Way to Go, US
Apparently the big news today is that Cuban dictator-for-life Fidel Castro has retired. Here's the story. His equally geriatric younger brother is set to take over officially, as I understand it, although he seems to have been quietly running things since 2006 when Castro failed to kick the bucket yet again.
Castro's existence is funny to me, because it makes a complete mockery of the CIA. Some of their plots to overthrow him couldn't have been portrayed better if Ian Fleming's James Bond had gotten hold of the mission.
Actually, The Man With the Golden Gun might as well pass for an allegory on Castro, considering Scaramanga is considered indestructible, the mafia fails to bump him off, there were a number of silly little plots against him as well, and a good chunk of the action takes place in Cuba. The CIA would've had more luck if they could've used a James Bond.
Some estimates indicated the number of attempts on his life to be as high as 638--a documentary on him suggests that, in fact. (Not all attempted by the CIA, of course.) Examples, you ask?
They've tried to blow him up with an exploding cigar, Three Stooges' style. They worked very hard on these cigars, which contained the same toxin that's in Botox.
They invested in hundreds and hundreds of mollusks, one of which was going to be huge and painted in lurid colors to attract El Presidente whilst he was scuba diving. When he grabbed it, BOOM! Explosives hidden inside the giant mollusk would solve our minor dictator problems. ("Gee--look at that one! It's 1000 times the size of a regular mollusk, and it's pink! Let's check it out!")
While we're on the subject of scuba diving, another nefarious plot was to infect his diving suit with fungus; whammo! debilitating skin disease sets in.
They hired the mafia to put out a hit on him. The mafia failed.
His former gf put poison pills in her face cream (given to her by the CIA) to smuggle in and kill him. He found out about it and offered her his gun. She couldn't pull the trigger.
They tried to get a famous pitcher to purposely throw a foul ball while Castro was watching the game and kill him--or so I heard.
Honestly, doesn't it sound like Dr. Evil from Austin Powers? As his son Scott said, "Why not pull a gun and just waste him!" (sort of a paraphrase) If the whole world already realizes you're doing these crazy things, it really doesn't make much sense not to just try and shoot him.
And great job there, USA, embargoing those Cuban cigars, three of which Officer Sanborn shredded for me. It really helped push him out of power, didn't it? With a fucking gold watch straight into retirement.
-- Virgil
posted by contemplator at Tuesday, February 19, 2008
40 Comments:
Our government can be really incompetent, can't it?
Mad Dog: Almost as incompetent as they were in the 19th century...
[JP ducks for cover as he giggles with glee. :) ]
Virgil: I am very much in need of a night out. For a semester that involves two barely-legitimate (or sometimes barely-legal) classes, and my complete disregard for actually completing the assignments, I've been surprisingly stressed.
ME TOO. Do you want a weekend night or week day? Do you want to come over to the house and have bad movie night, like we'd all talked about? Or would you rather go out?
MD: Uninformed and purposely ignorant citizenry can also be really incompetent.
I'm game for anytime. I have class from 7-10 on Wednesday and 4-7 on Thursday. Aside from that, my evenings are completely free... and they have since become more free in the last week :(
You're the one with the more complicated schedule, so whenever you have free time, I can roll with that.
OK--so at my place (or yours) or out on the town? Which is the more aesthetically pleasing and possibly more cost effective? I could probably get you in on the two for one drinks on Wednesday's Ladies' Night. :D
Out on the town is usually a good time if it's not in some obscenely crowded place. If you can get a babysitter for Dante, that would probably be my first choice.
If not, we can come over to your place or you guys can come here. Either of those works for me too. Vivek approves of those options too. He seems very eager for you guys to come over and see our place.
"MD: Uninformed and purposely ignorant citizenry can also be really incompetent."
Unfortunately true. The fact that Ron Paul is losing so badly speaks for itself.
Why assume they haven't done their homework on him? After all, you can't read the minds of each individual American...
Well, I was being partially facetious for starters. But most of the reasons that I have seen people denounce him have been quite silly, superficial, or just plain incorrect in regards to what he said that he would do.
A lot of the complaints have been based on rumors, or are simply repeatings of tired rhetoric heard elsewhere.
I mean, the people can not be blamed entirely. What deserves more blame is the craven media which usually has a statist bent (except for John Stossel), a public school system that is not only second rate in international terms, but also glorifying of the state, but especially the politicians, who are very clever at convincing people that more government can solve every problem in existence.
May I suggest you read this? : http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9340166
Go here instead: http://tinyurl.com/3bwxa2
I'm an informed voter, and I wouldn't vote for Ron Paul. I wouldn't vote for him because he's anti-abortion and he thinks the government is responsible for racism. He thinks that energy solutions don't need government dollars while ignoring the fact that all universities and research labs rely on government dollars to do much of their research--there simply isn't a big enough pot of money elsewhere to be had. Bill Gates can't fund everybody. He says "the market" will fix things, which is a nebulous term. He believes the government encourages corporations to be corrupt as opposed to individuals making purposely greedy choices while expecting the American people to be individually responsible for their actions. He can't have it both ways. Either he thinks people are individually responsible, or he thinks the government has corrupted them. It suits him when he wants to take money away from services.
He doesn't bother to suggest how the gap in those services would get filled. I expect he thinks nonprofits like mine would "step in" and take over the difference, not bothering to mention that it would jack our loads up past the point of being able to serve them.
I'm not voting for him because of rumors. I'm not voting for him because I think his policies are largely ridiculous.
Out of curiosity, have you read Wealth of Nations or Ludwig von Mises' tome? Or any of Ayn Rand's novels?
I was not trying to imply that you were an uninformed voter. You are more informed than most people, probably at least 80 to 90% of the population.
Abortion is a non-issue. No president can touch it. It is politically near impossible. Reagan and both Bushes were against it. Guess what? Still legal. In most cases, the issue is nothing more than vote pandering.
Besides, Ron would not outlaw abortion. He would only leave it up to the states. That is the position of various people in the libertarian party.
The only reason that abortion even becomes an issue is so that the elite can divide the country, so that they don't unite against them for issues like economics, taxes, warfare and corporate welfare.
The issue is meant to be a distraction. Ron, however, is different. After delivering 4,000 babies as a gynecologist, you have to understand that he might have a unique perspective on it.
"Either he thinks people are individually responsible, or he thinks the government has corrupted them. It suits him when he wants to take money away from services.
He doesn't bother to suggest how the gap in those services would get filled."
Do you have some quotes of his? Because the times I have heard him speak is when he said that he wanted to SAVE services, not dismantle them. He very clearly mentioned that Social Security was in trouble, and needed more money to save it. He said similar things about medicare and medicaid. He even mentioned that the public infastructures needed repair and upgrades.
Ron is actually in favor of MORE domestic spending in some areas, not less. He wishes to obtain the money by shrinking the military and bringing many of the overseas troops home, at least from the non hotspots.
I think you should read more about his positions, rather than just labels, like 'libertarian'.
The fact is, Ron would act like a better democrat than most democrats, in terms of domestic spending, while at the same time as reducing the budget and government size. Best of both worlds, in other words.
I got my information from his own website. Not from the term "Libertarian." I would hope as a libertarian that he'd have the good sense NOT to tell me as a woman what I can and cannot do with my body. He wants to, so that's my number one reason for not voting for him.
It's incredibly stupid to think that if the federal government turned it over to the states that the states wouldn't try to ban abortion. Why cause more work for people to do at the state level when we have the right to an abortion and that's just fine? South Dakota gave it a shot. It only emboldens anti-abortion activists if they think they can get their foot in the door. So even if it's only a symbolic gesture (which it's NOT), I don't want the federal government leaving it up to some dictatorial governor who will make it more difficult for women to get the care they need at least for the four years of his term. Ron Paul AS a gynecologist I would think would understand the woman's point of view as to why she might want an abortion. If he doesn't get it, then he either doesn't understand the varying needs of 100% of his clientèle or he doesn't care. Either way, abortion is a very real issue with very real consequences--not some imaginary wedge that people use to stir up controversy.
His desire to repeal federal taxes on education is a good example of the gap in services. Poor states like West Virginia and Kentucky, where I'm from and am now, don't have a big tax base to pull from. If you think their schools are crappy now, when you make them entirely dependent on education taxes on their own you'll have an even bigger educational disaster.
I'm not here to debate Ron Paul issues. I can read his statements. I'm not voting for him.
You didn't answer my question about the books.
I was at lunch break when I wrote my last response. I intended to address some more of what you wrote, but I had to go back to work.
On to other issues:
"He thinks that energy solutions don't need government dollars while ignoring the fact that all universities and research labs rely on government dollars to do much of their research"
Have you forgotten about large corporations? If alternative energy is indeed viable, and so efficient as to replace gasoline and coal, then there are plenty of profit motives for them to fund it. Plenty of research goes on in the private sector. In fact, that is where some of the most complex and technological products come from. Take this very online journal, Blogger, for example. It was funded entirely through private means.
Or how about the newest airplanes and rockets? Largely paid for in the private sector. The scramjet, perhaps the fastest engine in the world, was funded and run privately. Another fine development along those lines is the Space Plane or 'Spaceship One', created (and in the testing phases of) by Virgin Galactic, funded by Richard Branson.
Another example is this company, Fresenius, a medical equipment manufacturer from Germany. They are going to release a dialysis machine that a patient can bring home and use, unsupervised, rather than the current method, which is to go to a special dialysis center in a hospital on a frequent basis. With their new device (soon to be released), the patient no longer has to go to the hospital on a regular basis for dialysis treatments.
But even if alternative energy were to not prove to be more profitable than fossil fuels, you have to keep in mind that there are a large number of people who are in favor of it, regardless of the energy output. What this means is that many of them will want to buy alternative energy products (demand). Since investors are always on the hunt for demand, and since you have studied economics, the rest of the story with this one is quite conclusive.
In fact, there have already been numerous ventures in to the alternative energy market. If you think that the hybrid cars which can get 50 to 60 miles per gallon is hot, wait till you hear about the Tesla. The Telsa, which is funded by entrepreneurs/scientists in California is a car which runs entirely on electrical power using lithium ion batteries.
On one full charge, it has a traveling range of 220 miles. It can go from 0 to 60 in 4 seconds. It can outperform any gasoline engine with sheer torque, travel at 125 miles per hour, with estimated travel costs of only 2 cents per mile. Best of all, you do not need to go to any station to give it fuel. You can hook it up to a wall socket in your house. Or if you can give it juice at an electrical station (all in California right now), and pay ridiculously low costs (in comparison to a gasoline fill up). This, by the way, is not some pipe dream. This car can actually be bought and used right now.
The only thing you might not like about the Tesla is the price tag ($98,000). However, they will soon release a vehicle described as a "sporty sedan", with an estimated cost of $45,000. Their third car is expected to be even cheaper. According to recent news, the price of gasoline is expected to rise drastically until the summer, to perhaps 4 dollars or more per gallon. One can easily see that there will be numerous incentives to buy an alternative fuel vehicle, without any government mandates whatsoever. If we have reached peak oil, the sheer market demand for alternative fuel products will drastically increase.
Speaking of California, did you know that many people there have placed solar panels over their homes to the degree in which they generate a profit of power, rather than a net loss? This is not some government program. This is entirely a private effort. There are people all across the country doing this, but not necessarily getting quite as much, but still a significant amount of sunlight.
It is easy to see that there is no need that the government gets its mitts involved into the alternative energy market. Actually, I would prefer that they do not. It will more likely fuck things up than help. Just take a look at the other industries that government has got involved in. Although, I must admit, government is very good at funding technology that blows people up.
"Ron Paul AS a gynecologist I would think would understand the woman's point of view as to why she might want an abortion."
I think that he tries his very hardest to reconcile protection of infants and the rights of women. But, as he has correctly pointed out: If a doctor were to kill a baby one minute before it comes out of a mother's womb, it is considered a legitimate abortion. If the doctor kills the baby one minute after it is born, it is considered murder. Yet, the two acts are considered as two different types of acts, despite the fact that there would be two minutes worth of difference.
I am not saying that the position is entirely agreeable, I am just saying that it has to be one of the most well thought out pro-life positions I have ever heard.
"and he thinks the government is responsible for racism"
What were his exact words? I do not remember him saying that. I have heard him say that government either does little to end racism or amplify its effects. But even if he did say that government creates racism, one could make a very solid case here.
To start off with, factor in who gets arrested more often for drug charges; namely, black people. Who is more likely to be stopped by a police officer on the highway? Black people. The fact is, the American criminal justice system, from the cop on the beat to top level judges, to 'tough on crime' politicians, is horribly biased against black people.
Or, lets go with affirmative action, or shall I call it "some people are more equal than others" or "all people are equal, but some aren't good enough to get by without the government"?.
You can say "Hey! Mad Dog! Black people wouldn't get jobs without affirmative action! White people only hire people that look like themselves!"
Well if that was the case, how come the Asians get great jobs, do well in school, and don't get arrested too often? Why are there so many wealthy Asians? Kinda destroys the myth that you have to look like some of the people at the top to get by. But then lets go with myth two: You can't get by with dark skin. Well, why do people from India get so successful, a country that is allegedly dominated by racist whites? Some of them have very dark skin, even those that handle software, computers, engineering, marketing, graphics, etc. Could it be that these people believe in themselves, and that they don't listen to the nonsense of the pessimists?
But then lets go to black people in general. Most of them are doing very well in fact, at least in comparison to 30 - 40 years ago. I recently saw a statistic that showed that black poverty rates were in the single digits for families that stayed together. The poverty rate for single parent families however, is much higher, like 30 to 40%. One does not have to be Einstein to see what REALLY is the main cause of poverty in America, especially considering that a WHITE single parent family is more likely to be poor than one where the parents stayed together.
But does that stop the Affirmative action advocates? Hell no. They moan and scream as loud as ever. Going further, it could easily be argued that Affirmative Action makes racism worse. If white people and asians see black people get affirmative action benefits, but not get those benefits themselves, it should stand to reason that they might just get jealous. They might begin to think that the system is against them, and grow more pessimistic. By this time, they will probably be looking for a scapegoat. Who are they going to blame (besides the government that treats them unequally)? Why, black people themselves.
The white people become jealous, especially if they are poor. In fact, it is the poor whites who are the most jealous and resentful of black people. Having lived for 30 years, I have seen it happen, even with middle class whites.
Do you remember in school when there was a kid who was real smart, and the teacher treated that kid extra special? Do you remember when that kid was looked upon with envy by all the other kids? Sometimes, the envy turned into other things. Sometimes, the star pupil would get harassed, or even bullied by the other kids. No one likes to see someone else get preferential treatment from authority.
But, Affirmative action can be bad mentally for black people, even without the resentment of others. Is it not hard to conceive that a black person might be led to believe that he or she is inferior? They see other people get by without help from the government, then they see their own people get lots of help from the government. One could easily conclude that they develop similar mentalities to those with handicaps, with the associated hopelessness and helplessness. Some consider themselves to be worthless. They see no reason to try to succeed in life.
Maybe I should put you in the scenario. Suppose you were a white person, but in a nation of people that were mostly black, as well as many of them being quite successful. Suppose you were told you would get benefits from the government, so that you would 'be on a level playing field'. Would you not feel demoralized by this? Would it be such a stretch to think that you might not try as hard as you do now through life? But suppose you did get by. Would you not at least have some doubts about yourself from time to time, not knowing whether you would have been as successful without assistance from the government?
"He believes the government encourages corporations to be corrupt"
I strongly think that what he means by corruption and what you mean by corruption are two different things. If his beliefs are that of the standard conservative/libertarian, his idea of corruption would be of a corporation that lobbies the government to give it protectionism or a legal monopoly, aka 'de jure monopoly', so that competitors are not legally allowed to compete.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government-granted_monopoly
One does not have to be a rocket scientist to see that this hurts everybody. Since there are no legally allowed competitors, the monopoly can charge whatever it wants, it can virtually offer any level of service that it wants with impunity, due to the fact that the customers have no where else to turn. AT&T prior to 1984 comes to mind, as do various cable tv companies (well, before satellite dishes were able to compete with them).
Another example of what he would consider to be a corrupt corporation is one that lobbies congress to give it sweetheart deals. What often follows is that the company is often awarded a lot of money, which of course comes from the taxpayer. Because that money was carelessly used as a favor for some cronies, it can not be used for things that are really vital, such as schools or infrastructure. Once again, everybody gets hurt, except for the usual suspects.
Take note that both examples involve the use of government. When such things do happen, the results are disastrous for everybody, except the business trying to gain special favors and the crooked politician that it dealt with.
But now we come to your definition of corruption. But assume that I do not exactly know what you consider a corrupt deed to be. Keep in mind that everyone varies with what they consider to be moral and immoral.
If you have the typical left wing views, I imagine that you believe that selling people things like Big Macs and Whoppers is a form of corruption, because of their fatty content, etc., or that selling people Playstations is a form of corruption, because they are only used for entertainment, etc., as I have heard from other left wingers. I, however, would argue that both parties were in full agreement and understanding of the ramifications of the transaction between the two parties. Because there was no dishonesty between the two parties, and because no one has the right to force themselves into other people's lives, I would argue that the transactions were not corrupt.
"as opposed to individuals making purposely greedy choices while expecting the American people to be individually responsible for their actions."
Oh, :rolls eyes:, what do you mean by 'greedy'? Do you mean that people purposely pursue their own selfish interests? Well, I got news for you, DV. EVERYONE pursues their own selfish interests, even when they claim they do the exact opposite, or claim that they are 'helping the community', or 'benefiting mankind'. Yes, even politicians :shock:, police officers, teachers, priests, social workers, etc. Everyone pursues their own interest. The only bullshitters are those who preach altruism, or that people must 'sacrifice'. The reality is, that the person who is preaching the altruism is trying to get other people to do his or her work, to satisfy that preacher's desires, whether that preacher be Hillary Clinton or Pastor Billy Bob Joe Brown.
As for wanting people to be individually responsible, how is there any contradiction? Is acting responsibly not within one's self interest? Does the person who act responsibly not benefit him or herself far more than others? Does the person who acts irresponsibly have the tendency to screw themselves over?
The fact of the matter is, is that selfishness and personal responsibility are the best of friends. People who realize this tend to be more successful in life.
"He can't have it both ways. Either he thinks people are individually responsible, or he thinks the government has corrupted them."
The problem is that you are looking at this issue in a black and white way. Not all people are the same. Some are more responsible than others. The truth is both. Many people exercise personal responsibility, while others want free handouts, doesn't matter from who; some of them even want others to wipe their butts for them.
I can read Ron Paul's words for himself. If he needs you to spin them for him, his campaign is in a world of hurt.
I'm not voting for him.
I also find it the absolute height of irony that the man who claimed only a few posts previously that he "couldn't possibly" know the minds of white Americans in the 1800s can now say with such confidence that affirmative action can be quite "mentally degrading" to black people. Hypocritical, much?
Would you care to demonstrate how the "free market" as defined by corporations will come up with the level of research investment that government dollars currently supports? I'd love to see the economic analysis of that. How much money do you anticipate that to be?
Also, I'm a registered independent. I likely don't hold the views of most "left-wingers", as you put it; I also don't know any "left-wingers" who think selling Big Macs is some form of exploitation, and believe me, the university is full of "left-wingers". Honestly, do you talk to real people, or do you get all your info from Faux News?
You still haven't answered my question about the books. Ayn Rand had some interesting things to say about enlightened or rational self interest. Do you know what she said, or are you simply parroting back what you've heard other people say about her works?
"I also find it the absolute height of irony that the man who claimed only a few posts previously that he 'couldn't possibly' know the minds of white Americans in the 1800s can now say with such confidence that affirmative action can be quite "mentally degrading" to black people. Hypocritical, much?"
I don't think so. I wasn't alive in the 19th century (which is what you should be calling it). I do not think that I have ever met anyone who lived back then, except for maybe some extremely old person who was only a little kid when it came to an end. Another thing is, to my knowledge, Zogby was not around in those days to conduct polls. From what I understand, there were no "Are you a racist?" surveys. But maybe you might know of such things from back then.
However, I am alive now, and affirmative action is going on NOW, with people affected by it alive NOW. Do you see what I am saying? Besides, Affirmative Action is quite visible. It is quite concrete. Wheras, racism, that is something that exists inside a person. Sometimes, you can't even tell if the person standing in front of you is a racist. So how the hell can I tell if someone who lived 150 years be a racist, unless there is documentation that the person did something quite clearly racist back then?
"Would you care to demonstrate how the "free market" as defined by corporations will come up with the level of research investment that government dollars currently supports?"
Did you not see the various examples I pointed out? How many more do you need?
"I'd love to see the economic analysis of that. How much money do you anticipate that to be?"
Do you have any real proof that research paid for with taxpayer dollars is any better than what occurred in the private sector? I keep hearing about how the government pays for this, pays for that, etc. For instance, I keep hearing about how they are financing the 'cures' for cancer, cure for aids. I remember hearing about this when I was a little kid. When I was a kid, I heard that the cures for those things were 'just around the corner'. I am 30 years old and guess what? Still no cures.
Same thing with NASA. When did they say they were going to the moon again? 2020? To Mars? 2050? Yet NASA gets billions annually, but we will be old people before they do anything noteworthy again.
I get the impression that a lot of government sponsored research is really just sneaky versions of 'make work' projects. The politicians may not be aware of it, but I bet those 'scientists' do.
Meanwhile, research conducted by private companies yield all kinds of things, like medical advances, new drugs, new hospital equipment, newer and faster computers, new inventions, robotics, more advanced solar panels, etc.
"Also, I'm a registered independent. I likely don't hold the views of most "left-wingers", as you put it;"
You had said that you had found favor with the Green Party, as well as the 'Green Mountain Party'. The Green Party is considered very left. I believe I saw that you had found favor with at least some socialism.
"I also don't know any "left-wingers" who think selling Big Macs is some form of exploitation, and believe me, the university is full of "left-wingers""
You probably have not heard of the food nannies then, like Mike Bloomberg, or the jerks in the city council of San Francisco or in Los Angeles. There are even some of these freaks in England and Europe.
"Honestly, do you talk to real people, or do you get all your info from Faux News?"
I don't watch that channel. But I do get some left wing views from here: http://briankoontz.wordpress.com/ , here: http://www.pslweb.org/ , here: http://www.zmag.org/ and also from various 'Democracy Now' youtube videos.
"You still haven't answered my question about the books. Ayn Rand had some interesting things to say about enlightened or rational self interest. Do you know what she said, or are you simply parroting back what you've heard other people say about her works?"
I have not read those particular books. But I get the impression you want to use this as a tool to demonstrate superiority, as if to discourage me from this conversation. If there are some points from those books that you feel that I have missed, which relate to any of the topics at hand, you may go right ahead and show me. But other than that, I would prefer if you do not get sidetracked.
The only things that Ayn Rand has said which I have drawn concepts from are what I have heard from her directly, like here: http://youtube.com/watch?v=FzGFytGBDN8
But she is by no means my only source for these kinds of ideas.
The fact that you are living now has nothing to do with it. Where you're positioned in society now has everything to do with how you choose to see things. I can assure you than none of my son's family nor their friends have ever felt "mentally degraded" by affirmative action. For you to suggest otherwise is highly presumptious and assumes they can't speak for themselves.
If you need a Zogby poll to break it down for you versus the vast body of literature and historical documents that DO explain it, then there really isn't anything anyone can do to help you understand it until you grow some critical thinking skills.
Large corporations can fund SOME things, or ONE project. They do not have the pool of resources the government does to support large scale efforts. If you think they can match that kind of money, you need to demonstrate how. As far as research not curing cancer, I guess you haven't heard of the new HPV vaccine, which stops 90% of cervical cancers. While other cancers aren't completely curable, treatment advances have come a *long* way. You can't just throw your hands up because you don't see a giant invention. That isn't how knowledge works. Just because research and inventions don't happen fast enough for you doesn't mean they aren't worth investing in as a country. Just because you're fretting about being an old man before you personally get wowed by something from NASA doesn't mean they aren't still doing valuable research.
And I suppose the answer to my question about real people is "No." You cited videos on the internet and a few blogs. Go out and talk to flesh and blood people. That's where real democracy happens. This is the same as believing that the way fundies portray Xianity is obviously the way everyone believes simply because they're more vocal. If you hit a few vocal blogs and videos, of course it's going to look skewed. Talk to real people. See what they have to say. You'll find the lines of politics are much harder to draw in the flesh.
I bring up the books for a very good reason. Not to prove superiority as in "I'm better than you" but to show you something. You tell me all the time to read this link or that link. You've said things to me before like "this from a person who has read Rand and Mises!" Yes, I've read them. How on earth can you criticize my views on capitalism if YOU haven't read them?
How do you know whether someone is distorting the ideas of capitalism if you haven't read Adam Smith? You're accepting on faith that what modern authors write is from those sources. Watching an Ayn Rand interview on YouTube is not nearly the same thing as reading her philosophy for yourself. You claim that you're the "watchdog of liberty" or whatever. You can't defend something you can't argue about. And you can't argue about it unless you do some reading and research. Period. What you're doing is using second and third hand arguments from websites. That's forming an uninformed opinion, and leaves you open to swallowing somebody else's jingoisms wholesale. And you wouldn't know it if you did, because you haven't got anything to fall back on in the way of reading and research.
It doesn't make me better than you as a person that I've read these things.
It sure as hell makes me more informed. If you truly are interested, you need to get more into it.
I'm still not voting for Ron Paul.
"Where you're positioned in society now has everything to do with how you choose to see things."
Oh, so you are saying that I am inherently dishonest because I happen to be white and middle class?
"If you need a Zogby poll to break it down for you versus the vast body of literature and historical documents that DO explain it, then there really isn't anything anyone can do to help you understand it until you grow some critical thinking skills."
Then lets see this proof of yours that the majority of white people were racist back in the 19th century, and that they were more racist than everyone else on earth. Where are these alleged records you keep talking about? Up to this point, you have made a long series of assertions, but "Where's the beef?"
"Large corporations can fund SOME things, or ONE project. They do not have the pool of resources the government does to support large scale efforts. If you think they can match that kind of money, you need to demonstrate how."
It does not even have to be large corporations. It can even be small or medium sized businesses. Hell, it can even just some young genius living on a shoestring budget.
