In a NYT op-ed , Stiglitz calls what Obama's teams is doing "Ersatz Capitalism".
It's interesting to hear this take from him. More interesting is what he would suggest as the best idea in place of this plan he criticizes....something he doesn't offer.
Anyway, in light of Stiglitz's body of Op-Ed's, I find this one a tad bizarre and just a bit chuckle-inducing. I just don't get these guys sometimes.
some thoughts on our changing home economies. (Originally at Freedom Democrats )
Some commentators have asserted that our current economic troubles will change the way that Americans think about money and wealth -- similar to how the Great Depression and WWII impacted that generation known for frugality. Of course, this may just be wishful thinking from people who have been advocating these changes and feel vindicated by the public attention given to personal practices such as frivolous consumption, unproductive debt, and general lack of concern for economic stability.
Anyway, here are some stories that may reflect changing attitudes:
Economist's special report on entrepreneurship . Right now, a lot of people don't know how to apply their efforts effectively. Somebody's got to figure it out!
Quicken has a profile of The Old School Frugalists : These stories make you appreciate how much wealth regular Americans have, and how much good we could accomplish if we wanted to.
An entrepreneurial answer to the paradox of thrift: make investments in your own life . Rather than just saving money and relying on others to find good investments.
International development is getting more attention as a target of personal charity, and there is an explosion of projects that focus on small scale (family or village) infrastructure deployment with immediate benefits for impoverished individuals. For instance, consider Microcredit, attempts to develop technologies suited for developing countries , or projects such as the Solar Electric Light Fund .
Revival of the "victory garden ". While Industrial-farming proponents argue that there isn't enough land for organic farming , many Americans are converting decorative lawns into productive gardens. If gardening replaces other hobbies, Americans can reap the benefits of organic foods while saving some money, getting some exercise and sunlight, having increased contact with neighbors (both in sowing and harvesting), and getting a liberal arts education*.
* gardening stimulates interest in plant physiology and ecology, while providing knowledge about agriculture that contributes to understanding economic activities and historical events.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Inspiring. About 40-50 years ago, I think the norm was closer to those frugal people than to how we live today.
Like I've told my sister:
You want to live a relaxing and more comfortable "1950s lifestyle"? Scale back to a "1950s lifestyle" and you won't know what to do with all the money. ;)
And living that life (which I don't think felt as comfortable in real time as people who weren't there like to remember it) is far easier today than it was back then.
Anyway, it's mind boggling to think how much our lives have changed since then. I'm reading Robert McNamara's "Argument Without End", discussing why we got into the Vietnam war and how we might have avoided it. That world (1945-1955, especially) is so different from today's -- the Europeans were still trying to hold onto their colonies, the USA still had White supremacist laws, and the Vietnamese rebels "had just walked out of the jungle and into big-power diplomacy".
no real point...
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
I finally started a vegetable garden last year. My back yard doesn't get anywhere near enough sun, so I bucked tradition and put it in my front yard. Why the heck not? I hate grass lawns, so this was a perfect excuse to get rid of a bit more of it. I think this is a great trend - happy to see that the White House is going to have a vegetable garden now, too!
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
One of the simple pleasures in life, gardening is :-) I'm going to be on vacation for almost 3 months this spring/summer though, so unless I can get someone to tend my crop, it's likely to get mostly overrun with weeds this year.
I've been wondering if vegetable gardening services may be a growth industry. I figure this niche would be filled either by landscaping firms or plant nusuries, but I'm not aware of anyone who provides this type of service.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
I will try to convince my parents to water it on occasion when they come by to pick up the mail, and I may lay down some type of garden fabric, which will keep the weeds in check mostly.
The front yard is special because it is more communal and less private than the back. This could lead to a number of responses from neighbors: they could think it's tacky, they could stop and talk as they pass by and you garden, or they could steal your produce.
How has your experience been?
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
I get waves as the neighbors drive by, and the occasional friendly greeting as they walk their dogs by, etc. Haven't had any negative experiences yet. The vegetable garden itself is fairly small, 8' x 8' - and there is a big rosebush between it and the street, so it is not totally exposed and visible. I already had what was probably the least "cultured" looking lawn in the neighborhood anyway - with native flowers and shrubs blending in to what I call a "freedom lawn ." :)
I think it looks good. It stays mostly green even in the dead of summer with little to no watering, and there is always something blooming from April to October.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
I have 3 words for you, Square Foot Garden . We have been doing it for years now, and it is an awesome system in terms of requiring the least maintenence, and greatest production, in the most effecient way.
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein
I don't rotate crops, and I really probably need more organic matter in the soil... the soil where my vegetable garden is is heavy on the clay. I also am away for long stretches every summer, so I avoid any kind of crop that doesn't resist bugs, require fertilizer, withstand drought somewhat, or requires harvest in June or July. Peppers have been ideal since they seem to mature in August and September around here and they can withstand drought. Tomatoes... well I just love tomatoes. I've gotten some really great crops some years when there's been wet summers while I've been away. Years when there's a drought, my tomato crop is puny.
For folks who don't want to plant a crop every year, and don't want something that looks like a vegetable garden, but want to get a little tasty crop out of a sunny area of their yard, I have a suggestion... strawberries. Strawberries are perennials (at least they are here in Ohio) and make a decent looking ground cover for areas that get sun. I have a nice little patch of em, they're much better than store-bought ones.
Also, don't forget to get a couple fruit trees going in your yard. I have an apple tree and 2 pear trees. All great stuff! The best thing is that they all mature at different times-- the apples I miss sometimes because they come in mid-summer, but pear #1 comes in mid august and pear #2 delivers in mid-september. Again, I think they are far superior tasting to store-bought apples and pears.
I read a book way back when called "Postage Stamp Gardening" which is probably a similar principle. I hope to improve my gardening every year, so I'll definitely give that site a look!
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
At least a White House garden (and I mean this generically, regardless of who occupies the White House) offers the potential for good use for all the bullsh*t that is produced on site.
If a bunch of people have their own Victory Gardens, the Fed Gov might take notice, see that it's hurting trade, and outlaw even the smallest private garden on the basis that it's impacting intrastate trade...
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
I assume you're referring to the SCOTUS case regarding Federal control over Medical MJ in California, right? The one where Clarence Thomas said that the majority's decision would permit the Federal government to regulate bake sales...
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
10+ minutes of searching for the ruling proved fruitless.
Gist:
SCOTUS ruled that a laws regulating crop production fell under interstate commerce laws, because if a bunch of farmers did it, it would somehow inevitably and directly lead to interstate commerce that Congress would have power over.
Effectively the same fact set of facts, and the bake sales comparison is dead on.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
You can do great things with them....kinda like legos.
Megan McArdle points to great graph to consider when you are tempted to correlate two trends and draw nice and neat conclusions: hehehehe
Of course, her commentary that follows is even better. Megan at her snarky best. :) The blend of plausible conclusions based on the graph with a shot back to hard reality at the end is superb.
Of course, not only does correlation not necessarily imply causation, but often people don't even have enough common sense (let alone analytical sense) to realize that meaningful correlations can't be based on cherry-picked data, even if that cherry-picking means just including cases in which one of the variables moved in only one direction. Case in point: the mindless repetition by some idiots that the fact that revenues went up in the years following the Bush tax cuts proves that the tax cuts had a positive net impact on revenues, and the same conceptually-challenged thinking viewing revenue increases following the Bush, Reagan, and Kennedy tax cuts as proof of a supposed general rule that tax cuts always (or at least generally) have a net positive impact on revenues.
Our own resident conservative moron*, GR, made such an argument (albeit in a convoluted, confusing way and with irrelevancies thrown in, along with an ironic, completely unjustified snark) on a prior thread, prompting me to spell out his error:
If you wish to establish a significant correlation (let alone causation), you have to consider all relevant data points, not just those that confirm your hypothesis (or desired conclusion, as the case seems to be). So we cannot just look at whether or not revenues go up after a tax cut. We must also look at whether or not revenues go up without a tax cut, or even after tax increases. For example, look at this chart http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/fed-rev-spend-... and take note of the strong upward revenue trend (in real terms) following the 1993 tax increase. And look at the general upward trend since 1965 (again, in real terms, meaning dollars adjusted for inflation). You see, the economy is more often in expansion than in recession, and revenues have generally grown, regardless of whether taxes have been raised or lowered (and by the way, which is happening to what extent is not even as clear as you might think, as the tax increases during the Reagan Administration illustrate).
An illustration of your error. Suppose I told you that, over the past decade or so, whenever I've moved to and spent a couple of years living in a large city, I've gotten more wrinkles on my face, and that I therefore conclude that something about large cities are causing those wrinkles. What's wrong with my "analysis" (for lack of a better word)? Answer coming up, so stop reading for a moment if you want to think about it and guess the answer......................ok, the answer is that I haven't considered whether or not I've gotten more wrinkles on my face when I have NOT been living in a large city. It could be that I've been getting more wrinkles regardless of where I've lived and at the same rate, in which case there is probably some other factor driving this phenomenon. Perhaps it's that...I'm getting older (and related biological dynamics are occurring).
* Lest anyone get the wrong impression, I was by no means implying that his being a conservative has anything to do with his being a moron, nor that, in general, conservatism makes one more likely to be a moron. I was just distinguishing him from our resident liberal moron/nutcase, since his GR's conservative brand of nonsense is what drives his thinking and speaking on this particular matter (the relationship between tax cuts and revenues)
Reasonableness, fairness, honesty, morality, rule of law: 1
Unreasonable, disingenuous (or in some cases, self-delusional), self-righteous, irrational, Bible-thumping a** holes: 0
I encourage all to read the summary of the opinion of the Iowa Supreme Court re: the unconstitutionality (vis a vis the Iowa state constitution) of exluding same-sex couples from civil marriage www.judicial.state.ia.us/wfData/files/Varnum/40209Varnumsummary.pdf . Seems that their arguments would apply equally (or sufficiently) to the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution -- I'd like to know if that's the impression of others here, too.
Last time I asked him about it, he said that he was hanging out there because it was easier to just sling mud. Ironically, with no admins here to keep us in check, (except John, who never intervenes) we sling a lot of mud here too. But not much I/P mud, his favorite flavor.
RE: the mudslinging, yea things have degraded a bit. I'll accept some of the blame there as I have been trying to be as pointy with O[s|b]ama as possible of late. And the whole thing with BR is just a silly tit for tat spat that I find amusing. It takes no effort whatsoever to egg him on. I guess it is sort of cruel of me to exploit his mental disorders like that OCD thing for my own personal amusement, though. Does that make me evil? :)
But I have signed up to give corph a serious debate so hopefully that makes up for my slacking off on the content of late.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
I was just stringing you along, GR, toying with your OCD problem for my amusement. Sort of cruel of me, I suppose, although I was trying to help you. Cruel to be kind sorta thing. Try real hard to fight that compulsiveness by not replying to this comment. Really, see if you are capable of resisting. If so, I will apparently have helped you.
Edit: Oh, and that part where I agreed with John Mark and said you and were both being driven to some significant extent by compulsiveness, I, uh, I didn't really mean that (the compulsiveness applies to just you, not both of us). My saying otherwise was, er, uh, just part of stringing you along. Which, as I've explained, I did mainly for my amusement, but also to try to help you. And as I said, if you can manage not to reply to this comment, that may indicate that I've succeeded in helping you with that compulsiveness problem.
So I went to see what the FreeSpeechZoneBlog was all about. And what should I find out about Obama on the first article I read? He's actually a right-winger . Man, I had him all wrong. Maybe BR is right and I AM the one who is delusional?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
post-gazette.com/pg/09094/960660-100.stm
(Dave Neiwert via Ballon-juice): "Eight hours ago four Pittsburgh police served a warrant on a kid in a neighborhood that I could walk to. The man, 23-year-old Richard Poplawski, opened fire with an AK-47 from an upstairs window, wounding all four. Local, State and transit police responded quickly, nonetheless, some of the wounded officers remained in the line of fire and could not be reached for hours. Four officers died from their wounds;"
Now, before you think more, listen to what the guy who did it said:
"Mr. Poplawski was opposed to “Zionist propaganda” and was fearful that his right to own weapons would be taken away...Mr. Poplawski was opposed to Mr. Obama’s election, which he thought would result in the loss of his rights, Mr. Vire said."
I don't know. I think this guys grasp of reality was definitely wacked. I'm not going to blast any cops that come knocking on my door, but that's easy for me to say. I don't have cops knocking on my door.
Some people shouldn't own certain weapons.
that because one muslim commits a crime, all muslims are criminal.
The most irksome and irresponsible piece of this puzzle is the propaganda that the NRA has been pushing that is intentionally misleading and inflammatory which some folks seem to be a little too eager to buy into.
Thanks to Glenn Beck and all the rest of the wingnuts that insist on spreading lies and hate. Note to wing nuts. No one is going to take your guns away. That is a false rumor and a lie. As a consequence of this hate mongering to gin four little girls will go to bed tonight without their daddy's.
But some say, Obama could be a 'fascist' who will take your guns away. The purveyors of these lies should be held responsible, unless this is the kind of result they intended.
The purveyors of these lies should be held responsible, unless this is the kind of result they intended.
That shooter, if he sees anyone further left than someone like McCain, they're building a bunker, blowing up a free clinic, or shooting at any government employee. If loosely affiliated people were held responsible for those people, Eric Rudolph's priest would be rotting in jail too.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
or Glenn Beck should be held accountable if they chose to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater, when the smoke they saw was just a tiny puff from the ritualized incense burner to cover up the smell of the unwashed masses sitting in the crowded pews.
dumb stuff are all too common across the spectrum.
