It's not directed only at you; there are lots of people on this site and others that use it improperly. You're not the worst example, trust me; I just felt it was time to lay out in debate-form what has been irritating me for years.
First of all, this is not a formal debate. Secondly, name calling is not an Ad Hominem attack; I stated, plainly, what IS.
Ad hominem's are types of arguments, name-calling, if it is not the argument or the crucial part of an argument, is not an ad hominem, it is name-calling.
There are many words and phrases people use to sound smart; to give themselves more credibility or feed their thriving ego. "Ad Hominem" (as well as the term "fallacy" and other latin philosophical and rhetorical phrases) seems to be the one most frequently used by those engaged in debate.
I have never once seen this phrase used properly; noone I have ever debated with has managed to place the term "Ad Hominem" or label something an "Ad Hominem" properly.
More often than not; Ad Hominems are used AS Ad Hominems; which is perhaps the most ridiculous usage of all due to its hemorrhage-inducing hypocrisy.
An example:
A:"The theory of evolution is incorrect."
B:"You're crazy! The theory of evolution is correct due to the research conducted by scientists A through Z; here are numerous experiments conducted and other papers written on the subject!"
A:"I'm not crazy, that's an ad hominem attack!"
B:"Ummm, what about all the information I provided?"
A:"I don't have to answer to it, it contains an ad hominem!"
Now, just because someone calls you a raging moron it doesn't mean they are using an ad hominem. Something only qualifies it as an ad hominem if the attack is the argument; or if the argument rests on the attack itself.
Name-calling or voicing negative opinions about the opposite party may be impolite or annoying; but it is not necessarily an ad hominem "fallacy".
Also; there is another gem of curious logic that I can provide a direct example of here on this site.
"Argumentum Ad Hominem
Just because I am using a source that has an official stance does not invalidate the source. In other words, instead of attacking the organization (a red herring) attack what they say. Congratulations on being logically inept."
Now; this person used a source to back up their claims that was a partisan, non-scientific organization completely biased towards their point of view explicitly. I said that their source, the Heritage Foundation, was such; indicating the likelyhood that the information presented was biased.
Is this an ad hominem attack? Of course not. Unless of course it is an ad hominem attack in this situation:
A:"The Jews are the reason the world is so bad!"
B:"What? No they are not! They contribute greatly to the world!"
A:"Well, according to the Anti-Jew League they caused the Great Depression!"
B:"Anti-Jew League? That's not a likely source of historically or factually accurate information! It is non-scientific and obviously biased against Jews!"
A:"AD HOMINEM ATTACK! You're stupid!"
I don't know why but the people that most seem to misuse the phrase are libertarians (and philosophy majors); it's a curious thing but damnably irritating.
If anyone else has ad hominem-related horror-stories, please share.
You're right, the U.S. isn't purely Capitalist and Europe isn't purely Socialist, I never said that.
However, the comparison is this: The U.S. is far more Capitalistic than Europe (especially in certain countries). It just so happens that the more Socialist Europeans are more prosperous than the more Capitalist Americans. This indicates that Socialism certainly has a positive affect on a society. It doesn't prove that pure Socialism is the best; but time and again, example after example, the more Socialist the country the better off the people are (if put into a proper context).
Anyways, the Chinese economy may be "flourishing" but the people of China are in a horrible condition. China is not Communist; it is somewhat Socialist. Just because a group calls themselves this or that does not make it so.
China didn't need to introduce Capitalism to increase its standard of living (neither did Russia, as the standard of living still hasn't come back up to Soviet levels). It may make more billionaires and increase tax revenues but it doesn't make the people as a whole any better off.
Industrialization didn't occur because of Capitalism; industrialization is what allowed a system like Capitalism to occur. There was industrial machinery in Feudal times; and Feudalism continued in Britain alongside industrial development. It wasn't until later that Capitalism was arrived at; that is; until Industrialization had developed into a great force.
Capitalism could be said to have helped industrialization along. No Communist; not even Karl Marx, denies that Capitalism played a great role in technological growth, some rises in the standard of living, and brilliant inventions. However, Communism/Socialism can do the exact same thing in a fairer way, faster, while enriching the majority of the population. It also provides a far more stable economy; which Capitalism has never been able to give.
Every Socialist economy has "always failed"? According to what standards? According to what measurements? What is "failure"?
Was the Soviet Union a failure? By all accounts, even though its economy was marginally less productive than the West's, its people enjoyed a standard of living in parity with "Capitalist" west. Not only that, but the Soviet Union had an extremely late start; industrialization had taken hold in the United States and Britain hundreds of years before the peasantry in the USSR had traded their plows for wrenches.
Is Cuba a failure? Despite economic catastrophe when all of its major trading partners disappeared, almost over night; its people's standard of living are in parity with those of the United States and countries with gargantuan economic systems.
The more Socialist Euro-nations economies develop at a slightly slower rate than the United State's, but their people are healthier happier, better educated, and enjoy greater benefits than those in the United States.
The United States' economy itself has only increased in Socialization, in government control, since the 1930s, yet its economy has developed fantastically since that time and its people have become remarkably prosperous.
Lastly; if the society was a Democratic Socialist Centralized economy it would be far more "people owned" than a Capitalist economy. The whole of the population would have a say in how the economy is run, not a handful of wealthy businessmen and landlords.
Of course; that's only if you implement a society based on centralized principles instead of a decentralized cooperative economy. The USSR, Cuba, and Maoist China, among others, used only a brand of Socialism; an extremely militaristic Centralized brand. It is, of course, good for some situations but has some extreme defects.
In most cases, the failures of Socialism in the past can be laid at the feet of those nations which buck Democracy and turn to Totalitarianism. Of course, we'd have more examples of democratic Socialism had it not been for U.S. intervention in Latin America and the USSR's policy towards events like the "Prague Spring".
Hugo Chavez, though, a Democratic Socialist, has certainly improved Venezuela's situation. The Venezuelan people's standard of living has increased significantly since his presidency began and will, hopefully, continue to do so.
Well; the interesting thing is that the Third World is actually a majority of the world's population. Most of Asia, Africa, the Middle-East, and Middle/South America are controlled by "third world" countries.
The explanations are many, but no one theory has managed to capture the whole scope of the problem, the forces which conspired to keep a majority of the world's population in poverty and underdevelopment.
I won't go into why these regions are still behind in human development; I would like to point out the reasons why they have yet to develop into first world nations.
(not in order of importance)
1. Recent historic domination by imperial powers.
2. Constant interference by the current global powers in the internal affairs of these countries.
3. Climatic conditions which render entire nations desolate wastelands or areas with constant natural disasters.
4. AIDS and other diseases which are difficult for the first world to deal with, much less the third.
5. Global economic policies which favor certain first world nations, people, and companies over others.
6. Wars between third world nations and first world nations against third world nations.
7. Inability of Secular, Democratic, Socialist, and Communist thought to penetrate many of these societies. Third world nations that developed secular governments aimed at common social prosperity have seen their nations rise to the top of the third world heap (and an eventual rise into the first world)
8. Inability of regional alliances to develop that would protect third world nations from instability, internal wars, and wars with non-local third world and first world nations.
I can explain any of these if anyone would like. I can, of course, elaborate upon request.
Personally, as much as I don't like pedophiles (and would want to have executed anyone who would lay a hand on my underage relatives), I don't believe it is Justice to execute someone who hasn't killed another human being.
As horrible as the crime is; the concept of Justice leads me to want an equal punishment for a crime; death does not seem to be the case for non-murder offenses.
A person's life is the most valuable thing on earth, including the lives of criminals; they should only be dispensed with to equalize a person's taking of another person's life.
That is my view of Justice and morality. If your understanding is different there isn't much in the way of convincing either of us, unless you are willing to change your morality.
You might as well be saying "I am right, they should know why I am right, screw them for being stupid".
That isn't debating; back up your statements with facts, quotes, references; anything. I can't just say "American scientists say that global warming is real". Without references to what American scientists, what reports..etc...then it is likely I am making it up or misrepresenting their view.
It also isn't up to the other side to research your points for you. You can't go up to someone you are debating and tell them "I am right; there are people that say I am right, go research it if you don't believe me!". That is intellectually dishonest, lazy, and not conducive to a real debate.
You cannot indirectly quote a mass of people without anything you are referencing to. You might as well say "according to Communists Capitalism will wither away in the 21st century". Describing what nations they come from hardly helps as it is likely that there is more than one point of view.
As far as I know there is no such thing as a single Dutch or German Left-Communism that monolithically stands without needing to be referenced. Is there some sort of handbook I missed out on at the meetings? Are the German-Dutch Left-Communists the only valid Communists, why?
Who are these German/Dutch Left-Communists? What are their names? What are some of their writings that back up what you are saying? You don't think such trivial things are needed in a debate?
"3. If a communist doesn't know what I'm talking about, well I quite frankly would question their 'communism'."
This sort of arrogance is common with my comrades; it is sad how many of you see fit to hold the mantle of Communist pope and excommunicate anyone who doesn't fit the mold you have envisioned for what we are, what we do, and who we read.
It may be that I have read the people you are referring to, but I do not understand the rather vague references you have put forth. You don't see fit to explain; of course, that would be beneath someone so expert in the realm of Communism-dom.
If you continue to "debate" in the following manner, constantly spouting off rhetoric without anything backing you up, I'll consider this the end of my debate with you. You can go on ranting and railing against this or that "idiot" who should "know better" all you want, you can leave me out of that.
"And two, and more importantly, socialism has nothing to do with government control. That is what we call state capitalism."
Karl Marx flatly states that the government will control a good number of things; bringing education, transportation, communication, and other services under its direct administration. He also says that it will confiscate the property of emigrants and rebels.
So, yes, you did indicate that Socialism has nothing to do with government control (you said that specifically); that is completely opposite of what Karl Marx says. I don't know if Karl Marx is following Dutch-German Left-Communism; perhaps he is not Communist enough for you either.
Why should they be executed? Shouldn't execution be reserved for those who actually kill people? It seems rather extreme.
What about rapists of other kinds? What about people who torture other people? Should we impose executions on other non-murder crimes as well?
Well, please; in depth, explain what your policy is towards pedophiles. What should be the punishments according to the crime:
Molesting a child under the age of consent (groping or touching inappropriately)?
Forcible rape of a minor?
Non-forcible rape of a minor? (Say, the minor "consents" to the sexual act; as in does not resist; may actually be in a "relationship" with the offender..etc..)
Sex with an underage person of 15-17 versus 1-14. Is there a difference if the rape isn't forcible in the 15-17 case? What if the underage person was 17 and eleven months old?
