Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
OT: HBO's "Newsroom"
54 views
Skip to first unread message
HistorianDetective
Jul 4, 2012, 9:25:35 AM7/4/12
to
Keeping somewhat in line with a recent thread regarding US Media that was
posted by the CT moderator of this group and non-US citizen, here's a link
to the full premier episode of HBO's new series "Newsroom" written by
Aaron Sorkin of West Wing fame, Charlie Wilson's War and Moneyball, as
well. Well worth the free viewing for those like myself who are not an HBO
subscriber.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1U4ZhFDFYvE&feature=player_embedded
The opening is a roundtable debate where each panelist is asked the
question as to why America is the greatest country in the world. You will
have to watch for yourself for the dramatic answer given by anchorman Will
McAvoy (played by Jeff Daniels of Dumb and Dumber fame).
JM/HD
posted by the CT moderator of this group and non-US citizen, here's a link
to the full premier episode of HBO's new series "Newsroom" written by
Aaron Sorkin of West Wing fame, Charlie Wilson's War and Moneyball, as
well. Well worth the free viewing for those like myself who are not an HBO
subscriber.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1U4ZhFDFYvE&feature=player_embedded
The opening is a roundtable debate where each panelist is asked the
question as to why America is the greatest country in the world. You will
have to watch for yourself for the dramatic answer given by anchorman Will
McAvoy (played by Jeff Daniels of Dumb and Dumber fame).
JM/HD
bigdog
Jul 4, 2012, 2:31:13 PM7/4/12
to
On Jul 4, 9:25 am, HistorianDetective <historiandetect...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Good information. I wanted to watch this from the beginning but forgot
about the opening episode and lost power over the weekend due to the
windstorm that swept throught the Midwest and Mid Atlantic States. I was
without power for three days and I'm one of the lucky ones. The power
companies here in Ohio are saying they don't think they will have
everybody back up until Sunday. That would be nine days without power for
those folks.
wrote:
about the opening episode and lost power over the weekend due to the
windstorm that swept throught the Midwest and Mid Atlantic States. I was
without power for three days and I'm one of the lucky ones. The power
companies here in Ohio are saying they don't think they will have
everybody back up until Sunday. That would be nine days without power for
those folks.
HistorianDetective
Jul 5, 2012, 12:44:39 AM7/5/12
to
against. Will catch the series when available on Netflix.
From what I have read, Jane Fonda joined the cast and HBO contracted for a
2nd season.
Also, I'm sure you noticed that during the opening credits there is the
iconic photo of Cronkite taken during his "President Kennedy has died"
announcement on 11/22/63.
JM/HD
PS...Glad to hear you only suffered a power outage from the storm that
missed the upper midwest and nothing more serious.
John McAdams
Jul 5, 2012, 12:55:11 AM7/5/12
to
On 4 Jul 2012 09:25:35 -0400, HistorianDetective
Sorkin, I'm afraid, is an anti-American bigot.
And it would be good, on this 4th of July, to examine just why he is
such a bigot.
Sorkin is an elitist who thinks that elites like him (in the media, in
academia, and the bureaucracy) should be running this country.
But in fact, his sort of people have to fight for control with people
he disdains: Christians, business people, people who don't want
government bureaucrats to dictate to them, people who think government
taxes too much.
With the Obama victory in 2008, Sorkin thought that his sort of people
had decisively gained the upper hand. But Obama ran into trouble. The
other side mobilized. The Republicans won the 2010 election.
So Sorkin is bitter. I'm glad he's bitter.
I'm happy to live in the sort of America that Sorkin hates. It's an
America that is pretty good to ordinary people, but frustrates
arrogant elitists like Sorkin.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
And it would be good, on this 4th of July, to examine just why he is
such a bigot.
Sorkin is an elitist who thinks that elites like him (in the media, in
academia, and the bureaucracy) should be running this country.
But in fact, his sort of people have to fight for control with people
he disdains: Christians, business people, people who don't want
government bureaucrats to dictate to them, people who think government
taxes too much.
With the Obama victory in 2008, Sorkin thought that his sort of people
had decisively gained the upper hand. But Obama ran into trouble. The
other side mobilized. The Republicans won the 2010 election.
So Sorkin is bitter. I'm glad he's bitter.
I'm happy to live in the sort of America that Sorkin hates. It's an
America that is pretty good to ordinary people, but frustrates
arrogant elitists like Sorkin.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
bigdog
Jul 5, 2012, 12:53:10 PM7/5/12
to
On Jul 5, 12:44 am, HistorianDetective <historiandetect...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Problem was I not only lost power, but land line and cell service too.
Completely cutoff from civilization. Since I live in a rural area,
when I lose power, I lose water because my well requires electricity
to work. I keep a 7 gallon jug of water on hand that allows me to
flush the toilet but I ran out of that by Sunday and had to go down to
the local creek to refill. I live in an area where there is a large
Amish population and I'll bet they were laughing their asses off that
the rest of us had to live like they did. I have a portable generator
but the well is hard wired and can't be plugged into it. To make
matters worse, the power outage was so widespread that many gas
stations couldn't pump the gasoline I need to run the generator. The
few that had auxilary power had long lines of people trying to get gas
for the cars and generators. Those stations quickly ran out. On
Saturday night I waited 45 minutes in line and filled a 5 gallon can
with premium which was ll they had left. That was enough to run the
generator for less than a day so the next day I went hunting for open
gas stations. After striking out in several small towns nearby, I
found working gas stations in Johnstown, OH which had only spot
outages. I thought it was stupid to burn two gallons of gas driving to
get five gallons so I bought two more 5 gallon cans and filled them
up.
After three days of sponge baths from my sink using some of that saved
water, I finally drove to a state park with a free swimming beach
where I took advantage to take a full bath. That was about an hour
drive one way but I refilled one of my gas cans on the way home. One
of the prettiest sights I ever saw was driving up my driveway and
seeing my porch light was on. I was back in business.
It's amazing how we take so many things for granted until we lose
them. The first morning I was going to make coffee and then realized I
had no drinkable water to use. I was going to us my pressure cooker to
fix dinner then again realized I didn't have the cup of water I
needed. I used a can of Diet Sprite instead. Turned out OK.
wrote:
Completely cutoff from civilization. Since I live in a rural area,
when I lose power, I lose water because my well requires electricity
to work. I keep a 7 gallon jug of water on hand that allows me to
flush the toilet but I ran out of that by Sunday and had to go down to
the local creek to refill. I live in an area where there is a large
Amish population and I'll bet they were laughing their asses off that
the rest of us had to live like they did. I have a portable generator
but the well is hard wired and can't be plugged into it. To make
matters worse, the power outage was so widespread that many gas
stations couldn't pump the gasoline I need to run the generator. The
few that had auxilary power had long lines of people trying to get gas
for the cars and generators. Those stations quickly ran out. On
Saturday night I waited 45 minutes in line and filled a 5 gallon can
with premium which was ll they had left. That was enough to run the
generator for less than a day so the next day I went hunting for open
gas stations. After striking out in several small towns nearby, I
found working gas stations in Johnstown, OH which had only spot
outages. I thought it was stupid to burn two gallons of gas driving to
get five gallons so I bought two more 5 gallon cans and filled them
up.
After three days of sponge baths from my sink using some of that saved
water, I finally drove to a state park with a free swimming beach
where I took advantage to take a full bath. That was about an hour
drive one way but I refilled one of my gas cans on the way home. One
of the prettiest sights I ever saw was driving up my driveway and
seeing my porch light was on. I was back in business.
It's amazing how we take so many things for granted until we lose
them. The first morning I was going to make coffee and then realized I
had no drinkable water to use. I was going to us my pressure cooker to
fix dinner then again realized I didn't have the cup of water I
needed. I used a can of Diet Sprite instead. Turned out OK.
bigdog
Jul 5, 2012, 2:21:53 PM7/5/12
to
On Jul 5, 12:55 am, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> On 4 Jul 2012 09:25:35 -0400, HistorianDetective
>
> On 4 Jul 2012 09:25:35 -0400, HistorianDetective
>
Obama out this fall. I got disillusioned with the GOP in the 1990s and
have been voting mostly Libertarian since 1996. I can't say that I'm
thrilled with Romney, but I'm going to climb on the bandwagon this time
for one important reason. Given the ages and health status of some of
current SCOTUS justices, there is a really possibility that the winner of
this fall's election might appoint three justices. If that is Obama, that
means five of the nine justices would be his appointees and given the
typical ages of new appointees, we could be stuck with an Obama court for
the next 30 years. That prospect alone is enough to get me to walk into
the voting booth, hold my nose, and vote for Romney. I hope my fellow
Libertarians, disillusioned conservatives and the like will do the same. A
second Obama term would be disasterous for this country and that is not
hyperbole.
Anthony Marsh
Jul 5, 2012, 2:22:57 PM7/5/12
to
On 7/5/2012 12:55 AM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 4 Jul 2012 09:25:35 -0400, HistorianDetective
> <historian...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Keeping somewhat in line with a recent thread regarding US Media that was
>> posted by the CT moderator of this group and non-US citizen, here's a link
>> to the full premier episode of HBO's new series "Newsroom" written by
>> Aaron Sorkin of West Wing fame, Charlie Wilson's War and Moneyball, as
>> well. Well worth the free viewing for those like myself who are not an HBO
>> subscriber.
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1U4ZhFDFYvE&feature=player_embedded
>>
>> The opening is a roundtable debate where each panelist is asked the
>> question as to why America is the greatest country in the world. You will
>> have to watch for yourself for the dramatic answer given by anchorman Will
>> McAvoy (played by Jeff Daniels of Dumb and Dumber fame).
>>
>
> Sorkin, I'm afraid, is an anti-American bigot.
>
Anti-American because he dares to tell the truth and criticize America?
> On 4 Jul 2012 09:25:35 -0400, HistorianDetective
> <historian...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Keeping somewhat in line with a recent thread regarding US Media that was
>> posted by the CT moderator of this group and non-US citizen, here's a link
>> to the full premier episode of HBO's new series "Newsroom" written by
>> Aaron Sorkin of West Wing fame, Charlie Wilson's War and Moneyball, as
>> well. Well worth the free viewing for those like myself who are not an HBO
>> subscriber.
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1U4ZhFDFYvE&feature=player_embedded
>>
>> The opening is a roundtable debate where each panelist is asked the
>> question as to why America is the greatest country in the world. You will
>> have to watch for yourself for the dramatic answer given by anchorman Will
>> McAvoy (played by Jeff Daniels of Dumb and Dumber fame).
>>
>
> Sorkin, I'm afraid, is an anti-American bigot.
>
> And it would be good, on this 4th of July, to examine just why he is
> such a bigot.
>
> Sorkin is an elitist who thinks that elites like him (in the media, in
> academia, and the bureaucracy) should be running this country.
>
> But in fact, his sort of people have to fight for control with people
> he disdains: Christians, business people, people who don't want
> government bureaucrats to dictate to them, people who think government
> taxes too much.
>
dictate to, threaten and buy off the government bureaucrats to get their
way. They don't pay taxes, but instead raise taxes on the poor to pay
for their tax breaks.
> With the Obama victory in 2008, Sorkin thought that his sort of people
> had decisively gained the upper hand. But Obama ran into trouble. The
> other side mobilized. The Republicans won the 2010 election.
>
> So Sorkin is bitter. I'm glad he's bitter.
>
> I'm happy to live in the sort of America that Sorkin hates. It's an
> America that is pretty good to ordinary people, but frustrates
> arrogant elitists like Sorkin.
>
> .John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
Anthony Marsh
Jul 5, 2012, 2:23:07 PM7/5/12
to
get a TiVo. TiVo offers Netflix over the Internet.
pjsp...@aol.com
Jul 5, 2012, 8:21:03 PM7/5/12
to
you get all up in arms when someone suggests that old-fashioned racism
underlies much of modern "conservatism," but then claim people like Sorkin
"hate" America?
Assuming he is a liberal, and someone who dislikes the Tea Party, etc, how
does his disliking one aspect of current America make him "an
anti-American bigot?"
There can be NO DOUBT that the American people, in 2008, voted
overwhelmingly for a black man, with mostly liberal values. Were those
upset by this "anti-American bigots?" If not, why not?
A double-standard seems evident.
Jason Burke
Jul 5, 2012, 8:23:28 PM7/5/12
to
John McAdams
Jul 5, 2012, 8:32:53 PM7/5/12
to
On 5 Jul 2012 20:21:03 -0400, "pjsp...@AOL.COM" <pjsp...@aol.com>
wrote:
Because modern conservatism is not racist, but Sorkin is really an
anti-American bigot.
Listen to the clip.
I *would* call racist anybody who engaged in an anti-black tirade like
the anti-U.S. tirade in the Sorkin show.
>
>Assuming he is a liberal, and someone who dislikes the Tea Party, etc, how
>does his disliking one aspect of current America make him "an
>anti-American bigot?"
>
He dislikes America *in general.*
Saying one disagrees with the Tea Party isn't necessarily bigoted.
Calling them "racist" is bigoted.
Disagreeing with Barack Obama is not necessarily racist. Calling him
the n-word would be racist.
Can you see some distinctions here?
Or are they too subtle for you?
>There can be NO DOUBT that the American people, in 2008, voted
>overwhelmingly for a black man, with mostly liberal values. Were those
>upset by this "anti-American bigots?" If not, why not?
>
Huh?
>A double-standard seems evident.
>
Does a single standard require that all charges of bigotry are true?
Or that all are false? Or might some be false and some true?
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
wrote:
anti-American bigot.
Listen to the clip.
I *would* call racist anybody who engaged in an anti-black tirade like
the anti-U.S. tirade in the Sorkin show.
>
>Assuming he is a liberal, and someone who dislikes the Tea Party, etc, how
>does his disliking one aspect of current America make him "an
>anti-American bigot?"
>
Saying one disagrees with the Tea Party isn't necessarily bigoted.
Calling them "racist" is bigoted.
Disagreeing with Barack Obama is not necessarily racist. Calling him
the n-word would be racist.
Can you see some distinctions here?
Or are they too subtle for you?
>There can be NO DOUBT that the American people, in 2008, voted
>overwhelmingly for a black man, with mostly liberal values. Were those
>upset by this "anti-American bigots?" If not, why not?
>
>A double-standard seems evident.
>
Does a single standard require that all charges of bigotry are true?
Or that all are false? Or might some be false and some true?
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
Jul 5, 2012, 10:39:20 PM7/5/12
to
and enjoy throwing your vote away by voting for a kook who can't even
get 1% of the vote. I bet you voted for Ross Perot too.
> thrilled with Romney, but I'm going to climb on the bandwagon this time
> for one important reason. Given the ages and health status of some of
> current SCOTUS justices, there is a really possibility that the winner of
> this fall's election might appoint three justices. If that is Obama, that
> means five of the nine justices would be his appointees and given the
> typical ages of new appointees, we could be stuck with an Obama court for
> the next 30 years. That prospect alone is enough to get me to walk into
> the voting booth, hold my nose, and vote for Romney. I hope my fellow
like Roberts be appointed to the Supreme Court.
Vote for Romney. In your heart you know he's secretly a Liberal.
Anthony Marsh
Jul 5, 2012, 11:28:03 PM7/5/12
to
redefine terms.
>
>>
>> Assuming he is a liberal, and someone who dislikes the Tea Party, etc, how
>> does his disliking one aspect of current America make him "an
>> anti-American bigot?"
>>
>
> He dislikes America *in general.*
>
> Saying one disagrees with the Tea Party isn't necessarily bigoted.
> Calling them "racist" is bigoted.
>
mean by "politically correct"?
> Disagreeing with Barack Obama is not necessarily racist. Calling him
> the n-word would be racist.
>
Using the N-word is not the only way to be racist.
Someone can be a racist and not even use the N-word.
> Can you see some distinctions here?
>
> Or are they too subtle for you?
>
>
>> There can be NO DOUBT that the American people, in 2008, voted
>> overwhelmingly for a black man, with mostly liberal values. Were those
>> upset by this "anti-American bigots?" If not, why not?
>>
>
> Huh?
>
>> A double-standard seems evident.
>>
>
> Does a single standard require that all charges of bigotry are true?
> Or that all are false? Or might some be false and some true?
>
pjsp...@aol.com
Jul 6, 2012, 10:33:36 AM7/6/12
to
On Thursday, July 5, 2012 5:32:53 PM UTC-7, John McAdams wrote:
> On 5 Jul 2012 20:21:03 -0400, "pjsp...@AOL.COM"
>
> On 5 Jul 2012 20:21:03 -0400, "pjsp...@AOL.COM"
>
seen by Sorkin is patriotic. He seems to believe that there are problems
with the country but that these problems can be overcome through
democratic action and education. This is a mainstream opinion. Why do you
have a problem with this? You can't possibly believe everything is fine
and dandy.
>
>
> >
> >Assuming he is a liberal, and someone who dislikes the Tea Party, etc, how
> >does his disliking one aspect of current America make him "an
> >anti-American bigot?"
> >
>
> He dislikes America *in general.*
this.
>
> Saying one disagrees with the Tea Party isn't necessarily bigoted.
> Calling them "racist" is bigoted.
are as inspired by their fear of Obama--and his 'otherness"--as they are his
politics. I suspect you are a long time conservative, and wish to believe
many of those calling for Obama's removal are inspired by ideology. I don't
see it that way. The people I've met who are strongly against Obama have
stated that 1) they're not sure he's a real American, 2) they think he's a
socialist, 3) they think he's in bed with Wall Street, 4) they think he
wants to socialize medicine, 5) they think he wants to take away their medicare,
and 6) he wants to take away their guns. These positions are mutually
exclusive and are reflective of incredibly muddy thinking. Underlying it all
is that they just don't trust him, in a way that they've never not trusted
a politician before.
So why do you think that is....hmmm. Plenty of them will tell you if you
really want to listen. My aunt buys into all the anti-Obama nonsense, and
forwards me the emails she receives from her supposedly mainstream
all=American friends. A number of these have ended with comments akin to
"Obama has darkened the White House--it's time to make it white again."
Real subtle.
> Disagreeing with Barack Obama is not necessarily racist. Calling him
> the n-word would be racist.
>
> Can you see some distinctions here?
>
> Or are they too subtle for you?
>
>
> >There can be NO DOUBT that the American people, in 2008, voted
> >overwhelmingly for a black man, with mostly liberal values. Were those
> >upset by this "anti-American bigots?" If not, why not?
> >
>
> Huh?
>
for looking down their noses at the riff-raff in the flyover, why aren't
the riff-raff in the flyover "anti-American" for feeling morally superior
to those on the coasts? It appears you are buying into Sarah Palin's
belief every Bubba in a pick-up truck is automatically more American than
every lawyer in a Beemer. It's just not true. Never was. Never will be.
John McAdams
Jul 6, 2012, 10:54:36 AM7/6/12
to
On 6 Jul 2012 10:33:36 -0400, "pjsp...@AOL.COM" <pjsp...@aol.com>
wrote:
>On Thursday, July 5, 2012 5:32:53 PM UTC-7, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 5 Jul 2012 20:21:03 -0400, "pjsp...@AOL.COM"
>>
>> >
socialist, and are secular, and that we should be more socialist and
secular.
That is *not* mainstream opinion, except among your politically
correct buddies.
>>
>>
>> >
>> >Assuming he is a liberal, and someone who dislikes the Tea Party, etc, how
>> >does his disliking one aspect of current America make him "an
>> >anti-American bigot?"
>> >
>>
>> He dislikes America *in general.*
>
>Where do you get this from? I seriously doubt you have anything to support
>this.
>
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2012/06/25/Newsroom-falsehood
http://newsbusters.org/sites/default/files/2012-06-24-HBO-NEWSROOM-DANIELS.mp3
>>
>> Saying one disagrees with the Tea Party isn't necessarily bigoted.
>> Calling them "racist" is bigoted.
>
>Not at all. It can not reasonably be disputed that many in the Tea Party
>are as inspired by their fear of Obama--and his 'otherness"--as they are his
>politics.
His "otherness" *is* his politics.
BTW, below you reveal a bias against people you consider the "other."
>I suspect you are a long time conservative, and wish to believe
>many of those calling for Obama's removal are inspired by ideology. I don't
>see it that way.
But look at the list of positions you assign to the Tea Party (below).
All are *political* disagreements.
>The people I've met who are strongly against Obama have
>stated that 1) they're not sure he's a real American,
Depends on what one means by "real American."
>2) they think he's a
>socialist,
He told Joe the Plumber that he wanted to "spread the wealth around."
He told Charlie Gibson during a 2008 debate that "fairness" requires
higher capital gains taxes *even though* it would reduce revenue.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xlv7yv_obama-raise-taxes-capital-gains-for-purposes-of-fairness-2008_news
>3) they think he's in bed with Wall Street,
Oh, my! Have you looked at who contributes money to him?
>4) they think he
>wants to socialize medicine,
In the early 2000, he quite forthrightly said he favored a
single-payer health care system. That's Canadian style socialized
medicine.
>5) they think he wants to take away their medicare,
He certainly wanted to take away Medicare Advantage, since that is run
through private insurance companies, and he's hostile to the private
sector.
>and 6) he wants to take away their guns.
He admitted as much in the 1990s. The fact that it's not politically
expedient to say that now doesn't change that fact.
>These positions are mutually
>exclusive and are reflective of incredibly muddy thinking.
You mean Obama's positions? No, he's just the standard liberal, and
the people you are demeaning know perfectly well where his heart is.
>Underlying it all
>is that they just don't trust him, in a way that they've never not trusted
>a politician before.
>
>So why do you think that is....hmmm. Plenty of them will tell you if you
>really want to listen. My aunt buys into all the anti-Obama nonsense, and
>forwards me the emails she receives from her supposedly mainstream
>all=American friends. A number of these have ended with comments akin to
>"Obama has darkened the White House--it's time to make it white again."
>Real subtle.
>
If you are *very* selective, you can always find something to
interpret racially. But the vast majority of opposition to Obama
comes from disagreement with his policies.
You really need to be more tolerant, and accept the fact that a lot of
people in the U.S. disagree with your liberal policy preferences.
Calling everybody who disagrees with you "racist" is a nasty tactic.
>> Disagreeing with Barack Obama is not necessarily racist. Calling him
>> the n-word would be racist.
>>
>> Can you see some distinctions here?
>>
>> Or are they too subtle for you?
>>
>>
>> >There can be NO DOUBT that the American people, in 2008, voted
>> >overwhelmingly for a black man, with mostly liberal values. Were those
>> >upset by this "anti-American bigots?" If not, why not?
>> >
>>
>> Huh?
>>
>
>What? Too subtle for you? If elitists on the coasts are "anti-American"
>for looking down their noses at the riff-raff in the flyover,
See the sort of bigoted language you are using?
>why aren't
>the riff-raff in the flyover "anti-American" for feeling morally superior
>to those on the coasts? It appears you are buying into Sarah Palin's
>belief every Bubba in a pick-up truck is automatically more American than
>every lawyer in a Beemer. It's just not true. Never was. Never will be.
>
The "Bubba" (not stereotypical language) is more American than the
lawyer with the Beemer. The lawyer with the Beemer lives a life of
resentment over the fact that he and his friends don't rule this
country.
The "Bubba" simply wants to live his life.
You really ought to admit that your politically correct friends don't
much like America. And they dislike America because of the
*egalitarian* nature of the country.
They don't rule the way they think they should.
They resent that.
And they hate people who frustrate them by voting Republican.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
wrote:
>On Thursday, July 5, 2012 5:32:53 PM UTC-7, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 5 Jul 2012 20:21:03 -0400, "pjsp...@AOL.COM"
>>
>> >
>> >Do you really believe this stuff? My gosh, I sure hope not. How is it that
>> >you get all up in arms when someone suggests that old-fashioned racism
>> >underlies much of modern "conservatism," but then claim people like Sorkin
>> >"hate" America?
>>
>> Because modern conservatism is not racist, but Sorkin is really an
>> anti-American bigot.
>>
>> Listen to the clip.
>>
>> I *would* call racist anybody who engaged in an anti-black tirade like
>> the anti-U.S. tirade in the Sorkin show.
>
>I watched the show. It was very patriotic. In fact, everything I've ever
>seen by Sorkin is patriotic. He seems to believe that there are problems
>with the country but that these problems can be overcome through
>democratic action and education. This is a mainstream opinion. Why do you
>have a problem with this? You can't possibly believe everything is fine
>and dandy.
>
He believes that American is inferior to foreign nations that are
>> >you get all up in arms when someone suggests that old-fashioned racism
>> >underlies much of modern "conservatism," but then claim people like Sorkin
>> >"hate" America?
>>
>> Because modern conservatism is not racist, but Sorkin is really an
>> anti-American bigot.
>>
>> Listen to the clip.
>>
>> I *would* call racist anybody who engaged in an anti-black tirade like
>> the anti-U.S. tirade in the Sorkin show.
>
>I watched the show. It was very patriotic. In fact, everything I've ever
>seen by Sorkin is patriotic. He seems to believe that there are problems
>with the country but that these problems can be overcome through
>democratic action and education. This is a mainstream opinion. Why do you
>have a problem with this? You can't possibly believe everything is fine
>and dandy.
>
socialist, and are secular, and that we should be more socialist and
secular.
That is *not* mainstream opinion, except among your politically
correct buddies.
>>
>>
>> >
>> >Assuming he is a liberal, and someone who dislikes the Tea Party, etc, how
>> >does his disliking one aspect of current America make him "an
>> >anti-American bigot?"
>> >
>>
>> He dislikes America *in general.*
>
>Where do you get this from? I seriously doubt you have anything to support
>this.
>
http://newsbusters.org/sites/default/files/2012-06-24-HBO-NEWSROOM-DANIELS.mp3
>>
>> Saying one disagrees with the Tea Party isn't necessarily bigoted.
>> Calling them "racist" is bigoted.
>
>Not at all. It can not reasonably be disputed that many in the Tea Party
>are as inspired by their fear of Obama--and his 'otherness"--as they are his
>politics.
BTW, below you reveal a bias against people you consider the "other."
>I suspect you are a long time conservative, and wish to believe
>many of those calling for Obama's removal are inspired by ideology. I don't
>see it that way.
All are *political* disagreements.
>The people I've met who are strongly against Obama have
>stated that 1) they're not sure he's a real American,
>2) they think he's a
>socialist,
He told Charlie Gibson during a 2008 debate that "fairness" requires
higher capital gains taxes *even though* it would reduce revenue.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xlv7yv_obama-raise-taxes-capital-gains-for-purposes-of-fairness-2008_news
>3) they think he's in bed with Wall Street,
>4) they think he
>wants to socialize medicine,
single-payer health care system. That's Canadian style socialized
medicine.
>5) they think he wants to take away their medicare,
through private insurance companies, and he's hostile to the private
sector.
>and 6) he wants to take away their guns.
expedient to say that now doesn't change that fact.
>These positions are mutually
>exclusive and are reflective of incredibly muddy thinking.
the people you are demeaning know perfectly well where his heart is.
>Underlying it all
>is that they just don't trust him, in a way that they've never not trusted
>a politician before.
>
>So why do you think that is....hmmm. Plenty of them will tell you if you
>really want to listen. My aunt buys into all the anti-Obama nonsense, and
>forwards me the emails she receives from her supposedly mainstream
>all=American friends. A number of these have ended with comments akin to
>"Obama has darkened the White House--it's time to make it white again."
>Real subtle.
>
interpret racially. But the vast majority of opposition to Obama
comes from disagreement with his policies.
You really need to be more tolerant, and accept the fact that a lot of
people in the U.S. disagree with your liberal policy preferences.
Calling everybody who disagrees with you "racist" is a nasty tactic.
>> Disagreeing with Barack Obama is not necessarily racist. Calling him
>> the n-word would be racist.
>>
>> Can you see some distinctions here?
>>
>> Or are they too subtle for you?
>>
>>
>> >There can be NO DOUBT that the American people, in 2008, voted
>> >overwhelmingly for a black man, with mostly liberal values. Were those
>> >upset by this "anti-American bigots?" If not, why not?
>> >
>>
>> Huh?
>>
>
>What? Too subtle for you? If elitists on the coasts are "anti-American"
>for looking down their noses at the riff-raff in the flyover,
>why aren't
>the riff-raff in the flyover "anti-American" for feeling morally superior
>to those on the coasts? It appears you are buying into Sarah Palin's
>belief every Bubba in a pick-up truck is automatically more American than
>every lawyer in a Beemer. It's just not true. Never was. Never will be.
>
lawyer with the Beemer. The lawyer with the Beemer lives a life of
resentment over the fact that he and his friends don't rule this
country.
The "Bubba" simply wants to live his life.
You really ought to admit that your politically correct friends don't
much like America. And they dislike America because of the
*egalitarian* nature of the country.
They don't rule the way they think they should.
They resent that.
And they hate people who frustrate them by voting Republican.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Sandy McCroskey
Jul 6, 2012, 2:18:13 PM7/6/12
to
> BTW, below you reveal a bias against people you consider the "other."
>
>
>> I suspect you are a long time conservative, and wish to believe
>> many of those calling for Obama's removal are inspired by ideology. I don't
>> see it that way.
>
> But look at the list of positions you assign to the Tea Party (below).
> All are *political* disagreements.
>
>
>> The people I've met who are strongly against Obama have
>> stated that 1) they're not sure he's a real American,
>
> Depends on what one means by "real American."
>
Is there a definition of that term to which you would ascribe?
Does your definition happen to agree with the Tea Party's?
>
>> 2) they think he's a
>> socialist,
>
> He told Joe the Plumber that he wanted to "spread the wealth around."
>
> He told Charlie Gibson during a 2008 debate that "fairness" requires
> higher capital gains taxes *even though* it would reduce revenue.
>
> http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xlv7yv_obama-raise-taxes-capital-gains-for-purposes-of-fairness-2008_news
>
>> 3) they think he's in bed with Wall Street,
>
> Oh, my! Have you looked at who contributes money to him?
>
Wall Street is socialist?
Obama is a "socialist" only to the extent that elements of socialism are
unblinkingly accepted as part of virtually all developed economies. He's
socialist only inasmuch as Medicare is socialist.
If he weren't in bed with Wall Street, maybe he'd really go after
single-payer. He didn't fight for it at any stage in the negotiations
that led to the ACA, whose final form was negotiated with the private
insurance industry.
>
>> 4) they think he
>> wants to socialize medicine,
>
> In the early 2000, he quite forthrightly said he favored a
> single-payer health care system. That's Canadian style socialized
> medicine.
>
>
>> 5) they think he wants to take away their medicare,
>
> He certainly wanted to take away Medicare Advantage, since that is run
> through private insurance companies, and he's hostile to the private
> sector.
>
>
>> and 6) he wants to take away their guns.
>
> He admitted as much in the 1990s. The fact that it's not politically
> expedient to say that now doesn't change that fact.
>
>
>
>> These positions are mutually
>> exclusive and are reflective of incredibly muddy thinking.
>
> You mean Obama's positions?
admittedly facilely, summed up in a supporter's placard that read "Keep
the Government Out of my Medicare!"
> No, he's just the standard liberal, and
> the people you are demeaning know perfectly well where his heart is.
>
Unlike those noble Tea Partiers.
Well, now we're really getting somewhere in this "discussion."
>
>> Underlying it all
>> is that they just don't trust him, in a way that they've never not trusted
>> a politician before.
>>
>> So why do you think that is....hmmm. Plenty of them will tell you if you
>> really want to listen. My aunt buys into all the anti-Obama nonsense, and
>> forwards me the emails she receives from her supposedly mainstream
>> all=American friends. A number of these have ended with comments akin to
>> "Obama has darkened the White House--it's time to make it white again."
>> Real subtle.
>>
>
> If you are *very* selective, you can always find something to
> interpret racially.
literal, there could really be any chance of misinterpretation?
Such a phrase fairly leaps out at the reader; there's no need to be
"selective" to find it disturbing.
> But the vast majority of opposition to Obama
> comes from disagreement with his policies.
>
> You really need to be more tolerant, and accept the fact that a lot of
> people in the U.S. disagree with your liberal policy preferences.
> Calling everybody who disagrees with you "racist" is a nasty tactic.
>
>>> Disagreeing with Barack Obama is not necessarily racist. Calling him
>>> the n-word would be racist.
>>>
>>> Can you see some distinctions here?
>>>
>>> Or are they too subtle for you?
>>>
>>>
>>>> There can be NO DOUBT that the American people, in 2008, voted
>>>> overwhelmingly for a black man, with mostly liberal values. Were those
>>>> upset by this "anti-American bigots?" If not, why not?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Huh?
>>>
>>
>> What? Too subtle for you? If elitists on the coasts are "anti-American"
>> for looking down their noses at the riff-raff in the flyover,
>
> See the sort of bigoted language you are using?
>
Pat is using that language ("elitists" and "riff-raff") parodically, to
typify the supposedly prevalent attitudes, respectively, of
middle-Americans and those on the coasts. Do you really not see that?
>> why aren't
>> the riff-raff in the flyover "anti-American" for feeling morally superior
>> to those on the coasts? It appears you are buying into Sarah Palin's
>> belief every Bubba in a pick-up truck is automatically more American than
>> every lawyer in a Beemer. It's just not true. Never was. Never will be.
>>
>
> The "Bubba" (not stereotypical language) is more American than the
> lawyer with the Beemer. The lawyer with the Beemer lives a life of
> resentment over the fact that he and his friends don't rule this
> country.
drives that brand of automobile, *before* you ever make his or her
acquaintance?
Nothing you say about "bigotry" can ever be taken seriously again.
>
> The "Bubba" simply wants to live his life.
>
He can have any qualities you desire, because you're not specifying a
real person but your own conceptual construct.
So you're surely on solid scientific ground.
> You really ought to admit that your politically correct friends don't
> much like America. And they dislike America because of the
> *egalitarian* nature of the country.
>
Republican.
> They don't rule the way they think they should.
>
> They resent that.
>
> And they hate people who frustrate them by voting Republican.
>
limited to my sister and brother) and I don't hate any of them.
I'm just afraid a lot of those folks are cutting off their noses to
spite their faces.
/sandy
spite their faces.
/sandy
John McAdams
Jul 6, 2012, 2:22:50 PM7/6/12
to
>What? Too subtle for you? If elitists on the coasts are "anti-American"
>for looking down their noses at the riff-raff in the flyover, why aren't
>the riff-raff in the flyover "anti-American" for feeling morally superior
>to those on the coasts? It appears you are buying into Sarah Palin's
>belief every Bubba in a pick-up truck is automatically more American than
>every lawyer in a Beemer. It's just not true. Never was. Never will be.
>
Look at it this way, Pat.
>for looking down their noses at the riff-raff in the flyover, why aren't
>the riff-raff in the flyover "anti-American" for feeling morally superior
>to those on the coasts? It appears you are buying into Sarah Palin's
>belief every Bubba in a pick-up truck is automatically more American than
>every lawyer in a Beemer. It's just not true. Never was. Never will be.
>
If Klan types hate blacks, and blacks hate the Klan, are they morally
equivalent?
The answer is no, because blacks didn't *start out* with any hostility
toward the persons who turned out to be Klansmen. They simply
*responded* to the hatred of the Klan.
Same in this case. Patriotic Americans didn't start out hating the
elites like Sorkin. But when they began to notice that the elites
hate them, they resented it.
Fair enough.
John McAdams
Jul 6, 2012, 2:41:23 PM7/6/12
to
On 6 Jul 2012 14:18:13 -0400, Sandy McCroskey
Obama is a typical liberal elitist, and people sense that.
>> BTW, below you reveal a bias against people you consider the "other."
>>
>>
>>> I suspect you are a long time conservative, and wish to believe
>>> many of those calling for Obama's removal are inspired by ideology. I don't
>>> see it that way.
>>
>> But look at the list of positions you assign to the Tea Party (below).
>> All are *political* disagreements.
>>
>>
>>> The people I've met who are strongly against Obama have
>>> stated that 1) they're not sure he's a real American,
>>
>> Depends on what one means by "real American."
>>
>
>It does, indeed.
>
>Is there a definition of that term to which you would ascribe?
>
>Does your definition happen to agree with the Tea Party's?
>
>
Indeed it does. Real Americans rather like their country. They don't
live in a state of constant resentment because they think they deserve
to *rule* America, and are frustrated that people they consider their
inferiors have power.
>>
>>> 2) they think he's a
>>> socialist,
>>
>> He told Joe the Plumber that he wanted to "spread the wealth around."
>>
>> He told Charlie Gibson during a 2008 debate that "fairness" requires
>> higher capital gains taxes *even though* it would reduce revenue.
>>
>> http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xlv7yv_obama-raise-taxes-capital-gains-for-purposes-of-fairness-2008_news
>>
>>> 3) they think he's in bed with Wall Street,
>>
>> Oh, my! Have you looked at who contributes money to him?
>>
>
>So which is it? He's a socialist, or he's in bed with Wall Street?
>Wall Street is socialist?
>
In fact, socialism and crony capitalism are not very different.
Democrats prefer both to free markets.
>Obama is a "socialist" only to the extent that elements of socialism are
>unblinkingly accepted as part of virtually all developed economies. He's
>socialist only inasmuch as Medicare is socialist.
>
So you think America should be more socialist, like "virtually all
developed economies."
Thank you for making my point.
>If he weren't in bed with Wall Street, maybe he'd really go after
>single-payer. He didn't fight for it at any stage in the negotiations
>that led to the ACA, whose final form was negotiated with the private
>insurance industry.
>
He had no choice, since in America socialists are not that numerous.
What he was saying in the early 2000s was that he *wanted* single
payer.
Socialized medicine, in other words. What you folks at THE NATION
wanted.
>
>>
>>> 4) they think he
>>> wants to socialize medicine,
>>
>> In the early 2000, he quite forthrightly said he favored a
>> single-payer health care system. That's Canadian style socialized
>> medicine.
>>
>>
>>> 5) they think he wants to take away their medicare,
>>
>> He certainly wanted to take away Medicare Advantage, since that is run
>> through private insurance companies, and he's hostile to the private
>> sector.
>>
>
>See above.
>
He doesn't like the private sector. He doesn't like free markets.
>>
>>> and 6) he wants to take away their guns.
>>
>> He admitted as much in the 1990s. The fact that it's not politically
>> expedient to say that now doesn't change that fact.
>>
>>
>>
>>> These positions are mutually
>>> exclusive and are reflective of incredibly muddy thinking.
>>
>> You mean Obama's positions?
>
>No, he means the Tea Party's ideological incoherence, memorably, if
>admittedly facilely, summed up in a supporter's placard that read "Keep
>the Government Out of my Medicare!"
>
There is no incoherence in believing that people who have paid taxes
for Medicare should not have to surrender the benefits for Obama's
socialist experiment.
Remember, ObamaCare was supposed to cut a *half-trillion* dollars from
Medicare. Remember, Obama's bureaucrats have the power to deny
treatment to people on Medicare.
>> No, he's just the standard liberal, and
>> the people you are demeaning know perfectly well where his heart is.
>>
>
>Liberals are dark-hearted folks, eh?
>Unlike those noble Tea Partiers.
>Well, now we're really getting somewhere in this "discussion."
>
No, you are just engaged in a diversion.
>
>>
>>> Underlying it all
>>> is that they just don't trust him, in a way that they've never not trusted
>>> a politician before.
>>>
>>> So why do you think that is....hmmm. Plenty of them will tell you if you
>>> really want to listen. My aunt buys into all the anti-Obama nonsense, and
>>> forwards me the emails she receives from her supposedly mainstream
>>> all=American friends. A number of these have ended with comments akin to
>>> "Obama has darkened the White House--it's time to make it white again."
>>> Real subtle.
>>>
>>
>> If you are *very* selective, you can always find something to
>> interpret racially.
>
>Do you really think that in the case described, if this description is
>literal, there could really be any chance of misinterpretation?
>
>Such a phrase fairly leaps out at the reader; there's no need to be
>"selective" to find it disturbing.
>
There is a need to select, out of thousands of anti-Obama statements,
some of the very few that can be interpreted racially.
You folks really lack tolerance for people who have different
opinions. You can't admit that anybody but a racist could not see
issues the way you do.
>
>> But the vast majority of opposition to Obama
>> comes from disagreement with his policies.
>>
>
>
>
>> You really need to be more tolerant, and accept the fact that a lot of
>> people in the U.S. disagree with your liberal policy preferences.
>> Calling everybody who disagrees with you "racist" is a nasty tactic.
>>
>>>> Disagreeing with Barack Obama is not necessarily racist. Calling him
>>>> the n-word would be racist.
>>>>
>>>> Can you see some distinctions here?
>>>>
>>>> Or are they too subtle for you?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> There can be NO DOUBT that the American people, in 2008, voted
>>>>> overwhelmingly for a black man, with mostly liberal values. Were those
>>>>> upset by this "anti-American bigots?" If not, why not?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Huh?
>>>>
>>>
>>> What? Too subtle for you? If elitists on the coasts are "anti-American"
>>> for looking down their noses at the riff-raff in the flyover,
>>
>> See the sort of bigoted language you are using?
>>
>
>That's rather his *point*.
>Pat is using that language ("elitists" and "riff-raff") parodically, to
>typify the supposedly prevalent attitudes, respectively, of
>middle-Americans and those on the coasts. Do you really not see that?
>
It's hard to see it as parody when you so obviously *agrees* with the
coastal elitists.
>
>>> why aren't
>>> the riff-raff in the flyover "anti-American" for feeling morally superior
>>> to those on the coasts? It appears you are buying into Sarah Palin's
>>> belief every Bubba in a pick-up truck is automatically more American than
>>> every lawyer in a Beemer. It's just not true. Never was. Never will be.
>>>
>>
>> The "Bubba" (not stereotypical language) is more American than the
>> lawyer with the Beemer. The lawyer with the Beemer lives a life of
>> resentment over the fact that he and his friends don't rule this
>> country.
>
>Let me get this straight. This is your opinion of *any* lawyer who
>drives that brand of automobile, *before* you ever make his or her
>acquaintance?
>
I was accepting Pat's rhetorical figure. I'm a social scientist. I
know perfectly well that lifestyle correlates with political views,
but not perfectly.
But I simply went along with Pat's literary conceit.
>Nothing you say about "bigotry" can ever be taken seriously again.
>
Nothing you or Pat say about bigotry can ever be taken seriously
Certain elites hate certain kinds of people, whom they see as the
"other."
You know this perfectly well, since your coworkers at THE NATION have
*exactly* these kinds of attitudes.
>> You really ought to admit that your politically correct friends don't
>> much like America. And they dislike America because of the
>> *egalitarian* nature of the country.
>>
>
>I find this highly ironic, coming from a twenty-first-century American
>Republican.
>
You and your NATION associates absolutely *resent* the equality of
American life, because you think you deserve to rule this country.
But you have to compete for power with people you define as the
"other." People who are successful in business. Christians. People
who don't want to pay higher taxes. People who vote Republican.
People who drive SUVs or shop at Wal-Mart.
You are, in other words, elitists.
Sure, you would like to "level down" a competing business elite. But
the *social* and *political* equality of American life is something
you folks hate.
>
>> They don't rule the way they think they should.
>>
>> They resent that.
>>
>> And they hate people who frustrate them by voting Republican.
>>
>
>
>I actually know a few people who vote Republican (including but not
>limited to my sister and brother) and I don't hate any of them.
>I'm just afraid a lot of those folks are cutting off their noses to
>spite their faces.
>
And of course, you think you understand their interests better than
they do.
Thank you for making my point.
<gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On 7/6/12 10:54 AM, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 6 Jul 2012 10:33:36 -0400, "pjsp...@AOL.COM" <pjsp...@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> Saying one disagrees with the Tea Party isn't necessarily bigoted.
>>>> Calling them "racist" is bigoted.
>>>
>>> Not at all. It can not reasonably be disputed that many in the Tea Party
>>> are as inspired by their fear of Obama--and his 'otherness"--as they are his
>>> politics.
>>
>> His "otherness" *is* his politics.
>>
>
>Oh, my.
>
>
Oh, my right back at you.
>On 7/6/12 10:54 AM, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 6 Jul 2012 10:33:36 -0400, "pjsp...@AOL.COM" <pjsp...@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> Saying one disagrees with the Tea Party isn't necessarily bigoted.
>>>> Calling them "racist" is bigoted.
>>>
>>> Not at all. It can not reasonably be disputed that many in the Tea Party
>>> are as inspired by their fear of Obama--and his 'otherness"--as they are his
>>> politics.
>>
>> His "otherness" *is* his politics.
>>
>
>Oh, my.
>
>
Obama is a typical liberal elitist, and people sense that.
>> BTW, below you reveal a bias against people you consider the "other."
>>
>>
>>> I suspect you are a long time conservative, and wish to believe
>>> many of those calling for Obama's removal are inspired by ideology. I don't
>>> see it that way.
>>
>> But look at the list of positions you assign to the Tea Party (below).
>> All are *political* disagreements.
>>
>>
>>> The people I've met who are strongly against Obama have
>>> stated that 1) they're not sure he's a real American,
>>
>> Depends on what one means by "real American."
>>
>
>It does, indeed.
>
>Is there a definition of that term to which you would ascribe?
>
>Does your definition happen to agree with the Tea Party's?
>
>
live in a state of constant resentment because they think they deserve
to *rule* America, and are frustrated that people they consider their
inferiors have power.
>>
>>> 2) they think he's a
>>> socialist,
>>
>> He told Joe the Plumber that he wanted to "spread the wealth around."
>>
>> He told Charlie Gibson during a 2008 debate that "fairness" requires
>> higher capital gains taxes *even though* it would reduce revenue.
>>
>> http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xlv7yv_obama-raise-taxes-capital-gains-for-purposes-of-fairness-2008_news
>>
>>> 3) they think he's in bed with Wall Street,
>>
>> Oh, my! Have you looked at who contributes money to him?
>>
>
>So which is it? He's a socialist, or he's in bed with Wall Street?
>Wall Street is socialist?
>
Democrats prefer both to free markets.
>Obama is a "socialist" only to the extent that elements of socialism are
>unblinkingly accepted as part of virtually all developed economies. He's
>socialist only inasmuch as Medicare is socialist.
>
developed economies."
Thank you for making my point.
>If he weren't in bed with Wall Street, maybe he'd really go after
>single-payer. He didn't fight for it at any stage in the negotiations
>that led to the ACA, whose final form was negotiated with the private
>insurance industry.
>
What he was saying in the early 2000s was that he *wanted* single
payer.
Socialized medicine, in other words. What you folks at THE NATION
wanted.
>
>>
>>> 4) they think he
>>> wants to socialize medicine,
>>
>> In the early 2000, he quite forthrightly said he favored a
>> single-payer health care system. That's Canadian style socialized
>> medicine.
>>
>>
>>> 5) they think he wants to take away their medicare,
>>
>> He certainly wanted to take away Medicare Advantage, since that is run
>> through private insurance companies, and he's hostile to the private
>> sector.
>>
>
>See above.
>
>>
>>> and 6) he wants to take away their guns.
