Bloggingheads Community

Bloggingheads Community (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/index.php)
-   Diavlog comments (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   Values Added: So 2011 (Amy Sullivan & Ramesh Ponnuru) (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=6528)

Florian 02-25-2011 02:24 AM

Re: Values Added: So 2011 (Amy Sullivan & Ramesh Ponnuru)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by operative (Post 198961)
Well, like BHH, I don't see how one can escape labeling Marx a reactionary. He wasn't reactionary in the same way that, say, de Maistre was, but nevertheless his writing, much like Ayn Rand's much later, was reactionary..

No European would ever use the word in that way, either for Marx or Ayn Rand. But I think I see your point: they were both "reacting" against something. So what? Every important thinker "reacts" against something--- not that I would include sucha ludicrous figure as Ayn Rand among the important thinkers (as opposed to the merely popular).

BHH? Do you mean BHL? If you consider him an authority on Marx "I don't see how one can escape labelling" you....a bullshitter perhaps?

Quote:

You can ascribe blame if you want. I'm just saying that Pol Pot was influenced by their writings.
Generally, when people make such unfounded and unprovable assertions about the "influence" of Rousseau on some 20th-century political movement they intend to ascribe blame. There is minor academic industry in such fluff, but no one who has actually made the effort to read Rousseau, and no historian who has actually tried to explain such figures as Pol Pot, will find it easy to establish causal links between the ideas of Rousseau and lunacy of Pol Pot.

The same goes for the "influence" of Marx, although the (often obscure) thought of Marx was simplified, vulgarized and travestied by numerous disciples to such an extent that it is almost impossible to distinguish Marx from Marxism. Marx famously said: "I am not a Marxist."

bjkeefe 02-25-2011 07:59 AM

Re: Values Added: So 2011 (Amy Sullivan & Ramesh Ponnuru)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Florian (Post 199006)
BHH? Do you mean BHL? If you consider him an authority on Marx "I don't see how one can escape labelling" you....a bullshitter perhaps?

I think "BHH" = badhatharry.

Whether BHH is a better or worse authority on Marx than BHL is left as an exercise for the student.

badhatharry 02-25-2011 09:29 AM

Re: citizens should be allowed to bid on government jobs
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by handle (Post 198957)
You are aware or the fact that the public sector unions were formed as a result of the large amount of blood spilled by Dept. of transportation workers working on our roadways, right? Upper management refused to provide proper safety measures and equipment, and they were literally getting killed on the job.
I takes this kind of abuse to inspire workers to risk their jobs and organize to protect their rights.

But we now have civil service and labor laws which protect workers. I'm not saying that unions shouldn't exist, only that they are no longer necessary to keep transportation workers from harm. Things do change after all.

badhatharry 02-25-2011 09:45 AM

Re: Values Added: So 2011 (Amy Sullivan & Ramesh Ponnuru)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by operative (Post 198961)
Well, like BHH, I don't see how one can escape labeling Marx a reactionary. He wasn't reactionary in the same way that, say, de Maistre was, but nevertheless his writing, much like Ayn Rand's much later, was reactionary.

This is an interesting article on the meaning of the term.

operative 02-25-2011 10:51 AM

Re: Values Added: So 2011 (Amy Sullivan & Ramesh Ponnuru)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Florian (Post 199006)
No European would ever use the word in that way, either for Marx or Ayn Rand. But I think I see your point: they were both "reacting" against something. So what? Every important thinker "reacts" against something--- not that I would include sucha ludicrous figure as Ayn Rand among the important thinkers (as opposed to the merely popular).

BHH? Do you mean BHL? If you consider him an authority on Marx "I don't see how one can escape labelling" you....a bullshitter perhaps?

No I was just seconding BHH's argument; I wouldn't consider either of us to experts on Marx. I have a bit of a background in political theory from my undergraduate days but nothing beyond that.


Quote:

Generally, when people make such unfounded and unprovable assertions about the "influence" of Rousseau on some 20th-century political movement they intend to ascribe blame. There is minor academic industry in such fluff, but no one who has actually made the effort to read Rousseau, and no historian who has actually tried to explain such figures as Pol Pot, will find it easy to establish causal links between the ideas of Rousseau and lunacy of Pol Pot.