What about child pornography? If someone looks at pictures of underage children and never actually lays a hand on one, what is their punishment?
What if the offender is 18 and the minor is 15? A three year difference? What if the minor is 17 and the offender is 21?
What if the offender is 54 and the minor is 12? What if it is their parent? What if it is another relative?
You really need to be more specific when you talk about the "German/Dutch left-Communists". Non-Communists have no idea who you would be referring to; I don't even know who you are referring to.
I can, of course, introduce you to Karl Marx; who was explicit in his expectation that the state would play a role in Socialism; then disband at the onset of Communism:
"Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionizing the mode of production.
These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.
Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.
When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class; if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.
In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all."
That sounds like a pretty heavy involvement of the state during the revolution and transition.
I think sexual desires are the most difficult to control out of all the non-biologically necessary (life support) impulses humans experience. Talk to the few billion people on this planet; I doubt we'd have quite so many babies if it weren't for our difficulty in controlling our sexual instincts.
If you were put in a situation where the only way you could satisfy your sexual desires was to commit an illegal act you'd probably do it. If having sex with adult women was illegal as is looking at nude or sexual images of women you'd end up breaking the law at some point. You'd either look at illegal pornography or grope some woman on the bus; perhaps even rape one.
Does that make it right? No. Should you be punished? Yes. But the degree is what matters. I am not saying they shouldn't be punished; but I don't think they are being punished in the right way.
I am against letting them back into society; I want them to be in "prison" for the rest of their lives. However, I don't believe they should be put in our normal prison system but a campus system for the rest of their lives after serving a few years in the hard prisons.
I don't see the issue you have here; would you rather see them executed? Put in the same cage as murderers and armed robbers?
As for Cuba:
Let's compare some facts between the United States and Cuba, shall we?
Prison rate per capita:
Cuba: 3.6 per 100,000 people
United States: 5 per 100,000
http://www.visionofhumanity.org/gpi/home.php
The U.S. government may not have a dozen "political prisoners" under lock and key, but it has tortured foreign and American prisoners:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/18/world/
By the way, many of those political prisoners are paid American government agents; taking money from our government to destabilize and overthrow Cuba's government.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/mariner/
By the way, if I was receiving money from Chinese agents, or any country for that matter, with the express purpose of undermining the U.S. government I would be in jail as well.
Secondly; I suppose they don't have cell-phones and little access to the internet (though the new, Communist leader Raul Castro is lifting those restrictions), the Cuban government hasn't killed hundreds of thousands of people overseas. A nice trade-off; I would say. Then again; it's typically American to cherish material goods over human life; your laptop is much more important than the life of an Arab or other foreigner.
Of course, dissent is also perfectly allowed in Cuba; perhaps not as voraciously as in the United States, but the idea that Cuba is a repressive, tyrannical dictatorship isn't well-founded. Here's an account from people that visited the country in the 90s (things have only improved since then):
http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/960411/
I might add that cell-phone and internet access isn't widespread with many of Cuba's neighbors; a comparison with them will come later though.
Here's a few other comparisons to the United States:
Literacy rate:
United States: 99%
Cuba: 99.8%
That's right, Cuba has a slightly higher literacy rate.
Life expectancy:
United States: Male:75 Female:80.4
Cuba: Male: 76.4 Female 79.9
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/
So, about the same. According to some statistics the United States is slightly higher (by a point and a half or so). Either way, Cuba, a third world Socialist state is comparable, if not slightly better than the richest nation on earth in terms of life expectancy.
Infant Mortality:
United States: 6.3 deaths per 1,000 live births
Cuba: 5.93 deaths per 1,000 live births
Again, a third world country beats the richest nation on earth in protection of its own babies.
https://www.cia.
https://www.cia.
As for their eating habits; they are eating quite well; organically even. This socialist state survived having all of its trading partners disappear; all of its oil dry up, and its food supply cut off. Could the United States see so much economic upheaval and come out ahead, the same as before? Without a global war, perhaps not.
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2005/04/
In fact, Cuba is being seen as a leader and model for other nations; its success is being studied heavily.
http://www.organicconsumers.org/OFGU/
Take a look at other figures here at MSN Encarta:
http://encarta.msn.com/fact_631504750/
Compare Cuba with the United States and other nations. Sure; Cuba doesn't have as many televisions and internet connections as the United States; but compare Cuba with its neighbors; other third and second world countries with similar circumstances but Capitalist economies. You'll find Cuba fairs equal or better than nearly all of its neighbors in nearly even respect; it is certainly the top of the heap in terms of third world nations and it gives many first world nations a run for their money.
Again, this is coming from a Communist third world nation with minimal land, resources, friends, and military might.
Makes ya think, doesn't it?
"The health of that nation is directly correlated to the foods they eat and the way their countries infrastructure is structured. In the states, people generally walk less and eat food of poorer quality. that's because alot of people live out in the burbs."
Eating habits certainly have an impact on health, but much of those eating habits are influenced by public programs on nutritional education and information through the healthcare system, the schools, and the media outlets.
Here are some interesting statistics that might gum up your point of view:
Top healthiest nations (in order, 2006)/Obesity rate rank
Hong Kong: n/a
Japan: #28
Sweden: #21
Australia: #6
Israel: n/a
Switzerland: #27
Canada: #11
Norway: #26
New Zealand: #7
Italy: #25
UAE: n/a
Austria: #24
U.K.: #3
France: #23
Cuba: n/a
Spain: #12
Costa Rica: n/a
Belgium: #19
Sources:
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/
As you can see, most of the nations in the list of the top healthiest countries in the world are also towards the top (or even in the top ten to twenty) of the world's most obese nations.
The thing that all of them have the most in common is a universal healthcare system. (Some of them go about it in different ways, such as mandating government insurance, setting prices if private hospitals are the main source of healthcare, or forcing all hospitals to be non-profit.).
'll deal with your other arguments later, but at this time I think I've shown that your belief that diet is what has made these nations the healthiest on earth is pretty much bunk.
(and, I would like to point out to you that even though the United States isn't in the top spot for healthiest nations, evil Cuba is.)
Being put into a psychiatric prison or a minimum security prison isn't exactly luxurious. They are still being punished, and I would agree that the pedophiles should serve normal prison-time before being put into minimum security as a punishment.
However, no matter how much you care about the victims you shouldn't do anything to an offender; your response should be measured and just.
I don't believe pedophiles and psychopaths are "victims", but if their genetics and/or biology determines that they behave in such a way how can you treat them like any other sort of criminal who made a conscious decision to commit a crime?
What if there is someone who hallucinates and punches a woman in the face because he thinks she is satan come to steal his soul? Is he supposed to be treated like someone who beat up a guy because of a disagreement?
The insane cannot be held fully accountable for their actions; if they clinically cannot control themselves what are they supposed to do? What are we supposed to do?
Pedophiles are a milder form of psychosis; but according the available science they are still biologically predisposed towards committing these acts, towards feeling sexually attracted to underaged youths.
I think it is punishment enough that they will forever be kept out of society; away from their families, friends; and any hope of a return to a normal life. Well, and especially far, far away from their objects of sexual desire.
Clinical psychopaths are put into psychological institutions, not prisons. That's why we have the "insanity" plea, it means they go into psychiatric care, not standard prisons.
One of the most telling parts of the review is in the following quotations:
"Of course, as several of the superclass muckety-mucks Rothkopf talks to complain, most of the officials who are democratically selected by the masses don't really understand -- and perhaps aren't even capable of understanding -- the complex global issues that need to be negotiated. American congressmen, senators and even presidents know how to get elected by capitalizing on delusional fears of gay marriage and illegal aliens, but their constituents don't demand that they master high-level economic or scientific concepts. Chances are, the voters haven't even heard of those concepts, let alone formulated opinions on them. How can even the superclass be accountable to a public that can't (or won't) comprehend what they do?"
What is basically being said is this: The global elites remain unaccountable because the broad sweep of the population of the earth are too ignorant to understand all the complexities of a global economy and political system.
We, the stupid masses, elect stupid politicians who can't comprehend the grand plans of the corporate giants and cultural figureheads. That's why, of course, democracy must stand aside and allow the geniuses to do as they please.
There is a kernal of truth to this; we are largely ignorant of what needs to be done. Of course; we are made ignorant by those very same elites. Elites who like to keep our public schools underfunded, our television and radio filled with nonsense and propaganda, and our minds filled with a desire to buy as much as possible.
Instead of insisting that we focus heavily on properly educating people, providing public primary school opportunities, better access to relevant information, fancier libraries, free college, and a media focused on education instead of stupification they simply shrug their shoulders and say: "They are too stupid, we should rule".
Perhaps their rationale is their own downfall; to take down to mega-rich, the public figureheads, the political geniuses; to reinstall democracy as the dominant decision-making power in the world; we are going to have to education ourselves and those around us.
We are going to have to learn; knowledge, as even the most powerful people on the planet now admit, is the ultimate power.
I don't think most should be allowed to return to the community. Especially those that have been evaluated by psychologists and were found to have a compulsion, an impossible to cure "drive" to commit pedophilic acts
However, if it is the case that pedophiles are biologically inclined towards pedophilia, if they can't "help" it; they shouldn't be locked in dungeons or executed. We have the right to protect ourselves and our children, but we can't rationally seek vengeance against people who are not in complete control over their actions.
I believe we should set up minimum security prisons, campus style (look it up), which provide a community where pedophiles can continue to live, work, and learn without being put near any child. They would live the rest of their lives in an essentially gated community; continuing to contribute to society through work while never being allowed back in.
The pedophiles are locked away safely; they aren't forced to remain homeless on the outskirts of cities, they aren't allowed to roam free through the towns, and they are certainly not going without retribution.
This sort of procedure is punishment; it is justice, but it is also humane. It's the best compromise I can think of in what is a rather complicated and sensitive problem.
"People need incentives at home, work, wherever…people need to believe in something better in order to be a part of something."
Socialism promises mutual prosperity and equality; that seems to be a more popular thing to work for than the unlikely chance of becoming individually rich.
There's also a facet of humanity which capitalists tend to ignore, instead of being selfish and greedy most human beings lean towards cooperation and altruism. Every single day we cooperate with those around us without any sort of money or goods exchange. Parents care for their children without the children paying the parents, friends give to friends, people fight and die for their countrymen, their families, and their beliefs.
Religion, also, has been a prime motivator in human history. Way before Capitalism's system of rewards and punishments people acted according to their religious convictions or their tribal affiliations.
