Go Back   Bloggingheads Community > Diavlog comments
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Notices

Diavlog comments Post comments about particular diavlogs here.
(Users cannot create new threads.)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-04-2011, 12:24 AM
Bloggingheads Bloggingheads is offline
BhTV staff
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,936
Default Values Added: A Moral Budget (Jim Wallis & Richard Land)

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-04-2011, 03:05 AM
Wonderment Wonderment is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,694
Default Circle of Protection

Thanks for your patience with Richard, Jim. You told him about 50 times that you agreed with entitlement reform, but he never heard you and kept repeating the same slogans about "one size fits all," as if he were doing a monologue.

He also, (unchristianly, if I may) ignored your concerns about cutting programs for the poor (Head Start, RSVP, mosquito nets, Pell Grants) that we know to be efficient and beneficial.

In my community, veterans, faith groups, seniors, minorities, homeless advocates and the secular peace and social justice movement are all working together to stop the relentless bullying of deficit hawks whose notion of protection apparently only extends to corporations and the upper middle class.

I wish you had pushed back more both on Richard's alarmist views about an imaginary 5-year "cross the Rubicon" moment in deficit reduction. Ditto for gargantuan hegemonic military spending. The religious right's kneejerk blessing of war and military spending is no less obscene today than it was 40 years ago when you began Sojourners and your wonderful ministry.
__________________
Seek Peace and Pursue it
בקש שלום ורדפהו
Busca la paz y síguela
--Psalm 34:15
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-04-2011, 08:52 AM
Ocean Ocean is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: US Northeast
Posts: 6,784
Default Re: Circle of Protection

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonderment View Post
Thanks for your patience with Richard, Jim. You told him about 50 times that you agreed with entitlement reform, but he never heard you and kept repeating the same slogans about "one size fits all," as if he were doing a monologue.

He also, (unchristianly, if I may) ignored your concerns about cutting programs for the poor (Head Start, RSVP, mosquito nets, Pell Grants) that we know to be efficient and beneficial.

In my community, veterans, faith groups, seniors, minorities, homeless advocates and the secular peace and social justice movement are all working together to stop the relentless bullying of deficit hawks whose notion of protection apparently only extends to corporations and the upper middle class.

I wish you had pushed back more both on Richard's alarmist views about an imaginary 5-year "cross the Rubicon" moment in deficit reduction. Ditto for gargantuan hegemonic military spending. The religious right's kneejerk blessing of war and military spending is no less obscene today than it was 40 years ago when you began Sojourners and your wonderful ministry.

That guy Land is nauseating. I couldn't take more than five minutes. And he calls himself Christian? Interesting. He will certainly have to be born again a few times to understand some of the most basic moral teachings in Christianity. He's a fraud.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-04-2011, 10:38 AM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: Circle of Protection

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ocean View Post
That guy Land is nauseating. I couldn't take more than five minutes. And he calls himself Christian? Interesting.
Have you considered taking Maalox before viewing nauseating conservative Baptists? I guess that whole tolerance and understanding project doesn't extend to certain types of people.

Quote:
He will certainly have to be born again a few times to understand some of the most basic moral teachings in Christianity. He's a fraud
Yeah, Christianity doesn't prescribe to reincarnation, though. You just get one shot at this whole redemption thingy.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-04-2011, 11:50 AM
Don Zeko Don Zeko is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Exiled to South Jersey
Posts: 2,436
Default Re: Circle of Protection

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
Have you considered taking Maalox before viewing nauseating conservative Baptists? I guess that whole tolerance and understanding project doesn't extend to certain types of people.
You guys have a lot of fun making this particular bullshit argument, don't you?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-05-2011, 12:45 PM
eeeeeeeli eeeeeeeli is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Palm Desert, CA
Posts: 811
Default Re: Circle of Protection

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Zeko View Post
You guys have a lot of fun making this particular bullshit argument, don't you?
It's a total straw man, similar to reverse racism or moral relativism. The meaning of tolerance, racism and moral relativism is intentionally misunderstood (or at least, intentionally not endeavored to be understood), thus able to be shot down and dismissed.

Interestingly, by never taking the time to understand the original critique embedded in these concepts (or the complexity of critique they have come to signify), one remains blind both to their objective debate, as well as the possibility that one might be engaging in behavior or thought that is wrong.

For instance, the concept of tolerance means (from UNESCO)
Quote:
"Tolerance is respect, acceptance and appreciation of the rich diversity of our world's cultures, our forms of expression and ways of being human. Tolerance is harmony in difference."
The concept has been embraced by liberals largely in response to the historical wrongs committed due to assumptions of superiority by white, male, Christians, etc. It emphasizes a power dynamic in which other groups have historically been disempowered, and assumed inferior, or at least less important. It is fundamentally democratic, in that by rejecting majoritarian dominance, it seeks to place every citizen on equal footing, equal enfranchisment, regardless of race, gender, class, disability, etc.