The same goes for the "influence" of Marx, although the (often obscure) thought of Marx was simplified, vulgarized and travestied by numerous disciples to such an extent that it is almost impossible to distinguish Marx from Marxism. Marx famously said: "I am not a Marxist."
My sympathy for "they just got it wrong" arguments doesn't go too far. We can observe that Mao and Pol Pot certainly infused other influences with Marx to the point where aspects of Marx were lost. But then we have all of the other Marxist regimes and movements--Stalin, Castro, The Shining Path, the Afro-Marxists. If your philosophy has so easily been used by individuals committing gross human rights violations, then I think that says something about what you are writing.

One of the reasons that Marx's writing lends itself so easily to violence is because it is deterministic and utopian. That, combined with the inevitable violence of the synthesis from the conflict between proletariat and bourgeoisies.

Compare that to, say, Islam. People have used Islamic writings to support brutal, horrible regimes. But we also have examples of Islamic thought being present in functioning, human rights respecting democracies. Christianity was used to support theocratic regimes for quite a while, but as Stark and others have argued, it also played a huge role in the development of democratic thought, as well as the anti-slavery movement in the west.

As for Pol Pot and Rousseau, one need's only to consider Pol Pot's grand, agrarian based utopianism, with all of modernity as 'corrupting' man's fundamental nature, as an interpretation of Rousseau's Natural Man notion.

Philip Short documents Pol Pot's interest in Rousseau in his Pol Pot: Anatomy of a Nightmare. This link should excerpt the individual passages:
http://books.google.com/books?id=XW2...usseau&f=false

Florian 02-25-2011 11:24 AM

Re: Values Added: So 2011 (Amy Sullivan & Ramesh Ponnuru)
 
Operative writes...

There is nothing I can say in reply to you because you have said nothing specific about either Rousseau or Marx, or about the problems they were addressing. As far as I can tell from a previous exchange with you on the Social Contract, you have never even read the work, which is neither utopian nor "agrarian," but an attempt to understand the principles of political right (le droit). Kant thought that Rousseau was the Newton of the moral universe. I agree.

operative 02-25-2011 12:43 PM

Re: Values Added: So 2011 (Amy Sullivan & Ramesh Ponnuru)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Florian (Post 199027)
Operative writes...

There is nothing I can say in reply to you because you have said nothing specific about either Rousseau or Marx, or about the problems they were addressing. As far as I can tell from a previous exchange with you on the Social Contract, you have never even read the work, which is neither utopian nor "agrarian," but an attempt to understand the principles of political right (le droit). Kant thought that Rousseau was the Newton of the moral universe. I agree.

Somehow it doesn't surprise me that you're such a fan of Rousseau. Unfortunately, it is only the unconstrained view of humanity, which Rousseau best exemplifies, that has led to the worst of atrocities in modern history. Rousseau likened the mass public to 'a stupid, pusillanimous invalid' needing to be led by the nose by a superior ruler. Grave human rights abuses can be justified under this thinking by simply stating that the progress of humanity is far more important than the lives of individual people.

Don Zeko 02-25-2011 12:44 PM

Re: Values Added: So 2011 (Amy Sullivan & Ramesh Ponnuru)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by operative (Post 199036)
Somehow it doesn't surprise me that you're such a fan of Rousseau. Unfortunately, it is only the unconstrained view of humanity, which Rousseau best exemplifies, that has led to the worst of atrocities in modern history. Rousseau likened the mass public to 'a stupid, pusillanimous invalid' needing to be led by the nose by a superior ruler. Grave human rights abuses can be justified under this thinking by simply stating that the progress of humanity is far more important than the lives of individual people.

You liked Jonah Goldberg's book, didn't you?

chiwhisoxx 02-25-2011 01:09 PM

Re: Values Added: So 2011 (Amy Sullivan & Ramesh Ponnuru)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Zeko (Post 199037)
You liked Jonah Goldberg's book, didn't you?

You don't have to like Jonah Goldberg's book to think Rousseau had a lot of bad ideas.

