Ok folks, here it is, the long awaited Politics thread. You will notice that I am listed as the host. This is temporary; our real hosts are away and will be taking over in another week. So you get me temporarily in order to have the thread at all.
As far as having more focussed discussions goes, may I suggest that the possibilities will become apparent this week. If it looks like we can use two or three more specific threads, we can go that route next week.
For now, have at it.
2. LadyChaos - 9/12/1999 8:37:29 PM
(Having at it...)
3. CalGal - 9/12/1999 8:44:10 PM
Did anyone watch Bradley's announcement? I swear, the man developed a sense of humor somewhere along the line.
4. JJBiener - 9/12/1999 8:53:41 PM
CalGal - I swear, the man developed a sense of humor somewhere along the line.
Thank God. There may be some hope for this campaign season yet.
Nah. There still is no hope.
5. Greystoke - 9/12/1999 9:08:16 PM
Here is a condensed version of a story from today's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. I cannot find it in the online version of the newspaper:
A Republican political consultant was jailed Friday after he was held for trial on charges that he threatened to kill an Alabama man's family if the man did not submit to sexual demands.
Consultant Leon Abramowitz was held for court on the second set of sexual coercion charges to be filed against him in the past year.
In the second case, the Alabama man said he met Abramowitz over the Internet and Abramowitz offered him $75,000 to be a consultant if he would also have sex with Abramowitz. He testified that after he tried to back out of the deal, Abramowitz threatened him and his family. He traveled to Pittsburgh to stay with Abramowitz from Aug. 8 through Aug. 15 as a "sex slave."
I bet Drudge won't report this one.
6. Au Naturel - 9/12/1999 9:42:52 PM
I saw on the net that Cybil Shephard was considering a run for president. If Warren Beatty can, why not her? She certainly made better movies. Anyone else seen this "news"?
7. Au Naturel - 9/12/1999 9:58:23 PM
I saw on the net that Cybil Shephard was considering a run for president. If Warren Beatty can, why not her? She certainly made better movies. Anyone else seen this "news"?
8. Ace of Spades - 9/12/1999 10:22:19 PM
Drudge is reporting:
Buchanan is about to defect; and
Jesse Ventura is going to attempt to block Buchanan's bid for the Reform Party candidacy by endorsing Donald Trump (?!?!) as Reform Party candidate.
Goofy shit.
9. God - 9/12/1999 11:14:40 PM
I'm curious how long the U.S.A. with its current form of government will last. I'm guessing less than a century. And no, I'm not an alarmist, I think it will evolve to something better.
10. Ace of Spades - 9/12/1999 11:41:33 PM
From the Wall Street Journal:
Democrats Now Wear Bill's Scarlet 'I' Bill's Scarlet 'I'
Paul Gigot
Maybe Newt Gingrich wasn't wrong about impeachment helping Republicans, just premature.
...
The House managers certainly don't look worried these days. California's Jim Rogan, the manager with the least-safe seat, has become the hottest GOP draw not named Bush. For his May re-election announcement rally, Mr. Rogan expected about 400 people. "We stopped counting at 1,500 RSVPs," he says, and 2,700 showed up.
Two years ago his campaign donor list was 3,000; now it's more than 20,000. Democrats say he's a goner, but he's banked more than $1 million already, and the national GOP recently sent out a fund-raising letter under his signature.
...
This isn't just GOP spin. A July poll by the Pew Research Center found that support for impeachment has risen to 44% from just 35% last December. More voters now think Monica's paramour should have resigned (35%) than thought so in December (30%). And more voters now say their congressman should be re-elected if he voted for impeachment (57%) than if he voted against (52%).
11. JJBiener - 9/12/1999 11:55:26 PM
Greystoke - I am curious as to what makes this guy a Republican political consultant. Is that what he claims he is, or do Republicans actually hire this guy? He is certainly not the kind of guy I run into at the neighborhood GOP barbecue.
12. Bubbaette - 9/13/1999 7:32:37 AM
Sounds like a real party animal, JJ, are you sure?
13. ranheim - 9/13/1999 8:04:44 AM
God
With participation in affairs political decreasing every year, how do you feel so optimistic? It is my opinion (and that is all it is) that political knowlege among the great un-washed is also declining.
As long as you give Joe Sixpak his bread (a sixpak) and circuses (the NFL) he seems satisfied. I don't find these conditions for optimism.
14. Uzmakk - 9/13/1999 9:13:03 AM
Does anyone have a defintion of politics that they think is particularly insightful. To me, it is a word shrouded in mystery. The more I think about it the more mysterious it gets.
15. Uzmakk - 9/13/1999 9:14:37 AM
God, you inspired my question with your #9.
16. JJBiener - 9/13/1999 10:36:12 AM
Uzmakk - How about this: Politics is the art of human interaction.
17. ChristinO - 9/13/1999 2:07:33 PM
politics - a multitude of blood-sucking insects
18. CalGal - 9/13/1999 2:14:24 PM
Politics is the method by which government is implemented.
19. WinstonSmith - 9/13/1999 2:22:10 PM
Government is the method by which politics is implemented.
20. SpenceMirrlees - 9/13/1999 2:31:20 PM
Politics is the combining of individual goals into a collective decision
21. SpenceMirrlees - 9/13/1999 2:36:14 PM
Not sure if political knowledge in the electorate is declining, because I'm not sure it was ever very high. There is certainly more ticket splitting today than at any other time this century, and that probably requires at least as much knowledge of politics as straight ticket voting.
When I played baseball as a kid, I thought the players appeared to get shorter as I got older. The players when I was very young seemed like giants. I imagine this is the same sense in which political knowledge is declining in the electorate.
22. Raskolnikov - 9/13/1999 2:43:52 PM
Here is an interesting article about conflicting public sector goals - environment vs. public health. Although I would bet dollars to donuts that the Twin Cities public would overwhelming favor the public health goal in this specific instance.
23. Raskolnikov - 9/13/1999 2:50:26 PM
My favorite definition:
> "politics is giving to the grateful at the expense of the oblivious"
24. SpenceMirrlees - 9/13/1999 2:58:22 PM
just did some back of the envelope computations on voter turnout over time, using this data from the National Election Studies on voter turnout from 1952 to 1996.
Including all national elections, turnout has declined over time but very slightly. From a statistical point of view, it cannot be ruled out that the change over time is due to chance.
Turnout in off-year (non-presidential) national elections has declined a bit more since 1958. A classical statistician would feel reasonably confident in saying that the decline is not due to chance. (Of course, as I have been reporting in the econ thread, in this sort of inference scenario, the classical measures overstate the confidence one should have in the outcome of the procedure.)
25. Ace of Spades - 9/13/1999 4:38:51 PM
Starr Wins Appeals Court Ruling
By John Solomon
Associated Press Writer
Monday, Sept. 13, 1999; 4:20 p.m. EDT
WASHINGTON –– In a victory for Kenneth Starr, a federal appeals court today overturned a judge's ruling that the independent counsel's office should face criminal contempt proceedings for an alleged leak of grand jury information in the Monica Lewinsky case.
The court panel voted to strike down a ruling by U.S. District Judge Norma Holloway Johnson that appointed the Justice Department to prosecute Starr's office on the contempt charge.
The appellate judges concluded that Johnson used the wrong standard for determining there was sufficient preliminary evidence of illegal leaks by Starr's office.
At issue is an article in The New York Times that disclosed Starr's office had concluded that a sitting president could be indicted. Johnson concluded the disclosure violated grand jury disclosure rules.
26. Greystoke - 9/13/1999 4:46:13 PM
JJ
"I am curious as to what makes this guy a Republican political consultant."
No idea. That's what the article said.
I am waiting for some politicians to come to this guy's defense so I can gauge his political bent.
27. SpenceMirrlees - 9/13/1999 4:50:22 PM
The only thing you can infer about any politician coming to his defense is that the politician is an idiot.
It's politics, man. Loyalty is for suckers.
28. Angel-Five - 9/13/1999 4:53:21 PM
Politics is the science of acquiring, disbursing, maintaining, and using social power.
29. SpenceMirrlees - 9/13/1999 5:02:59 PM
Politics is a science?
30. Angel-Five - 9/13/1999 5:12:22 PM
Well, if psych and economics are, yeah.
31. Angel-Five - 9/13/1999 5:12:50 PM
Political Science, you know.
32. SpenceMirrlees - 9/13/1999 5:41:09 PM
No, that's different. Political science is the scientific study of political events (though to apply the name science to most political scholarship is laughable). That doesn't mean the events themselves are in some sense scientific. "Political science" is (or can be, when done well) a science. That doesn't make politics a science.
33. stostosto - 9/13/1999 5:45:17 PM
Politics is the struggle for power. Power is the capacity to get people to do things they wouldn't otherwise have done.
34. Angel-Five - 9/13/1999 5:48:56 PM
I see. You're talking about the difference between, say, the biosphere and biology. One is a process and the other is an associated study -- and in that light, you're absolutely right.
I, however, was speaking of skilled political operation -- the pinnacle of politics. The fault was mine, in not being specific enough, I suppose.
35. Angel-Five - 9/13/1999 5:50:14 PM
I like Sto^3's breakdown. Good politicians, knowingly or unknowingly, apply political science in their 'struggle'.
36. SpenceMirrlees - 9/13/1999 5:58:21 PM
One would hope, anyway. It certainly makes it easier to form general, perhaps probabilistic, statements about political events.
37. Ace of Spades - 9/13/1999 6:03:58 PM
Guys:
News of the Day is the thread for boring discussions.
38. SpenceMirrlees - 9/13/1999 6:10:23 PM
Great, go enjoy yourself.
39. vonKreedon - 9/13/1999 7:31:47 PM
Politics: The means through which competing power interests in society establish what actions society will undertake.
40. Ace of Spades - 9/13/1999 7:52:26 PM
Just kidding, Spence. Sort of.
41. SpenceMirrlees - 9/13/1999 8:22:32 PM
yeah yeah.
All "boring" politics posts welcome in the "Econ & Political Economy" thread (it's not just an econ thread anymore). Keep scandal discussions, horse race watching, and bald partisanship in here. Discussions of political ideas, policy debates, etc. are welcome there.
There will be no partisan bickering in that thread.
42. Ace of Spades - 9/13/1999 8:23:45 PM
Spence:
Great. Sounds like a real party going on over there.
Chaka bra.
43. SpenceMirrlees - 9/13/1999 8:26:40 PM
Just don't want any interruptions of the scintillating Ken Starr posts.
44. andy - 9/14/1999 1:14:48 PM
Hello! I'm new here.
Do you guys/gals play dirty or clean politics here ?
45. andy - 9/14/1999 1:14:58 PM
Hello! I'm new here.
Do you guys/gals play dirty or clean politics here ?
46. andy - 9/14/1999 1:15:03 PM
Hello! I'm new here.
Do you guys/gals play dirty or clean politics here ?
47. andy - 9/14/1999 1:15:04 PM
Hello! I'm new here.
Do you guys/gals play dirty or clean politics here ?
48. God - 9/14/1999 1:16:25 PM
Nice entrance, Gerald.
49. andy - 9/14/1999 1:17:52 PM
What's going on ? sorry for the duplications over and over again.
that was not clean . Sorry again.
50. andy - 9/14/1999 1:21:45 PM
Hillary's house loan from Terry McAuliffe smelled fishy to me.
51. God - 9/14/1999 1:22:13 PM
Just kidding. One of the FEATURES (I laugh every time I see them call it that) of the Mote is that when you hit refresh after posting something, you post it again. Welcome.
52. CalGal - 9/14/1999 1:28:04 PM
Andy,
Welcome!
Hillary's house loan: While I agree it looks awful, there was no attempt to hide it, was there? That's the part I find fascinating. They're not trying to pretend--they're just saying Wow! we have a rich friend that will get this house for us! Isn't that neat?
Did the house loan cause her to take a hit in the polls? I know the FALN issue did.
One thing about Hillary--she doesn't have her hubby's impeccable political skills. She's a good advisor, but thus far she's been a bit weak out front. Still, she can learn.
53. ranheim - 9/14/1999 1:29:22 PM
I was new 6+ months ago.
I've been called a damned, un-informed fool only a few times. Usually when I deserved it.
54. Dantheman - 9/14/1999 1:35:35 PM
The Hillary house issue doesn't look good, but probably no worse than, e.g. Bob Dole's house from the generosity of ADM. However, I do not think that Hillary will do well, because her political habits run entirely counter to life as a candidate. She tends to get defensive when questioned and tends to get nasty when opposed. Moreover, a Senate campaign is no time to learn how to act on the stump. I wish the Democrats had the chutzpah to tell her to go home and let someone who has earned the seat (like Nita Lowey?) run.
55. Dantheman - 9/14/1999 1:37:09 PM
Correction, earned the right to run for the seat, not earned the seat.
56. von loch - 9/14/1999 2:13:58 PM
Afternoon,
Do you accept newbies?