To ignore this critique, or to fail to understand it in all its complexity, is to leave oneself open to fulfilling its prophecy - assuming it has merit. Yet in order to determine whether merit exists, one must first fully understand its logic.

Quite relatedly, racism and moral relativism deal in similar historical critiques. Racism is not merely a belief in the superiority, or a preference for, one skin color over another. Because what does that mean? Why is that wrong? A comprehensive understanding of racism sees a much larger historical narrative of cultural and racial dominance and oppression that relies on the prejudice of cognitive bias to enforce group dominance. This pattern of enforcement, of real and brutal oppression is what makes racism so ugly. Saying you like white people better than blacks is, by itself, not so terrible. But place it in historical socio-political context and it becomes downright evil.

A decontextualized view of racism not only ignores likely motivations, but it prepares a path towards the repetition of history. By denuding racism of proper context, it diminishes its import. The concept of "reverse racism" (or reverse sexism, etc.) does exactly this. It defines racism so narrowly as to suck much of its meaning away. A black man who hates white people, or a woman who hates men, simply do not have the centuries of oppression behind their thoughts and actions that we have come to despise and that the concepts racism and sexism embody. They do not represent exponentially larger movements of ingrained social prejudice and cognitive bias that have infested our patterns of thought for generations.

Of course there are many critiques of these narratives of race and tolerance. There certainly are among those who accept their basic accuracy as descriptors of historical reality. Yet to ignore the deeper premises upon which they are based, and to redefine them into meaninglessness is at best sloppy thinking, and at worst outright dishonesty. It is an easy task to attack an opponent's argument after having mischaracterized it. It is much more difficult - yet mandatory - to attack it head on.
__________________
my blog
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-05-2011, 12:57 PM
operative operative is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,261
Default Re: Circle of Protection

Quote:
Originally Posted by eeeeeeeli View Post
It's a total straw man, similar to reverse racism or moral relativism. The meaning of tolerance, racism and moral relativism is intentionally misunderstood (or at least, intentionally not endeavored to be understood), thus able to be shot down and dismissed.

Interestingly, by never taking the time to understand the original critique embedded in these concepts (or the complexity of critique they have come to signify), one remains blind both to their objective debate, as well as the possibility that one might be engaging in behavior or thought that is wrong.

For instance, the concept of tolerance means (from UNESCO) The concept has been embraced by liberals largely in response to the historical wrongs committed due to assumptions of superiority by white, male, Christians, etc. It emphasizes a power dynamic in which other groups have historically been disempowered, and assumed inferior, or at least less important. It is fundamentally democratic, in that by rejecting majoritarian dominance, it seeks to place every citizen on equal footing, equal enfranchisment, regardless of race, gender, class, disability, etc.

To ignore this critique, or to fail to understand it in all its complexity, is to leave oneself open to fulfilling its prophecy - assuming it has merit. Yet in order to determine whether merit exists, one must first fully understand its logic.

Quite relatedly, racism and moral relativism deal in similar historical critiques. Racism is not merely a belief in the superiority, or a preference for, one skin color over another. Because what does that mean? Why is that wrong? A comprehensive understanding of racism sees a much larger historical narrative of cultural and racial dominance and oppression that relies on the prejudice of cognitive bias to enforce group dominance. This pattern of enforcement, of real and brutal oppression is what makes racism so ugly. Saying you like white people better than blacks is, by itself, not so terrible. But place it in historical socio-political context and it becomes downright evil.

A decontextualized view of racism not only ignores likely motivations, but it prepares a path towards the repetition of history. By denuding racism of proper context, it diminishes its import. The concept of "reverse racism" (or reverse sexism, etc.) does exactly this. It defines racism so narrowly as to suck much of its meaning away. A black man who hates white people, or a woman who hates men, simply do not have the centuries of oppression behind their thoughts and actions that we have come to despise and that the concepts racism and sexism embody. They do not represent exponentially larger movements of ingrained social prejudice and cognitive bias that have infested our patterns of thought for generations.

Of course there are many critiques of these narratives of race and tolerance. There certainly are among those who accept their basic accuracy as descriptors of historical reality. Yet to ignore the deeper premises upon which they are based, and to redefine them into meaninglessness is at best sloppy thinking, and at worst outright dishonesty. It is an easy task to attack an opponent's argument after having mischaracterized it. It is much more difficult - yet mandatory - to attack it head on.
I don't think context really matters all that much. That's trying to place people into a much larger picture than to which they actually belong.

