restrict technology are laws that strangle our economy. As with the word “conservative,” many claim to be progressive when they are anything but (see Clinton, Hillary). Progressives oppose the lockstep support of Israel by liberals and neoconservatives. It’s difficult to sort out the labels because so many liars label themselves, but yes, traditionally and more recently “progressives” embrace common sense solutions (single payer, nationalizing banks, breaking up monopolies), eschew radicalism (cutting taxes for the rich, warmongering/saber rattling, deregulation) and promote economic and social justice. If our recent Wall Street debacle has proven anything, it is that the business sector if left to its own devices will behave in profoundly unethical ways, and left unregulated Wall Street will destroy ethical businesses while cheerfully touting the Madoffs and Goldman Sachs on TV news shows. Obama is not a progressive, and to date has been overly respectful of our corrupt establishment. Bailouts are not progressive (with the sad exception of GM, a reluctant progressive response to the anti-progressive bailout of Wall Street). Progressives are not consumerists. We embrace conservation, husbanding natural resources, and ending conspicuous consumption. In short, for the most part we’re the people who used to be liberal Republicans but who were banished from the party of Lincoln by the descendants of Jefferson Davis.

By Alice

June 30, 2009 1:20 PM | Link to this

A person can be fiscally or socially conservative, or both. I don’t think that a social conservative can be progressive but a fiscal conservative can. It’s all a matter of where your priorities are. Progress doesn’t require massive spending - just a basic desire to improve our lives.

By irishguy

June 30, 2009 1:20 PM | Link to this

Vick, since I’ve been “downsized” I’m doing the Mr Mom thing and don’t have time to sit in front of the computer all day. I wish the oil companies could invest more of those profits in offshore drilling which would increase supplies, thereby lowering prices. Mark, I don’t think Mr Beck is advocating violent revolution. He’s just trying to get the folks involved as he feels the goverment is getting too large and powerful.

By TRS

June 29, 2009 10:23 PM | Link to this

Down - don’t see how anyone can be a progressive and a conservative - the two just don’t fit. Progressives are statist and believe in government management, certainly not something the founding fathers advocated. Within each of our worldviews we probably have a few other perspectives mixed in but based on your posts I think its fair to say you are a progressive and I make no bones about being a conservative - a Reagan conservative and proud of it! I too support the constitution as a traditionalist and not as modified by the progressivism of the last century. We agree on bailouts, disagree on Bush, abortion, climate change, Democrats (I believe their the lunatics) and Republicans (acting like Democrats) and Fox News. I too would like to see a progressive party in conjunction with the creation of a conservative party so as to better define themselves and so people could understand what they are voting for. No need to get into a shouting match but I would say you accuse me of things and seem to forget your own words. I made a counter argument as to what Vick said. I didn’t attack Vick (I like Vick) - just disagreed with some of his points. Here you come accusing me of a “predictible firestorm of misrepresentions and attacks”. Of course thats after your previous comments about “the flat earth society, not having the intelligence to turn computers on, going into your typical diatribe about Fox and insinuating Raoul and myself only are informed by Fox and are not well read as say, you. Not quite sure what you call that, but I would say its not meant to be complimentary. Then, of course, there’s this cute little comment about Raoul and I being one in the ame, which of course we’re not. I’m not particularly offended by this - I think folks get offended to easily now adays; but, I’m not particularly fond of the “righteous indignation”. My grandfather used to call it “the pot calling the kettle black”.

By Raoul

June 29, 2009 10:03 PM | Link to this

Mark, just how do you figure Beck is pushing for a ‘violent confrontation’?Peaceful Tax Rallies? Aren’t you getting a little out there suggesting Beck, et al, are looking for an overthrow of the government? Please, don’t fall prey to the liberal media; it’s beneath you. You are too smart for that. Besides, Obama would create a “Thought Czar” to wipe away all that oppose his policies before it gets violent. It’s still the voters that determine elections, so I wouldn’t sweat a government overthrow. But I am a little concerned about a “Voter Czar” being appointed. That’s when the trouble will likely start. I think I will pick up Beck’s book now, to read Paine first, then Beck.

By Raoul

June 29, 2009 9:38 PM | Link to this

Here we go again Downsized. Rereading my posts, I attacked no one. I merely challenged you to prove to me once and for all global warming is caused by mankinds’ treatment of the planet. You point to polar ice caps melting. So be it. It’s happened before and I hope will again. I also said that personal freedom from government intrusion is apparently a goal of the current administration.The Bush administration monitored outgoing and incoming cell phone calls as a strategy to data mine possible terrorism. I don’t recall anyone being sent to a Gulag somewhere because Bush and Cheney didn’t like what phone messages they were hearing. So please, enough with your trumped up outrage. Nobody was crazy about going to war in Iraq, but the world didn’t say too much in defense of Saddam Hussein either. Your posts seem to be a response to anger you feel over those that disagree with you. Well, I agree that both parties have become counter-productive, and a new progressive movement needs to take place. I would wish for a Libertarian type of movement. One that is based on common sense, and not fancifull notions of scientific consensus derived from a good old boy association of grant money robber barons. If you want to get to the source of the scientific global warming ‘consensus’, follow the grant money. Then find out to what happens to scientists who don’t see the same things. They get blackballed. Any free-thinking individual should be troubled by that.