57. JJBiener - 9/14/1999 2:21:18 PM
Von Loch - Of course we accept newbies. Don't expect any special treatment. You are considered fair game just like the rest of us.
Welcome.
58. JJBiener - 9/14/1999 2:21:42 PM
Dan - Good to see you posting.
59. von loch - 9/14/1999 2:23:42 PM
I'll keep a low profile, until I understand the rules of the game.
60. Dantheman - 9/14/1999 2:26:43 PM
JJ,
Thanks, it seems to work today.
61. Ace of Spades - 9/14/1999 4:47:23 PM
Andy:
This thread-- the Politics thread-- is intended for partisan back-biting. So it's sort of dirty. But we don't really want pure flames, either.
News of the Day and Economics are intended for more reasoned, less partisan discourse. Adjust your tone accordingly.
62. CalGal - 9/14/1999 5:01:41 PM
Hey, von Loch!
I think Dan is right about Hillary and defines more clearly the lack of political acumen that I mentioned. She is the Vizier, not the King. The henchman, not the boss.
As a political adviser and compadre, she's the one the king picks when the people are screaming for his blood, rioting in the streets, and burning him in effigy. When she's done, the king will still be king. Dead bodies may be strewn around him--in fact, the people may have been machine-gunned in their tracks. She will not be delicate about implementation. But the king's safety will be assured. And any people still surviving will say "All hail the King!"
So the day I'm king, she's the first one I call. But she's got some learning to do before she can be the one in charge of any political position.
63. Ace of Spades - 9/14/1999 5:12:43 PM
Hello?
64. Ace of Spades - 9/14/1999 5:13:03 PM
Who could have seen this coming?
Prosecutor Removed From Waco Case
By Michelle Mittelstadt
Associated Press Writer
Tuesday, September 14, 1999; 3:05 p.m. EDT
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The federal prosecutor who raised questions about a possible Justice Department cover-up in the Waco standoff was abruptly removed from the case along with his boss, according to a court filing made public today.
Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder recused U.S. Attorney James W. Blagg in San Antonio and assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Johnston in Waco from any further dealings in criminal or civil proceedings related to the siege.
Holder appointed the U.S. attorney in a neighboring district as a ``special attorney to the U.S. attorney general.''
The court filing in Waco, Texas, does not state why the move was made but said it took effect last Friday. Attorney General Janet Reno last week removed herself from the case, saying she may be a possible witness in the independent inquiry she ordered into the fiery end of the 1993 siege.
In correspondence made public on Monday, Johnston wrote Reno warning that aides within her own department were misleading her about federal agents' roles.
``I have formed the belief that facts may have been kept from you -- and quite possibly are being kept from you even now -- by components of the department,'' Johnston wrote in an Aug. 30 letter.
65. Ace of Spades - 9/14/1999 5:13:14 PM
Johnston also has been at odds with Blagg, his superior, and other Justice officials over the investigation of the government's actions during the standoff with the Davidians at their compound outside Waco. It was Johnston who pressed Justice Department officials to allow independent filmmakers to review evidence sifted from the charred ruins of the Davidians' compound -- evidence that led to the FBI's recent admission that potentially incendiary tear gas canisters were fired on April 19, 1993.
...
The recusal notice provides no explanation for Holder's action.
66. vonKreedon - 9/14/1999 5:48:43 PM
Hello to Andy and vonLoch.
Regarding Hillary, I wish she would not run for the NY senate seat, but it appears to be a done deal. If I were her political advisor I would have advised her to raise money in NY for a couple of months, mounted the "listening tour" and then decide not to run. She could then take the money, start a political/social action group of some kind in Illinois to position herself to run for Senator from Illinois against Pete Fitzgerald in 2004 (that's 1904 to those who haven't upgraded your information technology systems) or for Dick Durbin's seat in 2002 if he should prove unviable for some reason.
Of course, that course requires patience.
67. CalGal - 9/14/1999 6:14:25 PM
Oh, I think it's important that Hillary run. If she decides to be a policy wonk, she won't figure out what she must learn--that she has a political tin ear. She deserves the chance to learn.
Besides, she's a quick study--who's to say she won't figure out how to look and act the part by next year?
68. vonKreedon - 9/14/1999 6:26:13 PM
I think that she will lose in NY, and that the carpetbagger image will tarnish her for the rest of her carreer. I think that she would be better off establishing herself as an individual political presence in her own home state, that being Illinois, and then running for the Senate.
69. Ace of Spades - 9/14/1999 6:38:27 PM
Senator: White House Pressured FBI
By Shannon Mccaffrey
Associated Press Writer
Tuesday, September 14, 1999; 12:43 p.m. EDT
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The FBI, scheduled to testify at a Senate hearing on clemency granted to 16 Puerto Rican militants, backed out at the last minute under pressure from the White House, a Republican senator asserted today.
Sen. Paul Coverdell of Georgia accused the White House of ``trying to build a fortress around their decision'' to grant clemency to the Puerto Rico nationalists.
``I think it's pretty clear that the White House is behind this,'' Coverdell said. ``You've got to wonder what would cause the White House to bypass a chance to explain themselves.''
The FBI did not return a phone call seeking comment. But a Justice Department letter to Coverdell signed by acting Assistant General Jon P. Jennings explained that because the power to grant clemency is the president's exclusively, there are constitutional questions about whether it would be appropriate for FBI officials to testify.
70. marshame - 9/14/1999 7:13:30 PM
Hill claimed today that, despite being spotted coming from a consultation with a plastic surgeon, she is NOT getting anything "done."
Does this mean she is *not* going to run, so why spend the bucks? Or does this mean she *is* going to run, and doesn't want to run the risk of being altered too much (you know, face lifts gone awry, etc.)
Inquiring minds want to know.
71. Res is an Imbecile - 9/14/1999 10:10:58 PM
XXXXX DROUDGE REPORT XXXXXX 19:56:33 EST XXXXXX
World Exclusive-
Must Credit
PAPER: BUCHANAN SET TO BOLT; WILL ANNOUNCE REFORM PARTY CANDIDACY THURSDAY AFTERNOON
No, not really. Just kidding. Just getting all you Dem's into a happy froth and Republicans into a black funk.
But what do you all think?
72. glendajean - 9/14/1999 10:15:33 PM
What do I think? That Buchanan is nuts. That Perot is nuts. That their joining together reflects their sense that they are being ignored. Maybe this will help Democrats. (Good news, imo). But overall, election silliness.
73. cmboyce - 9/14/1999 10:34:04 PM
I think Von K's definition of politics in # 39: "Politics: The means through which competing power interests in society establish what
actions society will undertake" is splendid. In the US, we are certainly in the grip of a situation in which the competing interests are chiefly distinguished by the amount of money they can compete with. This means that regardless of which of the two (very similar) major parties is in power, and even if the two are sharing it (Dem. White house, Rep. Congress, variously distributed State Houses and legislatures, etc.), we are living in a nascent plutocracy. Look out! (And that goes even for you Repub's; when some guy on a white horse emerges in a crisis with 200 billion dollars, no one will be permitted a political position.) (I daresay this will be comfortable enough for most Americans, however.)
2.) The only good thing about Hillary's run is that it'll get Rudy out of NYC.
74. cmboyce - 9/14/1999 10:35:05 PM
75. cmboyce - 9/14/1999 10:36:40 PM
Sorry about all those italics. They should, of course, have ended with "no one". NOthing like a glass of the old poire for dessert to fuck up one's html.
76. cmboyce - 9/14/1999 10:37:29 PM
what??? Shit, try again:
77. cmboyce - 9/14/1999 10:37:50 PM
Well?
78. cmboyce - 9/14/1999 10:38:22 PM
OK, good. Now I think I'll go fuck up somewhere else.
79. robertjayb - 9/14/1999 10:51:30 PM
Molly Ivins says campaign finally looking like fun
Greystoke,
The dragging trials were separated at the request of the defense attorneys.
80. robertjayb - 9/14/1999 10:53:35 PM
Ooops!
Scuse me.
81. Wild Bill - 9/15/1999 12:42:29 AM
79. robertjayb - 9/14/99 6:51:30 PM
Thanks for the great column from one of my long time favorites, Molly Ivins.
82. Wild Bill - 9/15/1999 2:19:30 PM
From this morning NY Times. Is Jr. Knowledgeable on foreign policy" 83. Wild Bill - 9/15/1999 2:21:22 PM Oops. Here is the link on my previous post. #82 84. Wild Bill - 9/15/1999 2:22:31 PM Did it again. Off to explore some HTML for this web setup. ;-) 85. Wild Bill - 9/15/1999 2:31:11 PM 86. JonesAtLaw - 9/15/1999 2:40:51 PM Wild Bill- interesting link. George W better do a lot of basic studying, even if it's only to handle the choice of advisors. 87. Wild Bill - 9/15/1999 2:56:28 PM Ref JonesAtLaw - 9/15/99 9:40:51 AM 88. wabbit - 9/15/1999 2:58:15 PM All, 89. rycky - 9/15/1999 4:31:42 PM Howdy y'all. 90. Dantheman - 9/15/1999 5:15:49 PM Rycky, 91. ElliottRW - 9/15/1999 5:30:49 PM Dan, 92. andy - 9/15/1999 5:33:57 PM Are people from Salon welcome here ? 93. andy - 9/15/1999 5:35:23 PM Who is right on the FALN prisoner release program ? 94. Dantheman - 9/15/1999 5:36:47 PM Elliott, 95. Dantheman - 9/15/1999 5:41:06 PM Andy, 96. Dantheman - 9/15/1999 5:45:31 PM Sorry to post and run, but goodnight. 97. ElliottRW - 9/15/1999 5:47:30 PM (Dan, my Warren Beatty jibe was not serious criticism, but rather a poke at another, erstwhile actor-president). 98. Ace of Spades - 9/15/1999 6:27:26 PM THE NEW YORK POST... 99. Ace of Spades - 9/15/1999 6:27:46 PM 100. vonKreedon - 9/15/1999 6:31:35 PM 101. Ace of Spades - 9/15/1999 6:39:05 PM 102. glendajean - 9/15/1999 6:40:06 PM Ace -- maybe they'll impeach him. 103. Ace of Spades - 9/15/1999 6:47:04 PM 104. glendajean - 9/15/1999 6:48:21 PM Thomas Paine was quite a moralist and wouldn't have much patience for anything that goes on in American politics today. 105. vonKreedon - 9/15/1999 6:51:39 PM Spade - I agree, since you insist that I spell it out, it is Fucked Up Beyond All Recognition is several ways, the initial offer was a serious mistake both in terms of process and politics; the subsequent stonewalling is politically stupid and borderline unconstitutional, though well within contemporary operating parameters. As I have said several times over the last couple of years, I wish that the Dems in Congress during Iran/Contra had had the bullheaded stuborness that the Repubs demonstrated with the Clinton perjury, so you are right to assume that if a Repub President did this I would also cheer on the Congress in investigating. 106. Ace of Spades - 9/15/1999 6:52:53 PM 107. vonKreedon - 9/15/1999 6:53:03 PM Correction: "...Recognition is several ways..." should read "...Recognition in several ways..." 108. vonKreedon - 9/15/1999 6:54:12 PM Spade - I assumed that you did, but you did not seem to be giving it the weight that the fubar deserves, so I spelled it out. 109. Ace of Spades - 9/15/1999 6:57:57 PM 110. Ace of Spades - 9/15/1999 7:19:30 PM 111. Wild Bill - 9/15/1999 8:06:14 PM Freepers? Not exactly an unbiased source. 112. Ace of Spades - 9/15/1999 8:07:45 PM 113. vonKreedon - 9/15/1999 10:44:40 PM Here is the Culture War Speech as a link. 114. Ace of Spades - 9/15/1999 10:51:33 PM 115. Ace of Spades - 9/15/1999 10:55:37 PM 116. Ace of Spades - 9/15/1999 10:56:06 PM 117. Ace of Spades - 9/15/1999 10:56:37 PM 118. Ace of Spades - 9/15/1999 10:56:51 PM 119. Ace of Spades - 9/15/1999 10:58:44 PM 120. vonKreedon - 9/16/1999 12:05:44 AM Spade - Here is what I find objectionable to the point of frightening in Buchanan's speech: It seeks to turn a civil political contest into a religious war, uses explicit warrior imagery for what is good and anti-Christian imagery for what is bad, and ends with the image of armed Americans in the service of the government standing ready to gun down other Americans in the cause of taking back our culture. I will go over several quotes from the speech and then summarize. 121. vonKreedon - 9/16/1999 12:07:30 AM 1) Turning a civil political contest into a religious war: 122. vonKreedon - 9/16/1999 12:08:54 AM 2)Warrior imagery for what is good: 123. vonKreedon - 9/16/1999 12:09:17 AM 3) Anti-Christian/demonizing imagery for the Dems: 124. Ace of Spades - 9/16/1999 12:30:12 AM 125. vonKreedon - 9/16/1999 1:01:30 AM Spade - I look forward to your response to my analysis of Pat's speech. Hopefully the rest of your post #124 is not a preview as it has little to nothing to do with my analysis. 