>>
>> He admitted as much in the 1990s. The fact that it's not politically
>> expedient to say that now doesn't change that fact.
>>
>>
>>
>>> These positions are mutually
>>> exclusive and are reflective of incredibly muddy thinking.
>>
>> You mean Obama's positions?
>
>No, he means the Tea Party's ideological incoherence, memorably, if
>admittedly facilely, summed up in a supporter's placard that read "Keep
>the Government Out of my Medicare!"
>
for Medicare should not have to surrender the benefits for Obama's
socialist experiment.
Remember, ObamaCare was supposed to cut a *half-trillion* dollars from
Medicare. Remember, Obama's bureaucrats have the power to deny
treatment to people on Medicare.
>> No, he's just the standard liberal, and
>> the people you are demeaning know perfectly well where his heart is.
>>
>
>Liberals are dark-hearted folks, eh?
>Unlike those noble Tea Partiers.
>Well, now we're really getting somewhere in this "discussion."
>
>
>>
>>> Underlying it all
>>> is that they just don't trust him, in a way that they've never not trusted
>>> a politician before.
>>>
>>> So why do you think that is....hmmm. Plenty of them will tell you if you
>>> really want to listen. My aunt buys into all the anti-Obama nonsense, and
>>> forwards me the emails she receives from her supposedly mainstream
>>> all=American friends. A number of these have ended with comments akin to
>>> "Obama has darkened the White House--it's time to make it white again."
>>> Real subtle.
>>>
>>
>> If you are *very* selective, you can always find something to
>> interpret racially.
>
>Do you really think that in the case described, if this description is
>literal, there could really be any chance of misinterpretation?
>
>Such a phrase fairly leaps out at the reader; there's no need to be
>"selective" to find it disturbing.
>
some of the very few that can be interpreted racially.
You folks really lack tolerance for people who have different
opinions. You can't admit that anybody but a racist could not see
issues the way you do.
>
>> But the vast majority of opposition to Obama
>> comes from disagreement with his policies.
>>
>
>
>
>> You really need to be more tolerant, and accept the fact that a lot of
>> people in the U.S. disagree with your liberal policy preferences.
>> Calling everybody who disagrees with you "racist" is a nasty tactic.
>>
>>>> Disagreeing with Barack Obama is not necessarily racist. Calling him
>>>> the n-word would be racist.
>>>>
>>>> Can you see some distinctions here?
>>>>
>>>> Or are they too subtle for you?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> There can be NO DOUBT that the American people, in 2008, voted
>>>>> overwhelmingly for a black man, with mostly liberal values. Were those
>>>>> upset by this "anti-American bigots?" If not, why not?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Huh?
>>>>
>>>
>>> What? Too subtle for you? If elitists on the coasts are "anti-American"
>>> for looking down their noses at the riff-raff in the flyover,
>>
>> See the sort of bigoted language you are using?
>>
>
>That's rather his *point*.
>Pat is using that language ("elitists" and "riff-raff") parodically, to
>typify the supposedly prevalent attitudes, respectively, of
>middle-Americans and those on the coasts. Do you really not see that?
>
coastal elitists.
>
>>> why aren't
>>> the riff-raff in the flyover "anti-American" for feeling morally superior
>>> to those on the coasts? It appears you are buying into Sarah Palin's
>>> belief every Bubba in a pick-up truck is automatically more American than
>>> every lawyer in a Beemer. It's just not true. Never was. Never will be.
>>>
>>
>> The "Bubba" (not stereotypical language) is more American than the
>> lawyer with the Beemer. The lawyer with the Beemer lives a life of
>> resentment over the fact that he and his friends don't rule this
>> country.
>
>Let me get this straight. This is your opinion of *any* lawyer who
>drives that brand of automobile, *before* you ever make his or her
>acquaintance?
>
know perfectly well that lifestyle correlates with political views,
but not perfectly.
But I simply went along with Pat's literary conceit.
>Nothing you say about "bigotry" can ever be taken seriously again.
>
again.
>>
>> The "Bubba" simply wants to live his life.
>>
>
>Please, more details about this mythological creature.
>He can have any qualities you desire, because you're not specifying a
>real person but your own conceptual construct.
>So you're surely on solid scientific ground.
>
I don't understand your point.
>>
>> The "Bubba" simply wants to live his life.
>>
>
>Please, more details about this mythological creature.
>He can have any qualities you desire, because you're not specifying a
>real person but your own conceptual construct.
>So you're surely on solid scientific ground.
>
Certain elites hate certain kinds of people, whom they see as the
"other."
You know this perfectly well, since your coworkers at THE NATION have
*exactly* these kinds of attitudes.
>> You really ought to admit that your politically correct friends don't
>> much like America. And they dislike America because of the
>> *egalitarian* nature of the country.
>>
>
>I find this highly ironic, coming from a twenty-first-century American
>Republican.
>
American life, because you think you deserve to rule this country.
But you have to compete for power with people you define as the
"other." People who are successful in business. Christians. People
who don't want to pay higher taxes. People who vote Republican.
People who drive SUVs or shop at Wal-Mart.
You are, in other words, elitists.
Sure, you would like to "level down" a competing business elite. But
the *social* and *political* equality of American life is something
you folks hate.
>
>> They don't rule the way they think they should.
>>
>> They resent that.
>>
>> And they hate people who frustrate them by voting Republican.
>>
>
>
>I actually know a few people who vote Republican (including but not
>limited to my sister and brother) and I don't hate any of them.
>I'm just afraid a lot of those folks are cutting off their noses to
>spite their faces.
>
they do.
Thank you for making my point.
bigdog
Jul 6, 2012, 2:42:21 PM7/6/12
to
On Jul 6, 10:54 am, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> On 6 Jul 2012 10:33:36 -0400, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@aol.com>
ownership. Of course the mayor of Chicago is protected by gun toting
bodyguards 24/7 but ordinary citizens of Chicago aren't deserving of that
same protection for themselves or the families. At least not until SCOTUS
intervened and gave them some relief.
The is no doubt Obama has a complete anti-gun rights bias which he has for
now put on the back burner because he knows it is a political loser. If
re-elected and no longer concerned with the political consequences of such
a stance, he will show his true colors. Just as he told the Russian
President he would be in a better position to deal after the election, he
will also be in a better position to cater to his gun grabbing cronies
like Chuck U. Schumer, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein and the rest. As bad
as Obama has been in his first term on a wide range of issues, the worst
is yet to come if gets a second act.
> On 6 Jul 2012 10:33:36 -0400, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >and 6) he wants to take away their guns.
>
> He admitted as much in the 1990s. The fact that it's not politically
> expedient to say that now doesn't change that fact.
>
Obama more recently fully supported Chicago's complete ban on handgun
>
> >and 6) he wants to take away their guns.
>
> He admitted as much in the 1990s. The fact that it's not politically
> expedient to say that now doesn't change that fact.
>
ownership. Of course the mayor of Chicago is protected by gun toting
bodyguards 24/7 but ordinary citizens of Chicago aren't deserving of that
same protection for themselves or the families. At least not until SCOTUS
intervened and gave them some relief.
The is no doubt Obama has a complete anti-gun rights bias which he has for
now put on the back burner because he knows it is a political loser. If
re-elected and no longer concerned with the political consequences of such
a stance, he will show his true colors. Just as he told the Russian
President he would be in a better position to deal after the election, he
will also be in a better position to cater to his gun grabbing cronies
like Chuck U. Schumer, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein and the rest. As bad
as Obama has been in his first term on a wide range of issues, the worst
is yet to come if gets a second act.
John McAdams
Jul 6, 2012, 2:44:19 PM7/6/12
to
that conservatives and the Tea Party correctly perceive Obama's
leftist politics.
In reality, they know perfectly well that Obama is just a standard
leftist, since THEY THEMSELVES are standard leftists.
Of course, as a standard leftist, Obama would like to take people's
guns.
Bill Clarke
Jul 6, 2012, 9:36:35 PM7/6/12
to
In article <4ff7319a....@news.supernews.com>, John McAdams says...
He won't get mine. Texas would probably secede over that move.
I think the reason the left wing ding-a-lings fear our guns so much is
that deep inside they know they should be shot because of their
socialism/communistic crap. They fear we are going to shoot their silly
asses.
I?m an old fat man. I can no longer fight. I can no longer run. But I
can still defend myself and my family. And I will.
Bill Clarke
I think the reason the left wing ding-a-lings fear our guns so much is
that deep inside they know they should be shot because of their
socialism/communistic crap. They fear we are going to shoot their silly
asses.
I?m an old fat man. I can no longer fight. I can no longer run. But I
can still defend myself and my family. And I will.
Bill Clarke
Sandy McCroskey
Jul 6, 2012, 9:39:24 PM7/6/12
to
away everybody's guns. Now, I don't see how a private citizen has any need
for assault weapons, either, but just let me know when you're interested
in hearing a nuanced position on anything.
/sm
John McAdams
Jul 6, 2012, 9:40:40 PM7/6/12
to
On 6 Jul 2012 21:39:24 -0400, Sandy McCroskey
Did you favor or oppose the gun laws in DC and Chicago that the
Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional?
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional?
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Sandy McCroskey
Jul 6, 2012, 9:43:50 PM7/6/12
to
I do find myself wishing at times that America was more secular, but
there are also things about the American system that I prefer to any in
Europe. On the other hand, yet again, the death penalty is barbaric.
>
>> If he weren't in bed with Wall Street, maybe he'd really go after
>> single-payer. He didn't fight for it at any stage in the negotiations
>> that led to the ACA, whose final form was negotiated with the private
>> insurance industry.
>>
>
> He had no choice, since in America socialists are not that numerous.
> What he was saying in the early 2000s was that he *wanted* single
> payer.
>
> Socialized medicine, in other words. What you folks at THE NATION
> wanted.
>
>>
>>>
>>>> 4) they think he
>>>> wants to socialize medicine,
>>>
>>> In the early 2000, he quite forthrightly said he favored a
>>> single-payer health care system. That's Canadian style socialized
>>> medicine.
>>>
>>>
>>>> 5) they think he wants to take away their medicare,
>>>
>>> He certainly wanted to take away Medicare Advantage, since that is run
>>> through private insurance companies, and he's hostile to the private
>>> sector.
>>>
>>
>> See above.
>>
>
> He doesn't like the private sector. He doesn't like free markets.
>
You don't think he wikes the same fings you wike. Boo-hoo.
>
>>>
>>>> and 6) he wants to take away their guns.
>>>
>>> He admitted as much in the 1990s. The fact that it's not politically
>>> expedient to say that now doesn't change that fact.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> These positions are mutually
>>>> exclusive and are reflective of incredibly muddy thinking.
>>>
>>> You mean Obama's positions?
>>
>> No, he means the Tea Party's ideological incoherence, memorably, if
>> admittedly facilely, summed up in a supporter's placard that read "Keep
>> the Government Out of my Medicare!"
>>
>
> There is no incoherence in believing that people who have paid taxes
> for Medicare should not have to surrender the benefits for Obama's
> socialist experiment.
>
> Remember, ObamaCare was supposed to cut a *half-trillion* dollars from
> Medicare. Remember, Obama's bureaucrats have the power to deny
> treatment to people on Medicare.
>
>>> No, he's just the standard liberal, and
>>> the people you are demeaning know perfectly well where his heart is.
>>>
>>
>> Liberals are dark-hearted folks, eh?
>> Unlike those noble Tea Partiers.
>> Well, now we're really getting somewhere in this "discussion."
>>
>
> No, you are just engaged in a diversion.
>
liberal) heart. Like Bush looking into Putin's eyes and seeing his soul?
>
>>
>>>
>>>> Underlying it all
>>>> is that they just don't trust him, in a way that they've never not trusted
>>>> a politician before.
>>>>
>>>> So why do you think that is....hmmm. Plenty of them will tell you if you
>>>> really want to listen. My aunt buys into all the anti-Obama nonsense, and
>>>> forwards me the emails she receives from her supposedly mainstream
>>>> all=American friends. A number of these have ended with comments akin to
>>>> "Obama has darkened the White House--it's time to make it white again."
>>>> Real subtle.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If you are *very* selective, you can always find something to
>>> interpret racially.
>>
>> Do you really think that in the case described, if this description is
>> literal, there could really be any chance of misinterpretation?
>>
>> Such a phrase fairly leaps out at the reader; there's no need to be
>> "selective" to find it disturbing.
>>
>
> There is a need to select, out of thousands of anti-Obama statements,
> some of the very few that can be interpreted racially.
>
> You folks really lack tolerance for people who have different
> opinions. You can't admit that anybody but a racist could not see
> issues the way you do.
>
Just those lines. Or approved them.
>>
>>> But the vast majority of opposition to Obama
>>> comes from disagreement with his policies.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> You really need to be more tolerant, and accept the fact that a lot of
>>> people in the U.S. disagree with your liberal policy preferences.
>>> Calling everybody who disagrees with you "racist" is a nasty tactic.
>>>
>>>>> Disagreeing with Barack Obama is not necessarily racist. Calling him
>>>>> the n-word would be racist.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you see some distinctions here?
>>>>>
>>>>> Or are they too subtle for you?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> There can be NO DOUBT that the American people, in 2008, voted
>>>>>> overwhelmingly for a black man, with mostly liberal values. Were those
>>>>>> upset by this "anti-American bigots?" If not, why not?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Huh?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What? Too subtle for you? If elitists on the coasts are "anti-American"
>>>> for looking down their noses at the riff-raff in the flyover,
>>>
>>> See the sort of bigoted language you are using?
>>>
>>
>> That's rather his *point*.
>> Pat is using that language ("elitists" and "riff-raff") parodically, to
>> typify the supposedly prevalent attitudes, respectively, of
>> middle-Americans and those on the coasts. Do you really not see that?
>>
>
> It's hard to see it as parody when you so obviously *agrees* with the
> coastal elitists.
>
He do?
I didn't think that was evident from what he wrote here. Seems rather an
assumption on your part.
>>
>>>> why aren't
>>>> the riff-raff in the flyover "anti-American" for feeling morally superior
>>>> to those on the coasts? It appears you are buying into Sarah Palin's
>>>> belief every Bubba in a pick-up truck is automatically more American than
>>>> every lawyer in a Beemer. It's just not true. Never was. Never will be.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The "Bubba" (not stereotypical language) is more American than the
>>> lawyer with the Beemer. The lawyer with the Beemer lives a life of
>>> resentment over the fact that he and his friends don't rule this
>>> country.
>>
>> Let me get this straight. This is your opinion of *any* lawyer who
>> drives that brand of automobile, *before* you ever make his or her
>> acquaintance?
>>
>
> I was accepting Pat's rhetorical figure. I'm a social scientist. I
> know perfectly well that lifestyle correlates with political views,
> but not perfectly.
>
> But I simply went along with Pat's literary conceit.
>
>> Nothing you say about "bigotry" can ever be taken seriously again.
>>
>
> Nothing you or Pat say about bigotry can ever be taken seriously
> again.
Nothing I say about bigotry or anything remotely political has never had
any chance of being taken seriously by you in the first place.
>
>
>>>
>>> The "Bubba" simply wants to live his life.
>>>
>>
>> Please, more details about this mythological creature.
>> He can have any qualities you desire, because you're not specifying a
>> real person but your own conceptual construct.
>> So you're surely on solid scientific ground.
>>
>
> I don't understand your point.
>
> Certain elites hate certain kinds of people, whom they see as the
> "other."
>
> You know this perfectly well, since your coworkers at THE NATION have
> *exactly* these kinds of attitudes.
>
implicitly including myself, would never admit such attitudes to
themselves, if they/we actually had them. So how do you expect me to "know
this perfectly well"?
I could also tell you what attitudes I assume you to have, but I would not
expect you to see yourself in my depiction. I'm sure you would deny it,
and this would only get your back up. Such a frontal attack always invites
retaliation in the same futile terms.
I don't know, really, who it is you assume I hate. You'd be surprised by a
lot of things if you really knew me, that's for sure.
>
>>> You really ought to admit that your politically correct friends don't
>>> much like America. And they dislike America because of the
>>> *egalitarian* nature of the country.
>>>
>>
>> I find this highly ironic, coming from a twenty-first-century American
>> Republican.
>>
>
> You and your NATION associates absolutely *resent* the equality of
> American life, because you think you deserve to rule this country.
>
> But you have to compete for power with people you define as the
> "other." People who are successful in business. Christians. People
> who don't want to pay higher taxes. People who vote Republican.
> People who drive SUVs or shop at Wal-Mart.
>
> You are, in other words, elitists.
>
> Sure, you would like to "level down" a competing business elite. But
> the *social* and *political* equality of American life is something
> you folks hate.
>
hate it when a person is used like a tool, a thing, as a means rather than
an end in themselves (the Kantian definition of immorality) and when the
putative worth of a person can be summed up in a dollar figure.
I don't hate any class or group of people, no matter how confident you are
that you can read my lying liberal heart.
>
>>
>>> They don't rule the way they think they should.
>>>
>>> They resent that.
>>>
>>> And they hate people who frustrate them by voting Republican.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I actually know a few people who vote Republican (including but not
>> limited to my sister and brother) and I don't hate any of them.
>> I'm just afraid a lot of those folks are cutting off their noses to
>> spite their faces.
>>
>
> And of course, you think you understand their interests better than
> they do.
>
> Thank you for making my point.
they are dupes of the GOP. I'm sure you think Democrats who vote for Obama
are also duped. If they're not, then you should vote for him too, right?
Unless the difference is that you think Democrats vote for Obama because
they are just plain evil, that they have *bad* intentions that a vote for
Obama would perfectly further.
/sandy
John McAdams
Jul 6, 2012, 10:09:59 PM7/6/12
to
On 6 Jul 2012 21:43:50 -0400, Sandy McCroskey
published in peer-reviewed journals over the last 12 or 15 years show
that the death penalty deters murder.
So you can go with your subjective emotions, or go with protecting the
innocent.
>>
>>> If he weren't in bed with Wall Street, maybe he'd really go after
>>> single-payer. He didn't fight for it at any stage in the negotiations
>>> that led to the ACA, whose final form was negotiated with the private
>>> insurance industry.
>>>
>>
>> He had no choice, since in America socialists are not that numerous.
>> What he was saying in the early 2000s was that he *wanted* single
>> payer.
>>
>> Socialized medicine, in other words. What you folks at THE NATION
>> wanted.
>>
>
>Right on.
>
Thank you for again making my point.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 4) they think he
>>>>> wants to socialize medicine,
>>>>
>>>> In the early 2000, he quite forthrightly said he favored a
>>>> single-payer health care system. That's Canadian style socialized
>>>> medicine.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 5) they think he wants to take away their medicare,
>>>>
>>>> He certainly wanted to take away Medicare Advantage, since that is run
>>>> through private insurance companies, and he's hostile to the private
>>>> sector.
>>>>
>>>
>>> See above.
>>>
>>
>> He doesn't like the private sector. He doesn't like free markets.
>>
>
>Awww.
>You don't think he wikes the same fings you wike. Boo-hoo.
>
Awww.
The tea party doesn't wike the same things that you wike. Boo-hoo.
>>
>> No, you are just engaged in a diversion.
>>
>
>You're the one who claimed Tea-Partiers can read Obama's (cheating
>liberal) heart. Like Bush looking into Putin's eyes and seeing his soul?
>
No, just look at Obama's statements and actions.
He's a leftist. Just admit that.
You like him for that reason, although he's not far *enough* to the
left to make your buddies at THE NATION happy.
But if you have a right to vote for him because he's on the left, Tea
Party people have an equal right to vote against him because he's on
the left.
That *is* the thing about American politics that the Sorkins don't
like.
>>>>
>>>> If you are *very* selective, you can always find something to
>>>> interpret racially.
>>>
>>> Do you really think that in the case described, if this description is
>>> literal, there could really be any chance of misinterpretation?
>>>
>>> Such a phrase fairly leaps out at the reader; there's no need to be
>>> "selective" to find it disturbing.
>>>
>>
>> There is a need to select, out of thousands of anti-Obama statements,
>> some of the very few that can be interpreted racially.
>>
>
>Yet there they are (in repeated mailings, according to Pat).
>
Pat only quoted one message, and I don't trust liberals to properly
interpret things, given that they see a racist under every bed and
behind every bush.
>
>> You folks really lack tolerance for people who have different
>> opinions. You can't admit that anybody but a racist could not see
>> issues the way you do.
>>
>
>I merely say only a racist could have written the lines in question.
>Just those lines. Or approved them.
>
Or somebody who was insensitive in using "light" and "dark."
>>
>> It's hard to see it as parody when you so obviously *agrees* with the
>> coastal elitists.
>>
>
>I does?
>He do?
>I didn't think that was evident from what he wrote here. Seems rather an
>assumption on your part.
>
Sorry, I meant to say that *Pat* obviously agrees with the nasty
caricature.
>>>
>>
>> I was accepting Pat's rhetorical figure. I'm a social scientist. I
>> know perfectly well that lifestyle correlates with political views,
>> but not perfectly.
>>
>> But I simply went along with Pat's literary conceit.
>>
>>> Nothing you say about "bigotry" can ever be taken seriously again.
>>>
>>
>> Nothing you or Pat say about bigotry can ever be taken seriously
>> again.
>
>Ha ha.
>Nothing I say about bigotry or anything remotely political has never had
>any chance of being taken seriously by you in the first place.
>
Ha ha.
Nothing I say about bigotry or anything remotely political has never
had any chance of being taken seriously by you in the first place.
>>
elitist.
It's typical for people not to understand the attitudes that they
have. That's what the Marxian concept "ideology" means.
>I could also tell you what attitudes I assume you to have, but I would not
>expect you to see yourself in my depiction. I'm sure you would deny it,
>and this would only get your back up. Such a frontal attack always invites
>retaliation in the same futile terms.
>
I'll happily accept that you are more open-minded and tolerant than a
lot of liberals and leftists.
>I don't know, really, who it is you assume I hate. You'd be surprised by a
>lot of things if you really knew me, that's for sure.
>
Well, if I ever make it to NYC we can have a drink together and argue
politics.
>
>>
>>>> You really ought to admit that your politically correct friends don't
>>>> much like America. And they dislike America because of the
>>>> *egalitarian* nature of the country.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I find this highly ironic, coming from a twenty-first-century American
>>> Republican.
>>>
>>
>> You and your NATION associates absolutely *resent* the equality of
>> American life, because you think you deserve to rule this country.
>>
>> But you have to compete for power with people you define as the
>> "other." People who are successful in business. Christians. People
>> who don't want to pay higher taxes. People who vote Republican.
>> People who drive SUVs or shop at Wal-Mart.
>>
>> You are, in other words, elitists.
>>
>> Sure, you would like to "level down" a competing business elite. But
>> the *social* and *political* equality of American life is something
>> you folks hate.
>>
>
>Speaking just for me ("you folks" covers a lot of ground, I'm sure), I
>hate it when a person is used like a tool, a thing, as a means rather than
>an end in themselves (the Kantian definition of immorality) and when the
>putative worth of a person can be summed up in a dollar figure.
>
Unfortunately for you, it's movements on the left who have been most
guilty of treating people as means to an end.
If killing a bunch of people moves "history" forward, so be it.
>I don't hate any class or group of people, no matter how confident you are
>that you can read my lying liberal heart.
>
I've *never* called you a liar. Remember, I'm a political scientist.
I know what "ideology" means.
People's subjective beliefs are sincere in the vast majority of
instances. But their subjective beliefs reflect an often unsavory
objective reality.
>>>
>>> I actually know a few people who vote Republican (including but not
>>> limited to my sister and brother) and I don't hate any of them.
>>> I'm just afraid a lot of those folks are cutting off their noses to
>>> spite their faces.
>>>
>>
>> And of course, you think you understand their interests better than
>> they do.
>>
>> Thank you for making my point.
>
>Oh, brother. I'm saying I think their hearts are in the right places, but
>they are dupes of the GOP.
You are still making my point.
Like the people of Kansas, they have figured out that the Democratic
Party is the party of elitists who want to tax them and control their
lives.
Why should they vote for elites that despise them?
>I'm sure you think Democrats who vote for Obama
>are also duped. If they're not, then you should vote for him too, right?
>
Democrats, at least the elites (and elitists) among them, are voting
their class interests.
But those do *not* reflect the universal interests of mankind.
>Unless the difference is that you think Democrats vote for Obama because
>they are just plain evil, that they have *bad* intentions that a vote for
>Obama would perfectly further.
>
They have interests readically at odds with those of most Americans.
They have a lust for power and control. But, ideology being what it
is, they consider themselves enlightened.
But they aren't.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
<gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On 7/6/12 2:41 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 6 Jul 2012 14:18:13 -0400, Sandy McCroskey
>> <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> So you think America should be more socialist, like "virtually all
>> developed economies."
>>
>> Thank you for making my point.
>>
>
>
>I was here referring to the "socialist" elements of our own system.
>
>I do find myself wishing at times that America was more secular, but
>there are also things about the American system that I prefer to any in
>Europe. On the other hand, yet again, the death penalty is barbaric.
>
>
The clear majority of good econometric studies of the death penalty
>On 7/6/12 2:41 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 6 Jul 2012 14:18:13 -0400, Sandy McCroskey
>> <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> So you think America should be more socialist, like "virtually all
>> developed economies."
>>
>> Thank you for making my point.
>>
>
>
>I was here referring to the "socialist" elements of our own system.
>
>I do find myself wishing at times that America was more secular, but
>there are also things about the American system that I prefer to any in
>Europe. On the other hand, yet again, the death penalty is barbaric.
>
>
published in peer-reviewed journals over the last 12 or 15 years show
that the death penalty deters murder.
So you can go with your subjective emotions, or go with protecting the
innocent.
>>
>>> If he weren't in bed with Wall Street, maybe he'd really go after
>>> single-payer. He didn't fight for it at any stage in the negotiations
>>> that led to the ACA, whose final form was negotiated with the private
>>> insurance industry.
>>>
>>
>> He had no choice, since in America socialists are not that numerous.
>> What he was saying in the early 2000s was that he *wanted* single
>> payer.
>>
>> Socialized medicine, in other words. What you folks at THE NATION
>> wanted.
>>
>
>Right on.
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 4) they think he
>>>>> wants to socialize medicine,
>>>>
>>>> In the early 2000, he quite forthrightly said he favored a
>>>> single-payer health care system. That's Canadian style socialized
>>>> medicine.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 5) they think he wants to take away their medicare,
>>>>
>>>> He certainly wanted to take away Medicare Advantage, since that is run
>>>> through private insurance companies, and he's hostile to the private
>>>> sector.
>>>>
>>>
>>> See above.
>>>
>>
>> He doesn't like the private sector. He doesn't like free markets.
>>
>
>Awww.
>You don't think he wikes the same fings you wike. Boo-hoo.
>
The tea party doesn't wike the same things that you wike. Boo-hoo.
>>
>> No, you are just engaged in a diversion.
>>
>
>You're the one who claimed Tea-Partiers can read Obama's (cheating
>liberal) heart. Like Bush looking into Putin's eyes and seeing his soul?
>
He's a leftist. Just admit that.
You like him for that reason, although he's not far *enough* to the
left to make your buddies at THE NATION happy.
But if you have a right to vote for him because he's on the left, Tea
Party people have an equal right to vote against him because he's on
the left.
That *is* the thing about American politics that the Sorkins don't
like.
>>>>
>>>> If you are *very* selective, you can always find something to
>>>> interpret racially.
>>>
>>> Do you really think that in the case described, if this description is
>>> literal, there could really be any chance of misinterpretation?
>>>
>>> Such a phrase fairly leaps out at the reader; there's no need to be
>>> "selective" to find it disturbing.
>>>
>>
>> There is a need to select, out of thousands of anti-Obama statements,
>> some of the very few that can be interpreted racially.
>>
>
>Yet there they are (in repeated mailings, according to Pat).
>
interpret things, given that they see a racist under every bed and
behind every bush.
>
>> You folks really lack tolerance for people who have different
>> opinions. You can't admit that anybody but a racist could not see
>> issues the way you do.
>>
>
>I merely say only a racist could have written the lines in question.
>Just those lines. Or approved them.
>
>>
>> It's hard to see it as parody when you so obviously *agrees* with the
>> coastal elitists.
>>
>
>I does?
>He do?
>I didn't think that was evident from what he wrote here. Seems rather an
>assumption on your part.
>
caricature.
>>>
>>
>> I was accepting Pat's rhetorical figure. I'm a social scientist. I
>> know perfectly well that lifestyle correlates with political views,
>> but not perfectly.
>>
>> But I simply went along with Pat's literary conceit.
>>
>>> Nothing you say about "bigotry" can ever be taken seriously again.
>>>
>>
>> Nothing you or Pat say about bigotry can ever be taken seriously
>> again.
>
>Ha ha.
>Nothing I say about bigotry or anything remotely political has never had
>any chance of being taken seriously by you in the first place.
>
Ha ha.
Nothing I say about bigotry or anything remotely political has never
had any chance of being taken seriously by you in the first place.
>>
>> I don't understand your point.
>>
>> Certain elites hate certain kinds of people, whom they see as the
>> "other."
>>
>> You know this perfectly well, since your coworkers at THE NATION have
>> *exactly* these kinds of attitudes.
>>
>
>First of all, such benighted folks as you hypothetically portray,
>implicitly including myself, would never admit such attitudes to
>themselves, if they/we actually had them. So how do you expect me to "know
>this perfectly well"?
>
I'm crediting you with more insight than the typical liberal/left
>>
>> Certain elites hate certain kinds of people, whom they see as the
>> "other."
>>
>> You know this perfectly well, since your coworkers at THE NATION have
>> *exactly* these kinds of attitudes.
>>
>
>First of all, such benighted folks as you hypothetically portray,
>implicitly including myself, would never admit such attitudes to
>themselves, if they/we actually had them. So how do you expect me to "know
>this perfectly well"?
>
elitist.
It's typical for people not to understand the attitudes that they
have. That's what the Marxian concept "ideology" means.
>I could also tell you what attitudes I assume you to have, but I would not
>expect you to see yourself in my depiction. I'm sure you would deny it,
>and this would only get your back up. Such a frontal attack always invites
>retaliation in the same futile terms.
>
lot of liberals and leftists.
>I don't know, really, who it is you assume I hate. You'd be surprised by a
>lot of things if you really knew me, that's for sure.
>
politics.
>
>>
>>>> You really ought to admit that your politically correct friends don't
>>>> much like America. And they dislike America because of the
>>>> *egalitarian* nature of the country.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I find this highly ironic, coming from a twenty-first-century American
>>> Republican.
>>>
>>
>> You and your NATION associates absolutely *resent* the equality of
>> American life, because you think you deserve to rule this country.
>>
>> But you have to compete for power with people you define as the
>> "other." People who are successful in business. Christians. People
>> who don't want to pay higher taxes. People who vote Republican.
>> People who drive SUVs or shop at Wal-Mart.
>>
>> You are, in other words, elitists.
>>
>> Sure, you would like to "level down" a competing business elite. But
>> the *social* and *political* equality of American life is something
>> you folks hate.
>>
>
>Speaking just for me ("you folks" covers a lot of ground, I'm sure), I
>hate it when a person is used like a tool, a thing, as a means rather than
>an end in themselves (the Kantian definition of immorality) and when the
>putative worth of a person can be summed up in a dollar figure.
>
guilty of treating people as means to an end.
If killing a bunch of people moves "history" forward, so be it.
>I don't hate any class or group of people, no matter how confident you are
>that you can read my lying liberal heart.
>
I know what "ideology" means.
People's subjective beliefs are sincere in the vast majority of
instances. But their subjective beliefs reflect an often unsavory
objective reality.
>>>
>>> I actually know a few people who vote Republican (including but not
>>> limited to my sister and brother) and I don't hate any of them.
>>> I'm just afraid a lot of those folks are cutting off their noses to
>>> spite their faces.
>>>
>>
>> And of course, you think you understand their interests better than
>> they do.
>>
>> Thank you for making my point.
>
>Oh, brother. I'm saying I think their hearts are in the right places, but
>they are dupes of the GOP.
Like the people of Kansas, they have figured out that the Democratic
Party is the party of elitists who want to tax them and control their
lives.
Why should they vote for elites that despise them?
>I'm sure you think Democrats who vote for Obama
>are also duped. If they're not, then you should vote for him too, right?
>
their class interests.
But those do *not* reflect the universal interests of mankind.
>Unless the difference is that you think Democrats vote for Obama because
>they are just plain evil, that they have *bad* intentions that a vote for
>Obama would perfectly further.
>
They have a lust for power and control. But, ideology being what it
is, they consider themselves enlightened.
But they aren't.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
Jul 6, 2012, 10:32:31 PM7/6/12
to
Obama is a Liberal. We disagree about HOW liberal he is. We deplore the
fact that he has continued Bush's policies.
> In reality, they know perfectly well that Obama is just a standard
> leftist, since THEY THEMSELVES are standard leftists.
>
> Of course, as a standard leftist, Obama would like to take people's
> guns.
rightwing nonsense paid for by the NRA.
Anthony Marsh
Jul 6, 2012, 10:33:06 PM7/6/12
to
to it, you could point out where Obama bans all guns on the day AFTER the
election. But you can't and you won't. Then you'll claim it's just a
trick. And that he didn't do it because he feared being impeached.
Anything to feed the paranoia.
HistorianDetective
Jul 6, 2012, 10:36:08 PM7/6/12
to
On Jul 4, 11:55 pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> On 4 Jul 2012 09:25:35 -0400, HistorianDetective
>
> On 4 Jul 2012 09:25:35 -0400, HistorianDetective
>
> <historiandetect...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Keeping somewhat in line with a recent thread regarding US Media that was
> >posted by the CT moderator of this group and non-US citizen, here's a link
> >to the full premier episode of HBO's new series "Newsroom" written by
> >Aaron Sorkin of West Wing fame, Charlie Wilson's War and Moneyball, as
> >well. Well worth the free viewing for those like myself who are not an HBO
> >subscriber.
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1U4ZhFDFYvE&feature=player_embedded
>
> >The opening is a roundtable debate where each panelist is asked the
> >question as to why America is the greatest country in the world. You will
> >have to watch for yourself for the dramatic answer given by anchorman Will
> >McAvoy (played by Jeff Daniels of Dumb and Dumber fame).
>
RE:
> >Keeping somewhat in line with a recent thread regarding US Media that was
> >posted by the CT moderator of this group and non-US citizen, here's a link
> >to the full premier episode of HBO's new series "Newsroom" written by
> >Aaron Sorkin of West Wing fame, Charlie Wilson's War and Moneyball, as
> >well. Well worth the free viewing for those like myself who are not an HBO
> >subscriber.
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1U4ZhFDFYvE&feature=player_embedded
>
> >The opening is a roundtable debate where each panelist is asked the
> >question as to why America is the greatest country in the world. You will
> >have to watch for yourself for the dramatic answer given by anchorman Will
> >McAvoy (played by Jeff Daniels of Dumb and Dumber fame).
>
> Sorkin, I'm afraid, is an anti-American bigot.
of Sorkinism regarding today's news media.
http://www.vulture.com/2012/06/aaron-sorkin-newsroom-interview.html?mid=nymag_press
Quote ON
The thing that I worry about more is the media’s bias toward fairness.
Nobody uses the word lie anymore. Suddenly, everything is “a difference
of opinion.” If the entire House Republican caucus were to walk onto the
floor one day and say “The Earth is flat,” the headline on the New
York Times the next day would read “Democrats and Republicans Can’t
Agree on Shape of Earth.” I don’t believe the truth always lies in the
middle. I don’t believe there are two sides to every argument. I think
the facts are the center. And watching the news abandon the facts in favor
of “fairness” is what’s troubling to me.
Quote OFF
I tend to agree with him.
JM/HD
John McAdams
Jul 6, 2012, 10:38:20 PM7/6/12
to
On 6 Jul 2012 22:36:08 -0400, HistorianDetective
Then whom do you think the media should label liars?"
And do you think everybody *agrees* on who is lying? If not, should
the media side with liberals in calling conservatives "liars," or with
conservatives in calling liberals "liars?"
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
And do you think everybody *agrees* on who is lying? If not, should
the media side with liberals in calling conservatives "liars," or with
conservatives in calling liberals "liars?"
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Sandy McCroskey
Jul 6, 2012, 11:05:35 PM7/6/12
to
On 7/6/12 10:09 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 6 Jul 2012 21:43:50 -0400, Sandy McCroskey
> <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> On 7/6/12 2:41 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>>> On 6 Jul 2012 14:18:13 -0400, Sandy McCroskey
>>> <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> So you think America should be more socialist, like "virtually all
>>> developed economies."
>>>
>>> Thank you for making my point.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I was here referring to the "socialist" elements of our own system.
>>
>> I do find myself wishing at times that America was more secular, but
>> there are also things about the American system that I prefer to any in
>> Europe. On the other hand, yet again, the death penalty is barbaric.
>>
>>
>
> The clear majority of good econometric studies of the death penalty
> published in peer-reviewed journals over the last 12 or 15 years show
> that the death penalty deters murder.
>
> So you can go with your subjective emotions, or go with protecting the
> innocent.
>
How do you justify the execution of the innocent (which, as you must
> On 6 Jul 2012 21:43:50 -0400, Sandy McCroskey
> <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> On 7/6/12 2:41 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>>> On 6 Jul 2012 14:18:13 -0400, Sandy McCroskey
>>> <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> So you think America should be more socialist, like "virtually all
>>> developed economies."
>>>
>>> Thank you for making my point.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I was here referring to the "socialist" elements of our own system.
>>
>> I do find myself wishing at times that America was more secular, but
>> there are also things about the American system that I prefer to any in
>> Europe. On the other hand, yet again, the death penalty is barbaric.
>>
>>
>
> The clear majority of good econometric studies of the death penalty
> published in peer-reviewed journals over the last 12 or 15 years show
> that the death penalty deters murder.
>
> So you can go with your subjective emotions, or go with protecting the
> innocent.
>
know, does happen)?
Just seems a juvenile, trivializing way to frame things.
>>>
>>> No, you are just engaged in a diversion.
>>>
>>
>> You're the one who claimed Tea-Partiers can read Obama's (cheating
>> liberal) heart. Like Bush looking into Putin's eyes and seeing his soul?
>>
>
> No, just look at Obama's statements and actions.
>
> He's a leftist. Just admit that.
>
> You like him for that reason, although he's not far *enough* to the
> left to make your buddies at THE NATION happy.
>
> But if you have a right to vote for him because he's on the left, Tea
> Party people have an equal right to vote against him because he's on
> the left.
>
> That *is* the thing about American politics that the Sorkins don't
> like.
>
>>>>>
>>>>> If you are *very* selective, you can always find something to
>>>>> interpret racially.
>>>>
>>>> Do you really think that in the case described, if this description is
>>>> literal, there could really be any chance of misinterpretation?
>>>>
>>>> Such a phrase fairly leaps out at the reader; there's no need to be
>>>> "selective" to find it disturbing.
>>>>
>>>
>>> There is a need to select, out of thousands of anti-Obama statements,
>>> some of the very few that can be interpreted racially.
>>>
>>
>> Yet there they are (in repeated mailings, according to Pat).
>>
>
> Pat only quoted one message, and I don't trust liberals to properly
> interpret things, given that they see a racist under every bed and
> behind every bush.
>
Anyway, rest assured that the feeling is mutual.
Remember when you told me what you remembered Noam Chomsky saying?
I said to give me a direct quote from that speech you were talking about.
That was the end of that.
>
>>
>>> You folks really lack tolerance for people who have different
>>> opinions. You can't admit that anybody but a racist could not see
>>> issues the way you do.
>>>
>>
>> I merely say only a racist could have written the lines in question.
>> Just those lines. Or approved them.
>>
>
> Or somebody who was insensitive in using "light" and "dark."
>
Right.
Probably was just an utter moron.
>>>
>>> It's hard to see it as parody when you so obviously *agrees* with the
>>> coastal elitists.
>>>
>>
>> I does?
>> He do?
>> I didn't think that was evident from what he wrote here. Seems rather an
>> assumption on your part.
>>
>
> Sorry, I meant to say that *Pat* obviously agrees with the nasty
> caricature.
>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I was accepting Pat's rhetorical figure. I'm a social scientist. I
>>> know perfectly well that lifestyle correlates with political views,
>>> but not perfectly.
>>>
>>> But I simply went along with Pat's literary conceit.
>>>
>>>> Nothing you say about "bigotry" can ever be taken seriously again.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nothing you or Pat say about bigotry can ever be taken seriously
>>> again.
>>
>> Ha ha.
>> Nothing I say about bigotry or anything remotely political has never had
>> any chance of being taken seriously by you in the first place.
>>
>
> Ha ha.
>
> Nothing I say about bigotry or anything remotely political has never
> had any chance of being taken seriously by you in the first place.
>
>>>
>>> I don't understand your point.
>>>
>>> Certain elites hate certain kinds of people, whom they see as the
>>> "other."
>>>
>>> You know this perfectly well, since your coworkers at THE NATION have
>>> *exactly* these kinds of attitudes.
>>>
>>
>> First of all, such benighted folks as you hypothetically portray,
>> implicitly including myself, would never admit such attitudes to
>> themselves, if they/we actually had them. So how do you expect me to "know
>> this perfectly well"?
>>
>
> I'm crediting you with more insight than the typical liberal/left
> elitist.
>
> It's typical for people not to understand the attitudes that they
> have. That's what the Marxian concept "ideology" means.
>
ruling class.
/sandy
John McAdams
Jul 6, 2012, 11:19:35 PM7/6/12
to
On 6 Jul 2012 23:05:35 -0400, Sandy McCroskey
executed in the last 50 years.
The one time the claims of death penalty opponents in this regard were
tested, in the Virginia case of Roger Keith Coleman, those claims were
found to be bogus.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/12/AR2006011201210.html
And how do you feel about the murder of the innocent?
>>>>
>>>> He doesn't like the private sector. He doesn't like free markets.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Awww.
>>> You don't think he wikes the same fings you wike. Boo-hoo.
>>>
>>
>> Awww.
>>
>> The tea party doesn't wike the same things that you wike. Boo-hoo.
>>
>
>I wasn't complaining about anybody's likes or dislikes.
>Just seems a juvenile, trivializing way to frame things.
>
It's not at all trivial to point out that somebody does not like the
private sector and free markets.
That's the central part of Obama's ideology.
>>>>
>>>> No, you are just engaged in a diversion.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You're the one who claimed Tea-Partiers can read Obama's (cheating
>>> liberal) heart. Like Bush looking into Putin's eyes and seeing his soul?
>>>
>>
>> No, just look at Obama's statements and actions.
>>
>> He's a leftist. Just admit that.
>>
>
>On the American spectrum, he's certainly to the left of you!
>
He's to the left of most Americans. And the American spectrum isn't
that different from Europe. The *vast* majority of Democrat elites
would be in a socialist party in Europe.
>
>> You like him for that reason, although he's not far *enough* to the
>> left to make your buddies at THE NATION happy.
>>
>> But if you have a right to vote for him because he's on the left, Tea
>> Party people have an equal right to vote against him because he's on
>> the left.
>>
>
>Did you somehow think I said something different?
>
Pat said that people who don't like Obama are racist.
Are you admitting that the vast majority of people who don't like
Obama do so over policy disagreements?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yet there they are (in repeated mailings, according to Pat).
>>>
>>
>> Pat only quoted one message, and I don't trust liberals to properly
>> interpret things, given that they see a racist under every bed and
>> behind every bush.
>>
>
>Every... ?
>Anyway, rest assured that the feeling is mutual.
>Remember when you told me what you remembered Noam Chomsky saying?
>I said to give me a direct quote from that speech you were talking about.
>That was the end of that.
>
It wasn't recorded, and there was no transcript. It was sponsored by
a church on Harvard Square, and I challenged him during the Q & A.
Do you *really* doubt he would like to shut up ideas with which he
disagrees?
>>
>>>
>>>> You folks really lack tolerance for people who have different
>>>> opinions. You can't admit that anybody but a racist could not see
>>>> issues the way you do.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I merely say only a racist could have written the lines in question.
>>> Just those lines. Or approved them.
>>>
>>
>> Or somebody who was insensitive in using "light" and "dark."
>>
>
>Or "white."
>Right.
>Probably was just an utter moron.
>
That's possible. But I can point to bigoted morons on the left. There
are tons on YouTube.
Which does not prove that everybody on the left is a bigoted moron.
>>>
>>> Ha ha.
>>> Nothing I say about bigotry or anything remotely political has never had
>>> any chance of being taken seriously by you in the first place.
>>>
>>
>> Ha ha.
>>
>> Nothing I say about bigotry or anything remotely political has never
>> had any chance of being taken seriously by you in the first place.
>>
>
>There's an echo in here.
>
Just throwing your own argument back at you.
Which is a good way to show you how silly it is.
>>>>
>>>> You know this perfectly well, since your coworkers at THE NATION have
>>>> *exactly* these kinds of attitudes.
>>>>
>>>
>>> First of all, such benighted folks as you hypothetically portray,
>>> implicitly including myself, would never admit such attitudes to
>>> themselves, if they/we actually had them. So how do you expect me to "know
>>> this perfectly well"?
>>>
>>
>> I'm crediting you with more insight than the typical liberal/left
>> elitist.
>>
>
>If I knew I had hateful attitudes, I would seek to overcome them.
>
I *did* say your colleagues at THE NATION. I was assuming that you
probably knew better.
>>>>
>>>> And of course, you think you understand their interests better than
>>>> they do.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for making my point.
>>>
>>> Oh, brother. I'm saying I think their hearts are in the right places, but
>>> they are dupes of the GOP.
>>
>> You are still making my point.
>>
>> Like the people of Kansas, they have figured out that the Democratic
>> Party is the party of elitists who want to tax them and control their
>> lives.
>>
>> Why should they vote for elites that despise them?
>>
>>
>>> I'm sure you think Democrats who vote for Obama
>>> are also duped. If they're not, then you should vote for him too, right?
>>>
>>
>> Democrats, at least the elites (and elitists) among them, are voting
>> their class interests.
>>
>> But those do *not* reflect the universal interests of mankind.
>>
>>
>>> Unless the difference is that you think Democrats vote for Obama because
>>> they are just plain evil, that they have *bad* intentions that a vote for
>>> Obama would perfectly further.
>>>
>>
>> They have interests readically at odds with those of most Americans.
>> They have a lust for power and control. But, ideology being what it
>> is, they consider themselves enlightened.
>>
>> But they aren't.
>>
>
>
>You are quite the ideologue yourself, and your ideology is that of the
>ruling class.
>
There is no ruling class. There is a class struggle between the
business class (usually allied with social conservatives) and the New
Class, which includes those elites represented by the Democratic
Party.
When the Democrats control, the New Class controls -- happily subject
to checks and balances and the constraints of a democratic system.
The claim that the business class is the "ruling class" is New Class
ideology.
Sorkin buys into this ideology.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
<gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> The clear majority of good econometric studies of the death penalty
>> published in peer-reviewed journals over the last 12 or 15 years show
>> that the death penalty deters murder.