So, say for instance, a white man makes two comments:
"All blacks are lazy and stupid and inferior"
"All Indians are as bad as blacks" (I don't actually know what the specific racist allegations against Indians are, only that people like to mock their accents and social standing)

I don't see where one statement is worse than the other. They're both racist statements. It doesn't matter that we have 300 years of history of slavery, then Jim Crow. To an Indian American hearing racist things said about them, that is utterly irrelevant, and I don't see any point of trying to differentiate biases on the level of history. It's far better to simply decry racial and ethnic hatred of all sorts than to try to differentiate them.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-05-2011, 04:11 PM
eeeeeeeli eeeeeeeli is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Palm Desert, CA
Posts: 811
Default Re: Circle of Protection

I addressed this in my sixth paragraph. A better illustration would be for a white person to say he hates black people, and a black person to say he hates white people. Sure, both on their own are stupid statements. But they are two very different statements. Words have meaning in context. You can't simply remove that history and pretend like you're communicating the same thing.

Let me try and give a more clear example:
Jews breed like rats.
Italians breed like rats.

The first statement should bother you much more than the second.

There is simply nothing a black man can say to me about my being white that could be as offensive as something I might say about his being black - or fat, or Jewish, or female, or gay, etc. That's an ugly reality. You can't wish away our past. By denying that certain attitudes or behaviors take on special significance in reference to certain groups, you are insulating those attitudes and behaviors from an historical context which gives them proper weight.

This is why having White Entertainment Television is terribly offensive while BET is not. To pretend that there is no difference is in no small way to both deny the seriousness of our troubled past, as well as to risk its repetition.

To take a more serious example, to the degree that affirmative action discriminates against whites, it does not do so in at all the same way as discrimination against minorities. The specific act of discrimination may be the same, but the context is entirely different.

Now, one may oppose affirmative action as discriminatory, and thus wrong, but you simply can't say it is the same as would be if we were discriminating against minorities. That's simply not serious. On paper, it may appear no different, but the context is what would make it so horrific in reality.

edit: to return to the original thesis, the word racism should have greater meaning than simply discrimination based on the color of one's skin. Because when one practices racism, there are many layers of thought, both conscious and unconscious happening. I would liken it to a word like patriotism, or nationalism - words with somewhat specific meanings, but that encompass not only actions or beliefs, but feelings, attitudes and intentions.
__________________
my blog

Last edited by eeeeeeeli; 07-05-2011 at 04:31 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07-05-2011, 08:37 PM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: Circle of Protection

Quote:
Originally Posted by eeeeeeeli View Post
Now, one may oppose affirmative action as discriminatory, and thus wrong, but you simply can't say it is the same as would be if we were discriminating against minorities. That's simply not serious. On paper, it may appear no different, but the context is what would make it so horrific in reality.
It might be serious if a profession which requires a certain level of expertise, like say a firefighter, were forced to hire a certain number of minority members instead of a more qualified white person.

but that's probably another subject for another day.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-05-2011, 09:00 PM
eeeeeeeli eeeeeeeli is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Palm Desert, CA
Posts: 811
Default Re: Circle of Protection

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
It might be serious if a profession which requires a certain level of expertise, like say a firefighter, were forced to hire a certain number of minority members instead of a more qualified white person.

but that's probably another subject for another day.
That was exactly what I meant when I said there is a principled argument against discrimination - with very "serious" results. But is specifically not what I meant when I said that the claim that there is no difference between this and historical racial discrimination is not serious.

The difference is hate.
__________________
my blog
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 07-08-2011, 10:46 AM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: Circle of Protection

Quote:
Originally Posted by eeeeeeeli View Post
That was exactly what I meant when I said there is a principled argument against discrimination - with very "serious" results. But is specifically not what I meant when I said that the claim that there is no difference between this and historical racial discrimination is not serious.

The difference is hate.
I'm just not seein' it. But I think that constantly referring to social inequality and racism and hate keeps this stuff alive. It seems to me that while the goal of affirmative action is to help the situation, it has become instead a self perpetuating stick to beat people with.

BTW. Have you ever heard of this guy?
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 07-08-2011, 11:45 AM
eeeeeeeli eeeeeeeli is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Palm Desert, CA
Posts: 811
Default Re: Circle of Protection

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
I'm just not seein' it. But I think that constantly referring to social inequality and racism and hate keeps this stuff alive. It seems to me that while the goal of affirmative action is to help the situation, it has become instead a self perpetuating stick to beat people with.
Here's my brief analysis of the "general" right and left on racial inequality:
The left: too willing to blame the problems on white racism. Sees the history of racism as leaving a legacy still at work today in black and Hispanic communities. Reacts against seeming rightwing denial of the effects of this legacy by seeing it as evidence of bias that confirms their original claim that it's all about racism. Unwilling to acknowledge cultural dysfunction for fear that "blaming minorities" is tantamount to racism.

The right: too willing to "not see race", and imagine that a legacy of racism, in the form of decreased social capital, doesn't exist. Reacts against liberal cries of racism by downplaying historical racism. Instead sees cultural dysfunction as the real problem. However, even acknowledging historical context, or legacy of racism, too willing to imagine that poor minorities can simply "change" their behavior on their own, despite severe, self-reinforcing structural impediments.