Cooperation is why we aren't just killing our neighbors to take their money and goods for ourselves (especially when we have the power to do so), cooperation is why families stick together and aid one another, cooperation is why we have a military that protects us with their lives, cooperation is why businesses work, actually. Ask anyone working for any company what is most important in getting the job done and they'll tell you "cooperation, team-work".
Our scientific discoveries are more and more a collaboration of scientists and researchers from around the world. They work together, share information, share resources, they go to the far reaches of the globe, dangerous areas, and for what? Crappy pay? A few bucks? No, they do it because of their inherent, biological altruism, their beliefs, their understanding that what they are doing benefits them and those around them.
Something should be said for selfishness, that is certainly a motivator; but more often than not what motivates people (especially in a civilized society) is a cooperative ethic.
Well, I should clarify by saying that the United States isn't Capitalist anymore, it is a Mixed-Market economy. So while we still have a huge amount of political influence and control going to economic interests (businessmen and businesses) there are protections and buffers against that power. We the people can still vote, still have a say in the way our country is governed; we still have common Democratic power to shape our nation and its policies. We can, through the vote, force companies to do something or not do something, we can take money away from businesses and put them into social projects. In a purely Capitalist society this would not be able to occur.
In a pure Capitalist society; there wouldn't be any vote-buying, any lobbying, any corruption. The government would be under direct control of, or have little to no power over the business world. Meaning, we would literally have a government (or society governed by) Mcdonalds, IBM, and Wal-Mart.
Capitalist societies produce a concentration of wealth that proves detrimental to the general population, the economy as a whole, and even the capitalists, the businessmen themselves.
Lassaize-faire Capitalism allows a small number of individuals and businesses to posess, to horde, a large proportion of the wealth and land in a nation; depriving the majority of control over their labor, their lives, and essentially leaving them under the direct control of their employers.
Capitalism, as well, tends to operate irrationally when it comes to human welfare. Happiness, health, art, education, knowledge, science, freedom, family, the environment, religion; these are unquantifiable, non-monetary benefits that tend to be thrown out of the equation due to the difficulty in extracting financial gain out of them. You can, of course, exploit all of these needs; it is extremely unlikely that the system would try to fulfill them.
Basically, the world around us would be shaped only by what is most profitable, or what a small group of people with economic power want.
If it is profitable for an industry to work its people 16 hours a day or more, as well as their children, for enough money to pay for one meal a day then so be it, that is what will happen. If it is more profitable to use a poisonous substance to preserve milk, that is what would be used.
Without regulation, without direction, and without an overriding value that places human needs and human happiness above profit and business we would see a complete deterioration of our people and our society while at the same time a wonderfully prosperous economy. Well, that is, until an economic depression occurs.
Socialist economies of the past, even the worst ones, and socialist economies currently have shown remarkable feats. In the Soviet Union we saw an agrarian kingdom turn into an industrial superpower in decades (in the west it took hundreds of years). Even though the Soviet Union wasn't as productive as the United States its people held a standard of living close to it.
In Cuba, while its Capitalist neighbors suffer through civil wars, famines, crime, corruption, poverty; the red island's standard of living is rather close the United States; the health of its people is actually higher and its literacy rate is enviable.
Europe, while slightly less productive than the United States, maintains the highest standard of living in the world. Its people are healthier, smarter, freer, enjoy paid vacations, benefits; they simply, on average, have it better than the average American.
The trade-off is clear; do you want an extremely productive society with a handful of extremely wealthy people while everyone else remains uncared for or a productive society of a more equal distribution of wealth where the average person enjoys an extremely high standard of living?
It's the difference between a society where a man could, possibly, maybe, become rich but will most likely be relatively poor. Or a society where noone can become rich but everyone is well-off.
This bizarre outcry makes me appreciate one of my previous political science professors. This prof. loved to make fun of the talk show bombasts and television talking heads. He also, constantly, made us understand the an important distinction in American politics:
There are Liberals and there are Democrats, there are Conservatives and there are Republicans.
It is easy to tell, in this situation, who the liberals are and who the Democrats are. Or, should I say, the people who real leftist values and the people who are in it to win it.
This article is perfectly understandable; a wonderfully well-done sarcastic cartoon, a cartoon obviously poking fun at conservative hyperbole. Anyone who reads the New Yorker would understand this, and the picture was aimed at New Yorker readers. The article it was representing would perfectly explain the point behind the picture as well.
So who, then, would misunderstand this? How would this picture do damage to the Obama campaign?
You'll see that the people who would look at this cartoon as somehow accurately representing Barack Obama already believe in what the cartoon is making fun of. They think Barack Obama is a radical Muslim with a militant Communist wife. This picture "validates" their view; even though it actually doesn't.
Of course, these people would believe such nonsense no matter how many or how few sarcastic cartoons there are. It wouldn't have changed their minds to have a cartoon depicting Obama as extremely patriotic and his wife a model of American values.
I've heard some nonsense in my day, but the people who are looking at this as some sort of conspiracy or propaganda effort against Barack Obama are really putting me on edge. I voted in the primary for Obama, I plan on voting for him in the coming presidential election, and I don't see any problem with this cartoon whatsoever.
I don't drink alcohol; I do, however, live minutes from the Anheuser-Busch brewery/headquarters here in Saint Louis.
To those of you thinking about changing your drinking habits, let me give you some perspective:
They are already going to eliminate jobs in a city that has already seen most of its industrial base flee; increasing our poverty and difficulties.
If you choose, now, to stop drinking their beer just because of this change of hands you will probably increase the likelyhood of even more jobs being lost due to decreased demand.
However, if those bastards move the HQ and brewery out of town (most likely to some third-world hell-hole) then I would suggest abstaining from this brand.
Busch beer not only employs quite a number of people, jobs that pay well and carry pretty good benefits; they also contribute to charities and projects around the Saint Louis area.
They developed a nature preserve out of an abandoned military base, they built Busch gardens, they sponsor sports teams....without that money; without a company that has shown at least some desire to improve the lives of the people in the area it does business we'll, again, see our misery improve.
This is all coming from a Communist, and while I don't like Busch as a capitalist enterprise; it is a lesser of two evils when squared against a gigantic multinational that doesn't contribute much, if anything, to charity and has no loyalty to any city, state, or country.
This acquisition is disgusting and scary; as a citizen of Saint Louis I am appalled that this would be allowed to occur.
For those of you interested, there is a case in Australia pertaining to under-aged nudity displayed as art. It seems that the father, even though he is defending the photograph as non-sexual, has blogged about the sexual nature of children the "latent sexuality", as he terms it.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23997882-12377,00.html
The child isn't concerned with the photograph, she was pictured at age 2 (now 11) by her mother. The picture was then displayed by the artist, her father, in a national magazine resulting in a national uproar.
The blog post has been taken down, of course, but here are some memorable quotes from the articles:
"The sensuality of children is integral to parental fondness… Centuries of jealous puritanical mores-akin to the suppression of all aspects of childhood-have discouraged the artistic exploration of the sensual delight of children and the enjoyment of their own bodies. Undoubtedly a part of this taboo was the fear of the child’s latent sexuality and its potential for exciting inappropriate and sinful desire…"
"The works challenge the taboos against the recognition of child sensuality; but they are not a form of erotica… In the process, however, they do acknowledge that the child has access rights to an erotic language… The confronting aspect of this suite is that the sensual language proceeds from the child alone."
That's all well and good, save for the fact that I clarified my position and indicated that what I said about photography can be said about the other forms of art (though to a lesser degree). Argue all you want about my stance, but to argue against a technical fault (not mentioning other major art forms specifically) is moot when I, in the second argument, clarified my position and included them. You're beating a dead horse now, I already answered your criticism.
"With all due respect, your response only shows that you expect perversion where there is a nude 14 year old body."
That is a flat-out misrepresentation. I expect misuse of underage nudity if the general policy was acceptance and legalization. I never indicated that every child that has his nudeness reproduced and distributed would find themselves perverted or abused, I just indicated that it is likely to occur in general.
In other words; and I said this repeatedly, the policy would put children at risk, not lead to problems in every single case. You are taking my well-rounded and balanced argument and hurling it into an extreme without any reference point indicating I actually believe that.
"What exactly is the risk? I'm thinking of, you know, year 1611 sorts of risks because that's obviously where my mind is at this point, year 1611, so I'm not quite sure what you mean."
You are really losing my argument, I thought I was quite clear. Let me repeat:
I used "1611" as a date in which the major art forms were sculpture and painting. What I said, very clearly, was that I ignored sculpture and painting because these are no longer the most popular and widely used media/art forms in the U.S. or world. I focused on what was going to be the biggest problem, not what is marginal in the discussion.
I was merely answering to your charge about ignoring other forms of media and focusing on photography.
"If you're going to do something like that, it would be wise to have a attorney present, and I think that follows common sense. What would happen that would get so out of control?"
That sort of naivety is striking, especially when dealing with vulnerable groups of people. Do I need to bring up the eras in which child labor was legal? Do you think they didn't have attorneys then? Do you think the children that worked in mines didn't have parents? The threat to poor children, children with ignorant or neglectful parents, homeless children, orphans is the most disconcerting.
Sure, the children of Donald Trump or a middle-class, college-educated family would be at a smaller risk for abuse and exploitation; but children whose parents are gullible (there are plenty) or ignorant or in dire financial straights are at an extremely vulnerable position.
We don't trust the economy to employ children, why would we trust them with their naked bodies?
Let me, again, clarify my argument:
While allowing children under the age of 18 to be employed not every single child will be exploited. However, there is certainly a danger of exploitation and it is certain that many will be. The cost-benefit of allowing children under the age of 18 full license to work without regulation (15-18 year olds can work but only part time and so long as their schooling does not suffer) is simply not worth it.
The same goes for art; not all children will be abused or exploited but it is likely to happen; especially in photography and video. Is it really worth it to sacrifice a portion of the underage community for the sake of art?
What is to stop an abusive parent from taking sexually explicit pictures of their children to sell to pedophiles? According to you it would be perfectly legal so long as they deemed it "art".
What is to stop a director from pressuring a young actor with nude scenes in order to generate more buzz and revenue for their movie?
"Also, when I said "I also think that good humane intent is behind any good artist's work. You know what I mean", When put in it's right context I was sort of saying that you can tell a good artist from a bad quite easily via common sense."
Your explanation makes even less sense. Are you saying we should ban bad artists from using underage nudes? Are you saying there aren't any gullible or ignorant parents that wouldn't agree to let their children be used by a bad but convincing artist?
Even if the "artist" was good; what is to keep the reproduction from falling into despicable hands? What if the artist's rent is up and all he can do to make a enough money in time is to sell little Susy's nudity to some sleazy car salesman from Reno, Nevada?