>>
>> So you can go with your subjective emotions, or go with protecting the
>> innocent.
>>
>
>How do you justify the execution of the innocent (which, as you must
>know, does happen)?
>
Actually, there is no real evidence of any innocent person being
>>
>> The clear majority of good econometric studies of the death penalty
>> published in peer-reviewed journals over the last 12 or 15 years show
>> that the death penalty deters murder.
>>
>> So you can go with your subjective emotions, or go with protecting the
>> innocent.
>>
>
>How do you justify the execution of the innocent (which, as you must
>know, does happen)?
>
executed in the last 50 years.
The one time the claims of death penalty opponents in this regard were
tested, in the Virginia case of Roger Keith Coleman, those claims were
found to be bogus.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/12/AR2006011201210.html
And how do you feel about the murder of the innocent?
>>>>
>>>> He doesn't like the private sector. He doesn't like free markets.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Awww.
>>> You don't think he wikes the same fings you wike. Boo-hoo.
>>>
>>
>> Awww.
>>
>> The tea party doesn't wike the same things that you wike. Boo-hoo.
>>
>
>I wasn't complaining about anybody's likes or dislikes.
>Just seems a juvenile, trivializing way to frame things.
>
private sector and free markets.
That's the central part of Obama's ideology.
>>>>
>>>> No, you are just engaged in a diversion.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You're the one who claimed Tea-Partiers can read Obama's (cheating
>>> liberal) heart. Like Bush looking into Putin's eyes and seeing his soul?
>>>
>>
>> No, just look at Obama's statements and actions.
>>
>> He's a leftist. Just admit that.
>>
>
>On the American spectrum, he's certainly to the left of you!
>
that different from Europe. The *vast* majority of Democrat elites
would be in a socialist party in Europe.
>
>> You like him for that reason, although he's not far *enough* to the
>> left to make your buddies at THE NATION happy.
>>
>> But if you have a right to vote for him because he's on the left, Tea
>> Party people have an equal right to vote against him because he's on
>> the left.
>>
>
>Did you somehow think I said something different?
>
Are you admitting that the vast majority of people who don't like
Obama do so over policy disagreements?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yet there they are (in repeated mailings, according to Pat).
>>>
>>
>> Pat only quoted one message, and I don't trust liberals to properly
>> interpret things, given that they see a racist under every bed and
>> behind every bush.
>>
>
>Every... ?
>Anyway, rest assured that the feeling is mutual.
>Remember when you told me what you remembered Noam Chomsky saying?
>I said to give me a direct quote from that speech you were talking about.
>That was the end of that.
>
a church on Harvard Square, and I challenged him during the Q & A.
Do you *really* doubt he would like to shut up ideas with which he
disagrees?
>>
>>>
>>>> You folks really lack tolerance for people who have different
>>>> opinions. You can't admit that anybody but a racist could not see
>>>> issues the way you do.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I merely say only a racist could have written the lines in question.
>>> Just those lines. Or approved them.
>>>
>>
>> Or somebody who was insensitive in using "light" and "dark."
>>
>
>Or "white."
>Right.
>Probably was just an utter moron.
>
are tons on YouTube.
Which does not prove that everybody on the left is a bigoted moron.
>>>
>>> Ha ha.
>>> Nothing I say about bigotry or anything remotely political has never had
>>> any chance of being taken seriously by you in the first place.
>>>
>>
>> Ha ha.
>>
>> Nothing I say about bigotry or anything remotely political has never
>> had any chance of being taken seriously by you in the first place.
>>
>
>There's an echo in here.
>
Which is a good way to show you how silly it is.
>>>>
>>>> You know this perfectly well, since your coworkers at THE NATION have
>>>> *exactly* these kinds of attitudes.
>>>>
>>>
>>> First of all, such benighted folks as you hypothetically portray,
>>> implicitly including myself, would never admit such attitudes to
>>> themselves, if they/we actually had them. So how do you expect me to "know
>>> this perfectly well"?
>>>
>>
>> I'm crediting you with more insight than the typical liberal/left
>> elitist.
>>
>
>If I knew I had hateful attitudes, I would seek to overcome them.
>
probably knew better.
>>>>
>>>> And of course, you think you understand their interests better than
>>>> they do.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for making my point.
>>>
>>> Oh, brother. I'm saying I think their hearts are in the right places, but
>>> they are dupes of the GOP.
>>
>> You are still making my point.
>>
>> Like the people of Kansas, they have figured out that the Democratic
>> Party is the party of elitists who want to tax them and control their
>> lives.
>>
>> Why should they vote for elites that despise them?
>>
>>
>>> I'm sure you think Democrats who vote for Obama
>>> are also duped. If they're not, then you should vote for him too, right?
>>>
>>
>> Democrats, at least the elites (and elitists) among them, are voting
>> their class interests.
>>
>> But those do *not* reflect the universal interests of mankind.
>>
>>
>>> Unless the difference is that you think Democrats vote for Obama because
>>> they are just plain evil, that they have *bad* intentions that a vote for
>>> Obama would perfectly further.
>>>
>>
>> They have interests readically at odds with those of most Americans.
>> They have a lust for power and control. But, ideology being what it
>> is, they consider themselves enlightened.
>>
>> But they aren't.
>>
>
>
>You are quite the ideologue yourself, and your ideology is that of the
>ruling class.
>
business class (usually allied with social conservatives) and the New
Class, which includes those elites represented by the Democratic
Party.
When the Democrats control, the New Class controls -- happily subject
to checks and balances and the constraints of a democratic system.
The claim that the business class is the "ruling class" is New Class
ideology.
Sorkin buys into this ideology.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Sandy McCroskey
Jul 6, 2012, 11:23:17 PM7/6/12
to
On 7/6/12 10:09 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> The clear majority of good econometric studies of the death penalty
> published in peer-reviewed journals over the last 12 or 15 years show
> that the death penalty deters murder.
Does "good...studies" mean those whose conclusions you find palatable?
> published in peer-reviewed journals over the last 12 or 15 years show
> that the death penalty deters murder.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-about-deterrence-and-death-penalty
<quote on>
National Research Council of the National Academies Deterrence Report
A report, released on April 18, 2012, by the prestigious National Research
Council of the National Academies and based on a review of more than three
decades of research, concluded that studies claiming a deterrent effect on
murder rates from the death penalty are fundamentally flawed. The report
concluded: ?The committee concludes that research to date on the effect of
capital punishment on homicide is not informative about whether capital
punishment decreases, increases, or has no effect on homicide rates.
Therefore, the committee recommends that these studies not be used to
inform deliberations requiring judgments about the effect of the death
penalty on homicide. Consequently, claims that research demonstrates that
capital punishment decreases or increases the homicide rate by a specified
amount or has no effect on the homicide rate should not influence policy
judgments about capital punishment." (emphasis added). Criminologist
Daniel Nagin of Carnegie Mellon, who chaired the panel of experts, said,
?We recognize this conclusion will be controversial to some, but nobody is
well served by unfounded claims about the death penalty. Nothing is known
about how potential murderers actually perceive their risk of punishment."
The report found three fundamental flaws with existing studies on
deterrence:
The studies do not factor in the effects of noncapital punishments
that may also be imposed.
The studies use incomplete or implausible models of potential
murderers? perceptions of and response to the use of capital punishment.
Estimates of the effect of capital punishment are based on
statistical models that make assumptions that are not credible.
</quote off>
John McAdams
Jul 6, 2012, 11:30:44 PM7/6/12
to
On 6 Jul 2012 23:23:17 -0400, Sandy McCroskey
I'm afraid this is an example of politically driven "science."
You should look at the studied cited at the end of my article:
http://www.wpri.org/WIInterest/Vol15no2/McA15.2.pdf
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/blog/TestimonyPaulRubin.pdf
A study of Governor Ryan's death penalty moratorium in Illinois:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/blog/Illinois_Study.pdf
All these are studies that passed peer review with econonics journals.
Are there some people who don't want to believe them? Especially
among liberal academics? Certainly.
But the scholars who passed them for journal publication have scholar
credentials every bit as good as the people on the NRC.
The NRC is basically saying "ignore the data." That's ideology, not
science.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
You should look at the studied cited at the end of my article:
http://www.wpri.org/WIInterest/Vol15no2/McA15.2.pdf
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/blog/TestimonyPaulRubin.pdf
A study of Governor Ryan's death penalty moratorium in Illinois:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/blog/Illinois_Study.pdf
All these are studies that passed peer review with econonics journals.
Are there some people who don't want to believe them? Especially
among liberal academics? Certainly.
But the scholars who passed them for journal publication have scholar
credentials every bit as good as the people on the NRC.
The NRC is basically saying "ignore the data." That's ideology, not
science.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
Jul 6, 2012, 11:44:26 PM7/6/12
to
On 6 Jul 2012 23:23:17 -0400, Sandy McCroskey
punishment of criminals and doesn't like letting citizens carry guns.
Ask a liberal academic to deal with a body of evidence that leads to
conservative conclusions, and you'll get something like this.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
<gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On 7/6/12 10:09 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>> The clear majority of good econometric studies of the death penalty
>> published in peer-reviewed journals over the last 12 or 15 years show
>> that the death penalty deters murder.
>
>Does "good...studies" mean those whose conclusions you find palatable?
>
>http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-about-deterrence-and-death-penalty
>
><quote on>
>
>National Research Council of the National Academies Deterrence Report
>
>A report, released on April 18, 2012, by the prestigious National Research
>Council of the National Academies and based on a review of more than three
>decades of research, concluded that studies claiming a deterrent effect on
>murder rates from the death penalty are fundamentally flawed. The report
>concluded: ?The committee concludes that research to date on the effect of
>capital punishment on homicide is not informative about whether capital
>punishment decreases, increases, or has no effect on homicide rates.
>Therefore, the committee recommends that these studies not be used to
>inform deliberations requiring judgments about the effect of the death
>penalty on homicide. Consequently, claims that research demonstrates that
>capital punishment decreases or increases the homicide rate by a specified
>amount or has no effect on the homicide rate should not influence policy
>judgments about capital punishment." (emphasis added). Criminologist
>Daniel Nagin of Carnegie Mellon, who chaired the panel of experts, said,
A little research shows Nagin to be a liberal who favors less
>On 7/6/12 10:09 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>> The clear majority of good econometric studies of the death penalty
>> published in peer-reviewed journals over the last 12 or 15 years show
>> that the death penalty deters murder.
>
>Does "good...studies" mean those whose conclusions you find palatable?
>
>http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-about-deterrence-and-death-penalty
>
><quote on>
>
>National Research Council of the National Academies Deterrence Report
>
>A report, released on April 18, 2012, by the prestigious National Research
>Council of the National Academies and based on a review of more than three
>decades of research, concluded that studies claiming a deterrent effect on
>murder rates from the death penalty are fundamentally flawed. The report
>concluded: ?The committee concludes that research to date on the effect of
>capital punishment on homicide is not informative about whether capital
>punishment decreases, increases, or has no effect on homicide rates.
>Therefore, the committee recommends that these studies not be used to
>inform deliberations requiring judgments about the effect of the death
>penalty on homicide. Consequently, claims that research demonstrates that
>capital punishment decreases or increases the homicide rate by a specified
>amount or has no effect on the homicide rate should not influence policy
>judgments about capital punishment." (emphasis added). Criminologist
>Daniel Nagin of Carnegie Mellon, who chaired the panel of experts, said,
punishment of criminals and doesn't like letting citizens carry guns.
Ask a liberal academic to deal with a body of evidence that leads to
conservative conclusions, and you'll get something like this.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
Jul 6, 2012, 11:45:57 PM7/6/12
to
either extremely Liberal or extremely conservative.
> .John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
Sandy McCroskey
Jul 6, 2012, 11:48:36 PM7/6/12
to
It's unreasoned.
This phrasing trivializes your opponent's reasoned position, as well as
your own supposed reasons for opposing it.
>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, you are just engaged in a diversion.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You're the one who claimed Tea-Partiers can read Obama's (cheating
>>>> liberal) heart. Like Bush looking into Putin's eyes and seeing his soul?
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, just look at Obama's statements and actions.
>>>
>>> He's a leftist. Just admit that.
>>>
>>
>> On the American spectrum, he's certainly to the left of you!
>>
>
> He's to the left of most Americans. And the American spectrum isn't
> that different from Europe. The *vast* majority of Democrat elites
> would be in a socialist party in Europe.
>
well. It's not that our Democrats are so socialist but that their
Socialists are no longer so radical.
>
>>
>>> You like him for that reason, although he's not far *enough* to the
>>> left to make your buddies at THE NATION happy.
>>>
>>> But if you have a right to vote for him because he's on the left, Tea
>>> Party people have an equal right to vote against him because he's on
>>> the left.
>>>
>>
>> Did you somehow think I said something different?
>>
>
> Pat said that people who don't like Obama are racist.
>
> Are you admitting that the vast majority of people who don't like
> Obama do so over policy disagreements?
>
disagreed with.
The Tea Party, which is a minority grouping, does seem to draw some of its
energy from a fear of the ascendant former minorities in this country.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yet there they are (in repeated mailings, according to Pat).
>>>>
>>>
>>> Pat only quoted one message, and I don't trust liberals to properly
>>> interpret things, given that they see a racist under every bed and
>>> behind every bush.
>>>
>>
>> Every... ?
>> Anyway, rest assured that the feeling is mutual.
>> Remember when you told me what you remembered Noam Chomsky saying?
>> I said to give me a direct quote from that speech you were talking about.
>> That was the end of that.
>>
>
> It wasn't recorded, and there was no transcript. It was sponsored by
> a church on Harvard Square, and I challenged him during the Q & A.
>
> Do you *really* doubt he would like to shut up ideas with which he
> disagrees?
>
But I see that there are a lot of people not constituted as part of
*any* class in your analysis.
If the Republican Party really does represent anything besides the
interests of its money-bags elite ("the universal interests of mankind"?),
then why is it so focused on suppressing the vote in the next election?
http://www.thenation.com/blog/168762/dumping-mitt-gop-making-steal-plausible
/sm
Anthony Marsh
Jul 6, 2012, 11:52:03 PM7/6/12
to
On 7/6/2012 10:54 AM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 6 Jul 2012 10:33:36 -0400, "pjsp...@AOL.COM" <pjsp...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, July 5, 2012 5:32:53 PM UTC-7, John McAdams wrote:
>>> On 5 Jul 2012 20:21:03 -0400, "pjsp...@AOL.COM"
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Do you really believe this stuff? My gosh, I sure hope not. How is it that
>>>> you get all up in arms when someone suggests that old-fashioned racism
>>>> underlies much of modern "conservatism," but then claim people like Sorkin
>>>> "hate" America?
>>>
>>> Because modern conservatism is not racist, but Sorkin is really an
>>> anti-American bigot.
>>>
>>> Listen to the clip.
>>>
>>> I *would* call racist anybody who engaged in an anti-black tirade like
>>> the anti-U.S. tirade in the Sorkin show.
>>
>> I watched the show. It was very patriotic. In fact, everything I've ever
>> seen by Sorkin is patriotic. He seems to believe that there are problems
>> with the country but that these problems can be overcome through
>> democratic action and education. This is a mainstream opinion. Why do you
>> have a problem with this? You can't possibly believe everything is fine
>> and dandy.
>>
>
> He believes that American is inferior to foreign nations that are
> socialist, and are secular, and that we should be more socialist and
> secular.
>
Just stop with this whole inferior thing. We are sick of your jingoism.
> On 6 Jul 2012 10:33:36 -0400, "pjsp...@AOL.COM" <pjsp...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, July 5, 2012 5:32:53 PM UTC-7, John McAdams wrote:
>>> On 5 Jul 2012 20:21:03 -0400, "pjsp...@AOL.COM"
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Do you really believe this stuff? My gosh, I sure hope not. How is it that
>>>> you get all up in arms when someone suggests that old-fashioned racism
>>>> underlies much of modern "conservatism," but then claim people like Sorkin
>>>> "hate" America?
>>>
>>> Because modern conservatism is not racist, but Sorkin is really an
>>> anti-American bigot.
>>>
>>> Listen to the clip.
>>>
>>> I *would* call racist anybody who engaged in an anti-black tirade like
>>> the anti-U.S. tirade in the Sorkin show.
>>
>> I watched the show. It was very patriotic. In fact, everything I've ever
>> seen by Sorkin is patriotic. He seems to believe that there are problems
>> with the country but that these problems can be overcome through
>> democratic action and education. This is a mainstream opinion. Why do you
>> have a problem with this? You can't possibly believe everything is fine
>> and dandy.
>>
>
> He believes that American is inferior to foreign nations that are
> socialist, and are secular, and that we should be more socialist and
> secular.
>
Maybe you have an inferiority complex where you have to boast that you
are superior to everyone else. America should not.
> That is *not* mainstream opinion, except among your politically
> correct buddies.
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Assuming he is a liberal, and someone who dislikes the Tea Party, etc, how
>>>> does his disliking one aspect of current America make him "an
>>>> anti-American bigot?"
>>>>
>>>
>>> He dislikes America *in general.*
>>
>> Where do you get this from? I seriously doubt you have anything to support
>> this.
>>
>
> http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2012/06/25/Newsroom-falsehood
>
> http://newsbusters.org/sites/default/files/2012-06-24-HBO-NEWSROOM-DANIELS.mp3
>
too? Or Rush Limbaugh?
>>>
>>> Saying one disagrees with the Tea Party isn't necessarily bigoted.
>>> Calling them "racist" is bigoted.
>>
>> Not at all. It can not reasonably be disputed that many in the Tea Party
>> are as inspired by their fear of Obama--and his 'otherness"--as they are his
>> politics.
>
> His "otherness" *is* his politics.
>
> BTW, below you reveal a bias against people you consider the "other."
>
>
>> I suspect you are a long time conservative, and wish to believe
>> many of those calling for Obama's removal are inspired by ideology. I don't
>> see it that way.
>
> But look at the list of positions you assign to the Tea Party (below).
> All are *political* disagreements.
>
>
>> The people I've met who are strongly against Obama have
>> stated that 1) they're not sure he's a real American,
>
> Depends on what one means by "real American."
>
Wal-Mart and doesn't pay taxes.
>
>> 2) they think he's a
>> socialist,
>
> He told Joe the Plumber that he wanted to "spread the wealth around."
>
Party plant.
His real name was Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher.
On October 7, 2011, Wurzelbacher filed paperwork with the Federal
Election Commission to challenge Democratic Representative Marcy Kaptur
in the 2012 race for Ohio's 9th congressional seat.[62]
In the March 6, 2012 primary, Wurzelbacher gained the nomination as the
Republican candidate in the race, defeating challenger Steven Kraus.[63]
He will run in the November 2012 general election against Marcy Kaptur,
who won in the same day's Democratic primary against Dennis Kucinich
after the two incumbents' respective Congressional districts were
collapsed into one as a result of post-2010 Census redistricting by the
state's Republican-controlled legislature.[64]
Plumbing credentials
Regarding his statement to Barack Obama about intending to buy the
plumbing firm that employed him, Wurzelbacher later said that the idea
of buying the company was discussed during his job interview six years
prior.[9] According to MSNBC and Fox News, court records show that
Wurzelbacher made $40,000 in 2006.[19] Dun & Bradstreet's report
estimated that A. W. Newell Corporation, the full corporate name, had
$510,000 in annual sales and eight employees.[65] As part of the
background on McCain's use of "Joe the Plumber," several media outlets
researched his professional plumbing credentials. One Toledo Blade
article stated, "Mr. Wurzelbacher said he works under Al Newell’s
license, but according to Ohio building regulations, he must maintain
his own license to do plumbing work. He is also not registered to
operate as a plumber in Ohio, which means he’s not a plumber." "Mr.
Joseph [business manager of the local union] said Mr. Wurzelbacher could
only legally work in the townships, but not in any municipality in Lucas
County or elsewhere in the country."[66] Wurzelbacher has since stated
that he is no longer employed at Newell.[4]
On March 15, 2012, Wurzelbacher stated in fundraising emails that "I'm
counting on your support because, as a plumber, I'm not going to be able
to write my campaign a check."[citation needed]
Tax controversy
ABC News reported on October 16, 2008, that there was a judgment lien
against Wurzelbacher for non-payment of $1,182 in owed Ohio state income
taxes dating to January 2007, but "no action has been taken against him
outside of filing the lien." Barb Losie, deputy clerk of the Lucas
County Court of Common Pleas, said that "there is a 99 percent chance
[Wurzelbacher] doesn't know about the lien, unless he did a credit
report or was ready to pay his taxes."[67] While on Hannity & Colmes,
Wurzelbacher stated that he was unaware of the tax lien prior to it
being reported in the press.[68] The taxes were paid on November 6.[69]
So I guess Joe the Plumber meets your definition of a "true American"
because he was a tax evader.
Maybe I am also a "true American" because I didn't pay income tax this year.
> He told Charlie Gibson during a 2008 debate that "fairness" requires
> higher capital gains taxes *even though* it would reduce revenue.
>
> http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xlv7yv_obama-raise-taxes-capital-gains-for-purposes-of-fairness-2008_news
>
>> 3) they think he's in bed with Wall Street,
>
> Oh, my! Have you looked at who contributes money to him?
>
given him this year? Have you compared that to how much the extreme
rightwing nuts have given to Romney? Have you compared Wall Street
contributions to Romney versus Obama? Of course not. That would be too
much like fairness. Fairness is not to be tolerated by "true Americans."
>
>> 4) they think he
>> wants to socialize medicine,
>
> In the early 2000, he quite forthrightly said he favored a
> single-payer health care system. That's Canadian style socialized
> medicine.
>
>
>> 5) they think he wants to take away their medicare,
>
> He certainly wanted to take away Medicare Advantage, since that is run
> through private insurance companies, and he's hostile to the private
> sector.
>
>
>> and 6) he wants to take away their guns.
>
> He admitted as much in the 1990s. The fact that it's not politically
> expedient to say that now doesn't change that fact.
>
pressure from the Tea Party.
>
>
>> These positions are mutually
>> exclusive and are reflective of incredibly muddy thinking.
>
> You mean Obama's positions? No, he's just the standard liberal, and
> the people you are demeaning know perfectly well where his heart is.
>
make an alliance with Hitler.
>
>> Underlying it all
>> is that they just don't trust him, in a way that they've never not trusted
>> a politician before.
>>
>> So why do you think that is....hmmm. Plenty of them will tell you if you
>> really want to listen. My aunt buys into all the anti-Obama nonsense, and
>> forwards me the emails she receives from her supposedly mainstream
>> all=American friends. A number of these have ended with comments akin to
>> "Obama has darkened the White House--it's time to make it white again."
>> Real subtle.
>>
>
> If you are *very* selective, you can always find something to
> interpret racially. But the vast majority of opposition to Obama
> comes from disagreement with his policies.
>
> You really need to be more tolerant, and accept the fact that a lot of
> people in the U.S. disagree with your liberal policy preferences.
> Calling everybody who disagrees with you "racist" is a nasty tactic.
racist? Are we also supposed to say polite things about Adolf Hitler?
>
>>> Disagreeing with Barack Obama is not necessarily racist. Calling him
>>> the n-word would be racist.
>>>
>>> Can you see some distinctions here?
>>>
>>> Or are they too subtle for you?
>>>
>>>
>>>> There can be NO DOUBT that the American people, in 2008, voted
>>>> overwhelmingly for a black man, with mostly liberal values. Were those
>>>> upset by this "anti-American bigots?" If not, why not?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Huh?
>>>
>>
>> What? Too subtle for you? If elitists on the coasts are "anti-American"
>> for looking down their noses at the riff-raff in the flyover,
>
> See the sort of bigoted language you are using?
>
>> why aren't
>> the riff-raff in the flyover "anti-American" for feeling morally superior
>> to those on the coasts? It appears you are buying into Sarah Palin's
>> belief every Bubba in a pick-up truck is automatically more American than
>> every lawyer in a Beemer. It's just not true. Never was. Never will be.
>>
>
> The "Bubba" (not stereotypical language) is more American than the
> lawyer with the Beemer. The lawyer with the Beemer lives a life of
> resentment over the fact that he and his friends don't rule this
> country.
>
want to take over the country.
> The "Bubba" simply wants to live his life.
>
overthrow the government.
John McAdams
Jul 7, 2012, 12:16:47 AM7/7/12
to
On 6 Jul 2012 23:48:36 -0400, Sandy McCroskey
it doesn't start with "principle." It starts with class interests.
And those are rationalized via ideology.
And liberals and leftists really do *dislike* markets, and the private
sector.
They *like* government.
Those are fundamental things about their ideology.
>>
>> He's to the left of most Americans. And the American spectrum isn't
>> that different from Europe. The *vast* majority of Democrat elites
>> would be in a socialist party in Europe.
>>
>
>Yes, there has been a flattening of the political landscape in Europe as
>well. It's not that our Democrats are so socialist but that their
>Socialists are no longer so radical.
>
Because most of their ideas have failed.
How has nationalization of industry turned out?
How have confiscatory tax rates turned out?
How have rigid labor market policies, that protect the jobs of people
who have jobs but result in massive unemployment among the young
turned out?
How have massive entitlements turned out?
Have you been watching what's been happening in Europe? Socialism is
imploding.
>>
>> Pat said that people who don't like Obama are racist.
>>
>> Are you admitting that the vast majority of people who don't like
>> Obama do so over policy disagreements?
>>
>
>My impression is that there is a lot of misunderstanding of the policies
>disagreed with.
>
>The Tea Party, which is a minority grouping, does seem to draw some of its
>energy from a fear of the ascendant former minorities in this country.
>
Very little of its energy.
Mostly, it's simply people who don't like Obama's policies.
There is a fundamental intolerance in liberals failing to admit that
people who *aren't* racist might disagree with Obama.
>>>
>>
>> It wasn't recorded, and there was no transcript. It was sponsored by
>> a church on Harvard Square, and I challenged him during the Q & A.
>>
>
>Should've taken notes. Or recorded it.
>
>
How was I to know that 35 years later somebody like you would deny
that Chomsky is a Stalinist?
BTW, I found a written source with Chomsky saying what I remember him
saying: that there is no academic freedom to study racial differences
in IQ.
http://books.google.com/books?id=84NQ3IXpbOYC&pg=PA119&lpg=PA119&dq=chomsky+academic+freedom+racist&source=bl&ots=F1gHsVs_7b&sig=TODRMG4Hbh8VDtS7fWwVSEnq1mA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=J7X3T-T5DoPs0gGyn8TSBg&ved=0CEMQ6AEwBDgK#v=onepage&q=chomsky%20academic%20freedom%20racist&f=false
>> Do you *really* doubt he would like to shut up ideas with which he
>> disagrees?
>>
>
>Yes, I *really* thinks he believes good ideas will survive open debate.
>
See the link above.
>>
>> I *did* say your colleagues at THE NATION. I was assuming that you
>> probably knew better.
>>
>
>I don't believe you really read The Nation.
>
>
I do sometimes.
I've read a lot of issues from the 1930s. :-)
>>>
>>>
>>> You are quite the ideologue yourself, and your ideology is that of the
>>> ruling class.
>>>
>>
>> There is no ruling class. There is a class struggle between the
>> business class (usually allied with social conservatives) and the New
>> Class, which includes those elites represented by the Democratic
>> Party.
>>
>> When the Democrats control, the New Class controls -- happily subject
>> to checks and balances and the constraints of a democratic system.
>>
>> The claim that the business class is the "ruling class" is New Class
>> ideology.
>>
>> Sorkin buys into this ideology.
>>
>
>Both these elements are part of the ruling, capitalist class.
>
Not so. The class struggle is between the business class (represented
by the Republican Party) and the New Class (representd by the
Democratic Party). The New Class isn't capitalist at all.
It consists of people with an interest in the expansion of government.
>But I see that there are a lot of people not constituted as part of
>*any* class in your analysis.
>
There are plenty of people who aren't part of either of the elite
classes.
>If the Republican Party really does represent anything besides the
>interests of its money-bags elite ("the universal interests of mankind"?),
>then why is it so focused on suppressing the vote in the next election?
>
>http://www.thenation.com/blog/168762/dumping-mitt-gop-making-steal-plausible
>
>
What you call "suppressing the vote" is actually a desire to stop
fraud.
You folks are so adamant that people should not have to show an ID
when they vote that Republicans can't see any reason for that *unless*
you want massive fraud.
Do you *really* think that it's possible to get along in U.S. society
without an ID?
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
<gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On 7/6/12 11:19 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 6 Jul 2012 23:05:35 -0400, Sandy McCroskey
>> <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I wasn't complaining about anybody's likes or dislikes.
>>> Just seems a juvenile, trivializing way to frame things.
>>>
>>
>> It's not at all trivial to point out that somebody does not like the
>> private sector and free markets.
>>
>> That's the central part of Obama's ideology.
>>
>
>Not "liking" something is a matter of mere taste, not ideology.
>It's unreasoned.
>This phrasing trivializes your opponent's reasoned position, as well as
>your own supposed reasons for opposing it.
>
That is a distinction without a difference. Among ideological people,
>On 7/6/12 11:19 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 6 Jul 2012 23:05:35 -0400, Sandy McCroskey
>> <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I wasn't complaining about anybody's likes or dislikes.
>>> Just seems a juvenile, trivializing way to frame things.
>>>
>>
>> It's not at all trivial to point out that somebody does not like the
>> private sector and free markets.
>>
>> That's the central part of Obama's ideology.
>>
>
>Not "liking" something is a matter of mere taste, not ideology.
>It's unreasoned.
>This phrasing trivializes your opponent's reasoned position, as well as
>your own supposed reasons for opposing it.
>
it doesn't start with "principle." It starts with class interests.
And those are rationalized via ideology.
And liberals and leftists really do *dislike* markets, and the private
sector.
They *like* government.
Those are fundamental things about their ideology.
>>
>> He's to the left of most Americans. And the American spectrum isn't
>> that different from Europe. The *vast* majority of Democrat elites
>> would be in a socialist party in Europe.
>>
>
>Yes, there has been a flattening of the political landscape in Europe as
>well. It's not that our Democrats are so socialist but that their
>Socialists are no longer so radical.
>
How has nationalization of industry turned out?
How have confiscatory tax rates turned out?
How have rigid labor market policies, that protect the jobs of people
who have jobs but result in massive unemployment among the young
turned out?
How have massive entitlements turned out?
Have you been watching what's been happening in Europe? Socialism is
imploding.
>>
>> Pat said that people who don't like Obama are racist.
>>
>> Are you admitting that the vast majority of people who don't like
>> Obama do so over policy disagreements?
>>
>
>My impression is that there is a lot of misunderstanding of the policies
>disagreed with.
>
>The Tea Party, which is a minority grouping, does seem to draw some of its
>energy from a fear of the ascendant former minorities in this country.
>
Mostly, it's simply people who don't like Obama's policies.
There is a fundamental intolerance in liberals failing to admit that
people who *aren't* racist might disagree with Obama.
>>>
>>
>> It wasn't recorded, and there was no transcript. It was sponsored by
>> a church on Harvard Square, and I challenged him during the Q & A.
>>
>
>Should've taken notes. Or recorded it.
>
>
that Chomsky is a Stalinist?
BTW, I found a written source with Chomsky saying what I remember him
saying: that there is no academic freedom to study racial differences
in IQ.
http://books.google.com/books?id=84NQ3IXpbOYC&pg=PA119&lpg=PA119&dq=chomsky+academic+freedom+racist&source=bl&ots=F1gHsVs_7b&sig=TODRMG4Hbh8VDtS7fWwVSEnq1mA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=J7X3T-T5DoPs0gGyn8TSBg&ved=0CEMQ6AEwBDgK#v=onepage&q=chomsky%20academic%20freedom%20racist&f=false
>> Do you *really* doubt he would like to shut up ideas with which he
>> disagrees?
>>
>
>Yes, I *really* thinks he believes good ideas will survive open debate.
>
>>
>> I *did* say your colleagues at THE NATION. I was assuming that you
>> probably knew better.
>>
>
>I don't believe you really read The Nation.
>
>
I've read a lot of issues from the 1930s. :-)
>>>
>>>
>>> You are quite the ideologue yourself, and your ideology is that of the
>>> ruling class.
>>>
>>
>> There is no ruling class. There is a class struggle between the
>> business class (usually allied with social conservatives) and the New
>> Class, which includes those elites represented by the Democratic
>> Party.
>>
>> When the Democrats control, the New Class controls -- happily subject
>> to checks and balances and the constraints of a democratic system.
>>
>> The claim that the business class is the "ruling class" is New Class
>> ideology.
>>
>> Sorkin buys into this ideology.
>>
>
>Both these elements are part of the ruling, capitalist class.
>
by the Republican Party) and the New Class (representd by the
Democratic Party). The New Class isn't capitalist at all.
It consists of people with an interest in the expansion of government.
>But I see that there are a lot of people not constituted as part of
>*any* class in your analysis.
>
classes.
>If the Republican Party really does represent anything besides the
>interests of its money-bags elite ("the universal interests of mankind"?),
>then why is it so focused on suppressing the vote in the next election?
>
>http://www.thenation.com/blog/168762/dumping-mitt-gop-making-steal-plausible
>
>
fraud.
You folks are so adamant that people should not have to show an ID
when they vote that Republicans can't see any reason for that *unless*
you want massive fraud.
Do you *really* think that it's possible to get along in U.S. society
without an ID?
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Bill Clarke
Jul 7, 2012, 12:19:00 AM7/7/12
to
In article <acc99043-6c77-496c...@googlegroups.com>,
pjsp...@AOL.COM says...
conservative concern about the promiscuous spending of money that we don't
have. If anyone isn't alarmed at this huge debt we now owe they should be.
Too much dept can put you out of business.
Bill Clarke
pjsp...@AOL.COM says...
>
>On Wednesday, July 4, 2012 9:55:11 PM UTC-7, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 4 Jul 2012 09:25:35 -0400, HistorianDetective
>On Wednesday, July 4, 2012 9:55:11 PM UTC-7, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 4 Jul 2012 09:25:35 -0400, HistorianDetective
>> <historian...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Keeping somewhat in line with a recent thread regarding US Media that was
>> >posted by the CT moderator of this group and non-US citizen, here's a link
>> >to the full premier episode of HBO's new series "Newsroom" written by
>> >Aaron Sorkin of West Wing fame, Charlie Wilson's War and Moneyball, as
>> >well. Well worth the free viewing for those like myself who are not an HBO
>> >subscriber.
>> >
>> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1U4ZhFDFYvE&feature=player_embedded
>> >
>> >The opening is a roundtable debate where each panelist is asked the
>> >question as to why America is the greatest country in the world. You will
>> >have to watch for yourself for the dramatic answer given by anchorman Will
>> >McAvoy (played by Jeff Daniels of Dumb and Dumber fame).
>> >
>>
>>
>> >Keeping somewhat in line with a recent thread regarding US Media that was
>> >posted by the CT moderator of this group and non-US citizen, here's a link
>> >to the full premier episode of HBO's new series "Newsroom" written by
>> >Aaron Sorkin of West Wing fame, Charlie Wilson's War and Moneyball, as
>> >well. Well worth the free viewing for those like myself who are not an HBO
>> >subscriber.
>> >
>> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1U4ZhFDFYvE&feature=player_embedded
>> >
>> >The opening is a roundtable debate where each panelist is asked the
>> >question as to why America is the greatest country in the world. You will
>> >have to watch for yourself for the dramatic answer given by anchorman Will
>> >McAvoy (played by Jeff Daniels of Dumb and Dumber fame).
>> >
>>
>> Sorkin, I'm afraid, is an anti-American bigot.
>>
>>
>> And it would be good, on this 4th of July, to examine just why he is
>> such a bigot.
>>
>> Sorkin is an elitist who thinks that elites like him (in the media, in
>> academia, and the bureaucracy) should be running this country.
>>
>> But in fact, his sort of people have to fight for control with people
>> he disdains: Christians, business people, people who don't want
>> government bureaucrats to dictate to them, people who think government
>> taxes too much.
>>
>> With the Obama victory in 2008, Sorkin thought that his sort of people
>> had decisively gained the upper hand. But Obama ran into trouble. The
>> other side mobilized. The Republicans won the 2010 election.
>>
>> So Sorkin is bitter. I'm glad he's bitter.
>>
>> I'm happy to live in the sort of America that Sorkin hates. It's an
>> America that is pretty good to ordinary people, but frustrates
>> arrogant elitists like Sorkin.
>>
>> .John
>> --------------
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
>> such a bigot.
>>
>> Sorkin is an elitist who thinks that elites like him (in the media, in
>> academia, and the bureaucracy) should be running this country.
>>
>> But in fact, his sort of people have to fight for control with people
>> he disdains: Christians, business people, people who don't want
>> government bureaucrats to dictate to them, people who think government
>> taxes too much.
>>
>> With the Obama victory in 2008, Sorkin thought that his sort of people
>> had decisively gained the upper hand. But Obama ran into trouble. The
>> other side mobilized. The Republicans won the 2010 election.
>>
>> So Sorkin is bitter. I'm glad he's bitter.
>>
>> I'm happy to live in the sort of America that Sorkin hates. It's an
>> America that is pretty good to ordinary people, but frustrates
>> arrogant elitists like Sorkin.
>>
>> .John
>> --------------
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
>Do you really believe this stuff? My gosh, I sure hope not. How is it that
>you get all up in arms when someone suggests that old-fashioned racism
>underlies much of modern "conservatism,
I'm not sure about that. No doubt it is partly true but it omits the
>you get all up in arms when someone suggests that old-fashioned racism
>underlies much of modern "conservatism,
conservative concern about the promiscuous spending of money that we don't
have. If anyone isn't alarmed at this huge debt we now owe they should be.
Too much dept can put you out of business.
Bill Clarke
Bill Clarke
Jul 7, 2012, 12:22:38 AM7/7/12
to
In article <4ff7...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Sandy McCroskey says...
I agree. This assault weapon thing has become a joke. Now if they fired
fully automatic that would be a horse of a different color. On top of
that many are cheap made and inaccurate but are way overpriced.
Bill Clarke
fully automatic that would be a horse of a different color. On top of
that many are cheap made and inaccurate but are way overpriced.
Bill Clarke
Sandy McCroskey
Jul 7, 2012, 1:31:05 PM7/7/12
to
On 7/7/12 12:16 AM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 6 Jul 2012 23:48:36 -0400, Sandy McCroskey
> <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> On 7/6/12 11:19 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>>> On 6 Jul 2012 23:05:35 -0400, Sandy McCroskey
>>> <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I wasn't complaining about anybody's likes or dislikes.
>>>> Just seems a juvenile, trivializing way to frame things.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It's not at all trivial to point out that somebody does not like the
>>> private sector and free markets.
>>>
>>> That's the central part of Obama's ideology.
>>>
>>
>> Not "liking" something is a matter of mere taste, not ideology.
>> It's unreasoned.
>> This phrasing trivializes your opponent's reasoned position, as well as
>> your own supposed reasons for opposing it.
>>
>
> That is a distinction without a difference. Among ideological people,
> it doesn't start with "principle." It starts with class interests.
> And those are rationalized via ideology.
>
> And liberals and leftists really do *dislike* markets, and the private
> sector.
>
> They *like* government.
>
> Those are fundamental things about their ideology.
>
Let's say, then, that you like markets and dislike government.
> On 6 Jul 2012 23:48:36 -0400, Sandy McCroskey
> <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> On 7/6/12 11:19 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>>> On 6 Jul 2012 23:05:35 -0400, Sandy McCroskey
>>> <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I wasn't complaining about anybody's likes or dislikes.
>>>> Just seems a juvenile, trivializing way to frame things.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It's not at all trivial to point out that somebody does not like the
>>> private sector and free markets.
>>>
>>> That's the central part of Obama's ideology.
>>>
>>
>> Not "liking" something is a matter of mere taste, not ideology.
>> It's unreasoned.
>> This phrasing trivializes your opponent's reasoned position, as well as
>> your own supposed reasons for opposing it.
>>
>
> That is a distinction without a difference. Among ideological people,
> it doesn't start with "principle." It starts with class interests.
> And those are rationalized via ideology.
>
> And liberals and leftists really do *dislike* markets, and the private
> sector.
>
> They *like* government.
>
> Those are fundamental things about their ideology.
>
He dislikes, you like.
Nothing to discuss yet.
"Imagine, guys, he doesn't like chocolate! Is that crazy or what??"
>>>
>>> He's to the left of most Americans. And the American spectrum isn't
>>> that different from Europe. The *vast* majority of Democrat elites
>>> would be in a socialist party in Europe.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, there has been a flattening of the political landscape in Europe as
>> well. It's not that our Democrats are so socialist but that their
>> Socialists are no longer so radical.
>>
>
> Because most of their ideas have failed.
>
> How has nationalization of industry turned out?
>
> How have confiscatory tax rates turned out?
>
> How have rigid labor market policies, that protect the jobs of people
> who have jobs but result in massive unemployment among the young
> turned out?
>
> How have massive entitlements turned out?
>
> Have you been watching what's been happening in Europe? Socialism is
> imploding.
>
the rampant privatization, offshoring, etc., even before the current
reaction against the austerity imposed by the incoherent organization of
the eurozone.
How has privatization a-go-go affected the quality of life over there?
That's a question you didn't ask.
I read too many stories in Le Canard encha?n? about unscrupulous
contractors cutting corners. That's a paper of rather an anarchist bent,
not trusting implicitly in any particular government, but it recognizes
the need for government regulation and enforcement of standards in certain
vital areas.
>>>
>>> Pat said that people who don't like Obama are racist.
>>>
>>> Are you admitting that the vast majority of people who don't like
>>> Obama do so over policy disagreements?
>>>
>>
>> My impression is that there is a lot of misunderstanding of the policies
>> disagreed with.
>>
>> The Tea Party, which is a minority grouping, does seem to draw some of its
>> energy from a fear of the ascendant former minorities in this country.
>>
>
> Very little of its energy.
>
> Mostly, it's simply people who don't like Obama's policies.
>
> There is a fundamental intolerance in liberals failing to admit that
> people who *aren't* racist might disagree with Obama.
>
>>>>
>>>
>>> It wasn't recorded, and there was no transcript. It was sponsored by
>>> a church on Harvard Square, and I challenged him during the Q & A.
>>>
>>
>> Should've taken notes. Or recorded it.
>>
>>
>
> How was I to know that 35 years later somebody like you would deny
> that Chomsky is a Stalinist?
>
> BTW, I found a written source with Chomsky saying what I remember him
> saying: that there is no academic freedom to study racial differences
> in IQ.
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=84NQ3IXpbOYC&pg=PA119&lpg=PA119&dq=chomsky+academic+freedom+racist&source=bl&ots=F1gHsVs_7b&sig=TODRMG4Hbh8VDtS7fWwVSEnq1mA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=J7X3T-T5DoPs0gGyn8TSBg&ved=0CEMQ6AEwBDgK#v=onepage&q=chomsky%20academic%20freedom%20racist&f=false
>
"race."
Chomsky is talking about a moral responsibility of the scientist here.
He's appealing to those who will read him. I don't see where he's
recommending any institutional coercion, which, by the way, the next
essay, the Appendix, expressly disavows.
If you have a different evaluation of the scientific value of such
studies, this factor will weigh more heavily in your weighing of the
issue.
If you contest Chomsky's premise that we live in a "racist society" (or
that we did in the year this was written), you can argue with him that
merely undergoing such studies would not have the feared consequences.
But if you believe the scientist and scholar have no moral responsibility,
then he's wasted his breath on you.
>
>
>>> Do you *really* doubt he would like to shut up ideas with which he
>>> disagrees?
>>>
>>
>> Yes, I *really* thinks he believes good ideas will survive open debate.
>>
>
> See the link above.
>
>>>
>>> I *did* say your colleagues at THE NATION. I was assuming that you
>>> probably knew better.
>>>
>>
>> I don't believe you really read The Nation.
>>
>>
>
> I do sometimes.
>
> I've read a lot of issues from the 1930s. :-)
>
Things do change, though, magazines as well as people.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You are quite the ideologue yourself, and your ideology is that of the
>>>> ruling class.
>>>>
>>>
>>> There is no ruling class. There is a class struggle between the
>>> business class (usually allied with social conservatives) and the New
>>> Class, which includes those elites represented by the Democratic
>>> Party.
>>>
>>> When the Democrats control, the New Class controls -- happily subject
>>> to checks and balances and the constraints of a democratic system.
>>>
>>> The claim that the business class is the "ruling class" is New Class
>>> ideology.
>>>
>>> Sorkin buys into this ideology.
>>>
>>
>> Both these elements are part of the ruling, capitalist class.
>>
>
> Not so. The class struggle is between the business class (represented
> by the Republican Party) and the New Class (representd by the
> Democratic Party). The New Class isn't capitalist at all.
>
the Party in a one-party state, the interests of capital everywhere
prevail. Hillary Clinton must be part of the New Class, right, since she's
not on *your* side (business class?)? Look at her role, detailed in
yesterday's Times, in bringing, at great cost to the environment as well
as the livelihoods of local farmers, an industrial park to a part of Haiti
that wasn't affected by the earthquake.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/06/world/americas/earthquake-relief-where-haiti-wasnt-broken.html
> It consists of people with an interest in the expansion of government.
>
in the bathtub" is the criminal justice system (drowning governments in
bathtubs will not be prosecuted, nor the foreseeable consequences of that
act). Maintenance (let alone improvement) of infrastructure, protection of
the public health, preservation of the ecosphere... I guess some
philanthropists will have to kick in and take care of it all in the
private sphere.
>> But I see that there are a lot of people not constituted as part of
>> *any* class in your analysis.
>>
>
> There are plenty of people who aren't part of either of the elite
> classes.
>
>
>> If the Republican Party really does represent anything besides the
>> interests of its money-bags elite ("the universal interests of mankind"?),
>> then why is it so focused on suppressing the vote in the next election?
>>
>> http://www.thenation.com/blog/168762/dumping-mitt-gop-making-steal-plausible
>>
>>
>
> What you call "suppressing the vote" is actually a desire to stop
> fraud.
>
> You folks are so adamant that people should not have to show an ID
> when they vote that Republicans can't see any reason for that *unless*
> you want massive fraud.
>
> Do you *really* think that it's possible to get along in U.S. society
> without an ID?
It's been a while since this has kept me out of a nightclub (alas).
/sm
Anthony Marsh
Jul 7, 2012, 8:26:30 PM7/7/12
to
On 7/7/2012 12:16 AM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 6 Jul 2012 23:48:36 -0400, Sandy McCroskey
> <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> On 7/6/12 11:19 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>>> On 6 Jul 2012 23:05:35 -0400, Sandy McCroskey
>>> <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I wasn't complaining about anybody's likes or dislikes.
>>>> Just seems a juvenile, trivializing way to frame things.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It's not at all trivial to point out that somebody does not like the
>>> private sector and free markets.
>>>
>>> That's the central part of Obama's ideology.
>>>
>>
>> Not "liking" something is a matter of mere taste, not ideology.
>> It's unreasoned.