126. Ace of Spades - 9/16/1999 2:22:33 AM 127. Ace of Spades - 9/16/1999 2:22:56 AM 128. OhioSTOPAS - 9/16/1999 6:23:59 AM Regarding the LA riots (msg 118), why was it a good thing to have the military thwart lawbreakers there (and it was), but a bad thing (according to various Republicans and other gun-lovers) to have the military assist in Waco? 129. stostosto - 9/16/1999 8:12:33 AM von Kreedon 130. vonKreedon - 9/16/1999 10:36:40 AM Sto^3 - Yes, that is the essence of Pat's message. 131. stostosto - 9/16/1999 10:47:18 AM But, vonK: 132. vonKreedon - 9/16/1999 10:56:31 AM Individually the positions on abortion, same-sex marriage, and winning the Cold War may be mainstream political positions, but those positions are not the thrust of Pat's speech or my analysis of the speech. Pat's speech is about declaring war on those who do not toe the conservative "Judeo-Christian" value line; that Pat declares war and uses the imagery of actual war to do so, leading to my conclusion that he is prepared to whip the fanatics into a state where they would be able to rationalize the assassination/terrorization of political enemies. 133. Dantheman - 9/16/1999 11:18:48 AM I agree with vonKreedon. Pat's rhetoric is about demonizing the opposition beyond the normal spirit of public debate. It is the rhetoric of dictators of both the right and the left, but not of a free democracy. 134. cmboyce - 9/16/1999 11:28:32 AM Well put, Dantheman. 135. ranheim - 9/16/1999 2:07:35 PM wabbit 136. JJBiener - 9/16/1999 2:26:49 PM Pat's rhetoric is about demonizing the opposition beyond the normal spirit of public debate 137. tmachine - 9/16/1999 2:28:19 PM hey Biener! you finally cashed my check!! isn't that taking money from the poor and giving it to the rich???? 138. JJBiener - 9/16/1999 2:45:08 PM T - I don't see how. The money belongs to The Mote and The Mote is not rich by any means. If you are implying that I am rich, I can assure that I am rich in a strictly non-material sense. Nothing in my salary, investments, or possessions would qualify me as anything other than middle class. I hope to be rich someday, but unless I am very lucky it will never happen. I tend to give away more than I invest which enriches me in many ways. None of them financial. 139. vonKreedon - 9/16/1999 2:51:58 PM JJ - I agree, demonizing ones political opponents is par for the course. What is frightening about Pat's speech is that he ties this demonization specifically to the imagery of religious war. While Dems will bluster at the National Convention about Repubs wanting to starve the children to give tax breaks to the rich, they do not then tie this to the idea that the Repubs are actually in conflict with God and that we must be willing to committ to whatever measures necessary to defeat them, including taking our country back at the point of a gun. But this is the thesis of Pat's speech. 140. tmachine - 9/16/1999 2:52:44 PM biener, it was only a joke!!!!!!! 141. JJBiener - 9/16/1999 2:58:37 PM T - No it wasn't. Jokes are funny. 142. JJBiener - 9/16/1999 3:10:35 PM vonK - Pat is first and foremost a writer. His use of imagery reflects that. Pat is also a rabble rouser. He knows that they are attrached by emotionalism. A lesson well learned by the likes of Gephardt and Bonior. They all use stark imagery to appeal directly to the emotions of their constituents, bypassing any attempts at reason. Pat uses the religious war. Democrats like Gore and Gephardt use visions of an apocolyptic future supposedly destroyed by Republican policies. Democrats also use images of a race war to scare minorities. 143. vonKreedon - 9/16/1999 3:15:56 PM JJ - Well, the question was asked, "What's the big objection to Pat's Culture War speech?" For me, the appeal to a conservative religious audience for a Religious War to take back the society from the ungodly is considerably more frightening than a call for electing Dems to prevent the destruction of the environment or the economy. Your reference to race war would be in the same league as religious war, but the purported existence of such rhetoric by Dems in no way diminishes my objections to Pat's speech. It is not enough to say, "They did it too!", in order to justify behavior. 144. JJBiener - 9/16/1999 3:35:07 PM vonK - My point isn't that Democrats do it too, so it is alright. My point is that everyone does it to the extent that no one takes it literally. Or at least they shouldn't take it literally. Is it possible that some whacko will hear it and go off the deep end? Sure. The same is true when Elinore Holmes Norton chants "No justice, no peace." In either case, we don't restrict our speech out of fear that someone may misinterpret and act out. 145. vonKreedon - 9/16/1999 3:43:53 PM JJ - As I stated at the end of my critique of Pat's speech, I would not censor this speech, but I do believe that it goes beyond the normal partisan sniping/demonizing to appeal to a place in the human psyche that we know from history can result in atrocities of the worst kind. I do not trust that Pat is just resorting to common hyperbole, I believe that this sort of speech is in fact designed to make tolerance less possible, to make it more likely that amoral behavior will be met with implicit or explicit violence. I do not trust Pat to not be willing to benefit from brownshirt style political direct action. 146. vonKreedon - 9/16/1999 3:46:40 PM In the above post, "...likely that amoral behavior..." should be, "...likely that "amoral" behavior..." 147. Ace of Spades - 9/16/1999 5:56:44 PM 148. Cygnus X-1 - 9/16/1999 10:02:15 PM Ace of Spades, Re Message #98 149. Cygnus X-1 - 9/16/1999 10:13:27 PM Ace of Spades, Re Message #124 150. SpenceMirrlees - 9/17/1999 1:59:09 AM 'Does what's bad about communism include the sacred communist precept, "From each according to his means. To each according to his need."? I think so, which is why the income tax is, in fact, bad.' 151. Ace of Spades - 9/17/1999 8:35:23 AM 152. Dantheman - 9/17/1999 10:07:50 AM vonKreedon #139. 153. andy - 9/17/1999 11:59:04 AM What happeded to Hillary's brothers in Russia ? 154. Cygnus X-1 - 9/17/1999 1:31:26 PM SpenceMirrlees, Re Message #150 155. SpenceMirrlees - 9/17/1999 2:54:24 PM It's a book of the New Testament. 156. SpenceMirrlees - 9/17/1999 3:21:40 PM See, your first post was so absurd I thought it was a joke, so I posted a little one too. 157. Cygnus X-1 - 9/17/1999 3:49:58 PM SpenceMirrlees, Re Message #156 158. JJBiener - 9/17/1999 4:18:27 PM Spence & Cyg - You need to distinguish between an ideal that an individual should strive to acheive and a policy that is imposed by the state. I don't believe Acts advocates income redistribution by the state. It advocates individual charity as a responsibility to one's fellow man. 159. ChristinO - 9/17/1999 4:31:07 PM Cygnus: 160. Cygnus X-1 - 9/17/1999 6:04:14 PM ChristinO, Re Message #159 161. vonKreedon - 9/17/1999 6:33:56 PM From each according to his ability; to each according to his need. 162. Cellar Door - 9/17/1999 7:40:13 PM Charles Fourier anyone? 163. ChristinO - 9/17/1999 8:14:43 PM That's why he's my Cos! 164. Cygnus X-1 - 9/17/1999 8:30:40 PM ChristinO, Re Message #163 165. ChristinO - 9/17/1999 8:46:15 PM Cygnus, 166. AdamSelene - 9/17/1999 10:52:08 PM What other interpretation is possible? 167. SpenceMirrlees - 9/17/1999 11:08:19 PM Cygnus, let me stress again what I said earlier, that didn't seem to filter: your problem here is a failure to distinguish between an ideal and its implementation. 168. SpenceMirrlees - 9/17/1999 11:09:31 PM Selene, see the econ thread, about 341 and 342 or so, for a discussion of how incentives modify the picture. 169. AdamSelene - 9/17/1999 11:21:41 PM SpenceJaw, 170. SpenceMirrlees - 9/17/1999 11:38:14 PM I completely agree with it, except you shall be subjected to merciless contumely for the word "incentivising." 171. Cygnus X-1 - 9/18/1999 12:25:02 AM SpenceMirrlees, Re Message #167 172. SpenceMirrlees - 9/18/1999 12:52:12 AM I dunno, the Apostles seemed pleased with the results. 173. Cygnus X-1 - 9/18/1999 12:59:50 AM SpenceMirrlees, Re Message #172 174. AlDavis - 9/18/1999 1:13:50 AM JJ 175. Ace of Spades - 9/18/1999 1:18:55 AM 176. SpenceMirrlees - 9/18/1999 1:21:10 AM the Kinder, Gentler Ace is just wonderful. Bet you have some wonderful window treatments, Ace. 180. AlDavis - 9/18/1999 1:26:00 AM OhioStopas 191. Ace of Spades - 9/18/1999 1:38:25 AM 192. CalGal - 9/18/1999 1:39:49 AM Fine. Whatever. Never mind all the liberals who agreed with you. Never mind that Bubba's a liberal who called the bullshit for what it was. Clearly, it's liberals who are bad. 194. God - 9/18/1999 1:41:06 AM You'd rather have a conservative in charge of censorship than a liberal? Maybe you're not Cal's lapdog after all. Not very enlightened though, Mr. Dittohead. 195. Ace of Spades - 9/18/1999 1:41:17 AM 197. Ace of Spades - 9/18/1999 1:42:35 AM 198. God - 9/18/1999 1:43:39 AM Ace, the 60's are over, you can come home. The hippies are all gone, they sold out, don't sweat it anymore. 199. Ace of Spades - 9/18/1999 1:43:41 AM 200. CalGal - 9/18/1999 1:45:18 AM Ace, 201. God - 9/18/1999 1:45:21 AM 17 times, Ace. 17 times. 202. Ace of Spades - 9/18/1999 1:46:08 AM 203. God - 9/18/1999 1:46:20 AM Cal 204. CalGal - 9/18/1999 1:46:53 AM You seem to have forgotten Arky and Glendajean. 205. CalGal - 9/18/1999 1:47:22 AM And then, when you add up the percentages, that's most of the liberals in the Mote. 206. AlDavis - 9/18/1999 1:47:24 AM Well, who said mushy headed was bad? Bubbetee is a liberal and a delightful mushy headed lady. My daughter is mushy headed, but since she has matured her brain is getting a little firmer. that is not to say she will give me the pleasure of enjoying that. No, she insists on torturing me with her mushy headed liberal, Democrat garbage. but my love for her never fades. 207. CalGal - 9/18/1999 1:50:41 AM Besides, there are lots of people who just don't talk about things or get involved. 208. Ace of Spades - 9/18/1999 1:51:00 AM 209. Ace of Spades - 9/18/1999 1:52:18 AM 210. Ace of Spades - 9/18/1999 1:56:45 AM 211. vonKreedon - 9/18/1999 5:14:49 AM Cal - Thank you for pointing out to Spade that his continued blathering about the liberals actually doesn't measure up, in the Mote at least. 212. Ace of Spades - 9/18/1999 5:18:19 AM 213. Ace of Spades - 9/18/1999 5:20:12 AM 214. God - 9/18/1999 5:22:34 AM Dear Ace, I support you in your quest for justice, but please stay away from my sheep. 215. OhioSTOPAS - 9/18/1999 7:58:08 AM Al Davis, #180: You think that the Waco standoff was just about "a religious group having, in the opinion of the government, too many weapons"? I recall that the killing of a few law enforcement officers was also at issue. 216. OhioSTOPAS - 9/18/1999 7:58:49 AM God, #196: Well, that's why You're God. 217. Cellar Door - 9/18/1999 10:02:15 AM It's Ace's world. The rest of us do our best to ignore it. Kind of like driving by the cene of an accident and resisting the temptation to rubberneck. 218. AdamSelene - 9/18/1999 10:12:42 AM Ace, 219. AdamSelene - 9/18/1999 10:14:15 AM Oops - that was 'god' responding to ace's quote. Sorry Ace - part of that admonishment goes to 'god' as well. 220. Ace of Spades - 9/18/1999 10:21:14 AM 221. Ace of Spades - 9/18/1999 10:23:18 AM 222. AdamSelene - 9/18/1999 10:27:28 AM Ace, 223. Ace of Spades - 9/18/1999 10:47:19 AM 224. AdamSelene - 9/18/1999 10:56:05 AM No problem, Ace. Now, go and sin no more. *g* 225. wabbit - 9/18/1999 11:25:56 AM Several posts have been moved to the Playpen. 226. Ace of Spades - 9/18/1999 11:28:38 AM 227. vonKreedon - 9/18/1999 2:27:53 PM Cyg and Selene posted critiques of From each according to his ability, to each according to his need as a vision statement. I am working on a response, thanks for the thoughtful critiques. 228. AlDavis - 9/18/1999 3:23:48 PM OhioStopas 229. robertjayb - 9/18/1999 6:34:14 PM DUBYA'S EDUCATION PLAN 230. AlDavis - 9/19/1999 12:22:08 AM I have come here twice to read posts that the Home Page said were here and neither were here. What gives? 231. EricCartman - 9/19/1999 7:07:40 AM Just out of curiosity, for whom is wabbit holding down the fort as host for this thread? 233. arkymalarky - 9/19/1999 12:47:46 PM 109 and me, Eric. He should be back by Monday and hopefully we can get to it soon after that. 234. Ace of Spades - 9/19/1999 12:49:14 PM 235. CalGal - 9/19/1999 1:02:03 PM Wow. I haven't been following closely, but was this expected? 236. JudithAtHome - 9/19/1999 1:06:46 PM There is a good article in Octobers Harpers called "Your Constitution Is Killing You: A Reconsideration of the Right to Bear Arms" by Daniel Lazare. I know this has nothing to do with Bill Bradley and Patrick Moynihan but I just wanted to mention it before I forgot. 