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
BTW. Have you ever heard of this guy?
Looks interesting. From the article, though, he seems all over the place in his point. First he tries to debunk a stereotype of black men in jails, making the point there are as many in college. But then he raises the statistic of out of wedlock births. He seems to be saying problems in the black community aren't that bad, but then they are really bad.

I don't know - saying there are as many black men in jail as in prison seems a pretty terrible reality. Here are some numbers that show just how out of control the problem is.
__________________
my blog
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 07-08-2011, 12:12 PM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: Circle of Protection

Quote:
Originally Posted by eeeeeeeli View Post
The right: too willing to "not see race", and imagine that a legacy of racism, in the form of decreased social capital, doesn't exist. Reacts against liberal cries of racism by downplaying historical racism. Instead sees cultural dysfunction as the real problem. However, even acknowledging historical context, or legacy of racism, too willing to imagine that poor minorities can simply "change" their behavior on their own, despite severe, self-reinforcing structural impediments.
It's not simple and no one thinks it is. Lots of energy and resources have been poured into solving the issues you describe. I do think that the right generally believes that only paying attention to the chronically poor's plight and concentrating on their victimhood whilst ignoring their powers of self determination is a hindrance. They will probably never be rich but they may be able to lift themselves to such a degree that their grandchildren won't suffer poverty.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 07-08-2011, 12:29 PM
sugarkang sugarkang is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cali, Small-Govt Liberal
Posts: 2,186
Default Re: Circle of Protection

Quote:
Originally Posted by eeeeeeeli View Post
Here's my brief analysis of the "general" right and left on racial inequality:
The left: too willing to blame the problems on white racism. Sees the history of racism as leaving a legacy still at work today in black and Hispanic communities. Reacts against seeming rightwing denial of the effects of this legacy by seeing it as evidence of bias that confirms their original claim that it's all about racism. Unwilling to acknowledge cultural dysfunction for fear that "blaming minorities" is tantamount to racism.

The right: too willing to "not see race", and imagine that a legacy of racism, in the form of decreased social capital, doesn't exist. Reacts against liberal cries of racism by downplaying historical racism. Instead sees cultural dysfunction as the real problem. However, even acknowledging historical context, or legacy of racism, too willing to imagine that poor minorities can simply "change" their behavior on their own, despite severe, self-reinforcing structural impediments.
Agreed. You might be my favorite liberal on here. Let me check my list. Yep.
__________________
The mixing of populations lowers the cost of being unusual.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 07-04-2011, 09:48 AM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: Circle of Protection

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonderment View Post
Thanks for your patience with Richard, Jim. You told him about 50 times that you agreed with entitlement reform, but he never heard you and kept repeating the same slogans about "one size fits all," as if he were doing a monologue.
That's not true at all. You just don't like Richard. They were both mouthing the slogans of their sides and talking past each other. There's a lot of that going on these days.

Jim insists the way to solve the Social Security crisis is to raise the limit on taxable income. I have read several articles that dispute this approach but I suppose those articles could be wrong and Jim is right. Richard thinks it's best to means test SS benefits. This is one battle in the great debate which is going on right now in our country. It's stupid to think that one side is right and the other side is wrong.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 07-04-2011, 10:02 AM
DenvilleSteve DenvilleSteve is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,460
Default Re: Circle of Protection

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonderment View Post
Thanks for your patience with Richard, Jim. You told him about 50 times that you agreed with entitlement reform, but he never heard you and kept repeating the same slogans about "one size fits all," as if he were doing a monologue. ...
I am telling you, the country is going to break up because of the liberals. They make no sense. And they don't have the discipline to address one issue at a time. Richard lays out his facts regarding means tested social programs which cost huge amounts of money. Jim responded by talking about the cost of foreign wars.

Look how the elite liberals who staff the Manhattan DA's office took forever to figure out that the maid accusing DSK of rape was herself a scam artist. Because of liberals locking themselves away in their make believe worlds, there is no way we can get thru the turmoil to come and stay intact as a nation.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 07-04-2011, 10:31 AM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: Circle of Protection

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenvilleSteve View Post
I am telling you, the country is going to break up because of the liberals. They make no sense. And they don't have the discipline to address one issue at a time. Richard lays out his facts regarding means tested social programs which cost huge amounts of money. Jim responded by talking about the cost of foreign wars.