The talking heads on the right do worry me. By going for the hysterical, angry, & visceral out of it's listeners, sure they score market share & keep the faithful coming back. But in the name of market share you have some of those faithful who don't distinguish between the reality & the imagined world of impending sharia ruled America. Some of those actually act on the very words the Talking Heads say. That's the danger. These people know a certain percentage will uncork & hurt others. They're willing to let that happen. To them it keeps their cause in the news cycle & brings their views more publicity. It's sick, but that's it. they don't care about the ugly ramifications. I do beleive in karma. I do believe in a grand slate with our deeds & misdeeds linked to ourselves lives. Those that do this, the Ann Coulters, the Glenn Becks, the Atlas Shruggs & the LGFs will wear that mark, even though they won't admit or agree they have any responsibility.
The left whip their hysteria as well. The big difference is that they don't prompt their audience to take up armed revolt. Who knows....maybe the rightwing crazies are the ones that are right. Maybe armed revolution is coming. The MSM that loves parroting the crazies will still give them a free pass if it does. They'll find some way to blame the DFH.
2. To re-register (and for newcomers to register), one needs to correctly answer a few word problems to demonstrate at least enough capacity for logic and common sense that his/her participation is likely to add something positive to a discussion/debate rather than to get in the way and waste the time of folks who respond to their comments by trying (in vain) to engage them in logical, responsive, sensible, substantive discussion/debate.
Rationale: Unfortunately there's no way to screen upfront for honesty to prevent someone from wasting people's time with arguments he knows are illogical/nonsensical, irrelevant, etc. (but are persisting with them anyway to try to save face rather than admit an error, or to stick to some partisan position, etc.), nor to screen out upfront hyperpartisans who predictably start and end with the party or ideological talking points and "party line", so to speak, but at least screening for ability would make SC a much better place (able to attract, retain and achieve a high level of participation from a greater number of intelligent, thoughtful people than it can now with a couple of (two, to be precise) very high volume, logically-challenged participants who are are quite sure they have no such deficiency, who seem to be unteachable despite any number of clear, patient (and tedious for the writer) explanations of their consistent logical errors, absurd/imagined premises, obvious misrepresentations of the arguments of others and related use of straw men, etc., and whose combination of misrepresentations of other's arguments, idiocy, (in some cases disingenuousness), and snarky tone (1) make SC look bad to first-timers checking out SC, and (2) are irritating to the rest of us, sometimes prompting us to try yet again to try to get these individuals to apply reason despite the low probability.
And to be clear, this little test for registration would only be tough enough to screen out a tiny minority of current SC participants, probably just two people I have in mind.
As a note, I assume Brendan hasn't been participating heavily over the last few months (not sure, since my participation has declined over the last several months), and I miss his participation. It seems that with his volume gone and the growth in volume from those two individuals plus a couple of hyperpartisan talking point machines, SC has, in effect, swapped out quality for junk, and that's a trend that tends to snowball (i.e., the trend is self-reinforcing and self-accelerating), because since people seeking quality discussion/debate get increasingly turned off, while those who are happy with idiotic food fights devoid of real, quality discussion/debate stick around, become more active, and invite their "friends". Also, I must say, with some sadness (as a fan of the SC concept and as someone who appreciated the quality and nature of the content prior to recent months and who had hopes of working with "Ender" and others to grow SC into something big and contributing in a larger and constructive way to political discourse generally) that I am at this point too embarrassed to suggest to anyone that they join SC. I can image someone arriving, taking a look at the abundance of comments from the "problem" individuals and the degree to which they distract from or prevent worthwhile discussion/debate, and wondering why the heck I would encourage them to come here.
Anyway, the above is just a "modest proposal". Oh and my other one is that we make ends meet during this recession by eating the babies (or is that making ends meat, as in baby rump roast?).
Why do you disguise stifling free speech with 'a test' that one assumes by your most immodest proposal would have you be the scorekeeper?
Just because some wouldn't be allowed to participate it does not mean free speech has been stifled. That's an all too common plea by people who misunderstand their importance in any given situation. And with all the recent excitment about 'insert social problem here'-czars by your favorite Administration I find it a bit odd that you would have a problem with B Rational assuming the role of SC membership Czar.
The common plea by people who misunderstand their importance in any given situation......
Step back and think about your statement for just a sec.
Swords Crossed Mission Statement
"Swords Crossed was created as a way to engage the national argument directly on the grounds that we are all a part of one public debate."
I understand that you think that some arguments have more merit than others, yet if the debate is public and we are all part of it, I see no rationalization for excluding some people from the debate, whether they misunderstand their importance in any given situation or not.
I think it would be an unfortunate move by the moderators of this site to suddenly grow a conscience with regard to site content, however. Although I've only contributed recently, I have read posts on this site literally for years. There have always been bad arguments. And it's easy to spot them and move on. It is most important, I feel, to remember that bad arguments require two ( or more) people. If the audience dries up, the bad argument just goes away.
On the other had I would like to personally help SC in it's original intent. Unfortunately I think a lot of people still participate in this kind of debate as a hobby. It seems most of us are very busy outside of the internets. I wonder if it's the daily commentary that distracts from the original goal. Perhaps the adoption of a specific topic for a week long debate with more structured replies is in order. I'm not sure.
where one person calls out another and they have a debate on a particular topic. Perhaps you'd be interested in one of those? I'm sure I could find a topic to call you out on :-)
What GR and corph are doing is getting personal. That may have a place, but it isn't SC. Outside of that "method" I'd be fine with more specific debate.
Where was I getting personal within the debate diary corph had setup? Please point to where either of us was violating the code we both agreed to within that context?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
Explanation accepted and acknowledged. On the GR/Corph challenge I probably won't have a chance to respond until some time tomorrow. But I WILL respond! :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
Just not at the first level. If you want to make comments or points or ask for clarifications about any of the first level comments my intent was that you would just reply to the appropriate first level comment. My only constraint was that corph or I could not add new substance inside one of those threads but, rather, would have to do so only on a first level comment.
corph, what do you think?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
It's just easier to follow the back and forth between the two of us if we don't nest into each other. The post specifically allows for others to jump in. That's the whole point.
...in a diary of mine? I just checked it. I've written 27 diaries since I have been here, which has been just a little bit longer than you have been here-- about 2 years for me. I think it's fair to say that I have had at least some "quality" in there, and some of the diaries have inspired some good discussion I think. But it appears that you haven't been inspired to participate in one of my diaries even once.
That's fine-- I'm not saying that everybody should have to comment in my diaries or anyone else's diaries, but I hope you understand how unseriously I take your site criticisms when I compare how you have had absolutely nothing to say on the numerous occasions I have made the time and effort to make an attempt at "quality", but yet you seem to have boundless time and energy to devote post after post filled with lengthy paragraph after lengthy paragraph to explain just how much of an idiot GR is.
Ditto here. I scanned my dozen or so diaries over the two and a half years my we've been on this version of the site, and I don't see any comments from BR. Several diaries never made it from the prior version of the site.
However, it's long been my perception that the mood of the posters here generally leans away from serious discussion of policy. On occasion a serious diary will get lots of comments, but it seems the tit-for-tat partisan snark (or personal, er, evaluations) is often the most appealing "topic" for a good portion of the regulars. Maybe that was due more to the heavier population of liberal posters, who had much more to say when the Republicans were in power, and who now have little reason to post.
I definitely have a little less inspiration to spend an hour or two putting together a diary now that Obama is in power. I guess I am satisfied with batting down partisan sniping by Obama critics, if that's what's going on here. Heck, even John's last effort-- the Obama/fascist one-- was of a variety that was more inclined to foster partisan tit-for-tat than "quality" discussion IMO. Nothing wrong with that at all, as far as I'm concerned; I can go either way and be just as happy, as long as the partisan tit for tat is at least somewhat clever and reasonably good natured most of the time.
I will slightly disagree with you that the mood of the posters "leans away from serious discussion of policy" though. It's just that we're lazy, time-constrained, or uninspired to initiate such discussion most of the time, I think. Most of us seem to enjoy discussions of substance when they occur, don't we?
During the last 8 years, any topic, no matter how silly, was fair game and valid. Now that people like John bring up serious topics with serious implications and plenty of meat to back it up the same people simply dismiss it as argumentative, silly, or partisan.
In other words, you are now part of the problem. No one really made a good counterargument to John's points. It was all about how his definition was flawed. Nothing with any meangful analysis of the obvious path down which these policies lead.
In other words, you are now part of the problem. No one really made a good counterargument to John's points. It was all about how his definition was flawed.Nothing with any meangful analysis of the obvious path down which these policies lead.
To just about anyone who is not a libertarian, fascism is not evil because of state influence in industry.
It's the:
Jingoism
Xenophobia
Social Darwinism
Silence of critics
One party state
....
The state control of industry to further the goals mentioned above.
Socialism doesn't cause a country to invade Ethiopia or try to "protect" the "good" citizens of Dresden.
Paper scissors aren't dangerous to run with.
A long broken stove top is safe to touch.
Tom Selleck is not evil because he has a mustache.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
I was used to having it justified to me by Republicans in the name of my safety and in the name of my country and my children's children. It's been a bit of a whiplash to have to hear it from the left now.
Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.
Benito Mussolini
But I've been reminded this isn't a slippery slope situation. This is prudence and calculation from my loving leader. And that's going to take a bit of getting used to as well.
The ribbon Mussolini tried tying around his power grabbing jingoistic philosophy of State Knows Best About Every Single Thing doesn't mean much.
I suppose that Hitler's ribbon didn't matter either. But popular opinion would have you believe otherwise. Either we can create charicatures or we can't. Either people are individuals or they aren't. A final decision to that regard would be very helpful. This is not aimed at you. It's just a problem I see in general.
But State control, regardless, is one (orginal) principle of fascism. You can argue it's corporatism, as even Musilini himself did, or not. It really makes absoltuely no difference. To see State control of banks as just another day does not pay adequate respect to the seriousness of the idea. Nor does calling a spade something else really change anything.
..."who isn't familiar with the details of the policies of fascist regimes".
So yes, to people who have only a superficial and popularized imagery-laden idea of what fascism is, it means only those things you point out.
However, to those who looked a little further into it, it's obviously much much more.
And when the discussion is clearly about that more profound (and real) definition, it's helpful for would-be commentators to acknowledge that.
Obiviously, it should be quite apparent to those would-be commentators that people discussing fascism with that more accurate and detailed definition are quite aware of the popular caricature and that that caricature is not the basis for the fascism in question.
You're talking about the "fascism" one, right? Yes, I think that one diary by John is based on an at least somewhat argumentative, silly and partisan desire to inject the "F-word" into the discourse regarding Obama's policies. I don't agree that there is a lot of meat on the bone there. That being the case, is it wrong for me to basically dismiss that one argument out of hand?
And it is not a rare occasion that I actually agree with John's points, so I don't think there's a greater pattern of me unfairly dismissing John's arguments. Perhaps we agree less since Obama has begun to implement his policies, but I still think there is no pattern. For instance, I approved wholeheartedly when he brought up the issue regarding the unions and charter schools in the L.A. school district.
As far as your statement that there is some "obvious path down which these policies lead", all I can say is that I strongly disagree. Where you see a slippery slope, I see a very rational president who is taking a very measured, thoughtful, and flexible approach toward a very severe crisis. I thought that Obama's statement this week that h was inclined to let the automakers go into bankruptcy was an excellent example of him changing course and adopting a less interventionist course. To me, this this just adds to a body of evidence that Obama recognizes the real danger of too much government intervention in every situation. Given the fact that I think Obama recognizes this, I am inclined to consider the faltering economy itself-- and not Obama's "fascist" policies-- to be the far more dangerous slippery slope that we are on.
when I write about Obama...or Bush (who also thought had some fascist-like policies even though he's not a fascist either)....it's not about the party, it's about the policy or the man. I genuinely couldn't care less what party they belong to. I really, REALLY couldn't.
The fact that libertarian-minded can discuss the traces of fascist-like policies and trends with any politician who fits the mold without arguing about D vs. R shows that it's not a partisan discussion.
The only people who consider a discussion about fascist-like policies in America to be a partisan discussion are the ones carrying water for the politician in question...or the opposition to that politician.
See your automatic reaction to the word partisan? You immediately have a defensive reaction to it, assuming that I was unfairly tarring you with a word that should only apply to adherents of political parties, whereas I claim that if we dispassionately return to the dictionary definition of partisan, you and your fellow libertarian-minded folk can be labelled as a partisan due to your adherence or support for libertarian causes, even though you may not be members of an official political party and even find political parties to be distasteful.
Your defensive reaction at even the mere suggestion that you are in any way a partisan or prone to partisan tendencies is probably not that dissimilar to the reaction of Obama supporters here that he was in any way fascist or had fascist tendencies. If I were to insist on repeatedly tarring you or those you support with the "partisan" label, I'd bet it would probably tend to interfere with substabtive discourse. And I'd argue that "fascist" is a more loaded label than "partisan" to most people.
That said, in light of your pursuit of the full meaning of words,
this would be a good point to reconsider discussion about fascism.
If I were to mimic the reaction I got on that word I could simply say this:
"But when people say "partisan" it's clear that they mean political parties. Anybody would have that reaction. To use the word partisan for something other than the general perception of the word is:
inflammatory
derogatory
unneccessary
misleading
not productive
Did I miss any, my facebook BFF?
But yes, BY THAT DEFINTION, I may be partisan in a manner of speaking. Whew! That was easy, wasn't it?
In the matter of fascism, my partisan position is in the anti-fascist faction.
BY THAT DEFINTION, I may be partisan in a manner of speaking. Whew! That was easy, wasn't it?
There's a big difference though.
In this situation, it was just me implying that you were partisan, and then you defensively denying it, and then me clearing up the misunderstanding by pointing out the dictionary definition. Where there are only two people involved, it's easy to clear up a situation like this.