What's to keep these images of children from being disseminated all over the internet, worming their way into dens of pedophilia?
If it is legal there isn't going to be a single lawyer in the U.S. who could do anything about it. After all, it would be perfectly legal to have naked children on your computer, on your walls, under your bed.
According to you "Point is, even if it's sexual it could have meaning worth expressing." If that sentence became policy child pornography would become legal, you do realize that, don't you? So long as they are not "actually" having sex, just made to look like it, it would be perfectly legal (just like any pornographic movie).
All nudity and sexual representation of children would fall under the umbrella "art"; and unless you believe that there is an objective way to differentiate between "art" and pornography then you've provided no method of stopping child pornography from becoming legal (de facto, though not de jure).
It isn't a weird anomaly and it doesn't provide evidence that global warming isn't occurring.
This is in the same line of misconceptions that caused many people to balk when snow-falls increased in some parts of Antarctica and we've seen large snow-storms in the United States.
Heating causes increased precipitation; so while most glaciers (especially inland) are receding in all parts of the globe the mountain you are referring to, Mt. Shasta, has seen its glaciers increase in size. This, of course, is not due to any cooling in the area but an increase of precipitation due to the warming of the coastal waters nearby, which increase snow-fall.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/
So, what scientists are saying is that global warming is causing the glaciers to increase in size, this is not happening despite global warming as many would suggest.
I specifically picked on photography (and video, though I didn't mention it specifically) over sculpture and paintings for the same reason I don't mention knives and blackjacks when talking about an individual's right to keep and bear arms; we are living in 2008, not 1611.
When talking about the repercussions of allowing the public display of underage nudity the finer art forms of sculpture, painting, lithograph, wood carvings, cave paintings, and totem poles are left out due to their smaller distribution and composition of the current media economy and popular art.
I still disagree with a child being used for painting and sculpture, but I am perfectly willing to make an exception due to the lower threat associated with it and the unlikelyhood of unsavory characters using the venue for exploitative or disgusting purposes. Still, the threat is still there and most of what I said about photography can be laid against the other art forms, though to a lesser degree.
I do take exception to some of your propositions and what I perceive to be your priorities.
For one, you make this strange statement: "I also think that good humane intent is behind any good artist's work. You know what I mean?"
There are a couple of things wrong with this: legalizing the public display of underage nudity does not, without a qualifier, prevent it from being used by non-good artists. To be honest, most "artists" fall around the mediocre-bad range, not good.
Secondly, there are plenty of unsavory, malicious, or otherwise unscrupulous good artists out there. From Nazis, to rapists, to serial killers and child molesters, there are plenty of good artists with disturbed personalities and/or terrible motives.
"Point is, even if it's sexual it could have meaning worth expressing."
This, and the sentences preceding it which indicate that nude and even sexual public displays of nude children and teens have artistic value are disturbing to a certain extent. Anything has artistic value; gutting a human being and arranging his or her internal organs into a religious symbol is jam-packed with meaning. The problem is; is this meaning worth the possible (or inevitable) repercussions or abuses?
I err on the side of protecting children from abuse, not artistic fulfillment. Just as in science, war, economics; art doesn't have full license to do whatever it wants in the name of itself. No matter how pure the motives are I don't feel it is worth the risk.
Consenting adults can do whatever they wish with their body and likeness; children, however, should not be put at risk for mere artistic fulfillment. Artists can still create the likeness of a nude child without the use of an actual nude body, I don't care much about that; but I do not want children to have their naked bodies laid at the feet of art or commerce, to be used to further the careers, bank accounts, or perversions of an adult population hungry for all manner of unsavory satisfactions.
While Ireland has the full right to decide its fate as a nation it's my opinion that Europe would do well to unify as quickly and efficiently as possible. The EU states are going to be woefully unprepared to meet challenges head-on or effectively if this sort of nationalistic bickering, isolationism, paranoia, and elite power mongering continues. (I blame the EU elites: ministers, economic powers, functionaries..etc..just as much if not more than the general public in the stalling of a fully-functioning true European Union).
With global economic and environmental crisis looming, an ever aggressive Russia, a potentially aggressive China, a loose-cannon U.S. (I am a U.S. citizen), and the threat of Fundamentalist Islamic insurrection I don't think it is in the people of Ireland's best interest to keep the E.U. from becoming a potent international power in its own right.
France, Germany, Ireland, Britain, Poland..etc...etc...cannot compete economically without each other, they cannot compete militarily, and they cannot progress scientifically, environmentally, and socially without each other's help.
Without the combined efforts of all Europeans the E.U. member states are likely to fall behind the U.S., India, China, Russia, and Brazil as economic, military, social, cultural, and scientific powers. The more cogent and stream-lined the E.U. governing body becomes the more powerful and protected the individual E.U. citizen becomes.
For one thing; the underaged can take as many pictures of themselves as they like. The issue I have is with displaying them in public places, selling, and distributing them. In effect; they are giving their body over to the general public, or certain members of the public.
Children's lives are entirely up to "responsible adults"; unless you are against parenting I don't see what you mean here. Do parents not have legal rights over their children to see to their raising and welfare? Are they supposed to allow their children to pose naked for fear of being accused of wrongful imprisonment if they dare to incarcerate them in their rooms for a sentence of one weekend?
18 is not a magical age; it is an age where the average mental development and social/economic/political enfranchisement reaches an acceptably high level; a level to allow for physical independence.
I use the age of 18 as a marker because this is what society has determined to be definitive of an adult. As far as I can tell the age of "adult" is, at most, too low and should be raised higher. Mental/ social maturity is certainly not well-developed before the age of 18 and it is arguable if it is achieved (by the average human being) before the age of 21.
A major aspect of my argument IS the fact that people under the age of 18 are not independent and are not given the power (by society especially but also by nature) to handle situations that arise from having their nudity displayed to the world.
It doesn't matter to me if the age of 18 is really definitive of adulthood in an objective way; what matters is that it is determined by society that it is. This enfranchisement is one of the key aspects of my argument.
This is the same concept that bars people from selling themselves into slavery or children under a certain age from working full-time jobs in mines and factories: people are not able to give up certain rights and certain types of people are not able to enter into contracts/ take on certain responsibilities because of their physical, social, economic, or age status.
If you do not believe there should be a set age to determine adulthood do you think that people under the age of 18 should be tried as adults for any and all crimes they commit? Should a ten year old be charged with manslaughter in the first degree if they play with their grandfather's gun and accidentally kill their friend? Should 15 year olds be charged with felonies if they steal a car and take it for a joy-ride around their home-town? Should we house people under the age of 18 in the same prisons as that house 30 year olds?
I don't believe underage teens or younger should be able to consent to nude photographs. I don't believe it is overtly pornographic, to believe so would be to believe that the naked human body is purely sexual; something that I don't find to be the case.
I do think exceptions should be made for relatives of the children; I don't really care about parents taking pictures of their kids in the bathtub, my own mother did this.
Otherwise, full-frontal nudity should be banned as it is not acceptable to coerce the underage to do things they do not understand/have a full grasp of. It is a protection against abuse and of the child's right to maintain control over his or her own body without the coercion, manipulation, or beliefs of adults overriding it.
If they want to pose nude at 18, fine, let them; but until then they should be able to make up their mind without being subject to the wills, suggestions, desires, and economy of adults.
A boy or girl at 16 does not understand the consequences and does not have the power to deal with whatever may come from their exhibition. They can take pictures of themselves all they want and deal with those consequences (if posted online they should be immediately taken down, of course), but how can they deal with a photographer taking and owning the license to a picture with their fully nude body? How are they going to deal with the publicity, the fact that they may be in a book or publication?
Essentially, allowing them to pose naked for others is allowing their nudity to be bought and sold; taking it away from someone who doesn't even understand what that entails.
I find this problematic and almost inviting problems that children simply cannot and shouldn't have to deal with. Pedophilia is only a part of the danger, though it is considerable.
This is the guy who runs the world bank: Robert Zoellic, a George Bush appointee.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/
This aspect lends credibility to the story, somewhat. However, if it is a propaganda piece it is sure to work on Europeans and Liberal Americans who detest Bush.
I am not yet ready to believe the current wave of criticism, especially one emanating from a report noone has been able to read (except some Guardian reporters).
The World Bank itself is suspect; it might be trying to divert attention from the fact that globilization policies are being blamed by some groups for the dramatic rise in food prices. For those of you who don't know, places like Haiti used to be self-sufficient in food until liberalization policies caused cheap imported grain to flood the market and crowd out the local agricultural base.
http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article/
The industrialized, subsidized crops from the U.S. and E.U. can easily out-compete lo-tech, local crop producers without massive governments to support them.
There are a couple other issues:
1. Ethanol's percentage of total global crop production usage has gone up significantly in the past decade; the only problem with that is it went from tiny to small; it is not even close to being a major factor in global crop production.
2. Ethanol is mainly derived from non-staple crops: corn, soy, sugar cane. Corn and Soy, however, are used primarily as animal feed; it would follow that meat prices would rise (somewhat) from this.
The food crisis is stemming from a sudden, sharp rise in wheat and rice; foods not typically used to make ethanol.
The charge leveled, though, is that land usually used to make food is being turned over to bio-fuel use. I have seen no numbers on this and it seems unlikely that this is the major cause as, again, the amount of bio-fuel crops grown versus food stuffs is probably not even 5%, it couldn't account for the rise.
There are too many other factors that seem to make more sense with regards to the rising food prices; most notably the dramatic rise in oil prices, extreme weather (drought, floods) in the U.S. Midwest, Australia and other nations, rising demand, speculation, subsidies, and others. I find it hard to believe that beside all of these factors Bio-fuels is the major culprit.
Now, I am not actually pro-biofuels. There are a number of reasons to be against them as a major energy source; in the long-run food prices would rise considerably (I am not willing to believe, just yet, that it is possible for this effect to happen so soon). There are also additional problems with the destruction of rain forests and other natural habitats. Of course, there isn't enough land on Earth to supply our current or future fossil fuel needs with bio-fuels.
Still, I think bio-fuels can be part of the solution, along with conservation, recycling, reduction in fuel use, efficiency measures, mass transit, taxes, regulations..etc...etc..
I support this judgment, not only because I believe the founding fathers intended such policies from the get-go but also because I do believe people should have the in-alienable right to self-protection.
I believe that handguns, shotguns, and perhaps even some forms of assault weaponry are necessary in the event of government tyranny or foreign invasion. God knows, what if some terrible national or global environmental, economic, nuclear, plague, or other disaster tumbled our government to the ground.