237. JudithAtHome - 9/19/1999 1:08:28 PM I hope Bradley is the nominee...he's a breath of fresh air. 238. AlDavis - 9/19/1999 3:26:38 PM "The Washington Post leads with news that polls show former New 239. JudithAtHome - 9/19/1999 3:41:57 PM Al: 240. AlDavis - 9/19/1999 4:01:01 PM judithathome 241. JudithAtHome - 9/19/1999 4:15:51 PM Al: 242. AlDavis - 9/19/1999 4:31:45 PM judithathome 243. JudithAtHome - 9/19/1999 4:37:57 PM Well, I don't know about that "beaded" soul in overalls but I'm fairly harmless. And yes, we are easily misunderstood...I got your drift in #240 and was in some awkward way trying to compliment you on your deft use of homonyms without saying "Good One, AL!!!!!!!" 244. vonKreedon - 9/20/1999 1:31:39 AM From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. 245. vonKreedon - 9/20/1999 1:32:37 AM However, those who would be open to this vision statement would tend to believe that there are non-material rewards that can provide the drive to create that produces brilliant scientists and schoolteachers. Another Marxist belief is that we are alienated from our lives; that the fact that we do not control our labor means that we do not control a vital part of what is means to be human. If this is true, if the act of creative production is a vital part of being human, then the freedom to in fact contribute to society according to your ability would in large part be the desired reward in itself. This would particularly be true if your needs, and everyone else’s, were guaranteed. The onus would be off of material gain and onto creative self-expression. 246. Cellar Door - 9/20/1999 11:47:15 AM "My view of capitalism is that I am living for others, that I am working to produce surplus value for the stockholders." 247. ChristinO - 9/20/1999 12:55:37 PM Cos, 248. vonKreedon - 9/20/1999 1:12:09 PM Cos - Good points, and they tie in with Cellar's observation that in capitalism we are alienated not just for ourselves, but from each other. Given this it is easy for those arguing the alienation side to assume: 1) two groups, those who produce and those who consume the surplus; after all, it's what we have now! 2) if people are not materially rewarded/threatened they will not produce anything. 249. Ronski - 9/20/1999 1:38:38 PM The idea that capitalism (or, preferably, free enterprise) promotes alienation and atomization is simply not true. 250. vonKreedon - 9/20/1999 1:48:04 PM Hi Ron - I don't know the vast majority of stockholders in the company that I work. I don't know anyone who works for the competing companies. I don't know anyone who makes the: car, food, appliances, electricity,....that I use. 251. glendajean - 9/20/1999 1:57:15 PM Ronski -- welcome. We've missed you. 252. CalGal - 9/20/1999 2:05:54 PM Ronski! Welcome! 253. Ronski - 9/20/1999 2:06:25 PM vonKreedon, 254. Ronski - 9/20/1999 2:08:34 PM 255. vonKreedon - 9/20/1999 2:18:27 PM Ron - "And I think that the producers of the pencil do indeed meet with their suppliers often. The business world is rife with business lunches, sales calls, and communication of all kinds." Yes, but those meeting are not those producing, the interaction is alienated in that those actually producing the pencils and those actually producing the graphite, wood, etc. have no knowledge of each other at all. Further, those people who do meet from the pencil company and the graphite company are likely to also have little to no knowledge of the actual workers in their companies. 256. vonKreedon - 9/20/1999 2:19:36 PM Ron - The clothes you wear, who makes them and under what conditions? Do you know? I don't. 257. Ronski - 9/20/1999 2:30:54 PM vonKreedon, 258. Ace of Spades - 9/20/1999 5:16:29 PM 259. Cellar Door - 9/20/1999 5:21:33 PM OOOOoooooo "Special Report" on Faux News -- how totally exciting! 260. Cellar Door - 9/20/1999 5:24:28 PM "To suggest that competition between or among producers of the same goods produces alienation or atomization is akin to saying that those two nice gentlemen running a home-run race again this year are deeply alienated from each other and from life in general." 261. glendajean - 9/20/1999 5:24:59 PM In browsing through the Almanac of American Politics yesterday, I discovered that my new home city is completely surrounded by Dan Burton's District, (the 6th). Julia Carson (the 10th) represents Indianapolis. Thank goodness. 262. vonKreedon - 9/20/1999 5:25:40 PM Ron wrote, One can always be creative in other aspects of one's life. Most people do not have the talents or desire to be artists, however. This is a great illustration of alienation in action. First, work is seperated from the rest of life and we are told to go ahead and be creative in our free time. Then creativity is confined to the realm of art and placed out of the reach of most. In fact we are all creatively productive, the question is whose creativity are we producing, our own or somebody elses. 263. Cellar Door - 9/20/1999 5:27:47 PM Precisely, Vk! 264. janjon - 9/20/1999 5:27:55 PM Isn't Dan Burton the one who shot up a pumpkin when trying to prove that Vince Foster was murdered? And then there was his illustrous and illuminating behaviour during the impeachment to do. 265. ChristiPeters - 9/20/1999 5:49:22 PM vonKreedon - perhaps this is too deep for me, but what prevents you from finding another job - one in which you can express your creativity? 266. Aldavis - 9/20/1999 5:52:01 PM vonKreedon 267. ethiopianeunuch - 9/20/1999 6:00:07 PM running around the basis sounds like a something you do in court 268. Aldavis - 9/20/1999 6:03:16 PM Do you really think you need to follow me around making a fool of me? Don't you already know I do a fine job of that all by myself? And I previewed that post! 269. Aldavis - 9/20/1999 6:19:48 PM Throughout the 19th Century the U.S. Government struggled with the so called "Indian problem." They were forcing the east coast Indians west, getting them settled west of the Mississipi and Misouri rivers. Of course, they were giving them land that other Indians had lived on for thousands of years. Always, however, politicians spoke as if they were acting in the best interests of the Native Americans. They spoke of them as children of the great Father in Washington. In actural point of fact, many did not really consider than as humans. 270. Aldavis - 9/20/1999 6:27:35 PM Is Grant ever listed as one of our Great Presidents? He was so concerned that the "Indian problem" be solved that he thought it might be necessary to eliminate all of them. Now he was not really talking about all of them, as the Cherokees were the good Indians. He was speaking of the "bad Indians" of the plains, the Osage, Pawnees, Apaches, Arapahoes, the Souix, the ones that did not want the government largess. They seemed to know that when the man with the heavy eyebrows showed up with "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you" his words were not worth buffalo dung, which at least could make a pretty good fire. 271. ChristinO - 9/20/1999 7:39:20 PM Christi, 272. Aldavis - 9/20/1999 8:03:11 PM 73,645,978 273. Aldavis - 9/20/1999 8:19:33 PM ChristinO 274. TrialShark - 9/20/1999 8:42:18 PM Don't complain about Rep. Burton: he's good for comic relief. I especially liked the bit where he got all indignant about Joe Lockhart's claim on the number of subpoenas his committee has issued. Check out the story here. 275. Aldavis - 9/20/1999 8:45:45 PM Typical liberal reaction. In order to cover up slime, point out the foibles of the individual.. On the MOTE, you're comic relief. 276. dusty - 9/20/1999 8:45:56 PM Ronski 277. Aldavis - 9/20/1999 8:47:18 PM dusty 278. Ace of Spades - 9/20/1999 8:51:22 PM 279. JonesAtLaw - 9/20/1999 9:10:04 PM Ace- you object to them using the skills they learned in prison to get a job? 280. TrialShark - 9/20/1999 9:10:07 PM Ace -- 281. JonesAtLaw - 9/20/1999 9:13:16 PM In all seriousness, if the reports are true, Slick Willie stepped on his willie this time. 282. Aldavis - 9/20/1999 9:16:40 PM Ace 283. JonesAtLaw - 9/20/1999 9:18:46 PM Al- Grant sucked as a President, and his Indian Policy is an overlooked example of his shortcomings. Most center on the corruption in his administration. 284. JJBiener - 9/20/1999 9:19:19 PM Jones - In all seriousness, if the reports are true, Slick Willie stepped on his willie this time. 285. JonesAtLaw - 9/20/1999 9:20:03 PM As far as personal attacks go, I'd say that conservatives have no more room to talk than liberals. Your side has its attack dogs too. 286. dusty - 9/20/1999 9:20:29 PM ChristinO 287. TrialShark - 9/20/1999 9:20:53 PM Al -- 288. JonesAtLaw - 9/20/1999 9:23:59 PM JJB- Like TrialShark, I wasn't in favor of clemency for the FALN group. There are lots of folk more deserving of clemency and who've served as much or more time then the people Clinton pardonned. I don't support everything Clinton does. I didn't vote for him in the primaries, preferring Bob Kerry. If you want to bash me by association, associate me with him. 289. JJBiener - 9/20/1999 9:25:57 PM VonK - In your utopian society who would do the jobs no one would volunteer for? Who would clean the sewers? Who would work in the factories? Who decides what someone's abilities are? Who decides what their needs are? 290. dusty - 9/20/1999 9:26:39 PM SpenceMirrlees 291. JJBiener - 9/20/1999 9:27:35 PM Jonsie - Just having a little fun with you. 292. dusty - 9/20/1999 9:28:49 PM CalGal 293. JonesAtLaw - 9/20/1999 9:29:06 PM Aldavis wrote: Throughout the 19th Century the U.S. Government struggled with the so called "Indian problem." They were forcing the east coast Indians west, getting them settled west of the Mississipi and Misouri rivers. Of course, they were giving them land that other Indians had lived on for thousands of years 294. dusty - 9/20/1999 9:32:07 PM CalGal 295. JonesAtLaw - 9/20/1999 9:32:26 PM JJB- okay, okay, I'll lighten up, just don't call me "Francis." 296. dusty - 9/20/1999 9:34:15 PM OhioSTOPAS 297. Ace of Spades - 9/20/1999 9:36:12 PM 298. dusty - 9/20/1999 9:36:33 PM SpenceMirrlees 299. dusty - 9/20/1999 9:38:45 PM vonKreedon 300. dusty - 9/20/1999 9:42:04 PM vonKreedon 301. Amaxen@work - 9/20/1999 9:46:04 PM Hi all! 302. dusty - 9/20/1999 9:53:22 PM Amaxen@work 303. Aldavis - 9/20/1999 9:55:22 PM Amaxen 304. Amaxen@work - 9/20/1999 9:57:39 PM Oooo. I am going to *like* this thread. Still reading tho. I'll begin posting as soon as I've read a little further. 305. SpenceMirrlees - 9/20/1999 10:11:01 PM Dusty, 306. SpenceMirrlees - 9/20/1999 10:16:05 PM A few weeks ago, I ran a demonstration experiment for some visitors from the LA Urban League. It had to do with incentives to reveal one's private information in a particular situation. 307. Amaxen@work - 9/20/1999 10:19:46 PM VonK: 308. Amaxen@work - 9/20/1999 10:24:27 PM Dusty, 309. JonesAtLaw - 9/20/1999 10:28:48 PM Aldavis- No, there were several nations that did live on the plains even before the Colonial period. They were fairly small in number and scattered. I misspoke when I included the Pawnee in the previous post. They were in Nebraska and very early, and were largely farmers living in earth lodges. But, like the Sioux and others, their culture flowered with the arrival of the horse. The plains are a very different thing on horseback compared to on foot. There were paleo-indians in the plains, and they even hunted buffalo. They did it using prairie fire and "beaters" who drove herds over cliffs or into confined areas for the hunters. But, population boomed with the introduction of the horse. Seasonal hunts became a staple for the people, even the farmers. 310. Aldavis - 9/20/1999 10:30:03 PM Amaxen 311. JonesAtLaw - 9/20/1999 10:30:47 PM Al- and your point regarding government, no better example than the Indian nations, but remember at first, the realtions were more along the lines of foreign affairs and we all know how cutthroat that is. 312. JonesAtLaw - 9/20/1999 10:33:57 PM Amaxen- corporations are like firearms. Sometimes essential, often useful, and extremely dangerous in the hands of someone without morals. 313. Aldavis - 9/20/1999 10:41:46 PM JonesatLaw 314. Amaxen@work - 9/20/1999 10:44:11 PM Jones, 315. Aldavis - 9/20/1999 10:44:11 PM JonesAtLaw 316. Aldavis - 9/20/1999 10:45:42 PM Corporations are or should be amoral. Let's leave it up to the Church and Congress to handle the morals. Then all will be well with the world. 317. Amaxen@work - 9/20/1999 10:54:46 PM Jones, 318. Amaxen@work - 9/20/1999 11:21:43 PM Jones, 319. ChristinO - 9/20/1999 11:32:43 PM Sheeesh, I don't recall seeing a party in the Cafe but some of you appear to be a bit tipsy. So with tongue brushing cheek: 320. ChristinO - 9/20/1999 11:41:17 PM Amaxen: 321. ChristinO - 9/20/1999 11:42:53 PM Off Topic: Dusty, I replied to post #777 in the Cafe. If you see Tckrulak would you let him know? Thanks! 322. Aldavis - 9/20/1999 11:45:46 PM ChristinO 323. Aldavis - 9/20/1999 11:50:19 PM I believe that the plains Indians always did some farming. However, they depended on animals for food, clothing, impiments, decorative articles. That hunting was easier with horses is obvious, but they would have been good buffalo hunters without horses. They did not use horses when hunting the grizzley. 324. Amaxen@work - 9/20/1999 11:53:18 PM Hi CrO, 325. ChristinO - 9/20/1999 11:55:17 PM Al,
Trust but Verify
By MAUREEN DOWD
"In a weird reversal of his father's '92 campaign, George W.