If, as an Obama supporter, I were to sit by and allow the word "fascism" to infect the political disccourse as a description for Obama's policies (as some partisan Obama bashers, not necessarily you, would like to happen) would I have the opportunity to easily clear up the misunderstaning with the tens of millions of people here for which the word "fascism" connotes Hitler? No I would not. Therefore, while I'm more than willing to have a discussion of Obama's policies and whether they are helpful or harmful, I'm inclined to just dismiss the discussion of the word "fascism" as it applies to Obama's policies.
Therefore, while I'm more than willing to have a discussion of Obama's policies and whether they are helpful or harmful, I'm inclined to just dismiss the discussion of the word "fascism" as it applies to Obama's policies.
I understand that. THAT SAID, among our fine and informed little circle posters here at SC, I would like to think the word "fascism" can surivive the initial Dinseyland defintion and stand its ground in a discussion among people who can appreciate the fuller meaning of the word.
We may not be PhD historians but I think we should be able to dabble a bit in the fully informed meaning of historical terms.
I think you are more than smart enough to realize however that throwing the President into the discussion right off the bat was likely to abort much serious historical/definitional discussion. Therefore, I see your indication that you were attempting to stir the pot a bit as closer to your true intent :-)
throwing the President into the discussion right off the bat was likely to abort much serious historical/definitional discussion.
It shouldn't, IMO.
I'm not walking up to a random water-cooler and calling a Obama a fascist. Hell, I stressed even here that I wasn't calling him a fascist. We've had diaries on fascism in the past that I would like to think have taken the posters at this site beyond the DisneyLand definitions.
I think you are more than smart enough to realize...
I like to think the posters here are a little smarter than to dwell on the caricature of the term when past diaries and discussions...not to mention this diary in question...have taken the term beyond its basic perception and into that more serious "historical/defnitional discussion". Perhaps I overestimated?
Therefore, I see your indication that you were attempting to stir the pot a bit as closer to your true intent :-)
I like to think the posters here are a little smarter than to dwell on the caricature
I didn't dwell on the caricature... read my two comments in that diary and show me where I did any such thing. I'm just admitting here in this thread that I didn't have much interest in having a conversation that involved comparisons of Obama's interventions in the auto industry to Hitler's. I did try to take the discussion in another direction... comparing Obama's market interventions to a number of more recent market interventions under other administrations. I think those comparisons are more relevant. We are talking about changing warranties and asking a CEO to step aside... do these steps really rank amongst the top ten most impactful interventions in this crisis? Yet these, suddenly, are the ones where Hitler finally gets invoked??
Now I might be dwelling on the carricature ;-) You see how it is? It's just a very difficult conversation to have.
I don't recall a particular instance. But my view of Bush is more of an arrogant incompetent than a driven megalomaniac, so I might have "defended" Bush from a Nazi label by saying he was just an incompetent.
Mostly I would have avoided such conversations as much as possible-- the Bush = pure evil threads were always repetitive and boring.
And I think we have a pretty good understanding between us. However I have been told upthread (not by you) that I was "part of the problem" because "it was all about how the definition was flawed" in that diary. I am still defending myself from that.
In other words, you are now part of the problem. No one really made a good counterargument to John's points. It was all about how his definition was flawed. Nothing with any meangful analysis of the obvious path down which these policies lead.
It's just not a fair charge, and it's just not backed up by the evicence. I don't think I have anything to apologize for in how I participated in that diary.
I do not believe Obama is a fascist.
People who aren't fascists cannot, necessarily, do fascist things or they would be fascist.
Therefore no accusation of fascism against Obama should be taken seriously.
It's the second part, which you imply, that I have a problem with. Call me crazy.
People who aren't fascists cannot, necessarily, do fascist things or they would be fascist.
Obama can certainly implement some programs here and there that could be viewed as fascist without being a true blue (or whatever the official color of fascism is) facist. It is not as black and white as you are making it out to be here, IMHO.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
I was attempting at writing out the logic that I perceive skymutt and others to be using.
Obama can certainly implement some programs here and there that could be viewed as fascist without being a true blue (or whatever the official color of fascism is) facist.
I agree, and more importantly to the original topic, John made it clear that this was not his belief either. That did not stop others from obfuscating.
Your defensive reaction at even the mere suggestion that you are in any way a partisan or prone to partisan tendencies is probably not that dissimilar to the reaction of Obama supporters here that he was in any way fascist or had fascist tendencies.
I'm not speaking for anyone other than myself. I'm generally symapthetic to Ron Paul, for example. But there are matters on which he has come across as very un-libertarian...to the point of getting cheers from very unsavory people. I would never seek to justify those justify those positions of his beyond trying to explain them. And even there, I'll call a spade a spade.
if that diary fostered any tit for tat partisan junk, it was to avoid a more serious confrontation of what exactly fascist economic policies are.
If people are predisposed to dismiss out of hand the exploration of the word "fascist" simply because to them fascism is only the cartoonish caricature of a nationialist dictator, there's nothing I can say except that the point was missed.
Again, like I said in the diary, I don't think Obama is a fascist. But that doesn't stop me from considering points like the ones I mentionned in the diary.
Besides,...for whatever reason..., my more serious or heavy posts don't get a lot of comments. So, I thought I'd throw out a two*....so everyone can play.
I think most people...not just here...get stricken with a little case of A.D.D. with more serious 100% substance based discussions. And that's fine...as long as they realize it. Most people, I find, are simply looking for a avenue to come back to something more primal and basic about partisan politics and their allegiance to either side. Again, that's fine, as long as they realize they are doing it.
*BTW, that's reference to the card game "A-hole" in case some didn't get it.
Actually, Skymutt if that diary fostered any tit for tat partisan junk, it was to avoid a more serious confrontation of what exactly fascist economic policies are. If people are predisposed to dismiss out of hand the exploration of the word "fascist" simply because to them fascism is only the cartoonish caricature of a nationialist dictator, there's nothing I can say except that the point was missed.
You seemed to effectively be saying that Yorkies and Pit Bulls with rabies have a lot in common and called any retorts partisan junk.
A lot of other people see the fact that both are canines with similar teeth as completely unrelated to the dangers so the Pit Bull. And as the obvious nature of them both being canines as pointing out that the sky is mostly blue during the daytime.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Your analogy is easy to understand and is wrong and totally misses the point.
And yes, a partisan-based defensive posture is responsible for it.
A more accurate turn on your analogy is that many of you seem to be disputing that a Yorkie isn't even a dog because it's not a rabid pit bull....as if being rabid with the ferocity is even necessary to make the point.
But distracting analogies aside, the resistance to any serious discussion of the point on fascism is because people refuse to extend the word to fascist to whole ensemble of fascist policies.
You are being selective about what parts of fascism count as fascist...I'm not.
Citing a fascist-like quality to a policy by Obama is not to say that he is like Hitler or Benito.
Your posture seems to suggest that the use of the word on specific matter is invalid since Obama is not a near-mirror image of Hitler. That posture is both wrong and totally unnecessary...as long as you acknowledge the obvious:
AFAICT People were confused that someone would point out the obvious.
People are misinterpreting what the other side is saying.
One generally doesn't go into a debate topic generally about dangerous dogs, and see someone try their hand at thinking they broaching the fact that Yorkies and Pit Bulls are both canines.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
The argument seems to be that no matter what the inflammatory rhetoric if ....you were a serious person and debated the very serious points..... you would see that you... are completely disallowed from any kind of disagreement, because obviously if you.... follow reason it all leads down the exact same path that you.... are irrational and don't see the very serious issues being brought up with inflammatory rhetoric objectively.
The problem with John's presentation therefore obviously wasn't John argument, or his definitions or his theory, but you..... and your interpretation.
In other words, it's your fault that you disagree with John.
Either that or your point is that it's generally inflammatory. Of course it is! But that in itself was not the point of discussion.
This was the point of the discussion:
To take an inflammatory word and break it down into what it really means beyond the caricature and demonstrate it's possible relevance today on a certain policy.
I don't disagree with the plainly obvious point about whether the word fascism is generally derogatory. But I'm not using that way.
You may want to think twice about throwing the word "thick" at other people if the nuance here still escapes you.
You can make all the rules you want, that doesn't mean people agree.
I note that you never responded to Adam's cogent point, that your use of the word DID not further discussion. If you were serious making a case that Obama is doing this or that of bad consequence it would have been easy to acquiesse Adams point and therefore further the discussion.
You see I don't care if my posts are inflammatory. I have never made the claim that I am not a partisan with a point of view that I have zero problem owning.
You continuously claim that you are objective, yet refuse to further discussion by continuing to hold firm that everyone else's definition (a concensus) is a charicature. That is counter productive to making any argument. (The irony as I stated above, your rules are bit tyranical yet that is what you feign to be railing against.)
and I did share some thoughts on the matter in that thread. Not sure where you're getting the idea that I ignored it.
You continuously claim that you are objective, yet refuse to further discussion by continuing to hold firm that everyone else's definition (a concensus) is a charicature.
That's hardly the case. I've been going back and forth with others on this matter and numerous times at that. I said that popular version of fascism is a caricature...and it is since it only covers certain apsects of the governing philosophy. Nobody, to my knowledge, has really disputed that.
Besides, holding firm on my point is not tyrannical in any way shape or form. I stand by my point. Acknowledging comments and pointing how and whether they address my point is perfectly normal in any dialogue. It's not tyrannical.
BTW, you didn't really address the post you replied to. I noticed. And the fact that I noticed is not tyrannical.
If people are predisposed to dismiss out of hand the exploration of the word "fascist" simply because to them fascism is only the cartoonish caricature of a nationialist dictator, there's nothing I can say except that the point was missed.
But there's no "if" there. To most people, the label "Fascist" does bring up that mental picture of the WWII era dictators. As such, I believe it's just simply no longer a useful word to describe anyone (or their tendencies) unless your intent is to completely discredit them. It should only be used in extreme situations. And I mean EXTREME. For instance, I am quite sure that I never used the word "fascist" to apply to George Bush, and you know the low esteem in which I hold Mr. Bush ;-)
Besides,...for whatever reason..., my more serious or heavy posts don't get a lot of comments. So, I thought I'd throw out a two*....so everyone can play.
Yep, I understand perfectly. And I agree that there's nothing wrong with posting diary like that, where you pretty much know you're going to get some reaction, and you really don't mind if a lot of it is negative. Some of my favorite diaries have been just like that. The key, I believe, is to not discard honesty while being provocative.
But there's no "if" there. To most people, the label "Fascist" does bring up that mental picture of the WWII era dictators.
Yes. So? Then the diary serves as a good history lesson for those wanting to know more about what lies behind the popularized imagery....unless people want to stay on the surface and cover their ears.
If something in your college history course doesn't jive with your second-grade account of Thanksgiving, do we dismiss the college-level account? No.
Remember:
I covered this whole point about getting distracted by amatuer definitions in the beginning of that diary. People apparently can't help themselves and simply refuse to consider it.
On the second point, I often mumble to myself snarkily:
"Whoah, a Two! Everybody plays!"
when I see topics here and elsewhere that will easily get a reaction from every Tom, Dick and Harry with two neurons to rub together. hehehe
What you are exemplifying here is a sort of tyrannical slavery to 'reason'. Ironic isn't it. You complain about tyranny and then become a tyrant of 'reason'.
I'm not saying that everybody should have to comment in my diaries or anyone else's diaries, but I hope you understand how unseriously I take your site criticisms when I compare how you have had absolutely nothing to say on the numerous occasions I have made the time and effort to make an attempt at "quality", but yet you seem to have boundless time and energy to devote post after post filled with lengthy paragraph after lengthy paragraph to explain just how much of an idiot GR is.
I'm sure I've missed some worthwhile diaries of yours and some worthwhile discussion on those threads. Your point seems to be that the fact that I haven't commented on threads of your diaries (and I'll take your word for it that that's true) means that my overall participation is inadequate (in quantity and/or quality) for either my concern about SC to be genuine or for me to reasonably ask my fellow SCers to take my concerns "seriously" rather than "unseriously". I would disagree with that assertion/implication. Obviously, if one holds the premise that criticisms/concerns of the sort I expressed should only be taken seriously if made by someone whose participation meets some standard, one would have to set some standard subjectively (it would be a matter of opinion how much participation of what type/quality qualifies). Not only do I disagree with that premise, but I also don't consider your standard -- that, to have such concerns taken seriously, one would have to have commented on threads of your diaries -- reasonable (and, noting PF's reply to your comment, the same would apply if we're talking about the threads of diaries by a few SCers rather than just yours). And if you or anyone wants to see how much I've participated, on which threads and with what content, that info is quite easy to find at swordscrossed.org/user/3005/track
And as for my spending time and filling space pointing out "just how much of an idiot GR is", well, if my point is that a couple of particular individuals here are really hurting the site via a combination of idiocy and high volume (along with disingenuousness and hyperpartisanship, but those are other matters), why should the fact that I devoted subtantial effort on a couple of occasions to pointing out the extreme, peristent idiocy of one of these individuals make you less likely to take my concern seriously? I suppose one alternative approach would be for me to refrain from pointing out this problem and restrict my comments to other matters -- and it's not like most of my comments on SC are devoted to making this point -- but my guess is that, given two bad choices, occasionally devoting time to pointing out this problem (and demonstrating it, with GR's inadvertent cooperation and support) is slightly more likely to ultimately have some positive effect on SC than would be just ignoring the problem. You may feel otherwise, and we can reasonably disagree on that, but I certainly don't think that my pointing out and shining a spotlight on one "problem individual" related to my concern means that you shouldn't take my concern seriously.