In the case of paramilitary weaponry I would favor restrictions that place it strictly inside the home at all times (probably requiring its assembly in the home, actually. Meaning the manufacturer would need to send the parts to you and you put it together on your own).
Handguns shouldn't be restricted to the home; we should be allowed to protect ourselves on the streets (private businesses and government buildings should be free of them, of course).
Most of the hub-bub on the left (which I am a member of) seems, in part, due to the sensationalism of the late 80s and early 90s. Gun crime was the "Islamic Extremism" of that time period. A universal scare-all that frightened the pants of anyone daring enough to watch the nightly news.
The problem is, at the height of gun deaths in the United States, when the furor against guns reached a fever pitch, the problem was, at worst, smaller than the threat of soot, that's right, soot.
Lemme' give you some numbers:
Gun deaths in 1993: 39,595
Soot deaths in 1993: 50,000
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/
http://www.hpolicy.duke.edu/
Here's a list of things that killed more people than firearms in that year:
Smoking-related (includes non-smokers)
Diet/Activity patterns
Non-compliance, prescription medicines
Alcohol-related
Preventable infectious disease
Hospital deaths due to negligence
Adverse drug events in hospitals (non-negligent)
Toxic Agents
Particle Pollution (soot)
Non-automobile accidents
To recap, your hospital is way more likely to kill you than an armed robber.
Here's another fun fact: half of those gun-deaths are NOT homicide. In fact, in almost every year a little over half of all gun deaths are suicide. The rest are homicide, death by police action, or accident.
That means death by gun by murder is even further down the list of things that might kill you in a given year. If it is taken as just murders you have 18,571 deaths which will put you under AIDS and car accidents.
This pretty much indicates the danger isn't there for most people to require a blanket ban on guns; most of it is media hype and propaganda.
Also, even if half the hype were true I would have to throw my lot in with those that take freedom over safety. Liberals love to quote Benjamin Franklin on this; that sacrificing a little liberty for a little safety will secure neither. That, of course, only seems to apply to war and peace not personal gun ownership and crime.
Remember, this is coming from a die-hard, Republican hating leftist of the far-far-far order. A Communist. I really think the left needs to reconsider its stance on this issue; I don't think it makes much sense.
I think it is disingenuous to stand directly opposed to the constitution in such a way. Lots of things have changed since the amendments were drafted, most of the ideas have ended up to be rather timeless guidelines.
The basic idea of individual means of protection from both a tyrannical government and dangerous individuals is timeless and important. If anything (and I know I am going to sound like people I myself oppose) the founding fathers would want us to have more weaponry than handguns against a government they never intended to grow so large and powerful.
Oops, I made a typo; it's actually the second amendment.
Also, the way sentences are structured that isn't entirely the case. The use of commas makes it seem that the militia is supposed to be the right; meaning the right of the people to keep and bear arms is in the form of a militia.
If they were going to be clear they would have had to put an "and" in there. Without it, to anyone with an objective viewpoint, it isn't 100% clear that they meant personal firearms from that sentence alone.
"What ever freedom that you have and you give away, it will NOT be given back to you. This is how the government works, especially the one that we have now."
The Supreme Court, a part of the government, did indeed give the right back to us.
The wording is not as clear as you'd think. It is actually the third amendment and I will present it here:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
See the conflict? Does it mean we only have a right to a state militia, an independent citizen militia, and individual right to bear arms, all of the above?
The way the sentence is constructed lends it perfectly to multiple interpretations; I believe the court went with the best one but that's just me.
I don't know what you mean.
1. All legislation (including the constitution itself and the amendments therein) are interpreted by the courts (ultimately by the Supreme Court), that's their job. That means that the court can change its mind or that the composition of the court can change (new people) and then alter previous decisions.
2. Amendments can be amended and eliminated (it takes alot of time and effort and it rarely occurs).
3. We can always disagree with interpretations of amendments or amendments themselves.
Hmmm?
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/
The court affirmed an individual's right to own handguns. They just gave you MORE freedom.
Yes, indeed, when are they?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24860437/
"Dunkin’ Donuts has pulled an online advertisement featuring Rachael Ray after complaints that a fringed black-and-white scarf that the celebrity chef wore in the ad offers symbolic support for Muslim extremism and terrorism."
Funny you would decry things happening in another country but didn't seem to mind this happening in our own.
No problem; I understand. (also, sorry if you havn't been able to reach me on AIM, I am not often on the program lately).
The Manifesto is one of the easier things to read of his; I would recommend it but not alone. You can't get a real picture of his basic theoretical and philosophical contributions unless you pick up Capital.
I'd recommend trying out a compilation book; there are many. I'd recommend the Portable Karl Marx and the Marx & Engels Reader:
http://www.amazon.com/
http://www.amazon.com/
They give you the bigger picture of his ideas; the Manifesto isn't meant to be all-encompassing; more of a heavily rhetorical introduction and rally-cry (for that particular moment in time).
If you want the Manifesto, which is actually a rather good work of literature in itself (even if it doesn't get across the complexity and fullness of Marx's concepts) Librivox has the manifesto for you to download in both text and audio format (they are working on Capital):
http://librivox.org/
Wage-Labor and Capital is also a good introduction to his though; sort of like the Manifesto without the rhetoric and with explanations for his beliefs:
Karl Marx
"Capital is reckless of the health or length of life of the laborer, unless under compulsion from society."
No other Philosopher in history had seen his followers, for better or worse, take over nearly half of the world in his name. Before the end of the Cold War and the end of the Soviet Union, 1991, Karl Marx's name was in every school, university, and square from Berlin to Ho Chi Minh City (formerly Saigon). For all intents and purposes Marx's writings laid the basis (or excuse) for government policies and political parties stretching across the entire globe.
His influence reverberates today; a recent BBC online poll named him as the millenium's greatest thinker: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/461545.stm
His critiques of business, capital, capitalism, and his sociological insights still form the core of leftist belief and rhetoric (even when they try to move away from the stigma of his name). His "spectre" is still haunting not only Europe but the whole world. Even as Communism is pronounced "dead" it resurfaces in European elections, Indian regional conflicts, Nepalese revolutions, and South American political movements.
Here at home, long after the fall of the Soviet Union and China's reforms; the conservatives, the right, the libertarians still warn of a coming Socialist dictatorship; every reform and measure is seen as a resurrection of Lenin. Moreso than Jesus, the Christian right cowers before the second coming of Karl Marx.
More science on the subject; this time with regards to Wal-Mart:
http://stlouis.bizjournals.com/stlouis/
"The authors state in the study that "by displacing the local class of entrepreneurs, the Wal-Mart chain also destroys local leadership capacity."
I know, I know, I don't have a youtube video from 1973 by a dated and fallable economic philosopher to back me up. I guess I'll just have to rely on scientific studies by independent researchers instead.
Case in point, because of the lack of foresight on the part of Chrysler Saint Louis's already shrinking manufacturing base will take another hit: they are closing a minivan plant and putting over a thousand out of work.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/30/news/
I live in Saint Louis; we don't need another factory shut-down. We are already in a panic over one of our larger employers, Busch beer, being taken over by a foreign firm. If that happens we could see it move out of the city; we've already had to wrangle with the company for the longest time, giving it tax breaks and incentives, to stay here.
I believe art should be censurable in certain contexts:
1. Government funding is discretionary and can act as a form of censure by refusing to fund or defunding projects and institutions that do not agree with the public's will. The government has a duty to, within the context of public scrutiny and approval, promote the arts that further our education and improve our culture.
For example: I believe the government is perfectly fine to, and should, refuse to fund or reduce funding to an institution (such as an art museum) that displays art of a graphic, disgusting, or arrogant nature.
Graphic meaning overly sexual given the common more's of a society.
Disgusting meaning the average tolerance for violence, gore, and the macabre.
And arrogant meaning an exclusion of common art for the sake of art crafted only by those with advanced artistic degrees, connections within the artistic hierarchy, or art otherwise removed from the common people and placed on a culturally isolated pedestal.
I also believe the government should be able to censor art conveyed through public mediums or displayed in public areas (under the guidelines mentioned above).
This includes television and radio programs as well as commercial art (advertisement).
Television, radio, public squares, streets, and art/academic institutions should fall under censurable guidelines.
On private property and through private cable and satellite I see no problem with expressing any and all forms of taboo; no matter how explicit or horrifying it may seem to the general public.
For information on dropouts, check out this:
It indicates that there are a number of causes leading to a drop-out, alot of them have to do with the local economic environment, school quality, and race.
Well, I certainly wish I could copy-paste excerpts from two websites (and post youtube videos), be absolutely dismissive, ignore argument, and then declare victory. Must be an easy life being so comfortable in your superiority.
You might want to pay attention to the following, though, unless you're too tired or bored:
1. Here are a number of abstracts from the journal of consumer research which help to counter your belief in a consumer's rational choice:
http://www.journals.uchicago.
http://www.journals.uchicago.
http://www.journals.uchicago.
http://www.journals.uchicago.
http://www.journals.uchicago.
http://www.journals.uchicago.
"This article illustrates how the compromise effect alters consumers' selection of soft drinks. Using three within-subject studies, we show that extremeness aversion and price insensitivity cause consumers to increase their consumption when the smallest drink size is dropped or when a larger drink size is added to a set."
Here are some interesting quotes:
"We demonstrate that consumers who have been recently reminded of their own impending mortality wish to purchase higher quantities of food products (and actually eat higher quantities) than do their control counterparts. This effect occurs primarily among low-self-esteem consumers."
"A combination of field and laboratory experiments reveals that the mere presence of categories, irrespective of their content, positively influences the satisfaction of choosers who are unfamiliar with the choice domain."
"We suggest that consumers assess the taste of a food or beverage by comparing the human values symbolized by the product to their human value priorities. When there is value-symbol congruency, they experience a better taste and aroma and develop a more favorable attitude and behavior intention; incongruence has the opposite effect."
"Additionally, we show that subliminally evoked retail brand names can serve as the cues that activate purchasing goals."
"Three experiments examine how power affects consumers' spending propensities. By integrating literatures suggesting that (a) powerlessness is aversive, (b) status is one basis of power, and (c) products can signal status, the authors argue that low power fosters a desire to acquire products associated with status to compensate for lacking power. Supporting this compensatory hypothesis, results show that low power increased consumers' willingness to pay for auction items and consumers' reservation prices in negotiations but only when products were status related."
So far no psychological studies showing that people are basically rational when choosing particular products or services, quite the opposite in fact. Then again, this is all just rhetoric, right?