Bush knows little about foreign affairs. He wants us to
believe that his gut instincts and moral framework can carry
him over the lacunae in his knowledge of geopolitics. Can we
trust him?"
Link
(This looks like it will work . . .just enclosing a URL in carets apparently won't work on this site.)
Yea! He mentions some greybeards from the olden days whose foreign policies were not that good in the first place.
The world have evolved (except in Kansas) even in the last ten years.
I've tried to get a list of various columnists up, and it should be below the links to the Presidential candidates websites, but there must be something about Bill Buckley that has scared off the links that should be appearing below. I'm working on it.
New here to this site. Not new to politics.........
What is the hot topic?
As you can see by the fact that no one is posting, not much. I'd like to see some good political discussion, too. I'll suggest a topic:
Is the Warren Beatty presidential campaign just a stalking horse for Gore? If it is successful, it will divide the anti-Clinton Democrats, making it easier for Gore to get the nomination. Since Bradlley doesn't seem to have many policy differences from Gore, I believe the base of his support is anti-Clinton feeling. Any thoughts?
I think the Warren Beatty campaign is a bad joke. I mean, what qualifies an actor to be president?
Seriously, I believe the support for Bradley stems not just from anti-Clinton feeling, but also from the fear that Gore can't win. For people who basically like Gore, Bradley's a fine alternative.
Bill or Hill ?
I agree with you, but what qualifies a magazine publisher (Forbes), a religious "leader" (Bauer) or a speechwriter/television commentator (Buchanan) for the presidency? None of them have ever been elected to anything, but this does not stop them.
As to the Gore can't win argument, is there any reason for this other than Clinton baggage? If not, then IMHO it is just a way of saying I am not anti-Gore for reasons of Clinton, but so many others are that it must be a reason to dump him.
I'll agree that Bradley is an acceptable alternative, but I'd prefer Gore.
Right in what sense? Morally, I think they have served sufficient time for their crimes and should be granted clemency. Politically, I think Hillary is once again being too clever by half and she will shoot herself in the foot.
For Gore, the Clinton baggage may prove sufficient, irregardless of its merits--and that is the fear I to which I refer. For those who seek to avoid another Bush presidency, the issue "can't win" does indeed factor in.
SENATE DAMNS BILL,
95-2, FOR FALN OFFER
By BRIAN BLOMQUIST and
ROBERT HARDT, Jr.
The Senate yesterday voted 95-2 to condemn President Clinton's clemency to 16 Puerto Rican militants - as the White House stonewalled questions on how the decision was made.
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said the White House stonewalling was a key reason for voting to condemn Clinton's clemency grant.
"I have repeatedly requested information on these cases. I have been given no such information and therefore have voted to support the resolution," Schumer said.
Sen. Paul Coverdell (R-Ga.) charged that the White House, in a last-minute move, "pulled the plug" on a witness from the FBI who was set to testify to a Senate hearing on Clinton's controversial clemency decision.
The stonewalling appears only to have fanned the flames against Clinton's clemency, which led to the freeing last week of 11 jailed members of the FALN, a Puerto Rican terrorist group responsible for 130 bombings and six deaths.
In a letter to Attorney General Janet Reno, Coverdell wrote, "It is completely unacceptable for the administration to refuse to discuss the president's decision to offer clemency to 16 convicted terrorists."
Aides to Clinton and Reno said they hadn't decided whether they'll allow witnesses to testify at a Senate hearing today and a House hearing tomorrow on Clinton's get-out-of-jail deal.
The House Government Reform Committee tried to force a response by subpoenaing the testimony of White House Counsel Beth Nolan and officials from the FBI, Justice Department and Bureau of Prisons.
Sources said the White House is considering having Clinton claim executive privilege to keep the witnesses from testifying.
Huh?
Yeah, the clemency was fubar in several directions. At least Hillary had the sense to come out against it, though I still think that the carpetbagging opportunist label is going to hurt her more than the run for the NY Senate seat will help her career.
A "fubar"?
You say it as if the only problem is the political handling of the matter.
If a Republican President stonewalled a Democratic Congress like this, and claimed bogus executive priviledge to keep WILLING witnesses from testifying, what would you say about it?
In Democratic Senator Charles Schumer's words: "I have repeatedly requested information on these cases. I have been given no such information and therefore have voted to support the resolution."
This is corruption, VK. This is a refusal to do the constitionally-imposed duty of reporting to Congress and allowing Congress to fulfill its investigatory role.
"It is impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so express it, that menial lying has produced in society. When a man has so far corrupted and prostituted the chastity of his mind as to subscribe his professional belief to things he does not believe, he has prepared himself for the commission of every other crime."
-- Thomas Paine
Go Congress! Investigate the Executive!
Spade, you keep wanting to argue with me about Slick Willie, the Dems vs. the Repubs, and the relationship between the Legislative and the Executive. But we generally don't have a whole lot to argue over in these arenas.
Vonkers:
I know what "fubar" means, thank you so much. I just disagreed with the perceived critique that this was "mishandled."
VonKers:
No, it's just that I took "fubar" to mean "mishandled beyond all recognition."
The Yankeee photo-op-- nine months after they won the world series-- was "mishandled."
What Clinton is doing now is obscene.
Although that word just doesn't have the same charge it used to, did it? I fear for the precedents Clinton has set.
Remember all the hoo-ha about Buchanan's "Culture War" speech?
Here it is. Explain to me what's so terrible about it. I know there will be parts people disagree with. But, for example, his statement that gays shouldn't be allowed to be married is also endorsed by Clinton, so obviously that can't be sufficiently "terrible" to distinguish him from 90% of all politicians. (Maybe 90% of all politicians agree with Pat, but they're polite enough to lie about it. Is this the distinction?)
Anyway, here it is: http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3690570c5e43.htm
It's the verbatim text of the speech, dude.
Jesus Christ All Mighty.
Vonkers:
Thanks.
There are only three potentially objectionable passages:
The gay marriage thing (already covered that)
Discussion of a cultural war (which this country IS engaged in, whether you like the martial terminology or not)
and noting that the LA riots were ended by armed forces, "rooted in justice, steeped in courage" or something like that. You can read your favorite "code word" analysis into this if you like, but the LA rioters were fucking thugs and criminals. The fact that they were largely black doesn't absolve them of that fact, though many subscribe to the odd theory that it does.
The dicey parts:
Like many of you last month, I watched that giant masquerade ball at Madison Square Garden--where 20,000 radicals and liberals came dressed up as moderates and centrists--in the greatest single exhibition of cross-dressing in American political history.
One by one, the prophets of doom appeared at the podium. The Reagan decade, they moaned, was a terrible time in America; and the only way to prevent even worse times, they said, is to entrust our nation's fate and future to the party that gave us McGovern, Mondale, Carter and Michael Dukakis.
No way, my friends. The American people are not going to buy back into the failed liberalism of the 1960s and '70s--no matter how slick the package in 1992.
...
The presidency is also America's bully pulpit, what Mr Truman called, "preeminently a place of moral leadership." George Bush is a defender of right-to-life, and lifelong champion of the Judeo-Christian values and beliefs upon which this nation was built.
Mr Clinton, however, has a different agenda.
At its top is unrestricted abortion on demand. When the Irish-Catholic governor of Pennsylvania, Robert Casey, asked to say a few words on behalf of the 25 million unborn children destroyed since Roe v Wade, he was told there was no place for him at the podium of Bill Clinton's convention, no room at the inn.
Yet a militant leader of the homosexual rights movement could rise at that convention and exult: "Bill Clinton and Al Gore represent the most pro-lesbian and pro-gay ticket in history." And so they do.
Bill Clinton supports school choice--but only for state-run schools. Parents who send their children to Christian schools, or Catholic schools, need not apply.
Elect me, and you get two for the price of one, Mr Clinton says of his lawyer-spouse. And what does Hillary believe? Well, Hillary believes that 12-year-olds should have a right to sue their parents, and she has compared marriage as an institution to slavery--and life on an Indian reservation.
Well, speak for yourself, Hillary.
Friends, this is radical feminism. The agenda Clinton & Clinton would impose on America--abortion on demand, a litmus test for the Supreme Court, homosexual rights, discrimination against religious schools, women in combat--that's change, all right. But it is not the kind of change America wants. It is not the kind of change America needs. And it is not the kind of change we can tolerate in a nation that we still call God's country.
...
My friends, this election is about much more than who gets what. It is about who we are. It is about what we believe. It is about what we stand for as Americans. There is a religious war going on in our country for the soul of America. It is a cultural war, as critical to the kind of nation we will one day be as was the Cold War itself. And in that struggle for the soul of America, Clinton & Clinton are on the other side, and George Bush is on our side. And so, we have to come home, and stand beside him.
...
Friends, in those wonderful 25 weeks, the saddest days were the days of the bloody riot in LA, the worst in our history. But even out of that awful tragedy can come a message of hope.
Hours after the violence ended I visited the Army compound in south LA, where an officer of the 18th Cavalry, that had come to rescue the city, introduced me to two of his troopers. They could not have been 20 years old. He told them to recount their story.
They had come into LA late on the 2nd day, and they walked up a dark street, where the mob had looted and burned every building but one, a convalescent home for the aged. The mob was heading in, to ransack and loot the apartments of the terrified old men and women. When the troopers arrived, M-16s at the ready, the mob threatened and cursed, but the mob retreated. It had met the one thing that could stop it: force, rooted in justice, backed by courage.
Greater love than this hath no man than that he lay down his life for his friend. Here were 19-year-old boys ready to lay down their lives to stop a mob from molesting old people they did not even know. And as they took back the streets of LA, block by block, so we must take back our cities, and take back our culture, and take back our country.
God bless you, and God bless America."
Now, I'm not a supporter of Buchanan, and I am certainly now ready to admit he's borderline anti-Semitic and decidely reactionary, now that he's bolting my party.
But reading that speech-- which the media made such a big deal about -- can anybody tell me what the hoo-hah was all about?
In this thread of the speech Pat pits Bush as the defender of Judeo-Christian values against the amoral Clinton in a religious war for the soul of America, stating that our survival is as dependent on winning this war as it was in the Cold War.
-Pat says, George Bush is a defender of right-to-life, and lifelong champion of the Judeo-Christian values and beliefs upon which this nation was built.
-Pat says, ...we stand with him against the amoral idea that gay and lesbian couples should have the same standing in law as married men and women.
-Pat says, There is a religious war going on in our country for the soul of America. It is a cultural war, as critical to the kind of nation we will one day be as was the Cold War itself.
(Cont.)
In this thread of the speech Pat lauds that last two Repub presidents for their warrior virtues vs. the godless commies/Axis, and then expands to include nameless young American soldiers on duty in L.A. as examples of what is best about America.
-Pat says, Under the Reagan Doctrine, one by one, the communist dominos began to fall. First, Grenada was liberated, by US troops. Then, the Red Army was run out of Afghanistan, by US weapons. In Nicaragua, the Marxist regime was forced to hold free elections--by Ronald Reagan's contra army--and the communists were thrown out of power.
-Pat says, George Bush was 17 when they bombed Pearl Harbor. He left his high school class, walked down to the recruiting office, and signed up to become the youngest fighter pilot in the Pacific war.
-Pat says, The mob was heading in, to ransack and loot the apartments of the terrified old men and women. When the troopers arrived, M-16s at the ready, the mob threatened and cursed, but the mob retreated. It had met the one thing that could stop it: force, rooted in justice, backed by courage.