>> This phrasing trivializes your opponent's reasoned position, as well as
>> your own supposed reasons for opposing it.
>>
>
> That is a distinction without a difference. Among ideological people,
> it doesn't start with "principle." It starts with class interests.
> And those are rationalized via ideology.
>
> And liberals and leftists really do *dislike* markets, and the private
> sector.
>
Liberals and Leftists ARE markets. They ARE the private sector.
> On 6 Jul 2012 23:48:36 -0400, Sandy McCroskey
> <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> On 7/6/12 11:19 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>>> On 6 Jul 2012 23:05:35 -0400, Sandy McCroskey
>>> <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I wasn't complaining about anybody's likes or dislikes.
>>>> Just seems a juvenile, trivializing way to frame things.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It's not at all trivial to point out that somebody does not like the
>>> private sector and free markets.
>>>
>>> That's the central part of Obama's ideology.
>>>
>>
>> Not "liking" something is a matter of mere taste, not ideology.
>> It's unreasoned.
>> This phrasing trivializes your opponent's reasoned position, as well as
>> your own supposed reasons for opposing it.
>>
>
> That is a distinction without a difference. Among ideological people,
> it doesn't start with "principle." It starts with class interests.
> And those are rationalized via ideology.
>
> And liberals and leftists really do *dislike* markets, and the private
> sector.
>
> They *like* government.
>
Conservatives like government when they can use it to push their agenda.
> Those are fundamental things about their ideology.
>
>>>
>>> He's to the left of most Americans. And the American spectrum isn't
>>> that different from Europe. The *vast* majority of Democrat elites
>>> would be in a socialist party in Europe.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, there has been a flattening of the political landscape in Europe as
>> well. It's not that our Democrats are so socialist but that their
>> Socialists are no longer so radical.
>>
>
> Because most of their ideas have failed.
>
> How has nationalization of industry turned out?
>
> How have confiscatory tax rates turned out?
>
> How have rigid labor market policies, that protect the jobs of people
> who have jobs but result in massive unemployment among the young
> turned out?
>
> How have massive entitlements turned out?
>
> Have you been watching what's been happening in Europe? Socialism is
> imploding.
>
>>>
>>> Pat said that people who don't like Obama are racist.
>>>
>>> Are you admitting that the vast majority of people who don't like
>>> Obama do so over policy disagreements?
>>>
>>
>> My impression is that there is a lot of misunderstanding of the policies
>> disagreed with.
>>
>> The Tea Party, which is a minority grouping, does seem to draw some of its
>> energy from a fear of the ascendant former minorities in this country.
>>
>
> Very little of its energy.
>
> Mostly, it's simply people who don't like Obama's policies.
>
> There is a fundamental intolerance in liberals failing to admit that
> people who *aren't* racist might disagree with Obama.
>
Many blacks don't agree with him.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It wasn't recorded, and there was no transcript. It was sponsored by
>>> a church on Harvard Square, and I challenged him during the Q & A.
>>>
>>
>> Should've taken notes. Or recorded it.
>>
>>
>
> How was I to know that 35 years later somebody like you would deny
> that Chomsky is a Stalinist?
>
The poor and the rich.
> It consists of people with an interest in the expansion of government.
>
Bush Light.
>> But I see that there are a lot of people not constituted as part of
>> *any* class in your analysis.
>>
>
> There are plenty of people who aren't part of either of the elite
> classes.
>
>
>> If the Republican Party really does represent anything besides the
>> interests of its money-bags elite ("the universal interests of mankind"?),
>> then why is it so focused on suppressing the vote in the next election?
>>
>> http://www.thenation.com/blog/168762/dumping-mitt-gop-making-steal-plausible
>>
>>
>
> What you call "suppressing the vote" is actually a desire to stop
> fraud.
Face it, you don't believe in democracy. You believe in plutocracy.
>
> You folks are so adamant that people should not have to show an ID
> when they vote that Republicans can't see any reason for that *unless*
> you want massive fraud.
>
Anthony Marsh
Jul 7, 2012, 8:26:59 PM7/7/12
to
BTW, can you understand the subtle difference between owning guns and
carrying guns? I own several guns, but in Massachusetts it is very hard
to get the permit to carry guns.
Even when I did own a handgun I never carried it loaded in public.
If you know what you are doing it takes only a second to load it.
Sandy McCroskey
Jul 7, 2012, 11:21:56 PM7/7/12
to
On 7/6/12 2:41 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>
> Remember, ObamaCare was supposed to cut a*half-trillion* dollars from
>
> Medicare. Remember, Obama's bureaucrats have the power to deny
> treatment to people on Medicare.
>
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/07/us/politics/mixed-message-as-republicans-claim-health-law-cuts-medicare.html
> treatment to people on Medicare.
>
Delicate Pivot as Republicans Blast Rivals on Medicare Cuts
By JACKIE CALMES
Published: July 6, 2012
WASHINGTON ? For much of the past year, Republicans assailed President
Obama for resisting the Medicare spending reductions they say are needed
to both preserve health benefits for older Americans and avert a
Greek-style debt crisis. Representative Paul D. Ryan, the House
Republicans? point man on the budget, has called the president ?gutless.?
Yet since the Supreme Court upheld the Democrats? 2010 health care law,
Republicans, led by Mitt Romney, have reversed tactics and attacked the
president and Democrats in Congress by saying that Medicare will be cut
too much as part of that law. Republicans plan to hold another vote to
repeal the law in the House next week, though any such measure would die
in the Democratic-controlled Senate.
?Obamacare cuts Medicare ? cuts Medicare ? by approximately $500 billion,?
Mr. Romney has told audiences.
That is a reprise of Republicans? mantra of the 2010 midterm elections,
which gave them big gains at both the state and federal levels and a
majority in the House. Yet the message conflicts not only with their past
complaint that Democrats opposed reining in Medicare spending, but also
with the fact that House Republicans have voted twice since 2010 for the
same 10-year, $500 billion savings in supporting Mr. Ryan?s annual
budgets.
The result is a messaging mess, even by the standards of each party?s
usual election-year attacks that the other is being insufficiently
supportive of older people?s benefits.
And in this year?s contests, which both parties describe as a referendum
on who can best correct the nation?s economic course, such talk
underscores how far Republicans and Democrats are from truly squaring with
the public about curbing the growth of the major entitlement programs:
Medicare, Medicaid and, to a lesser extent, Social Security. That growth
is driving the projections of a federal debt that is mounting
unsustainably as the population ages and health care costs rise.
?A pox on both their houses,? said Ron Haskins, a former Congressional
staff member who is now a scholar of social programs and budgeting at the
Brookings Institution. Democrats and Republicans ?know they have to do
something about Medicare, and then they harass each other about cutting
Medicare. It?s so discouraging to me, but I?m a Republican, so I?m much
more distraught about Republicans.?
And, Mr. Haskins added, ?$500 billion is modest compared to what Ryan
would do.?
Under Mr. Ryan?s budget, which Mr. Romney has supported but which has been
blocked each year in the Senate, Medicare would not pay for the medical
fees of future beneficiaries, as it currently does. Instead it would
provide ?premium support,? limited payments ? vouchers, Democrats say ?
that beneficiaries could use to buy insurance policies in the private
sector. And Medicaid, which increasingly goes toward nursing home care for
older people, would become a capped block grant to states, forcing them to
make significant cuts.
In their attacks, Republicans have said in speeches and in television
advertisements that the Democrats? projected $500 billion in Medicare
savings will ?strip,? ?gut,? ?rob? or ?raid? older people?s benefits.
?Ron Barber will hurt Arizona seniors,? said an ad this spring from the
House Republicans? campaign committee in support of the Republican who
ultimately lost to Mr. Barber, a Democrat, in a special election to
replace Representative Gabrielle Giffords.
Objecting to such attacks, Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland,
the senior Democrat on the House Budget Committee, said in an interview:
?There are two issues here: One, there were no cuts to Medicare benefits.
And in fact, benefits were strengthened.?
Independent fact-checking groups have repeatedly knocked down the
Republicans? claims. ?A discredited claim is making a comeback following
the U.S. Supreme Court ruling upholding most of the national health care
reform law,? PolitiFact recently wrote in one such analysis.
Republicans stand by their attack. They say the problem with the
Democratic approach is that the reductions do little to bolster Medicare?s
stability, with the money diverted to initiatives in the health care law.
?Democrats are still the only party in Washington to cut $500 billion from
Medicare in order to help pay for Obamacare,? said Paul Lindsay, spokesman
for the National Republican Congressional Committee. ?It?s a fact that did
not go unnoticed among seniors in 2010, and one that we will continue
holding Democrats accountable for in our ads this fall.?
But the $500 billion in reductions would come through cuts in the
projected growth of Medicare and would mainly affect hospitals and other
providers of medical care, some of whom supported the health care measure
nonetheless because it would extend coverage to up to 30 million uninsured
Americans, raising the number of paying customers. Other savings would
result from lower subsidies for private insurers selling Medicare
Advantage plans, which offer older people extra features like vision care
and gym memberships. The insurers could not cut basic Medicare benefits.
Democrats used the projected $500 billion in savings to help pay for
expanding older people?s benefits. The health care law says that some
preventive care services like mammograms must be free to patients, and it
closed the ?doughnut hole? in the Medicare prescription drug program,
which had left many older people paying full price for prescriptions above
a certain level.
While Republicans have backed the spending reductions, even as they have
attacked Mr. Obama and the Democrats for enacting them, they would end the
new benefits.
Mr. Ryan, of Wisconsin, was unavailable for comment, but, pressed on the
issue on ABC?s ?This Week? on Sunday, he said: ?Well, our budget keeps
that money for Medicare to extend its solvency. What Obamacare does is it
takes that money from Medicare to spend on Obamacare.?
Robert Greenstein, the executive director of the left-leaning Center on
Budget and Policy Priorities, called Mr. Ryan?s claim ?somewhere between a
misstatement and a flat-out untruth.?
Mr. Greenstein, among others, said that Democrats were not double-counting
the $500 billion in savings ? by claiming that it both improves Medicare?s
financial outlook and helps finance new benefits ? any more than were the
Republicans, who say they would use the savings both to shore up the
Medicare trust funds and to reduce the federal debt.
The Congressional Budget Office and the chief actuary for the Medicare and
Medicaid programs, Richard S. Foster, have concluded that the $500 billion
in savings would extend the solvency of Medicare?s hospital insurance
trust fund. Since the passage of the health care law, known as the
Affordable Care Act, the Medicare trustees have shifted the projected date
of insolvency to 2024 from 2016.
Mr. Foster, in this year?s report by the trustees, wrote that ?the
Affordable Care Act makes important changes to the Medicare program and
substantially improves its financial outlook.?
</quote off>
John McAdams
Jul 7, 2012, 11:27:20 PM7/7/12
to
On 7 Jul 2012 23:21:56 -0400, Sandy McCroskey
Are you actually denying that ObamaCare promised to take a
half-trillion dollars out of Medicare?
That was explicitly part of the program. And the idea that you can
cut a half-trillion without cuts in services is absurd.
The Democrats seems to be promising that they will just cut payments
to *providers,* which won't harm services. But that's absurd.
Why do you think systems of socialized medicine have such absurdly
long wait times and such draconian limits on care?
Because the politicians squeeze the providers. And that has
consequences.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
<gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On 7/6/12 2:41 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>>
>> Remember, ObamaCare was supposed to cut a*half-trillion* dollars from
>> Medicare. Remember, Obama's bureaucrats have the power to deny
>> treatment to people on Medicare.
>>
>
>http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/07/us/politics/mixed-message-as-republicans-claim-health-law-cuts-medicare.html
>
>
Well . . . the New York Times is certainly an unbiased source!
>On 7/6/12 2:41 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>>
>> Remember, ObamaCare was supposed to cut a*half-trillion* dollars from
>> Medicare. Remember, Obama's bureaucrats have the power to deny
>> treatment to people on Medicare.
>>
>
>http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/07/us/politics/mixed-message-as-republicans-claim-health-law-cuts-medicare.html
>
>
Are you actually denying that ObamaCare promised to take a
half-trillion dollars out of Medicare?
That was explicitly part of the program. And the idea that you can
cut a half-trillion without cuts in services is absurd.
The Democrats seems to be promising that they will just cut payments
to *providers,* which won't harm services. But that's absurd.
Why do you think systems of socialized medicine have such absurdly
long wait times and such draconian limits on care?
Because the politicians squeeze the providers. And that has
consequences.
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
Jul 7, 2012, 11:49:52 PM7/7/12
to
On 7 Jul 2012 13:31:05 -0400, Sandy McCroskey
Yes, plenty to discuss. The centralization of too much economic power
in government has consequences which should be obvious now.
Even you have admitted that European socialists have backed away from
nationalization and confiscatory tax rates.
>"Imagine, guys, he doesn't like chocolate! Is that crazy or what??"
>
No difference between the U.S. and the old USSR. Just a matter of
taste.
>>>>
>>>> He's to the left of most Americans. And the American spectrum isn't
>>>> that different from Europe. The *vast* majority of Democrat elites
>>>> would be in a socialist party in Europe.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, there has been a flattening of the political landscape in Europe as
>>> well. It's not that our Democrats are so socialist but that their
>>> Socialists are no longer so radical.
>>>
>>
>> Because most of their ideas have failed.
>>
>> How has nationalization of industry turned out?
>>
>> How have confiscatory tax rates turned out?
>>
>> How have rigid labor market policies, that protect the jobs of people
>> who have jobs but result in massive unemployment among the young
>> turned out?
>>
>> How have massive entitlements turned out?
>>
>> Have you been watching what's been happening in Europe? Socialism is
>> imploding.
>>
>
>Been hearing that for a while. But there was already a rising tide against
>the rampant privatization, offshoring, etc., even before the current
>reaction against the austerity imposed by the incoherent organization of
>the eurozone.
>
Translation: people, once conditioned to a cushy existence at the
expense of *other people* get resentful when told it can't be
sustained.
That's a *moral* failing of socialism.
>How has privatization a-go-go affected the quality of life over there?
>That's a question you didn't ask.
>
You must have liked the old USSR.
>I read too many stories in Le Canard encha?n? about unscrupulous
>contractors cutting corners. That's a paper of rather an anarchist bent,
>not trusting implicitly in any particular government, but it recognizes
>the need for government regulation and enforcement of standards in certain
>vital areas.
>
You can't get around that nationalization of industry is now relegated
to the dustbin of history.
Of course there are holdouts.
There were serious royalists for what, at least a century after
monarchs were clearly obsolete.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It wasn't recorded, and there was no transcript. It was sponsored by
>>>> a church on Harvard Square, and I challenged him during the Q & A.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Should've taken notes. Or recorded it.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> How was I to know that 35 years later somebody like you would deny
>> that Chomsky is a Stalinist?
>>
>> BTW, I found a written source with Chomsky saying what I remember him
>> saying: that there is no academic freedom to study racial differences
>> in IQ.
>>
>> http://books.google.com/books?id=84NQ3IXpbOYC&pg=PA119&lpg=PA119&dq=chomsky+academic+freedom+racist&source=bl&ots=F1gHsVs_7b&sig=TODRMG4Hbh8VDtS7fWwVSEnq1mA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=J7X3T-T5DoPs0gGyn8TSBg&ved=0CEMQ6AEwBDgK#v=onepage&q=chomsky%20academic%20freedom%20racist&f=false
>>
>
>Well, to study racial difference in IQ, you have to assume a definition of
>"race."
>
I'm sure you favor affirmative action, that *that* requires a
When I heard his talk, he clearly thought that research on IQ and race
should be forbidden. That it should be suppressed.
>If you have a different evaluation of the scientific value of such
>studies, this factor will weigh more heavily in your weighing of the
>issue.
>
>If you contest Chomsky's premise that we live in a "racist society" (or
>that we did in the year this was written), you can argue with him that
>merely undergoing such studies would not have the feared consequences.
>
What consequences would you fear?
Are you afraid that an open and honest discussion and study would lead
to racist conclusions?
Somehow, I sense that liberals, deep down, actually believe in black
inferiority, given how keen they are to shut up the whole topic.
>But if you believe the scientist and scholar have no moral responsibility,
>then he's wasted his breath on you.
>
The moral responsibility of a scientist and scholar is to the truth.
The political ramifications have to fall where they may.
You are taking a typically politically correct position: we lefties
decide what outcomes promote our preferred policies, and then we try
to shut down any research that might not produce the results we want.
Again: what are you afraid of?
>>>
>>> I don't believe you really read The Nation.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I do sometimes.
>>
>> I've read a lot of issues from the 1930s. :-)
>>
>
>Evidently.
>Things do change, though, magazines as well as people.
>
>
But some places change more slowly. You folks changed a *lot* more
slowly than THE NEW REPUBLIC where Stalinism was concerned.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You are quite the ideologue yourself, and your ideology is that of the
>>>>> ruling class.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There is no ruling class. There is a class struggle between the
>>>> business class (usually allied with social conservatives) and the New
>>>> Class, which includes those elites represented by the Democratic
>>>> Party.
>>>>
>>>> When the Democrats control, the New Class controls -- happily subject
>>>> to checks and balances and the constraints of a democratic system.
>>>>
>>>> The claim that the business class is the "ruling class" is New Class
>>>> ideology.
>>>>
>>>> Sorkin buys into this ideology.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Both these elements are part of the ruling, capitalist class.
>>>
>>
>> Not so. The class struggle is between the business class (represented
>> by the Republican Party) and the New Class (representd by the
>> Democratic Party). The New Class isn't capitalist at all.
>>
>
>Echt capitalists anywhere are few, of course, but like the real members of
>the Party in a one-party state, the interests of capital everywhere
>prevail. Hillary Clinton must be part of the New Class, right, since she's
>not on *your* side (business class?)? Look at her role, detailed in
>yesterday's Times, in bringing, at great cost to the environment as well
>as the livelihoods of local farmers, an industrial park to a part of Haiti
>that wasn't affected by the earthquake.
>
>http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/06/world/americas/earthquake-relief-where-haiti-wasnt-broken.html
>
>
It was your favorite liberal justices on the Supreme Court that failed
to stand up for property right in KELO.
Now you are lamenting that farmers in Haiti lose their property to an
industrial park?
Be consistent and admit that conservatives were right about Kelo.
BTW, none of this proves that Hillary was some capitalist stooge.
Soviet style socialism is dead, and the New Class has to work with the
capitalists.
So it's really crony capitalism (think: Solyndra) that is the
preferred New Class way of doing business.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/solyndra-politics-infused-obama-energy-programs/2011/12/14/gIQA4HllHP_story.html
But the New Class liked government ownership for decades.
And they *still* don't like free markets. They will put up with
capitalists, but they want the upper hand.
>>
>>> If the Republican Party really does represent anything besides the
>>> interests of its money-bags elite ("the universal interests of mankind"?),
>>> then why is it so focused on suppressing the vote in the next election?
>>>
>>> http://www.thenation.com/blog/168762/dumping-mitt-gop-making-steal-plausible
>>>
>>>
>>
>> What you call "suppressing the vote" is actually a desire to stop
>> fraud.
>>
>> You folks are so adamant that people should not have to show an ID
>> when they vote that Republicans can't see any reason for that *unless*
>> you want massive fraud.
>>
>> Do you *really* think that it's possible to get along in U.S. society
>> without an ID?
>
>
>All I have is my passport, since I don't drive.
>It's been a while since this has kept me out of a nightclub (alas).
>
Your passport would allow you to vote in any state with voter ID laws.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
in government has consequences which should be obvious now.
Even you have admitted that European socialists have backed away from
nationalization and confiscatory tax rates.
>"Imagine, guys, he doesn't like chocolate! Is that crazy or what??"
>
taste.
>>>>
>>>> He's to the left of most Americans. And the American spectrum isn't
>>>> that different from Europe. The *vast* majority of Democrat elites
>>>> would be in a socialist party in Europe.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, there has been a flattening of the political landscape in Europe as
>>> well. It's not that our Democrats are so socialist but that their
>>> Socialists are no longer so radical.
>>>
>>
>> Because most of their ideas have failed.
>>
>> How has nationalization of industry turned out?
>>
>> How have confiscatory tax rates turned out?
>>
>> How have rigid labor market policies, that protect the jobs of people
>> who have jobs but result in massive unemployment among the young
>> turned out?
>>
>> How have massive entitlements turned out?
>>
>> Have you been watching what's been happening in Europe? Socialism is
>> imploding.
>>
>
>Been hearing that for a while. But there was already a rising tide against
>the rampant privatization, offshoring, etc., even before the current
>reaction against the austerity imposed by the incoherent organization of
>the eurozone.
>
expense of *other people* get resentful when told it can't be
sustained.
That's a *moral* failing of socialism.
>How has privatization a-go-go affected the quality of life over there?
>That's a question you didn't ask.
>
>I read too many stories in Le Canard encha?n? about unscrupulous
>contractors cutting corners. That's a paper of rather an anarchist bent,
>not trusting implicitly in any particular government, but it recognizes
>the need for government regulation and enforcement of standards in certain
>vital areas.
>
to the dustbin of history.
Of course there are holdouts.
There were serious royalists for what, at least a century after
monarchs were clearly obsolete.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It wasn't recorded, and there was no transcript. It was sponsored by
>>>> a church on Harvard Square, and I challenged him during the Q & A.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Should've taken notes. Or recorded it.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> How was I to know that 35 years later somebody like you would deny
>> that Chomsky is a Stalinist?
>>
>> BTW, I found a written source with Chomsky saying what I remember him
>> saying: that there is no academic freedom to study racial differences
>> in IQ.
>>
>> http://books.google.com/books?id=84NQ3IXpbOYC&pg=PA119&lpg=PA119&dq=chomsky+academic+freedom+racist&source=bl&ots=F1gHsVs_7b&sig=TODRMG4Hbh8VDtS7fWwVSEnq1mA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=J7X3T-T5DoPs0gGyn8TSBg&ved=0CEMQ6AEwBDgK#v=onepage&q=chomsky%20academic%20freedom%20racist&f=false
>>
>
>Well, to study racial difference in IQ, you have to assume a definition of
>"race."
>
definition of race.
>Chomsky is talking about a moral responsibility of the scientist here.
>He's appealing to those who will read him. I don't see where he's
>recommending any institutional coercion, which, by the way, the next
>essay, the Appendix, expressly disavows.
>
It's relevant that he has to do that in an appendix.
>Chomsky is talking about a moral responsibility of the scientist here.
>He's appealing to those who will read him. I don't see where he's
>recommending any institutional coercion, which, by the way, the next
>essay, the Appendix, expressly disavows.
>
When I heard his talk, he clearly thought that research on IQ and race
should be forbidden. That it should be suppressed.
>If you have a different evaluation of the scientific value of such
>studies, this factor will weigh more heavily in your weighing of the
>issue.
>
>If you contest Chomsky's premise that we live in a "racist society" (or
>that we did in the year this was written), you can argue with him that
>merely undergoing such studies would not have the feared consequences.
>
Are you afraid that an open and honest discussion and study would lead
to racist conclusions?
Somehow, I sense that liberals, deep down, actually believe in black
inferiority, given how keen they are to shut up the whole topic.
>But if you believe the scientist and scholar have no moral responsibility,
>then he's wasted his breath on you.
>
The political ramifications have to fall where they may.
You are taking a typically politically correct position: we lefties
decide what outcomes promote our preferred policies, and then we try
to shut down any research that might not produce the results we want.
Again: what are you afraid of?
>>>
>>> I don't believe you really read The Nation.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I do sometimes.
>>
>> I've read a lot of issues from the 1930s. :-)
>>
>
>Evidently.
>Things do change, though, magazines as well as people.
>
>
slowly than THE NEW REPUBLIC where Stalinism was concerned.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You are quite the ideologue yourself, and your ideology is that of the
>>>>> ruling class.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There is no ruling class. There is a class struggle between the
>>>> business class (usually allied with social conservatives) and the New
>>>> Class, which includes those elites represented by the Democratic
>>>> Party.
>>>>
>>>> When the Democrats control, the New Class controls -- happily subject
>>>> to checks and balances and the constraints of a democratic system.
>>>>
>>>> The claim that the business class is the "ruling class" is New Class
>>>> ideology.
>>>>
>>>> Sorkin buys into this ideology.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Both these elements are part of the ruling, capitalist class.
>>>
>>
>> Not so. The class struggle is between the business class (represented
>> by the Republican Party) and the New Class (representd by the
>> Democratic Party). The New Class isn't capitalist at all.
>>
>
>Echt capitalists anywhere are few, of course, but like the real members of
>the Party in a one-party state, the interests of capital everywhere
>prevail. Hillary Clinton must be part of the New Class, right, since she's
>not on *your* side (business class?)? Look at her role, detailed in
>yesterday's Times, in bringing, at great cost to the environment as well
>as the livelihoods of local farmers, an industrial park to a part of Haiti
>that wasn't affected by the earthquake.
>
>http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/06/world/americas/earthquake-relief-where-haiti-wasnt-broken.html
>
>
to stand up for property right in KELO.
Now you are lamenting that farmers in Haiti lose their property to an
industrial park?
Be consistent and admit that conservatives were right about Kelo.
BTW, none of this proves that Hillary was some capitalist stooge.
Soviet style socialism is dead, and the New Class has to work with the
capitalists.
So it's really crony capitalism (think: Solyndra) that is the
preferred New Class way of doing business.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/solyndra-politics-infused-obama-energy-programs/2011/12/14/gIQA4HllHP_story.html
But the New Class liked government ownership for decades.
And they *still* don't like free markets. They will put up with
capitalists, but they want the upper hand.
>>
>>> If the Republican Party really does represent anything besides the
>>> interests of its money-bags elite ("the universal interests of mankind"?),
>>> then why is it so focused on suppressing the vote in the next election?
>>>
>>> http://www.thenation.com/blog/168762/dumping-mitt-gop-making-steal-plausible
>>>
>>>
>>
>> What you call "suppressing the vote" is actually a desire to stop
>> fraud.
>>
>> You folks are so adamant that people should not have to show an ID
>> when they vote that Republicans can't see any reason for that *unless*
>> you want massive fraud.
>>
>> Do you *really* think that it's possible to get along in U.S. society
>> without an ID?
>
>
>All I have is my passport, since I don't drive.
>It's been a while since this has kept me out of a nightclub (alas).
>
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Sandy McCroskey
Jul 8, 2012, 6:18:24 PM7/8/12
to
You're also qualifying things now. So wait... it's not that you dislike
government, it's just that you dislike "too much" government, is that
right?
> Even you have admitted that European socialists have backed away from
> nationalization and confiscatory tax rates.
>
>
>> "Imagine, guys, he doesn't like chocolate! Is that crazy or what??"
>>
>
> No difference between the U.S. and the old USSR. Just a matter of
> taste.
>
vapid.
I don't think most liberaLs would agree with you when you say, for
example, that they "don't like markets." They'd say that's way too
simplistic.
>
>>>>>
>>>>> He's to the left of most Americans. And the American spectrum isn't
>>>>> that different from Europe. The *vast* majority of Democrat elites
>>>>> would be in a socialist party in Europe.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, there has been a flattening of the political landscape in Europe as
>>>> well. It's not that our Democrats are so socialist but that their
>>>> Socialists are no longer so radical.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Because most of their ideas have failed.
>>>
>>> How has nationalization of industry turned out?
>>>
>>> How have confiscatory tax rates turned out?
>>>
>>> How have rigid labor market policies, that protect the jobs of people
>>> who have jobs but result in massive unemployment among the young
>>> turned out?
>>>
>>> How have massive entitlements turned out?
>>>
>>> Have you been watching what's been happening in Europe? Socialism is
>>> imploding.
>>>
>>
>> Been hearing that for a while. But there was already a rising tide against
>> the rampant privatization, offshoring, etc., even before the current
>> reaction against the austerity imposed by the incoherent organization of
>> the eurozone.
>>
>
> Translation: people, once conditioned to a cushy existence at the
> expense of *other people* get resentful when told it can't be
> sustained.
I don't see how the Greeks could have expected to keep a country going
without paying any taxes. Do you think the Greeks should pay their taxes?
For all I know, you're socking your own huge earnings into a secret
account in Delaware.
>
> That's a *moral* failing of socialism.
>
care is because some people are not insured.
>
>
>> How has privatization a-go-go affected the quality of life over there?
>> That's a question you didn't ask.
>>
>
> You must have liked the old USSR.
what you'd come up with if you're still stuck in a cold war mindset. But
while we're on it, do you think the USSR is a good example of a country
that has turned to a free-market model? It's been a raging success, hasn't
it? And when do you think Putin will allow real political opposition?
Surely the former Soviet Union is a special (basket) case.
I was referring to the decline in the standard of living as a result of
the depredations of privatization in Western European countries in recent
years, and particularly in France.
>> I read too many stories in Le Canard encha?n? about unscrupulous
>> contractors cutting corners. That's a paper of rather an anarchist bent,
>> not trusting implicitly in any particular government, but it recognizes
>> the need for government regulation and enforcement of standards in certain
>> vital areas.
>>
>
> You can't get around that nationalization of industry is now relegated
> to the dustbin of history.
>
> Of course there are holdouts.
>
> There were serious royalists for what, at least a century after
> monarchs were clearly obsolete.
>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It wasn't recorded, and there was no transcript. It was sponsored by
>>>>> a church on Harvard Square, and I challenged him during the Q & A.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Should've taken notes. Or recorded it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> How was I to know that 35 years later somebody like you would deny
>>> that Chomsky is a Stalinist?
>>>
>>> BTW, I found a written source with Chomsky saying what I remember him
>>> saying: that there is no academic freedom to study racial differences
>>> in IQ.
>>>
>>> http://books.google.com/books?id=84NQ3IXpbOYC&pg=PA119&lpg=PA119&dq=chomsky+academic+freedom+racist&source=bl&ots=F1gHsVs_7b&sig=TODRMG4Hbh8VDtS7fWwVSEnq1mA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=J7X3T-T5DoPs0gGyn8TSBg&ved=0CEMQ6AEwBDgK#v=onepage&q=chomsky%20academic%20freedom%20racist&f=false
>>>
>>
>> Well, to study racial difference in IQ, you have to assume a definition of
>> "race."
>>
>
> I'm sure you favor affirmative action, that *that* requires a
> definition of race.
>
remotely "scientific." It's purely social and political, based solely on
how a person is perceived and defined by the society at large. The
definition has already been made (for most people, by far; very few have
any choice about whether they will "identify" with a certain racial
identity). But this has very little to do with their specific genetic
makeup, which varies widely among people with the same color of skin.
>
>> Chomsky is talking about a moral responsibility of the scientist here.
>> He's appealing to those who will read him. I don't see where he's
>> recommending any institutional coercion, which, by the way, the next
>> essay, the Appendix, expressly disavows.
>>
>
> It's relevant that he has to do that in an appendix.
>
> When I heard his talk, he clearly thought that research on IQ and race
> should be forbidden. That it should be suppressed.
>
But, don't university committees argue and decide whether some courses are
appropriate? Suddenly everybody realizes phrenology is a crock, despite
Hegel's enthusiasm, and the phrenology prof loses his job. And all this
time, a linguistics professor has been writing articles about how
phrenology is based on fallacious premises. But I don't know... someone
got a degree in France with a paper on astrology several years ago. Maybe
anything goes.
>
>> If you have a different evaluation of the scientific value of such
>> studies, this factor will weigh more heavily in your weighing of the
>> issue.
>>
>> If you contest Chomsky's premise that we live in a "racist society" (or
>> that we did in the year this was written), you can argue with him that
>> merely undergoing such studies would not have the feared consequences.
>>
>
> What consequences would you fear?
>
any. Maybe I should have written "would not HAVE HAD the feared
consequences."
> Are you afraid that an open and honest discussion and study would lead
> to racist conclusions?
>
> Somehow, I sense that liberals, deep down, actually believe in black
> inferiority, given how keen they are to shut up the whole topic.
>
>
>> But if you believe the scientist and scholar have no moral responsibility,
>> then he's wasted his breath on you.
>>
>
> The moral responsibility of a scientist and scholar is to the truth.
>
> The political ramifications have to fall where they may.
>
> You are taking a typically politically correct position: we lefties
> decide what outcomes promote our preferred policies, and then we try
> to shut down any research that might not produce the results we want.
pernicious. You disagree with him on both points; fine. Surely you are
both within your rights to express your opinions. And in print, as he has
done.
I asked you to cite where Chomsky endorses institutional coercion.
>
> Again: what are you afraid of?
>
study of racial differences in IQ" was both intellectually faulty and
potentially productive of a reinforcement of racism and related negative
consequences. He didn't think there was anything real that could be
enunciated within such a conceptual framework.
>>>>
>>>> I don't believe you really read The Nation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I do sometimes.
>>>
>>> I've read a lot of issues from the 1930s. :-)
>>>
>>
>> Evidently.
>> Things do change, though, magazines as well as people.
>>
>>
>
> But some places change more slowly. You folks changed a *lot* more
> slowly than THE NEW REPUBLIC where Stalinism was concerned.
>
Sure, we're going to be celebrating the 150th anniversary soon, but this
notion that it's the "same" magazine is a bit of a mystification. It's
like the ax whose handle has been changed as many times as its blade has
been replaced but it's still nominally the same ax your
great-great-granddaddy owned.
The magazine has undergone several significant editorial shifts in its
long history. There was even a time, around the turn of the century, I
think, when it was very pro-"business class." Founder E.L. Godkin did not
believe in socialism.
Sandy McCroskey
Jul 8, 2012, 6:18:51 PM7/8/12
to
On 7/7/12 11:27 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 7 Jul 2012 23:21:56 -0400, Sandy McCroskey
> <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> On 7/6/12 2:41 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>>>
>>> Remember, ObamaCare was supposed to cut a*half-trillion* dollars from
>>> Medicare. Remember, Obama's bureaucrats have the power to deny
>>> treatment to people on Medicare.
>>>
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/07/us/politics/mixed-message-as-republicans-claim-health-law-cuts-medicare.html
>>
>>
>
> Well . . . the New York Times is certainly an unbiased source!
>
> Are you actually denying that ObamaCare promised to take a
> half-trillion dollars out of Medicare?
>
So you're not even going to read the article!
> On 7 Jul 2012 23:21:56 -0400, Sandy McCroskey
> <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> On 7/6/12 2:41 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>>>
>>> Remember, ObamaCare was supposed to cut a*half-trillion* dollars from
>>> Medicare. Remember, Obama's bureaucrats have the power to deny
>>> treatment to people on Medicare.
>>>
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/07/us/politics/mixed-message-as-republicans-claim-health-law-cuts-medicare.html
>>
>>
>
> Well . . . the New York Times is certainly an unbiased source!
>
> Are you actually denying that ObamaCare promised to take a
> half-trillion dollars out of Medicare?
>
/sandy
Anthony Marsh
Jul 8, 2012, 6:21:05 PM7/8/12
to
the US go into bankruptcy? And who refused to pass jobs bills?
> Even you have admitted that European socialists have backed away from
> nationalization and confiscatory tax rates.
>
on the richest? Obama just wants to go back to the good old Reagan days.
Like Watson.
> The political ramifications have to fall where they may.
>
> You are taking a typically politically correct position: we lefties
> decide what outcomes promote our preferred policies, and then we try
> to shut down any research that might not produce the results we want.
>
> Again: what are you afraid of?
>
>>>>
>>>> I don't believe you really read The Nation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I do sometimes.
>>>
>>> I've read a lot of issues from the 1930s. :-)
>>>
>>
>> Evidently.
>> Things do change, though, magazines as well as people.
>>
>>
>
> But some places change more slowly. You folks changed a *lot* more
> slowly than THE NEW REPUBLIC where Stalinism was concerned.
>
universal heathcare with a tax penalty mandate is constitutional.
If that isn't Socialism, what is?
> Now you are lamenting that farmers in Haiti lose their property to an
> industrial park?
>
> Be consistent and admit that conservatives were right about Kelo.
>
> BTW, none of this proves that Hillary was some capitalist stooge.
> Soviet style socialism is dead, and the New Class has to work with the
> capitalists.
>
> So it's really crony capitalism (think: Solyndra) that is the
> preferred New Class way of doing business.
>
Or outsourcing jobs to slave labor countries as Bain Capital did.
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/solyndra-politics-infused-obama-energy-programs/2011/12/14/gIQA4HllHP_story.html
>
> But the New Class liked government ownership for decades.
>
> And they *still* don't like free markets. They will put up with
> capitalists, but they want the upper hand.
>
>
>>>
>>>> If the Republican Party really does represent anything besides the
>>>> interests of its money-bags elite ("the universal interests of mankind"?),
>>>> then why is it so focused on suppressing the vote in the next election?
>>>>
>>>> http://www.thenation.com/blog/168762/dumping-mitt-gop-making-steal-plausible
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> What you call "suppressing the vote" is actually a desire to stop
>>> fraud.
>>>
>>> You folks are so adamant that people should not have to show an ID
>>> when they vote that Republicans can't see any reason for that *unless*
>>> you want massive fraud.
>>>
>>> Do you *really* think that it's possible to get along in U.S. society
>>> without an ID?
>>
>>
>> All I have is my passport, since I don't drive.
>> It's been a while since this has kept me out of a nightclub (alas).
>>
>
> Your passport would allow you to vote in any state with voter ID laws.
>
acceptable ID. Back to the old days of Jim Crow laws where only white
property owners can vote. That's the only way you rich old white men can
stay in power.
> .John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
Anthony Marsh
Jul 8, 2012, 6:21:52 PM7/8/12
to
On 7/7/2012 11:27 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 7 Jul 2012 23:21:56 -0400, Sandy McCroskey
> <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> On 7/6/12 2:41 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>>>
>>> Remember, ObamaCare was supposed to cut a*half-trillion* dollars from
>>> Medicare. Remember, Obama's bureaucrats have the power to deny
>>> treatment to people on Medicare.
>>>
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/07/us/politics/mixed-message-as-republicans-claim-health-law-cuts-medicare.html
>>
>>
>
> Well . . . the New York Times is certainly an unbiased source!
>
> Are you actually denying that ObamaCare promised to take a
> half-trillion dollars out of Medicare?
>
Maybe by taking the corporate fraud out of it.
> On 7 Jul 2012 23:21:56 -0400, Sandy McCroskey
> <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> On 7/6/12 2:41 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>>>
>>> Remember, ObamaCare was supposed to cut a*half-trillion* dollars from
>>> Medicare. Remember, Obama's bureaucrats have the power to deny
>>> treatment to people on Medicare.
>>>
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/07/us/politics/mixed-message-as-republicans-claim-health-law-cuts-medicare.html
>>
>>
>
> Well . . . the New York Times is certainly an unbiased source!
>
> Are you actually denying that ObamaCare promised to take a
> half-trillion dollars out of Medicare?
>
> That was explicitly part of the program. And the idea that you can
> cut a half-trillion without cuts in services is absurd.
>
> The Democrats seems to be promising that they will just cut payments
> to *providers,* which won't harm services. But that's absurd.
>
> Why do you think systems of socialized medicine have such absurdly
> long wait times and such draconian limits on care?
>
> Because the politicians squeeze the providers. And that has
> consequences.
>
more profits.
bigdog
Jul 8, 2012, 6:22:34 PM7/8/12
to
On Jul 6, 9:39 pm, Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> in hearing a nuanced position on anything.
>
Please define what you mean by an assault weapon and why they are more
sinister than other types of firearms.
> On 7/6/12 2:44 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>
> > In reality, they know perfectly well that Obama is just a standard
> > leftist, since THEY THEMSELVES are standard leftists.
>
> > Of course, as a standard leftist, Obama would like to take people's
> > guns.
>
> > .John
>
> Well, then, I'm not a standard leftist, since I wouldn't endorse taking
> away everybody's guns. Now, I don't see how a private citizen has any need
> for assault weapons, either, but just let me know when you're interested
>
> > In reality, they know perfectly well that Obama is just a standard
> > leftist, since THEY THEMSELVES are standard leftists.
>
> > Of course, as a standard leftist, Obama would like to take people's
> > guns.
>
> > .John
>
> Well, then, I'm not a standard leftist, since I wouldn't endorse taking
> away everybody's guns. Now, I don't see how a private citizen has any need
> in hearing a nuanced position on anything.
>
Please define what you mean by an assault weapon and why they are more
sinister than other types of firearms.
Bill Clarke
Jul 8, 2012, 6:38:27 PM7/8/12
to
In article <4ff8c259$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
Yes, that is what happens when you re-elect fools like Ted Kennedy and
John Kerry to the Senate time and time again.
>Even when I did own a handgun I never carried it loaded in public.
>If you know what you are doing it takes only a second to load it.
Well that is not true either is it Marsh. It takes seconds at best and in
those few seconds the thug has already cut your throat. Loading your
pistol as you bleed out doesn't help much.
What about figure 26 in your reference? Studied it yet?
Bill Clarke
John Kerry to the Senate time and time again.
>Even when I did own a handgun I never carried it loaded in public.
>If you know what you are doing it takes only a second to load it.
those few seconds the thug has already cut your throat. Loading your
pistol as you bleed out doesn't help much.
What about figure 26 in your reference? Studied it yet?
Bill Clarke
John McAdams
Jul 8, 2012, 8:34:42 PM7/8/12
to
On 8 Jul 2012 18:18:24 -0400, Sandy McCroskey
>You're also qualifying things now. So wait... it's not that you dislike
>government, it's just that you dislike "too much" government, is that
>right?
>
>
Correct.
>> Even you have admitted that European socialists have backed away from
>> nationalization and confiscatory tax rates.
>>
>>
>>> "Imagine, guys, he doesn't like chocolate! Is that crazy or what??"
>>>
>>
>> No difference between the U.S. and the old USSR. Just a matter of
>> taste.
>>
>
>Right, talking about such differences as a matter of taste is utterly
>vapid.
>
>I don't think most liberaLs would agree with you when you say, for
>example, that they "don't like markets." They'd say that's way too
>simplistic.
>
Liberals have had to back away from the notion of a centrally planned
economy.
But note that they *did* once favor it. That was their bias. It had
to be knocked out of them by history.
And liberals still have a bias toward maximizing government control of
the economy.
Obama, remember, wanted single payer health care (Canadian style
socialized medicine).
>
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He's to the left of most Americans. And the American spectrum isn't
>>>>>> that different from Europe. The *vast* majority of Democrat elites
>>>>>> would be in a socialist party in Europe.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, there has been a flattening of the political landscape in Europe as
>>>>> well. It's not that our Democrats are so socialist but that their
>>>>> Socialists are no longer so radical.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Because most of their ideas have failed.
>>>>
>>>> How has nationalization of industry turned out?
>>>>
>>>> How have confiscatory tax rates turned out?
>>>>
>>>> How have rigid labor market policies, that protect the jobs of people
>>>> who have jobs but result in massive unemployment among the young
>>>> turned out?
>>>>
>>>> How have massive entitlements turned out?
>>>>
>>>> Have you been watching what's been happening in Europe? Socialism is
>>>> imploding.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Been hearing that for a while. But there was already a rising tide against
>>> the rampant privatization, offshoring, etc., even before the current
>>> reaction against the austerity imposed by the incoherent organization of
>>> the eurozone.
>>>
>>
>> Translation: people, once conditioned to a cushy existence at the
>> expense of *other people* get resentful when told it can't be
>> sustained.
>
>
>No translation was required.
>
Does that mean you agree with me about that?
>I don't see how the Greeks could have expected to keep a country going
>without paying any taxes. Do you think the Greeks should pay their taxes?
>
Yes, but the tax rates should be low.
And it's not just Greece. Look at France a couple of years ago, and
look at the U.K.
It's a kind of moral rot: "I want my goodies, and it's up to
government to take from *somebody else* to give them to me."
>For all I know, you're socking your own huge earnings into a secret
>account in Delaware.
>
Well if I *had* huge earnings, I might consider that.
>
>
>>
>> That's a *moral* failing of socialism.
>>
>
>One reason we're all paying more (way too much) right now for our health
>care is because some people are not insured.
>
Which doesn't address my comment about the moral failings of
socialism.
>
>
>>
>>
>>> How has privatization a-go-go affected the quality of life over there?
>>> That's a question you didn't ask.
>>>
>>
>> You must have liked the old USSR.
>
>I don't see that that has anything to do with it, though I guess that's
>what you'd come up with if you're still stuck in a cold war mindset.
Unfortunately, a fair number of leftists are stuck in the Cold War
Turning from socialism to crony capitalism isn't so good.
>I was referring to the decline in the standard of living as a result of
>the depredations of privatization in Western European countries in recent
>years, and particularly in France.
>
I doubt that privatization harms the standard of living of citizens
*generally.*
But there are privileged groups under socialism, and they are
advantaged.
Under socialized medicine the political elite get good doctors and get
procedures performed quickly.
Unionized workers in nationalized industries do well. Taxpayers and
consumers pay.
The public school monopoly benefits unionized teachers and educational
bureaucrats. It victimizes taxpayers and students.
>>>>
>>>> How was I to know that 35 years later somebody like you would deny
>>>> that Chomsky is a Stalinist?
>>>>
>>>> BTW, I found a written source with Chomsky saying what I remember him
>>>> saying: that there is no academic freedom to study racial differences
>>>> in IQ.
>>>>
>>>> http://books.google.com/books?id=84NQ3IXpbOYC&pg=PA119&lpg=PA119&dq=chomsky+academic+freedom+racist&source=bl&ots=F1gHsVs_7b&sig=TODRMG4Hbh8VDtS7fWwVSEnq1mA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=J7X3T-T5DoPs0gGyn8TSBg&ved=0CEMQ6AEwBDgK#v=onepage&q=chomsky%20academic%20freedom%20racist&f=false
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, to study racial difference in IQ, you have to assume a definition of
>>> "race."
>>>
>>
>> I'm sure you favor affirmative action, that *that* requires a
>> definition of race.
>>
>
>The notion of "race" there is not supposed or claimed to be something
>remotely "scientific." It's purely social and political, based solely on
>how a person is perceived and defined by the society at large. The
>definition has already been made (for most people, by far; very few have
>any choice about whether they will "identify" with a certain racial
>identity). But this has very little to do with their specific genetic
>makeup, which varies widely among people with the same color of skin.
>
But affirmative action is based on the notion that we can classify
people by race.
>
>
>>
>>> Chomsky is talking about a moral responsibility of the scientist here.
>>> He's appealing to those who will read him. I don't see where he's
>>> recommending any institutional coercion, which, by the way, the next
>>> essay, the Appendix, expressly disavows.
>>>
>>
>> It's relevant that he has to do that in an appendix.
>>
>
>Is it?
>
He had to explain that he wasn't *really* attacking academic freedom.
>> When I heard his talk, he clearly thought that research on IQ and race
>> should be forbidden. That it should be suppressed.
>>
>
>Oh, so you know what he *thought*.
>
He was absolutely clear on it.
>But, don't university committees argue and decide whether some courses are
>appropriate? Suddenly everybody realizes phrenology is a crock, despite
>Hegel's enthusiasm, and the phrenology prof loses his job. And all this
>time, a linguistics professor has been writing articles about how
>phrenology is based on fallacious premises. But I don't know... someone
>got a degree in France with a paper on astrology several years ago. Maybe
>anything goes.