Whether or not you think anything should be done about it, and whether or not I ever commented on the threads of your diaries or PF's, etc., I've certainly participated on SC enough to be familiar with SC enough that the question of whether or not there is the problem about which I expressed concern should be considered on its merits, not dismissed without taking it "seriously" simply because I haven't commented on threads of your diaries (or PF's, etc.)., nor, needless to say, should my expression of this concern in a general sense be automatically rejected because I pointed out and demonstrated an example of the problem. Right?
In the novel Ender's Game, the author (O.S. Card) imagined an electronic debate system, that seemed to be like electronic bulliten boards.
The twist is that there were different levels of these bulliten boards: at the lowest level, anyone could participate (presumably in a large number of small communities). The higher levels were built by selecting the best debaters from the levels below them.
I think that something like this could be useful. We seem to have it a little bit in how news magazines will recruit sucessful bloggers, but we don't have anything open and systematic.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Unfortunately we probably don't have the volume of posters to make that kind of thing doable here. And you just know one of us is going to have a bunch of friends sign up to uprate us. That was a plague during the primary wars on MyDD.
I don't think that the heirarchy would be inside of a single website. First, for technical reasons, that might get difficult (as you pointed out). I also think it should be relegated to a separate site for social reasons (modularity and all that).
I'm thinking of a website that invites contributions from people who made their names at other sites.
Imagine Swords Crossed where the participants had been selected by the moderators -- 5 of the best diarists from each of the following sites: DKos, Democratic Underground, RedState, FreeRepublic, LibertyPapers, etc...
Then at the next level, there could be an international political debate site, drawing some of the best diarists from each of the national sites (such as the hypothetical SC above)
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
This site started out with that idea. Two famed bloggers Trevino from the right and Armando from the left met here to cross swords. I am not sure how or why, but they had a falling out, and kind of agreed to refuse to speak to each other.
John, if you recall, we brainstormed some of these debate ideas, including inter-blog debate (as well as many other ideas to grow SC) on this page in the Contributors Only section [edit: John, it seems that access to the old "Contributor's Discussion Page" is no longer restricted so I'm deleting the link to it that I had here]
A lot of good ideas, but I guess no one had much time for refinement of plans and for implementation.
But yes, I certainly don't have that time or energy. I just blog. But I would consider participating with help for anyone who wanted to take charge of trying to implement them.
It seems like it might be easier to separate yourself from your arguments if you get paid: if it is just a job. (how I suspect that Ann Coulter does her job).
Of course, if you get paid, then it might become your full time job and you might be so concerned about looking good (for future employment) that you forget about the value of the exercise.
As for implementation: i have neither the time nor the connections to accomplish something like this.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
I think the fact that Ann Coulter and Bill Maher are apparently good friends is a tip-off that her absurd, provocative, offensive, hyperpole is promotional schtick of the Gorgeous George variety. (I'm not saying that's a legitimate excuse for her offensiveness and for her deliberately dumbing down and polluting political discourse in America, by the way).
Idiot. You think I want to spend even more time pointing out how stupid your comments are, knowing that you have a horizontal learning curve and you will keep generating more nonsense no matter how many times and no matter how consistently I point out and explain to you that you're not making sense? So yeah, I just let it slide. But you keep pushing -- oh wait, you'll claim now that you weren't really trying to make some point with your comment or that it wasn't really important to you to get a reply from me, but that you were just mimicking some rhetorical tactic of mine or just trying to "string me along". Or perhaps you'll wait on that false claim until after you find yourself unable to make an actual, sensible argument.
Listen, dumb-dumb: The "don't abuse or villify" rule is independent of my "modest proposal" of screening people for at least some capacity for logic. Insofar as they are related, such screening would reduce the number of occasions in which harsh criticism would be valid and perhaps justified. So what is your argument regarding some connection between the two. Care to spell it out?
If your point is more general -- that my once-in-a-while harsh criticism of your commenting behavior and content (if that criticism qualifies as "abusive" and "villifying" for rules purposes, which it may) -- is incongruous with my concern that your commenting behavior and content is playing a major role in ruining this site, well I think that could be a strong argument if I was pointing out your idiocy and disingenuousness incessantly, but the reality is far from that. There's nothing inconsistent with my wishing your crap weren't on this site and my pointing out that crap once in a while even with harsh criticism.
So, what's your nonsensical reply? I'm sure it's comin'.
See what I mean, folks? He presents what he considers an argument of some sort, and then, when someone challenges his argument in a legitimate way, he claims/implies that he was just playing some kind of game (although usually he does so after struggling in vain for a while to defend his weak/stupid supposed argument).
First I ignored his comment. Then he implies to everyone that my lack of response indicates that his point (whatever it was) must be valid because I have no response. So I respond with legitimate, relevant points and questions. And he responds with his typical silliness.
So there ya' have it, folks. But you seem not to mind him so much, even though he's bringing SC down. I guess in a way it's a good thing that Brendan isn't around (much) to have to see how inferior SC is now to what it was a while back, and to see how limited it's potential is vs. what it was. Obviously I wouldn't presume to speak for Brendan, and certainly having a baby placed new demands on his time, but I do wonder, particularly in light of his comment, in explaining why he was mostly stepping back from heavy participation and moderating on SC, "I've become increasingly tired of online political discussion in general, which now feels repetitive and predictable"*, if the downward trend in quality at SC had something to do with it. (As a note, in the same comment he also urged civility, and obviously I have not been civil with GR on a few occasions such as the other day, but for what I think is an important purpose and only once in a while). Again, I don't know if that's the case, but if it was a factor, then it's a damn shame, because Brendan was probably my favorite regular commenter in the blogosphere -- intelligent, thoughtful, well-informed, and always engaging in good faith even if it meant conceding a point or two. To think of even the possibility of some connection -- some swapping out, in effect -- of Brendan's quality for GR's crap, and in the process so diminishing a site with a great concept and substantial potential, is sad, I must say, particularly for someone like me who thinks that a site per SC's vision and mission (or what I thought it was, at least) is so sorely needed amid America's increasingly hyperpartisan, increasingly dumbed-down political discourse.
Protesters en mass rallied against Italian leader, Silvio Berlusconi’s response to the economic crises. Berlusconi took faith with the Bush view that retirement benefits should be invested in the stock market, and now many pensioners bankrupt.
"Demonstrators, in the hundreds of thousands, marched through the streets of Rome on Saturday in a protest organised by the CGIL, Italy’s largest trade union, against Silvio Berlusconi’s government’s response to the economic crisis."
“This is a day we will remember for a long time,” said Guglielmo Epifani, general secretary of the CGIL. “There are so many of us. We represent the part of Italy that works, the pensioners, those without stable jobs.”
Others in the march shouted slogans such as ‘No to the government’s cuts’ and ‘Those who provoked this crisis it should pay for it’.
According to the organisers, there were an estimated 300,000 participants in Saturday’s mass demonstration.
Arkansas, along with the rest of our United States, has felt fit to tax cigarettes for whatever reason. But a recent effort was made to make it a felony to buy cigarettes from neighboring states. The reason sited...
Backers of the bill say it's an effort to stop people from driving to neighboring states to load up on lower-priced cigarettes.
...is absolutely absurd. The discussion was not regarding all situations where people buy from another place to avoid a tax. It was specific to cigarettes. Nothing about gasoline. Nothing about food or clothing. Just cigarettes. Other than making it increasingly hard for Arkansawians(?) to take their representatives serious, it also brings to light a real problem I have with the kind of powers even State governments are trying to excercise.
If I were to go to neighboring Kansas and buy a vehicle, where I can pay less tax on the purchase, I still have to make up for the deficit when titling the vehicle in Missouri. This just seems so stupid to me. Not because I have to pay the difference. But because the difference is smaller than the original amount I would have paid to Kansas. So why wouldn't it be in the best interest of revenue to lower the tax and gain that advantage? Statistically they may loose out because not everyone is willing to make that drive. But the fact that Missouri is willing to make that sacrifice at all is more telling than anything, to me.
Maybe my interpretation of just what ability Arkansas has to do this kind of this with regard to Constitutionality is too strict. But it seems just foolish regardless. Anyone else have any thoughts?
If I were to go to neighboring Kansas and buy a vehicle, where I can pay less tax on the purchase, I still have to make up for the deficit when titling the vehicle in Missouri. This just seems so stupid to me. Not because I have to pay the difference. But because the difference is smaller than the original amount I would have paid to Kansas. So why wouldn't it be in the best interest of revenue to lower the tax and gain that advantage? Statistically they may loose out because not everyone is willing to make that drive.
If you have to make up the difference in tax for a Kansas-bought vehicle when you buy it in Missouri, there's no incentive to buy it in Kansas anymore, right? Because it's the same amount of tax out of pocket either way, correct? So Missouri shouldn't be losing a significant number of car sales to Missourians to Kansas, if that's the case.
But you ignored the topic of the post. Given your personal convictions I know you have no problem with the idea. The question is can they, given our Constitutional restrictions? Since that won't be a problem for you, how would you impliment a system to "make up" for lost revenue from cigarette tax. The other question is should it really be a felony? It's one thing if you are participating in income tax evasion. It's quite another if you buy cigarettes in some other state when coming back from a trip. It just seems stupid, frankly.
You ought to let me make them for myself! I expressed no approval for the Arkansas law, nor the Missouri one for that matter. It's very possible that the Arkansas bill in particular was not passed due to valid constitution concerns, and if that's the case, I wholeheartedly approve of the fact that they voted it down. Even if the Arkansas law could pass constitutional muster, I would have serious concerns with it over having such a harsh penalty for possessing such a small amount of contraband.
It's very possible that the Arkansas bill in particular was not passed due to valid constitution concerns...
And that's what I'm getting at. But I was looking for more than conjecture. I'm finding it increasingly difficult to get more than that around here.
I would have serious concerns with it over having such a harsh penalty for possessing such a small amount of contraband.
Me too! If one can avoid income taxes all together and end up in an appointed position in the government then the removal of rights for a few packs of cigarettes purchased in another state which would fund the the wrong budget-bandaid - I mean anti-tobacco education funds - just seems crazy!
As far as the constitution re: the Arkansas law, I just don't know; I try on constitutional matters when I have a clue but I do not here.
The bill failed at any rate. Laws that are clearly unconstitutional crop up in statehouses all the time; some get passed. My employer interns at the Ohio statehouse as a legal aide to the legislators, doing research... we've got a housing bill in the Ohio Senate that pretty clearly violates the state constitution and possible the U.S. constitution. You can read his writeup on the bill on his blog here . Amazing as it may be, these car dealers and real estate agents in our statehouses aren't constitutional scholars ;-)
If it's to reduce smoking, it would make some sense.
Plus, I hope that the Channel was just incompetent in their reporting. Possessing 21 packs of cigarettes shouldn't be a strict liability crime in and of itself.
The law now makes it a misdemeanor for someone to possess 11 packs of cigarettes that don't have Arkansas tax stamps.
It's easy to miss something if you're not looking out for.
I got the number of passes right, but I completely missed the party crasher. I didn't even believe them, I had to watch it again to make sure they weren't messing with my mind.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
I knew what that the bear was going to appear, but I still missed him because I was focusing on the passes.
I bet there wouldn't have been a problem if he wasn't wear the same color outfit as the distraction team (black shirts).
Anyway, I fully endorse the message of the video: watch out for bikers!
I was once riding in a bike lane (at night with a bright headlightand, tail-light, and reflectors) and I still got hit on my rear wheel by a driver who failed to stop at a stop sign. While he took responsibility for the accident, he still claimed that he couldn't see me.
Basically, when he approached the T in the road, he slowed down just enough that he could identify car headlights in the car lane -- but he didn't bother to look for bike lights in the bike lane.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Drivers can and do get extremely careless, and the driver's responsible because he hit your bicycle. Sorry to hear that you got hit, adam ricketson. However, as a bicyclist myself, I think that, unless it's really necessary, biking at night should be avoided, but, if one absolutely HAS to bike at night for whatever reason, then it's best to also wear light-colored clothes or at least one of those orange and yellow Day-Glo vests so that a bicyclist can be seen adequately at night. Just sayin'.
Comments :
Joseph Stiglitz opines on Obama toxic-asset-buying plan
In a NYT op-ed
, Stiglitz calls what Obama's teams is doing "Ersatz Capitalism".
It's interesting to hear this take from him. More interesting is what he would suggest as the best idea in place of this plan he criticizes....something he doesn't offer.
Anyway, in light of Stiglitz's body of Op-Ed's, I find this one a tad bizarre and just a bit chuckle-inducing. I just don't get these guys sometimes.
our changing home economies
some thoughts on our changing home economies. (Originally at Freedom Democrats
)
Some commentators have asserted that our current economic troubles will change the way that Americans think about money and wealth -- similar to how the Great Depression and WWII impacted that generation known for frugality. Of course, this may just be wishful thinking from people who have been advocating these changes and feel vindicated by the public attention given to personal practices such as frivolous consumption, unproductive debt, and general lack of concern for economic stability.
Anyway, here are some stories that may reflect changing attitudes:
* gardening stimulates interest in plant physiology and ecology, while providing knowledge about agriculture that contributes to understanding economic activities and historical events.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
"Old School Frugalists"
Inspiring. About 40-50 years ago, I think the norm was closer to those frugal people than to how we live today.
Like I've told my sister:
You want to live a relaxing and more comfortable "1950s lifestyle"? Scale back to a "1950s lifestyle" and you won't know what to do with all the money. ;)
And living that life (which I don't think felt as comfortable in real time as people who weren't there like to remember it) is far easier today than it was back then.
good bye oldsmobile
But I can't even buy a new olds
these days!