Greater love than this hath no man than that he lay down his life for his friend. Here were 19-year-old boys ready to lay down their lives to stop a mob from molesting old people they did not even know.
(Cont.)
In this thread Pat paints the Dem opponents of virtuous George as amoral, anti-Godly, cross-dressing radical lesbian feminists who want to drag America away for its God fearing roots.
-Pat says, Friends, this is radical feminism. The agenda Clinton & Clinton would impose on America--abortion on demand, a litmus test for the Supreme Court, homosexual rights, discrimination against religious schools, women in combat--that's change, all right. But it is not the kind of change America wants. It is not the kind of change America needs. And it is not the kind of change we can tolerate in a nation that we still call God's country.
-Pat says, ...where 20,000 radicals and liberals came dressed up as moderates and centrists--in the greatest single exhibition of cross-dressing in American political history.
-Pat says, and this is a recycle from list number 1 above, we stand with him against the amoral idea that gay and lesbian couples should have the same standing in law as married men and women.
4) The image of armed Americans prepared to prosecute the religious war:
- Pat says, And as they [the young men of the 18th Cav] took back the streets of LA, block by block, so we must take back our cities, and take back our culture, and take back our country.
So, to me this speech is frightening because it seeks to turn the political ballot contest into a religious war for the soul of the country, and embelishes that religious war image with the imagery of an actual righteous war fought in the streets of America. I will not approve of censoring such speech, but ask that the link between this speech and the killing of abortion providers or homosexuals or Democrats is not at all far fetched.
Von:
I'll respond tomorrow. Thanks for your response.
I will repeat now, however, that 90% of American politicians (including CLinton, Gore, and Madame Clinton) are against same-sex marriages, and are quite happy we won the Cold War.
(PS: Communism and Communists are, in fact, bad. I guess you didn't get that newsletter. If you want to gamely fight battles that were lost forty years ago, be my guest, but don't claim that this is some sort of aberrent opinion on Pat's part.)
You may object to these POV's, but there's no reason to single out Buchanan for holding them.
Secret report to court clears Starr, staff of illegal leaking
By Jerry Seper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
A secret investigative report handed over to the chief judge of the U.S. District Court in Washington -- but never made public --clears independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr and his staff of leaking grand jury information to the media in the Monica Lewinsky investigation.
Senior Appeals Court Judge John W. Kern III reached that conclusion in a report that was delivered to Chief U.S. District Judge Norma Holloway Johnson but was kept under seal. Judge Kern had been named in January to find out whether Mr. Starr or his staff should face criminal contempt charges concerning 24 media stories.
The Kern report follows a federal appeals court order on Monday that overturned a separate ruling by Judge Johnson. Judge Johnson's ruling ordered Mr. Starr to face criminal contempt proceedings in the suspected leak of a story not included in the original 24. The appeals panel said the judge used the wrong standard for determining there was sufficient preliminary evidence of an illegal leak.
Judge Johnson's overturned ruling related to a Jan. 31 article in the New York Times that said Mr. Starr believed a sitting president could be indicted. Judge Johnson said the disclosure violated grand jury secrecy rules -- a ruling the court panel rejected 3-0
According to a lawyer who has not read the document but is familiar with its contents, the Kern report clears Mr. Starr and his staff of White House charges they illegally leaked information for the 24 Lewinsky stories.
"A report Tuesday by the New York Times describing a finding by Judge Johnson that the 24 stories were on their face a showing that prosecutors had leaked grand jury material was false," said the lawyer, not a current or former member of the independent counsel's office. "No such finding was made."
Judge Johnson ruled in September 1998 that the president's attorneys had established "a prima facie" case showing prosecutors might have broken secrecy laws. She said at the time that the evidence suggested Mr. Starr's office knowingly leaked grand jury testimony or other secret information as early as Jan. 21, 1998, the day the Lewinsky scandal first broke.
It was not clear yesterday why the report, which is believed to have been delivered last month, has been kept secret. A spokeswoman for Judge Johnson declined comment yesterday, saying, "We don't talk to the press."
You are a liberal, radical, cross-dressing, gay, commie-loving, amoral, baby-murdering, femi-grovelling woozie. You are contemptible, ridiculous, and dangerous. You are the kind of scum who degrades the great nation of America. You are firmly on the side of L.A. criminal looting mobs who would kill every elderly person in their bed if not, thankfully, we had real, God-fearing Americans like those young heroic troopers, wielding their just and courageous M-16s with the greatest love of all.
Pat says so himself. And, with him, 90% of American politicians.
Why make such a fuss over that? After all, it's a fairly standard and moderate view that 90% of American politicians endorse...
Thank you for all the links.
Some I had considered for my own bookmarks - but, was too lazy.
Thanks again!
This is rich. Have you guys paid attention to Democratic rhetoric for the past 20 years? According to Democrats, Republicans want to starve children, throw old people out into the cold, destroy the economy and take money from the poor and give it to the rich. Pat isn't the only one who is demonizing his opposition.
(g)
Please note, I am not attempting to paint Republicans with this brush, I am specifically critiquing Buchanan and his Culture War speech.
Hillary Clinton, candidate for the New York Senate, on New York's recent outbreak of mosquito-borne St. Louis encephalitis:
"I have been concerned about malaria for many years," said Mrs. Clinton, apparently unaware that encephalitis was the issue at hand. "This is something that is not just coming under my radar screen."
Haven't you grasped our new tough stance on terrorism? It's now OK for you to be a terrorist as long as you don't actually physically plant the bomb or pull the trigger.
PS: Communism and Communists are, in fact, bad.
Does what's bad about communism include the sacred communist precept, "From each according to his means. To each according to his need."? I think so, which is why the income tax is, in fact, bad.
Then it also explains why the Apostles were, in fact, bad, as this precept is mentioned nearly verbatim in Acts of the Apostles.
I agree entirely.
What is "Acts of the Apostles"?
Really, how could 40 or 4000 years experience demonstrate that some ideal is "wrong"? Implementation untenable, maybe. But not a wrong ideal.
My post was indeed not a joke. If Ace or I accept that communism is bad, then so too must we accept that its precepts are bad. I for one admit to that and my point was to illustrate that a completely selfless philosophy is bad.
I'm not sure what you mean by the 40 or 4000 years experience demonstration thing. If you spend a significant amount of time obstensibly in pursuit of an ideal and find only that you have driven yourself into oblivion (read, USSR), you might want to reconsider the merits of your ideal.
And, I don't want to spark a religious debate here, but it's not necessarily wise to accept the wisdom of ancient biblical text at face value. BTW, are you sure such as philosophy is espoused in the Bible?
"If Ace or I accept that communism is bad, then so too must we accept that its precepts are bad.
This is incorrect. There is a huge difference between and end and a means to an end. They can often have little if anything to do with one another.
Hypothetical precept: People should live to a ripe old age.
In and of itself there is nothing wrong with this, however if the achievement of that end were sought by harvesting the blood and organs of homeless folks you could pretty much call it abhorrent.
There is nothing contradictory about believing in the precept "From each according to his means. To each according to his need." while similtaneously noting that Communism as it existed in the USSR was a failure.
You are correct. However:
Hypothetical precept: People should live to a ripe old age.
That is not quite analagous to what I'm saying. What would be a better analogy is, "The poor should take care of the old so that people live to a ripe old age."
The difference is this: The communist precept I mention is the essence of communism. It is the ends as well as the means.
It's a vision statement. It is a utopian vision for what society should strive to obtain, it says nothing about how a society would get to that state. As a utopian vision statement I fail to see what is objectionable about it, please critique this statement without reference to the failed statist policies of the USSR or PRC. This should be fun.
Cygnus,
vonKreedon has expressed it quite well. A mission statement is not a procedural manual. I too am curious what fault you find with the idea itself.
It's simple. It is the antithesis of "To each according to his ability (and luck)." It represents a misguided state of mind that is a result of too much blood bleeding from the heart. What communism advocates is that a person live solely for sake of others (the community). The most brilliant scientist achieves no reward for his efforts. Only his "needs" are met. There is no incentive to make yourself better - only needier. It is, therefore, easily succeptible to corruption.
This isn't to say that being totally selfish is the ideal. Compassion and charity are good things. But, when they outweigh your own interests, when they become edicts, they become problems.
"What communism advocates is that a person live solely for sake of others"
You're still dragging the process into it and the failed Russian experiment. Nothing in the original statement even implies that we work solely for the benefit of others. How did you reach that interpretation?
"From each according to his abilility?" - Each should provide as much as they are capable of providing.
"To each according to his need." - Each should recieve whatever is needed from those doing the providing.
Without enhancement, these pronouncements lead directly to incentivising each person to become as needy as possible. There is no incentive to improve one's abilities - in fact, the more one improves, the more that is taken from one. What set of incentives could possibly be worse?
And yes, I am quite certain about the philosophy apparent in Acts. See the econ thread (post 421) for the verses.
Excellent stuff - This is what I paid my $10 for. I'll have to actually think a bit and get back to you, after a little sleep. (I still stand by #166 as stated.)
No, I'm not going to let you off that easy. I'm well aware of the issue of "implementation". No one will argue that communism in the USSR was near an ideal implementation. I'm not, you're not, so drop it. Why is it that people try and hide behind this rather than face the fact that the communist ideal is seriously flawed? You (and ChristinO) should think a bit about what "from each according to his ability; to each according to his need" really means. Think hard. Then you'll understand why there has never been even a mediocre implementation of the communist ideal. You can start with AdamSelene's Message #166
Let me off? Come back to earth, Sickness. As I already said, I wholeheartedly endorse Selene's message. But it's different to argue against an idea on the basis of some particular experience, rather than a general flaw. Different still to say it's not a desirable principle, but can only be successfully implemented subject to some modification.
What I mean by not letting you off is that I'm not going to allow you to attribe flawed reasoning to me - in this case the reasoning that since communism in the USSR failed, communism must be bad. I refuse to allow that argument to be attributed to me and therefore allow myself to be summarily dismissed. I am attacking the ideal of communism.
With that, I will say that the USSR argument is not flawed per se. Rather, it is supporting evidence in that communism in the USSR is one of many failed attempts at implementing communism.
Was it Norton who ranted "No justice no peace"? Or was it that other lady from L.A. who was such a hoot on the Judiciary Committee?
Communism is alive and well living in the heads of bleeding heart liberals whose brains are mush.
Al:
Glad to have you here.
You are the de facto hose of this thread, aren't you? Why aren't you listed?
Was the Military used in the L.A. Riots? If they were used with out an executive order, there was plenty wrong with it. Do you really see some similarity with rioters trying to burn down a town and a religious group having, in the opinion of the government, too many weapons? It is true, as we all know, that religious people do not deserve the reverance of black marauders.
CalGal:
Liberals refuse to admit what they're doing. Conservatives are realistic and ADMIT that some censorship may be necessary; since we've admitted it, we're capable of formulating rational, consistent rules for it.
Since liberals refuse to admit they'd EVER do such a thing, every time they DO do it, it is necessarily done in a purely visceral, idiosyncratic, inconsistent, illogical way.
Cal:
Not ALL liberals. But this bullshit is certainly prevalent in liberals.
"Hey, let's not have any police or jails or punishments; EDUCATE people and love each other and share and care and hug and kiss..."
That bullshit, I suggest, is simply not part of the conservative mindset.
Cal must be running for office.
She's DISTANCING herself from the controversial Ace of Spades.
It won't work, Cal. I will not participate in this phony, scripted, planned "dispute" just to advance your electoral ambitions.
And Cal:
I've said Bubbaette was "straight" on this issue and honest and gave her "eternal credit" and all that jazz. How many times to do I have to say it?
You have said it. So why the fuck make the bad group liberals, when clearly it isn't?
And I have no idea why I'm annoyed about it.
Liberals who haven't acted like moronic crazies lately:
JudithatHome
VonKreedon
Bubbaette
ChristinO
ChristiPeters
A nutjob who is, however, probably consistently nutty:
Phoenix
There. I exclude those folks, and maybe a couple more I've forgotten, from my "liberal kissy-huggy" statements. MsIT. Her too. She hasn't been here, but she wouldn't have been a nutjob about any of this.
You're annoyed because you're just now realizing that your only ally in that other retarded dispute is a complete moron.
So why not just quit saying that it's groups that you don't like, instead of people?
Besides, this is offtopic.
I forgot Glenda.
I wish some of these people would SPEAK THE FUCK UP. Not now, I know we're under a Cone of Silence. But maybe in e-mail, or at least when the disputes occur.
Arky's not been here, so who knows?
Cal:
Maybe. But the collective silence is deafening.
In addition, it's not a question of "not liking." Although I don't like people who see a virtue in Star Trek-like, unicorn-hugging, fuck-an-elf-up-the-ass "idealism."