>
In the first place, no sort of inquiry should be censored because
people fear the political ramifications. That turns academics into
political hacks.
In the second place, IQ is an important concept that has important
implications. There is no doubt about that. The interesting question
is how much of IQ is genetic, and how much the result of environment.
>
>>
>>> If you have a different evaluation of the scientific value of such
>>> studies, this factor will weigh more heavily in your weighing of the
>>> issue.
>>>
>>> If you contest Chomsky's premise that we live in a "racist society" (or
>>> that we did in the year this was written), you can argue with him that
>>> merely undergoing such studies would not have the feared consequences.
>>>
>>
>> What consequences would you fear?
>>
>
>I'm merely reading Chomsky's article. I didn't say that I (in 2012) fear
>any. Maybe I should have written "would not HAVE HAD the feared
>consequences."
>
Even in the 70s, it was wrong to want to censor certain kinds of
research because one feared the political consequences of telling the
truth.
>
>> Are you afraid that an open and honest discussion and study would lead
>> to racist conclusions?
>>
>> Somehow, I sense that liberals, deep down, actually believe in black
>> inferiority, given how keen they are to shut up the whole topic.
>>
>>
>>> But if you believe the scientist and scholar have no moral responsibility,
>>> then he's wasted his breath on you.
>>>
>>
>> The moral responsibility of a scientist and scholar is to the truth.
>>
>
>Chomsky argues that there is no truth to be found through such an inquiry.
>
That's absurd.
>
>> The political ramifications have to fall where they may.
>>
>
>> You are taking a typically politically correct position: we lefties
>> decide what outcomes promote our preferred policies, and then we try
>> to shut down any research that might not produce the results we want.
>
>
>He was arguing about that such research would be both pointless and
>pernicious. You disagree with him on both points; fine. Surely you are
>both within your rights to express your opinions. And in print, as he has
>done.
>
But the claim that such research would be "pointless and pernicious"
is just an excuse to censor it.
He thinks it might be "pointless and pernicious" because he fears the
political consequences.
That's like saying that certain kinds of speech are "pointless and
pernicious" and wanting to censor them.
>I asked you to cite where Chomsky endorses institutional coercion.
>
He did in the talk that I attended.
>>
>> Again: what are you afraid of?
>>
>
>Nothing. Chomsky clearly thought an inquiry under such a rubric as "the
>study of racial differences in IQ" was both intellectually faulty and
>potentially productive of a reinforcement of racism and related negative
>consequences. He didn't think there was anything real that could be
>enunciated within such a conceptual framework.
>
That shows is nasty authoritarian worldview.
Trying to censor research because you fear the political consequences
is like trying to censor speech because you fear the political
consequences.
The latter is done by people who know, deep down, that they would be
disadvantaged by a free and open debate.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Evidently.
>>> Things do change, though, magazines as well as people.
>>>
Apparently, Chompsky backed away a bit from his assault on academic
freedom.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
<gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> And liberals and leftists really do *dislike* markets, and the private
>>>> sector.
>>>>
>>>> They *like* government.
>>>>
>>>> Those are fundamental things about their ideology.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Let's say, then, that you like markets and dislike government.
>>> He dislikes, you like.
>>>
>>> Nothing to discuss yet.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, plenty to discuss. The centralization of too much economic power
>> in government has consequences which should be obvious now.
>>
>
>But now you're not talking about mere taste anymore.
>
Correct.
>>>>
>>>> And liberals and leftists really do *dislike* markets, and the private
>>>> sector.
>>>>
>>>> They *like* government.
>>>>
>>>> Those are fundamental things about their ideology.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Let's say, then, that you like markets and dislike government.
>>> He dislikes, you like.
>>>
>>> Nothing to discuss yet.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, plenty to discuss. The centralization of too much economic power
>> in government has consequences which should be obvious now.
>>
>
>But now you're not talking about mere taste anymore.
>
>You're also qualifying things now. So wait... it's not that you dislike
>government, it's just that you dislike "too much" government, is that
>right?
>
>
>> Even you have admitted that European socialists have backed away from
>> nationalization and confiscatory tax rates.
>>
>>
>>> "Imagine, guys, he doesn't like chocolate! Is that crazy or what??"
>>>
>>
>> No difference between the U.S. and the old USSR. Just a matter of
>> taste.
>>
>
>Right, talking about such differences as a matter of taste is utterly
>vapid.
>
>I don't think most liberaLs would agree with you when you say, for
>example, that they "don't like markets." They'd say that's way too
>simplistic.
>
economy.
But note that they *did* once favor it. That was their bias. It had
to be knocked out of them by history.
And liberals still have a bias toward maximizing government control of
the economy.
Obama, remember, wanted single payer health care (Canadian style
socialized medicine).
>
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He's to the left of most Americans. And the American spectrum isn't
>>>>>> that different from Europe. The *vast* majority of Democrat elites
>>>>>> would be in a socialist party in Europe.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, there has been a flattening of the political landscape in Europe as
>>>>> well. It's not that our Democrats are so socialist but that their
>>>>> Socialists are no longer so radical.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Because most of their ideas have failed.
>>>>
>>>> How has nationalization of industry turned out?
>>>>
>>>> How have confiscatory tax rates turned out?
>>>>
>>>> How have rigid labor market policies, that protect the jobs of people
>>>> who have jobs but result in massive unemployment among the young
>>>> turned out?
>>>>
>>>> How have massive entitlements turned out?
>>>>
>>>> Have you been watching what's been happening in Europe? Socialism is
>>>> imploding.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Been hearing that for a while. But there was already a rising tide against
>>> the rampant privatization, offshoring, etc., even before the current
>>> reaction against the austerity imposed by the incoherent organization of
>>> the eurozone.
>>>
>>
>> Translation: people, once conditioned to a cushy existence at the
>> expense of *other people* get resentful when told it can't be
>> sustained.
>
>
>No translation was required.
>
>I don't see how the Greeks could have expected to keep a country going
>without paying any taxes. Do you think the Greeks should pay their taxes?
>
And it's not just Greece. Look at France a couple of years ago, and
look at the U.K.
It's a kind of moral rot: "I want my goodies, and it's up to
government to take from *somebody else* to give them to me."
>For all I know, you're socking your own huge earnings into a secret
>account in Delaware.
>
>
>
>>
>> That's a *moral* failing of socialism.
>>
>
>One reason we're all paying more (way too much) right now for our health
>care is because some people are not insured.
>
socialism.
>
>
>>
>>
>>> How has privatization a-go-go affected the quality of life over there?
>>> That's a question you didn't ask.
>>>
>>
>> You must have liked the old USSR.
>
>I don't see that that has anything to do with it, though I guess that's
>what you'd come up with if you're still stuck in a cold war mindset.
mindset.
>But
>while we're on it, do you think the USSR is a good example of a country
>that has turned to a free-market model? It's been a raging success, hasn't
>it? And when do you think Putin will allow real political opposition?
>Surely the former Soviet Union is a special (basket) case.
>
Moving from socialism to a free market is good.
>But
>while we're on it, do you think the USSR is a good example of a country
>that has turned to a free-market model? It's been a raging success, hasn't
>it? And when do you think Putin will allow real political opposition?
>Surely the former Soviet Union is a special (basket) case.
>
Turning from socialism to crony capitalism isn't so good.
>I was referring to the decline in the standard of living as a result of
>the depredations of privatization in Western European countries in recent
>years, and particularly in France.
>
*generally.*
But there are privileged groups under socialism, and they are
advantaged.
Under socialized medicine the political elite get good doctors and get
procedures performed quickly.
Unionized workers in nationalized industries do well. Taxpayers and
consumers pay.
The public school monopoly benefits unionized teachers and educational
bureaucrats. It victimizes taxpayers and students.
>>>>
>>>> How was I to know that 35 years later somebody like you would deny
>>>> that Chomsky is a Stalinist?
>>>>
>>>> BTW, I found a written source with Chomsky saying what I remember him
>>>> saying: that there is no academic freedom to study racial differences
>>>> in IQ.
>>>>
>>>> http://books.google.com/books?id=84NQ3IXpbOYC&pg=PA119&lpg=PA119&dq=chomsky+academic+freedom+racist&source=bl&ots=F1gHsVs_7b&sig=TODRMG4Hbh8VDtS7fWwVSEnq1mA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=J7X3T-T5DoPs0gGyn8TSBg&ved=0CEMQ6AEwBDgK#v=onepage&q=chomsky%20academic%20freedom%20racist&f=false
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, to study racial difference in IQ, you have to assume a definition of
>>> "race."
>>>
>>
>> I'm sure you favor affirmative action, that *that* requires a
>> definition of race.
>>
>
>The notion of "race" there is not supposed or claimed to be something
>remotely "scientific." It's purely social and political, based solely on
>how a person is perceived and defined by the society at large. The
>definition has already been made (for most people, by far; very few have
>any choice about whether they will "identify" with a certain racial
>identity). But this has very little to do with their specific genetic
>makeup, which varies widely among people with the same color of skin.
>
people by race.
>
>
>>
>>> Chomsky is talking about a moral responsibility of the scientist here.
>>> He's appealing to those who will read him. I don't see where he's
>>> recommending any institutional coercion, which, by the way, the next
>>> essay, the Appendix, expressly disavows.
>>>
>>
>> It's relevant that he has to do that in an appendix.
>>
>
>Is it?
>
>> When I heard his talk, he clearly thought that research on IQ and race
>> should be forbidden. That it should be suppressed.
>>
>
>Oh, so you know what he *thought*.
>
>But, don't university committees argue and decide whether some courses are
>appropriate? Suddenly everybody realizes phrenology is a crock, despite
>Hegel's enthusiasm, and the phrenology prof loses his job. And all this
>time, a linguistics professor has been writing articles about how
>phrenology is based on fallacious premises. But I don't know... someone
>got a degree in France with a paper on astrology several years ago. Maybe
>anything goes.
>
people fear the political ramifications. That turns academics into
political hacks.
In the second place, IQ is an important concept that has important
implications. There is no doubt about that. The interesting question
is how much of IQ is genetic, and how much the result of environment.
>
>>
>>> If you have a different evaluation of the scientific value of such
>>> studies, this factor will weigh more heavily in your weighing of the
>>> issue.
>>>
>>> If you contest Chomsky's premise that we live in a "racist society" (or
>>> that we did in the year this was written), you can argue with him that
>>> merely undergoing such studies would not have the feared consequences.
>>>
>>
>> What consequences would you fear?
>>
>
>I'm merely reading Chomsky's article. I didn't say that I (in 2012) fear
>any. Maybe I should have written "would not HAVE HAD the feared
>consequences."
>
research because one feared the political consequences of telling the
truth.
>
>> Are you afraid that an open and honest discussion and study would lead
>> to racist conclusions?
>>
>> Somehow, I sense that liberals, deep down, actually believe in black
>> inferiority, given how keen they are to shut up the whole topic.
>>
>>
>>> But if you believe the scientist and scholar have no moral responsibility,
>>> then he's wasted his breath on you.
>>>
>>
>> The moral responsibility of a scientist and scholar is to the truth.
>>
>
>Chomsky argues that there is no truth to be found through such an inquiry.
>
>
>> The political ramifications have to fall where they may.
>>
>
>> You are taking a typically politically correct position: we lefties
>> decide what outcomes promote our preferred policies, and then we try
>> to shut down any research that might not produce the results we want.
>
>
>He was arguing about that such research would be both pointless and
>pernicious. You disagree with him on both points; fine. Surely you are
>both within your rights to express your opinions. And in print, as he has
>done.
>
is just an excuse to censor it.
He thinks it might be "pointless and pernicious" because he fears the
political consequences.
That's like saying that certain kinds of speech are "pointless and
pernicious" and wanting to censor them.
>I asked you to cite where Chomsky endorses institutional coercion.
>
>>
>> Again: what are you afraid of?
>>
>
>Nothing. Chomsky clearly thought an inquiry under such a rubric as "the
>study of racial differences in IQ" was both intellectually faulty and
>potentially productive of a reinforcement of racism and related negative
>consequences. He didn't think there was anything real that could be
>enunciated within such a conceptual framework.
>
Trying to censor research because you fear the political consequences
is like trying to censor speech because you fear the political
consequences.
The latter is done by people who know, deep down, that they would be
disadvantaged by a free and open debate.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Evidently.
>>> Things do change, though, magazines as well as people.
>>>
freedom.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Sandy McCroskey
Jul 8, 2012, 8:39:30 PM7/8/12
to
Enforcement Act of 1994 and can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban
Apparently the law was poorly written and the weapons it covered defined
by their cosmetic appearance in a way that made it easy for gun
manufacturers to circumvent its restrictions.
I'll tell you up front I don't know much about guns. But it seems to me
that there is no use for a private citizen to have a weapon that is
intended solely for mowing down large numbers of his fellow human beings.
It is hard to imagine a situation in which a law-abiding citizen would
need such a weapon for self-defense. Zombie attack? Martian invasion? They
do come in handy in gang wars.
Rather than argue technicalities of gun design, I'd ask you if there is
anyplace where you would draw the line. Should it be all right for your
neighbor to own a tank? A rocket launcher? A nuclear missile?
/sandy
bigdog
Jul 8, 2012, 8:40:05 PM7/8/12
to
On Jul 8, 6:38 pm, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <4ff8c25...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
Apparently, in Massachusetts, the criminals are more polite and will
allow you time to load your gun before attacking you.
> In article <4ff8c25...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 7/6/2012 11:44 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> >> On 6 Jul 2012 23:23:17 -0400, Sandy McCroskey
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 7/6/2012 11:44 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> >> On 6 Jul 2012 23:23:17 -0400, Sandy McCroskey
allow you time to load your gun before attacking you.
jordan.b...@gmail.com
Jul 8, 2012, 8:45:30 PM7/8/12
to
On Wednesday, July 4, 2012 8:25:35 AM UTC-5, HistorianDetective wrote:
> Keeping somewhat in line with a recent thread regarding US Media that was
> posted by the CT moderator of this group and non-US citizen, here's a lin> to the full premier episode of HBO's new series "Newsroom" written by
> Keeping somewhat in line with a recent thread regarding US Media that was
> Aaron Sorkin of West Wing fame, Charlie Wilson's War and Moneyball, as
> well. Well worth the free viewing for those like myself who are not an HBO
> subscriber.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1U4ZhFDFYvE&feature=player_embedded
>
> The opening is a roundtable debate where each panelist is asked the
> question as to why America is the greatest country in the world. You will
> have to watch for yourself for the dramatic answer given by anchorman Will
> McAvoy (played by Jeff Daniels of Dumb and Dumber fame).
>
> JM/HD
> well. Well worth the free viewing for those like myself who are not an HBO
> subscriber.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1U4ZhFDFYvE&feature=player_embedded
>
> The opening is a roundtable debate where each panelist is asked the
> question as to why America is the greatest country in the world. You will
> have to watch for yourself for the dramatic answer given by anchorman Will
> McAvoy (played by Jeff Daniels of Dumb and Dumber fame).
>
Jon Runyan claims Affordable Care Act cuts Medicare program by $500
billion
Share this story:
A discredited claim is making a comeback following the U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. Rep. Jon Runyan said in a press release on Thursday that the law,
formally known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, makes
cuts to Medicare.
"My constituents simply cannot afford the $500 billion in new tax
increases and $500 billion in Medicare cuts required to pay for this
flawed legislation, nor can our economy sustain the job-killing mandates
and regulations it imposes," Runyan, a Republican representing parts of
southern New Jersey, said in a press release.
Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, repeated the
claim in his statement about the high court’s ruling, saying "Obamacare
cuts Medicare - cuts Medicare by approximately $500 billion dollars."
Both claims distort the truth, as our PolitiFact colleagues have found
many times.
The law aims to slow future growth in Medicare spending. It does not cut
from the Medicare program.
The health care law made several changes to Medicare, which provides
health insurance for millions of seniors and people under 65 receiving
Social Security disability payments.
Some of the changes will increase Medicare spending to help cover
prevention services and to fill the so-called doughnut hole, a gap in
prescription drug coverage for some enrollees, according to a tutorial by
Tricia Neuman, vice president and director of the Medicare Policy Project
for the Kaiser Family Foundation, an independent group that analyzes the
health care system.
Other changes aim to reduce growth in Medicare spending, by more than $500
billion over 10 years, though estimates of the future savings vary.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, or CBO, and the Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services have both released reports since the health
care law passed showing that the Affordable Care Act will reduce future
spending growth on Medicare by more than $500 billion.
The Affordable Care Act "contains numerous provisions that, on balance,
will reduce federal spending on Medicare," the CBO said in a June 2012
report.
The biggest portion of that savings, according to Neuman’s tutorial, will
come from reducing annual increases in payments to medical providers.
But the health care law does not cut $500 billion from Medicare. It just
reduces future growth.
With the law, Medicare spending will still increase.
It’s important to note, as PolitiFact has found, that the savings from
the reduction in Medicare spending will help offset spending on other
provisions of the health care law, a point that Runyan noted in a
statement to PolitiFact New Jersey.
"The CBO projects Medicare savings of approximately $500 Billion and
instead of using that money to shore up the program, the savings are
diverted from Medicare and used to fund other provisions of ObamaCare.
Even worse, this piece of legislation is hitting individuals, working
families and small businesses with a massive tax increase that will
further cripple the economy and slow job creation," Runyan said.
Our ruling
Runyan, repeating a Republican talking point about Obama’s health care
law, said there are "$500 billion in Medicare cuts required to pay for
this flawed legislation."
The legislation aims to slow projected spending on Medicare by more than
$500 billion over a 10-year period, but it does not cut that money from
the program. Medicare spending will increase over that time frame.
Still, a sliver of truth exists in this claim, because the difference in
the spending will help offset costs of other provisions in the law.
We rate this claim Mostly False.
To comment on this ruling, go to NJ.com.
John McAdams
Jul 8, 2012, 8:47:57 PM7/8/12
to
On 8 Jul 2012 20:39:30 -0400, Sandy McCroskey
Please answer the question you evaded:
Did you favor or oppose the gun laws in DC and Chicago that the
Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional?
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Did you favor or oppose the gun laws in DC and Chicago that the
Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional?
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
Jul 8, 2012, 8:53:26 PM7/8/12
to
On 8 Jul 2012 20:45:30 -0400, jordan.b...@gmail.com wrote:
Politifact has been shown to have a liberal bias.
See below:
So the *cuts* are supposedly being used for good purposes. They are
still cuts.
>Other changes aim to reduce growth in Medicare spending, by more than $500
>billion over 10 years, though estimates of the future savings vary.
>
>The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, or CBO, and the Centers for
>Medicare and Medicaid Services have both released reports since the health
>care law passed showing that the Affordable Care Act will reduce future
>spending growth on Medicare by more than $500 billion.
>
Translation: a more than $500 billion dollars cut.
>The Affordable Care Act "contains numerous provisions that, on balance,
>will reduce federal spending on Medicare," the CBO said in a June 2012
>report.
>
>The biggest portion of that savings, according to Neuman’s tutorial, will
>come from reducing annual increases in payments to medical providers.
>
And this supposedly can be done without harming the quality and
affordability of health care. Does anybody really believe that?
>But the health care law does not cut $500 billion from Medicare. It just
>reduces future growth.
>
Huh!!!
It reduces spending below what it would otherwise be.
When a Republican "reduces future growth," this is a *cut* to
liberals.
So senior have every right to fear the consequences of ObamaCare.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Politifact has been shown to have a liberal bias.
See below:
still cuts.
>Other changes aim to reduce growth in Medicare spending, by more than $500
>billion over 10 years, though estimates of the future savings vary.
>
>The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, or CBO, and the Centers for
>Medicare and Medicaid Services have both released reports since the health
>care law passed showing that the Affordable Care Act will reduce future
>spending growth on Medicare by more than $500 billion.
>
>The Affordable Care Act "contains numerous provisions that, on balance,
>will reduce federal spending on Medicare," the CBO said in a June 2012
>report.
>
>The biggest portion of that savings, according to Neuman’s tutorial, will
>come from reducing annual increases in payments to medical providers.
>
affordability of health care. Does anybody really believe that?
>But the health care law does not cut $500 billion from Medicare. It just
>reduces future growth.
>
It reduces spending below what it would otherwise be.
When a Republican "reduces future growth," this is a *cut* to
liberals.
So senior have every right to fear the consequences of ObamaCare.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Sandy McCroskey
Jul 8, 2012, 9:57:39 PM7/8/12
to
occupied.
I don't think the Second Amendment is clear on an individual's right to
gun ownership. "A well-regulated militia" and all that. I'm not saying
such a right isn't constitutional, or shouldn't be. But the Court has only
its own precedent to go on (the decisions of previous Supreme Courts) to
determine that.
/sandy
John McAdams
Jul 8, 2012, 10:01:07 PM7/8/12
to
On 8 Jul 2012 21:57:39 -0400, Sandy McCroskey
It sounds to me like your "nuanced position" is just the standard
liberal position.
What the Court has to "go on" is the plain language of the Amendment,
and the intentions of the Framers, who were pretty clear that citizens
had the right to own guns.
Saratoga was won by militia forces -- farmers (mostly) who brought
their own guns.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
liberal position.
What the Court has to "go on" is the plain language of the Amendment,
and the intentions of the Framers, who were pretty clear that citizens
had the right to own guns.
Saratoga was won by militia forces -- farmers (mostly) who brought
their own guns.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Sandy McCroskey
Jul 8, 2012, 10:35:42 PM7/8/12
to
>
>>
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He's to the left of most Americans. And the American spectrum isn't
>>>>>>> that different from Europe. The *vast* majority of Democrat elites
>>>>>>> would be in a socialist party in Europe.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, there has been a flattening of the political landscape in Europe as
>>>>>> well. It's not that our Democrats are so socialist but that their
>>>>>> Socialists are no longer so radical.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Because most of their ideas have failed.
>>>>>
>>>>> How has nationalization of industry turned out?
>>>>>
>>>>> How have confiscatory tax rates turned out?
>>>>>
>>>>> How have rigid labor market policies, that protect the jobs of people
>>>>> who have jobs but result in massive unemployment among the young
>>>>> turned out?
>>>>>
>>>>> How have massive entitlements turned out?
>>>>>
>>>>> Have you been watching what's been happening in Europe? Socialism is
>>>>> imploding.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Been hearing that for a while. But there was already a rising tide against
>>>> the rampant privatization, offshoring, etc., even before the current
>>>> reaction against the austerity imposed by the incoherent organization of
>>>> the eurozone.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Translation: people, once conditioned to a cushy existence at the
>>> expense of *other people* get resentful when told it can't be
>>> sustained.
>>
>>
>> No translation was required.
>>
>
> Does that mean you agree with me about that?
>
>
>> I don't see how the Greeks could have expected to keep a country going
>> without paying any taxes. Do you think the Greeks should pay their taxes?
>>
>
> Yes, but the tax rates should be low.
>
> And it's not just Greece. Look at France a couple of years ago, and
> look at the U.K.
>
> It's a kind of moral rot: "I want my goodies, and it's up to
> government to take from *somebody else* to give them to me."
>
But most of these countries could have provided all that they promised
their dutiful, hard-working taxpaying citizens if the banksters (and
big-time evaders) weren't robbing everybody blind.
>
>> For all I know, you're socking your own huge earnings into a secret
>> account in Delaware.
>>
>
> Well if I *had* huge earnings, I might consider that.
>
Now if Romney would come clean about the Bermudas...
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> That's a *moral* failing of socialism.
>>>
>>
>> One reason we're all paying more (way too much) right now for our health
>> care is because some people are not insured.
>>
>
> Which doesn't address my comment about the moral failings of
> socialism.
>
depending on handouts or... I dunno, driving a welfare cadillac" (Reagan's
urban legend)... or whatever you think the common people did to bring the
economic crisis on themselves.
The moneymen fucked up. The economies crashed because of what they did,
because they screwed too many people over. But those same people are
paying the price, not the moneymen.
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> How has privatization a-go-go affected the quality of life over there?
>>>> That's a question you didn't ask.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You must have liked the old USSR.
>>
>> I don't see that that has anything to do with it, though I guess that's
>> what you'd come up with if you're still stuck in a cold war mindset.
>
> Unfortunately, a fair number of leftists are stuck in the Cold War
> mindset.
>
>
>> But
>> while we're on it, do you think the USSR is a good example of a country
>> that has turned to a free-market model? It's been a raging success, hasn't
>> it? And when do you think Putin will allow real political opposition?
>> Surely the former Soviet Union is a special (basket) case.
>>
>
> Moving from socialism to a free market is good.
>
> Turning from socialism to crony capitalism isn't so good.
>
variety.
>
>> I was referring to the decline in the standard of living as a result of
>> the depredations of privatization in Western European countries in recent
>> years, and particularly in France.
>>
>
> I doubt that privatization harms the standard of living of citizens
> *generally.*
>
years, not selfishly dodged their taxes, are suffering the consequences.
They've kept their part of the social contract, yet its harder and harder
to make ends meet. The corporations continue to prosper and CEOs to rake
in the big bucks, but their employees are asked to work more for less.
How is it that JPMorgan Chase can gamble with their clients' money and
make profits for the moneybags elite, while their clients (of which I am
one) continue to see the value of the money in their savings accounts
depreciate? Why can't they kick some of that back to the people who
entrusted them with that money they're gambling with and give us a decent
interest rate? You can bet the CEOs aren't losing anything to the
inflation rate. But you can't even get a 5-year CD with a decent return
now. So everything is riding (my 401(k) and another mutual funds package,
my meager inheritance, which latter is also managed by Chase) on the
vagaries of the stock market. Nobody has a pension plan anymore, we're
forced to take it to the big casino, where there are no guarantees (though
the house always wins)...
classified.
There is no relation between the notion of being classed as a member of a
racial or ethnic minority by society at large (such as is considered in
the application of affirmative action) and any supposedly scientific
notion of "race" or genetic difference. The genetic backgrounds of people
socially classed as black, Latino, etc., vary widely.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> Chomsky is talking about a moral responsibility of the scientist here.
>>>> He's appealing to those who will read him. I don't see where he's
>>>> recommending any institutional coercion, which, by the way, the next
>>>> essay, the Appendix, expressly disavows.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It's relevant that he has to do that in an appendix.
>>>
>>
>> Is it?
>>
>
> He had to explain that he wasn't *really* attacking academic freedom.
>
>
>>> When I heard his talk, he clearly thought that research on IQ and race
>>> should be forbidden. That it should be suppressed.
>>>
>>
>> Oh, so you know what he *thought*.
>>
>
> He was absolutely clear on it.
>
>
>> But, don't university committees argue and decide whether some courses are
>> appropriate? Suddenly everybody realizes phrenology is a crock, despite
>> Hegel's enthusiasm, and the phrenology prof loses his job. And all this
>> time, a linguistics professor has been writing articles about how
>> phrenology is based on fallacious premises. But I don't know... someone
>> got a degree in France with a paper on astrology several years ago. Maybe
>> anything goes.
>>
>
> In the first place, no sort of inquiry should be censored because
> people fear the political ramifications.
thought it was *bad science*.
> That turns academics into
> political hacks.
>
> In the second place, IQ is an important concept that has important
> implications. There is no doubt about that. The interesting question
> is how much of IQ is genetic, and how much the result of environment.
>
>>
>>>
>>>> If you have a different evaluation of the scientific value of such
>>>> studies, this factor will weigh more heavily in your weighing of the
>>>> issue.
>>>>
>>>> If you contest Chomsky's premise that we live in a "racist society" (or
>>>> that we did in the year this was written), you can argue with him that
>>>> merely undergoing such studies would not have the feared consequences.
>>>>
>>>
>>> What consequences would you fear?
>>>
>>
>> I'm merely reading Chomsky's article. I didn't say that I (in 2012) fear
>> any. Maybe I should have written "would not HAVE HAD the feared
>> consequences."
>>
>
> Even in the 70s, it was wrong to want to censor certain kinds of
> research because one feared the political consequences of telling the
> truth.
>
ideological obfuscation.
I keep saying the same thing in different words, but you still don't get
it.
>>
>>> Are you afraid that an open and honest discussion and study would lead
>>> to racist conclusions?
>>>
>>> Somehow, I sense that liberals, deep down, actually believe in black
>>> inferiority, given how keen they are to shut up the whole topic.
>>>
>>>
>>>> But if you believe the scientist and scholar have no moral responsibility,
>>>> then he's wasted his breath on you.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The moral responsibility of a scientist and scholar is to the truth.
>>>
>>
>> Chomsky argues that there is no truth to be found through such an inquiry.
>>
>
> That's absurd.
>
But to Chomsky, it's like phrenology, dig?
To my mind, this little detail disqualifies it as science:
"Race in the studies is almost always determined using self-reports,
rather than based on analyses of the genetic history of the tested
individuals. According to psychologist David Rowe, self-report is the
preferred method for racial classification in studies of racial
differences because classification based on genetic markers alone ignore
the "cultural, behavioral, sociological, psychological, and
epidemiological variables" that distinguish racial groups."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence
Wow. Here I thought you were merely going off on a rather sophistical
tangent in the heat of the argument, but it seems that "race and IQ"
studies *have* actually been done primarily on the basis of the same
self-classification as to "race" as the determination of "race" utilized
for the application of affirmative action.
Whatever that is, it ain't science.
>>
>>> The political ramifications have to fall where they may.
>>>
>>
>>> You are taking a typically politically correct position: we lefties
>>> decide what outcomes promote our preferred policies, and then we try
>>> to shut down any research that might not produce the results we want.
>>
>>
>> He was arguing about that such research would be both pointless and
>> pernicious. You disagree with him on both points; fine. Surely you are
>> both within your rights to express your opinions. And in print, as he has
>> done.
>>
>
> But the claim that such research would be "pointless and pernicious"
> is just an excuse to censor it.
>
> He thinks it might be "pointless and pernicious" because he fears the
> political consequences.
>
concept, or at least one that is very problematic to pin down, and that
"IQ tests" are pervaded by cultural biases.
I'm sure he must have suspected the motives of people who want to carry
out research on such grounds, which would raise doubts about the results
they would come up with.
> That's like saying that certain kinds of speech are "pointless and
> pernicious" and wanting to censor them.
>
pointless and pernicious if that's what I believe.
That, too, is free speech.
Which is what Chomsky was exercising.
But "wanting to censor them"? Apparently not.
Haven't seen any proof of that.
>
>> I asked you to cite where Chomsky endorses institutional coercion.
>>
>
> He did in the talk that I attended.
>
Which is my reply to everything that follows...
/sandy
Sandy McCroskey
Jul 8, 2012, 10:36:35 PM7/8/12
to
to turn in their guns to the government.
> What the Court has to "go on" is the plain language of the Amendment,
> and the intentions of the Framers, who were pretty clear that citizens
> had the right to own guns.
>
not from the Second Amendment, which is the earliest constitutional
mention of the right to bear arms (for the sake of a "well-regulated
militia")?
> Saratoga was won by militia forces -- farmers (mostly) who brought
> their own guns.
whatsoever!
/sm
John McAdams
Jul 8, 2012, 11:35:17 PM7/8/12
to
On 8 Jul 2012 22:35:42 -0400, Sandy McCroskey
And no matter how badly he wanted it, he couldn't have it.
Even the "public option" (designed to run private insurance companies
out of business) didn't work.
>>>>> Been hearing that for a while. But there was already a rising tide against
>>>>> the rampant privatization, offshoring, etc., even before the current
>>>>> reaction against the austerity imposed by the incoherent organization of
>>>>> the eurozone.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Translation: people, once conditioned to a cushy existence at the
>>>> expense of *other people* get resentful when told it can't be
>>>> sustained.
>>>
>>>
>>> No translation was required.
>>>
>>
>> Does that mean you agree with me about that?
>>
>
>No, it means you are presumptuous in trying to put such words in my mouth.
>
Of *course* you would not admit that.
But that's the reality of your "rising tide against the rampant
privatization." It's selfish people getting mad that their cushy
benefits are gone.
>
>>
>>> I don't see how the Greeks could have expected to keep a country going
>>> without paying any taxes. Do you think the Greeks should pay their taxes?
>>>
>>
>> Yes, but the tax rates should be low.
>>
>> And it's not just Greece. Look at France a couple of years ago, and
>> look at the U.K.
>>
>> It's a kind of moral rot: "I want my goodies, and it's up to
>> government to take from *somebody else* to give them to me."
>>
>
>
>You mean that evading taxes indicates moral rot? OK.
>
That is moral rot.
And believing that you have a right to retire in your 50s, with the
taxpayer picking up the tab is moral rot.
And believing that your union should protect your job even if you
aren't productive is moral rot.
>But most of these countries could have provided all that they promised
>their dutiful, hard-working taxpaying citizens if the banksters (and
>big-time evaders) weren't robbing everybody blind.
>
So you won't admit that the welfare state expanded to an unsustainable
level.
>
>>
>>> For all I know, you're socking your own huge earnings into a secret
>>> account in Delaware.
>>>
>>
>> Well if I *had* huge earnings, I might consider that.
>>
>
>That says a lot, thanks. At least you admit it.
>Now if Romney would come clean about the Bermudas...
>
Where does Obama have his millions stashed?
Romney pays a lot more taxes than Obama. And contributes a lot more
to charity also.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's a *moral* failing of socialism.
>>>>
>>>
>>> One reason we're all paying more (way too much) right now for our health
>>> care is because some people are not insured.
>>>
>>
>> Which doesn't address my comment about the moral failings of
>> socialism.
>>
>
>I simply don't know whom you are accusing of not pulling their weight and
>depending on handouts or... I dunno, driving a welfare cadillac" (Reagan's
>urban legend)... or whatever you think the common people did to bring the
>economic crisis on themselves.
>
Under European socialism, the common people *did* bring the crisis on
themselves.
They voted for more and more goodies. And eventually, the bill came
due.
As Maggie Thatcher said: the problem with socialism is that
socialists eventually run out of other people's money.
That has happened in Europe. We are close here.
>The moneymen fucked up. The economies crashed because of what they did,
>because they screwed too many people over. But those same people are
>paying the price, not the moneymen.
>
>
The "moneymen" were happy to lend money and lend money to Greece and
Spain and Italy and so on SO LONG AS IT LOOKED LIKE THEY MIGHT GET
PAID BACK.
But you think their job is to finance lavish welfare benefits with no
hope of getting paid.
You are looking for scapegoats.
>>
>> Moving from socialism to a free market is good.
>>
>> Turning from socialism to crony capitalism isn't so good.
>>
>
>Great, now just name me a country where capitalism is of a "non-crony"
>variety.
>
It's a matter of degree, and the U.S. has *mostly* been non-crony for
most of history.
But of course, under Obama cronyism has ratcheted up.
We didn't get the third highest GDP in the OECD with the sort of crony
capitalism Russia has.
>
>>
>>> I was referring to the decline in the standard of living as a result of
>>> the depredations of privatization in Western European countries in recent
>>> years, and particularly in France.
>>>
>>
>> I doubt that privatization harms the standard of living of citizens
>> *generally.*
>>
>
>But it has. People who have paid their share, worked a full week for
>years, not selfishly dodged their taxes, are suffering the consequences.
>They've kept their part of the social contract, yet its harder and harder
>to make ends meet. The corporations continue to prosper and CEOs to rake
>in the big bucks, but their employees are asked to work more for less.
>
But the CEOs don't make enough money to bail out the bankrupt welfare
states.
And the ordinary workers have been *told* that they deserve lavish
benefits, but the money has not been put aside. They have been led
down the garden path by the politicians. But like most con games,
it's worked because of the selfishness of the "marks."
Add in Europe's less-than-replacement birthrate, and you get trouble.
You can keep trying to scapegoat capitalists all you want, but it's
not working.
>How is it that JPMorgan Chase can gamble with their clients' money and
>make profits for the moneybags elite, while their clients (of which I am
>one) continue to see the value of the money in their savings accounts
>depreciate? Why can't they kick some of that back to the people who
>entrusted them with that money they're gambling with and give us a decent
>interest rate?
Why did you put your money with JPMorgan Chase?
My retirement is in a Dow Jones Index fund.
>You can bet the CEOs aren't losing anything to the
>inflation rate. But you can't even get a 5-year CD with a decent return
>now.
That's because the Fed has forced interest rates down to try to get us
out of the recession.
But it's not working. Did you see the jobs report Friday?
>So everything is riding (my 401(k) and another mutual funds package,
>my meager inheritance, which latter is also managed by Chase) on the
>vagaries of the stock market. Nobody has a pension plan anymore, we're
>forced to take it to the big casino, where there are no guarantees (though
>the house always wins)...
>
Defined contribution is vastly more rational than defined benefit.
Of *course* you would like the guarantee of a big pension at somebody
else's expense.
>>>
>>> The notion of "race" there is not supposed or claimed to be something
>>> remotely "scientific." It's purely social and political, based solely on
>>> how a person is perceived and defined by the society at large. The
>>> definition has already been made (for most people, by far; very few have
>>> any choice about whether they will "identify" with a certain racial
>>> identity). But this has very little to do with their specific genetic
>>> makeup, which varies widely among people with the same color of skin.
>>>
>>
>> But affirmative action is based on the notion that we can classify
>> people by race.
>>
>
>
>
>Not at all. It's based on the notion that people are *already* so
>classified.
>
Then we can base IQ studies on those "already" so classified.
In fact, self-classification is pretty accurate. If somebody says
they are "black," most of their racial heritage is African.
And so on for "white" and "Asian." Of course a lot of people have
*some* genes from another racial group.
>There is no relation between the notion of being classed as a member of a
>racial or ethnic minority by society at large (such as is considered in
>the application of affirmative action) and any supposedly scientific
>notion of "race" or genetic difference. The genetic backgrounds of people
>socially classed as black, Latino, etc., vary widely.
>
>
If fact, modern genetic studies can nail down racial heritage pretty
accurately. Not just "Africa" but the particular part of Africa. Not
just "European" but the region in Europe.
>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Chomsky is talking about a moral responsibility of the scientist here.
>>>>> He's appealing to those who will read him. I don't see where he's
>>>>> recommending any institutional coercion, which, by the way, the next
>>>>> essay, the Appendix, expressly disavows.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's relevant that he has to do that in an appendix.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Is it?
>>>
>>
>> He had to explain that he wasn't *really* attacking academic freedom.
>>
>
>If anybody was so dense as to think he was.
>
Why did he need the "clarification?"
>>
>>>> When I heard his talk, he clearly thought that research on IQ and race
>>>> should be forbidden. That it should be suppressed.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Oh, so you know what he *thought*.
>>>
>>
>> He was absolutely clear on it.
>
>Well, that hasn't been independently verified.
>
If you think I'm lying, so be it.
>>
>>
>>> But, don't university committees argue and decide whether some courses are
>>> appropriate? Suddenly everybody realizes phrenology is a crock, despite
>>> Hegel's enthusiasm, and the phrenology prof loses his job. And all this
>>> time, a linguistics professor has been writing articles about how
>>> phrenology is based on fallacious premises. But I don't know... someone
>>> got a degree in France with a paper on astrology several years ago. Maybe
>>> anything goes.
>>>
>>
>> In the first place, no sort of inquiry should be censored because
>> people fear the political ramifications.
>
>As I said, that's not the whole story here. First and foremost, he
>thought it was *bad science*.
>
But the study of IQ is *not* inherently "bad science." Any sort of
science can be done badly, but there is nothing wrong with studying
intelligence.
>> That turns academics into
>> political hacks.
>>
>> In the second place, IQ is an important concept that has important
>> implications. There is no doubt about that. The interesting question
>> is how much of IQ is genetic, and how much the result of environment.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> If you have a different evaluation of the scientific value of such
>>>>> studies, this factor will weigh more heavily in your weighing of the
>>>>> issue.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you contest Chomsky's premise that we live in a "racist society" (or
>>>>> that we did in the year this was written), you can argue with him that
>>>>> merely undergoing such studies would not have the feared consequences.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What consequences would you fear?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm merely reading Chomsky's article. I didn't say that I (in 2012) fear
>>> any. Maybe I should have written "would not HAVE HAD the feared
>>> consequences."
>>>
>>
>> Even in the 70s, it was wrong to want to censor certain kinds of
>> research because one feared the political consequences of telling the
>> truth.
>>
>
>He didn't think such methods would arrive at any truth but only an
>ideological obfuscation.
>
That was a rationalization for his authoritarian position.
I don't think THE NATION is likely to arrive at any truth, but only an
ideological obfuscation. But you folks have a right to publish it,
regardless of what I think.
Fundamentally, Chomsky is scared that studying the issue will result
in the conclusion that blacks are intellectually inferior. Else, why
would he want to shut up the inquiry?
I think for a lot of liberals, that view is their "dirty little
secret."
People who want to shut up research are people who are scared of what
it will show.
If he was confident that good research would show that racial
differences are the result of environmental factors, he should want
good research.
>I keep saying the same thing in different words, but you still don't get
>it.
>
I get it perfectly well. It's a desire to shut up research because it
might lead to politically inconvenient conclusions.
>
>
>>>
>>>> Are you afraid that an open and honest discussion and study would lead
>>>> to racist conclusions?
>>>>
>>>> Somehow, I sense that liberals, deep down, actually believe in black
>>>> inferiority, given how keen they are to shut up the whole topic.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> But if you believe the scientist and scholar have no moral responsibility,
>>>>> then he's wasted his breath on you.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The moral responsibility of a scientist and scholar is to the truth.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Chomsky argues that there is no truth to be found through such an inquiry.
>>>
>>
>> That's absurd.
>>
>
>To you it is, because you believe in this voodoo.
He calls it voodoo because he is threatened by it.
>But to Chomsky, it's like phrenology, dig?
>To my mind, this little detail disqualifies it as science:
>
>"Race in the studies is almost always determined using self-reports,
>rather than based on analyses of the genetic history of the tested
>individuals. According to psychologist David Rowe, self-report is the
>preferred method for racial classification in studies of racial
>differences because classification based on genetic markers alone ignore
>the "cultural, behavioral, sociological, psychological, and
>epidemiological variables" that distinguish racial groups."
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence
>
Oh, my! You are quoting Wikipedia!
What you posted is silly. If one is studying race and intelligence,
the issue TO BE INVESTIGATED is the relative effects of "genetic
markers" and "cultural, behavioral, sociological, psychological, and
epidemiological variables."
>Wow. Here I thought you were merely going off on a rather sophistical
>tangent in the heat of the argument, but it seems that "race and IQ"
>studies *have* actually been done primarily on the basis of the same
>self-classification as to "race" as the determination of "race" utilized
>for the application of affirmative action.
>
>Whatever that is, it ain't science.
>
Of course it's science. Self-classification is pretty accurate.
Scientists never have perfectly accurate measurements.
Again, if you don't like self-classification, use genetic markers.
>
>>>
>>>> The political ramifications have to fall where they may.
>>>>
>>>
>>>> You are taking a typically politically correct position: we lefties
>>>> decide what outcomes promote our preferred policies, and then we try
>>>> to shut down any research that might not produce the results we want.
>>>
>>>
>>> He was arguing about that such research would be both pointless and
>>> pernicious. You disagree with him on both points; fine. Surely you are
>>> both within your rights to express your opinions. And in print, as he has
>>> done.
>>>
>>
>> But the claim that such research would be "pointless and pernicious"
>> is just an excuse to censor it.
>>
>> He thinks it might be "pointless and pernicious" because he fears the
>> political consequences.
>>
>
>No, he thinks it is pointless because he believes "race" is a fictitious
>concept, or at least one that is very problematic to pin down, and that
>"IQ tests" are pervaded by cultural biases.
>
Then good research should be able to show these cultural biases. But
Chomsky is afraid of research.
BTW, there are many IQ tests that don't have any cultural biases.
It is true that *life* has cultural biases, and some kids who grow up
under poor conditions are disadvantaged in taking the tests. That
doesn't prove the tests have cultural biases.
>I'm sure he must have suspected the motives of people who want to carry
>out research on such grounds, which would raise doubts about the results
>they would come up with.
>
I question the motives of people who question capitalism.
Am I allowed to shut up various lines of research because I suspect
the academics doing it of bad motives?
If you are saying that some psychologists might have a bias toward
finding that blacks are intellectually inferior, I doubt that. The
vast majority of psychologists are politically correct leftists.
I *do* think that some psychologists have a bias toward accepting IQ
tests as reflecting native intelligence, rather than environmental
factors.
The proper response to that is a robust debate among psychologists
with *different* biases, not trying to shut up the entire enterprise.
>
>> That's like saying that certain kinds of speech are "pointless and
>> pernicious" and wanting to censor them.
>>
>
>I am perfectly within my rights to say that certain activities are
>pointless and pernicious if that's what I believe.
OK, I think that a critical examination of capitalism is pointless and
pernicious.
>That, too, is free speech.
Sure, you can use free speech to espouse censorship.
But then I can use free speech to say you are an authoritarian.
>Which is what Chomsky was exercising.
>But "wanting to censor them"? Apparently not.
>Haven't seen any proof of that.
>
OK, if you don't believe me, I can't help that.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
<gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On 7/8/12 8:34 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 8 Jul 2012 18:18:24 -0400, Sandy McCroskey
>> <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>> Liberals have had to back away from the notion of a centrally planned
>> economy.
>>
>> But note that they *did* once favor it. That was their bias. It had
>> to be knocked out of them by history.
>>
>> And liberals still have a bias toward maximizing government control of
>> the economy.
>>
>> Obama, remember, wanted single payer health care (Canadian style
>> socialized medicine).
>>
>
>Not badly enough.
>
>
You just admitted my point.
>On 7/8/12 8:34 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 8 Jul 2012 18:18:24 -0400, Sandy McCroskey
>> <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>> Liberals have had to back away from the notion of a centrally planned
>> economy.
>>
>> But note that they *did* once favor it. That was their bias. It had
>> to be knocked out of them by history.
>>
>> And liberals still have a bias toward maximizing government control of
>> the economy.
>>
>> Obama, remember, wanted single payer health care (Canadian style
>> socialized medicine).
>>
>
>Not badly enough.
>
>
And no matter how badly he wanted it, he couldn't have it.
Even the "public option" (designed to run private insurance companies
out of business) didn't work.
>>>>> Been hearing that for a while. But there was already a rising tide against
>>>>> the rampant privatization, offshoring, etc., even before the current
>>>>> reaction against the austerity imposed by the incoherent organization of
>>>>> the eurozone.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Translation: people, once conditioned to a cushy existence at the
>>>> expense of *other people* get resentful when told it can't be
>>>> sustained.
>>>
>>>
>>> No translation was required.
>>>
>>
>> Does that mean you agree with me about that?
>>
>
>No, it means you are presumptuous in trying to put such words in my mouth.
>
But that's the reality of your "rising tide against the rampant
privatization." It's selfish people getting mad that their cushy
benefits are gone.
>
>>
>>> I don't see how the Greeks could have expected to keep a country going
>>> without paying any taxes. Do you think the Greeks should pay their taxes?