By downsized

June 29, 2009 7:06 PM | Link to this

TRS or Raoul(since you guys answer questions posed to the other I’m guessing you may be the same person): I consider myself a conservative. I want the Constitution preserved. Something the previous administration tore asunder. I want to protect our country’s natural resources for this and future generations. I don’t believe in bailing out the financial service and other companies who caused many of the problems in the first place. I think the government has no business invading a woman’s right to chose, selecting which drugs to outlaw or manufacturing wars against countries like Iraq. I don’t believe Reagan or Bush were conservatives. They feathered the selective nests of their friends, exploded the deficit, increased the size of government, and gave primarily large corporations a license to steal. If Paine were alive today he’d likely been an advocate of overthrowing the previous government of Bush/Cheney. As for you embracing global warming, the term is a catch all for climate change created by excesses of pollution and mismanagement by mankind. The number of category 4-5 hurricanes doubling since 1970 is one example. The melting polar ice shelf’s are another. But, since you don’t believe in anything that isn’t promoted by Fox News (Fanatically Omnipotent Xenophobic News Network) it’s unlikely anything could convince you. Enough. Vick reviewed a book and just because you didn’t like the opinion that it was poorly conceived by one of your heroes, you predictably set off a firestorm of misrepresentation and attacks on anyone who doesn’t agree with you. How curious that your overwhelming 40% majority lost the last election. I have a lot of concerns with the present administration. However, given that they were handed a plethora of problems too severe for easy solutions, I’ll be supporting my President for the time being. The Democrats are acting like Republicans. Republicans are acting like lunatics. We need a new progressive party in this country that represents the people, not the lobbyists who give us the best government money can buy.

By Mark from St Paul

June 29, 2009 5:15 PM | Link to this

Raoul, have you read Paine? He was calling for the overthrow of the King’s government. Are you saying that overthrowing Obama would be a good thing? Because whether you recognize it or not, Beck & Co. are egging on the hard right and are pushing for violent confrontation. As for the progressives in Paine’s day, they were called our Founding Fathers. The non-progressives were called Tories, and they resisted the Revolution for all they were worth. What exactly is going on when the modern day Tories are the ones calling for revolution?

By vick

June 29, 2009 5:14 PM | Link to this

Irish, welcome back! So, you’re cool with that Exxon profit, too? I suppose Beck is merely preaching to his choir then. Oh well.

By irishguy

June 29, 2009 5:09 PM | Link to this

Vick, the examples you seem to have issue with all seem like common sense to me.

By Raoul

June 29, 2009 4:23 PM | Link to this

Mark, if Beck’s book gets people reading Thomas Paine and thinking, it’s not all bad. I am sure there were progressive’s in Paine’s day that leveled the same criticisms of Paine that I am hearing now of Beck. With our government now reaching into our lives at never before levels of intrusions on personal freedom, I can’t help but think you are as troubled as I am of what is happening to our country. Obama’s grabbing governmental power from the people as fast as he can. The Constitution was meant as a restraint on governmental power over individual freedoms. Where are the Progressive’s?

By Blowfly

June 29, 2009 3:01 PM | Link to this

A while back Fox obtained a trademark registration for the mark Fair & Balanced for tv news. Before you jump to the conclusion that this means that Fox must indeed be fair and balanced, you should know that there’s a rule in trademark law that says you can’t trademark a phrase that describes your services. This prevents people from claiming rights in very common terms needed by others to describe what they do. To put this in terms conservatives will understand (since the liberals are already shaking their heads in wonder) it’s akin to the NYTimes trademarking the term Liberal Media Bias. So then, does that mean that Fox is not fair and balanced, since if they are fair and balanced then they should never have gotten the registration? Not quite, there’s another rule that says you can’t trademark a phrase that is misdescriptive of your services. No one in the trademark world can understand how Fox got this approved since it has to be either descriptive of misdescriptive (depending on you political views or just depending on the facts). So, what’s this got to do with anything? Well, probably nothing, but someone recently filed an application for the mark Fair But Not Balanced” it remains to be seen what they will use the mark for, but if it was me (and I had Bernie Madoff money) I’d use the mark to attack Fox and see if Fox sues me for trademark infringement based on their dubious Fair & Balanced mark. By the way, I listened to the Glenn Beck show once and he was pretending to be his producer (or something) and he was really funny, but it wasn’t political.