Anyway, it's mind boggling to think how much our lives have changed since then. I'm reading Robert McNamara's "Argument Without End", discussing why we got into the Vietnam war and how we might have avoided it. That world (1945-1955, especially) is so different from today's -- the Europeans were still trying to hold onto their colonies, the USA still had White supremacist laws, and the Vietnamese rebels "had just walked out of the jungle and into big-power diplomacy".
no real point...
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Victory gardens
I finally started a vegetable garden last year. My back yard doesn't get anywhere near enough sun, so I bucked tradition and put it in my front yard. Why the heck not? I hate grass lawns, so this was a perfect excuse to get rid of a bit more of it. I think this is a great trend - happy to see that the White House is going to have a vegetable garden now, too!
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
I grow tomatoes and a variety of peppers every year
One of the simple pleasures in life, gardening is :-) I'm going to be on vacation for almost 3 months this spring/summer though, so unless I can get someone to tend my crop, it's likely to get mostly overrun with weeds this year.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
would it be worth it to hire someone?
I've been wondering if vegetable gardening services may be a growth industry. I figure this niche would be filled either by landscaping firms or plant nusuries, but I'm not aware of anyone who provides this type of service.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Nah
I will try to convince my parents to water it on occasion when they come by to pick up the mail, and I may lay down some type of garden fabric, which will keep the weeds in check mostly.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
front yard gardening
Most people who I know put their vegetable gardens in the back. You can even see this norm expressed in pro-gardening writings
, but some gardening advocates have been arguing that the front yard should not be off limits 
.
The front yard is special because it is more communal and less private than the back. This could lead to a number of responses from neighbors: they could think it's tacky, they could stop and talk as they pass by and you garden, or they could steal your produce.
How has your experience been?
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Positive
I get waves as the neighbors drive by, and the occasional friendly greeting as they walk their dogs by, etc. Haven't had any negative experiences yet. The vegetable garden itself is fairly small, 8' x 8' - and there is a big rosebush between it and the street, so it is not totally exposed and visible. I already had what was probably the least "cultured" looking lawn in the neighborhood anyway - with native flowers and shrubs blending in to what I call a "freedom lawn
." :)
I think it looks good. It stays mostly green even in the dead of summer with little to no watering, and there is always something blooming from April to October.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Good for you!
I have 3 words for you, Square Foot Garden
. We have been doing it for years now, and it is an awesome system in terms of requiring the least maintenence, and greatest production, in the most effecient way.
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein
I should be more systematic about how I do it
I don't rotate crops, and I really probably need more organic matter in the soil... the soil where my vegetable garden is is heavy on the clay. I also am away for long stretches every summer, so I avoid any kind of crop that doesn't resist bugs, require fertilizer, withstand drought somewhat, or requires harvest in June or July. Peppers have been ideal since they seem to mature in August and September around here and they can withstand drought. Tomatoes... well I just love tomatoes. I've gotten some really great crops some years when there's been wet summers while I've been away. Years when there's a drought, my tomato crop is puny.
For folks who don't want to plant a crop every year, and don't want something that looks like a vegetable garden, but want to get a little tasty crop out of a sunny area of their yard, I have a suggestion... strawberries. Strawberries are perennials (at least they are here in Ohio) and make a decent looking ground cover for areas that get sun. I have a nice little patch of em, they're much better than store-bought ones.
Also, don't forget to get a couple fruit trees going in your yard. I have an apple tree and 2 pear trees. All great stuff! The best thing is that they all mature at different times-- the apples I miss sometimes because they come in mid-summer, but pear #1 comes in mid august and pear #2 delivers in mid-september. Again, I think they are far superior tasting to store-bought apples and pears.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Thanks for the link
I read a book way back when called "Postage Stamp Gardening" which is probably a similar principle. I hope to improve my gardening every year, so I'll definitely give that site a look!
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
So the White House is also going to have a vegetable garden.
Big deal! Am I supposed to be impressed?
Jeaz, it's spring!
Lighten up will ya?
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
So it's spring.
Does that mean I have to be impressed by the new White House garden?
At least a White House garden
At least a White House garden (and I mean this generically, regardless of who occupies the White House) offers the potential for good use for all the bullsh*t that is produced on site.
Maybe
If a bunch of people have their own Victory Gardens, the Fed Gov might take notice, see that it's hurting trade, and outlaw even the smallest private garden on the basis that it's impacting intrastate trade...
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
and bake sales, and pot growing...
I assume you're referring to the SCOTUS case regarding Federal control over Medical MJ in California, right? The one where Clarence Thomas said that the majority's decision would permit the Federal government to regulate bake sales...
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
The Ruling before that.
10+ minutes of searching for the ruling proved fruitless.
Gist:
SCOTUS ruled that a laws regulating crop production fell under interstate commerce laws, because if a bunch of farmers did it, it would somehow inevitably and directly lead to interstate commerce that Congress would have power over.
Effectively the same fact set of facts, and the bake sales comparison is dead on.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Stats are Wicked Cool. ;)
You can do great things with them....kinda like legos.
Megan McArdle
points to great graph to consider when you are tempted to correlate two trends and draw nice and neat conclusions: 
hehehehe
Of course, her commentary that follows is even better. Megan at her snarky best. :) The blend of plausible conclusions based on the graph with a shot back to hard reality at the end is superb.
Stealing CharlesJ's Thunder, eh
"Megan McArdle: Please remember what you learned in your stats class in school about correlations ."
Brutus14Facts:
Rocks keep tigers from attacking Springfield.
Mexican Lemons make American roads safer.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
oops
missed that one...
Of course, not only does
Of course, not only does correlation not necessarily imply causation, but often people don't even have enough common sense (let alone analytical sense) to realize that meaningful correlations can't be based on cherry-picked data, even if that cherry-picking means just including cases in which one of the variables moved in only one direction. Case in point: the mindless repetition by some idiots that the fact that revenues went up in the years following the Bush tax cuts proves that the tax cuts had a positive net impact on revenues, and the same conceptually-challenged thinking viewing revenue increases following the Bush, Reagan, and Kennedy tax cuts as proof of a supposed general rule that tax cuts always (or at least generally) have a net positive impact on revenues.
Our own resident conservative moron*, GR, made such an argument (albeit in a convoluted, confusing way and with irrelevancies thrown in, along with an ironic, completely unjustified snark) on a prior thread, prompting me to spell out his error:
* Lest anyone get the wrong impression, I was by no means implying that his being a conservative has anything to do with his being a moron, nor that, in general, conservatism makes one more likely to be a moron. I was just distinguishing him from our resident liberal moron/nutcase, since his GR's conservative brand of nonsense is what drives his thinking and speaking on this particular matter (the relationship between tax cuts and revenues)
The new
President receives a standing ovation on his trip abroad.
All is well back in America as pessimists continue to deride Obama's efforts to bridge old divides and look towards a constructive future.
Who is more irritating, the French or the Republicans. I say the Republicans win that contest hands down.
I'm only half stupid
(No subject)
Yesterday's score in Iowa:
Yesterday's score in Iowa:
Reasonableness, fairness, honesty, morality, rule of law: 1
Unreasonable, disingenuous (or in some cases, self-delusional), self-righteous, irrational, Bible-thumping a** holes: 0
I encourage all to read the summary of the opinion of the Iowa Supreme Court re: the unconstitutionality (vis a vis the Iowa state constitution) of exluding same-sex couples from civil marriage www.judicial.state.ia.us/wfData/files/Varnum/40209Varnumsummary.pdf
. Seems that their arguments would apply equally (or sufficiently) to the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution -- I'd like to know if that's the impression of others here, too.
Where for art thou, Ender?
Why hast thou forsaken us so? Please, deliver onto us a sign of your benevolent existence! We beseech thee oh lord and master of the site. :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Be Careful There Juliet
Just make sure your cousins don't find out, there might be a duel in the streets after some thumb biting.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Luckily ...
I am mature and secure enough in my sexual orientation that I am not threatened by this comparison. Besides, Ender would be a great catch. :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Surely you can't be serious
Actually, if it was a jab, you're sexual orientation wouldn't have any thing to do with it, you're gender orientation
would.
"No sir, I do not bite my thumb at you, sir...."
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Ender might be on vacation...
He hasn't even been on FreeSpeechZoneBlog
since March 20th...
Last time I asked him about it, he said that he was hanging out there because it was easier to just sling mud. Ironically, with no admins here to keep us in check, (except John, who never intervenes) we sling a lot of mud here too. But not much I/P mud, his favorite flavor.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
OK, thanks.
RE: the mudslinging, yea things have degraded a bit. I'll accept some of the blame there as I have been trying to be as pointy with O[s|b]ama as possible of late. And the whole thing with BR is just a silly tit for tat spat that I find amusing. It takes no effort whatsoever to egg him on. I guess it is sort of cruel of me to exploit his mental disorders like that OCD thing for my own personal amusement, though. Does that make me evil? :)
But I have signed up to give corph a serious debate so hopefully that makes up for my slacking off on the content of late.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I was just stringing you
I was just stringing you along, GR, toying with your OCD problem for my amusement. Sort of cruel of me, I suppose, although I was trying to help you. Cruel to be kind sorta thing. Try real hard to fight that compulsiveness by not replying to this comment. Really, see if you are capable of resisting. If so, I will apparently have helped you.
Edit: Oh, and that part where I agreed with John Mark and said you and were both being driven to some significant extent by compulsiveness, I, uh, I didn't really mean that (the compulsiveness applies to just you, not both of us). My saying otherwise was, er, uh, just part of stringing you along. Which, as I've explained, I did mainly for my amusement, but also to try to help you. And as I said, if you can manage not to reply to this comment, that may indicate that I've succeeded in helping you with that compulsiveness problem.
Oh, but of course.
As I mentioned in my previous post, I see things clearly now
. No, really. Thanks for your help.
Oh, and just because you replied here, rather than there, doesn't mean you didn't reply. Tag, you're it again! :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Wow, I hadn't been there before.
So I went to see what the FreeSpeechZoneBlog was all about. And what should I find out about Obama on the first article I read? He's actually a right-winger
. Man, I had him all wrong. Maybe BR is right and I AM the one who is delusional?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Heh...
You can find a lot of material for your "Obama is just like Bush" theme at sites like that :-p
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Will everyone who owns gun(s) be judged by the nuts?
post-gazette.com/pg/09094/960660-100.stm
(Dave Neiwert via Ballon-juice): "Eight hours ago four Pittsburgh police served a warrant on a kid in a neighborhood that I could walk to. The man, 23-year-old Richard Poplawski, opened fire with an AK-47 from an upstairs window, wounding all four. Local, State and transit police responded quickly, nonetheless, some of the wounded officers remained in the line of fire and could not be reached for hours. Four officers died from their wounds;"
Now, before you think more, listen to what the guy who did it said:
"Mr. Poplawski was opposed to “Zionist propaganda” and was fearful that his right to own weapons would be taken away...Mr. Poplawski was opposed to Mr. Obama’s election, which he thought would result in the loss of his rights, Mr. Vire said."
I don't know. I think this guys grasp of reality was definitely wacked. I'm not going to blast any cops that come knocking on my door, but that's easy for me to say. I don't have cops knocking on my door.
Some people shouldn't own certain weapons.
That's a bit like suggesting
that because one muslim commits a crime, all muslims are criminal.
The most irksome and irresponsible piece of this puzzle is the propaganda that the NRA has been pushing that is intentionally misleading and inflammatory which some folks seem to be a little too eager to buy into.
Thanks to Glenn Beck and all the rest of the wingnuts that insist on spreading lies and hate. Note to wing nuts. No one is going to take your guns away. That is a false rumor and a lie. As a consequence of this hate mongering to gin four little girls will go to bed tonight without their daddy's.
But some say, Obama could be a 'fascist' who will take your guns away. The purveyors of these lies should be held responsible, unless this is the kind of result they intended.
I'm only half stupid
The purveyors of these lies
That shooter, if he sees anyone further left than someone like McCain, they're building a bunker, blowing up a free clinic, or shooting at any government employee. If loosely affiliated people were held responsible for those people, Eric Rudolph's priest would be rotting in jail too.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Even a priest
or Glenn Beck should be held accountable if they chose to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater, when the smoke they saw was just a tiny puff from the ritualized incense burner to cover up the smell of the unwashed masses sitting in the crowded pews.
I'm only half stupid
Those who build their agenda by whipping the gullible into
dumb stuff are all too common across the spectrum.
The talking heads on the right do worry me. By going for the hysterical, angry, & visceral out of it's listeners, sure they score market share & keep the faithful coming back. But in the name of market share you have some of those faithful who don't distinguish between the reality & the imagined world of impending sharia ruled America. Some of those actually act on the very words the Talking Heads say. That's the danger. These people know a certain percentage will uncork & hurt others. They're willing to let that happen. To them it keeps their cause in the news cycle & brings their views more publicity. It's sick, but that's it. they don't care about the ugly ramifications. I do beleive in karma. I do believe in a grand slate with our deeds & misdeeds linked to ourselves lives. Those that do this, the Ann Coulters, the Glenn Becks, the Atlas Shruggs & the LGFs will wear that mark, even though they won't admit or agree they have any responsibility.
The left whip their hysteria as well. The big difference is that they don't prompt their audience to take up armed revolt. Who knows....maybe the rightwing crazies are the ones that are right. Maybe armed revolution is coming. The MSM that loves parroting the crazies will still give them a free pass if it does. They'll find some way to blame the DFH.
Digby has a good update on Neiwert's book-"The Eliminationists: How Hate Talk Radicalized the American Right" digbysblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/itchy-fingers-by-digby-following-up-on.html
called Itchy Fingers. She brings in the recent killings.
A "MODEST PROPOSAL" : 1. SC
A "MODEST PROPOSAL" :
1. SC requires everyone to re-register.
2. To re-register (and for newcomers to register), one needs to correctly answer a few word problems to demonstrate at least enough capacity for logic and common sense that his/her participation is likely to add something positive to a discussion/debate rather than to get in the way and waste the time of folks who respond to their comments by trying (in vain) to engage them in logical, responsive, sensible, substantive discussion/debate.