>>>
>>
>> Yes, but the tax rates should be low.
>>
>> And it's not just Greece. Look at France a couple of years ago, and
>> look at the U.K.
>>
>> It's a kind of moral rot: "I want my goodies, and it's up to
>> government to take from *somebody else* to give them to me."
>>
>
>
>You mean that evading taxes indicates moral rot? OK.
>
And believing that you have a right to retire in your 50s, with the
taxpayer picking up the tab is moral rot.
And believing that your union should protect your job even if you
aren't productive is moral rot.
>But most of these countries could have provided all that they promised
>their dutiful, hard-working taxpaying citizens if the banksters (and
>big-time evaders) weren't robbing everybody blind.
>
level.
>
>>
>>> For all I know, you're socking your own huge earnings into a secret
>>> account in Delaware.
>>>
>>
>> Well if I *had* huge earnings, I might consider that.
>>
>
>That says a lot, thanks. At least you admit it.
>Now if Romney would come clean about the Bermudas...
>
Romney pays a lot more taxes than Obama. And contributes a lot more
to charity also.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's a *moral* failing of socialism.
>>>>
>>>
>>> One reason we're all paying more (way too much) right now for our health
>>> care is because some people are not insured.
>>>
>>
>> Which doesn't address my comment about the moral failings of
>> socialism.
>>
>
>I simply don't know whom you are accusing of not pulling their weight and
>depending on handouts or... I dunno, driving a welfare cadillac" (Reagan's
>urban legend)... or whatever you think the common people did to bring the
>economic crisis on themselves.
>
themselves.
They voted for more and more goodies. And eventually, the bill came
due.
As Maggie Thatcher said: the problem with socialism is that
socialists eventually run out of other people's money.
That has happened in Europe. We are close here.
>The moneymen fucked up. The economies crashed because of what they did,
>because they screwed too many people over. But those same people are
>paying the price, not the moneymen.
>
>
Spain and Italy and so on SO LONG AS IT LOOKED LIKE THEY MIGHT GET
PAID BACK.
But you think their job is to finance lavish welfare benefits with no
hope of getting paid.
You are looking for scapegoats.
>>
>> Moving from socialism to a free market is good.
>>
>> Turning from socialism to crony capitalism isn't so good.
>>
>
>Great, now just name me a country where capitalism is of a "non-crony"
>variety.
>
most of history.
But of course, under Obama cronyism has ratcheted up.
We didn't get the third highest GDP in the OECD with the sort of crony
capitalism Russia has.
>
>>
>>> I was referring to the decline in the standard of living as a result of
>>> the depredations of privatization in Western European countries in recent
>>> years, and particularly in France.
>>>
>>
>> I doubt that privatization harms the standard of living of citizens
>> *generally.*
>>
>
>But it has. People who have paid their share, worked a full week for
>years, not selfishly dodged their taxes, are suffering the consequences.
>They've kept their part of the social contract, yet its harder and harder
>to make ends meet. The corporations continue to prosper and CEOs to rake
>in the big bucks, but their employees are asked to work more for less.
>
states.
And the ordinary workers have been *told* that they deserve lavish
benefits, but the money has not been put aside. They have been led
down the garden path by the politicians. But like most con games,
it's worked because of the selfishness of the "marks."
Add in Europe's less-than-replacement birthrate, and you get trouble.
You can keep trying to scapegoat capitalists all you want, but it's
not working.
>How is it that JPMorgan Chase can gamble with their clients' money and
>make profits for the moneybags elite, while their clients (of which I am
>one) continue to see the value of the money in their savings accounts
>depreciate? Why can't they kick some of that back to the people who
>entrusted them with that money they're gambling with and give us a decent
>interest rate?
My retirement is in a Dow Jones Index fund.
>You can bet the CEOs aren't losing anything to the
>inflation rate. But you can't even get a 5-year CD with a decent return
>now.
out of the recession.
But it's not working. Did you see the jobs report Friday?
>So everything is riding (my 401(k) and another mutual funds package,
>my meager inheritance, which latter is also managed by Chase) on the
>vagaries of the stock market. Nobody has a pension plan anymore, we're
>forced to take it to the big casino, where there are no guarantees (though
>the house always wins)...
>
Of *course* you would like the guarantee of a big pension at somebody
else's expense.
>>>
>>> The notion of "race" there is not supposed or claimed to be something
>>> remotely "scientific." It's purely social and political, based solely on
>>> how a person is perceived and defined by the society at large. The
>>> definition has already been made (for most people, by far; very few have
>>> any choice about whether they will "identify" with a certain racial
>>> identity). But this has very little to do with their specific genetic
>>> makeup, which varies widely among people with the same color of skin.
>>>
>>
>> But affirmative action is based on the notion that we can classify
>> people by race.
>>
>
>
>
>Not at all. It's based on the notion that people are *already* so
>classified.
>
In fact, self-classification is pretty accurate. If somebody says
they are "black," most of their racial heritage is African.
And so on for "white" and "Asian." Of course a lot of people have
*some* genes from another racial group.
>There is no relation between the notion of being classed as a member of a
>racial or ethnic minority by society at large (such as is considered in
>the application of affirmative action) and any supposedly scientific
>notion of "race" or genetic difference. The genetic backgrounds of people
>socially classed as black, Latino, etc., vary widely.
>
>
accurately. Not just "Africa" but the particular part of Africa. Not
just "European" but the region in Europe.
>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Chomsky is talking about a moral responsibility of the scientist here.
>>>>> He's appealing to those who will read him. I don't see where he's
>>>>> recommending any institutional coercion, which, by the way, the next
>>>>> essay, the Appendix, expressly disavows.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's relevant that he has to do that in an appendix.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Is it?
>>>
>>
>> He had to explain that he wasn't *really* attacking academic freedom.
>>
>
>If anybody was so dense as to think he was.
>
>>
>>>> When I heard his talk, he clearly thought that research on IQ and race
>>>> should be forbidden. That it should be suppressed.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Oh, so you know what he *thought*.
>>>
>>
>> He was absolutely clear on it.
>
>Well, that hasn't been independently verified.
>
>>
>>
>>> But, don't university committees argue and decide whether some courses are
>>> appropriate? Suddenly everybody realizes phrenology is a crock, despite
>>> Hegel's enthusiasm, and the phrenology prof loses his job. And all this
>>> time, a linguistics professor has been writing articles about how
>>> phrenology is based on fallacious premises. But I don't know... someone
>>> got a degree in France with a paper on astrology several years ago. Maybe
>>> anything goes.
>>>
>>
>> In the first place, no sort of inquiry should be censored because
>> people fear the political ramifications.
>
>As I said, that's not the whole story here. First and foremost, he
>thought it was *bad science*.
>
science can be done badly, but there is nothing wrong with studying
intelligence.
>> That turns academics into
>> political hacks.
>>
>> In the second place, IQ is an important concept that has important
>> implications. There is no doubt about that. The interesting question
>> is how much of IQ is genetic, and how much the result of environment.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> If you have a different evaluation of the scientific value of such
>>>>> studies, this factor will weigh more heavily in your weighing of the
>>>>> issue.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you contest Chomsky's premise that we live in a "racist society" (or
>>>>> that we did in the year this was written), you can argue with him that
>>>>> merely undergoing such studies would not have the feared consequences.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What consequences would you fear?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm merely reading Chomsky's article. I didn't say that I (in 2012) fear
>>> any. Maybe I should have written "would not HAVE HAD the feared
>>> consequences."
>>>
>>
>> Even in the 70s, it was wrong to want to censor certain kinds of
>> research because one feared the political consequences of telling the
>> truth.
>>
>
>He didn't think such methods would arrive at any truth but only an
>ideological obfuscation.
>
I don't think THE NATION is likely to arrive at any truth, but only an
ideological obfuscation. But you folks have a right to publish it,
regardless of what I think.
Fundamentally, Chomsky is scared that studying the issue will result
in the conclusion that blacks are intellectually inferior. Else, why
would he want to shut up the inquiry?
I think for a lot of liberals, that view is their "dirty little
secret."
People who want to shut up research are people who are scared of what
it will show.
If he was confident that good research would show that racial
differences are the result of environmental factors, he should want
good research.
>I keep saying the same thing in different words, but you still don't get
>it.
>
might lead to politically inconvenient conclusions.
>
>
>>>
>>>> Are you afraid that an open and honest discussion and study would lead
>>>> to racist conclusions?
>>>>
>>>> Somehow, I sense that liberals, deep down, actually believe in black
>>>> inferiority, given how keen they are to shut up the whole topic.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> But if you believe the scientist and scholar have no moral responsibility,
>>>>> then he's wasted his breath on you.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The moral responsibility of a scientist and scholar is to the truth.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Chomsky argues that there is no truth to be found through such an inquiry.
>>>
>>
>> That's absurd.
>>
>
>To you it is, because you believe in this voodoo.
>But to Chomsky, it's like phrenology, dig?
>To my mind, this little detail disqualifies it as science:
>
>"Race in the studies is almost always determined using self-reports,
>rather than based on analyses of the genetic history of the tested
>individuals. According to psychologist David Rowe, self-report is the
>preferred method for racial classification in studies of racial
>differences because classification based on genetic markers alone ignore
>the "cultural, behavioral, sociological, psychological, and
>epidemiological variables" that distinguish racial groups."
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence
>
What you posted is silly. If one is studying race and intelligence,
the issue TO BE INVESTIGATED is the relative effects of "genetic
markers" and "cultural, behavioral, sociological, psychological, and
epidemiological variables."
>Wow. Here I thought you were merely going off on a rather sophistical
>tangent in the heat of the argument, but it seems that "race and IQ"
>studies *have* actually been done primarily on the basis of the same
>self-classification as to "race" as the determination of "race" utilized
>for the application of affirmative action.
>
>Whatever that is, it ain't science.
>
Scientists never have perfectly accurate measurements.
Again, if you don't like self-classification, use genetic markers.
>
>>>
>>>> The political ramifications have to fall where they may.
>>>>
>>>
>>>> You are taking a typically politically correct position: we lefties
>>>> decide what outcomes promote our preferred policies, and then we try
>>>> to shut down any research that might not produce the results we want.
>>>
>>>
>>> He was arguing about that such research would be both pointless and
>>> pernicious. You disagree with him on both points; fine. Surely you are
>>> both within your rights to express your opinions. And in print, as he has
>>> done.
>>>
>>
>> But the claim that such research would be "pointless and pernicious"
>> is just an excuse to censor it.
>>
>> He thinks it might be "pointless and pernicious" because he fears the
>> political consequences.
>>
>
>No, he thinks it is pointless because he believes "race" is a fictitious
>concept, or at least one that is very problematic to pin down, and that
>"IQ tests" are pervaded by cultural biases.
>
Chomsky is afraid of research.
BTW, there are many IQ tests that don't have any cultural biases.
It is true that *life* has cultural biases, and some kids who grow up
under poor conditions are disadvantaged in taking the tests. That
doesn't prove the tests have cultural biases.
>I'm sure he must have suspected the motives of people who want to carry
>out research on such grounds, which would raise doubts about the results
>they would come up with.
>
Am I allowed to shut up various lines of research because I suspect
the academics doing it of bad motives?
If you are saying that some psychologists might have a bias toward
finding that blacks are intellectually inferior, I doubt that. The
vast majority of psychologists are politically correct leftists.
I *do* think that some psychologists have a bias toward accepting IQ
tests as reflecting native intelligence, rather than environmental
factors.
The proper response to that is a robust debate among psychologists
with *different* biases, not trying to shut up the entire enterprise.
>
>> That's like saying that certain kinds of speech are "pointless and
>> pernicious" and wanting to censor them.
>>
>
>I am perfectly within my rights to say that certain activities are
>pointless and pernicious if that's what I believe.
pernicious.
>That, too, is free speech.
But then I can use free speech to say you are an authoritarian.
>Which is what Chomsky was exercising.
>But "wanting to censor them"? Apparently not.
>Haven't seen any proof of that.
>
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
Jul 8, 2012, 11:37:38 PM7/8/12
to
construction. The US Constitution was written clearly and explicitly, but
the way it was written and the words chosen were restricted by the
conditions current then. For example in the freedom of speech clause they
did list every possible form of speech and did not explicitly enerate TV,
radio, and the InterNet. Modern courts had to rule that those are forms of
speech implicitly covered by the clause. That is what an activist court
does. Like the Roberts court deciding that bribing politicians with
trillions of dollars, drugs and hookers is free speech.
You have to understand the context and phrasing of the times. When the
Second Amendment was written, the People were firmly opposed to the
establishment of a standing Army because of experiencing the oppression of
the British Army. So they favored staying with the old way of a local
militia being instantly prepared to defend its citizens. That way the
military would be used purely defensively rather than to oppress. If there
came a need to launch attacks the Constitution makes provisions for
declaring war and issuing letters of Reprisal. Remember that when our
Declaration of Independence was issued it was in effect a declaration of
war and yet we had no standing Army. The first battles were fought by
militia. The British wanted to take away the rights of the citizens to
bear arms. In order to make it easier to oppress their subjects. Notice
that it says BEAR arms, not own arms. The framers knew the difference.
> Saratoga was won by militia forces -- farmers (mostly) who brought
> their own guns.
>
deer? Did the Second Amendment explicitly include nuclear weapons?
> .John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
Anthony Marsh
Jul 8, 2012, 11:37:52 PM7/8/12
to
parenthetical clause?
> /sandy
Sandy McCroskey
Jul 8, 2012, 11:38:40 PM7/8/12
to
On 7/8/12 6:22 PM, bigdog wrote:
Travel" lately (we're up to Season 2, Disc 2 now, and Laura says she'll
never get sick of it), and seen the noble Paladin take care of too many
baddies with only a single, simple revolver (if he has to fire at all)...
/sandy
Bill Clarke
Jul 8, 2012, 11:39:35 PM7/8/12
to
Good oneIn article
<6b69afc6-85d2-4312...@a34g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, bigdog
says...
>?
>>
>> >>>http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-about-deterrence-and-death-penal=
>earch
>> >>> Council of the National Academies and based on a review of more than =
>three
>> >>> decades of research, concluded that studies claiming a deterrent effe=
>ct on
>> >>> murder rates from the death penalty are fundamentally flawed. The rep=
>ort
>> >>> concluded: ?The committee concludes that research to date on the effe=
>ct of
>> >>> capital punishment on homicide is not informative about whether capit=
>h
>> >>> penalty on homicide. Consequently, claims that research demonstrates =
>that
>> >>> capital punishment decreases or increases the homicide rate by a spec=
>ified
>> >>> amount or has no effect on the homicide rate should not influence pol=
>icy
>> >>> judgments about capital punishment." (emphasis added). =A0Criminologi=
>st
>> >>> Daniel Nagin of Carnegie Mellon, who chaired the panel of experts, sa=
> in
>> those few seconds the thug has already cut your throat. =A0Loading your
guess.
Bill Clarke
<6b69afc6-85d2-4312...@a34g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, bigdog
says...
>
>On Jul 8, 6:38=A0pm, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <4ff8c25...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On 7/6/2012 11:44 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>> >> On 6 Jul 2012 23:23:17 -0400, Sandy McCroskey
>> >> <gwmccros...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> >>> On 7/6/12 10:09 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>> >>>> The clear majority of good econometric studies of the death penalty
>> >>>> published in peer-reviewed journals over the last 12 or 15 years sho=
>On Jul 8, 6:38=A0pm, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <4ff8c25...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On 7/6/2012 11:44 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>> >> On 6 Jul 2012 23:23:17 -0400, Sandy McCroskey
>> >> <gwmccros...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> >>> On 7/6/12 10:09 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>> >>>> The clear majority of good econometric studies of the death penalty
>w
>> >>>> that the death penalty deters murder.
>>
>> >>> Does "good...studies" mean those whose conclusions you find palatable=
>> >>>> that the death penalty deters murder.
>>
>?
>>
>> >>>http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-about-deterrence-and-death-penal=
>ty
>>
>> >>> <quote on>
>>
>> >>> National Research Council of the National Academies Deterrence Report
>>
>> >>> A report, released on April 18, 2012, by the prestigious National Res=
>>
>> >>> <quote on>
>>
>> >>> National Research Council of the National Academies Deterrence Report
>>
>earch
>> >>> Council of the National Academies and based on a review of more than =
>three
>> >>> decades of research, concluded that studies claiming a deterrent effe=
>ct on
>> >>> murder rates from the death penalty are fundamentally flawed. The rep=
>ort
>> >>> concluded: ?The committee concludes that research to date on the effe=
>ct of
>> >>> capital punishment on homicide is not informative about whether capit=
>al
>> >>> punishment decreases, increases, or has no effect on homicide rates.
>> >>> Therefore, the committee recommends that these studies not be used to
>> >>> inform deliberations requiring judgments about the effect of the deat=
>> >>> punishment decreases, increases, or has no effect on homicide rates.
>> >>> Therefore, the committee recommends that these studies not be used to
>h
>> >>> penalty on homicide. Consequently, claims that research demonstrates =
>that
>> >>> capital punishment decreases or increases the homicide rate by a spec=
>ified
>> >>> amount or has no effect on the homicide rate should not influence pol=
>icy
>> >>> judgments about capital punishment." (emphasis added). =A0Criminologi=
>st
>> >>> Daniel Nagin of Carnegie Mellon, who chaired the panel of experts, sa=
>id,
>>
>> >> A little research shows Nagin to be a liberal who favors less
>> >> punishment of criminals and doesn't like letting citizens carry guns.
>>
>> >You think anyone to the left of Adolf Hitler is a Liberal.
>> >BTW, can you understand the subtle difference between owning guns and
>> >carrying guns? I own several guns, but in Massachusetts it is very hard
>> >to get the permit to carry guns.
>>
>> Yes, that is what happens when you re-elect fools like Ted Kennedy and
>> John Kerry to the Senate time and time again.
>>
>> >Even when I did own a handgun I never carried it loaded in public.
>> >If you know what you are doing it takes only a second to load it.
>>
>> Well that is not true either is it Marsh. =A0It takes seconds at best and=
>>
>> >> A little research shows Nagin to be a liberal who favors less
>> >> punishment of criminals and doesn't like letting citizens carry guns.
>>
>> >You think anyone to the left of Adolf Hitler is a Liberal.
>> >BTW, can you understand the subtle difference between owning guns and
>> >carrying guns? I own several guns, but in Massachusetts it is very hard
>> >to get the permit to carry guns.
>>
>> Yes, that is what happens when you re-elect fools like Ted Kennedy and
>> John Kerry to the Senate time and time again.
>>
>> >Even when I did own a handgun I never carried it loaded in public.
>> >If you know what you are doing it takes only a second to load it.
>>
> in
>> those few seconds the thug has already cut your throat. =A0Loading your
>> pistol as you bleed out doesn't help much.
>>
>> What about figure 26 in your reference? =A0Studied it yet?
>>
>>
>> Bill Clarke
>
>Apparently, in Massachusetts, the criminals are more polite and will
>allow you time to load your gun before attacking you.
>
Good one! A nice thug. Only in Marsh land. And Massachusetts too I
>> Bill Clarke
>
>Apparently, in Massachusetts, the criminals are more polite and will
>allow you time to load your gun before attacking you.
>
guess.
Bill Clarke
jordan.b...@gmail.com
Jul 8, 2012, 11:40:33 PM7/8/12
to
On Wednesday, July 4, 2012 8:25:35 AM UTC-5, HistorianDetective wrote:
> Keeping somewhat in line with a recent thread regarding US Media that was
> posted by the CT moderator of this group and non-US citizen, here's a link
> Keeping somewhat in line with a recent thread regarding US Media that was
> to the full premier episode of HBO's new series "Newsroom" written by
> Aaron Sorkin of West Wing fame, Charlie Wilson's War and Moneyball, as
> well. Well worth the free viewing for those like myself who are not an HBO
> subscriber.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1U4ZhFDFYvE&feature=player_embedded
>
> The opening is a roundtable debate where each panelist is asked the
> question as to why America is the greatest country in the world. You will
> have to watch for yourself for the dramatic answer given by anchorman Will
> McAvoy (played by Jeff Daniels of Dumb and Dumber fame).
>
> JM/HD
At the same time, "farmers with guns" was behind Shay's Rebellion, which
> Aaron Sorkin of West Wing fame, Charlie Wilson's War and Moneyball, as
> well. Well worth the free viewing for those like myself who are not an HBO
> subscriber.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1U4ZhFDFYvE&feature=player_embedded
>
> The opening is a roundtable debate where each panelist is asked the
> question as to why America is the greatest country in the world. You will
> have to watch for yourself for the dramatic answer given by anchorman Will
> McAvoy (played by Jeff Daniels of Dumb and Dumber fame).
>
> JM/HD
freaked out the elite moneyed class who convinced those farmers to fight
the revolution and then didn't pay them... freaked them out so much, that
in less than 8 months we had a strong centralized army whose main purpose
at the time was to put down local rebellions like the one led by Daniel
Shay.
Anthony Marsh
Jul 8, 2012, 11:41:23 PM7/8/12
to
You prefer that the fraud stays in as long as it profits your rightwing
buddies?
>
>> Other changes aim to reduce growth in Medicare spending, by more than $500
>> billion over 10 years, though estimates of the future savings vary.
>>
>> The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, or CBO, and the Centers for
>> Medicare and Medicaid Services have both released reports since the health
>> care law passed showing that the Affordable Care Act will reduce future
>> spending growth on Medicare by more than $500 billion.
>>
>
> Translation: a more than $500 billion dollars cut.
>
>> The Affordable Care Act "contains numerous provisions that, on balance,
>> will reduce federal spending on Medicare," the CBO said in a June 2012
>> report.
>>
>> The biggest portion of that savings, according to Neuman’s tutorial, will
>> come from reducing annual increases in payments to medical providers.
>>
>
> And this supposedly can be done without harming the quality and
> affordability of health care. Does anybody really believe that?
>
>
>> But the health care law does not cut $500 billion from Medicare. It just
>> reduces future growth.
>>
>
> Huh!!!
>
> It reduces spending below what it would otherwise be.
>
> When a Republican "reduces future growth," this is a *cut* to
> liberals.
>
> So senior have every right to fear the consequences of ObamaCare.
>
business. Ooh, we'd better nuke Iceland because in 1,000 years they
MIGHT enrich uranium!
> .John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
Anthony Marsh
Jul 8, 2012, 11:41:49 PM7/8/12
to
even having a machine gun would not help you.
If a sniper shoots you from a mile away carrying a bazooka is not going
to protect you. As the Taliban found out.
Anthony Marsh
Jul 8, 2012, 11:44:16 PM7/8/12
to
Anthony Marsh
Jul 9, 2012, 9:38:20 AM7/9/12
to
the poor?
Do you even understand the point that Warren Buffet made?
Have you ever read the Bible?
Luke 12:48
For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to
whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.
Or maybe you're an atheist so you don't believe in the Bible.
> And it's not just Greece. Look at France a couple of years ago, and
> look at the U.K.
>
> It's a kind of moral rot: "I want my goodies, and it's up to
> government to take from *somebody else* to give them to me."
>
>
share? Maybe it's the word "fair" that you don't like.
>> For all I know, you're socking your own huge earnings into a secret
>> account in Delaware.
>>
>
> Well if I *had* huge earnings, I might consider that.
>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> That's a *moral* failing of socialism.
>>>
>>
>> One reason we're all paying more (way too much) right now for our health
>> care is because some people are not insured.
>>
>
> Which doesn't address my comment about the moral failings of
> socialism.
>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> How has privatization a-go-go affected the quality of life over there?
>>>> That's a question you didn't ask.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You must have liked the old USSR.
>>
>> I don't see that that has anything to do with it, though I guess that's
>> what you'd come up with if you're still stuck in a cold war mindset.
>
> Unfortunately, a fair number of leftists are stuck in the Cold War
> mindset.
>
McCarthyism.
>
>> But
>> while we're on it, do you think the USSR is a good example of a country
>> that has turned to a free-market model? It's been a raging success, hasn't
>> it? And when do you think Putin will allow real political opposition?
>> Surely the former Soviet Union is a special (basket) case.
>>
>
> Moving from socialism to a free market is good.
>
> Turning from socialism to crony capitalism isn't so good.
while firing the same number of workers in the US?
No business can make a profit without slave labor.
>
>
>> I was referring to the decline in the standard of living as a result of
>> the depredations of privatization in Western European countries in recent
>> years, and particularly in France.
>>
>
> I doubt that privatization harms the standard of living of citizens
> *generally.*
>
> But there are privileged groups under socialism, and they are
> advantaged.
>
Not very Christian of you.
> Under socialized medicine the political elite get good doctors and get
> procedures performed quickly.
>
> Unionized workers in nationalized industries do well. Taxpayers and
> consumers pay.
>
> The public school monopoly benefits unionized teachers and educational
> bureaucrats. It victimizes taxpayers and students.
>
>>>>>
>>>>> How was I to know that 35 years later somebody like you would deny
>>>>> that Chomsky is a Stalinist?
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW, I found a written source with Chomsky saying what I remember him
>>>>> saying: that there is no academic freedom to study racial differences
>>>>> in IQ.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://books.google.com/books?id=84NQ3IXpbOYC&pg=PA119&lpg=PA119&dq=chomsky+academic+freedom+racist&source=bl&ots=F1gHsVs_7b&sig=TODRMG4Hbh8VDtS7fWwVSEnq1mA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=J7X3T-T5DoPs0gGyn8TSBg&ved=0CEMQ6AEwBDgK#v=onepage&q=chomsky%20academic%20freedom%20racist&f=false
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, to study racial difference in IQ, you have to assume a definition of
>>>> "race."
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm sure you favor affirmative action, that *that* requires a
>>> definition of race.
>>>
>>
>> The notion of "race" there is not supposed or claimed to be something
>> remotely "scientific." It's purely social and political, based solely on
>> how a person is perceived and defined by the society at large. The
>> definition has already been made (for most people, by far; very few have
>> any choice about whether they will "identify" with a certain racial
>> identity). But this has very little to do with their specific genetic
>> makeup, which varies widely among people with the same color of skin.
>>
>
> But affirmative action is based on the notion that we can classify
> people by race.
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> Chomsky is talking about a moral responsibility of the scientist here.
>>>> He's appealing to those who will read him. I don't see where he's
>>>> recommending any institutional coercion, which, by the way, the next
>>>> essay, the Appendix, expressly disavows.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It's relevant that he has to do that in an appendix.
>>>
>>
>> Is it?
>>
>
> He had to explain that he wasn't *really* attacking academic freedom.
>
>
>>> When I heard his talk, he clearly thought that research on IQ and race
>>> should be forbidden. That it should be suppressed.
>>>
>>
>> Oh, so you know what he *thought*.
>>
>
> He was absolutely clear on it.
>
>
>> But, don't university committees argue and decide whether some courses are
>> appropriate? Suddenly everybody realizes phrenology is a crock, despite
>> Hegel's enthusiasm, and the phrenology prof loses his job. And all this
>> time, a linguistics professor has been writing articles about how
>> phrenology is based on fallacious premises. But I don't know... someone
>> got a degree in France with a paper on astrology several years ago. Maybe
>> anything goes.
>>
>
> In the first place, no sort of inquiry should be censored because
> people fear the political ramifications. That turns academics into
> political hacks.
>
> In the second place, IQ is an important concept that has important
> implications. There is no doubt about that. The interesting question
> is how much of IQ is genetic, and how much the result of environment.
>
thing and demand proof. But you are immune.
>
>>>
>>> Again: what are you afraid of?
>>>
>>
>> Nothing. Chomsky clearly thought an inquiry under such a rubric as "the
>> study of racial differences in IQ" was both intellectually faulty and
>> potentially productive of a reinforcement of racism and related negative
>> consequences. He didn't think there was anything real that could be
>> enunciated within such a conceptual framework.
>>
>
> That shows is nasty authoritarian worldview.
>
> Trying to censor research because you fear the political consequences
> is like trying to censor speech because you fear the political
> consequences.
>
> The latter is done by people who know, deep down, that they would be
> disadvantaged by a free and open debate.
>
Anthony Marsh
Jul 9, 2012, 9:39:28 AM7/9/12
to
that to you down in Texas. So how many seconds does it take you to load
your gun? If some has a knife on you you may not even need to use your
gun, just good reflexes.
Anthony Marsh
Jul 9, 2012, 9:43:11 AM7/9/12
to
average rifle. Shorter, lighter, higher rate of fire, more rounds in the
magazine.
Anthony Marsh
Jul 9, 2012, 9:45:52 AM7/9/12
to
On 7/8/2012 6:18 PM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
> On 7/7/12 11:49 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 7 Jul 2012 13:31:05 -0400, Sandy McCroskey
>> <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/7/12 12:16 AM, John McAdams wrote:
>>>> On 6 Jul 2012 23:48:36 -0400, Sandy McCroskey
>>>> <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 7/6/12 11:19 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>>>>>> On 6 Jul 2012 23:05:35 -0400, Sandy McCroskey
>>>>>> <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I wasn't complaining about anybody's likes or dislikes.
>>>>>>> Just seems a juvenile, trivializing way to frame things.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's not at all trivial to point out that somebody does not like the
>>>>>> private sector and free markets.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's the central part of Obama's ideology.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not "liking" something is a matter of mere taste, not ideology.
>>>>> It's unreasoned.
>>>>> This phrasing trivializes your opponent's reasoned position, as
>>>>> well as
>>>>> your own supposed reasons for opposing it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That is a distinction without a difference. Among ideological people,
>>>> it doesn't start with "principle." It starts with class interests.
>>>> And those are rationalized via ideology.
He likes too much government when it spies on everyone and monitors
every woman's womb and every person's sex life.
>
>> Even you have admitted that European socialists have backed away from
>> nationalization and confiscatory tax rates.
>>
>>
>>> "Imagine, guys, he doesn't like chocolate! Is that crazy or what??"
>>>
>>
>> No difference between the U.S. and the old USSR. Just a matter of
>> taste.
>>
>
> Right, talking about such differences as a matter of taste is utterly
> vapid.
>
> I don't think most liberaLs would agree with you when you say, for
> example, that they "don't like markets." They'd say that's way too
> simplistic.
>
>
>>
>>>>>>
>
>
>>
>>
>>> How has privatization a-go-go affected the quality of life over there?
>>> That's a question you didn't ask.
>>>
>>
>> You must have liked the old USSR.
>
> I don't see that that has anything to do with it, though I guess that's
> what you'd come up with if you're still stuck in a cold war mindset. But
> I was referring to the decline in the standard of living as a result of
> the depredations of privatization in Western European countries in
> recent years, and particularly in France.
>
>
>
>
>>> I read too many stories in Le Canard encha?n? about unscrupulous
>>> contractors cutting corners. That's a paper of rather an anarchist bent,
>>> not trusting implicitly in any particular government, but it recognizes
>>> the need for government regulation and enforcement of standards in
>>> certain
>>> vital areas.
>>>
>>
>> You can't get around that nationalization of industry is now relegated
>> to the dustbin of history.
>>
>> Of course there are holdouts.
>>
>> There were serious royalists for what, at least a century after
>> monarchs were clearly obsolete.
>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It wasn't recorded, and there was no transcript. It was sponsored by
>>>>>> a church on Harvard Square, and I challenged him during the Q & A.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Should've taken notes. Or recorded it.
surprised by what their DNA shows about their racial background.
Some blacks are more white than black and some whites are more black
than they knew.
Ever hear of "passing"?
>
>
>>
>>> Chomsky is talking about a moral responsibility of the scientist here.
>>> He's appealing to those who will read him. I don't see where he's
>>> recommending any institutional coercion, which, by the way, the next
>>> essay, the Appendix, expressly disavows.
>>>
>>
>> It's relevant that he has to do that in an appendix.
>>
>
> Is it?
>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I do sometimes.
>>>>
>>>> I've read a lot of issues from the 1930s. :-)
>> slowly than THE NEW REPUBLIC where Stalinism was concerned.
>>
>
> All *those* folks are dead now.
>
> Sure, we're going to be celebrating the 150th anniversary soon, but this
> notion that it's the "same" magazine is a bit of a mystification. It's
> like the ax whose handle has been changed as many times as its blade has
> been replaced but it's still nominally the same ax your
> great-great-granddaddy owned.
>
> The magazine has undergone several significant editorial shifts in its
> long history. There was even a time, around the turn of the century, I
> think, when it was very pro-"business class." Founder E.L. Godkin did
> not believe in socialism.
>
>
>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are quite the ideologue yourself, and your ideology is that
>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>> ruling class.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is no ruling class. There is a class struggle between the
>>>>>> business class (usually allied with social conservatives) and the New
>>>>>> Class, which includes those elites represented by the Democratic
>>>>>> Party.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When the Democrats control, the New Class controls -- happily subject
>>>>>> to checks and balances and the constraints of a democratic system.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The claim that the business class is the "ruling class" is New Class
>>>>>> ideology.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorkin buys into this ideology.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Both these elements are part of the ruling, capitalist class.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not so. The class struggle is between the business class (represented
>>>> by the Republican Party) and the New Class (representd by the
>>>> Democratic Party). The New Class isn't capitalist at all.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Echt capitalists anywhere are few, of course, but like the real
>>> members of
>>> the Party in a one-party state, the interests of capital everywhere
>>> prevail. Hillary Clinton must be part of the New Class, right, since
>>> she's
>>> not on *your* side (business class?)? Look at her role, detailed in
>>> yesterday's Times, in bringing, at great cost to the environment as well
>>> as the livelihoods of local farmers, an industrial park to a part of
>>> Haiti
>>> that wasn't affected by the earthquake.
>>>
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/06/world/americas/earthquake-relief-where-haiti-wasnt-broken.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> It was your favorite liberal justices on the Supreme Court that failed
>> to stand up for property right in KELO.
>>
>> Now you are lamenting that farmers in Haiti lose their property to an
>> industrial park?
>>
>> Be consistent and admit that conservatives were right about Kelo.
>>
>> BTW, none of this proves that Hillary was some capitalist stooge.
>> Soviet style socialism is dead, and the New Class has to work with the
>> capitalists.
>>
>> So it's really crony capitalism (think: Solyndra) that is the
>> preferred New Class way of doing business.
>>
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/solyndra-politics-infused-obama-energy-programs/2011/12/14/gIQA4HllHP_story.html
>>
>>
>> But the New Class liked government ownership for decades.
>>
>> And they *still* don't like free markets. They will put up with
>> capitalists, but they want the upper hand.
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>> If the Republican Party really does represent anything besides the
>>>>> interests of its money-bags elite ("the universal interests of
>>>>> mankind"?),
>>>>> then why is it so focused on suppressing the vote in the next
>>>>> election?
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.thenation.com/blog/168762/dumping-mitt-gop-making-steal-plausible
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What you call "suppressing the vote" is actually a desire to stop
>>>> fraud.
>>>>
>>>> You folks are so adamant that people should not have to show an ID
>>>> when they vote that Republicans can't see any reason for that *unless*
>>>> you want massive fraud.
>>>>
>>>> Do you *really* think that it's possible to get along in U.S. society
>>>> without an ID?
>>>
>>>
>>> All I have is my passport, since I don't drive.
>>> It's been a while since this has kept me out of a nightclub (alas).
>>>
>>
>> Your passport would allow you to vote in any state with voter ID laws.
>>
>> .John
>> --------------
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>>
>
>
>
> On 7/7/12 11:49 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 7 Jul 2012 13:31:05 -0400, Sandy McCroskey
>> <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/7/12 12:16 AM, John McAdams wrote:
>>>> On 6 Jul 2012 23:48:36 -0400, Sandy McCroskey
>>>> <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 7/6/12 11:19 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>>>>>> On 6 Jul 2012 23:05:35 -0400, Sandy McCroskey
>>>>>> <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I wasn't complaining about anybody's likes or dislikes.
>>>>>>> Just seems a juvenile, trivializing way to frame things.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's not at all trivial to point out that somebody does not like the
>>>>>> private sector and free markets.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's the central part of Obama's ideology.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not "liking" something is a matter of mere taste, not ideology.
>>>>> It's unreasoned.
>>>>> This phrasing trivializes your opponent's reasoned position, as
>>>>> well as
>>>>> your own supposed reasons for opposing it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That is a distinction without a difference. Among ideological people,
>>>> it doesn't start with "principle." It starts with class interests.
>>>> And those are rationalized via ideology.
>>>>
>>>> And liberals and leftists really do *dislike* markets, and the private
>>>> sector.
>>>>
>>>> They *like* government.
>>>>
>>>> Those are fundamental things about their ideology.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Let's say, then, that you like markets and dislike government.
>>> He dislikes, you like.
>>>
>>> Nothing to discuss yet.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, plenty to discuss. The centralization of too much economic power
>> in government has consequences which should be obvious now.
>>
>
> But now you're not talking about mere taste anymore.
>
>>>> And liberals and leftists really do *dislike* markets, and the private
>>>> sector.
>>>>
>>>> They *like* government.
>>>>
>>>> Those are fundamental things about their ideology.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Let's say, then, that you like markets and dislike government.
>>> He dislikes, you like.
>>>
>>> Nothing to discuss yet.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, plenty to discuss. The centralization of too much economic power
>> in government has consequences which should be obvious now.
>>
>
> But now you're not talking about mere taste anymore.
>
> You're also qualifying things now. So wait... it's not that you dislike
> government, it's just that you dislike "too much" government, is that
> right?
>
He only dislikes too much government when it helps blacks and poor people.
> government, it's just that you dislike "too much" government, is that
> right?
>
He likes too much government when it spies on everyone and monitors
every woman's womb and every person's sex life.
>
>> Even you have admitted that European socialists have backed away from
>> nationalization and confiscatory tax rates.
>>
>>
>>> "Imagine, guys, he doesn't like chocolate! Is that crazy or what??"
>>>
>>
>> No difference between the U.S. and the old USSR. Just a matter of
>> taste.
>>
>
> Right, talking about such differences as a matter of taste is utterly
> vapid.
>
> I don't think most liberaLs would agree with you when you say, for
> example, that they "don't like markets." They'd say that's way too
> simplistic.
>
>
>>
>>>>>>
> I don't see how the Greeks could have expected to keep a country going
> without paying any taxes. Do you think the Greeks should pay their taxes?
>
> without paying any taxes. Do you think the Greeks should pay their taxes?
>
> For all I know, you're socking your own huge earnings into a secret
> account in Delaware.
>
>
>
>>
> account in Delaware.
>
>
>
>>
>> That's a *moral* failing of socialism.
>>
>
> One reason we're all paying more (way too much) right now for our health
> care is because some people are not insured.
>
The poor use the emergency room because they can't afford a doctor.
>>
>
> One reason we're all paying more (way too much) right now for our health
> care is because some people are not insured.
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>> How has privatization a-go-go affected the quality of life over there?
>>> That's a question you didn't ask.
>>>
>>
>> You must have liked the old USSR.
>
> I don't see that that has anything to do with it, though I guess that's
> while we're on it, do you think the USSR is a good example of a country
> that has turned to a free-market model? It's been a raging success,
> hasn't it? And when do you think Putin will allow real political
> opposition? Surely the former Soviet Union is a special (basket) case.
>
It's the old love it or leave it taunt.
> that has turned to a free-market model? It's been a raging success,
> hasn't it? And when do you think Putin will allow real political
> opposition? Surely the former Soviet Union is a special (basket) case.
>
> I was referring to the decline in the standard of living as a result of
> the depredations of privatization in Western European countries in
> recent years, and particularly in France.
>
>
>
>
>>> contractors cutting corners. That's a paper of rather an anarchist bent,
>>> not trusting implicitly in any particular government, but it recognizes
>>> the need for government regulation and enforcement of standards in
>>> certain
>>> vital areas.
>>>
>>
>> You can't get around that nationalization of industry is now relegated
>> to the dustbin of history.
>>
>> Of course there are holdouts.
>>
>> There were serious royalists for what, at least a century after
>> monarchs were clearly obsolete.
>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It wasn't recorded, and there was no transcript. It was sponsored by
>>>>>> a church on Harvard Square, and I challenged him during the Q & A.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Should've taken notes. Or recorded it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How was I to know that 35 years later somebody like you would deny
>>>> that Chomsky is a Stalinist?
>>>>
>>>> BTW, I found a written source with Chomsky saying what I remember him
>>>> saying: that there is no academic freedom to study racial differences
>>>> in IQ.
>>>>
>>>> http://books.google.com/books?id=84NQ3IXpbOYC&pg=PA119&lpg=PA119&dq=chomsky+academic+freedom+racist&source=bl&ots=F1gHsVs_7b&sig=TODRMG4Hbh8VDtS7fWwVSEnq1mA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=J7X3T-T5DoPs0gGyn8TSBg&ved=0CEMQ6AEwBDgK#v=onepage&q=chomsky%20academic%20freedom%20racist&f=false
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, to study racial difference in IQ, you have to assume a
>>> definition of
>>> "race."
>>>
>>
>> I'm sure you favor affirmative action, that *that* requires a
>> definition of race.
>>
>
> The notion of "race" there is not supposed or claimed to be something
> remotely "scientific." It's purely social and political, based solely on
> how a person is perceived and defined by the society at large. The
> definition has already been made (for most people, by far; very few have
> any choice about whether they will "identify" with a certain racial
> identity). But this has very little to do with their specific genetic
> makeup, which varies widely among people with the same color of skin.
>
Have ever watched Skip Gates' show Finding Your Roots. People are often
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How was I to know that 35 years later somebody like you would deny
>>>> that Chomsky is a Stalinist?
>>>>
>>>> BTW, I found a written source with Chomsky saying what I remember him
>>>> saying: that there is no academic freedom to study racial differences
>>>> in IQ.
>>>>
>>>> http://books.google.com/books?id=84NQ3IXpbOYC&pg=PA119&lpg=PA119&dq=chomsky+academic+freedom+racist&source=bl&ots=F1gHsVs_7b&sig=TODRMG4Hbh8VDtS7fWwVSEnq1mA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=J7X3T-T5DoPs0gGyn8TSBg&ved=0CEMQ6AEwBDgK#v=onepage&q=chomsky%20academic%20freedom%20racist&f=false
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, to study racial difference in IQ, you have to assume a
>>> definition of
>>> "race."
>>>
>>
>> I'm sure you favor affirmative action, that *that* requires a
>> definition of race.
>>
>
> The notion of "race" there is not supposed or claimed to be something
> remotely "scientific." It's purely social and political, based solely on
> how a person is perceived and defined by the society at large. The
> definition has already been made (for most people, by far; very few have
> any choice about whether they will "identify" with a certain racial
> identity). But this has very little to do with their specific genetic
> makeup, which varies widely among people with the same color of skin.
>
surprised by what their DNA shows about their racial background.
Some blacks are more white than black and some whites are more black
than they knew.
Ever hear of "passing"?
>
>
>>
>>> Chomsky is talking about a moral responsibility of the scientist here.
>>> He's appealing to those who will read him. I don't see where he's
>>> recommending any institutional coercion, which, by the way, the next
>>> essay, the Appendix, expressly disavows.
>>>
>>
>> It's relevant that he has to do that in an appendix.
>>
>
> Is it?
>
>> When I heard his talk, he clearly thought that research on IQ and race
>> should be forbidden. That it should be suppressed.
>>
>
> Oh, so you know what he *thought*.
>
>> should be forbidden. That it should be suppressed.
>>
>
> Oh, so you know what he *thought*.
>
> But, don't university committees argue and decide whether some courses
> are appropriate? Suddenly everybody realizes phrenology is a crock,
> despite Hegel's enthusiasm, and the phrenology prof loses his job. And
> all this time, a linguistics professor has been writing articles about
> how phrenology is based on fallacious premises. But I don't know...
> someone got a degree in France with a paper on astrology several years
> ago. Maybe anything goes.
>
>
>>
> are appropriate? Suddenly everybody realizes phrenology is a crock,
> despite Hegel's enthusiasm, and the phrenology prof loses his job. And
> all this time, a linguistics professor has been writing articles about
> how phrenology is based on fallacious premises. But I don't know...
> someone got a degree in France with a paper on astrology several years
> ago. Maybe anything goes.
>
>
>>
>>> If you have a different evaluation of the scientific value of such
>>> studies, this factor will weigh more heavily in your weighing of the
>>> issue.
>>>
>>> If you contest Chomsky's premise that we live in a "racist society" (or
>>> that we did in the year this was written), you can argue with him that
>>> merely undergoing such studies would not have the feared consequences.
>>>
>>
>> What consequences would you fear?
>>
>
> I'm merely reading Chomsky's article. I didn't say that I (in 2012) fear
> any. Maybe I should have written "would not HAVE HAD the feared
> consequences."
>
>
>>> studies, this factor will weigh more heavily in your weighing of the
>>> issue.
>>>
>>> If you contest Chomsky's premise that we live in a "racist society" (or
>>> that we did in the year this was written), you can argue with him that
>>> merely undergoing such studies would not have the feared consequences.
>>>
>>
>> What consequences would you fear?
>>
>
> I'm merely reading Chomsky's article. I didn't say that I (in 2012) fear
> any. Maybe I should have written "would not HAVE HAD the feared
> consequences."
>
>
>> Are you afraid that an open and honest discussion and study would lead
>> to racist conclusions?
>>
>> Somehow, I sense that liberals, deep down, actually believe in black
>> inferiority, given how keen they are to shut up the whole topic.
>>
>>
>>> But if you believe the scientist and scholar have no moral
>>> responsibility,
>>> then he's wasted his breath on you.
>>>
>>
>> The moral responsibility of a scientist and scholar is to the truth.
>>
>
> Chomsky argues that there is no truth to be found through such an inquiry.
>
>
>> to racist conclusions?
>>
>> Somehow, I sense that liberals, deep down, actually believe in black
>> inferiority, given how keen they are to shut up the whole topic.
>>
>>
>>> But if you believe the scientist and scholar have no moral
>>> responsibility,
>>> then he's wasted his breath on you.
>>>
>>
>> The moral responsibility of a scientist and scholar is to the truth.
>>
>
> Chomsky argues that there is no truth to be found through such an inquiry.
>
>
>> The political ramifications have to fall where they may.
>>
>
>> You are taking a typically politically correct position: we lefties
>> decide what outcomes promote our preferred policies, and then we try
>> to shut down any research that might not produce the results we want.
>
>
> He was arguing about that such research would be both pointless and
> pernicious. You disagree with him on both points; fine. Surely you are
> both within your rights to express your opinions. And in print, as he
> has done.
>
>>
>
>> You are taking a typically politically correct position: we lefties
>> decide what outcomes promote our preferred policies, and then we try
>> to shut down any research that might not produce the results we want.
>
>
> He was arguing about that such research would be both pointless and
> pernicious. You disagree with him on both points; fine. Surely you are
> both within your rights to express your opinions. And in print, as he
> has done.
>
> I asked you to cite where Chomsky endorses institutional coercion.
>
>>
>
>>
>> Again: what are you afraid of?