By Mark from St Paul

June 29, 2009 11:01 AM | Link to this

PZ Myers recently mentioned that the Creationists are putting out a new version of Darwin’s Origin of Species. They slapped a very long intro on to it, edited out the parts they didn’t like, and are now selling it to suckers as being Darwin’s book. Beck’s exploitation of Paine is especially egregious as Paine was a revolutionary whereas Beck is a counter-revolutionary, stooging for the rich while spouting populist nonsense. I’d provide links but since personal attacks carry as much weight as research in this forum, why bother?

By Darrin

June 29, 2009 10:35 AM | Link to this

So let’s see, this book is a sales phenomenon and you will mention it but not do an actual review? Whether you personally agree with his opinions or not, it is possible to construct a few well written paragraphs rather than step down to the ill-thought level of what we normally find in these comment sections. Perhaps there’s more book reviews located somewhere else on DDN.com, I don’t know, I’m not seeing them off hand. Judging from the numbers, it looks like Beck has actually been able to get A LOT more people reading Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense”. I agree with you, that is a very good thing.

By Raoul

June 29, 2009 7:56 AM | Link to this

Vick, I believe Hillary Clinton got an $8 million dollar advance on her book that nobody read, and Bill’s was somewhere close. The Democrats always get the big publishing bucks. The funny thing about Beck’s book, and O’Reilly’s, and all of Ann Coulter’s is that they are best sellers. People actually read them. Vick, sometimes it’s not the volume of words on a page, it’s what the words are saying. But here is your chance. Why don’t you and mwm and Downsized prove to all of us right now that global warming not only exists but is caused by man; that letting illegal alien’s swarm over our souther border will be just fine, but keeping those Canadiens out is a good thing. I thought liberal progressives took pride in challenging beliefs and thinking critically. I’m finding that simply isn’t so. I think most conservatives would heartily embrace ‘globalwarming’ if it could be proven true…we’re still waiting.

By TRs

June 29, 2009 1:23 AM | Link to this

Well lets take a look at the “common sense” of it all. Perhaps someone can explain why seeking a mechanism which helps enforce the law is bad? Better yet, since when was it common sense to support breaking the law, ie illegal immigration? From 1940 to 1975 the planet cooled to the point where a glacier age was predicted. Now, its global warming; yet, as time has passed, more and more holes are being shot into the whole global warming debate. There is much debate among scientists about whether manmade events have any effect, recent science points toward natural cycling and it is by no means settled science. What common sense is there in carelessly forging ahead and passing legislation which has the potential to do great harm to our economy based on inconclusive evidence? By the way, the people best positioned to profit from the cap/tax bill is Al Gore and GE, whose CEO is a huge Democratic supporter as well as owning NBC and MSNBC. Of course, thats OK as long as it isn’t “big oil”- right? As I understand a Ponzi scheme, it pays returns in part based on money recieved by subsequent “investors”, ie those who pay into SSN now to fund those who are currently on SSN. So you see, common sense is in the eye of the beholder. Down - I guess poor ol’ Raoul and I will just have to count ourselves among the 40% of American who consider themselves conservative and you and MWM can hang around with the 21% who are liberal. The other 35% are beginning to understand that the person we now have in office is a radical left wing idealogue and are beginning to turn away from his policies. You see, common sense does prevail.

By Ecartman

June 28, 2009 9:52 PM | Link to this

“Common sense” was certainly lacking in this review; what a surprise! Have any of you Fox News haters/Obots ever actually watched it? Study after study proves they are the only balanced news outlet.

By downsized

June 28, 2009 7:57 PM | Link to this

rm provides solid evidence that common sense is extremely uncommon these days. Please keep reviewing books Vick. I’m dismayed that the flat earth society devotees commenting on your blog have the intelligence to even turn their computers on. I’m certain Fox news must have some remedial training program for them. Glen Beck is the choice over anyone, rm? Do you and the split personality TRS/Raoul frequent the same kool-aid stand?

By mwm

June 28, 2009 7:47 PM | Link to this

Conservatism, just like Republicanism, are personality disorders and not political movements. Beck is just another example of this disorder. He and others like him are out of touch with reality.

By rm

June 28, 2009 7:19 PM | Link to this

Guess that is why you only read books, rather then have one on the best sellers list or why he gets paid big money for now being on Fox. I’ll take his Common Sense over any one else.

By Kevin S.

June 28, 2009 7:02 PM | Link to this

I happened to come across Glenn Beck’s announcement of this book while flipping channels a few weeks back. He was making this pious speech about how he’d considered not putting his name on the book because it might prejudice some people against the book’s ideas. (Like we’re supposed to believe this guy ever considered not putting his name on anything.) The fact that the book is 75% Thomas Paine just makes the whole thing more hilarious. He should have called it Thomas Paine’s Common Sense with a foreword by Glenn Beck.