As for myself, I regularly make decisions which harm my health, my social standing, my career, and my education; even though I know perfectly well that they are doing so. In purchasing things I will go into a store not wanting to buy anything fattening (I'm gettin' abit pudgy) but even I; someone who is completely aware of these tricks, and an avid hater of corporations, will buy something deliciously fattening from a large corporation. That's right, I even make decisions that go against my very principles.
When I go to the grocery store I am overwhelmed with desire, with hunger; and study after study confirms the same thing about most people. I dare you to go to a large supermarket with a bunch of money in hand and not spend a single dime. You'll be tempted; and you'll probably succumb (especially the longer you stay there).
Here's even more data:
http://www.journals.uchicago.
http://www.journals.uchicago.
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/
"The influence of the adopters' group size on a consumer's decision to adopt a new product varied among individuals with different levels of needs for distinctiveness and assimilation: when need for distinctiveness was low, the higher was the need for assimilation and the larger was the perceived group size, the higher was the probability of adopting the product."
"We propose that consumers buying from low- (vs. high-) reputation sellers pay greater attention to surcharges. Thus, reputation moderates the effect of surcharges on purchase. Data from eBay show that consumers adjust bids to account for surcharges when buying from low-reputation sellers but not when buying from high-reputation sellers (study 1)."
"Prior research has shown that individuals are often susceptible to a false consensus effect, whereby they overestimate the extent to which others share their opinions."
Just because I didn't have the time or energy before to research my points properly shouldn't have given you the comfort of declaring victory. I wouldn't be so haughty next time, love.
Do you have any, any data backing up your rational consumer theory from a psychological association, a scientific body of any kind? Do you have any researchers in the field of social psychology, sociology, psychology, psychiatry, biology, neurology, anything?
1. You have rather strange ideas about advertising, ideas which aren't even held by those practicing your Capitalistic ideals. Wal-Mart and other national and international chains would probably disagree with you when you state the following:
"In fact, the only benefit Wal-mart has in advertisement is that it's on a national scale. That kind of advertisement would be useless to a local business that only really requires fliers and a newspaper spot."
This is curious; seeing as you seem to miss the fundamentals behind the business. You see, national advertising doesn't matter to local businesses when the advertiser is, say, a national mail-order catalog or internet business.
However, because Wal-Marts sell locally they are advertising locally, nationally. In other words; they are advertising to thousands of local communities at the same time, on a national scale. They are also using advertising mechanisms which are far more powerful than anything a small business can compete with.
Wal-Mart also has the advantage of the rather mobile population it serves. If you live near or in any major or moderate (even many small) population centers you are near a Wal-Mart, it is familiar to you. All of the small, local businesses in the area are unknown. Most people, of course, go to familiar places. The effect is rather obvious; people are habituated into going to Wal-Mart because of familiarity, branding, and the tendency of these and other machinations to push small businesses out of the market.
Small businesses are left with newspapers, fliers, small signs, canvassing, and (sometimes) small television spots. In the market, though, these are like taking B.B. guns to a nuclear war. The sophistication and reach of the national brands is spectacular and compounding; I can't believe this concept is lost on you.
2. There are large, gaping, fundamental holes in your consumerist logic. The following statement is rather telling in both what it implies and what it leaves out:
"As I said, ultimately the consumer decides, and they in the mass, always decide toward the company that gives the best quality and quantity for the least cost (which is usually the larger businesses). This is the nature of competition, and very basic economic theory."
Not only is it well established that logic and reason have little to do with the bulk of purchases (if it did we'd see the entire advertising industry bankrupted); you are leaving out values beyond simple price vis a vis quantity. Things cost more than their price and most people don't factor in the social, environmental, and "economic" cost of purchasing a particular good or service.
Lemme' give you some info you knock out your logical consumer theory:
http://www.smartmoney.com/theproshop/index.cfm?story=20070322
http://www.nationalbusiness.org/NBAWEB/Newsletter2005/1099.htm
It's always funny to me that you have to use biased sources from your side to back up your arguments while I can find sources from your own side to back me up.
People are not going for the best quality versus cost, some might, but quality is extremely subjective anyways. People regularly buy cigarettes, drugs, alcohol, fattening food, as I said before they'd buy poison if the price was right. (and they used to, before the FDA was a working organization..well...I mean...we still do.). We buy harmful materials, consume them, and allow them to kill us for seconds of pleasure; not entirely logical, is it?
People will buy houses without any money; they'll choose gambling over the electricity bill, they'll choose meth over food. Where is your logical consumer? I am still trying to find this most mythical of beasts.
3. What Wal-Mart did was a good thing, though they supported and continue to support the political administration that caused such a tremendous screw-up.
The government is perfectly capable of doing what Wal-Mart did, for free (it made a profit from its activities, after all). What Wal-Mart did was not a result of market forces, though, according to this study:
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Insurance/InsureYourHome/
RealKatrinaHeroWalMartStudySays.aspx
It was local and it had the resources to act; we could just as easily have a government entity run on a decentralized plan (such as the successful coast guard depicted in the story) than a for-profit company that still does more harm than good (they, again, helped put us in that position in the first place).
To sum up, small businesses may not be able to handle regional disasters (though they could if they coordinated under a larger entity); we have a Federal Government which is supposed to do that. Unfortunately, because of the influence of businesses like Wal-Mart we have conservative, anti-government politicians who utterly ruin our government's ability to function.
By the way, I live in the State of Missouri, a state (along with Iowa, Illinois, and others) being hit by the recent flooding of the Mississippi. The government has performed well; we havn't seen half the damage since the government-built levees were constructed after the great flood of 93'. It's a wonderful counter-example of how government (a cooperation of State, local, and Federal) can fix problems and saves lives/property.
4. "Hopefully not without suing the making for fraud."
It's hard to sue after you're dead. It's also hard to sue with a weak government and a low-paid lawyer backing you up against a billion-dollar company and its cadre of high-priced lawyers.
5. I've already established that when large-scale businesses take over a given market ingenuity slows. Ideas that small businesses had that could improve our lives would be lost when they go under.
You also can't actually believe that people are making the best possible decisions when it comes to purchasing. Only if people knew every single one of the choices available to them, were able to carefully weigh each one, and then make a decision could you even plausibly say that. We all know that that is completely impossible.
What's strange to me is that you aren't worried about the problem of corporate domination from a Libertarian perspective. Did you not notice that the result of big corporations knocking down small businesses you'll see an ever-decreasing number of entrepreneurs, small property and capital owners? Essentially, you are supporting the elimination of individual private property for corporate private property; where most land and business is owned by a few large corporations.
Besides that effect, we also have the internally destructive effect of non-productive culture. Because Wal-Mart and the like sell mostly foreign made, cheap goods they not only destroy small businesses locally but destroy domestic manufacturing nationally.
Our goods cannot compete, price-wise, with goods from slave, sweatshop, and child-labor from overseas. As a result, we see more and more factories close down, more and more people needing cheaper goods, which means more shopping at Wal-Mart, which means even less demand for domestic goods and so on and so forth.
All the while the money is being taken out of our local communities and sent to the HQs of the corporate behemoths and the piggy-banks of their CEOs.
That billion-dollar account a Wal-Mart exec has could be a few thousand dollars in thousands to millions of people's accounts spread out across the country. (again, with all of this money moving out of the community there is even less to spend on small businesses nearby).
But oh, they are ruining our economy, sending millions of people into poverty, supporting and expanding child-labor, and putting into power corrupt and inept politicians with their campaign contributions but at least they helped some people (for a profit) during hurricane Katrina.
6. Well I am glad you admit the market shouldn't decide everything.
7. "Since that time government has only grown bigger and bigger, with devastating effects."
It seems that the larger the government grows the larger our economy. At the very least the massive growth in our government's size since WWII hasn't stopped phenomenal economic development in the United States and Western Europe. But let's not get muddied with facts.
First off; your explanation for the great Depression is nauseatingly simplistic and baffling inept. "There was a run on the bank and the Fed didn't print money to save the economy...somehow".
Really, that simple? There was a massive, random run on the bank due to what? Just A BANK? Have you been paying attention in your history classes sweetheart?
For one thing; the people that told the Fed to act so ridiculously were the people in charge of the economy, the capitalists. They didn't want government intervention in their affairs; they are the ones that told the Fed not to act. (but, again, it's 100% the government's fault..and not just the administration, the entire concept of government caused the Great Depression).
Secondly, the run on the banks came from the panic, which followed on the heels of the Stock Market crash.
Here's the thing, I've been reading up on where you got the monetarist explanation for the Great Depression. In fact; I am going to start a Great Depression thread on its own because this is a rather fascinating topic of discussion.
I suppose we'll have to duke it out over here (once I've had the bloody time to research other parts of this debate):
http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/
8. For one, the fact remains that there is a creative stifling effect in large companies; I didn't say that it was impossible to overcome; but it is a major problem. That was my whole bloody point. I also didn't say large companies don't innovate, they just innovate at a much slower rate than smaller companies...but no matter to you. You can just make up my arguments as you go along.
The article, in its first three paragraphs, states exactly this. It indicates that such stifling tendencies are possible to overcome, but it recognizes the problem I identified (while you pretend it doesn't exist.)
The rest of this is going to have to be completed later or in other debates. I don't have the time to finish at this point. It's midnight already and I need to work in the morning. Didn't want to leave you hanging though; it'd be cruel to withhold fresh meat from a starving dog.
I'll ask them; then I will ask the Iraqi people.
Couple of things: I suppose you've polled our servicemen and women?
Also, no matter their opinion of the worth of their actions; the Iraq war can be considered a failure on a number of levels, especially those set by the people who started the war in the first place.
Please tell me, though, where have we succeeded? What have we accomplished in Iraq? Was the cost worth it?
Sure, you can say you managed to open up a jar of pickles as an accomplishment; I, however, would view that as a failure if it took thousands of people to help you, hundreds of whom died in the process.
It's funny to me that you would use the soldiers as a shield for your position instead of coming up with an actual argument. You never even stated how this was a victory; you simply spun the debate around to "was it a waste of time", "ask the troops then".
I can list the failures, if you'd like, then you can try to list the accomplishments:
1. We have only aggravated the terrorists, not put a stop to their actions. Since the Iraq war we've have increases in terrorist activity, both of our allies were attacked and we lost one ally in the process.
2. What was supposed to be a cake-walk with little to no insurgency has devolved into a civil war.
3. 600,000 to 1,000,000 or so Iraqi civilians have died, for what? They are still not free, their nation has collapsed into civil war, and terrorists roam their streets indiscriminately killing their citizens (they didn't before); not only that, but trained militias are ethnically and religiously cleansing entire neighborhoods.