Rationale: Unfortunately there's no way to screen upfront for honesty to prevent someone from wasting people's time with arguments he knows are illogical/nonsensical, irrelevant, etc. (but are persisting with them anyway to try to save face rather than admit an error, or to stick to some partisan position, etc.), nor to screen out upfront hyperpartisans who predictably start and end with the party or ideological talking points and "party line", so to speak, but at least screening for ability would make SC a much better place (able to attract, retain and achieve a high level of participation from a greater number of intelligent, thoughtful people than it can now with a couple of (two, to be precise) very high volume, logically-challenged participants who are are quite sure they have no such deficiency, who seem to be unteachable despite any number of clear, patient (and tedious for the writer) explanations of their consistent logical errors, absurd/imagined premises, obvious misrepresentations of the arguments of others and related use of straw men, etc., and whose combination of misrepresentations of other's arguments, idiocy, (in some cases disingenuousness), and snarky tone (1) make SC look bad to first-timers checking out SC, and (2) are irritating to the rest of us, sometimes prompting us to try yet again to try to get these individuals to apply reason despite the low probability.
And to be clear, this little test for registration would only be tough enough to screen out a tiny minority of current SC participants, probably just two people I have in mind.
As a note, I assume Brendan hasn't been participating heavily over the last few months (not sure, since my participation has declined over the last several months), and I miss his participation. It seems that with his volume gone and the growth in volume from those two individuals plus a couple of hyperpartisan talking point machines, SC has, in effect, swapped out quality for junk, and that's a trend that tends to snowball (i.e., the trend is self-reinforcing and self-accelerating), because since people seeking quality discussion/debate get increasingly turned off, while those who are happy with idiotic food fights devoid of real, quality discussion/debate stick around, become more active, and invite their "friends". Also, I must say, with some sadness (as a fan of the SC concept and as someone who appreciated the quality and nature of the content prior to recent months and who had hopes of working with "Ender" and others to grow SC into something big and contributing in a larger and constructive way to political discourse generally) that I am at this point too embarrassed to suggest to anyone that they join SC. I can image someone arriving, taking a look at the abundance of comments from the "problem" individuals and the degree to which they distract from or prevent worthwhile discussion/debate, and wondering why the heck I would encourage them to come here.
Anyway, the above is just a "modest proposal". Oh and my other one is that we make ends meet during this recession by eating the babies (or is that making ends meat, as in baby rump roast?).
Thanks but no
thanks.
Why do you disguise stifling free speech with 'a test' that one assumes by your most immodest proposal would have you be the scorekeeper?
I'm only half stupid
That's quite an exageration.
Just because some wouldn't be allowed to participate it does not mean free speech has been stifled. That's an all too common plea by people who misunderstand their importance in any given situation. And with all the recent excitment about 'insert social problem here'-czars by your favorite Administration I find it a bit odd that you would have a problem with B Rational assuming the role of SC membership Czar.
Whoa there
big fella.
The common plea by people who misunderstand their importance in any given situation......
Step back and think about your statement for just a sec.
Swords Crossed Mission Statement
"Swords Crossed was created as a way to engage the national argument directly on the grounds that we are all a part of one public debate."
I understand that you think that some arguments have more merit than others, yet if the debate is public and we are all part of it, I see no rationalization for excluding some people from the debate, whether they misunderstand their importance in any given situation or not.
I'm only half stupid
I'm sure that you don't.
n/t
good
your uncertainty comforts me.
I'm only half stupid
Maybe...
I think it would be an unfortunate move by the moderators of this site to suddenly grow a conscience with regard to site content, however. Although I've only contributed recently, I have read posts on this site literally for years. There have always been bad arguments. And it's easy to spot them and move on. It is most important, I feel, to remember that bad arguments require two ( or more) people. If the audience dries up, the bad argument just goes away.
On the other had I would like to personally help SC in it's original intent. Unfortunately I think a lot of people still participate in this kind of debate as a hobby. It seems most of us are very busy outside of the internets. I wonder if it's the daily commentary that distracts from the original goal. Perhaps the adoption of a specific topic for a week long debate with more structured replies is in order. I'm not sure.
this new thing that corph and GoRight are doing has promise--
where one person calls out another and they have a debate on a particular topic. Perhaps you'd be interested in one of those? I'm sure I could find a topic to call you out on :-)
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Getting specific doesn't bother me.
What GR and corph are doing is getting personal. That may have a place, but it isn't SC. Outside of that "method" I'd be fine with more specific debate.
I don't know, we'll have to see
They are claiming that they intend to have a serious discussion of the issue. I have taken that to mean that they intend it not to be personal.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
WTF?
Where was I getting personal within the debate diary corph had setup? Please point to where either of us was violating the code we both agreed to within that context?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4case of mistaken identity?
I am almost certain that he is speaking of the BRational thread, not the corph one.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
this.
n/t
He doesn't know
what he's talking about. Don't worry about it.
shh.
big kids talking...
Not enough, apparently.
After you look up "sparring" and "getting personal" and can understand the difference, you can come back and educate we little (?) kids.
I'm lost in all the cross talk.
I appologize. The GR/Corph effort is one I think SC should expand.
OK, no problem.
Explanation accepted and acknowledged. On the GR/Corph challenge I probably won't have a chance to respond until some time tomorrow. But I WILL respond! :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4good
Because I have a lot I'd like to add once the GR/corph rules allow outside comment.
I think the rules allow outside comment.
Just not at the first level. If you want to make comments or points or ask for clarifications about any of the first level comments my intent was that you would just reply to the appropriate first level comment. My only constraint was that corph or I could not add new substance inside one of those threads but, rather, would have to do so only on a first level comment.
corph, what do you think?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Absolutely
It's just easier to follow the back and forth between the two of us if we don't nest into each other. The post specifically allows for others to jump in. That's the whole point.
Do you know that you have never made a comment...
...in a diary of mine? I just checked it. I've written 27 diaries since I have been here, which has been just a little bit longer than you have been here-- about 2 years for me. I think it's fair to say that I have had at least some "quality" in there, and some of the diaries have inspired some good discussion I think. But it appears that you haven't been inspired to participate in one of my diaries even once.
That's fine-- I'm not saying that everybody should have to comment in my diaries or anyone else's diaries, but I hope you understand how unseriously I take your site criticisms when I compare how you have had absolutely nothing to say on the numerous occasions I have made the time and effort to make an attempt at "quality", but yet you seem to have boundless time and energy to devote post after post filled with lengthy paragraph after lengthy paragraph to explain just how much of an idiot GR is.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Checked mine, too
Ditto here. I scanned my dozen or so diaries over the two and a half years my we've been on this version of the site, and I don't see any comments from BR. Several diaries never made it from the prior version of the site.
However, it's long been my perception that the mood of the posters here generally leans away from serious discussion of policy. On occasion a serious diary will get lots of comments, but it seems the tit-for-tat partisan snark (or personal, er, evaluations) is often the most appealing "topic" for a good portion of the regulars. Maybe that was due more to the heavier population of liberal posters, who had much more to say when the Republicans were in power, and who now have little reason to post.
I agree mostly...
I definitely have a little less inspiration to spend an hour or two putting together a diary now that Obama is in power. I guess I am satisfied with batting down partisan sniping by Obama critics, if that's what's going on here. Heck, even John's last effort-- the Obama/fascist one-- was of a variety that was more inclined to foster partisan tit-for-tat than "quality" discussion IMO. Nothing wrong with that at all, as far as I'm concerned; I can go either way and be just as happy, as long as the partisan tit for tat is at least somewhat clever and reasonably good natured most of the time.
I will slightly disagree with you that the mood of the posters "leans away from serious discussion of policy" though. It's just that we're lazy, time-constrained, or uninspired to initiate such discussion most of the time, I think. Most of us seem to enjoy discussions of substance when they occur, don't we?
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
That seems to be the norm since last November.
During the last 8 years, any topic, no matter how silly, was fair game and valid. Now that people like John bring up serious topics with serious implications and plenty of meat to back it up the same people simply dismiss it as argumentative, silly, or partisan.
In other words, you are now part of the problem. No one really made a good counterargument to John's points. It was all about how his definition was flawed. Nothing with any meangful analysis of the obvious path down which these policies lead.
Even an ill-tempered Yorkie is not a Pit Bull with rabies
To just about anyone who is not a libertarian, fascism is not evil because of state influence in industry.
It's the:
Jingoism
Xenophobia
Social Darwinism
Silence of critics
One party state
....
The state control of industry to further the goals mentioned above.
Socialism doesn't cause a country to invade Ethiopia or try to "protect" the "good" citizens of Dresden.
Paper scissors aren't dangerous to run with.
A long broken stove top is safe to touch.
Tom Selleck is not evil because he has a mustache.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Interesting.
So the exercize of complete power is okay when it further's one's own cause. I'll have to keep that in mind when dealing with Liberals in the future.
Has everyone forgotten what they whined about the last 8 years? I feel like I'm in a Twighlight Zone episode!
I think my first impression of the current SC crowd a few short months ago was the right one...
Confirmation Bias
What?
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
What can I say.
I was used to having it justified to me by Republicans in the name of my safety and in the name of my country and my children's children. It's been a bit of a whiplash to have to hear it from the left now.
But I've been reminded this isn't a slippery slope situation. This is prudence and calculation from my loving leader. And that's going to take a bit of getting used to as well.
Getting my distance to the straw man that was beside me
I never advocated state control of everything or something similar.
The ribbon Mussolini tried tying around his power grabbing jingoistic philosophy of State Knows Best About Every Single Thing doesn't mean much.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Oh, I know.
I wasn't counting you as one of "the liberals".
I suppose that Hitler's ribbon didn't matter either. But popular opinion would have you believe otherwise. Either we can create charicatures or we can't. Either people are individuals or they aren't. A final decision to that regard would be very helpful. This is not aimed at you. It's just a problem I see in general.
But State control, regardless, is one (orginal) principle of fascism. You can argue it's corporatism, as even Musilini himself did, or not. It really makes absoltuely no difference. To see State control of banks as just another day does not pay adequate respect to the seriousness of the idea. Nor does calling a spade something else really change anything.
"To just about anyone"
needs the qualifier:
..."who isn't familiar with the details of the policies of fascist regimes".
So yes, to people who have only a superficial and popularized imagery-laden idea of what fascism is, it means only those things you point out.
However, to those who looked a little further into it, it's obviously much much more.
And when the discussion is clearly about that more profound (and real) definition, it's helpful for would-be commentators to acknowledge that.
Obiviously, it should be quite apparent to those would-be commentators that people discussing fascism with that more accurate and detailed definition are quite aware of the popular caricature and that that caricature is not the basis for the fascism in question.
Well now back up there a bit, partner
You're talking about the "fascism" one, right? Yes, I think that one diary by John is based on an at least somewhat argumentative, silly and partisan desire to inject the "F-word" into the discourse regarding Obama's policies. I don't agree that there is a lot of meat on the bone there. That being the case, is it wrong for me to basically dismiss that one argument out of hand?
And it is not a rare occasion that I actually agree with John's points, so I don't think there's a greater pattern of me unfairly dismissing John's arguments. Perhaps we agree less since Obama has begun to implement his policies, but I still think there is no pattern. For instance, I approved wholeheartedly when he brought up the issue regarding the unions and charter schools in the L.A. school district.
As far as your statement that there is some "obvious path down which these policies lead", all I can say is that I strongly disagree. Where you see a slippery slope, I see a very rational president who is taking a very measured, thoughtful, and flexible approach toward a very severe crisis. I thought that Obama's statement this week that h was inclined to let the automakers go into bankruptcy was an excellent example of him changing course and adopting a less interventionist course. To me, this this just adds to a body of evidence that Obama recognizes the real danger of too much government intervention in every situation. Given the fact that I think Obama recognizes this, I am inclined to consider the faltering economy itself-- and not Obama's "fascist" policies-- to be the far more dangerous slippery slope that we are on.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
"Partisan" doesn't enter my mind at all
when I write about Obama...or Bush (who also thought had some fascist-like policies even though he's not a fascist either)....it's not about the party, it's about the policy or the man. I genuinely couldn't care less what party they belong to. I really, REALLY couldn't.
The fact that libertarian-minded can discuss the traces of fascist-like policies and trends with any politician who fits the mold without arguing about D vs. R shows that it's not a partisan discussion.
The only people who consider a discussion about fascist-like policies in America to be a partisan discussion are the ones carrying water for the politician in question...or the opposition to that politician.
I'm going to have to borrow GoRight's trusty dictionary here.
See your automatic reaction to the word partisan? You immediately have a defensive reaction to it, assuming that I was unfairly tarring you with a word that should only apply to adherents of political parties, whereas I claim that if we dispassionately return to the dictionary definition of partisan, you and your fellow libertarian-minded folk can be labelled as a partisan due to your adherence or support for libertarian causes, even though you may not be members of an official political party and even find political parties to be distasteful.
Your defensive reaction at even the mere suggestion that you are in any way a partisan or prone to partisan tendencies is probably not that dissimilar to the reaction of Obama supporters here that he was in any way fascist or had fascist tendencies. If I were to insist on repeatedly tarring you or those you support with the "partisan" label, I'd bet it would probably tend to interfere with substabtive discourse. And I'd argue that "fascist" is a more loaded label than "partisan" to most people.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
I was seeking to clarify, skymutt
That said, in light of your pursuit of the full meaning of words,
this would be a good point to reconsider discussion about fascism.
If I were to mimic the reaction I got on that word I could simply say this:
"But when people say "partisan" it's clear that they mean political parties. Anybody would have that reaction. To use the word partisan for something other than the general perception of the word is:
inflammatory
derogatory
unneccessary
misleading
not productive
Did I miss any, my facebook BFF?
But yes, BY THAT DEFINTION, I may be partisan in a manner of speaking. Whew! That was easy, wasn't it?
In the matter of fascism, my partisan position is in the anti-fascist faction.
BY THAT DEFINTION, I may be
There's a big difference though.
In this situation, it was just me implying that you were partisan, and then you defensively denying it, and then me clearing up the misunderstanding by pointing out the dictionary definition. Where there are only two people involved, it's easy to clear up a situation like this.
If, as an Obama supporter, I were to sit by and allow the word "fascism" to infect the political disccourse as a description for Obama's policies (as some partisan Obama bashers, not necessarily you, would like to happen) would I have the opportunity to easily clear up the misunderstaning with the tens of millions of people here for which the word "fascism" connotes Hitler? No I would not. Therefore, while I'm more than willing to have a discussion of Obama's policies and whether they are helpful or harmful, I'm inclined to just dismiss the discussion of the word "fascism" as it applies to Obama's policies.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Yes, Skymutt
I understand that. THAT SAID, among our fine and informed little circle posters here at SC, I would like to think the word "fascism" can surivive the initial Dinseyland defintion and stand its ground in a discussion among people who can appreciate the fuller meaning of the word.
We may not be PhD historians but I think we should be able to dabble a bit in the fully informed meaning of historical terms.
We could have had a discussion of the definition of fascism
I think you are more than smart enough to realize however that throwing the President into the discussion right off the bat was likely to abort much serious historical/definitional discussion. Therefore, I see your indication that you were attempting to stir the pot a bit as closer to your true intent :-)
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Well,
It shouldn't, IMO.
I'm not walking up to a random water-cooler and calling a Obama a fascist. Hell, I stressed even here that I wasn't calling him a fascist. We've had diaries on fascism in the past that I would like to think have taken the posters at this site beyond the DisneyLand definitions.
I like to think the posters here are a little smarter than to dwell on the caricature of the term when past diaries and discussions...not to mention this diary in question...have taken the term beyond its basic perception and into that more serious "historical/defnitional discussion". Perhaps I overestimated?
Come on, now.
I like to think the posters
I didn't dwell on the caricature... read my two comments in that diary and show me where I did any such thing. I'm just admitting here in this thread that I didn't have much interest in having a conversation that involved comparisons of Obama's interventions in the auto industry to Hitler's. I did try to take the discussion in another direction... comparing Obama's market interventions to a number of more recent market interventions under other administrations. I think those comparisons are more relevant. We are talking about changing warranties and asking a CEO to step aside... do these steps really rank amongst the top ten most impactful interventions in this crisis? Yet these, suddenly, are the ones where Hitler finally gets invoked??
Now I might be dwelling on the carricature ;-) You see how it is? It's just a very difficult conversation to have.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
You say you never referred to Bush as Hitler.
Fine, I'll take you at your word on that. Did you ever defend him against such charges? I don't mean to imply anything either way, I am simply asking.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I don't know, I might have.
I don't recall a particular instance. But my view of Bush is more of an arrogant incompetent than a driven megalomaniac, so I might have "defended" Bush from a Nazi label by saying he was just an incompetent.
Mostly I would have avoided such conversations as much as possible-- the Bush = pure evil threads were always repetitive and boring.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
I wasn't necessarily referring to you
relax.
I am relaxed...
And I think we have a pretty good understanding between us. However I have been told upthread (not by you) that I was "part of the problem" because "it was all about how the definition was flawed" in that diary. I am still defending myself from that.
It's just not a fair charge, and it's just not backed up by the evicence. I don't think I have anything to apologize for in how I participated in that diary.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
huh...
What's weird is you keep defending yourself.
I do not believe Obama is a fascist.
People who aren't fascists cannot, necessarily, do fascist things or they would be fascist.
Therefore no accusation of fascism against Obama should be taken seriously.
It's the second part, which you imply, that I have a problem with. Call me crazy.
*You're crazy!*
Much better.
Nah, that's not true.
Obama can certainly implement some programs here and there that could be viewed as fascist without being a true blue (or whatever the official color of fascism is) facist. It is not as black and white as you are making it out to be here, IMHO.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I appologize for the lack of clarity.
I was attempting at writing out the logic that I perceive skymutt and others to be using.
I agree, and more importantly to the original topic, John made it clear that this was not his belief either. That did not stop others from obfuscating.
I'm done with this argument at the line below
This is the discussion I was trying to avoid in the other diary. We just simply aren't going to see eye to eye on this. Best to just leave it at that.
----------------------------end of skymutt's participation in thread----------------------------
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
As for this...
I'm not speaking for anyone other than myself. I'm generally symapthetic to Ron Paul, for example. But there are matters on which he has come across as very un-libertarian...to the point of getting cheers from very unsavory people. I would never seek to justify those justify those positions of his beyond trying to explain them. And even there, I'll call a spade a spade.
Actually, Skymutt
if that diary fostered any tit for tat partisan junk, it was to avoid a more serious confrontation of what exactly fascist economic policies are.
If people are predisposed to dismiss out of hand the exploration of the word "fascist" simply because to them fascism is only the cartoonish caricature of a nationialist dictator, there's nothing I can say except that the point was missed.
Again, like I said in the diary, I don't think Obama is a fascist. But that doesn't stop me from considering points like the ones I mentionned in the diary.
Besides,...for whatever reason..., my more serious or heavy posts don't get a lot of comments. So, I thought I'd throw out a two*....so everyone can play.
I think most people...not just here...get stricken with a little case of A.D.D. with more serious 100% substance based discussions. And that's fine...as long as they realize it. Most people, I find, are simply looking for a avenue to come back to something more primal and basic about partisan politics and their allegiance to either side. Again, that's fine, as long as they realize they are doing it.
*BTW, that's reference to the card game "A-hole" in case some didn't get it.
The "F-bomb" diary was pedantic.
You seemed to effectively be saying that Yorkies and Pit Bulls with rabies have a lot in common and called any retorts partisan junk.
A lot of other people see the fact that both are canines with similar teeth as completely unrelated to the dangers so the Pit Bull. And as the obvious nature of them both being canines as pointing out that the sky is mostly blue during the daytime.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
No. I'm not saying that.
Your analogy is easy to understand and is wrong and totally misses the point.
And yes, a partisan-based defensive posture is responsible for it.
A more accurate turn on your analogy is that many of you seem to be disputing that a Yorkie isn't even a dog because it's not a rabid pit bull....as if being rabid with the ferocity is even necessary to make the point.
But distracting analogies aside, the resistance to any serious discussion of the point on fascism is because people refuse to extend the word to fascist to whole ensemble of fascist policies.
You are being selective about what parts of fascism count as fascist...I'm not.
Citing a fascist-like quality to a policy by Obama is not to say that he is like Hitler or Benito.
Your posture seems to suggest that the use of the word on specific matter is invalid since Obama is not a near-mirror image of Hitler. That posture is both wrong and totally unnecessary...as long as you acknowledge the obvious:
Nobody is saying Obama is the same as Hitler.
Or maybe
AFAICT People were confused that someone would point out the obvious.
People are misinterpreting what the other side is saying.
One generally doesn't go into a debate topic generally about dangerous dogs, and see someone try their hand at thinking they broaching the fact that Yorkies and Pit Bulls are both canines.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Hehehehe
Is it so obvious?
OBVIOUSLY not.
And what "other side" are you talking about?
Again, that analogy misses the point.
Yes.....
and thank you.
The argument seems to be that no matter what the inflammatory rhetoric if ....you were a serious person and debated the very serious points..... you would see that you... are completely disallowed from any kind of disagreement, because obviously if you.... follow reason it all leads down the exact same path that you.... are irrational and don't see the very serious issues being brought up with inflammatory rhetoric objectively.
The problem with John's presentation therefore obviously wasn't John argument, or his definitions or his theory, but you..... and your interpretation.
In other words, it's your fault that you disagree with John.
I'm only half stupid
Inflammatory?
Only if you refuse to move away from caricatures.
I disagree
if you can possibly accept that people would disagree with you.
I'm only half stupid
Disagree about what?
That answer will surly enlighten.
Let's hear it.
Are you that thick
or just stubborn.
The use of the word fasicsm was unnecessary.
People disagree.
I'm only half stupid
So?
The discussion is about that word.
I supported my position as to why it's not inflammatory...provided people acknowledge what the word's use means in the context of the discussion.
The fact that "people disagree" isn't even the issue. Of course people disagree...that's why we're all discussing it right now.
The real problem in this exchange (with you...not with the others) is that you feel it is necessary to say what you are saying.
I'm reminded of Julian Sanchez's "Outsight".
http://www.juliansanchez.com/2007/08/15/outsight/
Either that or your point is that it's generally inflammatory. Of course it is! But that in itself was not the point of discussion.
This was the point of the discussion:
To take an inflammatory word and break it down into what it really means beyond the caricature and demonstrate it's possible relevance today on a certain policy.
I don't disagree with the plainly obvious point about whether the word fascism is generally derogatory. But I'm not using that way.
You may want to think twice about throwing the word "thick" at other people if the nuance here still escapes you.
and people disagree
You can make all the rules you want, that doesn't mean people agree.
I note that you never responded to Adam's cogent point, that your use of the word DID not further discussion. If you were serious making a case that Obama is doing this or that of bad consequence it would have been easy to acquiesse Adams point and therefore further the discussion.
You see I don't care if my posts are inflammatory. I have never made the claim that I am not a partisan with a point of view that I have zero problem owning.
You continuously claim that you are objective, yet refuse to further discussion by continuing to hold firm that everyone else's definition (a concensus) is a charicature. That is counter productive to making any argument. (The irony as I stated above, your rules are bit tyranical yet that is what you feign to be railing against.)
I'm only half stupid
Adam's point were well taken
and I did share some thoughts on the matter in that thread. Not sure where you're getting the idea that I ignored it.
That's hardly the case. I've been going back and forth with others on this matter and numerous times at that. I said that popular version of fascism is a caricature...and it is since it only covers certain apsects of the governing philosophy. Nobody, to my knowledge, has really disputed that.
Besides, holding firm on my point is not tyrannical in any way shape or form. I stand by my point. Acknowledging comments and pointing how and whether they address my point is perfectly normal in any dialogue. It's not tyrannical.
BTW, you didn't really address the post you replied to. I noticed. And the fact that I noticed is not tyrannical.
If people are predisposed to
But there's no "if" there. To most people, the label "Fascist" does bring up that mental picture of the WWII era dictators. As such, I believe it's just simply no longer a useful word to describe anyone (or their tendencies) unless your intent is to completely discredit them. It should only be used in extreme situations. And I mean EXTREME. For instance, I am quite sure that I never used the word "fascist" to apply to George Bush, and you know the low esteem in which I hold Mr. Bush ;-)
Yep, I understand perfectly. And I agree that there's nothing wrong with posting diary like that, where you pretty much know you're going to get some reaction, and you really don't mind if a lot of it is negative. Some of my favorite diaries have been just like that. The key, I believe, is to not discard honesty while being provocative.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Yes. But it doesn't matter
Yes. So? Then the diary serves as a good history lesson for those wanting to know more about what lies behind the popularized imagery....unless people want to stay on the surface and cover their ears.
If something in your college history course doesn't jive with your second-grade account of Thanksgiving, do we dismiss the college-level account? No.
Remember:
I covered this whole point about getting distracted by amatuer definitions in the beginning of that diary. People apparently can't help themselves and simply refuse to consider it.
On the second point, I often mumble to myself snarkily:
"Whoah, a Two! Everybody plays!"
when I see topics here and elsewhere that will easily get a reaction from every Tom, Dick and Harry with two neurons to rub together. hehehe
No you refuse to consider
What you are exemplifying here is a sort of tyrannical slavery to 'reason'. Ironic isn't it. You complain about tyranny and then become a tyrant of 'reason'.
hehehe hehehe
I'm only half stupid
What am I refusing to consider?
The rest of your post makes no sense.
hehehehehe
hehehehehe
I'm only half stupid
Too bad.
You think you're onto something here but you're not.
Your answer to my direct question says it all.
Are you even aware of
how different your tone and content are from the other people I've been discussing this matter with?
Funny how those exchanges remain good natured and actually get somewhere.
What the difference? Not me...since I'm a common denominator in both cases.
I'm not saying that
I'm sure I've missed some worthwhile diaries of yours and some worthwhile discussion on those threads. Your point seems to be that the fact that I haven't commented on threads of your diaries (and I'll take your word for it that that's true) means that my overall participation is inadequate (in quantity and/or quality) for either my concern about SC to be genuine or for me to reasonably ask my fellow SCers to take my concerns "seriously" rather than "unseriously". I would disagree with that assertion/implication. Obviously, if one holds the premise that criticisms/concerns of the sort I expressed should only be taken seriously if made by someone whose participation meets some standard, one would have to set some standard subjectively (it would be a matter of opinion how much participation of what type/quality qualifies). Not only do I disagree with that premise, but I also don't consider your standard -- that, to have such concerns taken seriously, one would have to have commented on threads of your diaries -- reasonable (and, noting PF's reply to your comment, the same would apply if we're talking about the threads of diaries by a few SCers rather than just yours). And if you or anyone wants to see how much I've participated, on which threads and with what content, that info is quite easy to find at swordscrossed.org/user/3005/track
And as for my spending time and filling space pointing out "just how much of an idiot GR is", well, if my point is that a couple of particular individuals here are really hurting the site via a combination of idiocy and high volume (along with disingenuousness and hyperpartisanship, but those are other matters), why should the fact that I devoted subtantial effort on a couple of occasions to pointing out the extreme, peristent idiocy of one of these individuals make you less likely to take my concern seriously? I suppose one alternative approach would be for me to refrain from pointing out this problem and restrict my comments to other matters -- and it's not like most of my comments on SC are devoted to making this point -- but my guess is that, given two bad choices, occasionally devoting time to pointing out this problem (and demonstrating it, with GR's inadvertent cooperation and support) is slightly more likely to ultimately have some positive effect on SC than would be just ignoring the problem. You may feel otherwise, and we can reasonably disagree on that, but I certainly don't think that my pointing out and shining a spotlight on one "problem individual" related to my concern means that you shouldn't take my concern seriously.