>>
>
> Nothing. Chomsky clearly thought an inquiry under such a rubric as "the
> study of racial differences in IQ" was both intellectually faulty and
> potentially productive of a reinforcement of racism and related negative
> consequences. He didn't think there was anything real that could be
> enunciated within such a conceptual framework.
>
>
>
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't believe you really read The Nation.
>>
>
> Nothing. Chomsky clearly thought an inquiry under such a rubric as "the
> study of racial differences in IQ" was both intellectually faulty and
> potentially productive of a reinforcement of racism and related negative
> consequences. He didn't think there was anything real that could be
> enunciated within such a conceptual framework.
>
>
>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I do sometimes.
>>>>
>>>> I've read a lot of issues from the 1930s. :-)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Evidently.
>>> Things do change, though, magazines as well as people.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> But some places change more slowly. You folks changed a *lot* more
>>>
>>> Evidently.
>>> Things do change, though, magazines as well as people.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> slowly than THE NEW REPUBLIC where Stalinism was concerned.
>>
>
> All *those* folks are dead now.
>
> Sure, we're going to be celebrating the 150th anniversary soon, but this
> notion that it's the "same" magazine is a bit of a mystification. It's
> like the ax whose handle has been changed as many times as its blade has
> been replaced but it's still nominally the same ax your
> great-great-granddaddy owned.
>
> The magazine has undergone several significant editorial shifts in its
> long history. There was even a time, around the turn of the century, I
> think, when it was very pro-"business class." Founder E.L. Godkin did
> not believe in socialism.
>
>
>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are quite the ideologue yourself, and your ideology is that
>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>> ruling class.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is no ruling class. There is a class struggle between the
>>>>>> business class (usually allied with social conservatives) and the New
>>>>>> Class, which includes those elites represented by the Democratic
>>>>>> Party.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When the Democrats control, the New Class controls -- happily subject
>>>>>> to checks and balances and the constraints of a democratic system.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The claim that the business class is the "ruling class" is New Class
>>>>>> ideology.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorkin buys into this ideology.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Both these elements are part of the ruling, capitalist class.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not so. The class struggle is between the business class (represented
>>>> by the Republican Party) and the New Class (representd by the
>>>> Democratic Party). The New Class isn't capitalist at all.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Echt capitalists anywhere are few, of course, but like the real
>>> members of
>>> the Party in a one-party state, the interests of capital everywhere
>>> prevail. Hillary Clinton must be part of the New Class, right, since
>>> she's
>>> not on *your* side (business class?)? Look at her role, detailed in
>>> yesterday's Times, in bringing, at great cost to the environment as well
>>> as the livelihoods of local farmers, an industrial park to a part of
>>> Haiti
>>> that wasn't affected by the earthquake.
>>>
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/06/world/americas/earthquake-relief-where-haiti-wasnt-broken.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> It was your favorite liberal justices on the Supreme Court that failed
>> to stand up for property right in KELO.
>>
>> Now you are lamenting that farmers in Haiti lose their property to an
>> industrial park?
>>
>> Be consistent and admit that conservatives were right about Kelo.
>>
>> BTW, none of this proves that Hillary was some capitalist stooge.
>> Soviet style socialism is dead, and the New Class has to work with the
>> capitalists.
>>
>> So it's really crony capitalism (think: Solyndra) that is the
>> preferred New Class way of doing business.
>>
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/solyndra-politics-infused-obama-energy-programs/2011/12/14/gIQA4HllHP_story.html
>>
>>
>> But the New Class liked government ownership for decades.
>>
>> And they *still* don't like free markets. They will put up with
>> capitalists, but they want the upper hand.
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>> If the Republican Party really does represent anything besides the
>>>>> interests of its money-bags elite ("the universal interests of
>>>>> mankind"?),
>>>>> then why is it so focused on suppressing the vote in the next
>>>>> election?
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.thenation.com/blog/168762/dumping-mitt-gop-making-steal-plausible
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What you call "suppressing the vote" is actually a desire to stop
>>>> fraud.
>>>>
>>>> You folks are so adamant that people should not have to show an ID
>>>> when they vote that Republicans can't see any reason for that *unless*
>>>> you want massive fraud.
>>>>
>>>> Do you *really* think that it's possible to get along in U.S. society
>>>> without an ID?
>>>
>>>
>>> All I have is my passport, since I don't drive.
>>> It's been a while since this has kept me out of a nightclub (alas).
>>>
>>
>> Your passport would allow you to vote in any state with voter ID laws.
>>
>> .John
>> --------------
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>>
>
>
>
Sandy McCroskey
Jul 9, 2012, 9:51:27 AM7/9/12
to
people." This is why the Supreme Court had to rule as to whether it
stated an individual right (affirmative).
/sm
Peter Fokes
Jul 9, 2012, 10:01:04 AM7/9/12
to
On Sun, 08 Jul 2012 19:34:42 -0500, John McAdams
<john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>Liberals have had to back away from the notion of a centrally planned
>economy.
Why don't Conservatives do the same?
<john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>Liberals have had to back away from the notion of a centrally planned
>economy.
Bankers love the FED. In fact, without the FED's continual printing
of money, many large banks would have failed.
And it goes on. The FED is still interfering in the free market.
You rarely hear a Conservative call on the government to abolish the
FED.
Ultimately, it doesn't matter.
The FED's machinations and efforts to support the free market will
fail and leave a bigger mess behind.
But if you want to complain about Liberals notion of a centrally
planned economy, don't forget to complain about the FED and its effort
to control the economy with Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4, Q5 ............
Every time these Q's are announced the markets rally, the banks take
bigger risks (with no risk to themselves), and the beat goes on.
However, most of the liquidity supplied by the FED is not shared
proportionately, but ends up in the hands of the wealthy.
Do you advocate abolishing the FED or not?
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
Bill Clarke
Jul 9, 2012, 11:56:28 AM7/9/12
to
In article <4ffa48ee$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Sandy McCroskey says...
You remember his card, Have gun. Will travel.
Well his wife had a card of her own; Have crack will shack. Till Gun gets back.
No joke!
I liked Boone in everything I saw him in.
Bill Clarke
Well his wife had a card of her own; Have crack will shack. Till Gun gets back.
No joke!
I liked Boone in everything I saw him in.
Bill Clarke
Anthony Marsh
Jul 9, 2012, 11:57:03 AM7/9/12
to
Papers, correspondence of the Founding Fathers, and earlier state
constitutions.
bigdog
Jul 9, 2012, 11:57:34 AM7/9/12
to
On Jul 8, 10:36 pm, Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > It sounds to me like your "nuanced position" is just the standard
> > liberal position.
>
> I don't know what you mean by that. I don't think everybody should have
> to turn in their guns to the government.
>
> > What the Court has to "go on" is the plain language of the Amendment,
> > and the intentions of the Framers, who were pretty clear that citizens
> > had the right to own guns.
>
> Where do you get your information on "the intentions of the Framers" if
> not from the Second Amendment, which is the earliest constitutional
> mention of the right to bear arms (for the sake of a "well-regulated
> militia")?
>
> > Saratoga was won by militia forces -- farmers (mostly) who brought
> > their own guns.
>
> Good for them! That was certainly constitutional, with no ambiguity
> whatsoever!
> /sm
The term militia is largely misunderstood. It did not refer to the
>
> > It sounds to me like your "nuanced position" is just the standard
> > liberal position.
>
> I don't know what you mean by that. I don't think everybody should have
> to turn in their guns to the government.
>
> > What the Court has to "go on" is the plain language of the Amendment,
> > and the intentions of the Framers, who were pretty clear that citizens
> > had the right to own guns.
>
> Where do you get your information on "the intentions of the Framers" if
> not from the Second Amendment, which is the earliest constitutional
> mention of the right to bear arms (for the sake of a "well-regulated
> militia")?
>
> > Saratoga was won by militia forces -- farmers (mostly) who brought
> > their own guns.
>
> Good for them! That was certainly constitutional, with no ambiguity
> whatsoever!
> /sm
National Guard, which was not formed until the early 1900s. The law
which created the National Guard also specified that virtually every
able bodied man between the ages of 17 and 45 who was not serving in
a military unit was considered to be a member of the militia. Most men
have been members of the militia whether they knew it or not.
The US Bill or Rights was based largely on a similar Bill of Rights in
the Virginia Constitution which was largely the work of George Mason.
To understand what was meant by the term "militia" in the Second
Amendment, we need only to read George Mason's words on the subject.
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a
few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of
the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
The militia was nothing more than the citizenry which could band
together using their privately owned firearms for common defense. It
was just such a militia that gathered on the Village Green of
Lexington and the North Bridge at Concord.
Some other thoughts of the framers:
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they
be properly armed."
-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188
If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there
is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of
self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government,
and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be
exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those
of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the
persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different
parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no
distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense.
The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without
system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.
-- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which
Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...
(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
--James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46
"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned
from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?
Let them take arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers
12:356
"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson
Papers, 334,[C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950]
This is just a sampling of the many comments made by the framers of
the Constitution regarding the right of the people to keep an bear
arms. The wording of the amendment itself is not illuminating. "...the
right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
Notice it does not say the right is being granted to the people. It is
a recognition that the right already existed in natural law. The
Second Amendment was nothing but a promise by the federal government
to respect an existing right. This thought was eloquently expressed by
proud NRA Life Member John F. Kennedy at his innaugural address:
:"...the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but
from the hand of God."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Nyfx1f7R7s
bigdog
Jul 9, 2012, 11:58:45 AM7/9/12
to
I'm willing to turn in my tank, rocket launcher, and nuclear missile
if you will allow me to keep my assault rifle.
In all seriousness, you have pretty much made my point for me. Many of
the people who want to ban assault weapons know little about them or
why they should be banned. The weapons you described as intended
solely for mowing down large numbers of fellow human beings does not
apply to the weapons banned by the Clinton gun ban. It is a
description of fully automatic weapons (i.e. machine guns) which for
the most part have been unavailable to the public since the 1930s. It
is possible to legally obtain such weapons if one is willing to go
through the paper work and legal hoops necessary to get the permits.
The cost of these weapons is prohibitive. I remember seeing one, an
MP5, at a gun store/shooting range I used to frequent. The price tag
was $15,000, and of course they would only have been allowed to sell
it to someone with the proper permits. And unless people are crowded
in a mass, even with a fully automatic weapon, you aren't going to be
able to mow down large numbers of people. The most famous criminal act
committed with fully automatic weapons since they were banned was the
North Hollywood shootout. Despite firing over 1000 rounds, the
shooters were the only ones killed and they managed to wound 7 people.
Mostly they were shooting air which is what can be expected with
someone who isn't trained to fire a fully automatic weapon..
The "assault weapons" that fell under the Clinton gun ban are semi-
automatic weapons. The trigger must be squeezed once for each bullet
fired. In addition, if you want to hit your intended target, you must
take the time to aim them. Not exactly condusive to mowing down large
numbers of people. In addition, the ammunition they fire is no more
deadly than other types of weapons. For example, the Tec-9 pistol
which was one of the weapons that fell under the Clinton gun ban fires
the same 9mm round that is fired by the Glock and Smith &Wesson
pistols now favored by most police departments. In fact in could be
argued that the ammo fired is less deadly than that used by other
weapons. Since a semi-automatic weapon uses the expended gas of the
fired round to cycle the next round into the chamber. The firearm
absorbs this energy so technical issues dictate that semi-auto rounds
are generally less powerful than similar caliber bullets of other
firearms. The standard 9mm semi-auto pistol which has become the
defacto standard among police departments has less wallop than the .38
Special revolvers they replaced.
The term "assault weapon" was just a term seized on by the gun banners
to demonize a class of perfectly fine weapons. Long ago, the gun
banners figured out they couldn't get all guns banned so their tactic
was to accomplish their goals incrementally by banning a group of
weapons at a time. To accomplish this, they divided firearms into
naughty and nice guns figuring that they could sell the public on
banning the naughty ones. 30 years ago they focused on the Saturday
Night Special which was a term they used for inexpensive small caliber
handguns often carried by street criminals. Apparently they were
concerned that this criminal element was not using sufficient
firepower to shoot us with. Then in 1994 they shifted their attention
to semi-automatic handguns and rifles which they put into the naughty
category by calling them assault weapons and passed the Clinton gun
ban. This law did nothing to reduce gun crime. It simply made the
criminals use different guns to shoot us with. As I pointed out
before, the guns being used were no less deadly than the ones that
were banned.
All firearms are dangerous. They would be of little use if they
weren't. Any feature a firearm has that makes it suitable for assault
makes it equally suitable for defense. Whether a firearm is an assault
weapon or a defense weapon is dictated by the purpose of the one who
is holding it, not by its design features. Since criminals by
defintion are people who don't obey the law, they pretty much have
their choice of just about any firearm out there whether it can be
legally obtained or not. Gun laws do nothing but limit the choices
available to the law abiding citizen. I want the law abiding citizen
to have the same choices as the criminal. Each person's situation is
different and each person should be free to choose the weapon that is
right for his or her circumstance. For example, my primary home
defense weapon is a 12 gauge pump action shotgun but it is impractical
as a carry weapon. For that I prefer my .40 caliber Glock. That pistol
is also a little impractical to conceal in the summer when I am not
wearing a lot of clothing so I have recently obtained a compact Ruger .
380 which I can easily conceal in a pocket holster. It has a little
less punch than my Glock, but does offer me some defense against
anyone who would threaten my life.
So to answer your question seriously, no I don't think citizens need
to be allowed large scale military weapons or WMDs, but they should
have their choice of whatever small arms they feel are necessary for
the security of themselves and their families. I will also say that if
the day comes when terrorists, foreign or domestic, are able to get
their hands on WMDs, no law is going to stop them from using it.
Anthony Marsh
Jul 9, 2012, 12:00:28 PM7/9/12
to
On 7/9/2012 10:01 AM, Peter Fokes wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Jul 2012 19:34:42 -0500, John McAdams
> <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>
>> Liberals have had to back away from the notion of a centrally planned
>> economy.
>
>
> Why don't Conservatives do the same?
>
> Bankers love the FED. In fact, without the FED's continual printing
> of money, many large banks would have failed.
>
But that's what McAdams wants. He wants the banks to fail. Several Tea
> On Sun, 08 Jul 2012 19:34:42 -0500, John McAdams
> <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>
>> Liberals have had to back away from the notion of a centrally planned
>> economy.
>
>
> Why don't Conservatives do the same?
>
> Bankers love the FED. In fact, without the FED's continual printing
> of money, many large banks would have failed.
>
Party Republicans have openly said let the banks fail. The old tricks
are the best tricks. That's the way the Nazis took over in Depression
era Germany. That's the same thing the Koch brothers want in the US.
Peter Fokes
Jul 9, 2012, 12:19:30 PM7/9/12
to
On 9 Jul 2012 12:00:28 -0400, Anthony Marsh
for him!
I do not agree with your assessment of the outcome of such a move
though.
Peter
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On 7/9/2012 10:01 AM, Peter Fokes wrote:
>> On Sun, 08 Jul 2012 19:34:42 -0500, John McAdams
>> <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> Liberals have had to back away from the notion of a centrally planned
>>> economy.
>>
>>
>> Why don't Conservatives do the same?
>>
>> Bankers love the FED. In fact, without the FED's continual printing
>> of money, many large banks would have failed.
>>
>
>But that's what McAdams wants. He wants the banks to fail. Several Tea
>Party Republicans have openly said let the banks fail. The old tricks
>are the best tricks. That's the way the Nazis took over in Depression
>era Germany. That's the same thing the Koch brothers want in the US.
Well, if John McAdams agrees the FED should be abolished, then good
>On 7/9/2012 10:01 AM, Peter Fokes wrote:
>> On Sun, 08 Jul 2012 19:34:42 -0500, John McAdams
>> <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> Liberals have had to back away from the notion of a centrally planned
>>> economy.
>>
>>
>> Why don't Conservatives do the same?
>>
>> Bankers love the FED. In fact, without the FED's continual printing
>> of money, many large banks would have failed.
>>
>
>But that's what McAdams wants. He wants the banks to fail. Several Tea
>Party Republicans have openly said let the banks fail. The old tricks
>are the best tricks. That's the way the Nazis took over in Depression
>era Germany. That's the same thing the Koch brothers want in the US.
for him!
I do not agree with your assessment of the outcome of such a move
though.
Peter
Sandy McCroskey
Jul 9, 2012, 2:07:57 PM7/9/12
to
On 7/8/12 11:35 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 8 Jul 2012 22:35:42 -0400, Sandy McCroskey
> <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> On 7/8/12 8:34 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>>> On 8 Jul 2012 18:18:24 -0400, Sandy McCroskey
>>> <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>> Liberals have had to back away from the notion of a centrally planned
>>> economy.
>>>
>>> But note that they *did* once favor it. That was their bias. It had
>>> to be knocked out of them by history.
>>>
>>> And liberals still have a bias toward maximizing government control of
>>> the economy.
>>>
>>> Obama, remember, wanted single payer health care (Canadian style
>>> socialized medicine).
>>>
>>
>> Not badly enough.
>>
>>
>
> You just admitted my point.
>
Good for you!
> On 8 Jul 2012 22:35:42 -0400, Sandy McCroskey
> <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> On 7/8/12 8:34 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>>> On 8 Jul 2012 18:18:24 -0400, Sandy McCroskey
>>> <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>> Liberals have had to back away from the notion of a centrally planned
>>> economy.
>>>
>>> But note that they *did* once favor it. That was their bias. It had
>>> to be knocked out of them by history.
>>>
>>> And liberals still have a bias toward maximizing government control of
>>> the economy.
>>>
>>> Obama, remember, wanted single payer health care (Canadian style
>>> socialized medicine).
>>>
>>
>> Not badly enough.
>>
>>
>
> You just admitted my point.
>
> And no matter how badly he wanted it, he couldn't have it.
>
> Even the "public option" (designed to run private insurance companies
> out of business) didn't work.
>
>>>>>> Been hearing that for a while. But there was already a rising tide against
>>>>>> the rampant privatization, offshoring, etc., even before the current
>>>>>> reaction against the austerity imposed by the incoherent organization of
>>>>>> the eurozone.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Translation: people, once conditioned to a cushy existence at the
>>>>> expense of *other people* get resentful when told it can't be
>>>>> sustained.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No translation was required.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Does that mean you agree with me about that?
>>>
>>
>> No, it means you are presumptuous in trying to put such words in my mouth.
>>
>
> Of *course* you would not admit that.
>
> But that's the reality of your "rising tide against the rampant
> privatization." It's selfish people getting mad that their cushy
> benefits are gone.
>
their lives.
>>
>>>
>>>> I don't see how the Greeks could have expected to keep a country going
>>>> without paying any taxes. Do you think the Greeks should pay their taxes?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, but the tax rates should be low.
>>>
>>> And it's not just Greece. Look at France a couple of years ago, and
>>> look at the U.K.
>>>
>>> It's a kind of moral rot: "I want my goodies, and it's up to
>>> government to take from *somebody else* to give them to me."
>>>
>>
>>
>> You mean that evading taxes indicates moral rot? OK.
>>
>
> That is moral rot.
>
> And believing that you have a right to retire in your 50s, with the
> taxpayer picking up the tab is moral rot.
>
> And believing that your union should protect your job even if you
> aren't productive is moral rot.
>
>
>> But most of these countries could have provided all that they promised
>> their dutiful, hard-working taxpaying citizens if the banksters (and
>> big-time evaders) weren't robbing everybody blind.
>>
>
> So you won't admit that the welfare state expanded to an unsustainable
> level.
>
I do not *agree* with you that the level could not have been sustained,
and improved, under circumstances of greater fiscal probity and social
solidarity and egalitarianism.
>>
>>>
>>>> For all I know, you're socking your own huge earnings into a secret
>>>> account in Delaware.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well if I *had* huge earnings, I might consider that.
>>>
>>
>> That says a lot, thanks. At least you admit it.
>> Now if Romney would come clean about the Bermudas...
>>
>
> Where does Obama have his millions stashed?
>
Details, please.
> Romney pays a lot more taxes than Obama. And contributes a lot more
> to charity also.
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That's a *moral* failing of socialism.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> One reason we're all paying more (way too much) right now for our health
>>>> care is because some people are not insured.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Which doesn't address my comment about the moral failings of
>>> socialism.
>>>
>>
>> I simply don't know whom you are accusing of not pulling their weight and
>> depending on handouts or... I dunno, driving a welfare cadillac" (Reagan's
>> urban legend)... or whatever you think the common people did to bring the
>> economic crisis on themselves.
>>
>
> Under European socialism, the common people *did* bring the crisis on
> themselves.
>
> They voted for more and more goodies. And eventually, the bill came
> due.
>
> As Maggie Thatcher said: the problem with socialism is that
> socialists eventually run out of other people's money.
>
> That has happened in Europe. We are close here.
>
>
>> The moneymen fucked up. The economies crashed because of what they did,
>> because they screwed too many people over. But those same people are
>> paying the price, not the moneymen.
>>
>>
>
> The "moneymen" were happy to lend money and lend money to Greece and
> Spain and Italy and so on SO LONG AS IT LOOKED LIKE THEY MIGHT GET
> PAID BACK.
>
within
the individual
countries.
> They have been led
> down the garden path by the politicians. But like most con games,
> it's worked because of the selfishness of the "marks."
>
> Add in Europe's less-than-replacement birthrate, and you get trouble.
>
> You can keep trying to scapegoat capitalists all you want, but it's
> not working.
>
>> How is it that JPMorgan Chase can gamble with their clients' money and
>> make profits for the moneybags elite, while their clients (of which I am
>> one) continue to see the value of the money in their savings accounts
>> depreciate? Why can't they kick some of that back to the people who
>> entrusted them with that money they're gambling with and give us a decent
>> interest rate?
>
> Why did you put your money with JPMorgan Chase?
>
> My retirement is in a Dow Jones Index fund.
>
>> You can bet the CEOs aren't losing anything to the
>> inflation rate. But you can't even get a 5-year CD with a decent return
>> now.
>
> That's because the Fed has forced interest rates down to try to get us
> out of the recession.
>
> But it's not working. Did you see the jobs report Friday?
>
>
>> So everything is riding (my 401(k) and another mutual funds package,
>> my meager inheritance, which latter is also managed by Chase) on the
>> vagaries of the stock market. Nobody has a pension plan anymore, we're
>> forced to take it to the big casino, where there are no guarantees (though
>> the house always wins)...
>>
>
> Defined contribution is vastly more rational than defined benefit.
>
> Of *course* you would like the guarantee of a big pension at somebody
> else's expense.
>
>>>>
>>>> The notion of "race" there is not supposed or claimed to be something
>>>> remotely "scientific." It's purely social and political, based solely on
>>>> how a person is perceived and defined by the society at large. The
>>>> definition has already been made (for most people, by far; very few have
>>>> any choice about whether they will "identify" with a certain racial
>>>> identity). But this has very little to do with their specific genetic
>>>> makeup, which varies widely among people with the same color of skin.
>>>>
>>>
>>> But affirmative action is based on the notion that we can classify
>>> people by race.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Not at all. It's based on the notion that people are *already* so
>> classified.
>>
>
> Then we can base IQ studies on those "already" so classified.
>
> In fact, self-classification is pretty accurate. If somebody says
> they are "black," most of their racial heritage is African.
>
> And so on for "white" and "Asian." Of course a lot of people have
> *some* genes from another racial group.
>
>> There is no relation between the notion of being classed as a member of a
>> racial or ethnic minority by society at large (such as is considered in
>> the application of affirmative action) and any supposedly scientific
>> notion of "race" or genetic difference. The genetic backgrounds of people
>> socially classed as black, Latino, etc., vary widely.
>>
>>
>
> If fact, modern genetic studies can nail down racial heritage pretty
> accurately. Not just "Africa" but the particular part of Africa. Not
> just "European" but the region in Europe.
>
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Chomsky is talking about a moral responsibility of the scientist here.
>>>>>> He's appealing to those who will read him. I don't see where he's
>>>>>> recommending any institutional coercion, which, by the way, the next
>>>>>> essay, the Appendix, expressly disavows.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It's relevant that he has to do that in an appendix.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Is it?
>>>>
>>>
>>> He had to explain that he wasn't *really* attacking academic freedom.
>>>
>>
>> If anybody was so dense as to think he was.
>>
>
> Why did he need the "clarification?"
>
elementary comments on the rights of freedom of expression," starting:
"Before I turn to the subject on which I have been asked to comment, two
clarifications are necessary."
So that was in the body of the original text of October 1980 reproduced
here, and refers to the material of that text, not to the concluding
chapter of the book proper and the discussion of "race and IQ" studies.
The clarifications: he stresses that he is not supporting the
conclusions of Robert Faurisson; and he specifies that his target in
some passages will be "certain segments of the French intelligentsia."
>>>
>>>>> When I heard his talk, he clearly thought that research on IQ and race
>>>>> should be forbidden. That it should be suppressed.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Oh, so you know what he *thought*.
>>>>
>>>
>>> He was absolutely clear on it.
>>
>> Well, that hasn't been independently verified.
>>
>
> If you think I'm lying, so be it.
>
>>>
>>>
>>>> But, don't university committees argue and decide whether some courses are
>>>> appropriate? Suddenly everybody realizes phrenology is a crock, despite
>>>> Hegel's enthusiasm, and the phrenology prof loses his job. And all this
>>>> time, a linguistics professor has been writing articles about how
>>>> phrenology is based on fallacious premises. But I don't know... someone
>>>> got a degree in France with a paper on astrology several years ago. Maybe
>>>> anything goes.
>>>>
>>>
>>> In the first place, no sort of inquiry should be censored because
>>> people fear the political ramifications.
>>
>> As I said, that's not the whole story here. First and foremost, he
>> thought it was *bad science*.
>>
>
> But the study of IQ is *not* inherently "bad science." Any sort of
> science can be done badly, but there is nothing wrong with studying
> intelligence.
>
any "scientific importance."
that's the conclusion they want to come to and the framework of the
experiment is so fungible that you can rig it for that result.
> I think for a lot of liberals, that view is their "dirty little
> secret."
>
I think it reminds some people of Nazi "science."
OK, so it seems the studies show that Asians score higher and blacks
lower than whites on these tests in general. Such results of course
could be a result of many factors. Now, what do you do with that
information? Do further studies to disentangle the causes, sure. Then
you try to reduce the stultifying factors (for whites and blacks, as the
Asians are beating them both). If these tests are so important...
Somehow, though, I am afraid the conservatives who always seem to be the
ones behind such research have other ideas in mind. Like, arguing
against affirmative action, perhaps? I wouldn't put it past them,
although it's not logical: affirmative action is not supposed to mean
that a lesser-qualified person gets the job but only that when there is
no difference in qualifications the black applicant should be chosen
from time to time.
> People who want to shut up research are people who are scared of what
> it will show.
>
> If he was confident that good research would show that racial
> differences are the result of environmental factors, he should want
> good research.
>
racial/genetic would tend to eclipse other explanations for some people.
But the correlation is not a proven causation.
So let's see the studies on disentangling genetic from environmental
causes, sure. Must be a lot of those.
>
>> I keep saying the same thing in different words, but you still don't get
>> it.
>>
>
> I get it perfectly well. It's a desire to shut up research because it
> might lead to politically inconvenient conclusions.
>
>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>> Are you afraid that an open and honest discussion and study would lead
>>>>> to racist conclusions?
>>>>>
>>>>> Somehow, I sense that liberals, deep down, actually believe in black
>>>>> inferiority, given how keen they are to shut up the whole topic.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> But if you believe the scientist and scholar have no moral responsibility,
>>>>>> then he's wasted his breath on you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The moral responsibility of a scientist and scholar is to the truth.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Chomsky argues that there is no truth to be found through such an inquiry.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's absurd.
>>>
>>
>> To you it is, because you believe in this voodoo.
>
> He calls it voodoo because he is threatened by it.
>
>> But to Chomsky, it's like phrenology, dig?
>> To my mind, this little detail disqualifies it as science:
>>
>> "Race in the studies is almost always determined using self-reports,
>> rather than based on analyses of the genetic history of the tested
>> individuals. According to psychologist David Rowe, self-report is the
>> preferred method for racial classification in studies of racial
>> differences because classification based on genetic markers alone ignore
>> the "cultural, behavioral, sociological, psychological, and
>> epidemiological variables" that distinguish racial groups."
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence
>>
>
> Oh, my! You are quoting Wikipedia!
>
> What you posted is silly. If one is studying race and intelligence,
> the issue TO BE INVESTIGATED is the relative effects of "genetic
> markers" and "cultural, behavioral, sociological, psychological, and
> epidemiological variables."
>
in these IQ tests is a person's self-identification?
>
>> Wow. Here I thought you were merely going off on a rather sophistical
>> tangent in the heat of the argument, but it seems that "race and IQ"
>> studies *have* actually been done primarily on the basis of the same
>> self-classification as to "race" as the determination of "race" utilized
>> for the application of affirmative action.
>>
>> Whatever that is, it ain't science.
>>
>
> Of course it's science. Self-classification is pretty accurate.
> Scientists never have perfectly accurate measurements.
>
they die if there was an endless supply of such fodder. The five-day
week, the forty-hour day, paid vacations... none of this was a gift from
the great white capitalist father. When working people were fighting for
these things, you would no doubt have been calling them parasites and
un-American. Today many people still can't even get a living wage out of
bosses who wipe their asses with thousand-dollar bills.
Who would question that?
> Am I allowed to shut up various lines of research because I suspect
> the academics doing it of bad motives?
>
have been able to determine.
Nor have I, of course. (Li'l ol' me?!)
> If you are saying that some psychologists might have a bias toward
> finding that blacks are intellectually inferior, I doubt that. The
> vast majority of psychologists are politically correct leftists.
>
> I *do* think that some psychologists have a bias toward accepting IQ
> tests as reflecting native intelligence, rather than environmental
> factors.
>
> The proper response to that is a robust debate among psychologists
> with *different* biases, not trying to shut up the entire enterprise.
>
>
>>
>>> That's like saying that certain kinds of speech are "pointless and
>>> pernicious" and wanting to censor them.
>>>
>>
>> I am perfectly within my rights to say that certain activities are
>> pointless and pernicious if that's what I believe.
>
> OK, I think that a critical examination of capitalism is pointless and
> pernicious.
>
>> That, too, is free speech.
>
> Sure, you can use free speech to espouse censorship.
>
> But then I can use free speech to say you are an authoritarian.
>
Which is what I've always said.
And Chomsky too.
/sandy
Anthony Marsh
Jul 9, 2012, 2:10:00 PM7/9/12
to
In 2010, Romney made $21.7 million, on which he gave nearly $3 million
in taxes at an effective tax rate of 13.9 percent. In 2011, the former
governor earned a similar amount, and will pay more than $3.2 million in
taxes at a rate of 15.3 percent.
The president’s 2011 federal income tax return shows that about half of
the first family’s income is the president’s salary. The rest comes from
sales of Obama’s books.
President Obama paid an effective tax rate of 20.5 percent in 2011,
according to tax returns he and first lady Michelle Obama released today.
tribal regions in Africa.
> I think for a lot of liberals, that view is their "dirty little
> secret."
>
> People who want to shut up research are people who are scared of what
> it will show.
>
intentionally infecting black prisoners with syphilis?
>
>> Wow. Here I thought you were merely going off on a rather sophistical
>> tangent in the heat of the argument, but it seems that "race and IQ"
>> studies *have* actually been done primarily on the basis of the same
>> self-classification as to "race" as the determination of "race" utilized
>> for the application of affirmative action.
>>
>> Whatever that is, it ain't science.
>>
>
> Of course it's science. Self-classification is pretty accurate.
mistaken about their racial identity. There is a myth in the black
community that a lot of blacks have Native American ancestry. In fact
very few do.
> Scientists never have perfectly accurate measurements.
>
> Again, if you don't like self-classification, use genetic markers.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>> The political ramifications have to fall where they may.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> You are taking a typically politically correct position: we lefties
>>>>> decide what outcomes promote our preferred policies, and then we try
>>>>> to shut down any research that might not produce the results we want.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> He was arguing about that such research would be both pointless and
>>>> pernicious. You disagree with him on both points; fine. Surely you are
>>>> both within your rights to express your opinions. And in print, as he has
>>>> done.
>>>>
>>>
>>> But the claim that such research would be "pointless and pernicious"
>>> is just an excuse to censor it.
>>>
>>> He thinks it might be "pointless and pernicious" because he fears the
>>> political consequences.
>>>
>>
>> No, he thinks it is pointless because he believes "race" is a fictitious
>> concept, or at least one that is very problematic to pin down, and that
>> "IQ tests" are pervaded by cultural biases.
>>
>
> Then good research should be able to show these cultural biases. But
> Chomsky is afraid of research.
>
> BTW, there are many IQ tests that don't have any cultural biases.
>
> It is true that *life* has cultural biases, and some kids who grow up
> under poor conditions are disadvantaged in taking the tests. That
> doesn't prove the tests have cultural biases.
>
Dressage is to equestrian as ballroom is to?
>
>> I'm sure he must have suspected the motives of people who want to carry
>> out research on such grounds, which would raise doubts about the results
>> they would come up with.
>>
>
> I question the motives of people who question capitalism.
>
Bill Clarke
Jul 9, 2012, 2:10:35 PM7/9/12
to
In article <4ffa4c7c$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
Come on Marsh. You've had much time now to explain figure 26 in your
reference. What seems to be the problem? The problem is that you can't
reconcile Figure 26 with the crap you come out with about the bullet
rising.
Now if you don't want to tell me since we don't like each other then tell
Holmes. He has asked about figure 26 too and you haven't answered him
either.
You can't escape this Marsh. Make up some more crap at least. Sometimes
that is funny. Funny like figure 26.
Bill Clarke
reference. What seems to be the problem? The problem is that you can't
reconcile Figure 26 with the crap you come out with about the bullet
rising.
Now if you don't want to tell me since we don't like each other then tell
Holmes. He has asked about figure 26 too and you haven't answered him
either.
You can't escape this Marsh. Make up some more crap at least. Sometimes
that is funny. Funny like figure 26.
Bill Clarke
Anthony Marsh
Jul 9, 2012, 2:14:04 PM7/9/12
to
Romney - 13.9%.
Obama - 20.5%.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That's a *moral* failing of socialism.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> One reason we're all paying more (way too much) right now for our health
>>>> care is because some people are not insured.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Which doesn't address my comment about the moral failings of
>>> socialism.
>>>
>>
>> I simply don't know whom you are accusing of not pulling their weight and
>> depending on handouts or... I dunno, driving a welfare cadillac" (Reagan's
>> urban legend)... or whatever you think the common people did to bring the
>> economic crisis on themselves.
>>
>
> Under European socialism, the common people *did* bring the crisis on
> themselves.
>
> They voted for more and more goodies. And eventually, the bill came
> due.
>
> As Maggie Thatcher said: the problem with socialism is that
> socialists eventually run out of other people's money.
>
The Queen pays tax on a voluntary basis from her private income, but not
on "head of state expenditure". But she did not pay almost ?20m of
inheritance tax after the death of the Queen Mother: this, says the royal
website, is primarily because "constitutional impartiality requires an
appropriate degree of independence for the sovereign".
Does the Catholic Church pay taxes?
> That has happened in Europe. We are close here.
>
>
>> The moneymen fucked up. The economies crashed because of what they did,
>> because they screwed too many people over. But those same people are
>> paying the price, not the moneymen.
>>
>>
>
> The "moneymen" were happy to lend money and lend money to Greece and
> Spain and Italy and so on SO LONG AS IT LOOKED LIKE THEY MIGHT GET
> PAID BACK.
>
them back.
> But you think their job is to finance lavish welfare benefits with no
> hope of getting paid.
>
> You are looking for scapegoats.
>
>>>
>>> Moving from socialism to a free market is good.
>>>
>>> Turning from socialism to crony capitalism isn't so good.
>>>
>>
>> Great, now just name me a country where capitalism is of a "non-crony"
>> variety.
>>
>
> It's a matter of degree, and the U.S. has *mostly* been non-crony for
> most of history.
>
> But of course, under Obama cronyism has ratcheted up.
>
> We didn't get the third highest GDP in the OECD with the sort of crony
> capitalism Russia has.
>
>>
>>>
>>>> I was referring to the decline in the standard of living as a result of
>>>> the depredations of privatization in Western European countries in recent
>>>> years, and particularly in France.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I doubt that privatization harms the standard of living of citizens
>>> *generally.*
>>>
>>
>> But it has. People who have paid their share, worked a full week for
>> years, not selfishly dodged their taxes, are suffering the consequences.
>> They've kept their part of the social contract, yet its harder and harder
>> to make ends meet. The corporations continue to prosper and CEOs to rake
>> in the big bucks, but their employees are asked to work more for less.
>>
>
> But the CEOs don't make enough money to bail out the bankrupt welfare
> states.
>
> And the ordinary workers have been *told* that they deserve lavish
> benefits, but the money has not been put aside. They have been led
> down the garden path by the politicians. But like most con games,
> it's worked because of the selfishness of the "marks."
>
retired but now the Tea Party is trying to steal it to give it to the
Billionaires.
> Add in Europe's less-than-replacement birthrate, and you get trouble.
>
> You can keep trying to scapegoat capitalists all you want, but it's
> not working.
>
>> How is it that JPMorgan Chase can gamble with their clients' money and
>> make profits for the moneybags elite, while their clients (of which I am
>> one) continue to see the value of the money in their savings accounts
>> depreciate? Why can't they kick some of that back to the people who
>> entrusted them with that money they're gambling with and give us a decent
>> interest rate?
>
> Why did you put your money with JPMorgan Chase?
>
> My retirement is in a Dow Jones Index fund.
>
>> You can bet the CEOs aren't losing anything to the
>> inflation rate. But you can't even get a 5-year CD with a decent return
>> now.
>
> That's because the Fed has forced interest rates down to try to get us
> out of the recession.
>
> But it's not working. Did you see the jobs report Friday?
>
took us down. Our hero Barack Hussein Obama is taking us back up.
You want to return to the good old days of George Bush to take the
country all the way down.
>
>> So everything is riding (my 401(k) and another mutual funds package,
>> my meager inheritance, which latter is also managed by Chase) on the
>> vagaries of the stock market. Nobody has a pension plan anymore, we're
>> forced to take it to the big casino, where there are no guarantees (though
>> the house always wins)...
>>
>
> Defined contribution is vastly more rational than defined benefit.
>
> Of *course* you would like the guarantee of a big pension at somebody
> else's expense.
>
>>>>
>>>> The notion of "race" there is not supposed or claimed to be something
>>>> remotely "scientific." It's purely social and political, based solely on
>>>> how a person is perceived and defined by the society at large. The
>>>> definition has already been made (for most people, by far; very few have
>>>> any choice about whether they will "identify" with a certain racial
>>>> identity). But this has very little to do with their specific genetic
>>>> makeup, which varies widely among people with the same color of skin.
>>>>
>>>
>>> But affirmative action is based on the notion that we can classify
>>> people by race.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Not at all. It's based on the notion that people are *already* so
>> classified.
>>
>
> Then we can base IQ studies on those "already" so classified.
>
> In fact, self-classification is pretty accurate. If somebody says
> they are "black," most of their racial heritage is African.
Roots. DNA testing shows that many people have false impressions about
their racial background. For instance the myth in the black community that
many blacks have Native American ancestry. Only a few do. I think he found
only one white person who was 100% Caucasian. Rick Warren.
>
> And so on for "white" and "Asian." Of course a lot of people have
> *some* genes from another racial group.
>
> I think for a lot of liberals, that view is their "dirty little
> secret."
>
> People who want to shut up research are people who are scared of what
> it will show.
>
> If he was confident that good research would show that racial
> differences are the result of environmental factors, he should want
> good research.
>
or white? That's why modern sociology allows for bi-racial.
Jim Crow used to use the one drop rule.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>> The political ramifications have to fall where they may.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> You are taking a typically politically correct position: we lefties
>>>>> decide what outcomes promote our preferred policies, and then we try
>>>>> to shut down any research that might not produce the results we want.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> He was arguing about that such research would be both pointless and
>>>> pernicious. You disagree with him on both points; fine. Surely you are
>>>> both within your rights to express your opinions. And in print, as he has
>>>> done.
>>>>
>>>
>>> But the claim that such research would be "pointless and pernicious"
>>> is just an excuse to censor it.
>>>
>>> He thinks it might be "pointless and pernicious" because he fears the
>>> political consequences.
>>>
>>
>> No, he thinks it is pointless because he believes "race" is a fictitious
>> concept, or at least one that is very problematic to pin down, and that
>> "IQ tests" are pervaded by cultural biases.
>>
>
> Then good research should be able to show these cultural biases. But
> Chomsky is afraid of research.
>
> BTW, there are many IQ tests that don't have any cultural biases.
>
> It is true that *life* has cultural biases, and some kids who grow up
> under poor conditions are disadvantaged in taking the tests. That
> doesn't prove the tests have cultural biases.
>
designed an IQ test to be biased in favor of blacks.
>
>> I'm sure he must have suspected the motives of people who want to carry
>> out research on such grounds, which would raise doubts about the results
>> they would come up with.
>>
>
> I question the motives of people who question capitalism.
>
> Am I allowed to shut up various lines of research because I suspect
> the academics doing it of bad motives?
>
> If you are saying that some psychologists might have a bias toward
> finding that blacks are intellectually inferior, I doubt that. The
> vast majority of psychologists are politically correct leftists.
>
> I *do* think that some psychologists have a bias toward accepting IQ
> tests as reflecting native intelligence, rather than environmental
> factors.
>
> The proper response to that is a robust debate among psychologists
> with *different* biases, not trying to shut up the entire enterprise.
>
>
>>
>>> That's like saying that certain kinds of speech are "pointless and
>>> pernicious" and wanting to censor them.
>>>
>>
>> I am perfectly within my rights to say that certain activities are
>> pointless and pernicious if that's what I believe.
>
> OK, I think that a critical examination of capitalism is pointless and
> pernicious.
>
>> That, too, is free speech.
>
> Sure, you can use free speech to espouse censorship.
>
> But then I can use free speech to say you are an authoritarian.
>
bigdog
Jul 9, 2012, 4:50:42 PM7/9/12
to
arms. The wording of the amendment itself is illuminating. "...the
right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
Notice it does not say the right is being granted to the people. It is
a recognition that the right already existed in natural law. The right
Notice it does not say the right is being granted to the people. It is
to keep and bear arms would exist in the absence of the Second
Amendment. The Second Amendment was nothing but a promise by the
Sandy McCroskey
Jul 9, 2012, 4:53:28 PM7/9/12
to
was not married. He was quite the lady's man, and that would have cramped
his style.
/sm
John McAdams
Jul 9, 2012, 9:02:21 PM7/9/12
to
On 9 Jul 2012 14:07:57 -0400, Sandy McCroskey
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Translation: people, once conditioned to a cushy existence at the
>>>>>> expense of *other people* get resentful when told it can't be
>>>>>> sustained.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No translation was required.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Does that mean you agree with me about that?
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, it means you are presumptuous in trying to put such words in my mouth.
>>>
>>
>> Of *course* you would not admit that.
>>
>> But that's the reality of your "rising tide against the rampant
>> privatization." It's selfish people getting mad that their cushy
>> benefits are gone.
>>
>
>No, it's hardworking folks who have been paying for those benefits all
>their lives.
>
But they haven't been paying enough. The promises of the socialist
welfare state have outstripped it's ability to provide.
>>>
>>> You mean that evading taxes indicates moral rot? OK.
>>>
>>
>> That is moral rot.
>>
>> And believing that you have a right to retire in your 50s, with the
>> taxpayer picking up the tab is moral rot.
>>
>
>I won't be able to retire till I'm in my 70s.
>
>
Then you are being exploited by your evil capitalist employer.
I suggest you and your fellow employees unionize and demand a decent
pension.
But wait!!
You are employed by socialists at THE NATION.
>> And believing that your union should protect your job even if you
>> aren't productive is moral rot.
>>
>>
>>> But most of these countries could have provided all that they promised
>>> their dutiful, hard-working taxpaying citizens if the banksters (and
>>> big-time evaders) weren't robbing everybody blind.
>>>
>>
>> So you won't admit that the welfare state expanded to an unsustainable
>> level.
>>
>
>When you say "admit," you assume you speak infallible truth.
>
>I do not *agree* with you that the level could not have been sustained,
>and improved, under circumstances of greater fiscal probity and social
>solidarity and egalitarianism.
>
>
"Greater fiscal probity" would mean not giving out such generous
benefits.
And by "social solidary" you mean soaking the rich!
That's not "social solidary." That's class warfare.
>
>
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> For all I know, you're socking your own huge earnings into a secret
>>>>> account in Delaware.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well if I *had* huge earnings, I might consider that.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That says a lot, thanks. At least you admit it.
>>> Now if Romney would come clean about the Bermudas...
>>>
>>
>> Where does Obama have his millions stashed?
>>
>
>Are you alleging something specific, as has come out about Romney?
>Details, please.
>
Obama is rich.
>>
>>> The moneymen fucked up. The economies crashed because of what they did,
>>> because they screwed too many people over. But those same people are
>>> paying the price, not the moneymen.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The "moneymen" were happy to lend money and lend money to Greece and
>> Spain and Italy and so on SO LONG AS IT LOOKED LIKE THEY MIGHT GET
>> PAID BACK.
>>
>
>The moneymen
>
>within
>
>the individual
>
>countries.
>
Oh! You mean those evil rich.
Are you not aware that confiscatory taxation has been tried and failed
by European socialists.
>>
>> But the CEOs don't make enough money to bail out the bankrupt welfare
>> states.
>>
>> And the ordinary workers have been *told* that they deserve lavish
>> benefits, but the money has not been put aside.
>
>The money was given by the workers, and stolen from them.
>
>
No, the workers were promised lavish benefits, and not taxed
sufficiently to pay for them.
The selfishness of the masses, who voted for socialists, has come back
to bite them.
>>
>>> So everything is riding (my 401(k) and another mutual funds package,
>>> my meager inheritance, which latter is also managed by Chase) on the
>>> vagaries of the stock market. Nobody has a pension plan anymore, we're
>>> forced to take it to the big casino, where there are no guarantees (though
>>> the house always wins)...
>>>
>>
>> Defined contribution is vastly more rational than defined benefit.
>>
>> Of *course* you would like the guarantee of a big pension at somebody
>> else's expense.
>>
>
>It's at the expense of the employee's lifetime of work.
>
Again, ordinary workers have been screwed over by politicians who
promised them lavish benefits, and promised to make *somebody else*
pay.
But the voters bought it.
>>>
>>> Not at all. It's based on the notion that people are *already* so
>>> classified.
>>>
>>
>> Then we can base IQ studies on those "already" so classified.
>>
>
>Obviously, since you *are.* For what it's worth.
>
Huh?
>> In fact, self-classification is pretty accurate. If somebody says
>> they are "black," most of their racial heritage is African.
>>
>
>Doesn't seem very scientific to assume.
>
But self-classification is pretty close to the actual genetic markers.
>> And so on for "white" and "Asian." Of course a lot of people have
>> *some* genes from another racial group.