Look how the elite liberals who staff the Manhattan DA's office took forever to figure out that the maid accusing DSK of rape was herself a scam artist. Because of liberals locking themselves away in their make believe worlds, there is no way we can get thru the turmoil to come and stay intact as a nation.
What the heck are we gonna do? Maybe we should hope for increased global warming so half of us can be wiped off the face of the planet. Hey, just a suggestion.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 07-04-2011, 10:40 AM
DenvilleSteve DenvilleSteve is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,460
Default Re: Circle of Protection

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
What the heck are we gonna do? Maybe we should hope for increased global warming so half of us can be wiped off the face of the planet. Hey, just a suggestion.
Recognize we are not a united people. We have to let states control their borders and their economies. I think it could all be very nice actually if the mountain west and midwest were an autonomous region. The key is to break the tax power of the feds. Where individuals pay taxes to their state. And the state pays taxes to the feds.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 07-04-2011, 10:49 AM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: Circle of Protection

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenvilleSteve View Post
Recognize we are not a united people. We have to let states control their borders and their economies. I think it could all be very nice actually if the mountain west and midwest were an autonomous region. The key is to break the tax power of the feds. Where individuals pay taxes to their state. And the state pays taxes to the feds.
But there is a lot of crossover stuff that would have to be addressed, such as, as I wrote before, whether a gay marriage in one state would be recognized in a state that doesn't recognize it.
I see your enthusiasm for such a project, but have you fully examined the unintended consequences?
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 07-04-2011, 10:54 AM
sugarkang sugarkang is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cali, Small-Govt Liberal
Posts: 2,186
Default Re: Circle of Protection

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenvilleSteve View Post
Recognize we are not a united people. We have to let states control their borders and their economies. I think it could all be very nice actually if the mountain west and midwest were an autonomous region. The key is to break the tax power of the feds. Where individuals pay taxes to their state. And the state pays taxes to the feds.
This is hilarious on July 4th. If you're advocating for secession then okay. But realize that what you'd have to do is come up with an independent army, declare sovereignty and then prove it with a war against the other states. I believe we've been down this road before.

I say you go for the path of least resistance and advocate for smaller taxes and smaller government. Then, I'll back you.
__________________
The mixing of populations lowers the cost of being unusual.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 07-06-2011, 06:25 AM
CrowsMakeTools CrowsMakeTools is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 54
Default Re: Circle of Protection

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenvilleSteve View Post
I am telling you, the country is going to break up because of the liberals. They make no sense. And they don't have the discipline to address one issue at a time. Richard lays out his facts regarding means tested social programs which cost huge amounts of money. Jim responded by talking about the cost of foreign wars.

Look how the elite liberals who staff the Manhattan DA's office took forever to figure out that the maid accusing DSK of rape was herself a scam artist. Because of liberals locking themselves away in their make believe worlds, there is no way we can get thru the turmoil to come and stay intact as a nation.
Zut alors, Monsieur Steve! I am certainly happy to see you rushing to the defense of a leader of French socialism! But somehow, I'm not sure how the behavior of the Manhattan DA's office suggests that they have taken "forever" to investigate the background of the complainant in this case. It was, I think, 45 days from when the alleged assault took place in May to the release of the statements by the DA's office concerning their questions about the woman's credibility on Friday July 1. The investigation, in the past 6 weeks, including tracking down numerous bank transactions, reviewing hotel records of room key activations, translating audiotapes of phone calls from a Guinean dialect, and re-investigating the woman's asylum claims in an immigration case that was years old. And your friend DSK has been living quite comfortably in his Tribeca apartment for most of that time.

Sacre bleu! What, Monsieur Steve, would you be doing differently in managing this investigation!
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 07-06-2011, 08:33 AM
DenvilleSteve DenvilleSteve is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,460
Default Re: Circle of Protection

Quote:
Originally Posted by CrowsMakeTools View Post
Sacre bleu! What, Monsieur Steve, would you be doing differently in managing this investigation!
I would defer to the judgment of the NYPD detectives who have the street smarts to know when an accuser is telling the whole truth or not. And have more contacts with the hotel union officials who apparantly run things in terms of who gets hired and where they are assigned to work.

I think thie DSK affair exposes some of the dysfunction in American society. I can't believe the tabloids sat on the exonerating info, but are there no reporters who are actually working the streets in NYC? Do the papers have no access to the immigrant communities, no contacts in the hotel unions?
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 07-04-2011, 01:17 PM
chiwhisoxx chiwhisoxx is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,490
Default Re: Circle of Protection

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonderment View Post
Thanks for your patience with Richard, Jim. You told him about 50 times that you agreed with entitlement reform, but he never heard you and kept repeating the same slogans about "one size fits all," as if he were doing a monologue.

He also, (unchristianly, if I may) ignored your concerns about cutting programs for the poor (Head Start, RSVP, mosquito nets, Pell Grants) that we know to be efficient and beneficial.

In my community, veterans, faith groups, seniors, minorities, homeless advocates and the secular peace and social justice movement are all working together to stop the relentless bullying of deficit hawks whose notion of protection apparently only extends to corporations and the upper middle class.