Whether or not you think anything should be done about it, and whether or not I ever commented on the threads of your diaries or PF's, etc., I've certainly participated on SC enough to be familiar with SC enough that the question of whether or not there is the problem about which I expressed concern should be considered on its merits, not dismissed without taking it "seriously" simply because I haven't commented on threads of your diaries (or PF's, etc.)., nor, needless to say, should my expression of this concern in a general sense be automatically rejected because I pointed out and demonstrated an example of the problem. Right?
debate website heirarchies/tournaments
In the novel Ender's Game, the author (O.S. Card) imagined an electronic debate system, that seemed to be like electronic bulliten boards.
The twist is that there were different levels of these bulliten boards: at the lowest level, anyone could participate (presumably in a large number of small communities). The higher levels were built by selecting the best debaters from the levels below them.
I think that something like this could be useful. We seem to have it a little bit in how news magazines will recruit sucessful bloggers, but we don't have anything open and systematic.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Ooh, that sounds fun.
Unfortunately we probably don't have the volume of posters to make that kind of thing doable here. And you just know one of us is going to have a bunch of friends sign up to uprate us. That was a plague during the primary wars on MyDD.
But I like the idea.
I think it would be a separate debate site
I don't think that the heirarchy would be inside of a single website. First, for technical reasons, that might get difficult (as you pointed out). I also think it should be relegated to a separate site for social reasons (modularity and all that).
I'm thinking of a website that invites contributions from people who made their names at other sites.
Imagine Swords Crossed where the participants had been selected by the moderators -- 5 of the best diarists from each of the following sites: DKos, Democratic Underground, RedState, FreeRepublic, LibertyPapers, etc...
Then at the next level, there could be an international political debate site, drawing some of the best diarists from each of the national sites (such as the hypothetical SC above)
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
That would be way cool
This site started out with that idea. Two famed bloggers Trevino from the right and Armando from the left met here to cross swords. I am not sure how or why, but they had a falling out, and kind of agreed to refuse to speak to each other.
I'm only half stupid
People take themselves too seriously
John, if you recall, we
John, if you recall, we brainstormed some of these debate ideas, including inter-blog debate (as well as many other ideas to grow SC) on this page in the Contributors Only section [edit: John, it seems that access to the old "Contributor's Discussion Page" is no longer restricted so I'm deleting the link to it that I had here]
A lot of good ideas, but I guess no one had much time for refinement of plans and for implementation.
Yes.
But yes, I certainly don't have that time or energy. I just blog. But I would consider participating with help for anyone who wanted to take charge of trying to implement them.
i wonder if they got paid
It seems like it might be easier to separate yourself from your arguments if you get paid: if it is just a job. (how I suspect that Ann Coulter does her job).
Of course, if you get paid, then it might become your full time job and you might be so concerned about looking good (for future employment) that you forget about the value of the exercise.
As for implementation: i have neither the time nor the connections to accomplish something like this.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
I think the fact that Ann
I think the fact that Ann Coulter and Bill Maher are apparently good friends is a tip-off that her absurd, provocative, offensive, hyperpole is promotional schtick of the Gorgeous George variety. (I'm not saying that's a legitimate excuse for her offensiveness and for her deliberately dumbing down and polluting political discourse in America, by the way).
Bloggerdome
Bloggerdome: Two geeks enter. One geek leaves.
From the movie
I remember Mad Max wins by using an actual dog-whistle. One could really have fun with that metaphor.
Indeed! lol -- good catch
Indeed! lol -- good catch en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politics
What do you propose we do about ...
users who consistently violate this rule:
or shall they be allowed to remain under your "rules"?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Crickets.
Enough said.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Idiot. You think I want to
Idiot. You think I want to spend even more time pointing out how stupid your comments are, knowing that you have a horizontal learning curve and you will keep generating more nonsense no matter how many times and no matter how consistently I point out and explain to you that you're not making sense? So yeah, I just let it slide. But you keep pushing -- oh wait, you'll claim now that you weren't really trying to make some point with your comment or that it wasn't really important to you to get a reply from me, but that you were just mimicking some rhetorical tactic of mine or just trying to "string me along". Or perhaps you'll wait on that false claim until after you find yourself unable to make an actual, sensible argument.
Listen, dumb-dumb: The "don't abuse or villify" rule is independent of my "modest proposal" of screening people for at least some capacity for logic. Insofar as they are related, such screening would reduce the number of occasions in which harsh criticism would be valid and perhaps justified. So what is your argument regarding some connection between the two. Care to spell it out?
If your point is more general -- that my once-in-a-while harsh criticism of your commenting behavior and content (if that criticism qualifies as "abusive" and "villifying" for rules purposes, which it may) -- is incongruous with my concern that your commenting behavior and content is playing a major role in ruining this site, well I think that could be a strong argument if I was pointing out your idiocy and disingenuousness incessantly, but the reality is far from that. There's nothing inconsistent with my wishing your crap weren't on this site and my pointing out that crap once in a while even with harsh criticism.
So, what's your nonsensical reply? I'm sure it's comin'.
I repeat, idiot.
Hilarious.
Just like poking fish in a barrel. :)
I wonder why I might have chosen that specific rule. What could the reason have been? Hmmm.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4See what I mean, folks? He
See what I mean, folks? He presents what he considers an argument of some sort, and then, when someone challenges his argument in a legitimate way, he claims/implies that he was just playing some kind of game (although usually he does so after struggling in vain for a while to defend his weak/stupid supposed argument).
First I ignored his comment. Then he implies to everyone that my lack of response indicates that his point (whatever it was) must be valid because I have no response. So I respond with legitimate, relevant points and questions. And he responds with his typical silliness.
So there ya' have it, folks. But you seem not to mind him so much, even though he's bringing SC down. I guess in a way it's a good thing that Brendan isn't around (much) to have to see how inferior SC is now to what it was a while back, and to see how limited it's potential is vs. what it was. Obviously I wouldn't presume to speak for Brendan, and certainly having a baby placed new demands on his time, but I do wonder, particularly in light of his comment, in explaining why he was mostly stepping back from heavy participation and moderating on SC, "I've become increasingly tired of online political discussion in general, which now feels repetitive and predictable"*, if the downward trend in quality at SC had something to do with it. (As a note, in the same comment he also urged civility, and obviously I have not been civil with GR on a few occasions such as the other day, but for what I think is an important purpose and only once in a while). Again, I don't know if that's the case, but if it was a factor, then it's a damn shame, because Brendan was probably my favorite regular commenter in the blogosphere -- intelligent, thoughtful, well-informed, and always engaging in good faith even if it meant conceding a point or two. To think of even the possibility of some connection -- some swapping out, in effect -- of Brendan's quality for GR's crap, and in the process so diminishing a site with a great concept and substantial potential, is sad, I must say, particularly for someone like me who thinks that a site per SC's vision and mission (or what I thought it was, at least) is so sorely needed amid America's increasingly hyperpartisan, increasingly dumbed-down political discourse.
* www.swordscrossed.org/diary/20090110/its-been-fun
<GoRight shakes his head>
Sometimes people just can't see the obvious.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Finally, something on which
Finally, something on which we agree! And thanks for once again (inadvertently) proving my point.
Yea, that's what I did there.
"I" proved "your" point. Uh huh.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Look past our noses
It seems the media in the US has been ignoring much of the news.
http://www.france24.com/en/20090404-italian-protesters-gather-en-masse-r...
Protesters en mass rallied against Italian leader, Silvio Berlusconi’s response to the economic crises. Berlusconi took faith with the Bush view that retirement benefits should be invested in the stock market, and now many pensioners bankrupt.
I'm only half stupid
Just because it's tobacco...
Arkansas, along with the rest of our United States, has felt fit to tax cigarettes for whatever reason. But a recent effort was made to make it a felony
to buy cigarettes from neighboring states. The reason sited...
...is absolutely absurd. The discussion was not regarding all situations where people buy from another place to avoid a tax. It was specific to cigarettes. Nothing about gasoline. Nothing about food or clothing. Just cigarettes. Other than making it increasingly hard for Arkansawians(?) to take their representatives serious, it also brings to light a real problem I have with the kind of powers even State governments are trying to excercise.
If I were to go to neighboring Kansas and buy a vehicle, where I can pay less tax on the purchase, I still have to make up for the deficit when titling the vehicle in Missouri. This just seems so stupid to me. Not because I have to pay the difference. But because the difference is smaller than the original amount I would have paid to Kansas. So why wouldn't it be in the best interest of revenue to lower the tax and gain that advantage? Statistically they may loose out because not everyone is willing to make that drive. But the fact that Missouri is willing to make that sacrifice at all is more telling than anything, to me.
Maybe my interpretation of just what ability Arkansas has to do this kind of this with regard to Constitutionality is too strict. But it seems just foolish regardless. Anyone else have any thoughts?
I think you answered your own question there.
If you have to make up the difference in tax for a Kansas-bought vehicle when you buy it in Missouri, there's no incentive to buy it in Kansas anymore, right? Because it's the same amount of tax out of pocket either way, correct? So Missouri shouldn't be losing a significant number of car sales to Missourians to Kansas, if that's the case.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
That's fine.
But you ignored the topic of the post. Given your personal convictions I know you have no problem with the idea. The question is can they, given our Constitutional restrictions? Since that won't be a problem for you, how would you impliment a system to "make up" for lost revenue from cigarette tax. The other question is should it really be a felony? It's one thing if you are participating in income tax evasion. It's quite another if you buy cigarettes in some other state when coming back from a trip. It just seems stupid, frankly.
Whoa there-- you're making my arguments for me...
You ought to let me make them for myself! I expressed no approval for the Arkansas law, nor the Missouri one for that matter. It's very possible that the Arkansas bill in particular was not passed due to valid constitution concerns, and if that's the case, I wholeheartedly approve of the fact that they voted it down. Even if the Arkansas law could pass constitutional muster, I would have serious concerns with it over having such a harsh penalty for possessing such a small amount of contraband.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Here we go again.
And that's what I'm getting at. But I was looking for more than conjecture. I'm finding it increasingly difficult to get more than that around here.
Me too! If one can avoid income taxes all together and end up in an appointed position in the government then the removal of rights for a few packs of cigarettes purchased in another state which would fund the the wrong budget-bandaid - I mean anti-tobacco education funds - just seems crazy!
;)
Well in this case...
As far as the constitution re: the Arkansas law, I just don't know; I try on constitutional matters when I have a clue but I do not here.
The bill failed at any rate. Laws that are clearly unconstitutional crop up in statehouses all the time; some get passed. My employer interns at the Ohio statehouse as a legal aide to the legislators, doing research... we've got a housing bill in the Ohio Senate that pretty clearly violates the state constitution and possible the U.S. constitution. You can read his writeup on the bill on his blog here
. Amazing as it may be, these car dealers and real estate agents in our statehouses aren't constitutional scholars ;-)
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
There are plenty of other incentives.
But they don't really have anything to do with the topic of this post so I didn't bring them up...
Arkansas lawmakers might be lying about their goals
If it's to reduce smoking, it would make some sense.
Plus, I hope that the Channel was just incompetent in their reporting. Possessing 21 packs of cigarettes shouldn't be a strict liability crime in and of itself.
That's scary
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
How much tobacco does Arkansas grow anyhow?
Somehow I don't think of southern states as leaning on tobacco to pay their bills.
When they legalize cannabis & tax the hell out of it then maybe you'd see a tax that every politician could love.
I want to go back and review my old diaries.
But I can't seem to find a way to see just a list of those. What am I missing? Is there a way to see just a list of my diaries?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Here ya go
swordscrossed.org/blogs/goright
Link's at the bottom of the page when you click your name.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Excellent, thanks.
I never thought to look down there. What a silly place to put it. It should be up with all the other navigation elements like the track link.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Hey, check this out.
Take the Awareness Test
.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Brits should learn English
I got the number of passes right, but I completely missed the party crasher. I didn't even believe them, I had to watch it again to make sure they weren't messing with my mind.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Same here n/t
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
paying attention
I knew what that the bear was going to appear, but I still missed him because I was focusing on the passes.
I bet there wouldn't have been a problem if he wasn't wear the same color outfit as the distraction team (black shirts).
Anyway, I fully endorse the message of the video: watch out for bikers!
I was once riding in a bike lane (at night with a bright headlightand, tail-light, and reflectors) and I still got hit on my rear wheel by a driver who failed to stop at a stop sign. While he took responsibility for the accident, he still claimed that he couldn't see me.
Basically, when he approached the T in the road, he slowed down just enough that he could identify car headlights in the car lane -- but he didn't bother to look for bike lights in the bike lane.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Ouch!!
Drivers can and do get extremely careless, and the driver's responsible because he hit your bicycle. Sorry to hear that you got hit, adam ricketson. However, as a bicyclist myself, I think that, unless it's really necessary, biking at night should be avoided, but, if one absolutely HAS to bike at night for whatever reason, then it's best to also wear light-colored clothes or at least one of those orange and yellow Day-Glo vests so that a bicyclist can be seen adequately at night. Just sayin'.