>>
>
>Yes, many do.
>
>
>>> There is no relation between the notion of being classed as a member of a
>>> racial or ethnic minority by society at large (such as is considered in
>>> the application of affirmative action) and any supposedly scientific
>>> notion of "race" or genetic difference. The genetic backgrounds of people
>>> socially classed as black, Latino, etc., vary widely.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> If fact, modern genetic studies can nail down racial heritage pretty
>> accurately. Not just "Africa" but the particular part of Africa. Not
>> just "European" but the region in Europe.
>>
>
>But these studies don't seem to play any part in the "race and IQ" studies.
>
Then let's have studies that use actual genetic markers.
You are using criticism of current studies to advocate shutting down
further studies.
>>>>
>>>> In the first place, no sort of inquiry should be censored because
>>>> people fear the political ramifications.
>>>
>>> As I said, that's not the whole story here. First and foremost, he
>>> thought it was *bad science*.
>>>
>>
>> But the study of IQ is *not* inherently "bad science." Any sort of
>> science can be done badly, but there is nothing wrong with studying
>> intelligence.
>>
>
>Chomsky's verdict was that that line of inquiry at that time was not of
>any "scientific importance."
>
But his reason for saying *that* was that he wanted to shut down the
inquiry.
And he was obviously wrong.
OIC. He wants to close down research because he thinks the researchers
are biased.
Should I want to close down THE NATION because I think you folks are
biased?
>> I think for a lot of liberals, that view is their "dirty little
>> secret."
>>
>
>Yes, you said that.
>I think it reminds some people of Nazi "science."
>
BZZZZ!
Invoke the Nazis, and you have lost the argument.
>OK, so it seems the studies show that Asians score higher and blacks
>lower than whites on these tests in general. Such results of course
>could be a result of many factors. Now, what do you do with that
>information? Do further studies to disentangle the causes, sure. Then
>you try to reduce the stultifying factors (for whites and blacks, as the
>Asians are beating them both). If these tests are so important...
>
What are you bitching about?
*Of course* you want to try to assess the importance of environmental
factors.
Why would you not want that to happen?
>Somehow, though, I am afraid the conservatives who always seem to be the
>ones behind such research have other ideas in mind.
Somehow, I'm am afraid that liberals and leftists are the ones who
want to shut up research that threatens them.
>Like, arguing
>against affirmative action, perhaps? I wouldn't put it past them,
>although it's not logical: affirmative action is not supposed to mean
>that a lesser-qualified person gets the job but only that when there is
>no difference in qualifications the black applicant should be chosen
>from time to time.
>
Nonsense.
The Federal government gives minority many points on qualification
tests. There are actually different "norms" for whites and
minorities.
In California, when affirmative action was in effect, having a black
skin was worth 300 SAT points (verbal and quantitative).
>
>> People who want to shut up research are people who are scared of what
>> it will show.
>>
>> If he was confident that good research would show that racial
>> differences are the result of environmental factors, he should want
>> good research.
>>
>
>A determination that intelligence differences "are" (in some sense)
>racial/genetic would tend to eclipse other explanations for some people.
>But the correlation is not a proven causation.
>
>So let's see the studies on disentangling genetic from environmental
>causes, sure. Must be a lot of those.
>
There are a lot of studies that show large environmental effects on IQ
scores.
>
>>
>>> I keep saying the same thing in different words, but you still don't get
>>> it.
>>>
>>
>> I get it perfectly well. It's a desire to shut up research because it
>> might lead to politically inconvenient conclusions.
>>
>
>No, I guess you're just deaf.
>
Look at what you posted above!
You were claiming that research into race and intelligence would
inherently favor racism.
>
>>> But to Chomsky, it's like phrenology, dig?
>>> To my mind, this little detail disqualifies it as science:
>>>
>>> "Race in the studies is almost always determined using self-reports,
>>> rather than based on analyses of the genetic history of the tested
>>> individuals. According to psychologist David Rowe, self-report is the
>>> preferred method for racial classification in studies of racial
>>> differences because classification based on genetic markers alone ignore
>>> the "cultural, behavioral, sociological, psychological, and
>>> epidemiological variables" that distinguish racial groups."
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence
>>>
>>
>> Oh, my! You are quoting Wikipedia!
>>
>
>Unlike you, I don't have textbooks on this stuff lying about.
>
>> What you posted is silly. If one is studying race and intelligence,
>> the issue TO BE INVESTIGATED is the relative effects of "genetic
>> markers" and "cultural, behavioral, sociological, psychological, and
>> epidemiological variables."
>>
>
>So is it not true that the only racial/genetic marker that is relevant
>in these IQ tests is a person's self-identification?
>
Self-identification is a good proxy.
But I'm all for better studies using genetic markers.
>>>
>>> No, he thinks it is pointless because he believes "race" is a fictitious
>>> concept, or at least one that is very problematic to pin down, and that
>>> "IQ tests" are pervaded by cultural biases.
>>>
>>
>> Then good research should be able to show these cultural biases. But
>> Chomsky is afraid of research.
>>
>> BTW, there are many IQ tests that don't have any cultural biases.
>>
>> It is true that *life* has cultural biases, and some kids who grow up
>> under poor conditions are disadvantaged in taking the tests. That
>> doesn't prove the tests have cultural biases.
>>
>>
>>> I'm sure he must have suspected the motives of people who want to carry
>>> out research on such grounds, which would raise doubts about the results
>>> they would come up with.
>>>
>>
>> I question the motives of people who question capitalism.
>>
>
>Capitalism is great. It would have its slaves work day and night till
>they die if there was an endless supply of such fodder. The five-day
>week, the forty-hour day, paid vacations... none of this was a gift from
>the great white capitalist father. When working people were fighting for
>these things, you would no doubt have been calling them parasites and
>un-American. Today many people still can't even get a living wage out of
>bosses who wipe their asses with thousand-dollar bills.
>
So according to you, if the people in Bangladesh want a better life,
all they need to do is organize and unionize and demand that the evil
capitalists pay them as much as U.S. workers get.
Do you really believe that?
>Who would question that?
>
And you were talking about people who study race and IQ being biased?
If having biased researchers requires that research be shut down, all
anti-capitalist research should be shut down.
>
>
>> Am I allowed to shut up various lines of research because I suspect
>> the academics doing it of bad motives?
>>
>
>Nobody allowed Chomsky to shut up anything, nor did he try, as far as I
>have been able to determine.
>
>Nor have I, of course. (Li'l ol' me?!)
>
>
>> If you are saying that some psychologists might have a bias toward
>> finding that blacks are intellectually inferior, I doubt that. The
>> vast majority of psychologists are politically correct leftists.
>>
>> I *do* think that some psychologists have a bias toward accepting IQ
>> tests as reflecting native intelligence, rather than environmental
>> factors.
>>
>> The proper response to that is a robust debate among psychologists
>> with *different* biases, not trying to shut up the entire enterprise.
>>
>
>>
>>>
>>>> That's like saying that certain kinds of speech are "pointless and
>>>> pernicious" and wanting to censor them.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I am perfectly within my rights to say that certain activities are
>>> pointless and pernicious if that's what I believe.
>>
>> OK, I think that a critical examination of capitalism is pointless and
>> pernicious.
>>
>
>And you really do, don't you?
>
Yep. I think it's just an expression of New Class ideology. It comes
from people who lust after power.
>
>>> That, too, is free speech.
>>
>> Sure, you can use free speech to espouse censorship.
>>
>
>I could, but I haven't.
>
>
>> But then I can use free speech to say you are an authoritarian.
>>
>
>You can use free speech to be just as wrong as you like.
>
>Which is what I've always said.
>And Chomsky too.
>
Not in Cambridge, in the forum where I got to question him at length.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
<gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On 7/8/12 11:35 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 8 Jul 2012 22:35:42 -0400, Sandy McCroskey
>> <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> But note that they *did* once favor it. That was their bias. It had
>>>> to be knocked out of them by history.
>>>>
>>>> And liberals still have a bias toward maximizing government control of
>>>> the economy.
>>>>
>>>> Obama, remember, wanted single payer health care (Canadian style
>>>> socialized medicine).
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not badly enough.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> You just admitted my point.
>>
>
>Good for you!
>
>
But you were claiming that liberals don't dislike markets.
>On 7/8/12 11:35 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 8 Jul 2012 22:35:42 -0400, Sandy McCroskey
>> <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> But note that they *did* once favor it. That was their bias. It had
>>>> to be knocked out of them by history.
>>>>
>>>> And liberals still have a bias toward maximizing government control of
>>>> the economy.
>>>>
>>>> Obama, remember, wanted single payer health care (Canadian style
>>>> socialized medicine).
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not badly enough.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> You just admitted my point.
>>
>
>Good for you!
>
>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Translation: people, once conditioned to a cushy existence at the
>>>>>> expense of *other people* get resentful when told it can't be
>>>>>> sustained.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No translation was required.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Does that mean you agree with me about that?
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, it means you are presumptuous in trying to put such words in my mouth.
>>>
>>
>> Of *course* you would not admit that.
>>
>> But that's the reality of your "rising tide against the rampant
>> privatization." It's selfish people getting mad that their cushy
>> benefits are gone.
>>
>
>No, it's hardworking folks who have been paying for those benefits all
>their lives.
>
welfare state have outstripped it's ability to provide.
>>>
>>> You mean that evading taxes indicates moral rot? OK.
>>>
>>
>> That is moral rot.
>>
>> And believing that you have a right to retire in your 50s, with the
>> taxpayer picking up the tab is moral rot.
>>
>
>I won't be able to retire till I'm in my 70s.
>
>
I suggest you and your fellow employees unionize and demand a decent
pension.
But wait!!
You are employed by socialists at THE NATION.
>> And believing that your union should protect your job even if you
>> aren't productive is moral rot.
>>
>>
>>> But most of these countries could have provided all that they promised
>>> their dutiful, hard-working taxpaying citizens if the banksters (and
>>> big-time evaders) weren't robbing everybody blind.
>>>
>>
>> So you won't admit that the welfare state expanded to an unsustainable
>> level.
>>
>
>When you say "admit," you assume you speak infallible truth.
>
>I do not *agree* with you that the level could not have been sustained,
>and improved, under circumstances of greater fiscal probity and social
>solidarity and egalitarianism.
>
>
benefits.
And by "social solidary" you mean soaking the rich!
That's not "social solidary." That's class warfare.
>
>
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> For all I know, you're socking your own huge earnings into a secret
>>>>> account in Delaware.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well if I *had* huge earnings, I might consider that.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That says a lot, thanks. At least you admit it.
>>> Now if Romney would come clean about the Bermudas...
>>>
>>
>> Where does Obama have his millions stashed?
>>
>
>Are you alleging something specific, as has come out about Romney?
>Details, please.
>
>>
>>> The moneymen fucked up. The economies crashed because of what they did,
>>> because they screwed too many people over. But those same people are
>>> paying the price, not the moneymen.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The "moneymen" were happy to lend money and lend money to Greece and
>> Spain and Italy and so on SO LONG AS IT LOOKED LIKE THEY MIGHT GET
>> PAID BACK.
>>
>
>The moneymen
>
>within
>
>the individual
>
>countries.
>
Are you not aware that confiscatory taxation has been tried and failed
by European socialists.
>>
>> But the CEOs don't make enough money to bail out the bankrupt welfare
>> states.
>>
>> And the ordinary workers have been *told* that they deserve lavish
>> benefits, but the money has not been put aside.
>
>The money was given by the workers, and stolen from them.
>
>
sufficiently to pay for them.
The selfishness of the masses, who voted for socialists, has come back
to bite them.
>>
>>> So everything is riding (my 401(k) and another mutual funds package,
>>> my meager inheritance, which latter is also managed by Chase) on the
>>> vagaries of the stock market. Nobody has a pension plan anymore, we're
>>> forced to take it to the big casino, where there are no guarantees (though
>>> the house always wins)...
>>>
>>
>> Defined contribution is vastly more rational than defined benefit.
>>
>> Of *course* you would like the guarantee of a big pension at somebody
>> else's expense.
>>
>
>It's at the expense of the employee's lifetime of work.
>
promised them lavish benefits, and promised to make *somebody else*
pay.
But the voters bought it.
>>>
>>> Not at all. It's based on the notion that people are *already* so
>>> classified.
>>>
>>
>> Then we can base IQ studies on those "already" so classified.
>>
>
>Obviously, since you *are.* For what it's worth.
>
>> In fact, self-classification is pretty accurate. If somebody says
>> they are "black," most of their racial heritage is African.
>>
>
>Doesn't seem very scientific to assume.
>
>> And so on for "white" and "Asian." Of course a lot of people have
>> *some* genes from another racial group.
>>
>
>Yes, many do.
>
>
>>> There is no relation between the notion of being classed as a member of a
>>> racial or ethnic minority by society at large (such as is considered in
>>> the application of affirmative action) and any supposedly scientific
>>> notion of "race" or genetic difference. The genetic backgrounds of people
>>> socially classed as black, Latino, etc., vary widely.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> If fact, modern genetic studies can nail down racial heritage pretty
>> accurately. Not just "Africa" but the particular part of Africa. Not
>> just "European" but the region in Europe.
>>
>
>But these studies don't seem to play any part in the "race and IQ" studies.
>
You are using criticism of current studies to advocate shutting down
further studies.
>>>>
>>>> In the first place, no sort of inquiry should be censored because
>>>> people fear the political ramifications.
>>>
>>> As I said, that's not the whole story here. First and foremost, he
>>> thought it was *bad science*.
>>>
>>
>> But the study of IQ is *not* inherently "bad science." Any sort of
>> science can be done badly, but there is nothing wrong with studying
>> intelligence.
>>
>
>Chomsky's verdict was that that line of inquiry at that time was not of
>any "scientific importance."
>
inquiry.
And he was obviously wrong.
are biased.
Should I want to close down THE NATION because I think you folks are
biased?
>> I think for a lot of liberals, that view is their "dirty little
>> secret."
>>
>
>Yes, you said that.
>I think it reminds some people of Nazi "science."
>
Invoke the Nazis, and you have lost the argument.
>OK, so it seems the studies show that Asians score higher and blacks
>lower than whites on these tests in general. Such results of course
>could be a result of many factors. Now, what do you do with that
>information? Do further studies to disentangle the causes, sure. Then
>you try to reduce the stultifying factors (for whites and blacks, as the
>Asians are beating them both). If these tests are so important...
>
*Of course* you want to try to assess the importance of environmental
factors.
Why would you not want that to happen?
>Somehow, though, I am afraid the conservatives who always seem to be the
>ones behind such research have other ideas in mind.
want to shut up research that threatens them.
>Like, arguing
>against affirmative action, perhaps? I wouldn't put it past them,
>although it's not logical: affirmative action is not supposed to mean
>that a lesser-qualified person gets the job but only that when there is
>no difference in qualifications the black applicant should be chosen
>from time to time.
>
The Federal government gives minority many points on qualification
tests. There are actually different "norms" for whites and
minorities.
In California, when affirmative action was in effect, having a black
skin was worth 300 SAT points (verbal and quantitative).
>
>> People who want to shut up research are people who are scared of what
>> it will show.
>>
>> If he was confident that good research would show that racial
>> differences are the result of environmental factors, he should want
>> good research.
>>
>
>A determination that intelligence differences "are" (in some sense)
>racial/genetic would tend to eclipse other explanations for some people.
>But the correlation is not a proven causation.
>
>So let's see the studies on disentangling genetic from environmental
>causes, sure. Must be a lot of those.
>
scores.
>
>>
>>> I keep saying the same thing in different words, but you still don't get
>>> it.
>>>
>>
>> I get it perfectly well. It's a desire to shut up research because it
>> might lead to politically inconvenient conclusions.
>>
>
>No, I guess you're just deaf.
>
You were claiming that research into race and intelligence would
inherently favor racism.
>
>>> But to Chomsky, it's like phrenology, dig?
>>> To my mind, this little detail disqualifies it as science:
>>>
>>> "Race in the studies is almost always determined using self-reports,
>>> rather than based on analyses of the genetic history of the tested
>>> individuals. According to psychologist David Rowe, self-report is the
>>> preferred method for racial classification in studies of racial
>>> differences because classification based on genetic markers alone ignore
>>> the "cultural, behavioral, sociological, psychological, and
>>> epidemiological variables" that distinguish racial groups."
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence
>>>
>>
>> Oh, my! You are quoting Wikipedia!
>>
>
>Unlike you, I don't have textbooks on this stuff lying about.
>
>> What you posted is silly. If one is studying race and intelligence,
>> the issue TO BE INVESTIGATED is the relative effects of "genetic
>> markers" and "cultural, behavioral, sociological, psychological, and
>> epidemiological variables."
>>
>
>So is it not true that the only racial/genetic marker that is relevant
>in these IQ tests is a person's self-identification?
>
But I'm all for better studies using genetic markers.
>>>
>>> No, he thinks it is pointless because he believes "race" is a fictitious
>>> concept, or at least one that is very problematic to pin down, and that
>>> "IQ tests" are pervaded by cultural biases.
>>>
>>
>> Then good research should be able to show these cultural biases. But
>> Chomsky is afraid of research.
>>
>> BTW, there are many IQ tests that don't have any cultural biases.
>>
>> It is true that *life* has cultural biases, and some kids who grow up
>> under poor conditions are disadvantaged in taking the tests. That
>> doesn't prove the tests have cultural biases.
>>
>>
>>> I'm sure he must have suspected the motives of people who want to carry
>>> out research on such grounds, which would raise doubts about the results
>>> they would come up with.
>>>
>>
>> I question the motives of people who question capitalism.
>>
>
>Capitalism is great. It would have its slaves work day and night till
>they die if there was an endless supply of such fodder. The five-day
>week, the forty-hour day, paid vacations... none of this was a gift from
>the great white capitalist father. When working people were fighting for
>these things, you would no doubt have been calling them parasites and
>un-American. Today many people still can't even get a living wage out of
>bosses who wipe their asses with thousand-dollar bills.
>
all they need to do is organize and unionize and demand that the evil
capitalists pay them as much as U.S. workers get.
Do you really believe that?
>Who would question that?
>
And you were talking about people who study race and IQ being biased?
If having biased researchers requires that research be shut down, all
anti-capitalist research should be shut down.
>
>
>> Am I allowed to shut up various lines of research because I suspect
>> the academics doing it of bad motives?
>>
>
>Nobody allowed Chomsky to shut up anything, nor did he try, as far as I
>have been able to determine.
>
>Nor have I, of course. (Li'l ol' me?!)
>
>
>> If you are saying that some psychologists might have a bias toward
>> finding that blacks are intellectually inferior, I doubt that. The
>> vast majority of psychologists are politically correct leftists.
>>
>> I *do* think that some psychologists have a bias toward accepting IQ
>> tests as reflecting native intelligence, rather than environmental
>> factors.
>>
>> The proper response to that is a robust debate among psychologists
>> with *different* biases, not trying to shut up the entire enterprise.
>>
>
>>
>>>
>>>> That's like saying that certain kinds of speech are "pointless and
>>>> pernicious" and wanting to censor them.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I am perfectly within my rights to say that certain activities are
>>> pointless and pernicious if that's what I believe.
>>
>> OK, I think that a critical examination of capitalism is pointless and
>> pernicious.
>>
>
>And you really do, don't you?
>
from people who lust after power.
>
>>> That, too, is free speech.
>>
>> Sure, you can use free speech to espouse censorship.
>>
>
>I could, but I haven't.
>
>
>> But then I can use free speech to say you are an authoritarian.
>>
>
>You can use free speech to be just as wrong as you like.
>
>Which is what I've always said.
>And Chomsky too.
>
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
Jul 9, 2012, 9:09:03 PM7/9/12
to
On Mon, 09 Jul 2012 10:01:04 -0400, Peter Fokes <pfo...@rogers.com>
wrote:
>On Sun, 08 Jul 2012 19:34:42 -0500, John McAdams
><john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>
>>Liberals have had to back away from the notion of a centrally planned
>>economy.
>
>
>Why don't Conservatives do the same?
>
>Bankers love the FED. In fact, without the FED's continual printing
>of money, many large banks would have failed.
>
It probably would have been better if they had.
The bailouts created huge moral hazard.
>And it goes on. The FED is still interfering in the free market.
>
You can make a case that control of the money supply is a natural
monopoly.
But even if that's true, that doesn't guarantee that the monopolist
will act responsibly.
>You rarely hear a Conservative call on the government to abolish the
>FED.
>
You agree with Ron Paul!
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/end-the-fed/
>Ultimately, it doesn't matter.
>
>The FED's machinations and efforts to support the free market will
>fail and leave a bigger mess behind.
>
>But if you want to complain about Liberals notion of a centrally
>planned economy, don't forget to complain about the FED and its effort
>to control the economy with Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4, Q5 ............
>
>Every time these Q's are announced the markets rally, the banks take
>bigger risks (with no risk to themselves), and the beat goes on.
>
>However, most of the liquidity supplied by the FED is not shared
>proportionately, but ends up in the hands of the wealthy.
>
>Do you advocate abolishing the FED or not?
>
I'd have to think about that. I certainly would abolish the Euro.
I incline to think that control of the money supply is a natural
monopoly.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
wrote:
>On Sun, 08 Jul 2012 19:34:42 -0500, John McAdams
><john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>
>>Liberals have had to back away from the notion of a centrally planned
>>economy.
>
>
>Why don't Conservatives do the same?
>
>Bankers love the FED. In fact, without the FED's continual printing
>of money, many large banks would have failed.
>
The bailouts created huge moral hazard.
>And it goes on. The FED is still interfering in the free market.
>
monopoly.
But even if that's true, that doesn't guarantee that the monopolist
will act responsibly.
>You rarely hear a Conservative call on the government to abolish the
>FED.
>
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/end-the-fed/
>Ultimately, it doesn't matter.
>
>The FED's machinations and efforts to support the free market will
>fail and leave a bigger mess behind.
>
>But if you want to complain about Liberals notion of a centrally
>planned economy, don't forget to complain about the FED and its effort
>to control the economy with Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4, Q5 ............
>
>Every time these Q's are announced the markets rally, the banks take
>bigger risks (with no risk to themselves), and the beat goes on.
>
>However, most of the liquidity supplied by the FED is not shared
>proportionately, but ends up in the hands of the wealthy.
>
>Do you advocate abolishing the FED or not?
>
I incline to think that control of the money supply is a natural
monopoly.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
Jul 9, 2012, 10:12:51 PM7/9/12
to
Ordinary citizens, not professional soldiers, not mercenaries.
Anthony Marsh
Jul 9, 2012, 10:13:16 PM7/9/12
to
Anthony Marsh
Jul 9, 2012, 10:14:19 PM7/9/12
to
used to kill large numbers of people. But remember that the killer was
using large capacity magazines. Read the entire Wikipedia article for more
details:
Of the 69 people that died after the attack on the island, 57 were killed
by one or more shots through the head.[130][121] In total 67 people were
killed by gun shots, 1 died falling from a cliff trying to escape, and 1
drowned trying to swim away from the island.[130] In total Breivik fired
at least 186 shots,[131] and still had a "considerable amount of
ammunition" left.[86]
In the aftermath, of the 564 people on the island at the time,[8] 69
people died and at least 110 people had received various physical
injuries.[9][10] An estimated 50 people were treated at the locally set up
casualty clinic, and were treated for relatively minor injuries such as
cuts, bruises and hypothermia after fleeing and swimming from the island.
Failed attempt to buy weapons in Prague
Breivik spent six days in Prague in late August and early September 2010.
He chose the Czech Republic because the country has some of the most
relaxed laws regarding guns and drugs in Europe. Following his Internet
inquiry, Breivik noted that "Prague is known for maybe being the most
important transit site point for illicit drugs and weapons in Europe".
Despite the fact that Prague has one of the lowest crime rates[30] among
European capitals, Breivik observed that he was not looking forward to his
trip to the Central European capital, because he has "heard that there are
very brutal and cynical criminals".[31]
He hollowed out the rear seats of his Hyundai Atos in order to have enough
space for the firearms he hoped to buy. After two days, he got a
prospectus for a mineral extraction business printed, which was supposed
to give him an alibi in case someone suspected him of preparing a
terrorist attack.[31] He wanted to buy an AK-47-type rifle (which is not
very common in the Czech Republic), a Glock pistol, hand-grenades and a
rocket-propelled grenade, stating that getting the latter two would be a
"bonus".[29][31]
Breivik had paid for prostitutes in Prague[31] and had several fake police
badges printed to wear with a police uniform, which he had acquired
illegally on the Internet, and which he later wore during the
attack.[15][16] Contrary to his expectations, he was completely unable to
get any firearms in the Czech Republic, commenting that it was the "first
major setback in [his] operation". In the end, he concluded that Prague
was "far from an ideal city to buy guns", nothing like "what the BBC
reported", and that he had felt "safer in Prague than in
Oslo".[29][31][32] Arming in Norway and through the Internet
Originally, Breivik intended to try to obtain weapons in Germany or Serbia
if his mission in Prague failed. The Czech disappointment led him to
procure his weapons through legal channels.[32] He decided to obtain a
semi-automatic rifle and a Glock pistol legally in Norway, noting that he
had a "clean criminal record, hunting license, and two guns (a Benelli
Supernova 12 gauge Pump-action shotgun and a .308 Bolt-action rifle)
already for seven years", and that obtaining the guns legally should
therefore not be a problem.[29] The Benelli Supernova shotgun was later
found in his getaway car at the ferry dock after the shootings.
Upon returning to Norway, Breivik obtained a legal permit for a
.223-caliber Ruger Mini-14 semi-automatic carbine, ostensibly for the
purpose of hunting deer. It was equipped with a reflector sight, bayonet,
and a green laser pointer. He bought it in late 2010 for ???1,400 ($2000).
He wanted to purchase a 7.62x39mm Ruger Mini-30 semi-automatic carbine,
since the 7.62mm caliber offers more damage at short and medium ranges,
but gun laws in Norway may have prevented Breivik from obtaining it.
Getting a permit for the pistol proved more difficult, as he had to
demonstrate regular attendance at a sport shooting club.[31] He also
bought 10 30-round magazines for the rifle, and 6 magazines for the pistol
(4 of them 30-round magazines) from a United States supplier.
From November 2010 to January 2011 he went through 15 training sessions
at the Oslo Pistol Club, and by mid-January his application to purchase a
Glock pistol was approved.[33][34] The pistol was equipped with a green
laser point.
Breivik carved the name of his Glock 34 "Mj??lnir": Thor's Hammer, and his
Mini-14 "Gungnir": Odin's Spear.
Breivik claimed in his manifesto that he bought 300 g of sodium
nitrate[35] from a Polish shop for ???10 in December 2010, in order to
make a bomb fuse.[36] In March 2011,[37] he legally bought 100 kg of
chemicals from a small Internet-based Wroc??aw company. The Polish ABW
interviewed the company owner on 24 July 2011.[36] Breivik's Polish
purchases initially led to him being put on the watch list of the
Norwegian intelligence, which did not act because they did not believe it
was relevant.[38]
He had also planned a last religious service (in Frogner Church) before
the attack.[31]
Bill Clarke
Jul 9, 2012, 11:24:08 PM7/9/12
to
In article <4ffb7645$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
Yeah, I don't like him either. Hell Marsh, just start a new thread and
tell the group what figure 26 shows us. And then reconcile what figure 26
shows us with the bullet rises crap you have been telling us.
Then I'll promote you to Major General.
Bill Clarke
tell the group what figure 26 shows us. And then reconcile what figure 26
shows us with the bullet rises crap you have been telling us.
Then I'll promote you to Major General.
Bill Clarke
Sandy McCroskey
Jul 10, 2012, 9:39:59 AM7/10/12
to
On 7/9/12 9:02 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 9 Jul 2012 14:07:57 -0400, Sandy McCroskey
> <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> On 7/8/12 11:35 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>>> On 8 Jul 2012 22:35:42 -0400, Sandy McCroskey
>>> <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But note that they *did* once favor it. That was their bias. It had
>>>>> to be knocked out of them by history.
>>>>>
>>>>> And liberals still have a bias toward maximizing government control of
>>>>> the economy.
>>>>>
>>>>> Obama, remember, wanted single payer health care (Canadian style
>>>>> socialized medicine).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not badly enough.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> You just admitted my point.
>>>
>>
>> Good for you!
>>
>>
>
> But you were claiming that liberals don't dislike markets.
>
And you are apparently compelled to always come up with the most
> On 9 Jul 2012 14:07:57 -0400, Sandy McCroskey
> <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> On 7/8/12 11:35 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>>> On 8 Jul 2012 22:35:42 -0400, Sandy McCroskey
>>> <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But note that they *did* once favor it. That was their bias. It had
>>>>> to be knocked out of them by history.
>>>>>
>>>>> And liberals still have a bias toward maximizing government control of
>>>>> the economy.
>>>>>
>>>>> Obama, remember, wanted single payer health care (Canadian style
>>>>> socialized medicine).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not badly enough.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> You just admitted my point.
>>>
>>
>> Good for you!
>>
>>
>
> But you were claiming that liberals don't dislike markets.
>
simplistic formulation of your opponent's alleged viewpoint.
I think there are good markets and bad.
Do you think the slave trade was good? It was a market. I don't like it
one bit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Translation: people, once conditioned to a cushy existence at the
>>>>>>> expense of *other people* get resentful when told it can't be
>>>>>>> sustained.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No translation was required.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Does that mean you agree with me about that?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, it means you are presumptuous in trying to put such words in my mouth.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Of *course* you would not admit that.
>>>
>>> But that's the reality of your "rising tide against the rampant
>>> privatization." It's selfish people getting mad that their cushy
>>> benefits are gone.
>>>
>>
>> No, it's hardworking folks who have been paying for those benefits all
>> their lives.
>>
>
> But they haven't been paying enough. The promises of the socialist
> welfare state have outstripped it's ability to provide.
>
>>>>
>>>> You mean that evading taxes indicates moral rot? OK.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That is moral rot.
>>>
>>> And believing that you have a right to retire in your 50s, with the
>>> taxpayer picking up the tab is moral rot.
>>>
>>
>> I won't be able to retire till I'm in my 70s.
>>
>>
>
> Then you are being exploited by your evil capitalist employer.
>
until I was 30.
> I suggest you and your fellow employees unionize and demand a decent
> pension.
>
> But wait!!
>
> You are employed by socialists at THE NATION.
>
management every time the contract comes up for renewal.
Our union is the Newspaper Guild, which Nation members helped to found.
>
>>> And believing that your union should protect your job even if you
>>> aren't productive is moral rot.
>>>
>>>
>>>> But most of these countries could have provided all that they promised
>>>> their dutiful, hard-working taxpaying citizens if the banksters (and
>>>> big-time evaders) weren't robbing everybody blind.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So you won't admit that the welfare state expanded to an unsustainable
>>> level.
>>>
>>
>> When you say "admit," you assume you speak infallible truth.
>>
>> I do not *agree* with you that the level could not have been sustained,
>> and improved, under circumstances of greater fiscal probity and social
>> solidarity and egalitarianism.
>>
>>
>
> "Greater fiscal probity" would mean not giving out such generous
> benefits.
>
> And by "social solidary" you mean soaking the rich!
>
> That's not "social solidary." That's class warfare.
>
Income disparity that has grown greater over decades has created an
abyss between the classes of the very few and the very many. Of course a
bunch of CEOs' salaries for one year wouldn't go very far in closing
that gap.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> For all I know, you're socking your own huge earnings into a secret
>>>>>> account in Delaware.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Well if I *had* huge earnings, I might consider that.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That says a lot, thanks. At least you admit it.
>>>> Now if Romney would come clean about the Bermudas...
>>>>
>>>
>>> Where does Obama have his millions stashed?
>>>
>>
>> Are you alleging something specific, as has come out about Romney?
>> Details, please.
>>
>
> Obama is rich.
>
you not think they deserve something besides a kick in the ass after
working all their lives?
CEOs get millions in golden parachutes when they simply change jobs;
workers who have given their lives to companies often have to leave with
nothing and continue working until they fall into their graves.
>>>>
>>>> Not at all. It's based on the notion that people are *already* so
>>>> classified.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Then we can base IQ studies on those "already" so classified.
>>>
>>
>> Obviously, since you *are.* For what it's worth.
>>
>
> Huh?
>
"racial difference" based on these self-classifications.
>
>>> In fact, self-classification is pretty accurate. If somebody says
>>> they are "black," most of their racial heritage is African.
>>>
>>
>> Doesn't seem very scientific to assume.
>>
>
> But self-classification is pretty close to the actual genetic markers.
>
>
>>> And so on for "white" and "Asian." Of course a lot of people have
>>> *some* genes from another racial group.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, many do.
>>
>>
>>>> There is no relation between the notion of being classed as a member of a
>>>> racial or ethnic minority by society at large (such as is considered in
>>>> the application of affirmative action) and any supposedly scientific
>>>> notion of "race" or genetic difference. The genetic backgrounds of people
>>>> socially classed as black, Latino, etc., vary widely.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> If fact, modern genetic studies can nail down racial heritage pretty
>>> accurately. Not just "Africa" but the particular part of Africa. Not
>>> just "European" but the region in Europe.
>>>
>>
>> But these studies don't seem to play any part in the "race and IQ" studies.
>>
>
> Then let's have studies that use actual genetic markers.
>
> You are using criticism of current studies to advocate shutting down
> further studies.
>
I was defending Chomsky against the charge that *he* wanted to censor
free scientific inquiry.
I never said at any point that I wanted to do that.
But I also said that arguing about methodologies that one sees as
questionable is within a person's rights.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the first place, no sort of inquiry should be censored because
>>>>> people fear the political ramifications.
>>>>
>>>> As I said, that's not the whole story here. First and foremost, he
>>>> thought it was *bad science*.
>>>>
>>>
>>> But the study of IQ is *not* inherently "bad science." Any sort of
>>> science can be done badly, but there is nothing wrong with studying
>>> intelligence.
>>>
>>
>> Chomsky's verdict was that that line of inquiry at that time was not of
>> any "scientific importance."
>>
>
> But his reason for saying *that* was that he wanted to shut down the
> inquiry.
>
> And he was obviously wrong.
>
He expressed a preference.
You can't show me where he tried to have anything such thing shut down
by any institutional body. Should be easy to find, too, if it ever happened.
You might express such a wish. I wouldn't be surprised if you had, in an
exasperated moment.
That's different from trying actually to shut us down.
Do you see that difference?
If you see that difference, then we're through here.
>
>>> I think for a lot of liberals, that view is their "dirty little
>>> secret."
>>>
>>
>> Yes, you said that.
>> I think it reminds some people of Nazi "science."
>>
>
> BZZZZ!
>
> Invoke the Nazis, and you have lost the argument.
>
intelligence" reminds some people of the Nazis.
>
>> OK, so it seems the studies show that Asians score higher and blacks
>> lower than whites on these tests in general. Such results of course
>> could be a result of many factors. Now, what do you do with that
>> information? Do further studies to disentangle the causes, sure. Then
>> you try to reduce the stultifying factors (for whites and blacks, as the
>> Asians are beating them both). If these tests are so important...
>>
>
> What are you bitching about?
>
By "these tests" I mean the original "intelligence" tests, not any
studies attempting to isolate environmental factors affecting
performance on them.
> *Of course* you want to try to assess the importance of environmental
> factors.
>
> Why would you not want that to happen?
>
framed as if it has something essential to do with "race," when that may
be the least significant factor (if it is even a factor at all) in the
difference in test scores between different groups.
I can actually imagine humane capitalistic practices and markets (or at
least quasi-capitalistic...), although capitalism and the profit motive
are not essentially and inherently humane or moral. Do you, as a
Christian, really think that they are?
>
> If having biased researchers requires that research be shut down, all
> anti-capitalist research should be shut down.
>
>
>>
>>
>>> Am I allowed to shut up various lines of research because I suspect
>>> the academics doing it of bad motives?
>>>
>>
>> Nobody allowed Chomsky to shut up anything, nor did he try, as far as I
>> have been able to determine.
>>
>> Nor have I, of course. (Li'l ol' me?!)
>>
>>
>>> If you are saying that some psychologists might have a bias toward
>>> finding that blacks are intellectually inferior, I doubt that. The
>>> vast majority of psychologists are politically correct leftists.
>>>
>>> I *do* think that some psychologists have a bias toward accepting IQ
>>> tests as reflecting native intelligence, rather than environmental
>>> factors.
>>>
>>> The proper response to that is a robust debate among psychologists
>>> with *different* biases, not trying to shut up the entire enterprise.
>>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> That's like saying that certain kinds of speech are "pointless and
>>>>> pernicious" and wanting to censor them.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I am perfectly within my rights to say that certain activities are
>>>> pointless and pernicious if that's what I believe.
>>>
>>> OK, I think that a critical examination of capitalism is pointless and
>>> pernicious.
>>>
>>
>> And you really do, don't you?
>>
>
> Yep. I think it's just an expression of New Class ideology. It comes
> from people who lust after power.
>
>>
>>>> That, too, is free speech.
>>>
>>> Sure, you can use free speech to espouse censorship.
>>>
>>
>> I could, but I haven't.
>>
>>
>>> But then I can use free speech to say you are an authoritarian.
>>>
>>
>> You can use free speech to be just as wrong as you like.
>>
>> Which is what I've always said.
>> And Chomsky too.
>>
>
> Not in Cambridge, in the forum where I got to question him at length.
>
you can't find anything to back up your allegation besides your memory
of a verbal exchange rather long ago. So I remain unconvinced that your
memory is entirely accurate. I suspect you've confused the criticism of
a private citizen with an endorsement of official censorship.
And that's my last word on the subject.
/sandy
Anthony Marsh
Jul 10, 2012, 9:42:38 AM7/10/12
to
On 7/9/2012 9:02 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 9 Jul 2012 14:07:57 -0400, Sandy McCroskey
> <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> On 7/8/12 11:35 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>>> On 8 Jul 2012 22:35:42 -0400, Sandy McCroskey
>>> <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But note that they *did* once favor it. That was their bias. It had
>>>>> to be knocked out of them by history.
>>>>>
>>>>> And liberals still have a bias toward maximizing government control of
>>>>> the economy.
>>>>>
>>>>> Obama, remember, wanted single payer health care (Canadian style
>>>>> socialized medicine).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not badly enough.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> You just admitted my point.
>>>
>>
>> Good for you!
>>
>>
>
> But you were claiming that liberals don't dislike markets.
>
Liberals are the markets.
> On 9 Jul 2012 14:07:57 -0400, Sandy McCroskey
> <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> On 7/8/12 11:35 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>>> On 8 Jul 2012 22:35:42 -0400, Sandy McCroskey
>>> <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But note that they *did* once favor it. That was their bias. It had
>>>>> to be knocked out of them by history.
>>>>>
>>>>> And liberals still have a bias toward maximizing government control of
>>>>> the economy.
>>>>>
>>>>> Obama, remember, wanted single payer health care (Canadian style
>>>>> socialized medicine).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not badly enough.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> You just admitted my point.
>>>
>>
>> Good for you!
>>
>>
>
> But you were claiming that liberals don't dislike markets.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> For all I know, you're socking your own huge earnings into a secret
>>>>>> account in Delaware.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Well if I *had* huge earnings, I might consider that.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That says a lot, thanks. At least you admit it.
>>>> Now if Romney would come clean about the Bermudas...
>>>>
>>>
>>> Where does Obama have his millions stashed?
>>>
>>
>> Are you alleging something specific, as has come out about Romney?
>> Details, please.
>>
>
> Obama is rich.
>
>>>
>>>> The moneymen fucked up. The economies crashed because of what they did,
>>>> because they screwed too many people over. But those same people are
>>>> paying the price, not the moneymen.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> The "moneymen" were happy to lend money and lend money to Greece and
>>> Spain and Italy and so on SO LONG AS IT LOOKED LIKE THEY MIGHT GET
>>> PAID BACK.
>>>
>>
>> The moneymen
>>
>> within
>>
>> the individual
>>
>> countries.
>>
>
> Oh! You mean those evil rich.
>
> Are you not aware that confiscatory taxation has been tried and failed
> by European socialists.
Socialist? Why don't you want to go back to the Reagan tax rates?
>
>>>
>>> But the CEOs don't make enough money to bail out the bankrupt welfare
>>> states.
>>>
>>> And the ordinary workers have been *told* that they deserve lavish
>>> benefits, but the money has not been put aside.
>>
>> The money was given by the workers, and stolen from them.
>>
>>
>
> No, the workers were promised lavish benefits, and not taxed
> sufficiently to pay for them.
>
vacation?
> The selfishness of the masses, who voted for socialists, has come back
> to bite them.
>
>>>
>>>> So everything is riding (my 401(k) and another mutual funds package,
>>>> my meager inheritance, which latter is also managed by Chase) on the
>>>> vagaries of the stock market. Nobody has a pension plan anymore, we're
>>>> forced to take it to the big casino, where there are no guarantees (though
>>>> the house always wins)...
>>>>
>>>
>>> Defined contribution is vastly more rational than defined benefit.
>>>
>>> Of *course* you would like the guarantee of a big pension at somebody
>>> else's expense.
>>>
>>
>> It's at the expense of the employee's lifetime of work.
>>
>
> Again, ordinary workers have been screwed over by politicians who
> promised them lavish benefits, and promised to make *somebody else*
> pay.
>
> But the voters bought it.
>
>>>>
>>>> Not at all. It's based on the notion that people are *already* so
>>>> classified.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Then we can base IQ studies on those "already" so classified.
>>>
>>
>> Obviously, since you *are.* For what it's worth.
>>
>
> Huh?
>
>
>>> In fact, self-classification is pretty accurate. If somebody says
>>> they are "black," most of their racial heritage is African.
>>>
>>
>> Doesn't seem very scientific to assume.
>>
>
> But self-classification is pretty close to the actual genetic markers.
>
>
>>> And so on for "white" and "Asian." Of course a lot of people have
>>> *some* genes from another racial group.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, many do.
>>
>>
>>>> There is no relation between the notion of being classed as a member of a
>>>> racial or ethnic minority by society at large (such as is considered in
>>>> the application of affirmative action) and any supposedly scientific
>>>> notion of "race" or genetic difference. The genetic backgrounds of people
>>>> socially classed as black, Latino, etc., vary widely.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> If fact, modern genetic studies can nail down racial heritage pretty
>>> accurately. Not just "Africa" but the particular part of Africa. Not
>>> just "European" but the region in Europe.
>>>
>>
>> But these studies don't seem to play any part in the "race and IQ" studies.
>>
>
> Then let's have studies that use actual genetic markers.
>
know anything about the Hawk's gene?
> You are using criticism of current studies to advocate shutting down
> further studies.
>
Should there ever be a code of ethics for any profession?
> In California, when affirmative action was in effect, having a black
> skin was worth 300 SAT points (verbal and quantitative).
>
>
>>
>>> People who want to shut up research are people who are scared of what
>>> it will show.
>>>
>>> If he was confident that good research would show that racial
>>> differences are the result of environmental factors, he should want
>>> good research.
>>>
>>
>> A determination that intelligence differences "are" (in some sense)
>> racial/genetic would tend to eclipse other explanations for some people.
>> But the correlation is not a proven causation.
>>
>> So let's see the studies on disentangling genetic from environmental
>> causes, sure. Must be a lot of those.
>>
>
> There are a lot of studies that show large environmental effects on IQ
> scores.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>> I keep saying the same thing in different words, but you still don't get
>>>> it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I get it perfectly well. It's a desire to shut up research because it
>>> might lead to politically inconvenient conclusions.
>>>
>>
>> No, I guess you're just deaf.
>>
>
> Look at what you posted above!
>
> You were claiming that research into race and intelligence would
> inherently favor racism.
>
Remember the Nazi studies on race and intelligence. No one goes into
that line of research without being a racist.
Sandy McCroskey
Jul 10, 2012, 12:04:52 PM7/10/12
to
On 7/10/12 9:39 AM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
> So according to you, if the people in Bangladesh want a better life,
> all they need to do is organize and unionize and demand that the evil
> capitalists pay them as much as U.S. workers get.
>
> Do you really believe that?
Do you really believe I said that?
> So according to you, if the people in Bangladesh want a better life,
> all they need to do is organize and unionize and demand that the evil
> capitalists pay them as much as U.S. workers get.
>
> Do you really believe that?
There are a lot of factors affecting quality of life in a given country
at a given state of development.
/sandy
Sandy McCroskey
Jul 10, 2012, 12:05:24 PM7/10/12
to
On 7/9/12 9:02 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>> Capitalism is great. It would have its slaves work day and night till
>> >they die if there was an endless supply of such fodder. The five-day
>> >week, the forty-hour day, paid vacations... none of this was a gift from
>> >the great white capitalist father. When working people were fighting for
>> >these things, you would no doubt have been calling them parasites and
>> >un-American. Today many people still can't even get a living wage out of
>> >bosses who wipe their asses with thousand-dollar bills.
>> >
> So according to you, if the people in Bangladesh want a better life,
> all they need to do is organize and unionize and demand that the evil
> capitalists pay them as much as U.S. workers get.
>
> Do you really believe that?
>
No, and I didn't say that, to repeat.
>> Capitalism is great. It would have its slaves work day and night till
>> >they die if there was an endless supply of such fodder. The five-day
>> >week, the forty-hour day, paid vacations... none of this was a gift from
>> >the great white capitalist father. When working people were fighting for
>> >these things, you would no doubt have been calling them parasites and
>> >un-American. Today many people still can't even get a living wage out of
>> >bosses who wipe their asses with thousand-dollar bills.
>> >
> So according to you, if the people in Bangladesh want a better life,
> all they need to do is organize and unionize and demand that the evil
> capitalists pay them as much as U.S. workers get.
>
> Do you really believe that?
>
But are you implying that, in general, "the people in Bangladesh," the
vast majority of which are workers, are sufficiently paid and have no
right to belly-ache if hours and days are too long, working conditions are
brutal, and so on? After all, it could be worse, they could have no job at
all. Right?
/sandy
John McAdams
Jul 10, 2012, 12:13:40 PM7/10/12
to
On 10 Jul 2012 12:05:24 -0400, Sandy McCroskey
Bellyaching will get them nowhere.
The only things that *will* improve living conditions are:
1. The accumulation of human capital, as the workers become more
productive.
2. The inflow of financial capital, which will make the workers more
productive.
If politics in Bangladesh takes a socialist turn, that will simply
slow the process and prolong the misery.
Are you aware of how India langished under socialist planning, and how
the economic liberalization of the early 90s has helped the country?
But I bet you think things under the rule of Congress Party socialists
were just great!
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
The only things that *will* improve living conditions are:
1. The accumulation of human capital, as the workers become more
productive.
2. The inflow of financial capital, which will make the workers more
productive.
If politics in Bangladesh takes a socialist turn, that will simply
slow the process and prolong the misery.
Are you aware of how India langished under socialist planning, and how
the economic liberalization of the early 90s has helped the country?
But I bet you think things under the rule of Congress Party socialists
were just great!
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages