Wednesday, October 29, 2008

OBAMA IS NO NERO

In 67 AD Nero held the Olympics in Greece and won every event.

I don't see Obama himself as Nero. He is not Nero. He's a good man. He didn't know about Reverend Wright. He didn't know about Bill Ayers. He didn't know what Rezko was up to. He didn't know what Acorn was doing behind his back. Nero on the other hand knew exactly what he was doing when Rome burned and he blamed it on the Christians and he ordered them to be martyred.

Obama doesn't realize that his judges will mandate the end of home schooling, and that schools are trying to destroy every last vestige of Christianity. He doesn't know that abortion is wrong. He doesn't realize how his tax policies will reward the indigent, and damage the work ethic of the country. Nero on the other hand really knew how evil he was, and never repented. Nero raped young men at their weddings, and had young men castrated, and married them against their will, and he raped the Vestal Virgin, and had sex with his own sister. Nero literally had no regard for marriage, or for the notion that it was meant to provide children with a loving family. Obama on the other hand seems to regard his own marriage with some sense of sanctity, but I fear that his judges will allow men to marry horses, and tables, and swans and make a mockery of marriage by allowing someone to marry their own mother, as long as they're "in love."

It may be that the far right is too unyielding, and has its descriptions of how society should work out of an unyielding Christian text that doesn't allow for wiggle-room. That can make tradition perhaps too tight. But it seems to me that the choice is between that and a kind of permissive chaos that runs from every difficult decision: Obama has said next to nothing about the border issues with Mexico, he wants to cut and run in Iraq undoing five years of hard work and sweat and blood, he wants to undo two millenia of marriage law, and he will allow all kinds of loons to become judges.

McCain's judgment isn't much better, but his party will force him to make harder decisions, and to clarify and tighten existing laws.

Obama is the last gasp of the 60s liberals, and has never known anything else. He's in a sense not responsible because he doesn't know that he is part of an irresponsible rabble that in many cases is trying to undo what's left of western civilization. Obama just doesn't know. He is like an artist that has inherited a vocabulary and working definitions, and he can put a good face on these tools, but doesn't know anything about where this vocabulary has been. He is not responsible for the fact that his substitute father figure Frank Marshall Davis was a communist poet under investigation by the FBI, and whose FBI file reveals that he was seen photographing the beaches of Hawaii to benefit the communist invasion forces. Obama doesn't understand where words like "redistribution" have been, and how such terms are code words for deeds that have undone whole societies. He doesn't know that Pol Pot used that word as he murdered half of his fellow citizens in order to provide for the other half. Obama doesn't know anything about the history of the left. He's been told it's good, and that's good enough.

The Culture Wars go back to Nero and Christian Rome. The Democrats are for Nero, whether they know it or not. The Republicans are for St. Paul...

If Obama wins, all we can do is pray that he will, like St. Paul, come to see the Light on his way to Washington.

140 comments:

Anonymous said...

Kirby,
I probably disagree with just about everything you wrote in this post. I can't believe we are back to comparing democrats to Pol Pot again. FYI, this kind of comparison makes you look a little silly.

What makes me happy about your post is a bit of hidden irony I read in it. I think these concepts are not very difficult to grasp and I am sure Obama could have a perfectly intelligent conversation with you about this. While McCain is not Bush/Palin stupid, he doesn't exactly seem above average in his intellectual acumen. I say this after watching the debates and felt that McCain was either trying to hide his policies or didn't really know/understand them. I'm not so sure McCain would be able to really engage you in this discussion.

--Tom

Jacques Albert said...

Yes Kirby, Obama has all the cunning of feigned ignorance and "inspires" self-willed ignorance among his blind followers in the public and his lying sycophants in the major media press. His recorded comparison of the US to Nazi Germany may resonate late with some of the undecided.

He seems to have "inspired" an Ohio state government functionary, Helen Kelley-Jones, to hold a special meeting at which she and her fellow flunkies decided to try to spy out some dirt in Joe the Plumber's private life through illegally accessing privileged "need to know" info on child support. Kelley-Jones is an Obama supporter and contributed the maximum $2300 personal donation to her candidate's campaign. Though they found nothing to damage Joe, this is only one instance of government employees in Ohio misusing their access to protected info to attack Joe the Plumber. Obama's people--it's what they do. I doubt whether the ACLU would really be interested in this case, but it's shameful they haven't yet spoken on the issue.

Kirby Olson said...

McCain is very poor in philosophy, Tom, I will grant that. But his party is not so poor. They will push him, and he will yield.

Obama's party will also push him, and he too will yield.

These guys are pawns for much greater agendas.

I prefer that of St. Paul to that of Karl Marx.

In a sense they are both after the same thing: a better world.

But I'm terrified of Marx's world.

I think I have reason to be.

The left is talking about shutting down talk radio, and closing down home schooling, and mandating that everybody go through their brainwashing.

I have a lot of friends on the left (probably most of my friends are Democrats), and yet, I think something really terrible is brewing in that party, unbeknownst to all, and is about to find a perfect toll for their agenda as CIC.

I frankly would prefer Ralph Nader, because I think Nader can actually think for himself.

I don't think that either Obama or McCain has any wisdom.

They may both have high IQs, but neither one has ever done any serious thinking.

It's scary.

But to me, Obama is much scarier, because of who's backing him, and because he seems to surround himself with very dark and dangerous figures, and he can't figure it out.

He's a kind of Bambi of the left.

He may yet wake up before he hits the Oval office.

But I fear the very worst: waking up in a one-party state where the Republicans (with whom I don't always agree), have been outlawed, and only one party remains in control of television, radio, the schools, and publishing, and even the churches will be silenced.

Already many pastors are under fire for speaking about politics during this election season.

Das ist verboden, says the left.

I want a multi-party state, where many competing institutions and factions remain in play.

Luther Blissett said...

After eight years of a regime that has stomped on nearly every American value, Kirby is worried that Democrats will oppress him.

G. M. Palmer said...

and he raped the Vestal Virgin, and had sex with his own sister.

That's Caligula (post sickness and possibly post-death propaganda) not Nero.

M

Other than that, you're quite right. Sorry Tom -- when the same rhetoric is used to justify Pol Pot and Obama a comparison is rightly drawn -- they are on both ends of the sword. Pol was just a little farther down the blade.

Anonymous said...

No GM, sorry it's not the same "end of the pole." Saying it simply doesn't make it true. Yes Obama has declared he will kill anyone that can read. I remember that from the debate. A good and compelling point GM! You're all right, we should be really afraid of the democrats! They might record our phone calls and monitor our emails illegaly! They might let oil companies determine our energy policy! They might bankrupt the country through corrupt wars, while lowering taxes the whole time... no reason for sacrifice. They might even open up a Gulag in Cuba and torture people! They might pass an ordinance allowing for military rule in the event of a terrorist attack or environmental disaster and declare martial law. We might lose a US city due to complete negligence. They might build concentration camps on US soil for "an immigration emergency or change in policy." Oh wait, the Republicans beat them to the punch. I would be very afraid of Obama because he might raise taxes for the wealthy. I'm terrified.

--Tom

Kirby Olson said...

Well, I didn't say that Democrats and Pol Pot were identical. I just said that the term "redistribution" has been used by other regimes and has a dark connotation.

I didn't mean it to say that in two years we'll weak up to loudspeakers telling us we have to go to work in the rice paddies.

It may be, too, that when Obama uses words like "spreading the wealth" he was just playing some kind of joke on Joe the Plumber.

It just may be that Obama has a marvelous sense of humor and fairness. I'm waiting with bated breath for his half hour infomercial tonight.

Meanwhile, McCain is on Larry King tonight.

I wonder if either one of them will have a single syllable that I haven't heard now fifty times.

But read Nero's wikipedia page -- GM. He did in fact rape a vestal virgin. I think he also slept with his sister, but that may be Caligula.

Once a fallen being comes to think of themselves as the Messiah, we find that things like this happen quite frequently.

Absolute power and such...

For me, I am just hoping that a balance of powers remains intact...

Anonymous said...

Keep in mind, Clinton had the house and senate yet could still not pass universal health care. It is hard to get through a progressive agenda due to corporate greed that backs many politicians.

Tom

Emmy Bee said...

In the space of two weeks I've seen wealthy go from $300,000 to $250,000 to $200,000 to $150,000.

A family of four living in New York or Los Angeles might find it very difficult to live a wealthy (or even upper middle class) lifestyle on $150,000. In rural North Dakota, their standard of living would be a bit better, but they still wouldn't be "rich."

Also, the reason national health care didn't pass was because a majority of Americans didn't want to pay for it. Not to mention the fact that it would cost just a measly 4 trillion dollars before even a single patient was treated under the new system.

But I agree. It works so darn well in Canada, the U.K., and Cuba. We're way behind the ball. Never mind that the University of Texas does more cancer research every year than the WHOLE COUNTRY of Canada. That sort of thing isn't relevant when we have such good intentions, is it?

Kirby--you rock! I agree with you about 143% minus the 40% of Americans who will be on federal welfare if Obama gets the orifice (typo fully intended).

Emmy Bee said...

And why the hell do they want to take away our 401K's, nationalize them, and give us "interest" barely amounting to the increase in the cost of living?

It has already been tried, and it is called Social Security. We all know how gosh darn well that worked out. Since they're doing such a great job managing our money, why don't we put them in charge of our college education, our health care, our child care, too!

G. M. Palmer said...

Tom --

Stealing a candy bar, stealing a wallet, stealing a million dollars from a bank, and stealing pension funds are all the same act in different degrees.

Obama's spreading the wealth and Pol Pot's procrustean violence are both aimed by an errant egalitarian ideal.

Jacques Albert said...

If, as Obama avers, our constitution is deeply flawed and our country drifting into Nazism, I'm sure drastic measures are on order for this glib redistributionist demagogue, as Kirby, Emmy, GM, and I fear. And the rogue's gallery he's surrounded himself with over the years inspires the same. Guess that's what LB calls defenders of "American values": unrepentant terrorists, socialists, communists, racist Jew-haters, crooks, indifferent executioners of the born and unborn alike, and last, corrupt politicians (just for a frosting of feigned respectability).

G. M. Palmer said...

Suetonius accused Nero of raping the Vestal Virgin Rubria (it was Caligula who was accused of rednecking it up with his sisters) -- Eglabalus married a VV, but that was later.

The problem, though, is that accusing a poor governor of bad governance connected to sexual depravity was de rigeur for the Romans -- and it's pretty impossible to tell the difference. At the time Rome still pretended to have morals -- I think Nero would have been killed for it.

G. M. Palmer said...

Yeah -- I really liked when Obama balked at the Constitution being a negative document.

Jeez-o-pete.

Max said...

It is so hilarious to see conservatives become fearful of Obama's charisma (they always seem to attribute to him this ability to just charm anybody into doing anything for him, implying that nobody can possibly approve of Obama for policy reasons ... all of us are just duped by his unavoidable, pungent celebrity-ness) when charisma is, by many conservatives' own admission, the reason why GWB was elected president. He had a certain folksy charm. He was from "outside the Beltway," the kind of guy you could "have a beer with."

Question:

What in the hell is new about a politician being charismatic? Is this something we've never once seen before? ALL POLITICIANS ARE CHARISMATIC. They have to be in order to get people to vote for them. But suddenly, because Obama is a charismatic guy, his "rise" is to be compared with only the rises of those most infamous historical characters like Stalin and Pol Pot. As if no good politician/leader has ever had charisma before. As if that hadn't been GWB's biggest selling point in 2000.

You guys are just eating up the McCain narrative about Obama being "the biggest celebrity in the world," a narrative that was played out before it even aired on TVs across the country. It seems like every argument coming from the right these days ignores Obama's actual policy stances, instead opting to build a false identity for him out of hay. He says something about raising taxes for the rich and lowering taxes for the middle class, and suddenly he's a hardcore commie. Lots of people show up to his rallies, and suddenly he's a "celebrity" with absolutely no substance (of course, if you ignore the substance, that must mean it doesn't exist, right?). It's really, really tired, guys. You need to find a new method of attack. Or better yet, maybe you should try getting some good ideas of your own.

Max said...

Kirby -

You say that Obama is a pawn, that his party will push, and he will yield. The results of this yielding will be the policies of Karl Marx (as opposed to those of St. Paul). But wait, I thought Obama was the Marxist, not the democratic party in general. I thought Obama was going to push the democrats into following through on a Marxist agenda he secretly values. How can this possibly be the case if you're now arguing that the democrats are going to supercede in his agenda, water it down, and make it ineffectual? Wouldn't that prevent Obama's latent Marxism from taking hold?

I think you need to get your story straight.

Max said...

Also Kirbster -

I'm not sure where you heard that "the left" is going to shut down the radio, or shut down home schooling. I think you're extrapolating the views of a small fringe minority and attributing them to the entire "left," which actually encompasses a wide variety of opinions and values.

The republicans have been trying to scare up this bogeyman of political equality on the airwaves, even though such a thing actually only has a small amount of support and wouldn't stand a chance of passing congress. And I'm not sure I've ever heard significant support, in any measure, for shutting down home schooling. Meanwhile, conservatives are pissing and moaning because the "liberal media" is "in the tank" for Obama. If anybody seems poised to embrace a move toward "political fair play" on the airwaves and beyond, it's the conservatives, who can't shut their traps about how unfair everything is just because their guy keeps screwing up bigtime and the media keeps reporting on it.

Kirby Olson said...

The problem for me at least is that I'm not sure where Obama stands, and where he claims to stand isn't where he really is: he said he would take public financing for instance and then broke the deal as soon as he saw a better deal.

He can look right in the camera and say anything that will get him elected.

He's just like W. in that respect.

McCain can't do it. He doesn't have that killer instinct.

It's too bad that it's that quality which will now get someone elected. At any rate, what I wrote is a kind of "worst case scenario." Who knows what OBama will actually do, or what he will be like.

No one knows. I don't even think that he knows what he thinks on almost any topic. He's an opportunist in search of an identity. We'll see what he thinks as time goes on.

I'm not certain that this election is out of reach for McCain. Last time around many had already called it for Kerry, when Bush won by 6 points.

Let's see on Tuesday night where we stand. Hopefully it will at least be a clear, and relatively clean election.

Jacques Albert said...

"glib . . . demagogue" is the only reference I made to the big O's so-called "charisma." Sure, max, just a guy you could guzzle whiskey, toke on a reefer, or snort coke with (nothing folksy about this pampered hothouse politician from the Chicago Demo machine who's managed to avoid working on a real job or managing a business his whole adult life).

No address by max to Obama's disparagement of the US constitution or the comparison of the US to Nazi Germany I mentioned.

"Spread the wealth" is just code for redistributionist "spread the poverty and misery" of the resentful underclass that votes for me to the middle and upper middle classes that don't. Typical class-war demagoguery. Welcome to Zimbabwe!

Everyone but M. max knows the Speaker of the House Pelosi favors the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" and wants to introduce it in the next Congress in order to gag conservative talk radio. Welcome to Putin's Russia!

And since max seems to prefer the major media babbling about how much the RNC spent on Sarah Palin's clothes to substantive investigative reports about Obama's profligate $600,000,000,000 campaign spending and where and how he's getting the swag to do this, he's not interested in reading anything that may impugn the fairy-tale narrative of his adored fearless leader.

Jacques Albert said...

Scotch three zeroes on the the O's campaign expenses. I was thinking of the O's "global poverty" redistribution proposal.

jh said...

last night i listenend to julian bond give a train ride speech of the last 60 yrs of democratic party politics...his focus was on the intelligent insight and leadership from senators from minnesota namely HHH and eugene mccarthy

you can have all the backstage teetering fear you want but it cannot be said that both historical and ideological integrity are lacking in the democratic party

i mean these guys worked hard for the greatest of ideals...for fairness...for transperency...jor civil justice....for economic justice

i think obama does betray a reflective and thoughtful side...two books which you say mean nothing but are rather lucid and honest accounts of intelligent realization of things in life

the left won't take away homeschooling...even they are realizing the social advantage to having smart wellmannered capable and talented kids come out of homeschooling...most college professors i know see a startling difference in the capacity for thinking and basic curiosity amongst homeshooled kids...and most professors are leftists....even william ayers advocates for some homeschooling

kirby
i know you're preferring high roman drama to the suggestions on my part that it's all soapopera...but i think the scene is so banal anymore that we have to call it that...you know i think it's time to be more interested in what is going on off screen the little secret dramas of the campaign trail

and i also note that yes it is the democrats who reformed the process and julian bond referred to this and the ridiculously long extended campaigns through the land were made possible even necessary by the democrats after '68....as a way of assuring that the people were engaged and talked to and thus challenging the institution of the party machine


the republicans are still working with the machine idea i think the democrats are running with the take it to the streets babay agenda

the factor i worry about today is that gasoline is down to about 2 $ s...news is all but invisible from iraq...wall street and DC are both sort of smuggly agreeing that the blood transfusion has worked...they are doing everything possible to make it look like bush finally pulled it out...and i think it is a heavy handed republican control of the media (lets be honest about the cliche of the left and media)...karl rove writes the scripts...rove and the ghost of milton friedman

perhaps the drama has peaked
we're over the top with it
the election will be an anticlimax
and the world will turn again
the spectacle winds down like a circus packing up and heading out of town (i own that last rhyme)

tell us kirby

what will it FEEL like to be
lead into perdition by
the evil minded democrats

the whole damn thing
is a ballet
a circus pandamonium
of apocatastasis

the good the bad and the ugly

i sit here typing
and i don't even know
if the world series
is still in play

what has happened to me?

all these old romans
flailing their swords and
their penises at the world

it did take st paul
to transform the place
into a polis of civility

that's why the lutherans
have to get on the wagon
with st peter
the other dangling martyr

there's a link between
the atheism of today
and the thinking produced
in the age right after
reformation

and it is essentially the rejection
of the wisdom of st peter

paul was like a drunk poet
with moments of lucidness
even grabbing the quill
from the hands of the lazy scribes and saying
i'll write the damn thing myself

peter was the true diplomat
even contending with
fierce differences of opinion
in his very community

paul needs to give peter
a big no interest loan

and let's see if we can
close down those nightclubs
the kids are getting crazy

i hope obama has meals every week with the entire staff
kitchen help and all
sitting at the table
eatin and yakkin
then we'll have civility again

j

i have noted that
that emmy bee
is playing cards
with more assertiveness
her words are getting sharper

all we are saying
is give peace a chance

Emmy Bee said...

Glad to hear someone on the left finally see the state of California for what it is: "a small [leftist] fringe minority."

Christians (or people of any faith or no faith at all) are no longer allowed to educate their own children at home unless they have a State-issued teaching degree.

For some households this poses a serious problem. If your values aren't liberal left, your and your child's values will be attacked in the public school setting.

In California public schools it is forbidden to speak of a mother and a father. Rather, children learn that there are no distinctions in parental roles.

They may be taken out of their Kindergarten class to witness a lesbian marriage on the way from their sex-education class.

Some conservative households may consider these realities that their children must learn to cope with in the real world. Others see the curriculum as an attack on their religious and moral values.

Who can say who is right?

The only recourse these families have is private schools, which many cannot afford, and will not be made affordable to them without the help of a voucher system.

In America it should be their right. It should be the right of every American family to seek out the best possible education for their children with the money they pay in taxes.

And by the way, the fairness doctrine would in essence shut down talk radio because stations would be forced to program shows that people do not want to listen to (Air America anyone?) so advertising revenues will sink through the floor. It will go from being one of the most profitable entertainment media to nothing.

The fairness doctrine could also apply to the internet. Australia is about to implement mandatory internet censorship. Australia is not a socialist Euro-country. They used to be known for their common sense and pragmatic approach to administration.

I sincerely hope that no one's freedom of speech be curtailed. If you don't believe in the freedom of speech for people or ideas you find repellent, you don't believe in free speech at all.

G. M. Palmer said...

Max --

Our local Democrats have said repeatedly that they want to control and curtail homeschooling in order to "save public schools."

Also, resurrecting the fairness doctrine will severly damage conservative talk radio, as liberal radio will either have to be subsidized (like NPR) at the conservatives' expense or conservative radio hobbled -- since it is a fact that liberal radio (Air America) is an unprofitable venture.

Now, on to our own opinions.

I don't know about anyone else here, Max, but I believe I have said before, I was signed up to be the Florida point-man for Republicans for Obama. I blogged briefly about him and then began serious research into what he has said. I copied all of his available speeches from his Senate files to my computer and begin reading and taking notes on them.

It was then that I realized that though Obama talked a good game and preached reconciliation -- and that he was a or had a very good speechwriter, he was no moderate. That he was, in fact, for income redistribution, senseless egalitarianism, vicious baby slaughter, and other Marxist ideals. I understood that "way back" in 2007.

I originally liked Obama because of his concilaitory words, his ability as a speaker, and his position on the Iraq (which was stupidly run until about 14 months ago), Afghanistan, and Terror wars. But then I read his positions on economics and governance and was chilled. Then, to make things worse, he flopped on Afghanistan and terror, promising to attack nations unprovoked. And I knew he was the leftist version of the neo-con Bush.

From what research do your opinions come, Max?

Kirby Olson said...

JH -- thanks for your serenity.

I'm enjoying the election season.

Here's a funny video by an African-American Republican comedian who shows up now and then with his frenetic style:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=KxhYampIl7A&feature=related

I rather enjoy him.

There's drama, and there's stand-up.

I like this guy: he's very honest at points, which is part of the truth of comedy. That is, that it must be honest.

G. M. Palmer said...

EB --

Homeschooling is illegal in Cali?

Fuck that fucking state. We should give it back to Mexico.

Anonymous said...

Wow there are some rather large claims in this post that seem rather far-fetched. California is a small leftist fringe minority? It usually ranks between the 5th-8th largest economy in the world! Oh and of course it is run by the nouveau Pol Pot Arnold Schwarzenegger. If I hear this guy citing passages from "The Grundrisse" again about Marx's explicitly stated policies regarding baby killing, then I am going to puke! I know I know, those bothersome facts again.

I am glad that California does not support home-schooling. Although I believe this was recently determined in a court case no? I support educators achieving credentials and think they should be more stringent in vetting teachers, especially in high school. I find it charming that for once, my government represents my opinion! Imagine teachers actually demonstrating knowledge in their fields, rather than having an education degree. They know how to teach, but know nothing.

Jacques, when does Obama compare the USA to Nazi Germany? I honestly cannot find one reference to this nor remember him doing this. Do you have a link that reflects this claim?

"They may be taken out of their Kindergarten class to witness a lesbian marriage on the way from their sex-education class."

What is this garbage?

I do not love Obama and am certainly critical of him as well. Ironically, I am critical of him based upon all of the conservatives worst fears; I hope what you say comes to pass, but am highly skeptical that it will as I understand the financial realities and their influence in this country. The conservatives in this blog seem to not grasp this concept.

For example:

Top Industries
Congressman Nancy Pelosi 2007 - 2008

Campaign Finance Cycle: 2008
Industry Total
Lawyers/Law Firms $186,900
Securities & Investment $137,400
Insurance $120,000
Real Estate $119,982
Lobbyists $94,900
Pharmaceuticals/Health Products $92,550
Health Professionals $90,900
Transportation Unions $90,300
TV/Movies/Music $89,750
Pro-Israel $84,490
Retired $75,800
Hospitals/Nursing Homes $70,700
Misc Finance $67,350
Building Trade Unions $59,600
Computers/Internet $57,750
Democratic/Liberal $56,600
Commercial Banks $56,100
Beer, Wine & Liquor $55,500
Women's Issues $55,150
Public Sector Unions $54,000

These sectors give money in exchange for favorable legislation in the future. This is a fact people. It's hard to take some of you seriously as you generally project complete ignorance of this governing reality. This is why Pelosi hasn't done shit. I can't tell you how disappointing she has been to the real leftists in this country. If the election is over by the time I vote, in PST, then I will most likely cast my vote for Nader again as I have since 1996.

Let's face it, McCain has simply not run an effective campaign. It reminds me of the campaign that Kerry ran four years ago: muddy, attacking, and unfocused. It is hard to attack McCain as he offers such few details regarding his domestic policy ideas. I am convinced that he doesn't really have any! He has a foreign policy, but people- no one in this country gives a shit about Putin at the moment! The Palin nomination backfired as he thought it would energize his base, and it did, but turned off many swing voters in my opinion. Palin doesn't resonate with many people. It turns out that the folksy Alaskan thing appeals to... well... folksy Alaskans and other underdeveloped rural areas. Sadly, I do think she has a political future once she is a polished product. Bush developed as a speaker and she probably can as well. It makes me cringe.

--Tom

DeadMule said...

“I'm terrified of Marx's world,” you write.

“The left is talking about shutting down talk radio, and closing down home schooling, and mandating that everybody go through their brainwashing.” Huh?

You might as well concentrate on becoming a better Surrealist, because the Lutheran part (Lutheran is Christian) just isn’t taking. Where is that spirit of “a sound mind”? You act like a nervous Nellie, not someone who knows the Maker of the Universe.

In the 60s, any time blacks got too ambitious and made the establishment (old white men) nervous, the old white man cried “socialist” or “communist.” What they meant was, I’m loosing my privileged status.

Have none of you read Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community?”? He explained that while white people were satisfied with “progress,” blacks were seeking “Equality.” The marches changed the laws, and whites were okay with that. But King said the fight for “equality” would not be won so easily. White people would resist because “equality” would cost more than they were willing to pay; it would cost them their status.

This election is more about race than most people know. It is not about “socialism” or about “communism”; it is about economic equality for blacks and other poor people (for King identified racism, poverty, and militarism as the “triple evils” that must be fought together). White people know that “equality” will require a loss of “their money,” and they won’t have that, so they scream “socialist,” because they don’t want to see themselves as racists.

Anonymous said...

To all of the conservatives who like to criticize Obama, I want you to read an article by an actual hard-left socialist, Mike Davis. This will give you a sense that yes, the democrats are not socialists and that the left... well it gets a lot lefter than you think. Mike Davis is a very well respected Marxist urbanist/urban planner.

http://sites.google.com/site/radicalperspectivesonthecrisis/news/mike-davis-on-obama-and-the-unlikliehood-of-a-new-new-deal


--Tom

Jacques Albert said...

Tom:

On Obama's talk about America drifting into Nazism (from an NPR interview in 2001):

www.youtube.com/watch?v=kX5nZ_svS7E has the audio, I believe.

On the busing of public school children on a field trip to a lesbian wedding (officiated by SF's village-idiot mayor, Gavin Newsom):

See "Queerly Beloved" http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=77734

Deadmule:

You must know that the Obama campaign has leaped at every opportunity to inject race into both the primary and general election campaign debates. You make the conventional socialist argument that what's paramount is equality of result rather than equality of opportunity, for if inequality of result exists, that is prima facie evidence that there is inequality of opportunity. We've all heard that unconvincing tripe about opposition to socialism being racism in disguise. One of the advantages of bleating this charge out so loudly and so often is that it immunizes many from the toxic symptoms of this senseless canard. BTW: You might throw off the chains of your apparent addiction to manacling so many terms you use in "scare quotes."

Jacques Albert said...

Tom:

I sampled some of the writing on Davis's website. Pretty standard socialist cheerleading about the current economic crisis and how to invoke the ghost of Karl Marx Past before a supposedly bewildered Uncle Sam. Davis uses the Nazi "stab in the back" canard about post-WWI Germany and compares Sarah Palin to the notorious anti-Semite Father Coughlin. Obama probably wouldn't think much of the comparison, considering his several Jew-hating associates like Wright and Khalidi and his support for the Fun with Farrakhan million-bot march.

G. M. Palmer said...

Tom,

find me a pro-life Marxist and I'll stop referring to eugenic baby-slaughter as a Marxist ideal.

Also, Tom,

the regulation of child-rearing to the state is a totalitarian ideal, so I expect you to be anti-homeschooling. As an anti-statist and moreover as a parent, I view the right to raise and educate my children as inalienable.

You know who else was anti-homeschool?

Pol Pot.

Anonymous said...

Jacques,
I don't expect any of the conservatives to agree with Davis; rather, I wanted to demonstrate to you what the real marxist-left is like. Note, there is quite a difference from what you hear Obama state and that Davis is critical of Obama. Davis does not embrace him as one who will realize the Marxist dream. I'll try to check out the Obama comment today. You cannot take one instance of children going to a wedding and state that the entire state of California embraces this as part of their curriculum. Yes I am sure they are doing this in Chico, Stockton and Redding.

GM your logic is so flawed I'm not so sure it merits a rebuttal.

--Tom

Kirby Olson said...

G.M. This made my day:

"You know who else was anti-homeschool?

Pol Pot."

That was just brilliant.

Kirby Olson said...

Points also to Jacques for his "equality of opportunity" argument. Thanks for that.

We're getting to be like an aikido school with everyone practicing their moves, and strengthening their thinking.

I love it. It's so fair and balanced, too.

Kirby Olson said...

Question for Emmy Bee -- what is this about the internet now being controlled (by whom?) in Australia?

It would employee half the country to monitor the other half. Who's paying for that?

What's the rubric?

I can't believe this could be true outside of a place like N. Korea in which they probably don't even have computer portals except for his Highness, who's now seemingly disabled by illness so maybe his aides are finally getting around to playing Donkey Kong.

jh said...

maybe pol pot believed in
radical homeschooling

kind of like the way
the american military
sought to educate
the indigenous people
homeschooling
but with real social lessons

there is joy in the streets
of the city of brotherly love

maybe everyone who has a TV is
homeschooled somehow

Anonymous said...

jacques,

He stated that the US was looking uncomfortably similar to Nazi Germany and he has a point. There is some state sponsored violence and segregation based on race; moreover there are the racist crowds that have committed countless crimes against blacks during the era. There is also a widely held view that white's are superior. He didn't compare it to the Holocaust. Don't forget that only constitutes 4 years of the Reich as the final solution to the Jewish question. He did not say it was exactly like Nazi Germany. He is certainly not the first person to draw this ironic comparison and I think there is some truth in it. The west didn't give a shit about what was hapenning in Nazi Germany regarding the Jews anyway. If they did, they would have vastly increased the quota for immigration, as would many other Euro nations.

--Tom

G. M. Palmer said...

So it's okay to say the US is proto-fascist but to say that academia and the ruling class of the left is fascist is right out?

Max said...

Kirby -

I guarantee you that McCain would have rejected public financing if he thought he could raise more without it. His fundraising was lackluster all throughout the primaries, and it's lackluster now. Public financing was an easy choice for him. The bottom line is that even though McCain took public financing, the RNC was still able to raise money on his behalf, and the McCain campaign has been litigating for the ability to spend emergency funds (by the rules, normally to be reserved to pay off campaign debt) in order to do a variety of non-"emergency" spending. Let me say that again: He claims to be Mr. Campaign Finance Reform, and certainly his voting record would reflect that, but he's trying to bend the rules about which money can be spent on what through the very "judicial activism" he publicly deplores.

Also, what we're seeing from McCain right now IS THE KILLER INSTINCT. All he can do is go negative, because he knows that he doesn't have a leg to stand on. He could have decided to run a clean campaign, even if it didn't give him the best chance of victory, but he's decided to slash and burn instead, even though it also doesn't stand a chance of getting him anywhere. McCain had an opportunity to choose a dignified path and he balked. This campaign he's running now will stain his legacy permanently. This is all because of the "killer instinct" that you claim he doesn't possess. He's going for the throat even when he knows it won't get him anywhere. He's like a fish thrashing in the dirt.


Jacques -

Here's the problem with repubs complaining about all the flak Palin got for her pregnant daughter and the $150,000 shopping spree. You would have a point if these facts didn't reflect directly on the image she has created for herself. The reason why Palin's pregnant teenage daughter matters is because Palin would seek to promote an agenda by which sex education consists only of teaching abstinence. Well, I'm sorry, but if you don't have a clean house, you have no business telling me to clean mine. It doesn't work that way. And with the spending spree: you don't get to act like a salt of the earth, middle class "hockey mom" and spend $150,000 on clothes in one month. Nobody in the middle class has ever spent $150,000 on clothes in a month, because having access to the kind of funds necessary for such a transaction (whether they're from your own accounts, or the accounts of the RNC) automatically places you outside the middle class. I'm sorry, that's just the way it is. And that's why these stories matter. It's not just a baseless "smear" on Palin. It directly contradicts the image she and her handlers have worked so diligently to build up. It reveals her persona as an out and out lie.

Oh, and "Joe the Plumber" now has a publicist, and is perhaps pursuing a country music record deal. I'm now 100% sure I don't have to listen to a word the guy says. Good ol' "Hollywood Joe" is living it up on his newfound fame. Last time I checked, Obama didn't have a Def Jam record contract in the works. Maybe "Joe the Plumber" is a bigger celebrity than Obama. Perhaps he can open for "Larry the Cable Guy" at comedy clubs. Fancy that.


Emmy -

Work to change the law in CA, then. You're talking about lawmaking in one state, not federal lawmaking. What the hell does that have to do with Obama?

I'd like to read the literature on this (was it a court decision or a law?). On one hand, I agree with you. I think that people should be able to decide how their children are educated. But at the same time, I think that, kids being kids, they have a right to a certain level of education. Kids are young. They don't have much power. They don't really have an opportunity to complain, or really know if they even should complain, if they are not receiving a quality education. When I say "quality education," I'm not referring to what is learned, but rather the pedagogical training of the person who teaches it. I think all children have the right to learn from teachers who have pedagogical training, who in other words know how to teach. It seems to me that if you want to teach your own children, you should have to be certified like every other teacher. Again, this has no bearing on what one teaches, but how one teaches (content vs. pedagogy).

As far as the fairness doctrine is concerned, it just ain't gonna happen. Just because it's Pelosi's hobby horse doesn't mean it stands a chance of passing Congress. The democrats are likely not going to quite get a filibuster-proof majority this season, which means they would need to get some republicans on their side, and they would have to count on 100% support from democrats, which they certainly do not have on this contentious issue. I honestly think that the fairness doctrine is just a bogeyman used by conservative talk radio hosts to make listening to their shows sound like some patriotic duty (and thereby boost their ad revenue).

And I repeat: the people I hear screaming loudest about media bias are the conservatives bloviating about the "MSM."

G. M. Palmer said...

is because Palin would seek to promote an agenda by which sex education consists only of teaching abstinence.

untrue! Palin said she would support ab-only over "explicit sex-ed programs" -- have you ever seen an explicit sex-ed program? One came to a middle school I taught at. It was totally in poor taste, uninformative, and inappropriate. She's said elsewhere that she supports contraceptive education -- which doesn't need to be explicit at all.

On to education, proper.

Speaking from 9 years of experience (and a graduate degree, too boot) and pardon my yelling,

PLEASE READ AND UNDERSTAND THIS:

MIDDLE AND HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS WHO ONLY HAVE EDUCATION DEGREES ARE, ON BALANCE, MORONS.


The good teachers at the post-elementary level are all degreed in their subject area.

For the most part, people don't go into education because they are brilliant -- they go because they are either a) idealistic or b) too smart for public assistance but too dumb for any kind of "real world" job. Guess who tends to quit in droves (group a, for those of you playing at home).

What does that leave us with? Morons in the classroom. In inner city schools, kids would do better to watch Sesame Street and play Xbox than go to some schools. Most parents can easily do better through at least the 3rd grade. They certainly used to -- Jefferson and Washington weren't a product of a public education.

Why do you need a piece of paper to teach your kids how to read and do math?

and, furthermore,

MOST, IF NOT ALL, PEDAGOGICAL THEORY IS BULLSHIT. ESPECIALLY THE CRAP THEY TEACH IN EDUCATION PROGRAMS

Emmy Bee said...

Max:
"And with the spending spree: you don't get to act like a salt of the earth, middle class "hockey mom" and spend $150,000 on clothes in one month. Nobody in the middle class has ever spent $150,000 on clothes in a month [. . .] It reveals her persona as an out and out lie."

Actually, dear, I wouldn't say that the campaign spending money on her wardrobe says anything about her unless it is that she didn't have 28 pant suits at $6,000 a pop like Hillary Clinton. She's a mom, a wife, a governor, she doesn't need 28 designer pant suits.

Unfortunately, it is hard to get anyone to take you seriously when you're wearing a pony tail and sweat pants. Ask Obama! His custom-tailored suit for that extravagant Nero-like extravaganza in Denver cost $8,000.

"When I say "quality education," I'm not referring to what is learned, but rather the pedagogical training of the person who teaches it."

So you're more interested in the method than in the results, intriguing! If a teacher is "good," but the kids don't learn anything, that's fine with you, is it?

"What the hell does that [outlawing home schooling] have to do with Obama?"

It has to do with a wider liberal agenda which is very disturbing to those who value their liberty and the right to self-determination. Under Obama, you would not have the right not to have health insurance, to make decisions about how you are going to conduct your life.

Like his wife, Michelle, said: "Barack will not let you go back to life as usual, uninvolved, uninformed." What if some of us want to decide for ourselves what is best for us and our children? Do we have to sign that right away for a $500 annual check and a free doctor's visit?

If I were attempting to form a permanent one-party government in this country, this is what I would do:

1) Get to the children early, teach them my values, and make it socially unacceptable to challenge those values.

2) Make as many people dependent on me as possible for health care, education, food stamps, welfare, social security.

3)Establish a life-long presence in the National Security forces, the FBI, the CIA, and the Justice Dept.

4) Get as many like-minded people as I can in the high-courts so that allegations of voter fraud and corruption within my government go nowhere.

5) Make the population feel helpless and miserable, then dangle a carrot in front of them of a better future, even though its gonna hurt, and it isn't gonna be fun so I can do all of the above.

Sound familiar?

G. M. Palmer said...

EB:

it either

1) won't to max

2) or he'll say that's what republicans do. Sigh.

Max, when did you become a leftist? What were the thought processes leading up to your current political state of mind? Have you considered neo-conservatism? Centrism? Libertarianism? Have you explored these options? Can you argue from their POV?

Skittles, The Huntress said...

I don't have time to respond to all the comments, but I have to respond to Emmy Bee's assertions about schools in California.

Homeschooling is allowed. Parents need to register at the County offices, and their children will need to pass the same state required proficiency exams that all other children need to pass for graduation. The proficiency exams are reading, writing, math, science, etc. Not about gay sex.

And children are not forbidden to speak of a father or mother.

As far as a kindergarten class taken to city hall to witness a gay marriage....will someone please provide a link to a reliable news source for that story?

There's a lot of stupid flak flying around now because we are voting on an amendment to the state constitution, which would define marriage as between a man and woman. This all started because Californians voted in a law banning gay marriage, which was challenged in court and overturned under equal protections.

So, Emmy Bee, your characterization of California is off base. We tried to ban gay marriage. Now we are trying to change the state constitution.

What we do have going on right now are serious legal issues over this. Because the law was banned, under equal protections, some gay rights groups are thinking of suing churches that refuse to marry them. Then that starts to invoke separation of church and state.

Plus the proposition on this ballot is an actual constitutional amendment. The polls are running neck and neck on this proposition, but if it passes it will face years of legal battles.

Plus gay rights groups have made Lawrence King into a poster child. He was a gender confused boy going to school dressed as a girl. Another boy killed him. (EO Green School in Oxnard) But there has been a backlash as well, as it came out later that King was in fact harassing the other student and spreading rumors that the other boy was gay and having a relationship with King.

It has been a mess for sure, but Emmy Bee's statement that California is a "small leftist fringe minority" is insulting.

WW

BTW: I double checked on the school issues with two of my good friends, both of whom were school principals in San Diego, and are now directors with an organization called AVID. I think their info is pretty sound.

Jacques Albert said...

max seems to have an uncanny talent for piling up remarks of nugatory value.

On McCain's agreement with Obama to take public funding, the apparently clairvoyant max knows McCain's mind (in spite of McCain's years-long campaign against big lobby election financing) better than McCain himself--perhaps these groundless delusions are born of vicarious emulation of Obama's Neronian narcissism and almost juvenile self-confidence--who knows? But all max's pointless faux-legalistic quibbling and qualifying cannot justify Obama's reneging on the agreement with McCain when he saw it was to his financial advantage to break it. Obama lied. So this empty suit was already breaking his campaign promises even long before the election!

McCain has been far too generous to a corrupt Chicago politician and stealth candidate like Obama for the country's good; this furtive cypher has throughout the campaign been treated with a princely deference quite extraordinary in US election history. As far as qualifications for Commander-in-Chief, McCain has shown experience and sacrifice, while Obama has shown . . . absolutely nothing. Not even his false kiddie story about his uncle helping to liberate Auschwitz.

max's fetish for babbling on about the cost of Sarah Palin's clothes (compare this to Obama's profligately costly financial campaign largesse) is a bit eerie. My point was to illustrate how pointless all this gossipy major media sartorial jabber is compared to the significant issues in the campaign, and max and the major media have simply confirmed this claim beyond expectations.

As is now de rigeur for max, he didn't even touch on the issue presented of the violation of Joe the Plumber's privacy by Ohio bureaucratic flunkies. Just pointless gossip about Joe's attempt to defend himself and get publicity against those in positions of power who would attempt to ruin him in order to punish him for his rejection of the Messiah's forked-tongued blandishments.

On pedagogy, GM makes much more sense than max. Those who know their subjects well don't need instruction in pedagogy. Practice perhaps, emulation of successful teachers perhaps, but not education or pedagogy classes. None--period. And that includes parents. My six years of public school teaching before I returned to university to seek the PhD for college teaching required a year of pedagogical classes, which were a mere distraction from real learning and from preparation for guiding young learners. And I don't think max needs to instruct us on the meaning of pedagogy.

Max said...

GM -

The problem is that, quite often, the definition of "explicit" changes to whatever isn't abstinence-only, when it happens to benefit the arguments of social conservatives. You can sit there all day and point out sex ed cases that are exceptions to the rule, but the bottom line is that most programs that teach more than abstinence are not "explicit," yet they still get battered by social conservatives like Palin, because apparently contraception does not stem the spread of STD as all relevant research suggests it does. I took regular ol' normal sex ed classes in middle and high school, and while we learned about contraception, nobody ever showed us porno, or broke out the dildos (or even bananas) in order to show proper condom use. I do remember, vaguely, seeing a short film of a childbirth. But honestly, there was nothing sketchy about it. Just because extreme exceptions to this rule exist does not mean that we can't properly implement programs that teach more than just abstinence. It's a false choice. You know it. Palin knows it.

Also, what is your metric for determining that the vast majority of public school teachers are morons? Is this just common sensical to you, or do you have some kind of data to back up your argument?


Emmy -

Of course the campaign spending $150,000 on Palin in a month and having her stylist as their top-paid worker says something about the image she and her handlers have proposed, of Palin being just your average, middle class "hockey mom." The average, middle class "hockey mom" cannot go on $150,000 shopping sprees at Neiman Marcus. Most of them will never set foot in Neiman Marcus. One of Palin's strong suits is the image she puts forth, an image in which many people believe. The $150,000 spending spree damages this image because it reveals an inconsistency. Nobody is saying that Palin should be strutting around in $10 t-shirts. We understand that people in the public eye have to dress well. But even Obama seems to have foreseen that he might be called out for superficial crap like this (a la Kerry and Edwards) and opted to dress in U.S. made, union labor-produced suits of relatively modest price (I believe he wears $2000 suits, certainly not middle class, but not anywhere near as pricey as he could get, especially since he obviously has the money for an ostentatious wardrobe). There is such a thing as tact. Even if there were no real point to the criticism of Palin's spending spree (there is a point, of course), it isn't even a politically smart move. You'd think that, if they knew they would have to divulge their financial information, they would have foreseen these criticisms and opted for a spending plan that went a little bit more under the radar. If nothing else, it betrays the stupidity of the McCain campaign.

Also, I defy you to provide actual documentation of Obama wearing an $8000 suit. Where did you get this information? As I understand it, he buys his suits tailored from a union place in Chicago. U.S. labor, nowhere near $8000, more like $2000-3000, etc, etc, etc. Even if it's merely a political move on his part, at least it's a smart one.

Anyway, what's the argument here? That because Palin is a woman, and women cost lots to "doll up" for public consumption, that means a $150,000 spending spree is justified? When were McCain supporters going to be made aware that $150,000 of their money was being spent just so Palin could be strutted out in the finest of high falutin' garb? There are even legal questions as to whether it's okay for the RNC to have spent the money on clothes in the first place. At what point does $150,000 cease to be a "wardrobe budget"--a legitimate campaign expense--and the enriching of oneself at the donors' expense?

As far as the CA home schooling thing: that is a state issue. I assume you are in line with the libertarian idea that the states should decide such matters. Well, California made a decision. This is the libertarian ideal playing out right before your eyes. If you don't like it, move somewhere else or seek change locally. You people love states rights when the people share your agenda, but you hate them when the people are commie, pinko lib'rals. Cry me a freakin' river.


GM -

You took the words right out of my mouth. The only thing the republicans haven't already done on that list is "make people dependent on national healthcare." Just because you could foresee my response doesn't mean the response is of low quality. I'm glad that you can see the contradiction in Emmy's statements, even if Emmy herself cannot. This is just another example of a conservative projecting the anxieties about his/her own ideology onto liberals. What the hell have conservatives been railing about for the last 8 years? Well, let's see ... Education reform: No Child Left Behind ... teaching creationism/ID in schools ... school prayer ... political affiliation quotas at universities. Oh yeah, and they've bloated the security bureaucracy even more with the Dept. of Homeland Security, which purports to sync up the various security institutions and make communication between them much easier and more fluid. That's your police state right there. Oh, and what about the supreme court again? Oh yeah, Bush appointed 2 new conservative justices. Obama ain't even president yet and you're acting like he's appointed 4 former abortion doctors to the SC. And who presided over the country during the 8 years over which we became miserable? Oh yeah, that was Bush, and a republican congress for 6 years.

This is a classic case of projection. You can sit there all day and say "but I didn't support the republicans, they don't represent me," and I'm sure you will say that. But it begs the question: why does McCain, who is a republican and admitted himself that he voted consistent with Bush's policies 90% of the time, get a pass? Why is Obama the bogeyman here? It makes absolutely no sense. None at all. And the worst part is that you know it. You know that your entire characterization of what Obama's presidency will be is bogus, and is a far better description (leaving out the "national healthcare" portion) of what we have seen happen over the last 8 years of republican rule.

Jacques Albert said...

WW:

I'm no stranger to California schools; I graduated from Hueneme High School in Oxnard, California, just a short distance from E.O Green Junior High School. What I'm a stranger to is the weird veer in California politics that seems to have possessed its unfortunate denizens and given this state's politics the deserved reputation of the truly bizarre.

For example, San Francisco's city "government" seems to comprise a rabble of irresponsible ideologues (their anti-military hostility and pro-gay bias are notorious) that cannot restrain itself from the most juvenile exhibitionism--like their "dedication" of a sewer plant to President Bush. What puerility from reputed adults! What a zoo! And on the busing of first-grade children in a public school to a lesbian wedding in the guise of a field trip--if you doubt the source I've already offered, WW, do a cursory search and you'll find it well-documented.

Jacques Albert said...

Sorry, max, though I worked in hospital for some years, cleaning up logorhea is too much to ask. That's just playing your self-aggrandizing game.

Skittles, The Huntress said...

Jacques Albert,

Hueneme High? I had no idea. To think that two followers of LS know how to actually pronounce Port Who Needs Me! I worked for the Navy at the base in Port Hueneme. Bad time in my life. In fact, Skittles, The Huntress was found on the naval base there. But I digress.

Ok, I found the article of the first grade class.

I still take exception to Emmy Bee's characterizations of California. San Francisco is not ALL of California. As a city, it is out there way over the ledge of left wing politics.

We tried to ban gay marriage. Now we are trying to make it a constitutional amendment. Not all of us are out there on that left wing ledge.

WW

Max said...

Jacques -

Naw, that's just you feeling free to rebut when it's a matter of opinion, but ignore when you're obviously defeated. You need to stop projecting your own ideological deficiencies onto others.


WW -

I don't really know much about San Francisco politics, but I can assure you that putting the gay marriage issue out as an example of "far left" ideology is quite absurd. Naming a sewage plant after George Bush? Okay, I'll give you that as "far left." That's pretty bad (slightly funny, yes, but only because of the are-you-kidding-me? pettiness of the act, not who it is directed at). It seems to me that banning gay marriage is more an example of a "far right" attitude than the opposite is an example of "far left."

1) Religious groups have all the right in the world to limit their marital services only to members of specially designated social groupings. If a church wants to say that they will only recognize and perform marital services for man/woman couples, then so be it. If they, for some oddball reason, wanted to only perform services for same-sex couples, hell, more power to them.

2) Federal and state governments have no business defining marriage as between a man and a woman. By this very process, federal and state governments could eliminate legitimate religious marriages by defining marriage as between man/man or woman/woman. The religious groups wouldn't like government intervention in the matter very much if that happened, now would they?

3) Some religious groups say: "just leave the word 'marriage' alone and we're all good." Okay, let religious people keep the word "marriage," and let's call state and federally recognized "marriages" "civil unions" instead.

4) It is clear that federal and state governments attempting to define marriage would actually constitute a religious preference. Not necessarily a preference for any one religion, but "for religion" in general. The access to marital rights would, in other words, depend on meeting and adhering to a religious standard.

Emmy Bee said...

WW--

That little passage you keep railing about was not in my own words but that of Max's. I simply extrapolated his quotation to a real-life example in a larger population group. I do accept that CA is probably filled with lovely people who reject San Francisco politics whole heartedly, and I am very glad for their sensibilities.

As for home schooling in CA:

"The [state appellate] court on Feb. 28 upheld provisions in the state's education code that say parents must enroll their children in a public or private school. If they're being home schooled, they must be taught by a credentialed teacher or face possible fines or criminal charges." --USA Today

"The California Department of Education currently allows home schooling as long as parents file paperwork with the state establishing themselves as small private schools, hire credentialed tutors or enroll their children in independent study programs run by charter or private schools or public school districts while still teaching at home." The L.A. Times

The ruling was made by an appellate court, and is in the process of being appealed in the Supreme Court of CA.

I can only hope that home-schooling families retain the right to provide an education for their children without recourse to the State indoctrination machine.

Wanna talk about money and image?

Why is it that when the Obama campaign contributes over $800,000 to an ACORN front group, a group which is being investigated for massive voter fraud and bribery, no one bats an eye?

Why is it that Obama accepts campaign calls to be made on his behalf by foreigners. One particularly interesting example is a young Gazan fellow who recently told reporters that he had been making tele-solicitation calls (unofficially, I should add) for the Obama campaign for months.

Obama got a sweetheart real-estate deal from the convicted felon slum lord Tony Rezko, something which the average American couldn't have managed.

Obama has collected donations from "supporters" with names like Seymour Butts, Micky Mouse, Jgtj Jfggjjfgj, Della Ware, and Imon Deathrow.

"CBS News has learned that two donors to the Obama campaign that gave a total of $7,722 appear to have made their contributions under fake names that look like they were written by a mouse running across a keyboard: Dahsudhu Hdusahfd of Df, Hawaii with the following employer CZXVC/ZXVZXV and Uadhshgu Hduadh listed as living in Dhff, Florida listed their employer as DASADA/SAFASF."

And perhaps most disturbingly:

"Palestinian brothers inside the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip are listed in government election filings as having donated $29,521.54 to Sen. Barack Obama's campaign." --World Net Daily

If Obama is in fact accepting money from foreign countries for the purpose of becoming President of the United States (which is illegal,) he must register as a foreign agent--and who would want a foreign agent as the President?

Skittles, The Huntress said...

Well Emmy Bee, I'll just have to look up a California definition of credentialed teacher. Amd I will be double checking her citations.

I really want to get into this discussion, but I'm so friggin tired from working two full time jobs and two volunteer positions.

From a legal standpoint, I would say California is struggling with what equal protection is. If Emmy Bee is correct, then I can see it as the state ensuring all have equal access to a certain level of education. I don't view that as bad. And I still think Emmy Bee is painting with a broad brush stroke. One cannot do that in California right now. We are incredibly diverse, both liberal and conservative.

But don't think I'm agreeing. There are many twists, turns, and permutations on this. Plus Emmy Bee has not provided proper documentation that children in CA schools cannot speak of a father or mother. that's just absurd.

GM:

As far as your 4 assertions, they are all about to be challenged in California courts.

We may some day wish for Rose Bird to still be chief justice of the state supreme court. She's looking quite conservative now.

WW

Max said...

Emmy -

Why don't these home schooling parents simply get certified as teachers before they teach their children? It seems like the very least these parents should be required to do in order to ensure that their children are receiving quality educations. Certification says nothing about what one teaches, but rather that one knows how to teach. They can teach creationism or whatever the hell they want. They should simply need to be certified teachers beforehand.

Also, can you provide non-partisan documentation about all of these money-related things? I'm not going to take all of this stuff at your word, and I unfortunately do not have enough time on my hands to go digging around for each piece of information independently, and even if I did, I'm not sure I'd care to. I momentarily considered going to some site to look up all the dirty money McCain has probably received from sources X, Y, and Z, but I don't really see anything profitable in that. It's as lame an argument as when politicians try to accuse their opponents of owing back taxes. $150,000 on clothes is a showy fact/figure. That's why people pay attention. It seems absurd. Talking about the speculative implications of donating money to a community organizing group, or of random donations to a political campaign, doesn't really have any significance. There's no meat on the bone, except for the meat that you already want to believe is there, if you are already inclined to believe such a thing. Palin receiving $150,000 in clothes over 1 month, however, bears pretty directly on the image she and her people have designed for public consumption. It is not speculation that spending $150,000 on clothes in 1 month puts you well outside "middle class" status. It is a fact. Do you see the difference?

Bottom line. Campaigns gets money from everywhere, and usually when they get it from places that are found to be improper, they return it. What happened with this money that Obama supposedly got from the Palestinian folk? Why isn't he being brought up on criminal charges, or disqualified, or whatever? If it's illegal and it happened, let him be disqualified, or receive the appropriate penalties. I won't argue. But I also am not going to take the conservative World Net Daily at its word, nor am I going to live in some illusory universe where it is believed that republicans never once received an unethical dollar for their campaigns. Have you done any research on McCain's finances? I'm sure you could just as easily dig up some dirt on him, but you don't seem terribly interested in doing so, and even if you did, you'd probably question the source, etc, etc, etc. So as for posting this stuff here and having an argument about it, there's not much profit to be made. The Palin spending spree reflects directly on her image in a completely non-speculative way. The Obama finance stuff you dug up as a rebuttal is entirely speculative in its implications. That is the difference.

G. M. Palmer said...

Certification says nothing about what one teaches, but rather that one knows how to teach.

Bullshit. Certification says one got passing grades in 5 college classes that have no bearing on real world experience and passed a standardized test that any idiot could (and has) passed.

You don't know how to teach until you've taught.

And, really, the BEST teachers I ever had did exactly one thing in their classrooms:

lectured.

They didn't give workshop time. They didn't have group presentations. They stood in front of us, opened their beautiful brains and let flow the Word. Sometimes they answered questions -- but it general it was all we could do as students to write down what they knew.

In the school I'm currently teaching, they would be considered "bad teachers" because they don't "involve their students" -- because what you know isn't important anymore, it's how you do it -- process has completely subordinated content and product -- which is insane.

We shouldn't care how something gets done, only that it does.

G. M. Palmer said...

Oh, and G.G. Liddy probably wasn't a date rapist and pimp.

And McCain wouldn't have studied under Liddy, either.

Now tell me why Obama should get a pass?

And I don't give McCain a pass. I just don't think he wants to remake America in the image of the New Puritans.

G. M. Palmer said...

And before you sling too much mud on Ms Ron, she wrote that in January of 2006, long before Ayers/Obama.

Max said...

GM -

Teachers do student teacher training. They get actual in-classroom teaching experience. 'Nuff said there.

And once again, we're back to your jargon about personal experience. What if lecturing doesn't work? I'd like to believe that children are being taught by people who know a multitude of teaching methods that they can try if the ram-it-down-their-throat method proves ineffective.

Interesting how a guy who buys into the conservative portrayal of Obama as "The One" would advocate a top-down teaching method like lecturing as the proper way to raise a generation that views the world critically and thinks for itself (as opposed to the liberal sheep who blindly buy into Obama's celebrity status).

McCain's association with Liddy isn't the real kicker here. It's what McCain has said about Liddy, knowing full well about Liddy's tainted legacy. He proclaimed that Liddy embodies the values that make America a great nation. The one thing that Liddy is most famous for is masterminding Watergate. It's not like Liddy has remade himself, or done anything other than use his tainted legacy as a springboard to bloviate on right-wing radio. He has unapologetically used his status as some kind of right-wing folk hero, a status which earned him 4 years behind bars, in order to make a living. It's like romanticizing the Brinks robbers, or Jesse James. We forget the seriousness of his offense with the passage of time, but it doesn't make what he did any less serious. And this is a guy that McCain gives a glowing review. Liddy is aces in McCain's book. He embodies the values that make America great. Apparently those values include burglarizing your political opponents' campaign headquarters in order to obtain private material for blackmail and other purposes. I don't recall Obama ever making a glowing statement like this about Ayers.

G. M. Palmer said...

Max,

Do you teach?

Lively and entertaining lectures by brilliant/entertaining people always work. That's what the whole Chataqua movement was. That's why Obama can draw 100,000 people simply to hear him speak.

Generally the kids who need hands-on training and can't learn from lectures tend to be kids who should study craft and trades instead of liberal arts anyway -- we torture them by making them learn Shakespeare when the already know small engine repair.

Jacques Albert said...

WW:

Yes, WW, as a kid, I used to deliver newspapers to naval families on the Seabee base in Port Hueneme. But after I graduated from high school there, I had the sense to leave the state for Montana and college, only returning to work four summers in the 3M plant in Camarillo, where me mum worked.

I'm sure there must be some sensible, tax-paying citizens left in California like yourself, though the city political leadership in San Francisco be comprised of a flock of far-left loons. One of these loons (on the board of city commissioners) even proposed to scrap the US military altogether! What a shame that a once beautiful and prosperous city (that I used to visit frequently when stationed at the old Ft Ord in Monterey) is now "governed" by a bunch of petulant children who feel compelled to express their puerile hatred for our country's president by proposing to name a sewage treatment plant after him.

Passing Proposition 8 as an amendment to the state constitution would to a degree redeem this wayward state's jaded reputation, though it's still not a place you'd want to take your kids to. And especially not for what passes for an education in many places in California.

Max said...

GM -

Yes, I teach. I understand as well as anybody how engaging a lecture can be. But to sit back like you do and declare it the ultimate form of teaching is absolutely absurd. Anybody who's taught should know that much. Lecture is well suited to certain subjects and certain learning environments. It's absolutely horrid in others.

Emmy Bee said...

G.M.

It has been my experience too that some of my best teachers/professors have been lecture-oriented.

One professor, who is practically a
rock-star on campus, teaches Shakespeare each semester to a class of 500. His teaching style is so engaging that he got a standing Ovation at the end of his lecture on The Tempest. He never left his podium.

And I do think it is rather odious to force parents to have to take five years of [exorbitantly expensive] college classes (in our state anyway) to teach their third-grader how to multiply. It isn't about creationism or gay marriage. It is about having the liberty to teach one's own children free from state influence.

"Generally the kids who need hands-on training and can't learn from lectures tend to be kids who should study craft and trades instead of liberal arts anyway -- we torture them by making them learn Shakespeare when the already know small engine repair."

Yes, G.M., you're right 100%!

Europe does well to determine aptitude early, to give young people the ability to follow either the University preparatory educational program or a trade program.

If we give up on the idea that all students, regardless of interest or aptitude, ought to go to college then I believe our educational standards will go up, the courses will become more rigorous and challenging because a professor will be teaching to a class of people who want to be there. People who see their college education as something of value.

WW--
Under the Senate Bill SB777, a bill which was approved in the houses and signed into law by the Governator, a very long bill, mind you, states that:

"No textbook, or other instructional materials shall be adopted by the state board or by any governing board for use in the public schools that contains any matter reflecting adversely upon persons because of a characteristic listed in Section 220."

Karen England from the Capitol Resource Institute explains that "the law is not a list of banned words, including 'mom' and 'dad.' But she said "the requirement is that the law bans discriminatory bias and the effect will be to ban such terminology."

"Having 'mom' and 'dad' promotes a discriminatory bias. You have to either get rid of 'mom' and 'dad' or include everything when talking about [parental issues]," she said. "They [promoters of sexual alternative lifestyles] do consider that discriminatory."

So you can see it's not just some little textbook advisory board, but the law of the State of California that every use of a male and a female in a couple must be countered by a couple of the same gender or multiple genders, or should not be used at all.

I wonder if the same regulation applies to teaching human reproduction in Biology class. When we learn about how human babies are made with the female egg and fertilized by the male sperm, should we "counter" that "discriminatory terminology" by using a gay or lesbian couple? In this case, P.C. might just get in the way of learning.

Emmy Bee said...

Also from SB777, an amendment to the teaching qualifications for educators in California, which now also applies to home schooling families as well.

A parent who wishes to home school their child must complete courses in the following:

(b) The minimum requirements for the certificate shall include all
of the following:
(1) Possession of a valid California teaching credential, services
credential, children's center instructional permit, or children's
center supervision permit which credential or permit authorizes the
holder to provide instruction to pupils in preschool, kindergarten,
any of grades 1 to 12, inclusive, or classes primarily organized for
adults, except for any of the following:
[. . .]
(E) Teacher education internship credentials as specified in
Article 3 (commencing with Section 44450) of Chapter 3.
(2) Passage of one or more examinations that the commission
determines are necessary for demonstrating the knowledge and skills
required for effective delivery of the services authorized by the
certificate.
(3) Completion of at least six semester units, or nine quarter
units, of coursework in a second language at a regionally accredited
institution of postsecondary education. The commission shall
establish minimum standards for scholarship in the required
coursework. The commission shall also establish alternative ways in
which the requirement can be satisfied by language-learning
experience that creates an awareness of the challenges of
second-language acquisition and development.
(c) Completion of coursework in human relations in accordance with
the commission's standards of program quality and effectiveness that
includes, at a minimum, instruction in the following:
(1) The nature and content of culture.
(2) Crosscultural contact and interactions.
(3) Cultural diversity in the United States and California.
(4) Providing instruction responsive to the diversity of the pupil population.
(5) Recognizing and responding to behavior related to bias based
on race, color, religion, nationality, country of origin,
ancestry, gender, disability, or sexual orientation
the characteristics listed in Section 220 .
(6) Techniques for the peaceful resolution of conflict.
(d) The commission shall establish alternative requirements for a
teacher to earn the certificate, which shall be awarded as a
supplementary authorization pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section
44225.
(e) A teacher who possesses a credential or permit described in
paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) and is able to present a valid
out-of-state credential or certificate that authorizes the
instruction of English language learners may qualify for the
certificate issued under this section by submitting an application
and fee to the commission.
(f) The certificate shall remain valid as long as the prerequisite
credential or permit specified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (b)
remains valid.

Interestingly, diversity, gender bias, and cross-cultural contact training doesn't really come in handy when you're trying to teach your 9 year old how dry ice sublimes directly into gas.

G. M. Palmer said...

Max,

You're right.

Grammar-school children (through age 11 or so) need practice and rote memorization in order to grasp basic concepts.

Non-academically interested/abled children need hands-on activities to grow their dexterity and abilities.

Gifted children need to be nurtured and provided guidance as they explore and learn about their world -- they should generally be left to choose their own paths of study as they choose.

But for providing information to gifted and academically-able students, the excellently delivered lecture can't be beat.

Anonymous said...

One is an irresponsible ideologue if they are critical of the military and support gay rights/rites? Sorry Jacques, it's a free country and we will voice our opinion; if it represents the constituents, then it is democracy at work. Guess what, it does! The majority of San Francisco would appreciate those view-points. If you support local gov over big gov, then I suggest you recall those comments or risk looking like a complete hypocrite. It is our right to feel this way and project representation into government offices and policies that reflect these views.

I attended the 5th grade in Sarasota FL. Did you know that we didn't have class on fridays? The teachers brought us out and played football all day with us. Yeah, I got a lot better at football, but I think academically I suffered. I was could either have the exact same math class I had the year before in CT, or skip a grade. They were an entire year behind in their curriculum. Hey their universities are football powerhouses, but academically they suck. I would rather have an educated populace, even with some controversial teachings such as science, than a bunch of dumb ass football players.


Emmy,
the thought of my mother teaching me at home is terrifying. She should not have this right and it would have been terribly unfair to me if I were forced to do that. Maybe it can dumb people down just a little more? Is that what you want?

It is about having the liberty to teach one's own children free from state influence.

No Emmy, it's not about what the parents want; rather it is about making sure the child is educated so he or she can compete in the world. Moreover, it is to pass on the intellectual heritage that our society has strived so far to achieve. Can your mom really teach you Milton? Physics? Computer programming? How to dissect a squid? Does she have a lab to perform experiments in? What are her thoughts about the Reconstruction era after the civil war? Can she recommend additional books for further reading? Can she effectively coach your grammar? Most high school teachers cannot perform at reasonable levels, but your mom can right? In all subjects? No thanks.

--Tom

Max said...

Emmy -

But obviously the government has a clear prerogative in ensuring that children receive quality educations, wherever they happen to receive them. I think that part of ensuring a quality education should be, at the very least, guaranteeing that a teacher has gone through a certification process. It's not perfect by any means, and no, it doesn't mean that a teacher comes out as a genius on the other end. But it's a qualitative metric we can use. It's a low-end benchmark. I'm sorry, but you claim that even jokers are allowed to get through teacher certification courses, and let me agree with you on that. Idiots can make it just about anywhere in this country. That's the beauty of America. But if idiots can get through these courses, then certainly parents who wish to home school their children won't encounter much trouble in the process either. For a group of people so motivated to ensure that their children are well educated, that they aren't victims of the public school system, this process should be relatively painless.

Max said...

GM -

In my life, I've had great teachers who lectured and great teachers who didn't. It is entirely dependent on the course material. When I took literature surveys in college, for example, I preferred lectures, because they allowed me to learn the greatest amount of raw facts about the time period in question. But I also took plenty of specialized literature courses on various themes, and those would have been horrendous if they'd just been straight-up lectures the entire time, because the entire point of taking a specialized course on a theme is to make the students draw connections themselves, not have a set of preordained connections ground into their brains.

In fact, the one rockstar lecturer we had in our English department (who oddly enough was also a Shakespeare teacher, as in Emmy's example, but specialized specifically as a Miltonist) was not only great at lecturing in surveys, but also at switching gears to discussion for more specialized/theme-based courses. It was amazing to see the guy work.

His method was always determined by his setting, by the requirements of the course. If the course was going to culminate in a huge test that largely gauged your ability to regurgitate information, then he taught you largely in a lecture atmosphere. He made it engaging, but it was about learning and retaining facts. If the course was going to culminate in a test that required you to think independently and write a series of essays utilizing the information that you learned, then the class was, of course, going to be more discussion based, in order to give students the opportunity to test their ideas and hold them up for scrutiny.

I don't understand why you can't see the value of the latter kind of education, other than to immediately lump it into a "trade" category. A practical education is useful to those with academic aspirations as well.

sally said...

Regarding redistribution of wealth, way back in this comment stream g.m. said:

Obama's spreading the wealth and Pol Pot's procrustean violence are both aimed by an errant egalitarian ideal.

I'm trying to understand whether you think a progressive tax structure is inherently "errant" (whether or not one uses the word redistribution or egalitarianism to describe it) or whether you think Obama has simply chosen a form of progressive taxation that is "errant"?

To quote Adam Smith: "The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities."

Bill Gates Sr., father of Microsoft's founder, views progressive income taxes as a way of recycling common wealth and describes the estate tax as a "gratitude tax" that enables individuals to pay back the society that made their wealth possible: "when someone has accumulated $10 million or $50 million, they have benefited disproportionately in society's investments in education, public infrastructure, scientific research and other forms of common wealth." Don't you think their disproportionate benefits should be recycled back into the communal infrastructure so that others may benefit as well?

According to the Sept-Oct issue of Sojourners magazine (from which the above quotes also came), a study in 2007 showed that it would cost $90 billion per year for 10 years to cut U.S. poverty in half. This cost could be easily covered by re-establishing the pre-Bush tax rates for households earning over $200,000 per year.

And for those who may be swayed by Christian ideals, the book of Acts Chapter 4 describes the redistribution of wealth in the early church this way:
"34There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need."

Max said...

Sally -

I think the problem is that some people think "patriotism" is enough to pay back for the lives their allowed to live because they're American. Boy oh boy do I wish our government could run on lip service. We would have a huge budget surplus each year.

Max said...

their = they're

Skittles, The Huntress said...

Sally,

Are you seriously suggesting that the government should legislate redistribution of wealth because the Bible says to?

WW

jh said...

don't we all think
that at the very least
the rich should
bail out the rich

j

Jacques Albert said...

Tom:

I didn't say that the far-left loons in SF can't express their views, however idiotic. However, I do believe in federalism, and, for example, when the puerile left ideologues in SF local government deliberately defy federal law by offering sanctuary (with all the costly attendant taxpayer-financed bennies) to illegal aliens, they ought to be forced to rely on exclusively local and state resources when federal funding to the city is rightly denied them. That's consistency, not hypocrisy. The same goes for prohibiting access to military recruiters at SF high school and public colleges and universities.

And your caricature of home schooling is just as ideologically pitched. Just one example. I knew a couple in Seattle who were home-schooling their daughter and sharing their teaching duties with others in their neighborhood group of home-teachers. One was a mechanical engineer at Boeing and his wife a graduate in chemistry. They met while serving in the US Army and doing intelligence work in Europe. Both were qualified to teach their daughter high-school level science and mathematics, while they left history, English, and foreign languages (that a demagogue like Obama decrees all others must learn, but he himself, a product of a privileged Columbia and Harvard education, has failed to learn) to others in the community group.

Sally and max:

As for the endless "all it would take to cut poverty is $---- . . ." argument, we've heard this appeal regularly since the sad sixties. A mirage at best, to be sure, but a mere Demo class-war talking point most likely. Confiscatory taxation to attempt to establish "fairness" is the surest way of reducing the standard of living for all, including the poorest. "Spread the wealth" is just another call to "spread the misery and want."

Max said...

Jacques -

Could you provide some information on the average level of education for people home schooling their children? I can't help but think that your tidy little example is perhaps not quite in standing with the average case.

Also, profit is the reason why poverty exists. The top 1% in America own 33% of the wealth. The top 20% own 85% of the wealth. You can't concentrate that much capital and claim that it has nothing to do with the fact that a lot of people on the bottom don't have enough. You might say that the top 20% earned their assets fair and square, and that's fine. You can say that all you want. But don't pretend that poverty isn't the inevitable result of this fact, okay?

Kirby Olson said...

People have to make their own money.

Give a man a fish, and he has enough to eat for one day.... Teach him how to fish, and you don't have to bother much with him any longer.

At any rate, I don't think real wealth comes from alms. It's a stop gap for sure, but real wealth means knowing how to live, how to stay married, how to keep your job, and keep giving to society.

There will of course be some industrious people among the lazy and indigent and careless and mindless. It's better to give those few something to work towards, than simply robbing the wealthy and throwing it at the indigent.

Forty percent already don't pay taxes.

How much higher can that go before the economy implodes, and the wealthy start to move offshore, taking their entreprenurial gifts elsewhere?

There is a law of diminishing returns that kicks in.

It's one thing to exhort others to be Christlike, but most all self-centered.

The tiny Christian community remember was a VOLUNTARY community of the like-minded.

You cannot force people to be Christian and to share.

But welcome aboard to Sally -- it's nice to get another voice into the mix.

chris miller said...

What did both St. Paul and Luther have to say about private property and taxation? If taxation is ever evil -- when and why ?

(Just wondering whether this thread is much more Surreal than Lutheran.)

Kirby Olson said...

I also get comments that I am more Lutheran than surreal -- poet Ron Silliman, for instance, asked that a while back.

Taxes are more or less accepted by Jesus himself when he says that we should "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" a very interesting phrase that has been spun every which way, but which seemed at the very least to indicate that the Jews and early Christians should pay their taxes to Rome.

The Jewish community in those days had a tendency to stand up to Roman might and were forced into a diaspora about the year 60, and never returned until the 1950s when Israel is reestablished.

Jesus did in some sense argue for getting along with the secular powers, including paying taxes.

I am not sure if St. Paul would have agreed with the progressive tax policies of Barack Obama. Obama's horde argues that it is Christian to take care of the poor, and if this means taking enormous sums from the wealthy, then so be it.

Lutheran societies of Scandinavia have in general much higher taxes than we pay in America. It can go over 90% in Finland.

Wealth is redistributed.

But the problem is that many of the best entrepreneurial minds of Finland and Sweden now live offshore in order to take advantage of better tax rates.

A lot of these Finns live in Florida.

If you get rich in those countries, you have to leave, taking your wealth with you. This is another way to redistribute wealth -- I suppose -- making it go offshore, so that it can't be taxed.

The wealthy can vote by moving their residence elsewhere.

You can only squeeze them so much.

New York State has lost a great number of its industries because the tax rate here is so high, and the unions so big, and so demanding.

Many companies are almost completely relocated now. Kodak has lost about 100,000 jobs over in Rochester. The shoe business near Binghamton is now extinct.

Many parts of Buffalo are boarded up.

Many businesses in New York city are now moving to New Jersey, -- all to escape the business climate here.

It really does hurt everybody if taxes go too high.

Finland has however a very high standard of living. That is -- there isn't anyone who is terribly poor. Or anyone who is terribly rich.

It's also got only 6 million people, and is the world's most homogenous country: they only allow in some thirty immigrants a year.

We have something like twenty million illegal immigrants, which neither party wants to address for fear of alienating their potential votes.

Kirby Olson said...

Arnold Schwarzenegger said that he came to America in order to escape socialism in Austria. He said this the other day in a campaign rally in California.

Luther did argue for an income cap in which the richest person in a company should only make 5 times what the people on the bottom of the company make.

But this was a suggestion, not a law.

Kirby Olson said...

Neithre Paul nor Luther were ever political heads of state.

Jesus in a sense was that, since some said that he was the King of the Jews, so perhaps that is a reason why he was asked to comment on taxation.

Maybe Paul and Luther did, too.

Does anybody know?

jh said...

paul it would seem from the letters
appears to be in constant conflict
with the local authorities
almost as if he thrived on it
his concerns are with the ability of the communities to sustain themselves and if that required help from other ocmmunities well so be it

luther i would think and i don't know all that much about his life would i think anyway insist that government be rational and of a mind to serve the good of all in building roads and maintaining civility...but i think ultimately he was a populist...he took jesus at his word and the poor of spirit were to be recognized on an even level with the rich in material...the christians have a moral earthly duty to attend to the needs of the poor simply because jesus did that

your knowledge of luther would clarify that
i only know him through some historical reading and a review of the movie recently

would luther be a lockean republican liberal

i'm wondering if marx didn't get some of his idealism from the lutheran nondemonstrative social ethic

when push comes to shove
when bush comes to rove
when kush comes to rome
when ceasar feeds elixabeth I
a sweet cookie
when when when when when

small acts of kindness
only these will change the world

Kirby Olson said...

No, we don't just need small acts of kindness though these help -- we need structures that help people help people.

Luther is cited probably more than anyone else in Marx's writing. He's appealing to Lutherans, rather than just preaching to the choir of secular radicals, but also uses Luther's thinking as axiomatic, and as paradigmatic.

Luther did say that sending money to Rome was an abomination since the Pope was under the sign of 666, and therefore Satan himself (he says this repeatedly in his writings).

So there is a sense in which Luther thought a lot about money and taxation. He definitely thought the taxes should remain in Germany where the poor were literally starving while in Rome Michelangelo and others were building vast monuments to Papal power.

Luther said that must stop, and naturally the German princes thought yes, yes, this is a religious guy I will back!

Lutheran countries are wealthier than Catholic countries because Catholic countries are Papal colonies, and always have been.

This makes the Papacy EXTRAORDINARILY rich.

Lutheran countries do in fact think about money and to whom it goes. Finland spends fortunes on the care of children.

FORTUNES! At birth you get a box of wonderful clothes from the government which is worth about a thousand dollars.

Max said...

Kirby -

You don't seem to understand. A system in which people are able to accumulate millions of dollars means that there will be people who aren't able to accumulate much or any at all. Poverty is built into the system.

You also seem to forget that the 40% who don't pay any taxes are the ones upon whom our economy is built. If you take money out of their pockets, they will be buying fewer Ipods and DVDs and our economy will not grow at the impressive rate it traditionally has grown at. It might surprise you to know this, but rich people don't make our economy. They have more wealth, but they are fewer, which means they put a far smaller percentage of their wealth back into the economy. They accumulate and save. People in the middle and lower classes, however, spend a greater percentage of their income and they are many. They are what our economy requires in order to be "the American economy." If you want to live in a place where the standard of living is dramatically reduced and economic growth is nil, make a flat tax.

Max said...

Or better yet, a consumption, or "fair" tax. Yes, penalize people severely for buying individual items! Always good advice to follow if you're trying foster a growing economy.

Kirby Olson said...

Max, there isn't a limited amount of money.

Value keeps getting created, and value is infinite.

Also, the more money that is accumulated locally, is the more money that is spent locally.

Those two ideas may not be valid, but I think we're working on different premises.

how valid is the notion that there is only a limited amount of money?

Max said...

Umm ... there IS a limited amount of money. Of course, the treasury can print more and water down the value of it, but yeah, there is a limited amount of money.

We are too quick to say that poverty is the result of laziness, when we live and work in a system which preordains that some will be on the top and some will be on the bottom. Nobody is guaranteed a living simply by virtue of trying hard. It's hardcore free marketeers who should understand this concept best, since they ostensibly understand how capitalism works.

sally said...

WW--
I'm not saying that the government should legislate anything because of what the Bible says--whether we are talking about redistribution of wealth or the definition of marriage. Our country is not a theocracy. We are a pluralistic society. Each voter needs to make up his or her own mind. Some voters will be influenced by what the Bible says, others will not. Even those who are influenced by the Bible will not always vote the same way.

What I am saying is that I find it hard to understand why Christians would see the idea of the redistribution of wealth as an inherently bad idea, when it was the way of life for the early church, and was also required under Levitical law (the year of Jubilee). G.M. placed Obama's tax plan at one end of a spectrum that leads to Pol Pot, and likened it to the spectrum that leads from stealing a candy bar to stealing pension funds. That suggested to me that (s)he views redistribution of wealth (or even just progressive taxation) as something that, like stealing, is always bad, even though some acts of stealing (or redistribution of wealth) are more bad than others.

Jacques--
Despite the fact that the "War on Poverty" of the 1960's has been called a failure, the poverty rate in the United States was cut in half (from 22% to 11%) between the late 1950's and early 1970's. (My source again is Sojourners magazine)

Kirby--
I agree that we should be teaching people how to fish instead of keeping them dependent on us by giving them fish, as long as we are talking about people who are physically and mentally capable of learning how to fish. I agree that real wealth does not come from alms. People are best off when they can support themselves. Making sure that the minimum wage keeps pace with inflation is better than putting people on welfare.

Progressive taxation does not necessarily mean that we have to be a welfare state. It merely means that members of society pay in proportion to their ability for whatever communal goods we as a society decide to invest in (roads, police and fire departments, military capability, scientific research). Whether or not we, as a nation, choose to include some form of care for those who cannot care for themselves as one of the common goods that we invest in together, is a separate issue from progressive taxation.

Perhaps it is true that Biblical-style redistribution is something that can only work within a community that is voluntarily committed to each other and that is small enough for there to be accountability. But neither Obama nor I are suggesting anything as radical as the type of redistribution called for in the Leviticus or implemented in Acts. I’m not even suggesting that we need to go as far as Finland (though that doesn’t sound too bad to me). I'm merely saying that instead of continuing Bush's policy of making taxes less and less progressive, we should move in the direction of restoring the progressiveness that our tax system once had. I think this can be done in a moderate way that balances the need to provide incentives for generation of wealth and jobs against the dangers of unregulated capitalism and the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few. There will of course be debates and disagreement about exactly what constitutes the best balance, but I don't think we need to vilify the idea of progressive taxation.

Max said...

Sally -

The problem I have with the "give a man a fish...teach a man to fish" argument is that the people who make it, in support of an anti-welfare stance, don't really seek to uphold the latter part of that maxim. It seems to me that these people are constantly decrying those in poverty, or those of the lower classes, for being lazy, shiftless, unmotivated drags on society. What happened to the part where we lift people up by teaching them how to do for themselves if they currently cannot?

sally said...

The video below is an interview with Warren Buffett that illustrates the inequity of our current tax system. Buffet pays a 17% income tax rate whereas his receptionist and all of his other employees that participated in the survey pay an average of 30% in income tax. The capital gains tax on investment income used to be 40%. It used to be higher than the tax on income earned on wages. Now it is lower than the income earned on wages.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3z_UrOKtjHk

sally said...

correction:
now it is lower than the tax on income earned from wages.

jh said...

the papacy itself is not all that rich
the vatican banking scenario
does oversee quite a lot of money every year but the bulk of it does go to mission work hospitals schools grassroots building programs in struggle-ridden developing countries

when JP II died he had in his room a couple of books and some clothing
all of which he gave to a poor house...probably to some desperate benedictine on the street

the wealth is probably the wealth that is associated with art and architecture...and OK some significant realestate

great to read sally's words in the mix

Kirby Olson said...

Sally's arguments make sense.

I like her viewpoints.

Perhaps we should also think about national security. Cheney said after 9/11 that we would have to go to the "dark side," to defend ourselves. This morning on Bloomberg TV they had a program called the Muse, and they had an author on, who had written a book about what Cheney meant.

It's apparently meant arresting all kinds of Al Qaeda members, torturing them with sleeplessness, and so on. One businessman in Germany was taken to a cave in Afghanistan and tortured for five months before they realized they had the wrong guy!

They set him loose in a field in Romania and gave him a bunch of dollar bills to get back to Germany. When he got back his wife had moved out, and he couldn't find her and when he did she had remarried. His name looked like some other Arab terrorist's name.

The lady who had written the book was all upset about this.

But she said there were only ever three cases of waterboarding.

And she said, no more attacks in seven years shows that the Bush administration really did do its job in defending us.

Obama is not into torture, which is another way in which he's no Nero.

McCain is also against torture, but won't give the detainees in Gitmo the rights of citizens.

Many academic leftists want to take those people and make them college professors in law and other subjects so that we can learn from them.

On the other side, there is now a bill before the Colorado voters which will ban any use of demographic data in hiring college instructors and make it a crime to do so. I think this is a response to Ward Churchill's residence at that state.

What will happen to all the Ethnic Studies programs where the athletes now go for an easy ride?

It's an interesting time and there are so many issues, so little time.

At any rate, I like Sally's intervention here. She has a nice calm mind, plenty of facts, and is fair and balanced.

With people like that around again, I may turn back into a Social Democrat.

God forgive me.

Max said...

Kirby -

Do you believe that no attacks in 7 years proves that Bush has protected us? It seems a little foolish to prove a positive with a negative here. Let's look at what Bush has actually done to protect us if indeed we are going to make the claim that we're safer today than before 9/11.

Jacques Albert said...

A cursory survey of Sojourner's Magazine articles seems to indicate a preference of its contributors for social Gospel Christianity (including an inordinate emphasis on poverty as a collectively-shared wrong in the US) with a decided aversion to the conservative politics of Evangelicals. At any rate, it's not an independent or unaligned source of information.

I'm not so as Sally sure that the impoverished are actually as helpless, mentally-impaired, and incapable as she indicates. Could it be perhaps that the childish, petulant dependency of welfare mascots affirms the condescending assurance of redistributionist liberals that contribute greatly to the formers's perceived plight? So far, it seems from Sally we've mere class war "lite."

Jacques Albert said...

"former's"

Max said...

Jacques -

I won't deny that laziness can contribute to an individual case of poverty, but this is entirely independent of the fact that the system requires some to do without in order for others to accumulate more, even if everybody works hard to become successful. If it wasn't the lazy bastard who ended up impoverished, it would be somebody else.

That is perhaps the most obnoxious thing about blaming it on laziness. If free market people would just admit that capitalism makes poverty inevitable, I wouldn't have such a problem with them. But they continue to spread this lie that everybody has a shot at being successful, as though if everybody tried hard, everybody would be able to thrive and nobody would have to go hungry. It's just a patently false claim.

jh said...

jacques albert

2 questions
where did you study in montana?
i grew up there in Helena

and

are you advocating for a hardnosed get tough and get with it program sort of a military training for the wayfarers...the lost soulS??? do you really think most street people most people who end up in group homes or halfway houses are playing some sort of game with the system??
it seems sort of cynical
for whatever reason people become alienated from their surroundings call it sin call it neuronreceptor imbalances i don't know
but it does appear to be universal
and we seem to criminalize it
the numbers of "certified" mentally ill people that get thrown in jail and worse is startling

the work of rudolf steiner would indicate that establishing real home contexts for mentally ill people or mentally retarded people is a way of working some real healing as is L'Arche

CAMPHILL is a movement i admire greatly

but i find it almost impossible to comprehend your denials of the "needy" christ did admonish that our right and left hands should remain discrete

there's a brutality in capitalism
and people tend to face up to brutality in different ways
there can be endemic brutality in families but i don't think it pays to blame the victims no matter how distorted their self concepts might be
OK
in a system where too much is never enough where being poor has it's definite benefits if you can stand the filth...there is evidence of basic human irresponsibility
i guess i haven't been as interested in mental illness issues or the real experience of the impoverished recently
but it seems rather clear to me that the folks holding up signs will work for food and the anxious neurotic on main street are not just silly happenstance and i can't judge them or presume to ask them to change their lives...i can befriend them...that is all...and if that would mean getting a person to a place where he can receive some free help and warmth i will do that

it is ironic that some of the most disturbed people i have ever met are from quite wealthy families

i hold to the principle that good government is seen most clearly in the lives of the most needy

just curious
about the hard line on the poor
from a catholic perspective
i'd be interested in reading your remedy for the freeloaders as it were

i'd be happy if we'd all just agree that there will be no more glamourization of the rich...they're the ones who should be completely ignored

i dig your concise critiques and the odd vocabulary...words like nugatory

yeah

happy feast of all souls

j

Kirby Olson said...

I don't know any homeless people. A friend of mine married a girl who had been homeless. She was homeless because her dad was abusing her, and she ran away and ended up on the streets of Portland and Seattle, I guess. Very disturbing story.

Just watched Faith of My Fathers on the Bio channel -- wept all the way through for McCain and how he and his fellow soldiers stood up to the communists of N. Vietnam, came home, and struggled to reintegrate as they were spit on by their fellow Americans who were dreaming of communism.

Communism is very rough on individuals who seek to buck the trends.

Why was it so big in East Asia where it is the last place that it still thrives: Vietnam, China, and N. Korea, Myanmar, and of course it had its apogee in Cambodia under the king of all pols, the cracked Pot.

Perhaps the only place it still thrives in America is in Humanities departments due to the time lag. Those that got tenure in the 70s and 80s, and who are still around to brainwash the young into socialism.

I still think McCain is somehow going to win, and St. Paul will triumph again over the No Nero.

It's hard to believe, but miracles exist.

Odd, too, for me to believe this, because Marxism is a form of Christianity -- gone awry.

John McCain is a genuine American hero.

chris miller said...

Did Luther really "argue for an income cap in which the richest person in a company should only make 5 times what the people on the bottom of the company make."?

Even Obama wouldn't go that far!

(The C.E.O. of McDonald's would end up making less than you do)

But your political arguments really don't have much to do with Luther anyway, do they? And they're only Surrealist in that they can be so whacky: "Lutheran countries are wealthier than Catholic countries because Catholic countries are Papal colonies, and always have been." Really???

In all fairness to Martin Luther and Andre Breton -- shouldn't you be making these arguments on another blog -- called something like "Popular American Ideologies" -- with photos of John Wayne and Ronald Reagan on the masthead ?

Jacques Albert said...

jh:

We're on the road at present, so I'll have to be somewhat brief. I spent a year in Butte at Montana Tech (where I worked as a laborer at Pacific Hide & Fur Co.), then moved to Missoula and the U of Montana for three years (where I worked in a print shop during the school year and in a 3M factory in California during the summers). After graduation I left Montana to join the army. I spent a little time in Helena, which I found to be a pretty accommodating and friendly small city.

On the capitalism vs socialism argument, I don't have time now to comment in detail. I think many of our disagreements on Kirby's blogspot (and especially about political issues) more rhetorical exercises and jeux d'esprit than anything else.

I admire charity volunteers (my own volunteer work was mostly with retarded children) and some of the initiatives of the Catholic social movement, but I demur when these church-based initiatives stray into the overtly political. When I speak of an impoverished underclass (from which I come, so I resist condescending attempts by the left to romanticize it), I'm not speaking of transients, hobos, or the mentally-afflicted. These groups do not vote in great numbers, in spite of the unfortunate attempts of ACORN operatives' programs to recruit and radicalize them.

Capitalism is not a belief-system, jh; it's an economic one that better generates wealth for all and allows people more individual liberty to determine their, their family's, and their community's futures. Charities mitigate the want and suffering of those afflicted, and are best and most effectively run as private programs, not institutionalized government bureaucracies (sometimes, yes, with some government assistance). I don't agree with those others on this site who seem to mock and resent private charity work or those who would prefer to reinvent perceived want or lack as an implicit demand for a charter of newly-minted "rights" called for by unscrupulous demagogues. And yes, I include Obama in this group, for though I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on sincerity, I find personal charity on his part (considering his past economic and political status) as well as Biden's conspicuously lacking. And of course I couldn't ever support a candidate who supports infanticide and other measures that the Church considers gravely immoral "culture of death."

At any rate, Sally's now and often your commentaries I find more interesting and conducive to civilized debate than the petulant hostility of max and Tom. Agonistic rhetoric can be fun and I'm happy enough to engage in it with the Left, though

Max said...

Kirby -

Communism/socialism say nothing of governance. Of course, when people criticize communism/socialism, all they do is criticize the specific governance of those in the common examples (soviet russia, china, etc), but the problems are governance are the result of the revolutionary nature of switching from one ideology directly into another. People rationalize their despicable behavior as "necessary to the security of the state" and such. This has nothing to do with communism/socialism. It has to do with how individual leaders choose to instill social order. To assume that people who tend to sympathize with communist/socialist ideologies necessarily support these acts of governance is absurd.

You know, America has capital punishment for treason as well. If we had just established this government through forcible domestic revolution yesterday, you can bet there would be plenty of people lying shot dead in fields and hanging from trees. Kirby, are you trying to suggest that a democratic revolution would not be just as prone to these kinds of scenes as a communist/socialist revolution? In fact, the French revolution serves as a very clear example of what can happen in the name of democracy, yet I don't pretend for a moment that this has anything to do with democracy (even though democracy is directly a system of governance, whereas communism/socialism is not). It is a result of civil and political unrest.

Of course, this doesn't make it right. But we need to differentiate here, and stop acting like this is innate to communism/socialism. It's such an old, dried up bogeyman, and it's getting really tired.

Max said...

Jacques -

No, I think you pretend to be fed up with my arguments so that you won't have to respond to them, which always seems to happen right after I make a point that you can't refute, because it's true. You'll argue with me when it's only a matter of opinion, but when I make a solid point about something--such as the fact that capitalism ensures the existence of poverty--you feign exhaustion with my line of argument and passive aggressively refer to my tired way of thinking in responses to others.

Jacques Albert said...

max's problem is that he fancies promoting the ideology of the day larded over by querulous speculation posed in terms of ideological generalities can "defeat" historical learning. He talks--he occasionally thinks; but does he read or study? For example, what knowledge or learning has he shown to qualify himself to comment authoritatively on the French Revolution? So far, all we've heard is a yapping pup.

Kirby Olson said...

Chris, I suppose my surrealism is inflected by my being American, as is my Lutheranism.

Funny remarks, those.

But no, I don't see Wayne as either surrealist or Lutheran.

I didn't really know what you meant by these remarks, but they did strike me as funny.

So thanks.

It's the wild west here today, and again we're up past 100 comments.

I do think that McCain and John Wayne are on the same page.

They are cut from the same cloth.

In terms of national security, I'd rather have John Wayne in charge than some nut from Harvard.

Max said...

Jacques -

Interesting how a post directly aimed at attacking my authority on matters demonstrates little to no knowledge of what I do or don't understand. If you want to attack my arguments, attack them. Don't just play the passive aggressive "but how much has he studied?" card.


Kirby -

John Wayne's film persona is mythical. Do you really want our foreign policy and national security to be based on a myth? Does that really make us safer? Don't our enemies have to buy into the myth as well in order for this to be effective?

Jacques Albert said...

max's latest verbal fetish seems the gratuitous use of "passive-aggressive." OK max, you win, so every time time you toss this lame piece of psycho-babble my way, I'll throw back in return . . ., um, how 'bout "bed-wetter"?

Max said...

Jacques -

Are you denying that criticizing me in a post directed at another person, failing completely to directly take on my arguments, qualifies as passive aggressive? Seems to be a pretty clear cut case to me.

You've actually done it several times, declaring to others your exhaustion with my style of argument, meanwhile avoiding my arguments entirely. This usually happens at a convenient moment, such as when an argument shifts from one of opinion to one of objective fact.

Are you going to address my criticism of capitalism--that it guarantees the existence of poverty--or are you just going to sidestep it because it's convenient for you to ignore such a terrible drawback to the system you trumpet so much, and directly contradicts your canned libertarian babble about poverty being the result of laziness?

Anonymous said...

Jacques this isn't the first time we've heard this accusation toward you now is it? I have made it, Brett, and now Max. Hmm and we are all pretty far left: a pattern? I see you doing the same thing to Max. Max often brings many more facts to the table than you do Jacques. Even if you think he is wrong, try disproving him rather than attacking his character. Seriously, how many times have you been accused attacking people's character in a debate, rather than actually debating? I have the feeling it dramatically excedes 3. You are obviously a very smart guy, but I think your ego gets ahead of yourself when it comes to politics. I can't believe you're attacking how much he has read. How do you have any idea what he has read?!! Are you the head of the English department at Harvard or something?

This is completely unrelated, but has anyone noticed that there are no right-wing documentaries? I find this strange.

--Tom

G. M. Palmer said...

K-

I was afk all weekend and for some reason my cell phone internets won't post my comments to the blog.

So here goes:

Tom:

in regards to homeschooling -- yes, my wife and I certainly are able to teach our children everything with the possible exception of physics (which my b-i-l happens to have a phd in, so I guess we can outsource that one), including Greek, Latin, Spanish, French, Italian, and a smattering of medieval languages, Calculus, car repair, carpentry, and sewing.

Moreover, we can teach them how to read and do math -- and keep them out of public school for the first few years, when they are far more impressionable --

It is not that I necessarily want to keep them away from teachers (though I am not a fan of ideologues), but that I want to keep them away from the ill-behaved spawn of idiots that currently fill our public schools and the ill-behaved spawn of the spoiled that currently fill our private schools for as long as possible.

And that furthermore, the idea of age-separated schooling is laughable and artificial -- do you only hang out, work, and eat with people born in the same 12 month span as yourself?

Sally --

Nice to have new people. I am a boy.

I think taxation should be based solely on property -- a sales tax or, preferably, only a property tax.

This is because property ownership is directly related to the only legitimate form of governance -- that of protecting property rights.

Income taxation is theft because the government has no business in business.

The acts of the Christians in Acts are chosen by the members of that community (and obviously didn't continue for very long) not at the point of a gun. The only way that communism can work is at the shared choice of all the members of a community (and even then it is quite temporal) -- it can never work enforced by violence.

Max:

Profit is the reason why poverty exists.

WRONG

Poverty exists through either lack of work or an artificial distribution of wealth.

In a free-market society poverty only exists through a lack of work -- you don't work, you are poor.

In a controlled-market society poverty only exists through an artificial (that is to say poor) distribution of wealth by the government.

There is no profit to be found in North Korea yet everyone there is poor.

In America we have an interesting mix. First, of course, we have to understand that no one in America is truly poor like someone in Korea or the Sudan (or a billion or so other people) because everyone in America is never more than 2 or 300 feet from running, clean water. But more to the point:

We have people who are poor because they refuse to work now or they refused to work when they were young and could have learned marketable skills. It sucks to be them but they get about as much sympathy from me as any malingerer.

We also have people who are called the "working poor" -- see my above water comment again -- and these people are artificially poor for two reasons -- one, they didn't learn a marketable skill (since every skilled job pays at least $10 an hour) and two, they work in some place that is unable, because of government intervention, to provide adequate compensation -- either tax laws enable/encourage the company to hide profits, wage laws enable/encourage the company to outsource good jobs to other companies, or union laws prevent the company from firing incompentents.

But poverty is never, NEVER because of profit.

A note on why I have little sympathy, since I saw some discussion of homelessness:

I was homeless three times in High School. I was forced out, kicked out, squeezed out, and left my home -- once even choosing to be homeless so I could study at the best neighborhood school. I am the child of 2 drug addicts (one to alcohol and one to everything else). My father's income was cyclical (he was a CPA) and we were poor for about half of every year (he didn't budget very well). My mother (who was never married to my father) was a waitress, cook, and finally secretary and before I was about 13 we lived continually under the poverty line -- tuna macaroni was a treat.

But despite all of this, I have four degrees, two of them graduate degrees. I bought my first property at 21 and my house at 23. I am married to the smartest person I have ever met and I have two lovely girls.

Oh, and I have worked in the same career (though not the same school) for nine years now.

The only better success story I know of is my best friend who grew up in a trailer with an absent father who shot up 1 cc of air when he couldn't get heroin or coke. My friend, who was kicked out of both college and the Navy, now owns a property appraisal business and makes $400,000 a year.

But homelessness, poverty, and drug addiction are all insurmountable obstacles, right?

Please. Study, get a job, and WORK WORK WORK. If you do those three things and are still poor, then I might listen to you.

But of course, I would first ask you how quickly can you access clean, clear drinking water.

Michael

p.s. Max -- the reason they always point out the common examples of communism is because the common examples (which are the only examples, btw) clearly demonstrate that communism at the point of a barrel is untenable

Jacques Albert said...

"your canned libertarian babble about poverty being the result of laziness?"

Where did I say this, max? Give us my words. I think rather you're shadowboxing with GM, or, as is your habit, with your own hallucinated caricature of an opponent.

"In fact, the French revolution serves as a very clear example of what can happen in the name of democracy, yet I don't pretend for a moment that this has anything to do with democracy . . ."

Just wanted to know here a credible source for this authoritative statement.

You know quite well you're free to comment on anything said by anyone on this blogspot as in fact you do. When I choose directly to address your incessant yapping demands for attention and misdirected attributions, I'll do it. But referring to your comments in the third person doesn't restrict you in the least from commenting. So max, quit whining, and Tom, quit encouraging it.

Tom, I've seen conservative documentaries on several subjects. I saw one on Stalin's forced mass starvation in the Ukraine in the 1930's. Another I saw was a rejoinder to the "Fahrenheit 9/11" agitprop piece of Michael Moore.

Kirby Olson said...

The biggest factor in poverty is divorce. Divorce divides and shatters wealth, and creates a black hole for the children. Cosby has argued that almost 80% of black children are born out of wedlock, or have divorced parents. Meanwhile, 98% of Asian American children have both parents in the home.

It's the key factor, I think.

Spreading the wealth between these two groups will only enable more fatherless families. This is terrible, because the father is crucial for teaching the children, especially the boys, how to be civil, how to be good sports, how to work toward a goal, what it means to be a man, and to treat women with kindness, rather than as whores.

The difference between the ideal minority, and the other minority, is in the father figures, or lack thereof. If that single facotr could be changed, we wouldn't have to redistribute the wealth, as fatherless Barack Obama has mindlessly squeaked.

I still do believe that the leader of a corporation shouldn't make more than ten times what the go-fers in the company make. That's wrong, too, but I think this should be a voluntary thing. That is, the leader of the company should decide this, not the gosh-darned government.

G. M. Palmer said...

It's the key factor, I think.

I submit for example the children of one coke-head father and one alcoholic father.

Unless it's simply the presence of a father and not what the father does that counts.

I think that it's much more a communal work-ethic than anything else, tragic as can't-keep-your-pants-on inspired "families" are.

Anonymous said...

Whine Max whine! Jacques you have done your fair share of whining on this blog: the never ending belly-aching about liberals in the academy, the violence of the left on the poor conservatives, the liberal media, and sharing with the poor!

I just don't see many docs that look conservative available on netflix or in stores. Why would a documentary against collectivization be conservative? I've never heard seen one person write or depict this in a positive manner.

GM exploitation of labor is often built into profit. Why do you think they export manufacturing jobs? This is to exploit the local population's willingness to work for cheaper wages; in short, to exploit their context into bigger profits. There are good and bad elements to every context of course. To state that exploitation is never a part of profit would exhibit ignorance.

Why would you homeschool your child throughout the first few years? I don't believe evolution is taught in the first grade? I'm still utterly convinced that you are doing your child a disservice. These are important socializing years where a child needs to develop skills in dealing with other children and other authority figures. Also, many parents are not very smart and are entirely unqualified as educators.

--Tom

Anonymous said...

Oh, one last item!

It's funny that you think divorce is the cause of poverty Kirby. How about having children? I can't think of anything that would impoverish me more than having a child.

--Tom

G. M. Palmer said...

It's funny that you think divorce is the cause of poverty Kirby. How about having children? I can't think of anything that would impoverish me more than having a child.

Tom, you have just proven yourself to be an ignorant dipshit unworthy of discourse. Since you are choosing to remove your genes from humanity, please do us a favor and remove the rest of yourself.

Why would you homeschool your child throughout the first few years?

Because

1) schools have trended away from both phonics instruction and rote memorization of mathematical concepts -- therefore children enter middle and high school unprepared

2) public schools are generally woefully unprepared for gifted children (the exception may be a magnet school near us which we are considering sending our daughters to)

3) we don't want our daughters exposed for hours to the violent zombie children produced by uncaring parents, day-care, and pre-K

I don't believe evolution is taught in the first grade?

I wouldn't care if it was. Are you insinuating that the only people who homeschool somehow don't believe in evolution? If so, you are truly uninformed.

I'm still utterly convinced that you are doing your child a disservice.

Since you view childbearing as impoverishing, your opinions on what is good for my children have no weight at all.

These are important socializing years where a child needs to develop skills in dealing with other children and other authority figures.

My children learn to deal with other children by spending time with their friends and relatives. They learn to deal with other authority figures by spending time with my friends and our relatives. Or do you have no concept of the purpose of family?

Oh right, you don't. Family makes you poor.

Also, many parents are not very smart and are entirely unqualified as educators.

Replace "parents" with "teachers" and you would also be correct.

G. M. Palmer said...

forgive me for using the term "believe in" evolution. I know that evolution has nothing to do with faith or religion and can in no way be compared with the two.

G. M. Palmer said...

to further clarify,

I'm not hostile to people who choose not to procreate. In general, I wish people would and would choose to procreate intelligently.

I am, however, hostile to people who view children as a burden.

I am also hostile to people who choose not to have children and then imagine that their opinions on childrearing matter.

Anonymous said...

GM did you really use the word "dipshit?" Well you're a "pecker!" God...

"It's funny that you think divorce is the cause of poverty Kirby. How about having children? I can't think of anything that would impoverish me more than having a child."

Were you homeschooled dipshit? Try working on your reading comprehension; maybe I can buy you a copy of the great John Ritter edition of "Hooked on phonics?" Maybe you shouldn't be teaching your children after all...

Having children when your are economically unable to afford them can cause poverty. For instance, if you don't earn much money and you can barely make ends meet, perhaps having a child is not a good idea. Your expenses will go up and you income will not. Now you may not be able to make ends meet. Does this penetrate your thick skull GM? It wouldn't be divorce that caused the problem, rather the child that would be a burden for a single parent. No I don't think it is reasonable to assume that everyone should have children. I think you should be free to do so, but perhaps it's not always smart.

Yes teachers are also often times lacking in smarts as well. That is a separate problem that also needs to be addresses. They should be educated and spend time working on their knowledge base.

Yes the evolution debate is often used as a justification by the Christian right in defense of homeschooling. Perhaps you need to educate yourself on this matter?
What about your daughters zombie parents that cannot debate a point without sinking to insults: the conservative method of debating.
You do have a point in your first example.

And your sensitivty toward the homeless is truly touching; hopefully you will impart these good Christian values to your daughter. With Christians like these, who need satanists?

-Tom

G. M. Palmer said...

Tom,

My apologies for insulting you. I simply couldn't believe I'd been wasting my time talking to someone who held such an opinion. I'll be doing my best to ignore you after this post.

And you made no mention of "right now, Kirby, I'm a single guy with a poorly-paying job -- if I had a kid we'd be in dire straits." You said that you couldn't imagine anything more impoverishing than a child.

Under the current welfare, wic, food stamp, and tax system, having a child would actually be beneficial. You'd qualify for housing assistance, free food, and the EIC.

And you'd have the most wonderful thing on the planet, children.

Emmy Bee said...

G.M.

Great post.

I'll go one step farther and say that child-rearing is one of the uniquely enriching experiences that life has to offer.

There is more to life than material wealth, Tom. Many children would rather go without expensive toys and yearly trips to Disney World if it meant having their mother (or father) home with them.

During the years in which she forms her character, world view, and intellectual foundation, I would much rather have my daughter with me than in the care of dangerous and poorly run public schools under the "watchful" eye of government employees. Certainly in her first five years of life. No way I'm going to surrender her impressionable mind to anyone but myownself and myhusband'sownself.

And by the way, if parents, who are by and large products of the public school system, cannot be trusted with educating their little ones, why should we trust these little ones to the same school system that produced these allegedly "ignorant" parents?

I think parents, who know their children's minds better than anyone else, are uniquely qualified to gear lessons towards their particular learning style.

In the Emmy/Jacques household, our daughter will be treated to English/French (we will have a bi-lingual home,) Latin at 8, Greek at 12, World History (Jacques has an MA in WH,) English and French Literature, Astronomy (one of my minors,) American History (another of my minors,) Music history and performance (I play all woodwind instruments, and the harp,) Philosophy, Art (drawing, painting, and sculpting--another one of my passions,) and most certainly Mathematics and General Science.

I don't have a hood for Chemistry, but luckily local schools open their facilities to home schooling parents from time to time for use in teaching experiments. As tax-payers, we have access to these facilities as much as public school children have.

Our daughter will not be deprived. She will receive a better education than 99% of American students. I would sooner trust her to our capable hands than those of an "education major."

Kirby Olson said...

Tom, I thought before I had children that they would end my life. Now that I have them, I would say that they are my stars and jewels and suns, and that without them, my life would be very poor, indeed.

But somehow we are confusing two economies here.

There are probably many economies.

What Lyotard called the Libidinal Economy is one way of looking at it, but I don't like the word libidinal and would prefer to think in terms of an affective economy.

Effectively, the affective economy is the superior one for most.

I think that it is easy to get these confused.

Many feminists think the only one that counts is the material economy, and that if you are financially poor, then your life sucks. But you can be very rich, as rich as Paris Hilton, and have no real friends, and no real loved ones, and be as poor as can be.

Going to a church might also impoverish you in certain ways (you are supposed to kick in cash), but it might in other ways build your affective economy in ways that allow you to sing with your neighbors hymns of praise to the Lord -- where else do you get to do such a richly beautiful task?

Nero was Lord of the known world in his own day, and yet probably the poorest man in the world for his time. When he was at last alone, and it was time to cut his throat, absolutely no one cared that he was about to die. Good riddance.

I don't really know what I'm saying, but I'm saying it anyway.

Jacques Albert said...

Tom:

Demanding another blogger address his or her comments in the second person and address certain selected comments of the demander IS whining. It's also foot-stomping childishness. Next thing max will threaten is to hold his breath until we answer him properly.

Disagreeing with the views of other bloggers in arguing or making a point is not whining. As Austen's Anne Elliot has it, Tom, "[y]ou should have distinguished."

Two more conservative or libertarian documentaries: Ben Stein's "Expelled" (on the evolution--Intelligent Design debate) and Evan Coyne Maloney's "Indoctrinate U" (on leftist campus indoctrination and the suppression of free speech and debate in American institutions of higher learning).

Max said...

Jacques -

I'm just making note of a trend in your posting. You're happy to go toe-to-toe when you can just toss out an opinion about something, but when it comes to a factual discussion, you feign exhaustion for my arguments in posts directed at others. It's passive aggressive, and you constantly do it. If you have the right not to take me on directly, which you certainly do, then I have the right to call your ass on it and argue that it wrecks your credibility. The bottom line is that you have noted the lack of motivation, the laziness of "mascots" (obviously referring to minorities, etc.) in the argument about poverty. In fact, the term "mascot" is a favorite of yours. You pull it out often. Well, my argument is that motivation and effort have absolutely nothing to do with poverty whatsoever. Even if everybody was highly motivated and put forth great effort, there would still be poor people in the world, for the simple fact that when the few take a greater amount of the resources, as happens in capitalism, the many receive fewer resources, and some receive none or negligible amounts. This is an inherent byproduct of the system and has nothing directly to do with laziness or lack of motivation.

Max said...

Oh yeah. You wrote this Jacques:

"I'm not so as Sally sure that the impoverished are actually as helpless, mentally-impaired, and incapable as she indicates. Could it be perhaps that the childish, petulant dependency of welfare mascots affirms the condescending assurance of redistributionist liberals that contribute greatly to the formers's perceived plight?"

You say above that you're not sure those in poverty are as helpless or incapable as Sally indicates. You refer to the "childish, petulant dependency of welfare mascots."

So yeah, you are saying that "welfare mascots" are lazy and unmotivated, that their problems by and large are not related to incapability.'

So there's your quote, idiot. What do you have to say for yourself?

G. M. Palmer said...

Max,

Being petulant and dependable does not mean being disabled. It means you have traded your self-worth for the teat of mamma gubmint.

Now:

Well, my argument is that motivation and effort have absolutely nothing to do with poverty whatsoever. Even if everybody was highly motivated and put forth great effort, there would still be poor people in the world, for the simple fact that when the few take a greater amount of the resources, as happens in capitalism, the many receive fewer resources, and some receive none or negligible amounts. This is an inherent byproduct of the system and has nothing directly to do with laziness or lack of motivation.

1) You have no idea what you're talking about.

2) What resources do you mean?

Money? We aren't on the gold standard, Marx. There's an infinite supply of fiat currency. It can never run out.

Building resources? Those grow out of the ground. Until the sun stops, we're going to have wood.

Food? See above.

Perhaps you mean energy resources. These are certainly limited (in theory) although so abundant that when artificial inflationary practices end, prices can be cut by nearly 2/3.

Jobs? See my comment on money.

If everyone were motivated and put forth great effort, they would find jobs and create wealth.

Again, poverty is related solely to personal motivation. Jesus said the poor would always be with us because he understood that some people would always make poor choices. I challenge you to find me someone who lives in squalid poverty who:

graduated from high school on time
with good grades
knows a trade
is sober

I know it's terrible that poor choices when one is young affect the rest of one's life, but there it is.

Max said...

GM -

Actually, there is a limited amount of currency at any given time. Certainly, governments can print more, and they do so regularly, but this waters down the value of the currency at the same time. If there is infinite currency, then why don't governments just print up a ton of it and hand it out to poor people, if indeed it is as simple and easy as that? Oh wait, it's because it's not as simple and easy as that. 'Nuff said.

Jobs are not infinite, GM. I mean, are you even going to substantiate that argument? Why don't employers just create enough jobs for every single living adult if it's as simple and easy as that? Oh wait, it's because it's not as simple and easy as that. Again, 'nuff said.

Absolutely nothing that you said served as refutation of my argument in the least. You, sir, are the one who has no idea what he's talking about.

Poverty is not related to motivation at all. It is a fact that, under capitalism, there is a segment of society that will be in poverty. Perhaps one possible determining factor in WHO becomes part of that segment of society is motivation and effort. But the fact remains that, even if everybody put in stellar effort, some of them would still be in poverty. That's how capitalism works. The few accrue a massive amount of resources and the many accrue less, and of that many who accrue less, there is a portion who live in abject poverty relative to others in their society.

G. M. Palmer said...

Poverty is not related to motivation at all. It is a fact that, under capitalism, there is a segment of society that will be in poverty.

Take out your the first sentence -- as it is laughably wrong, and you still haven't given me an example of a motivated yet poverty-living person who lives in a nominally capitalist society -- and then take out "under capitalism" and you will be right.

Or have you noticed that everyone to the north of you who lives in such wonderful Communism is wealthy?

Or those folks who live to the south of me in wonderful Communism. Are they wealthy too?

The average Russian?

Or does poverty have nothing to do with the economic system in force?

The economic system at the time of Jesus can hardly be called Capitalism. Rome funded itself through the conquest and absorption of other nations (at the time namely Parthia and Egypt) and did a pretty thorough job of feeding everyone.

Yet there were still poor people.

Gosh, why is that?

But hey, you keep thinking that Capitalism is related to poverty. Work against capitalism. Throw some bombs or whatever it is you do. And when you find that everyone's paychecks have been made equal you will wonder why yours is so small and why the bread you can buy is so stale and so expensive.

Jacques Albert said...

As usual from max, so many words, so little sense. And since he couldn't produce the "laziness" quotation he falsely ranted about, also as usual, he just invents it out of the arcanum of his walnut-size brain. And then just repeats the rubbish jabbered in his earlier posts, such as:

"Well, my argument is that motivation and effort have absolutely nothing to do with poverty whatsoever." Unqualified as it is, this piece of counter-factual nonsense is quite de rigeur for max and makes one wonder where he might be located on Piaget's early developmental scale. Then the truly astounding apercu that when some have more, others have less, as is true in all economic systems. What kindergarten genius to discover this! No mention that in modestly-regulated, dynamic, and inventive capitalist systems, the inevitable poor tend to have a much higher material standard of living than the much greater number of the impoverished in a socialist or communist command economy. max's simpleton's fixed-wealth pie-chart delusion doesn't allow for an expanding economy. GM's quite well answered some of max's other blurted-out foolishness.

As for the term "mascots," it's Thomas Sowell's and it fits quite nicely. However, I do support educational outreach efforts for the mascots. One initiative would require all prospective voters to pass a simple English civics test in order to qualify to vote, just as prospective drivers must pass a written driver's test. This might tend to improve both literacy levels, personal achievement, and civic education in America.

Jacques Albert said...

strike "both" in the last sentence

Emmy Bee said...

There will always be poor and there will always be suffering people until Jesus ushers in His Kingdom.

All we can do is try to provide an environment in which people can use their talents to do well for themselves and their families.

I think, though, that America hasn't even scratched the surface of its potential for prosperity. One way we can do this is to exploit our natural resources in a sensible way. Our country is so rich in renewable natural resources, as well as oil and coal. We're practically the Saudi Arabia of coal! We have 400 years of the stuff at today's use rates. If we could somehow exploit that and put American genius to work to find new ways to use coal in an environmentally neutral way, we would gain jobs, electricity, and grow our export capacity.

We haven't scratched the surface of taking advantage of our human capital. Genius thrives where exceptional people are allowed to thrive. In any system in which individualism and exceptional achievement (including the material wealth that exceptional achievement inevitably generates) is to be suppressed, one can expect nothing but mediocrity, which is what one can see all across Europe in their more socialist states.

I believe we enjoy (almost) unlimited possibilities in this country if we would get over the notion that we must give all the right to equal results. When genius and industry and invention come together in an (almost) unbridled configuration, everyone benefits. The nation grows its wealth, the people find themselves in more employment, and there is more high-valued money in circulation.

That's good stuff, folks!

Emmy Bee said...

There will always be poor and there will always be suffering people until Jesus ushers in His Kingdom.

All we can do is try to provide an environment in which people can use their talents to do well for themselves and their families.

I think, though, that America hasn't even scratched the surface of its potential for prosperity. One way we can do this is to exploit our natural resources in a sensible way. Our country is so rich in renewable natural resources, as well as oil and coal. We're practically the Saudi Arabia of coal! We have 400 years of the stuff at today's use rates. If we could somehow exploit that and put American genius to work to find new ways to use coal in an environmentally neutral way, we would gain jobs, electricity, and grow our export capacity.

We haven't scratched the surface of taking advantage of our human capital. Genius thrives where exceptional people are allowed to thrive. In any system in which individualism and exceptional achievement (including the material wealth that exceptional achievement inevitably generates) is to be suppressed, one can expect nothing but mediocrity, which is what one can see all across Europe in their more socialist states.

I believe we enjoy (almost) unlimited possibilities in this country if we would get over the notion that we must give all the right to equal results. When genius and industry and invention come together in an (almost) unbridled configuration, everyone benefits. The nation grows its wealth, the people find themselves in more employment, and there is more high-valued money in circulation.

That's good stuff, folks!

Max said...

GM -

You didn't even read my post. I know this because you didn't respond to the actual argument.

I wrote that perhaps motivation and effort is decisive in WHO becomes part of the impoverished class, but the fact of the matter is that even if everybody put forth equal effort and possessed equal motivation, there would still be some of them in poverty, because poverty is inevitable under capitalism. When the few take more of the wealth (the top 20% in America own 80% of the wealth), there is not so much left to go around. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter how much effort somebody puts out. Poverty is inevitable under this system.

What you appear to be arguing, in fact, is that there is no calculable ceiling to "the wealth" at any given point in time, which is an absolutely absurd notion. Your only reasoning for this is that we no longer operate on a gold system, but I'm not exactly sure why that means there's an unlimited amount of currency. In theory, you are correct. But if we had an infinite amount of currency circulating in reality, it would be worth nothing.


Jacques -

As the economy expands, current job salaries and wages increase, and cost of production goes up, and stockholders demand larger profit margins, etc, etc, etc. I mean, do you think the economy grows in order to benefit all the people who don't have jobs? To give them another chance? The top 20% own 80% of the wealth. In a system like this, it is guaranteed that there will be a class in poverty. All it comes down to is a question of WHO will be part of this class. Certainly motivation and effort will determine this to a certain extent. But that doesn't justify cutting off social support systems. If we know that the very economic system we allow to flourish guarantees that some will be on the bottom living lives devoid of dignity, we should at least provide them the support they need to have shelter and food and basic necessities.

Kirby Olson said...

Max, you're an intelligent guy but you're way too mad, and it means that we have to go through a very angry post. Try to lighten up a little and surprise us here and there by throwing us a cookie.

As it is, it's like running a gauntlet where the pain quotient is 100%.

The only pleasant thing is that you are fairly logical and so on.

But you want to attract us with honey here and there. We don't have to read anybody's posts here. It's a free country.

Max said...

Kirby -

You're right, it's a free country. Nobody has to read or respond to my comments. But the problem is when people read and respond to some of my comments, and then when the kitchen gets too hot, they make passive-aggressive claims directed at others about how exhausted they are of my argument style, and how it would be a wasted effort on their part to even reply. You can't "condescend" to treat my arguments as valid some of the time, and then claim to be above replying to me when your arguments are demonstrated to be insufficient. Or rather, you CAN do this, but it's obnoxious and completely destroys your credibility. I don't see why there's any reason ever to participate in these comments if certain people are just fairweather fighters, completely willing to toss out arguments when all it takes is the strong phrasing of an opinion, but who shrink away when obvious flaws in their arguments are brought to light.

Emmy Bee said...

^---- finds someone's kitchen to be excessively chilly. And obnoxious. And lacks credibility.

Max said...

But only because you disagree with me.

G. M. Palmer said...

Max,

I no longer carefully read through Tom's posts. I still read through yours. I addressed the points -- your assertion that poverty is somehow inherent to Capitalism or, rather, is only or inevitably possible under capitalism is silly and wrong.

Now:

But if we had an infinite amount of currency circulating in reality, it would be worth nothing.

I think the recent crash of the housing and stock markets and the fact that GM is trading for less than the alleged value of its assets proves your statement quite correct, Max. Fiat currency is, quite by design, worth nothing.

Max said...

GM -

I never said, or meant to imply that poverty is only possible under capitalism. That would be a silly statement. Rather, I only hoped to push back against this idea that motivation and effort are primary factors in whether somebody is impoverished or not. Under capitalism, it is preordained that the few will control a larger portion of the overall wealth while the many will control less. This means that, inevitably, a certain segment of society will be on the bottom. The determination of exactly who constitutes this segment of impoverished people may well have something to do with effort or motivation, but the fact that this segment must exist under capitalism is not really up for debate.

I don't think that the correct response is to move away from capitalism, but I do think that if we realize poverty is part of the system itself, built into the functioning of it, it is our responsibility to provide for those who end up on the bottom, regardless of how they were "selected" to be there (lack of motivation/effort, or otherwise).

Max said...

Also, the reason why I feel this is a responsibility is because (a) it's good for the impoverished folks obviously and (b) it's good for the maintenance of confidence in the system. I think it's far less beneficial to build up a myth about laziness being the cause of poverty, not only because it's incorrect, but because it's bad PR for capitalism. I mean, honestly, I can see spreading a myth if it's something that reflects positively on your position, but calling poor people lazy isn't going to win you any popularity contests. In fact, it's part of the reason why people, especially those in the lower classes, have such a negative view of those on top, and why capitalism is believed to be such a cutthroat, inhumane economic system.

And (c) I think it's actually beneficial to capitalist industry to have a workforce that is properly maintained, so not only should those in poverty be lifted up with social programs, but there should be universal healthcare for everybody in America. If one is inclined to think of the population so cynically merely in terms of its "labor potential," then it only makes sense that one's potential is greater if he/she is healthy and well-maintained physically. People have no incentive to keep themselves in top physical condition if it costs too much, but this dip in physical wellbeing is actually harmful to our productivity. People need more sick days and vacation days if they are injured, ill, or otherwise inclined to stay home from work, and more and more they are fighting for and winning these benefits. It makes more sense for people to just have affordable healthcare, be healthy more of the time, and be granted fewer sick and vacation days.

I don't see why some people are so opposed to this. It seems like everybody would benefit.

G. M. Palmer said...

Max,

In any natural distribution, some people will have less and some people will have more. Bell curve and all, you know.

This is true for brains, beauty, and bucks.

We don't (or shouldn't) try to redistribute intelligence or beauty from those who have it to those who don't (although some teachers have been known to force the "smart kids" to work with/tutor/do the work for the "slow kids").

Neither should we force a mechanic to change our oil because he has more mechanical knowledge and aptitude than we do.

Now brains and beauty come from genetics. Mechanical knowledge and aptitude come from practice and study.

Poverty has to come from somewhere. You say you don't confine poverty solely to capitalism and yet you keep harping on how we need to fix capitalism in order to take care of the poor.

This isn't how capitalism works. If the we in "we need to fix and do this" is everyone together (that is, the government), then this is socialism, not capitalism.

The way it works, Max, is that you see that there is a problem and you do something to fix it. No one is stopping you from giving out free education or building homeless shelters.

Capitalism is all about personal responsibility. If you are rich or poor it is no one's fault or doing but your own.

M

Max said...

Why must poverty be confined to capitalism in order for capitalism to be responsible for the poverty we now have? That doesn't make any sense. Capitalism ensures, by its very structure, that poverty will exist. When poverty exists under communism/socialism, it's because poor governance has led to the misapplication of the economic policy. If we had "perfect" governance according to capitalism, poverty would be even more widespread than it is right now.

"Personal responsibility" is the myth that we've attached to capitalism. No matter how much effort or motivation the entire population shows, however, some will end up on the bottom. Are you even going to deal with that argument or are you just going to keep sidestepping it? The PRIMARY FACTOR in determining the existence of poverty under capitalism is the system itself, because it allows some to have more and some to have less. It preordains that this will be the case. It's a game of musical chairs where people are allowed to take more than one seat.

We need to regulate capitalism in order to make sure that the poor are taken care of. Capitalist societies are not the only societies with impoverished people, but they are some of the only societies that mandate the existence of poverty. That is the point. And that's why we should take care of people who fall into it.

Max said...

Also, GM:

You know damned well that in a capitalist system, people see no direct benefit to helping the poor. That's why there are still so many of them. I love how you relegate assisting others in need to some kind of "individual task," with full knowledge that there is absolutely nothing that will compel people to engage in the task, and in fact, that it will work directly against their immediate best interests. In such a system, "leave it up to the individual" basically equals "let the problem fester and get worse."

HELPING THOSE IN POVERTY IS BENEFICIAL IN PRETTY MUCH EVERY WAY. It will lower crime and decrease the overall drag these people have on society. It will increase confidence in the system. It will keep new members of the workforce potentially in the mix, increasing competition in the job market. Oh yeah, and it will life some human beings out of absolute squalor! How about that for a benefit? I'd usually put that one first, but I know it doesn't really resonate with your type.

G. M. Palmer said...

Max:

I realized what was wrong with your/Tom's position on progressive taxation.

Smith said that each should contribute to the government.

That would be fine (though again I don't like income taxation and prefer property taxation) if that's how things worked.

But they don't, not here. We have 60-65% of the population who contributes to the government and to the bottom 35-40% who not only don't contribute but who get money back.

If you want to crow about EVERYONE pulling his or her weight, then you would need to eliminate the tax system that allows for people not only to not pay taxes but to get back more than they pay in (note, this would affect me -- 2 kids and one income works quite well under the current tax schemes).

Now, about what you said:

Yes, there will always be income distribution. But you cannot deny that the bell curve of income distribution under a capitalist system starts from a far higher point than under a controlled economy.

That is, I would rather be poor in America than poor in North Korea or Cuba.

Also, being taken out of poverty doesn't help anyone. If it did, welfare slums would be little happy Disneylands.

 
Site Meter