4. For what? None of what the U.S. government told us turned out to be true. There were no weapons of mass destruction, Saddam's capability to wage war was limited to his immediate neighbors, and he was never found to have harbored any terrorists.
All we've managed to do is occupy a country; that's all that I can see. Even the oil benefits promised to us have turned out to be a great cost to the United States, how many billions are we pumping into this country only to see our oil revenues destroyed by a couple of guys in tattered robes with an explosive device costing them 10$?
5. Diplomatically speaking, we have never seen the U.S. more unpopular. South Korea, our protectorate and ally, has been growing more and more angry with our actions. Almost all of the nations of Europe (except those Eastern European ones that allowed us to illegally house and torture suspected terrorists) detest the United States, including our increasingly queasy ally: the U.K.
I am going to have to do a large amount of research to disprove your string of demonstrably false assumptions. Expect a lengthy reply in due time.
By the way, for anyone reading this, Hamandcheese's "source", the heritage foundation, states the following:
"Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institute - a think tank - whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense."
Not exactly a scientific, un-biased organization to say the least.
1. First of all; while small businesses have the ability to survive outside of the market that big corporations are dominating that hardly has anything to do with my point. That's like saying that Wal-Mart doesn't harm small business because small businesses in Indonesia aren't failing because of it.
Secondly, consumer choice is highly influenced by the information we receive. Large corporations are able to dominate the commercial airwaves and get their products and services known by a larger number of people, producing familiarity and preference.
It never matters whether or not a given product or service is superior; a small business could be outdoing Wal-Mart in price (and, in my experience, Wal-Mart's prices aren't lower, at least for what I used to buy there), it doesn't matter though, as Wal-Mart is "known" for low prices, just like Uncle Bill's Snake Oil is "known" for curing baldness, scurvy, and depression.
Big businesses have other advantages that small businesses (in their industry) cannot compete with.
When certain markets or regions take an economic downturn; say the state of Missouri sees a major economic slump and consumer demand plunges. Wal-Mart and other major stores can continue to operate off of the profits from other areas of the country. Small businesses, however, don't have the luxury of a vast supply of income from a variety of regions and sources.
Also, big corporations can go into a developing area; drop their prices way below the competition (taking a loss) and use the profits from other areas of the country (or world) to wait for the other businesses to go under, close, and then put their prices back up to normal.
"The people controlling the market are the consumers. Ultimately you are the ones, collectively, who put out of business the uncompetitive."
People will buy discount poison drops if they said "quality pain killer" on it. Just because people are making bad choices doesn't mean it legitimizes the choice. That's like saying "Wal-Mart doesn't hurt anyone because everyone likes it". It's a bogus argument.
Additionally, we're invested with not only economic power (through the dollar) but political power. Just because people are willing to buy cheap goods made from children in sweatshops doesn't mean that choice is legitimate and shouldn't be taken away.
People don't have the economic right to preference slavery over freemen factory goods. Are you saying we should legalize slavery and let the market decide?
2. For one thing; you are ignoring the huge amount of government redistribution programs that have been in operation for almost a hundred years. Pretending that business alone rose the standard of living for the average person is the worst sort of tunnel vision.
First of all, before the New Deal there was an economic catastrophe or depression every five to ten years (nationally, there were far more on a local level), since the New Deal there has never been a single depression in this country, hardly a recession either. Keynesian, socialist, economics has done wonders for our economy and our standard of living.
Trickle down economics has been shown, time and again, to be a worthless sham.
The most recent example is the phenomenal increase in individual productivity in this country. A productivity increase that has not been matched by wage increases. In fact, poverty has been increasing in recent years, food stamp applications have been on the rise, and unemployment is rising as well.
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/
nD9yJIDaBrnnGoDZYhxAfVf7Sbg_
How can this be? How can wages be going down by .3 per cent (that's not even factoring in our ever rising inflation) while our productivity, as individuals, has increased 8.4 per cent? Why isn't the market giving back?
The only reason we have the standard of living we enjoy today is due to government redistribution programs, market restrictions, regulation, and control over the money supply.
Of course, we wouldn't have anything to redistribute if it weren't for business, that's true. But they wouldn't have a business if it weren't for the workers and the consumers; it's also a sure thing that we can operate perfectly well without big corporations.
Here are some links backing up my claims on innovative stagnation in larger companies:
From Forbes: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/
Portfolio:
http://www.portfolio.com/views/columns/
Not exactly anti-business organizations, yet they both talk about how large corporations tend to stagnate when it comes to innovation.
3. Your statements are terribly intellectually dishonest. This, again, must be a factor of your endemic tunnel-vision.
First of all, a small government would give even greater power to corporations; without a strong government most decisions would be left up, directly, to those with the most economic power; not indirectly through bribes, lobbying, and campaign funding.
Tell me, how on earth is a politician supposed to get elected without campaign contributions? How on earth are they supposed to get elected without the assistance of mass media? Without support from big business and the media another candidate would simply get in who is.
In other words, there are plenty of honest politicians or people who want to be honest politicians. The problem is that the system rewards the dishonest.
We cannot have a Democracy with a small government, we would end up in a true Plutocracy; a society government exclusively by the rich. We cannot have a functioning democracy in a system of extreme wealth stratification either. Without the backing of the economic elites no national politician stands a chance of getting elected (state and local have a slightly better chance, on down to the lowest rungs of the political ladder).
I also wonder why you only see fit to blame politicians and never corporations. Are corporations small children who are just swept up in political corruption by accident? They know exactly what they are doing, they are doing it for their bottom line, and to blame politicians only is to, again, be intellectual dishonest.
Big corporations will lie, cheat, and steal to get what they want; same as anyone else. The problem, though, is that you seem to think the best way to deal with this is to give all of the power to them and make sure there is no other entity overseeing their activities.
No matter what political system, big government, small government, monarchy, theocracy, dictatorship...the people who hold economic power hold political power. It's beguiling that you don't seem to recognize this.
People cannot make good, logical decisions when their information is controlled by either political or economic entities with a vested interest in their deception. Again, you find that it's fine for businesses to control what we know, not government. I don't see how that is better.
Well, I use a scale from true Capitalist to True Socialist; and up until the New Deal I supposed that we were more Capitalist than Socialist (though we had already developed plenty of restrictions and distribution methods by then), the New Deal, I believe, pushed us over into the "more Socialist than Capitalist" side of the scale.
An alternative to Capitalism is already being practiced by every single developed, western nation. We no longer live in a Capitalist society; perhaps moreso than Canada, Europe, and Japan, but our economy is thoroughly socialistic these days. We do not live in a free market, we havn't since the New Deal, and it has done us mostly good.
Our standard of living has risen dramatically since the introduction of welfare, stock market controls, regulation, pollution controls, social security..etc..etc..
Capitalism does not model people well at all; it models some people well, but the vast majority of people can be both greedy and generous; good and evil, selfish and selfless.
Do you really think the men and women in our armed forces are in that job for the pay? Do you really think teachers chose that career path for the riches? What of the numerous polls and surveys that indicate people would take a pay cut in order to spend more time with friends and family.
Capitalism appeals to a very small aspect of our humanity, we care about a number of other things above and over money and wealth.
I believe an alternative can be found that both allows for a market-driven economy which rewards productive and innovative behavior while also protecting individuals and keeping wealth concentration from getting out of hand.
A truly worker-run economy, an economy of small businesses, family businesses and farms, non-profits, and cooperatives can completely replace our current system (and probably improve it). With wealth spread out and economy power in the hands of many instead of few we'd probably see a higher degree of innovation and a much better government.
If you hadn't noticed, innovation in most industries and services tends to occur at its highest rate in the developing stages, when there are a large number of competing entities. Because of the pressure to survive and the larger number of people who have a direct say in how things are run we see a plurality of ways and ideas to tackle various problems.
Stagnation tends to occur when a handful of enterprises manage to eat up the market.
Big corporations are machines of economic centralization and economic stratification. They tend to suck up huge amounts of wealth and capital and deliver it to a rather small number of people.
This sort of concentration of wealth has several consequences:
1. First and foremost, large corporations have the ability to dominate local markets. Shoving out smaller businesses and keeping new ones from developing.
2. Wealth becomes stratified and concentrated in the greater population. This has ramifications for the economy as a whole; it can produce recessions due to a large number of people who have little to no real wage growth and an increasing amount of capital that cannot be spent on investments due to the fact that demand is not increasing. Economic stagnation tends to occur because of this process.
Another problem comes with innovation; big corporations are essentially economic bureaucracies. A small number of people make the decisions and approve the ideas while the vast majority of people have little to no say in how things are run and what products and services are produced (and how).
3. Money is power, the large the corporation and the more our economy is dominated by large corporations the more political power corporations have. Because of the wealth concentration effects of corporations we see a complete shift of power away from lower and middle-class people and towards the rich who own the corporations as well as the corporations themselves. (The CEO of Mcdonalds and the Mcdonalds corporation can, independently, give to a particular political party or candidate).
If you believe in democracy you should be fairly worried about this trend.
Also, the domination of a few media conglomerates; the control of all of our major sources of information and communication, is also worrisome in a democracy. It guarantees that certain viewpoints will never be expressed (or be expressed sparingly) and others will be pushed extensively.
Fox News is not the only guilty party, all of the major media outlets censor the information being given to us.
If the war was handled competently we'd probably have had plenty of benefits. Even though the war itself was wrong, unjust, and ended up a total failure; should we have had the man, materials, and intelligent leadership necessary for success we would probably have seen the following benefits.
1. Cheaper energy supplies due to a new, oil-rich ally. We also had deals with the Saudis that they would provide us with cheaper oil if we took out their enemy, Iraq. This, coupled with our military bargaining power over other OPEC states and a pipeline running from Israel to Iraq (and, if Iran really was going to be next on the list: a pipeline stretching from Israel all the way to Pakistan) would have had our energy costs down even more than they already are. (most people don't seem to realize that the United State's oil is cheaper than most other places on Earth, despite being a leading hog and thousands of miles away from the major sources of oil).
2. The idea that fighting terrorists over there rather than here may have some merit, but not much. We would see a diversion of attention away from the U.S. mainland and towards the main front of the conflict, the Middle East.
Still, it would provide a wonderful training ground for terrorists and this would probably do more harm than good in the long run.
3. If you are a Republican you would be in a rather good place if your party was responsible for winning a war and delivering prestige to a country that seems to be losing its global esteem. For politicians, victorious wars and established puppet states/colonies are trophies to be used to impress the population. If the Iraq war would have gone well Republicans would have increased their power in congress rather than lost it and Democrats would have little hope of winning the 2008 presidential election.