Spade -Your "I wish some of these people would SPEAK THE FUCK UP." Ignores much of what has been said, and ignores that people are not always online and paying attention to the latest outrage being perpatrated against you. Also, I at least tend to post what I have to say and not re-iterate it more than twice, so it can easily be missed in the avalanche of accusations.
VonKreedon:
I realize that, buddy. But, given that 1) your reasonable voice DID get drowned out amidst the shouting, and that 2) it is an incorrectly assumed by the Management that I, Ace, am the only one here who finds this abhorrent...
Could you just write a quick e-mail?
My earlier statement in Table Talk was light-hearted. Apparently you didn't take it that way. I MEANT it, but in a joking way.
The simple fact is that NO ONE knows what VonKers' opinion is. *I* do, but I hardly count.
It's frustrating, because I've gotten e-mails of support, but these e-mails don't fucking mean a thing if I'm the only one who sees them.
Sincerely,
...
Since I've recently invited several family members to visit this place, I'm a lot more sensitive to your extremely crude language. I don't expect this to do much good, but could you leave that stuff in the playpen? I don't mean to single you out, but your recent posts just caught my eye right now and I cringe to think who may be reading it at my invitation. This is the politics thread, you know, we really don't need to know how your bodily fluids taste.
Adam:
Actually, I said something very filthy here, and I regret it. I THOUGHT this was the PlayPen, because I had been flipping back and forth between two completely unfocused, off-topic conversations.
Are you objecting to just random uses of "fucking"? If so, I'll make an effort, but I gotta tell ya, that's gonna cramp my style.
Wabbit:
I am responsible for two posts that I shouldn't have written here. One is 183. The other is 193.
I don't know if you WANT to delete them, but they are inappropriate, and I would certainly understand if you wanted to delete them. And if you want to issue me a warning, I understand that too.
(I hope you don't want to do more than issue a warning. They're not THAT bad. But you are the thread host.)
183 was over the line, but 193 was beyond the pale in anything resembling polite company. I really appreciate your consideration - thanks.
Adam:
Like I said, I'm sorry. I thought I was in the PlayPen when I wrote 193. 183 was just in pique at "God" for suggesting that I was basing my opinion of his remarks on my beliefs as to who he was.
Ace, these include the two you mention, among others. Crude they may be, but nothing I would delete, let alone issue a warning about.
Good. I'll try to watch it more.
Some more.
While it is possible to compare an apple to an orange, they are both fruits after all, the differances are so obvious that little is gained by the comparison. I guess my point is that I fear the power of government even more than religious fanatics with strange ideas and many weapons. I also reaalize that government may be considered a necessary evil. From my reading of the "Federalist Papers" andthe Anit-Federalist Papers" those Founding Fathers were not too anxious to give of some of the Constitutional protections I cherish most. The Bill of rights was forced on them by a populace who knew well the heavy hand of authority.
wabbit, I am not sure if this is right on topic, but plese do not bannish it to the Play Pen.
If public students find tests hard to read,
They'd lose some funds unless their score improves.
If cutting funds won't help the kids succeed,
We could prohibit lunch, or take their shoes.
---Calvin Trillin, revised by Politex
From The New York Post:
MOYNIHAN IS POISED TO ENDORSE BRADLEY
By Brian Blomquis and Frederick U. Dicker
Bill Bradley's Democratic presidential bid will get a big boost - Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan's endorsement - sources said yesterday, just as a third poll showed Bradley has gained ground on Vice President Al Gore.
The support of Moynihan, New York's top elected Democrat, could help push Bradley ahead of Gore.
Sources say Moynihan's endorsement of Bradley is expected "very soon, possibly this week."
"At this particular moment, there is no particular announcement date," said Moynihan's top aide, Tony Bullock.
Bradley's top strategist, Anita Dunn, said, "I think that Sen. Moynihan is going to make his preferences known on his own timetable."
The Marist College survey released yesterday found Bradley dead even with Gore, 42-42. The poll shows that Bradley, a former New York Knick and U.S. senator from New Jersey, succeeded in closing what was once a whopping 17-percentage-point lead for the vice president.
The Marist poll, of 717 registered New York voters last Tuesday and Wednesday, also found that handsome Hollywood movie star Warren Beatty might attract 7 percent of the Democratic primary vote if he joins the presidential race.
But the Gore-Bradley contest would remain deadlocked, within the poll's margin of error, at 40 percent for Gore and 38 percent for Bradley, even with Beatty in the race.
Jersey senator Bill Bradley running only between 4 to 7 percentage
points behind Al Gore in the presidential race."
I would imagine that as ardent members of Slate you have already seen this. Polls seem to be in the same category as "they say." Who says? What poll? Bore will be proped up by many pollcats, oh excuse me, I mean pollsters.
judithathome
So happy to see you here, but are you really so easily satisfied that to you Bradley is a breath of fresh air?
Yes...are you so easily swayed by others that you've managed to send FratBay a donation from your hard earned cash? :-)
Please, let us keep this on theme. You assume my meager earnings were hard won? No wonder you're a Democrat. Don't you know we conservatives simnply let our money work hard, while we lie in the sun, and sometimes on the MOTE?
I know how hard you work for your money. And I never said you lied, okay? I know stamper was mysterious but I thought he'd at least recall I was nice to him.
How easily one is misunderstood. My lie was my own and lies boldly in message #240. Not only were you always nice to stamper, but once you got used to my funny ways, you have been more than nice to me. Now you must admit that you and arky were pretty hard on me when I first came own. I was deathly afraid of arky. I pictured some giant beaded soul in bib overalls, pulling his plow with the harness over his shoulders, too poor to own a mule and a computer.
Keep in mind that of the the reasons Lewis and Clark were not percieved to be a war party after they left the Mandans was the presence of Sacajawea. Those dumb Indians thought women the weaker sex. Some of us are still that stupid. The toughest hombre on the MOte is (name deleted so as not to offend.)
(I may have my homonyms and synonyms and antonyms and acronyms mixed up....if so, my apologies.)
Cygnus wrote in msg #164:
It's simple. It is the antithesis of "To each according to his ability (and luck)." .... What communism advocates is that a person live solely for sake of others (the community). The most brilliant scientist achieves no reward for his efforts. Only his "needs" are met. There is no incentive to make yourself better - only needier. It is, therefore, easily succeptible to corruption.
And Selene wrote in msg #166:
"From each according to his abilility?" - Each should provide as much as they are capable of providing.
"To each according to his need." - Each should recieve whatever is needed from those doing the providing.
Without enhancement, these pronouncements lead directly to incentivising each person to become as needy as possible. There is no incentive to improve one's abilities - in fact, the more one improves, the more that is taken from one. What set of incentives could possibly be worse?
These are certainly correct from the starting point that the only incentive is economic gain; that without receiving excess material reward the brilliant scientist or the schoolteacher will not work to their abilities. If only material gain matters, then this may be a bad vision statement.
(Cont.)
We live in a socio-economic culture that equates reward with monetary compensation for work we do for someone else; we are alienated from doing it for the joy and social respect of doing it. It is interesting that Cyg seems to view the vision statement as leading to a society in which, “…a person live solely for sake of others (the community).” I see the utopia envisioned in the statement From each… as very individualistic, each person is involved in producing according to their own self-discovered abilities and receiving what they need to continue. My view of capitalism is that I am living for others, that I am working to produce surplus value for the stockholders. It is now that I am living for others who are living off of what I produce, not in the utopia of From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
Well that's very sweet of you. Those stockholders, of course, couldn't care less -- hence alienation.
We function in the world both as individuals and in relation to others. This forumis a perfect example of that. None of us would be in here if we didn't care at some rather rpofound level about what the others thought -- even those unalterably opposed to our perspectives and beliefs. We continue to come here because of a prceived net gain of social interaction (a loose term I know but it's the best I can come up with at this time of the morning.) We are profoundly unalienated by all of this. Would that it were possible to transfer more of this same feeling, in any number of different ways, onto other social stages. Of course it'slike pulling teeth to do so. The Hard Right insists we're "individuals" and promotes social atomization with "ides" pitted against one another in mortal combat. The Hard Left traffics in fantasies of social cohesion -- as if working for "the betterment of all" could be accomplished with a meresnap of the fingers. Manwhile,Corporations rule the world.
And where's wexxford 1, BTW?
I think both Cyg and Selene have also made the assumption that the "eaches" are two different groups. That there is some "from" group and some "to" group rather than that it's all one group. One works and produces not only for one's own personal gain but also because there is honor in doing one's civic duty.
The attitude that nobody does anything unless they "get theirs" out of it; that material gain is the only worthwhile reward makes me a bit ill. The idea that everyone is automatically in it for the free ride shows a certain bankruptcy of spirit that I find alternately disheartening and irritating as hell.
I'm well aware that this attitude exists and unfortunately I think that it is growing no matter that it seemed only a sign of the 80's. I don't know that the tide can be turned back at this point. I suspect not but that's mainly because it's Monday and I'm feeling cynical and cranky.
For free enterprise to work, managers and workers continuously interact with one another. Producers of goods interact with other producers of goods and raw materials in order to create finished products. The manufacturer of the pencil (to take a famous example) interacts with the supplier of the wood, the graphite, the metal which holds the eraser and the eraser.
And none of this includes all the private social interaction that takes place in a free society (churches, unions, debating societies, ski clubs, gay bars, etc.).
To suggest that competition between or among producers of the same goods produces alienation or atomization is akin to saying that those two nice gentlemen running a home-run race again this year are deeply alienated from each other and from life in general.
Oh, by the way: Hi, guys.
My experience as an industrial laborer was that occasionally middle management would come onto the floor and "interact" with the workers, generally to the workers detriment. But this was certainly an alienated interaction in which the workers had no power and the management was demonstrating this fact. True, if we were unionized we would have some power, but we weren't. And even unions, in the current environment, restrict themselves to wage and safety issues rather than control of the work.
True, the maker of pencils has to have some way of acquiring graphite, wood, machinery, labor, distribution; but this does not mean that any genuine human interaction must take place. I refer you to a current commercial in which a set of supposed Japanese corporate types are attempting to get valves and get them over the I-Net from MitchCo, who turns out to be some guy in Texas. They don't know Mitch, and they don't need/want to know Mitch; they are uninterested in Mitch, they are interested in the valves, period. This is alienation and it is inherent in capitalism because capitalism is about increasing capital, not increasing human fulfillment.
Hi again. I think you are conflating power with social interaction. Certainly you interact with other workers in your company, even if not with your managers. And I think that the producers of the pencil do indeed meet with their suppliers often. The business world is rife with business lunches, sales calls, and communication of all kinds.
As for the commercial, I've seen it, and it is very funny. But the Japanese managers still enjoy interaction with each other. Web business is still a very small part of the economy, but even as it grows people will enjoy social interaction electronically, as we do here on the web.
It seems to me that authoritarian socialism and fascism have produced far more alienation for individuals than capitalism has.
Perhaps I do not understand exactly what you and Cellar mean when you talk of alienation. All I know is that I haver never felt it in the workplace. I have had bosses and co-workers who did not communicate well, but that is another matter.
I have felt alienation from my government and my church, however, mostly in the way they have treated me as a gay person.
Hi Cal, glenda:
I have a little story which I will post in the garden thread, btw.
But what alienation really exists as is that the workers have no control over their work; they are hired/fired at the will of the producer, their work process is designed by people who are not doing the work, what they produce is dictated by others. An essential human activity, creative production, has had its creativity stripped away, leaving only production.
But do I need to know who makes the clothes I wear? Do I need to know the conditions under which they are produced? Certainly I do not want to buy material made by slave laborers, but I count on the media to let me know if such activities are occuring, and thereby I can exercise my personal boycott. Most workers in third-world countries working under conditions we would find intolerable in our society are doing better than if they did not have this work at all.
I do not have too much sympathy for people who complain about a lack of creativity in their work. One can always be creative in other aspects of one's life. Most people do not have the talents or desire to be artists, however. And surveys have indicated that most people are pretty content with their jobs in our country.
Special Report with Brit Hume host Tony Snow set up his story by reporting that "Congressman Dan Burton plans to use the tape [of two freed FALN members constructing a bomb] next week at a hearing about President Clinton's decision to offer clemency to the two alleged bomb builders and 14 other members of the FALN." Snow added: "Despite that damaging video, the White House insists that building a bomb isn't the same as using one."
Ronski -- You're in your 30's, right?
Well they ARE. They hit a ball with a piece of wood and run around a field. This is an accomplishment? Oh if Spinoza had only made the Minors! Oh, the Humanity! (etc.)
I see.
Just what point do you think you are making? Do you feel forced to do whatever work you do? Are you just another poor victim of this horrible system? If you don't like what you do, if it stifles your creativity, do something else.
celler
What the hell are you talking about? How is what you do so much more important than hitting a ball and running around the basis? The real point is that at least we are free enough, if we have the ability, to do either. I don't have the ability to do Sosa's job or yours. Hell, I can't even understand what you do.