I wish you had pushed back more both on Richard's alarmist views about an imaginary 5-year "cross the Rubicon" moment in deficit reduction. Ditto for gargantuan hegemonic military spending. The religious right's kneejerk blessing of war and military spending is no less obscene today than it was 40 years ago when you began Sojourners and your wonderful ministry.
beneficial? sure, without factoring in cost/benefit. efficient? I know less about the rest of those, but at least for head start, it's anything but efficient. there's very little evidence that head start even helps a little bit, let alone being an efficient program considering the billions of dollars we've spent on it.
__________________
She said the theme of this party's the Industrial Age, and you came in dressed like a train wreck.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 07-04-2011, 02:51 PM
Wonderment Wonderment is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,694
Default Re: Circle of Protection

Quote:
I know less about the rest of those, but at least for head start, it's anything but efficient. there's very little evidence that head start even helps a little bit, let alone being an efficient program considering the billions of dollars we've spent on it.
Here's what I know. The government has cut and plans to eliminate RSVP in the next budget. This is a very inexpensive program which funds one of the services I perform for my local community. What I do as a unpaid vounteer is deliver meals-on-wheels to elderly people trying to stay in their homes rather than go to EXPENSIVE-GOVERNMENT-FUNDED-MEDICARE nursing homes. I also drive a wheelchair-equipped van that takes the same population to doctors appointments, supermarket, etc. which also keeps them out of EXPENSIVE-GOVERNMENT-FUNDED-MEDICARE nursing homes. The funding that Republicans despise -- that doesn't amount to an hour's worth of war in Libya, Afghanistan or Iraq -- is to train the drivers and pay their liability insurance. There are also a few paying jobs: transportation coordinator, cooks, etc.

When this program is cut the service will cease to exist and become unaffordable for the elderly. They will suffer and, if the data on living independently is to be believed, die sooner. This is what Jim means when he talks about the Circle of Protection.

Thank "God" he has the patience to talk to conservatives about this stuff, even though they almost always respond without a mustard seed's worth of compassion or understanding.
__________________
Seek Peace and Pursue it
בקש שלום ורדפהו
Busca la paz y síguela
--Psalm 34:15
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 07-04-2011, 03:19 PM
Ocean Ocean is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: US Northeast
Posts: 6,784
Default Re: Circle of Protection

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonderment View Post
Here's what I know. The government has cut and plans to eliminate RSVP in the next budget. This is a very inexpensive program which funds one of the services I perform for my local community. What I do as a unpaid vounteer is deliver meals-on-wheels to elderly people trying to stay in their homes rather than go to EXPENSIVE-GOVERNMENT-FUNDED-MEDICARE nursing homes. I also drive a wheelchair-equipped van that takes the same population to doctors appointments, supermarket, etc. which also keeps them out of EXPENSIVE-GOVERNMENT-FUNDED-MEDICARE nursing homes. The funding that Republicans despise -- that doesn't amount to an hour's worth of war in Libya, Afghanistan or Iraq -- is to train the drivers and pay their liability insurance. There are also a few paying jobs: transportation coordinator, cooks, etc.

When this program is cut the service will cease to exist and become unaffordable for the elderly. They will suffer and, if the data on living independently is to be believed, die sooner. This is what Jim means when he talks about the Circle of Protection.

Thank "God" he has the patience to talk to conservatives about this stuff, even though they almost always respond without a mustard seed's worth of compassion or understanding.
Good post.

Perhaps that's the same mechanism that Ryan wanted to put in place to save Medicare: expedite an earlier death so that they don't get around to using healthcare as much.

Sorry for the sarcasm, but every time we turn around there come the Republicans with their killer plans. And, yes, they don't want to be called heartless or evil. Why don't they prove that they're not by showing what they're going to do to avoid the consequences of measures like this?

I'm with cousin rc on this one.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 07-04-2011, 06:53 PM
Wonderment Wonderment is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,694
Default Re: Circle of Protection

Here's a little background on RSVP:

Quote:
The Retired and Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP) volunteers (who are non-stipend volunteers) delivered more than 62 million hours of service by working with a network of more than 65,000 nonprofit organizations. For four decades RSVP has worked with nonprofit and public organizations to provide seniors with meaningful volunteer opportunities through which they meet the needs in their communities. A growing number of baby boomers volunteer through RSVP at an average federal cost of less than $140 per volunteer. In addition, RSVP raised $52 million or 46 percent of grant funds in 2009, far exceeding the program’s required 30 percent match.

Annually, RSVP volunteers help 676,000 seniors live independently, training them to be alert for financial scammers who prey on their vulnerability. In addition, RSVP volunteers mentor more than 16,000 children, and provide assistance to victims of natural disasters from New Orleans to Iowa.
What Rev. Land does not tell you, when he claims that all federal programs could stand a 5% belt-tightening, is that he and his war-blessing cadre of right-wing preachers want to cut programs like RSVP not 5%, but 100%. Why? Because they can. And because Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity will applaud them when they do.
__________________
Seek Peace and Pursue it
בקש שלום ורדפהו
Busca la paz y síguela
--Psalm 34:15
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 07-04-2011, 09:10 AM
chamblee54 chamblee54 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 319
Default Re: Values Added: A Moral Budget (Jim Wallis & Richard Land)

Mr. Land is such a Baptist that he cannot say G-d's last name.
But he can quote statistics.
His ideas about geography are not always based on reality. Can anyone say sophistry?
chamblee54
__________________
Chamblee54
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 07-04-2011, 09:36 AM
harkin harkin is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,169
Default Re: Values Added: A Moral Budget (Jim Wallis & Richard Land)

Haven't listened yet, do they get to the morality of a union vote-buying scheme (called a 'stimulus plan') that cost $278,000 per job?

After that they can tackle The Great Society-type welfare vote-buying schemes that have destroyed the black urban family.

Then Jim can look into the morality of unions gouging the states under the facade of collective bargaining rights.

For Jim to be a so-called champion of the poor and to either ignore or be unaware of the plight of the black child due to lack of a 2-parent family is staggering. He's like David Axelrod with a collar.

Quote:
The religious right's kneejerk blessing of war and military spending is no less obscene today than it was 40 years ago when you began Sojourners and your wonderful ministry.
Apparently over 40 years ago Jim went to Detroit to help the poor. Look at Detroit today and the result of the government policies he advocates.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 07-04-2011, 10:20 AM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: Values Added: A Moral Budget (Jim Wallis & Richard Land)

Quote:
Originally Posted by harkin View Post
For Jim to be a so-called champion of the poor and to either ignore or be unaware of the plight of the black child due to lack of a 2-parent family is staggering. He's like David Axelrod with a collar.
I didn't see a collar.

The wealthier need to pay their fair share and everything will be good. Jim doesn't get the part about people not being willing to work if they see that working more won't get them more income. I think this kind of thinking also occurs when people on the low end don't want to work because they will see a cut in their subsidies if they do. Everyone is very interested in the bottom line.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 07-04-2011, 10:31 AM
Starwatcher162536 Starwatcher162536 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,658
Default Re: Values Added: A Moral Budget (Jim Wallis & Richard Land)

I took six months off from school once while I built up some funds while working a job that compensated well and afterwords had to switch back to a minimum wage job at a local movie theater when I went back to school. About a year later I found out my mother supplied me some wrong information about Texas's unemployment policies and I would have in fact been eligible. I would have been eligible for unemployment checks that exceeded my wages from my 20 hour a week part time job.

/sigh...
__________________
Six Phases of a Project: (1)Enthusiasm (2)Disillusionment (3)Panic (4)Search for the Guilty (5)Punishment of the Innocent (6)Praise and Honors for the Non-Participants
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 07-04-2011, 10:46 AM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: Values Added: A Moral Budget (Jim Wallis & Richard Land)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Starwatcher162536 View Post
I took six months off from school once while I built up some funds while working a job that compensated well and afterwords had to switch back to a minimum wage job at a local movie theater when I went back to school. About a year later I found out my mother supplied me some wrong information about Texas's unemployment policies and I would have in fact been eligible. I would have been eligible for unemployment checks that exceeded my wages from my 20 hour a week part time job.

/sigh...
That's interesting. So the good job laid you off? Or was it voluntary because you couldn't work the hours required because of your school schedule?

I always thought that if you quit a job you aren't eligible. Having been self employed for most of my life, I've never collected, nor contributed.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 07-04-2011, 10:32 AM
DenvilleSteve DenvilleSteve is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,460
Default Re: Values Added: A Moral Budget (Jim Wallis & Richard Land)

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post

The wealthier need to pay their fair share and everything will be good. Jim doesn't get the part about people not being willing to work if they see that working more won't get them more income. ...
a big problem with raising taxes on the rich is the government considers a rich manufacturer or farmer or franchisee in the Midwest the equivalent of the rich lawyer or hedgefund manager in a coastal city. Wealthy people in republican states contribute a lot to their communities in the form of prosperous businesses that employ a lot of people. By taking their money and letting the feds redistribute it to democrat voters you do great economic harm to republican states.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 07-04-2011, 09:55 AM
bkjazfan bkjazfan is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South Los Angeles, Ca.
Posts: 1,192
Default Re: Values Added: A Moral Budget (Jim Wallis & Richard Land)

Massive deficits and national debt: dems-no cuts/repubs-no new taxes:no solution. Default prediction: repubs cave but won't call it that. In politics it's imperitive to cut through the B.S.

Last edited by bkjazfan; 07-04-2011 at 10:03 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 07-04-2011, 10:09 AM
DenvilleSteve DenvilleSteve is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,460
Default Re: Values Added: A Moral Budget (Jim Wallis & Richard Land)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bkjazfan View Post
Massive deficits and national debt: dems-no cuts/repubs-no new taxes:no solution. Default prediction: repubs cave but won't call it that.
Bohner has to go. The republicans in the house have to lead the way and cut spending now. No retirement payments to federal workers until they are 65. No more unemployment insurance past 20 weeks. And UI recipients have to work in the recycling center or some such job to receive their checks. No student loans for colleges where the tuition is over $5K per semester. Replace food stamps with soup kitchens or donated food pantries. Group homes for single people getting renters assistance.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 07-04-2011, 10:27 AM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: Values Added: A Moral Budget (Jim Wallis & Richard Land)

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenvilleSteve View Post
Bohner has to go. The republicans in the house have to lead the way and cut spending now. No retirement payments to federal workers until they are 65. No more unemployment insurance past 20 weeks. And UI recipients have to work in the recycling center or some such job to receive their checks. No student loans for colleges where the tuition is over $5K per semester. Replace food stamps with soup kitchens or donated food pantries. Group homes for single people getting renters assistance.
Recently I heard a proposal that suggested that people should be able to opt out of unemployment insurance. This seems like a viable idea. Employers would certainly like this idea. And what about workman's comp? That is a huge restraint on hiring. Certain professions don't require that people be covered for on the job accidents, like say, a secretary.

I also like the idea that people should have to contribute in order to receive government assistance. There would certainly be obstacles to overcome in such a scheme, but linking work to benefits takes the entitlement out of entitlement.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 07-04-2011, 11:01 AM
Don Zeko Don Zeko is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Exiled to South Jersey
Posts: 2,436
Default Re: Values Added: A Moral Budget (Jim Wallis & Richard Land)

Neither Wallis nor Land have a very good sense of the causes of the deficit in the second segment, although Wallis is closer to the mark. Anyone who can argue about this without using the word "recession" isn't accurately describing the situation we're in. Here's the big chart again:


Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 07-04-2011, 03:45 PM
tom tom is offline
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 67
Default Re: Values Added: A Moral Budget (Jim Wallis & Richard Land)

As the opposite of a wonk (I'm sure the favored term for that is not very flattering), I have a question about that chart:
Does the category "Recovery Measures" include automatic stabilizers like unemployment payments, or does it specifically refer to fiscal stimulus that wasn't already in place before the recession? If the latter, would unemployment payments be included in "Economic Downturn", or does that category just represent decreased revenues as a result of decreased income?
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 07-04-2011, 10:52 PM
Don Zeko Don Zeko is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Exiled to South Jersey
Posts: 2,436
Default Re: Values Added: A Moral Budget (Jim Wallis & Richard Land)

Quote:
Originally Posted by tom View Post
As the opposite of a wonk (I'm sure the favored term for that is not very flattering), I have a question about that chart:
Does the category "Recovery Measures" include automatic stabilizers like unemployment payments, or does it specifically refer to fiscal stimulus that wasn't already in place before the recession? If the latter, would unemployment payments be included in "Economic Downturn", or does that category just represent decreased revenues as a result of decreased income?
I'm not completely sure, but both the description and the fact that "recovery measures" drops off sharply suggest that automatic stabilizer spending is included in the effects of the recession itself.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 07-04-2011, 11:11 AM
Don Zeko Don Zeko is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Exiled to South Jersey
Posts: 2,436
Default Re: Values Added: A Moral Budget (Jim Wallis & Richard Land)

Richard Land is wrong, wrong, wrong here. He disputes Wallis's claim that tax rates on the wealthy are historically low by pointing out that the taxes on the wealthy constitute an historically high share of total tax revenue, but that's not the same thing. In fact, Jim is right that their rates are historically low. While the wealthy do pay a higher share of the total tax burden than they have in the past, that's because inequality is so much higher that even a smaller percentage the their income is a larger amount of money relative to tax income from the poor than it was 20, 40, or 60 years ago.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 07-04-2011, 08:28 PM
rcocean rcocean is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,077
Default Re: Values Added: A Moral Budget (Jim Wallis & Richard Land)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Zeko View Post
Richard Land is wrong, wrong, wrong here. He disputes Wallis's claim that tax rates on the wealthy are historically low by pointing out that the taxes on the wealthy constitute an historically high share of total tax revenue, but that's not the same thing. In fact, Jim is right that their rates are historically low. While the wealthy do pay a higher share of the total tax burden than they have in the past, that's because inequality is so much higher that even a smaller percentage the their income is a larger amount of money relative to tax income from the poor than it was 20, 40, or 60 years ago.
Yes of course. The top tax rate from 1935-1980 was never below 80% and during most of the Reagan Boom (1980-1986) was never below 50%. Asking the rich to pay 39% doesn't seem like much of a sacrifice, historically speaking.
Reply With Quote
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:19 AM.


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