Bill Gates started microsoft out of his garage. Steve Jobs did something comparable with Apple. The Tesla car was created by an entrepreneur out in California. There are a lot of very good small solar panel companies out there. So on and so forth.
Your assertion that the government is swimming in money is entirely false. It is currently over 9 to 10 trillion in the hole, and it is just growing. I can't see how anyone can claim that someone who is in such severe debt is 'wealthy'.
But even if the government was not in such serious debt, it does not mean that all, or even a significant chunk goes to the scientists. Keep in mind that the government has a gigantic list of things to pay for, especially with the war in Iraq, social security, medicare, medicaid, the war on drugs, etc. But the sheer list of things, as well as the money paid out, is so gigantic, that no one person can possibly keep track of the list. What is really left over are table crumbs.
So, in the end, government funded scientists do not really have that much more money than private sector research scientists at the end of the day.
And with government grants, you always have the potential problem of intentional waste, meaning that someone might make things go slower, to use it as an excuse to beg the government for more money.
I think a good case is made here:
http://www.bloggernews.net/12975
and here
http://www.lewrockwell.com/miller/miller23.html
"Just because you're fretting about being an old man before you personally get wowed by something from NASA doesn't mean they aren't still doing valuable research."
For example...
"And I suppose the answer to my question about real people is "No." You cited videos on the internet and a few blogs. Go out and talk to flesh and blood people. That's where real democracy happens."
You mean I should stop talking to non flesh and blood people? Are they made out of plastic?
Seriously, what does this have to do with reading Ayn Rand? Just to let you know, I am not really the biggest fan of democracy. I am a fan of a Republic. If you look at our constitution, democracy is mentioned nowhere. A Democracy is when 51% of the people can take away the rights of the other 49%. It is the ultimate 'might makes right' system. Every democracy in history has crashed horribly. Here are some fun quotes that I think are very applicable:
""Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch."" -- Benjamin Franklin
"“People often say that, in a democracy, decisions are made by a majority of the people. Of course, that is not true. Decisions are made by a majority of those who make themselves heard and who vote - a very different thing.”" -- Walter H. Judd
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard." -- Henry Louis Mencken
"Democracy is also a form of worship. It is the worship of Jackals by Jackasses." -- Henry Louis Mencken
"Democracy consists of choosing your dictators after they've told you what you think it is you want to hear" -- Alan Coren
"You'll find the lines of politics are much harder to draw in the flesh."
I am with you on this. I am the kind of person who goes out of his way to point out to others that the left/right divide is largely nonsensical.
"I bring up the books for a very good reason. Not to prove superiority as in "I'm better than you" but to show you something. You tell me all the time to read this link or that link. You've said things to me before like "this from a person who has read Rand and Mises!" Yes, I've read them. How on earth can you criticize my views on capitalism if YOU haven't read them?"
I judge arguments by their own merits; on what I feel to be right and wrong, on what I feel to be moral. I do not simply copy other people's ideas.
"How do you know whether someone is distorting the ideas of capitalism if you haven't read Adam Smith?"
I do not look at capitalism as a religion. I try to come to my own conclusions. I do not judge related ideas based on how closely they follow Adam Smith, Ayn Rand, etc.
"You're accepting on faith that what modern authors write is from those sources. Watching an Ayn Rand interview on YouTube is not nearly the same thing as reading her philosophy for yourself."
Rand does not have a monopoly on Capitalistic ideas.
"You claim that you're the "watchdog of liberty" or whatever.
That title is tongue in cheek. Lighten up.
"You can't defend something you can't argue about."
I can argue plenty about it. My level of knowledge of what one or two people wrote does not necessarily qualify or disqualify me. Keep in mind that writers of such nature write based on reality. So, I can also look at reality, I can look at the news, I can listen to a financial analyst. I can read from various organizations. I can view the statistics. One does not need to be an expert on books written 50 years ago or 200 years ago to be able to have developed views.
"And you can't argue about it unless you do some reading and research. Period."
I have done plenty of research, just not from Ayn Rand's books.
"What you're doing is using second and third hand arguments from websites. That's forming an uninformed opinion, and leaves you open to swallowing somebody else's jingoisms wholesale."
Everyone has a biased opinion. It is to be expected. Even from those who you think of as righteous. Second, what difference does it make whether information comes from a website, a book, or a magazine? Just because the information is presented in medium A or medium B does not mean that it is bad or good. To assert that information becomes legitimate because it is presented in manner A or manner B is nonsensical. Information is relevant or irrelevant on its own terms. You probably got the idea that "internet information is no good" from some crusty old professor who barely knows how to use a computer.
"And you wouldn't know it if you did, because you haven't got anything to fall back on in the way of reading and research."
I must have lost count of the number of times that I have provided references for my arguments.
"It sure as hell makes me more informed. If you truly are interested, you need to get more into it."
I get my news from a variety of sources, including newsmax.com, zmag.com, the New York Times, CNN, Democracy Now, LewRockwell.com, Townhall.com, The Drudge Report, The Economist, World Net Daily, Scientific American, Forbes.com, the Government Accountability Office, Reason Magazine, Yahoo News, The Cato Institute, 20/20, Bill Moyers, etc. You should be careful about making assumptions.
"I'm still not voting for Ron Paul."
You couldn't if you wanted to. The West Virginia primaries are long over.
WATCHDOG OF LIBERTY!!!!!???????!!!!!!!!
Hardy frickin' har that's a good one! Is that why you're the mad dog? Oh, that's rich.
Liberty needs to look in to some obedience classes!
Watchdog of liberty! Some people go to war to defend freedom! Some people protest in the streets! Some people volunteer for a good cause! Some people make dumb comments on other people's blogs!
I never said you were inherently dishonest because of your position. You came up with that one on your own. It is a fact that because of the way one is positioned in society, one sees things a certain way. You make the exact same argument when you like to talk about people wanting government handouts believing they're entitled to it. I also never said the government was swimming in money. It is a fact that they control more of it than individual corporations do. Are you aware of how research gets funded in universities? It's a mix of federal and private dollars. If they lost federal funding, many of their labs and projects would have to close.
Since you asked, here is a small list of resources to help you wade through the dilemma of racism in the 1800s (by the way, you can certainly call it the 19th century, but there is no "rule" that dictates you *must* do that). I warn you, my sources are actual books. Not nice little linkys that you can click on and skim.
You can start with these:
Harriet Jacobs' Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl
Frederick Douglass' biography called Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, An American Slave, Written by Himself; Douglass has also written a number of articles that prove an intriguing read.
There is a wide variety of protest literature from the time that you can find reprints of in Pamphlets of Protest: An Anthology of Early African-American Protest Literature 1790-1860; Prince Saunders' address to the free state of Pennsylvania is an especially interesting piece.
Harriet Wilson's Our Nig; or Sketches in the Life of a Free Black
The Racial Contract by Charles Mills, an especially informative piece on white supremacist culture. If you picked any of these, I'd start with this one.
Key to Uncle Tom's Cabin--a culmination of resources gathered by Harriet Beecher Stowe comprising many sources used in her book. There are many primary sources reprinted in this book.
David Walker's Appeal: To the Coloured Citizens of the World. This one includes information about Thomas Jefferson, which you might be interested. Oh, on the subject, everybody from that time knew he fathered children with a slave. It was fictionalized in the earliest black written narrative from that time, which is Clotel; or The President's Daughter by William Wells Brown. He cites a number of actual sources within the work of fiction itself.
An excellent summary of many newspaper postings is the book American Slavery As It Is, by Theodore Dwight Weld.
White-Washing Race: the Myth of a Color-Blind Society is a collection of writings by various authors on the subject.
Whiteness of a Different Color: European Immigrants and the Alchemy of Race by Matthew Frye Jacobson is a good read.
Wages of Whiteness, a good book about the construction of the "white race" and the values that serves.
Dana Nelson's National Manhood--one of my favorites; it has a nice section on whiteness as well.
This will get you started. It's by no means all, but I think it's a good "short list". In all of these sources, you'll find recorded incidents of slave brutality by those that held slaves, frequent white violence on blacks by whites who did not slaves in both the North and the South, and white racism in the North with regard to freed blacks. It was very, very common. It so permeated society that even white writers during this time could still write about emancipation and write racist passages within the same novel.
Most of what you blathered on about is a giant rant, but this part I just had to address. I guess it's the teacher in me.
"My level of knowledge of what one or two people wrote does not necessarily qualify or disqualify me. Keep in mind that writers of such nature write based on reality. So, I can also look at reality, I can look at the news, I can listen to a financial analyst. I can read from various organizations. I can view the statistics. One does not need to be an expert on books written 50 years ago or 200 years ago to be able to have developed views."
What a lot of nonsense. You do certainly think that knowledge about one or two "people" (those people being the founders of certain ideas) qualifies or disqualifies you. You once implied that because I had read Rand and Mises that I should "know better"-when YOU hadn't read either of them, and were in no position to know one way or the other. Your comment about "looking at reality" cracks me up as well. Do you not understand that your present day "reality" is a product of many forces *including* what happened 50-200 years ago? Why try to smear having knowledge of that time period when it so clearly relates to what's going on in present day reality? You referred me to "1000 years of history" back in the previous thread--but you don't know the history of your own country 50-200 years ago. Do you see what I mean? You're arguing from a position of willful ignorance. Instead of reading up about it, you try to dismiss it to save yourself the work.
I make assumptions about where you get your knowledge from the links you post. You rarely post something from objective and unbiased sources. You obviously aren't actually reading Scientific American if you have to ask me for examples of research Nasa has done that benefits scientific progress. So I call bullshit on that one.
There isn't necessarily anything wrong with a magazine source or even a web based source. The problem that you don't seem to be able to wrap your head around, is that you are usually quoting other people's opinions when you use them--not primary sources. Someone else has done the reading and is giving you their take on it. You are taking somebody else's belief of what capitalism, for example, is about, and because you have done no primary research yourself, if it "feels" right to you (your words exactly), you go with it.
That's not research, honey, that's just a gut reaction.
It doesn't make you look more informed. It doesn't make you look like you know anything about the subject at hand. You sound like a propaganda machine, instead of an articulate, reasonable person. I'm encouraging you to skip punditry and go for research.
Why's he need to do any research?
He's the WATCHDOG OF LIBERTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Keep barking, baby!
No, you greatly misunderstood what I wrote, Contemplator. My only point regarding those books you were berating me about was that not only were you getting off topic with the conversation, but you were not addressing my arguments on their own terms.
When someone makes an argument, it is either strong or weak on its own merits. If you have a problem with something I wrote, by all means, address it.
Mad Dog, you accuse me of not reading your links (which I do), of not reading Ron Paul's own arguments (which I did), and you've said things before like "this from someone who read Rand and Mises." Obviously insisting on background reading is fair game for you, but when I suggest it, it becomes a problem. While it's true that other people besides Smith and Rand and Mises have had things to say about capitalism, as you suggest, you've yet to point out who those other people are that you've read. And my bet is it's a blog or a YouTube video.
Would you take somebody's opinion about the Constitution, for example, based on their posted YouTube video, as serious researched evidence in an argument? Would you write an article quoting Johnny YouTube as proof of the way Americans think? God, I hope not. You'd get ripped apart in seconds by thinking people. Would you take that as valid evidence over the letters of the people who were alive at the time and were in a better position to argue what they meant to say at the time, like the Federalist/Anti-Federalist papers? Why on earth would you treat the theory of capitalism in the same way? And why should I honor the "merits" of a YouTube video, when you won't do ME the honor of reading Adam Smith?
I'm not "berating" you. I'm simply suggesting you do your homework before you lob Ron Paul in my face, as you like to do whenever you get the chance. You are talking about free markets based on other people's regurgitated arguments. It's perfectly legitimate that I ask whether you've read the actual foundational works about free markets.
What would cause me to get "off track" is to try to follow every single "point" you make down the rabbit hole it leads. You don't acknowledge points I make when they're made, you just try to throw up more or spam me with quotes. When you're at your worst, you rail about how some people are Marxist collectivists, or what have you, when it's obvious you've neither read their works nor their biographies. With major presumptions like that, you have the balls to suggest I address *your* arguments strictly on their "merits". I'm telling you there isn't much there worth talking about since your opinion is largely speculation and uninformed. I stand by that. There's a path you'd like me to follow and because I'm not taking it, it's "off track" to you. So what.
I'll remind you that this post was about Castro and the CIA; you came in and tried to make it, like everything else, about Ron Paul. Who got everybody off track again?
If Ron Paul is such a loon, I would just love to see you refute this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EZeNulOz9E
If he is crazy or stupid then this should be no problem for you.
I'm not voting for Ron Paul.
I'm not wasting my time on a YouTube video.
I'm tired of being given "assignments" by you when you don't do any in return.
You tell me to hunt down some books, which I have to make a dedicated effort to find.
I, on the other hand, give you extremely simple to access sites, which would require only a few minutes of your time.
Right, because ease of access is the most important thing. Eyeroll. I'm sorry finding books is a chore for you. I'm sorry it's not just a click away. God, you sound like some of my whiny students who complain they have to do a reading when I found the book for them, copied the article and passed it out.
I did the preliminary work. All you have to do is go pick it up. You didn't even have to research it yourself.
We've discussed YouTube videos before. Clicking your links may only require "minutes" of my time, but having to repeat the same information to you over and over again is obviously taking more than a few minutes. And it's only going to be replaced with another ease of access YouTube video, so why bother? You don't acknowledge or credit any points I do make, you just throw up another link.
And then bitch about the reading.
Did it ever occur to you that those pseudo "arguments" are easily accessable for reason?
You don't know until you have seen it.
I still find the argument that a book is always better than a website to be unconvincing.
The great thing about web sites is that everyone who sees the argument can also see the evidence. Right then and there, a person can hit the link to the alleged evidence, and see how good it is right then and there. Wheras, with arguments in a book, all parties have to have that same book.
If you feel as though I have not adequately addressed something with some source, you may show me again.
You find websites convincing because they are less work. I'm not falling for this crap of "wade through a million of my links, but I won't look at one book or article of yours." Using other website links as evidence from a website is like using the Bible to prove the Bible's authenticity.
I've seen plenty enough of your links by now to know the general content. I wouldn't accept them as researched evidence in my classroom (nor would any other classroom), so why should I accept them from you on my blog?
I have a busy life. But I can still figure out how to look at books and articles as well as websites. If I can, you can too. It still sounds like bitching about the reading involved.
Name some books/articles which you claim I have not seen. Just because I have not said "HEY VIRGIL, I READ BOOK X, ARTICLE Q AND MAGAZINE D" does not necessarily mean that I did or did not read it. Maybe I do not feel like I have to advertise every last piece of information I did or did not read.
Um...you said yourself that you hadn't read Adam Smith, Ayn Rand or Ludwig von Mises. And yet you still felt entitled enough to claim that because I had read them, I should "know better", even though you hadn't read them to know whether I should know better or not.
I gave you a list of things, because you asked me "where's the beef". I provided it for you. You're bitching about the reading list because it isn't a bunch of links you can scan quickly and respond to.
Debate, knowledge and research take work. It isn't as simple as watching Penn & Teller on YouTube.
I actually have read what those authors have wrote, just in small parts, often in essay form. I have also read essays by Murray Rothbard. Have I sat down to read those authors all at once? No.
But to state that someones arguments are invalid because they have not read something else is a form of argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to authority)
Bullshit. Go back and read your own posts and notice how many times you say something like "people should read Ron Paul's website for themselves before they make a decision"; hell, implying that I'd read things and should "know better" is an appeal to the authority of those ideas.
It's perfectly proper to use "appeal to authority" when someone is arguing from a position of ignorance.
That is not an appeal to authority. That is criticism for not reading about the very thing that the person is criticizing.
LOL.
That's ironic on so many levels.
Post a Comment
<< Home