In the middle of the 20th Century, politicians, in MHO, took the same attitude toward Blacks, putting them not on reservations per.se. but in ghetto houseing and saddleing them with government largess. Of course, it was, in the words of the politicians, for their own good. The Blacks, much like the Indians, were much like children, not really able to make it in the white man's world. For some reason, all of this "gratituity" earned these pols the love and support of what any objective observer might consider victims of the government.
How many people are qualified enough to have that kind of flexibility of job choice?
Let me explain the above post. It does not matter how many people could or could not do something. Could von? that is the question. To my way of thinking, we are in the final analysis individuals and responsible for our own happiness and welfare. It may sound selfish and it is. Self is really all we have.
I can almost visualize it -- Inspector "Dirty" Dan Burton. "I know what you're thinking: did I fire 700 subpoenas, or was it only 600? Well to tell you the truth, in all the excitement, I kind of lost track myself ... "
Certainly I do not want to buy material made by slave laborers…
Does this mean you are opposed to paying for license plates? :)
Or enjoying clean byways where trash is picked up by prisoners?
Trial, janjon:
You can talk about Burton all you like. The tape shows what it shows (and it's been shown on television): It shows two of the FALN members granted clemency by Clinton building a bomb. Or, who knows, maybe a stereo with dynamite-shaped speakers.
And the White House notes: "There is a difference between building a bomb and planting it."
Well, yes. If you plant the bomb, you get the death penalty. If you "just" build it, you get granted clemency, despite never asking for it, despite never making a statement of remorse or repudiation of past action.
"You can talk about Burton all you like."
Thanks. I didn't realize I needed your permission, but I'm glad to have it.
I haven't seen the tape you're referring to, but I don't think I need to: I already think granting clemency was a boneheaded move. Maybe I'll get to see the tape when I get home, though, if there's time.
The only thing liberals can do, and they do it every time, is to attack the individual. to call it "boneheaded" gives you a clue as to how serious he thinks it is. when it was the impeachment hearings, the attack was that Barr had African American Blood, one other was a fag, someone was too fat, etc. You know, really serious attacks. Know matter how much sense you post, liberals will not come to grips with the facts. I had to ask elliot one time if he had been inoculated with eel blood.
I guess no one is interested in the Indians. Where is Azure when I need her.
It's big of you to notice.
This is incorrect. There is a huge difference between and end and a means to an end. They can often have little if anything to do with one another.
Absolutely right. The means to the ends, used by the communists, including deceit, torture, and murder, were horrible.
The desired goal, on the other hand, was an unspeakable abomination.
"The only thing liberals can do, and they do it every time, is to attack the individual ... I had to ask elliot one time if he had been inoculated with eel blood."
No "personal attacks" there, eh, al?
BTW, interesting distinction you made in post #32. I'll probably quote you.
Hillary's house loan: While I agree it looks awful, there was no attempt to hide it, was there?
Does this mean being shameless and brazen makes questionable behavior ok?
Actually, no. Very few people lived on the plains full time until the introduction of the horse following Spanish exploration and conquest to the south. The Sioux, Pawnee and other came west as early as the Colonial period. There was a general shift as eastern tribes expanded their ranges west, which in turn shifted their neighbors, with the end result of the tribes from the Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois and Iowa areas moving on the plains.
She deserves the chance to learn.
What has Hillary done to deserve a chance to run for Senate? I'm curious, just in case I ever want to run. I was thinking that the bar was a little higher, but maybe I'm wrong.
Regarding the LA riots (msg 118), why was it a good thing to have the military thwart lawbreakers there (and it was), but a bad thing (according to various Republicans and other gun-lovers) to have the military assist in Waco?
I think someone else asked, but you've piqued my interest. In what way was the military used in LA?
I think Pat Buchanan's speech mentioned that reservists had been used during the riots.
Of course, that's bad. And using Delta Force against the Davidians was good.
Don't ask why. Just because.
Then it also explains why the Apostles were, in fact, bad, as this precept is mentioned nearly verbatim in Acts of the Apostles.
I don't recall the Apostles advocating force to ensure the collection from those who produce. But I confess to being a poor bible scholar. Can you help me out?
It's a vision statement. It is a utopian vision for what society should strive to obtain, it says nothing about how a society would get to that state.
Do you really see it as a vision statement in a positive sense?
I would be hard pressed to come up with a more succinct blueprint for Hell.
These are certainly correct from the starting point that the only incentive is economic gain; that without receiving excess material reward the brilliant scientist or the schoolteacher will not work to their abilities. If only material gain matters, then this may be a bad vision statement.
A wise man once said, "When someone starts belittling economic gain, grab your wallet."
Thought I'd enter my first post thusly: as a reply to message 14, re definition of politics.
One of my favorites has always been from Ambrose Bierce:
POLITICS
n. A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage
Welcome!!!
And quotes from the devil's dictionary are always welcome.
Great quote. Welcome!
JonesatLaw
O.K. My thousands of years was hyperbole. But are really claiming that the Osage living on the Osage River and what eventually became the States of Kansas, Oklahoma, Missouri did not predate the colonial period? What do you base that on and can you direct me to a source that backs that up? I just finished reading "the Osages" by John Joseph Mathews who I take to be somewhat of an authority on this subject.
Actually, while I have become very interested in Native Americans since reading several books about Lewis and clark encluding DeVota's edition of their journels, my real point was that govenment, while a necessary evil, has to be watched and guarded against in every century.
haha. Quote away. You may be interested in my book, The Quotable Spence, forthcoming from Harper-Collins.
As for the quote, it was in regard to the precept of communism quoted by Sickness. It was not in regard to the particular implementation of the USSR etc.
One guy said that it was kind of like looking at human nature. I said that's exactly the point -- human nature when one can lie with impunity. He asked us what we find, which is impossible to summarize satisfactorily in one line. So I responded with the throwaway comment, "well, we find that human nature is situation dependent -- it is to be truthful when incentives call for it."
He whips out a pad of paper and writes it down, asking if I mind if he uses that phrase.
Liberals favor voluntary associations to achieve social ends, and abhor coercion. If this is so, then why do so many liberals abhor the most successful voluntary associations of individuals -- corporations?
My civil rights and liberties prof put it more vulgarly:
"Whenever you hear a politician start talking about 'the public good' and 'for the good of society', then you need to lock up your liquor, hide your women and get out you firearm: someone is about to get screwed!"
I like the way you talk!
Could you direct me to something that makes your point about the tribes I mentioned not being indigenous to the plains territory prior to Colonial days? I realize that many tribes, Cherokees, Seminole, Sacs and Foxes had been moved from the east. How long before 1492 did the many Sioux tribes live in the area from the Missouri River to the Rockies? I would imagine for quite some time. Of course, most of what has been written was by non-native Americans wasn't it.
Can't claim much knowledge of Indian history, but I lived in Albuquerque when I was going to High school, and some of the local history was quite interesting. One of the things that I picked up that I didn't know before was how the technological/social changes of the horse impacted the balance of power between individual tribes. The raider clans like the Mescalero Apache were given a big advantage over the tribes they preyed on, like the Sky City People and the Navajo. Becoming a horseclan let the Apache greatly increase the proportion of raiding to farming that they did. Rather like the Viking development of sea mobility during the middle ages I suppose - turned Vikings, formerly farmers who did a little raiding against each other during the off-season, to full-time raiders & warriors, of course at the cost of their neighbors.
Why are Corporations dangerous without morals? Is it possible for a whole Corporation to be without morals. Well, it was a clever remark, I'll give you that.
In what way are corporations dangerous if they are in the hands of an amoral person? The profit motive enforces a rigorous code of ethics on any corporation: Do what you want, as long as you benefit people. Corporations, last I checked, have no real recourse to force. It is reeelly difficult for me to even understand the concept of 'exploitation' when both parties (employer and employeed) associate on a mutually voluntary basis. If anything, the employer is much more exploited by the current laws. For example, my employer could not fire me if the reason is that I'm a minority, or a woman. I, on the other hand, am perfectly free to quit my job if my boss is a woman, or a minority. I don't have to justify why I want to quit, I just do. I would argue that corporations are the exploited party when they have to fire with cause, unless they freely commit themselves (as opposed to being coerced by the gubmint into) a contract that states otherwise
In what way are corporations dangerous if they are in the hands of an amoral person? The profit motive enforces a rigorous code of ethics on any corporation: Do what you want, as long as you benefit people. Corporations, last I checked, have no real recourse to force. It is reeelly difficult for me to even understand the concept of 'exploitation' when both parties (employer and employeed) associate on a mutually voluntary basis. If anything, the employer is much more exploited by the current laws. For example, my employer could not fire me if the reason is that I'm a minority, or a woman. I, on the other hand, am perfectly free to quit my job if my boss is a woman, or a minority. I don't have to justify why I want to quit, I just do. I would argue that corporations are the exploited party when they have to fire with cause, unless they freely commit themselves (as opposed to being coerced by the gubmint into) a contract that states otherwise
AlDavis,
Thank you for your idea of rugged individualism and every man for himself. I particularly appreciate this attitude as manifested by thieves, murderers and idiots who cut me off in traffic. While I'm sure it would be to my great financial benefit not to concern myself with the wellbeing of anyone but myself I find that the idea clashes strongly with the remains of my Judeo-Christian identity.
Dusty,
It's good to see you but you must have been on a working leave rather than vacation to come back and be so immediately snarky, or perhaps you missed the several posts addressed to Cygnus regarding separation of means from ends? I know you're far more perceptive than that so I can only assume that you're teasing me. What exactly is evil about people pulling together for the common good? I'm not talking about the means of application I'm asking what is wrong with the idea that we all work so that we all eat?
Amaxen,
You think employers are oppressed? Tell that to the 25 immigrant women that I work with who work six days a week and don't get overtime or annual cost of living pay increases.Yeah, they could all go work at their families nail salons I suppose, but this is something of a step up for them. Is the fact that it's better than working fast food supposed to excuse the abuses?
The profit motive enforces a rigorous code of ethics on any corporation: Do what you want, as long as you benefit people
And what about those sweatshops that churn out Nike Pumps? It's okay to abuse people so long as they can't vote to do anything about it, right?
Corporations, last I checked, have no real recourse to force. It is reeelly difficult for me to even understand the concept of 'exploitation' when both parties (employer and employeed) associate on a mutually voluntary basis
So why in the world did Unions come into being? And what is it if not force when American automobile manufacturers decide to lay off all their American production employees so they can pay slave wages in in another country for the work and increase their profits?
I would argue that corporations are the exploited party when they have to fire with cause
Last time I heard there wasn't a deluge of businesses going under because of a shortage in the workforce. In principal the employer and the employee need each other to an equal degree, however, there are always more workers than there are jobs so who has the upper hand?
My god, I've just had my first glass of wine and it really takes more than that, I assure you. I think Christian charity is wonderful. As the good book says, "Faith, hope, charity, and the greatest of these is charity." Substitute love if you like, same thing, as real charity comes from love. Real love also might be seeing each individual as valuable and responsible. When I used to teach and a discussion of sympathy and empathy would come up, I would stroll down the isle and pinch a student. Always a male and always on the arm. I would ask the class how many felt that? Of course, the pain was felt by the pinchee. We can be moved to sympathy for someone in trouble and my desire to help should be freely given, not coerced by the heavy hand of government. So much done "to help the less fortunate" has as its base, base motives. As my son the comedian says, "give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, but teach him to fish and he can waste the rest of his life."
I think my point was: it is hard for me to understand the concept of exploitation when both parties are there voluntarily.
As for your anecdote about the immigrant women you work with, isn't it the government that has reduced their options in the marketplace? Since they can't legally work, and the employer faces fines if it is caught employing them, then it means that their labor is actually worth some significant amount less than that of a natural citizen. And yes, they could go work somewhere for less, but they choose to work with you for more. What is so 'exploitative' about that? I guess I don't know enough about the situation. Care to enlighten me?
Jones,
How 'bout a thought experiment:
Take someone really, really evil from this century. Let's say....
Pol Pot. Now make him the CEO of your favorite powerful corporation. Say, General Electric.
What is the worst concievable thing that he could do with all that 'power'?
For the sake of the argument, let's say that he comes with a cadre of Khmer Rouge to install in upper management, and that he is knowledgeable&smart enough to run GE as a business (if that is what you have him doing).
I myself see him able to do very little by way of dastardly deeds, except perhaps destroying GE itself as a corporation, and even then I suspect he would last no longer than a liberal in a Clinton cabinet if he tried that.
I've heard the argument innumerable times that if only Government wouldn't oppress us and force us to help the less fortunate then all sorts of individuals would come rushing out of the woodwork to pitch in and help voluntarily. Unfortunately I haven't seen that this is the case except in tiny little towns where everyone knows everyone else and there is more of a feeling of community than is to be found in most urban areas.
The reality is that the bigger the town, city, metropolis the less people want to be bothered with anything but their own lives. They insulate themselves from one another in a hundred different ways and frankly, No, they wouldn't be out helping to get teen mothers off crack in any greater