Don Zeko 02-25-2011 01:17 PM

Re: Values Added: So 2011 (Amy Sullivan & Ramesh Ponnuru)
 
No, but there are enough of the tropes of Goldberg's political philosophy guilt-by-association game in that post to make the resemblance pretty undeniable.

Florian 02-25-2011 01:36 PM

Re: Values Added: So 2011 (Amy Sullivan & Ramesh Ponnuru)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by operative (Post 199036)
Somehow it doesn't surprise me that you're such a fan of Rousseau. Unfortunately, it is only the unconstrained view of humanity, which Rousseau best exemplifies, that has led to the worst of atrocities in modern history. Rousseau likened the mass public to 'a stupid, pusillanimous invalid' needing to be led by the nose by a superior ruler. Grave human rights abuses can be justified under this thinking by simply stating that the progress of humanity is far more important than the lives of individual people.

Rousseau said nothing of the sort. When you can quote the actual words of Rousseau, I will engage in a discussion with you. An average graduate of a French lycée could easily demolish your silly statements.

badhatharry 02-25-2011 02:28 PM

Re: Values Added: So 2011 (Amy Sullivan & Ramesh Ponnuru)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by operative (Post 199023)
No I was just seconding BHH's argument; I wouldn't consider either of us to experts on Marx. I have a bit of a background in political theory from my undergraduate days but nothing beyond that.

Actually, I didn't make any argument, only asked a question.

Quote:

My sympathy for "they just got it wrong" arguments doesn't go too far. We can observe that Mao and Pol Pot certainly infused other influences with Marx to the point where aspects of Marx were lost. But then we have all of the other Marxist regimes and movements--Stalin, Castro, The Shining Path, the Afro-Marxists. If your philosophy has so easily been used by individuals committing gross human rights violations, then I think that says something about what you are writing.
I don't think a writer or thinker can be blamed for the crazy ideas of the people who have read them. I know I'll get dinged for this but I somehow doubt very many people can even understand what Marx was saying in any depth. Also did Marx ever seek to recruit followers?

Quote:

Compare that to, say, Islam. People have used Islamic writings to support brutal, horrible regimes. But we also have examples of Islamic thought being present in functioning, human rights respecting democracies. Christianity was used to support theocratic regimes for quite a while, but as Stark and others have argued, it also played a huge role in the development of democratic thought, as well as the anti-slavery movement in the west.
Have there been any Marxist movements which didn't end in calamity?

handle 02-25-2011 02:31 PM

Re: citizens should be allowed to bid on government jobs
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 199013)
But we now have civil service and labor laws which protect workers. I'm not saying that unions shouldn't exist, only that they are no longer necessary to keep transportation workers from harm. Things do change after all.

So if we take away bargaining rights, and bust the unions, things will be great right? That may not be what you are saying, but that's what steve and op, and the tea party want.
Let's ask the airline pilots and controllers what they think. Did you see the 60 minutes piece ( I think was on that show) on how completely f#*ked they are since it became "morning in america"?* "Things do change" alright!
The facts on the ground (in my very blue state) are this:
Pensions have already been cut, and the ret. age increased. The buzz about the shortfall is due to people hired before the fix in 1996, who's pensions were put heavily in the stock market (and lost).
Wages have stagnated for years, and even fallen because of mandatory furloughs.
Benefits are steadily decreasing, and workers are having to pay in if they want to maintain past levels of coverage.
Many positions have been eliminated as people retire.
All this was implemented as a result of collective bargaining. I'm saying both sides should continue to work together, and stop trashing workers out of resentment and tribal manipulation towards class warfare by the rich.
But I get the feeling you are on the privileged side of the socio-economic divide and not one of the blind followers of any propaganda machine. Perhaps you even have a truly vested interest in all this?
There are better ways to go about it:

Here's a link to last night's CNN Parker Spitzer interview (down the page) with Maryland Gov. Martin O'mally, detailing his take on the class war, and an excerpt below:
Quote:

GOV. MARTIN O'MALLEY, MARYLAND: Thanks, Eliot. Good to be with you both.

SPITZER: My pleasure. Well, here's the question I've got for you.

The debate about state finance has been dominated by Chris Christie, Chris Christie by Scott Walker, who have come at this with a pretty aggressive approach which is to slash spending and also to sort of take away public sector union organizing rights. You are facing a deficit of about $1.4 billion in your deficit in Maryland. And your debt and your budget is about, how is it? About $34 billion if I recall.

O'MALLEY: More or less.

SPITZER: How are you addressing your deficit and how was it different from what Governors Christie and Walker are doing?

O'MALLEY: In Maryland, Eliot, we have a AAA bond rating. We're one of only eight states who still has a AAA bond rating. Time and again we've had, because of this recession, to go back and cut our budget, reduce spending, reduce the size of government. But we've done something else at the same time. Two other things really. One is we protected the investments that allow us to come out of this recession, create jobs by improving education and spurring innovation, and the other thing we've done is we've focused on solving the problem and creating jobs. Not on trying to settle old political scores or trying to do away with labor unions.

Every time we've gone back to do cuts and there have been many, we've always made sure that we sat down with our workers and explained, look, we don't want to have to do furloughs. But these are the choices. These are the options. And we've managed to come through this together even as we've reduced the size of our state bureaucracy. It's the smallest it's been since 1973.

SPITZER: You know, Governor, I want to pick out because I think when you pierce the rhetoric, and clearly the rhetoric from Governor Walker and from you is very, very different. But in point of fact, some of the things you're doing and he's doing are not that different.

O'MALLEY: Yes.

SPITZER: You have cut your state employee workforce by about a thousand, am I correct? Or even more than that.

O'MALLEY: 4,200.

SPITZER: 4,200. You have asked your state employees to increase their contribution to the state pension fund -- O'MALLEY: That's right.

SPITZER: -- by an amount actually roughly equivalent to what he is asking them to do.

O'MALLEY: Right.

SPITZER: And you've gotten them to agree to that. I'm correct about that.

O'MALLEY: That's right. I guess it is my perspective, Eliot. You know, I used to be a mayor. I was mayor of Baltimore for seven years. And I never found that driving people into corners or vilifying your opponent was a good way to get thing done. I don't think that running a corporation that anybody is successful in that corporation in getting their employers to produce by running them down. So the fact of the matter is we're having to ask our employees for many of the same things that they are and that the governor in Wisconsin is. The difference is, we haven't chosen to set this up as some sort of big ideological battle, trying to bring our state back to the days of Coolidge and Hoover. We're respectful of the sacrifice that's entailed and we're asking everybody to step forward so we can have an adult conversation and not drive people into corners.
[added]
*Gov. Walker described this as Americas finest moment or something like that in the now famous prank call to the fake "Koch". I'm not gonna go back and get the exact quote, sorry.

operative 02-25-2011 03:28 PM

Re: Values Added: So 2011 (Amy Sullivan & Ramesh Ponnuru)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 199049)
Actually, I didn't make any argument, only asked a question.



I don't think a writer or thinker can be blamed for the crazy ideas of the people who have read them. I know I'll get dinged for this but I somehow doubt very many people can even understand what Marx was saying in any depth. Also did Marx ever seek to recruit followers?



Have there been any Marxist movements which didn't end in calamity?

Marx, like Chomskey, considered himself a thinker and not an organizer. The Manifesto is a pretty clear call to arms, though.

operative 02-25-2011 03:30 PM

Re: Values Added: So 2011 (Amy Sullivan & Ramesh Ponnuru)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Zeko (Post 199045)
No, but there are enough of the tropes of Goldberg's political philosophy guilt-by-association game in that post to make the resemblance pretty undeniable.

I'm actually referencing the constrained vs unconstrained debate as identified most notably by Thomas Sowell.

stephanie 02-25-2011 03:32 PM

Re: Values Added: So 2011 (Amy Sullivan & Ramesh Ponnuru)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 199049)
Have there been any Marxist movements which didn't end in calamity?

How are you defining Marxist movement? It seems like the right usually wants to apply the term pretty broadly, but perhaps we can agree to a more limited definition.

operative 02-25-2011 03:34 PM

Re: Values Added: So 2011 (Amy Sullivan & Ramesh Ponnuru)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Florian (Post 199046)
Rousseau said nothing of the sort. When you can quote the actual words of Rousseau, I will engage in a discussion with you. An average graduate of a French lycée could easily demolish your silly statements.

"Nations, like men, are teachable only in their youth; with age they become incorrigible. Once customs and prejudices rooted, reform is a dangerous and fruitless enterprise; a people can not bear to see its evils touched, even if only to be eradicated; it is like a stupid, pusillanimous invalid who trembles at the sight of a physician."

From the Social Contract, Book II.

Pol Pot fancied himself the physician.

operative 02-25-2011 03:41 PM

Re: Values Added: So 2011 (Amy Sullivan & Ramesh Ponnuru)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 199059)
How are you defining Marxist movement? It seems like the right usually wants to apply the term pretty broadly, but perhaps we can agree to a more limited definition.

Well don't worry, we're not looking to include Barack Obama in the definition ;)

I don't want to speak for BHH, but perhaps we could start with any governing body explicitly espousing Marx's dialectic, and then branch off to include groups who attempted but failed to gain power, espousing Marx's dialectic--this would include The Shining Path, currently the Communinst Party of India, etc.

Florian 02-25-2011 09:37 PM

Re: Values Added: So 2011 (Amy Sullivan & Ramesh Ponnuru)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by operative (Post 199060)
"Nations, like men, are teachable only in their youth; with age they become incorrigible. Once customs and prejudices rooted, reform is a dangerous and fruitless enterprise; a people can not bear to see its evils touched, even if only to be eradicated; it is like a stupid, pusillanimous invalid who trembles at the sight of a physician."

From the Social Contract, Book II.

Pol Pot fancied himself the physician.

Yes, but you said exactly the opposite. Rousseau is saying that reforming a nation, once its customs are rooted, is dangerous and fruitless. And when he says that a people is like a "pusillanimous invalid that trembles at the sight of a physician," he is just stating the obvious, namely that invalids often think the cure is worse than the disease. Look at the contemporary United States.... In any case, it is a comparison, and the emphasis is not on the physician but on the people who are afraid of him.

Neither here nor anywhere else does Rousseau say that "progress" justifies suppressing the rights of individuals, let alone killing them, as you suggested above. Indeed he explicitly argues, like Locke, that the state exists to the safeguard the life (and property) of every single individual. Moreover, Rousseau was well-known in the 18th century for denying the reality of (moral) progress, so your statement above is doubly wrong.

The fact that Rousseau thought that country life was better than city life, or that Geneva had purer morals than Paris, hardly makes him a forerunner of Pol Pot. Many people, before and since, have expressed similar views.

badhatharry 02-26-2011 09:29 AM

Re: citizens should be allowed to bid on government jobs
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by handle (Post 199050)
So if we take away bargaining rights, and bust the unions, things will be great right? That may not be what you are saying, but that's what steve and op, and the tea party want.

These are the things I believe to be true based on what I'm hearing and reading.
1) Government jobs are a huge drain on the budgets of states primarily due to their life-time benefit packages.
2) On average they make more than comparable private sector jobs.

I doubt that air traffic controllers are completely fucked since Reagan didn't allow them to strike although I'm sure there are always isolated incidents of bad behavior, as there probably were before Reagan's actions. How would a union be able to assure the kind of excellence you are talking about?

And now for my big wrap-up which everyone has read by now.

Quote:

..."The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service," Roosevelt wrote in 1937 to the National Federation of Federal Employees. Yes, public workers may demand fair treatment, wrote Roosevelt. But, he wrote, "I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place" in the public sector. "A strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government."
With government in such financial trouble it's time for the tide to turn. Don't worry, it'll be alright.

badhatharry 02-26-2011 09:55 AM

Re: Values Added: So 2011 (Amy Sullivan & Ramesh Ponnuru)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 199059)
How are you defining Marxist movement? It seems like the right usually wants to apply the term pretty broadly, but perhaps we can agree to a more limited definition.

How about the idea that a Marxist movement has as its goal that workers would own the means of production.To my knowledge that stage has never come to fruition in countries which undertook the process and these countries seem to get stuck at a stage where the state has inordinate power.

I suppose China is an example of a Marxist country which is doing pretty well but certainly capitalism plays a huge role in the economics of China.

bjkeefe 02-26-2011 10:23 AM

Misapprehensions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 199166)
These are the things I believe to be true based on what I'm hearing and reading.
1) Government jobs are a huge drain on the budgets of states primarily due to their life-time benefit packages.
2) On average they make more than comparable private sector jobs.

You should broaden your reading list beyond those who tell you what you want to hear. In fact, at least in Wisconsin:

Quote:

David Cay Johnston has a terrific piece up about the nonsense of comparing government workers to private-sector counterparts by claiming that the government pays for more of their benefits. As he says,

Quote:

Out of every dollar that funds Wisconsin’ s pension and health insurance plans for state workers, 100 cents comes from the state workers.

And more broadly:

Quote:

So the right question — the only question — is whether government workers are getting an overall good deal compared with private-sector workers. Why, then, are we hearing so much about the meaningless contribution comparison?

The answer is simple: it’s because doing the comparison right doesn’t yield the desired answer. The new report by the Times gets the same answer as other studies: low-paid government workers do a bit better than their private-sector counterparts, but others if anything do worse.

Luo and Cooper report this as a “mixed answer” — but in terms of the political debate, it’s a body blow to the union-bashers, whose whole position is that public-sector workers are welfare queens in Cadillacs. They need to show outrageous overpayment, not rough equivalence at best.

And so they turn to a meaningless comparison that, to the unwary, sounds as if it supports their case.

Yes, some public-sector workers are overpaid. So are some private-sector workers. Doesn’t anyone read Dilbert? But the whole idea that union excesses are at the core of state and local fiscal problems is false, and only deliberate obfuscation keeps that from being obvious.
Follow-up post here.

Moving on ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 199166)
And now for my big wrap-up which everyone has read by now.

Quote:

..."The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service," Roosevelt wrote in 1937 to the National Federation of Federal Employees. Yes, public workers may demand fair treatment, wrote Roosevelt. But, he wrote, "I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place" in the public sector. "A strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government."

I encourage you, and everyone who thinks like this, to read Dennis Lehane's The Given Day. It's a great story for many reasons; here, the relevance is that one of the plot threads involves the police in Boston trying to unionize. (It's set in the days when WWI was just winding down.)

Actually, I encourage everyone to read it, pro-union, anti-union, or indifferent, and not just for that reason. It has considerable relevance to today's worries about Teh Terrorists, and it is overall just a wonderful, powerful read.

Don Zeko 02-26-2011 10:28 AM

Re: Misapprehensions
 
Poor choice of links, Brendan. Badhat doesn't believe in the Krug-Man.

bjkeefe 02-26-2011 11:12 AM

Re: Misapprehensions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Zeko (Post 199171)
Poor choice of links, Brendan. Badhat doesn't believe in the Krug-Man.

Granted. However, two things. First, there are other links within (both the post and my blockquotes), so I'd say if she wants to claim she has an open mind and doesn't just listen to people who tell her what she wants to hear, she can have a look at those.

Second, even if badhat continues her pretense that she ignores my posts, her claims are sufficiently erroneous that it's worth offering corrections for the benefit of anyone else who might be interested in the issues.

handle 02-26-2011 05:04 PM

Re: citizens should be allowed to bid on government jobs
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 199166)
With government in such financial trouble it's time for the tide to turn. Don't worry, it'll be alright.

I just outlined how the tide has been turning for sometime now. And that concessions have, and are being made without eliminating rights. But don't let details get in the way of cherry picking data and op-eds that support your foregone conclusions.

I take from your non-response to my impression of your perspective, that you do have a vested interest, and that you are looking down on us from your golden tax shelter.

I too, have been filing schedule A for a number of years, but I can still remember the first time, and the feeling of having been let into some sort of exclusive country club.
What I will never do, however, is turn my back on those are still trying to get there, or delude myself that I work harder than they do, or pass along misinformation outlining how they don't deserve what they have earned.

It's not a bad thing that you are luckier than most in the capitalist arena, but thinking you are somehow better than those in the trenches, and actively campaigning to deny them the right to protect themselves from people like you is capitalism at it's worst. The problem with unregulated capitalism is the same problem with Marxism, there are no checks on greed, or, as your sig. reads, "wonderful theory, wrong species".

bjkeefe 02-26-2011 06:16 PM

Re: citizens should be allowed to bid on government jobs
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by handle (Post 199191)
I just outlined how the tide has been turning for sometime now. And that concessions have, and are being made without eliminating rights. But don't let details get in the way of cherry picking data and op-eds that support your foregone conclusions.

I take from your non-response to my impression of your perspective, that you do have a vested interest, and that you are looking down on us from your golden tax shelter.

I too, have been filing schedule A for a number of years, but I can still remember the first time, and the feeling of having been let into some sort of exclusive country club.
What I will never do, however, is turn my back on those are still trying to get there, or delude myself that I work harder than they do, or pass along misinformation outlining how they don't deserve what they have earned.

It's not a bad thing that you are luckier than most in the capitalist arena, but thinking you are somehow better than those in the trenches, and actively campaigning to deny them the right to protect themselves from people like you is capitalism at it's worst. The problem with unregulated capitalism is the same problem with Marxism, there are no checks on greed, or, as your sig. reads, "wonderful theory, wrong species".

On a related note:

Quote:

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."

-- Abraham Lincoln

sapeye 02-27-2011 01:16 AM

Re: Values Added: So 2011 (Amy Sullivan & Ramesh Ponnuru)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 198952)
Agreed. A representative of the Reasonable Right™ paired with a representative of the center-right will tend to produce that.

The sharpest contrast between them was their complexions. Amy is seriously white! Perhaps that's what Boehner would look like without a tanning bed?

sapeye 02-27-2011 01:20 AM

Re: Values Added: So 2011 (Amy Sullivan & Ramesh Ponnuru)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Zeko (Post 198940)
It's 2008 all over again. I can't imagine any of them winning the nomination.

I'm torn. On the one hand the fun of watching them tear into each other and exposing the fault lines in the Republican party is delightful to contemplate. On the other hand there is the horrible possibility of Palin actually becoming president.

TwinSwords 02-27-2011 10:32 AM

Re: Values Added: So 2011 (Amy Sullivan & Ramesh Ponnuru)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sapeye (Post 199234)
The sharpest contrast between them was their complexions. Amy is seriously white! Perhaps that's what Boehner would look like without a tanning bed?

Hey, she lives in Michigan, and it's been a looooong winter. When we want sun, we look for YouTube videos of it.

badhatharry 02-28-2011 09:40 AM

Re: citizens should be allowed to bid on government jobs
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by handle (Post 199191)
I just outlined how the tide has been turning for sometime now. And that concessions have, and are being made without eliminating rights. But don't let details get in the way of cherry picking data and op-eds that support your foregone conclusions.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

"looking down on us from your golden tax shelter"
"filing schedule A"
"luckier than most"
"better than those in the trenches"
"deny them the right to protect themselves from people like you"

Gotta go now, I have a big meeting with the Koch brothers. Hope your fever breaks soon.

stephanie 02-28-2011 01:18 PM

Re: Values Added: So 2011 (Amy Sullivan & Ramesh Ponnuru)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 199168)
How about the idea that a Marxist movement has as its goal that workers would own the means of production.

Apart from how it's achieved? I mean, United Airlines used to go on about how they were employee-owned when you called them, and whatever their flaws, I doubt anyone would say United was part of a Marxist movement, which is why I'm trying to be clear.

There's a lot of eagerness to deem social programs as Marxist or socialist, for example, but if that's a fair usage (which I don't think it is) than Western Europe could be called a victory.

I'm not a Marxist and wouldn't use the term so loosely myself, but am just puzzling through what seem to be imprecise definitions.

handle 02-28-2011 05:27 PM

Re: citizens should be allowed to bid on government jobs
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 199294)
I have no idea what you are talking about.

"looking down on us from your golden tax shelter"
"filing schedule A"
"luckier than most"
"better than those in the trenches"
"deny them the right to protect themselves from people like you"

Gotta go now, I have a big meeting with the Koch brothers. Hope your fever breaks soon.

Well then, you are on the wrong side.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:16 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.