4. The U.S. citizenry has a habit of turning on itself whenever there isn't an external enemy to fight. Both Democrats and Republicans have alot to lose if public scrutiny falls on them instead of foreign, scary enemies.
Social issues, which lead to social action, which lead to socialism tend to spring up whenever there isn't a war going on. Republicans tend to lose, big time, on domestic issues; especially when the economy isn't doing well. A war helps distract people from the problems around them and keeps them from demanding government action on issues of poverty, healthcare, social justice, inequality..etc.
It's always funny to me when Republicans and conservatives think that the U.N. and its resolutions are illegal encroachments on national sovereignty except when it deals with countries other than the U.S.
If we violated U.N. resolutions would you say it would be alright for France, Russia, and China to invade us?
What about Guantanamo Bay and our secret detention facilities overseas? According to the U.N. Committee Against Torture we are violating U.N. anti-torture resolutions.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/19/
It also seems that our friend Israel is not only violating U.N. resolutions but has violated way more than Iraq ever did:
http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2002/
I'm not even against Israel. But you have to wonder what your point is when you decry Iraq's refusal to comply with a world government body most Republicans have no respect for anyways.
As for what should have been done; the Barack Obama excerpt given by another contributer to this debate is about as good a program as I can think of. Iraq was well contained and people like Saddam don't last forever.
I'm gay, I'm in a nearly two year relationship; and god knows my eyes wander. The thing is though, Marital monogamy can only work if the two people actually love each other. You've got to actually be dedicated to your partner; know that they are who you want to be with for the rest of your life; and know that they are just as dedicated to you as you are to them.
I am not surprised by the failure rate of marriages and the high numbers of people found cheating. People are rather isolated, selfish, emotionally closed-off, dishonest, and irrational.
It's bizarre to me, but people often get married for all the wrong reasons; financial security, a child in need of raising, wanting to provide a mother or father "figure" (because children go insane if they have only one parent). People will go into relationships lying to each other, pretending they are someone they are not, and then acting surprised when things don't work out.
I myself have made the mistake of going into a relationship hoping to change the other person; trying desperately to "make things work". That isn't how relationships are supposed to work out.
If people were more honest with each other and themselves we'd probably see a higher success rate. Otherwise, we could always copy off of "freer" cultures and embrace a loose monogamy where some sexual indiscretion is acceptable to both parties.
Christian Bale from Equilibrium, Batman Begins, and American Psycho.
1. To make things clear; I started with a philosophy and I found gods. If my philosophy ever changes my concept of religion will also change. My morality is hardly influenced by my gods, as I accept the existence of evil gods as well as good. If I wanted to be evil I would choose wicked deities, if I wanted to be good I'd choose holy ones, if I didn't want to be bothered with such things I'd choose neutral gods.
My gods are chosen because they are in line with my "force", who I am. With their help and guidance I believe I can accomplish much more; I also wish to show my appreciation for the forces which control my life and my destiny, out of respect I suppose (also as a reminder to myself of who I am and what I am about).
2. If you seriously believed that an invisible lizard in your garden created the universe a series of logical questions could easily affirm or discredit your belief. "How", "When", "Why" can all be used to back absurdities into a corner and negate them out of existence.
It's easiest to do with absolutist religions, ones that are more style than substance. Monotheistic religions such as Christianity are easy to knock down due to the ease in which their beliefs can be questioned and successfully discredited with logic and facts.
Boiled down, though, your lizard and teapot or any other made-up gods or creatures will usually end up representing what past and present worshiped gods represent(ed). It's all rather futile, really.
3. I'm going to copy and paste this one due to how funny it is to me:
"Hmm, I love it when people misunderstand probability. The argument here also revolves around infinity, and how your god lies within the realms of an infinite number of possible gods. Therefore, the probability is that you are completely and utterly wrong. Whilst it is a non-zero that you are right, don't bring probability into it, as probability states that you are almost certainly wrong."
You may have destroyed someone who believed in a single god. I, however, believe in all gods. That is, I believe in all possible gods. Therefor, the probability that my own personal religion (a religion of technically infinite gods) is 1. Probability-wise, my religion of utter inclusiveness is surely correct simply because it is so open and inclusive (according to your understanding of probability I might add). Only religions and gods that deny the existence of others (a logical contradiction or a statement of negation against what cannot be disproven) are denied by me.
4. My own personal belief in the creation of the universe follows the quantum cosmological model: nothing is unstable and therefor created bubbles of something.
I am going to admit a grave mistake when I stated, as an example of something that cannot be disproven, a religion who claims a god created the universe. I should correct that and say they cannot be disproven with facts (yet), only logic and questions. Most of the popular religions on earth can easily be chopped down (in part) through simple argument.
5. That in itself is contradictory.
6. You are conflating me with other forms of religion. Just because I accept other religions as equally valid (unless they can be defeated by logic and reason, through their own inherent contradictions) doesn't mean I actually stand certain of their beliefs or my own.
I am perfectly willing to change my beliefs and understandings given scientific, philosophical, and logical discoveries and advancements. My statement of belief in gods is not a statement of "I will always believe this", you are mixing me in with blind adherents of faith.
All that I believe in I believe in up to a point and always with the understanding that it can and will probably change with time, insight, and argument.
As for my "wishy-washy"-ness; that's a matter of opinion. I am always open to clarify my beliefs and positions you need only ask me to.
While you say that you accept that you are probably wrong; only one of us dismissed the other person's beliefs. Not only that, but it what was dismissed wasn't actually held by that person as true. I never said "god did it" with regards to the creation of the universe. Also, my conception of god is, as you have noted, not a strict and easily bordered concept.
Defeating other people's beliefs won't defeat mine; and until you find a point of contention I don't see the problem. All that seems to be at issue here is that your taste, your personal preferences deviate from mine. You seem, though, to not like my defense of my deviation from what you find to be personally agreeable.
People cannot sell themselves into slavery, people cannot give other people permission to murder them, people cannot give up their inalienable constitutional rights to due process...etc..etc. People don't have the right to take away their rights and freedoms; if someone is mutilating their body, attempting suicide, or engaging in obviously harmful activities our laws clearly indicate we have the right to detain and provide psychological treatment to them.
Noone left me in charge, I have an opinion. We are all imposing our beliefs about what is best for ourselves and each other when engaging in democratic activity so I don't see the problem with my objections to and sanctions of narcotics.
The difference between escaping through activity and escaping through chemical alteration is the difference between exercise and steroid injections. It is the difference between increasing your height through a proper diet while still in your development stages and breaking your legs and resetting them repeatedly.
Not only is the activity unnecessary, a cop-out, and usually not even a remedy for a real malady, but it is an extreme approach and ultimately detrimental to the person's body, mind, and their professional life.
What I am saying is that in the case of drugs people are willfully giving up their freedoms; I would like to have it given back. Besides, if they are already giving up their freedom and humanity for a little pleasure, why on earth should they have the rights in the first place? Would you give a teenager a car if they decided to wreck it, on purpose, every time just to experience the thrill?
People shouldn't be allowed to choose to be slaves just as much as people aren't allowed to be slave-owners. I find it frightening that people seem to actively look to be controlled, by addiction or dictators, and I don't want such behavior to go unchecked.
Video games are an absence of the use of freedom, chemical alterations remove them or block them. Chemicals destroy personality and individuality, pass-times merely divert them and slow their growth or actualization.
Again, Marijuana isn't a big deal in this respect; but legalizing it certainly doesn't help. It does dull the senses, it does have long-term psychological and intellectual effects, and it is possibly as if not more carcinogenic than Tobacco and just as addictive (not yet completely substantiated so I could be wrong).
Some basic facts on it can be found here; a rather well-rounded survey of Marijuana and its effects:
http://www.nida.nih.gov/infofacts/
From the site:
"Long-term marijuana abuse can lead to addiction; that is, compulsive drug seeking and abuse despite its known harmful effects upon social functioning in the context of family, school, work, and recreational activities. Long-term marijuana abusers trying to quit report irritability, sleeplessness, decreased appetite, anxiety, and drug craving, all of which make it difficult to quit."
"A number of studies have shown an association between chronic marijuana use and increased rates of anxiety, depression, suicidal ideation, and schizophrenia."
Now, that, again, is not known to be 100% true. Marijuana research is still in its developing stages (probably due to its illegality) and so not enough is known to say anything with certainty.
I'd like to see more studies to make sure that it is as benign as many people like to think it is. If it turns out to be then I have even less of a problem with it. The hard drugs, however, should always be illegal in my eyes.
The reason I don't like marijuana, alcohol, hard drugs, and certain kinds of prescription medications is rather simple: I don't think people should sacrifice who they are, in some cases their free will or their humanity.
When someone gives up their free will by becoming a slave to a hard drug or prescription mood and personality altering chemicals it is time for society to step in and give them back control.
Marijuana may be a petty offender, much less of an offender than alcohol, tobacco, meth, cocaine..etc.., but it is still a means of giving up who you are or keeping yourself in a state of non-growth.
We, as human beings, have a duty to ourselves to grow, change, improve, but always in the context of who we are. Drugs are a way to retard this development, deny who we are, and cope with a world that rejects us. It is an escape; an escape which noone deserves.
I don't mind people escaping in other ways: video games, reading, television, camping..etc, at least they are still thinking, at least their self is still intact and operating.
When people do drugs they stop being people and start being Mr. or Ms. X+meth, or X+Marijuana, or X+alcohol. It isn't helpful; it's downright harmful in the long-run.
Governments and societies are meant to protect us; usually from dangers outside. This danger, this threat is unique in its internal, self-inflicted nature.
Again, Marijuana is only a petty offender in this case; which is why I am not adamant about its status as an illegal narcotic. There are far worse legal drugs which I am much more concerned with.
Does that help in explaining my objection to its use? I am still forming my opinion on this one so I know my logic is abit choppy and in some cases exaggerated.
I think he's talking about their cutting off energy supplies to the country (blaming random terrorism or some such nonsense for the disruption) and other bullying. They've been using energy as a weapon recently, Georgia and Ukraine have essentially had their gas cut off in the dead of winter by their energy company: Federated Russia inc.
I am still in the dark as to why we have them there, honestly. The Soviet Union is gone, Russia is barely able to control its own territory, and the European Union has plenty of military capability of its own.
Even if there is still a threat from Russia, "Islamic Fundamentalists", Aliens, The United States, or other aggressive entities I am fairly certain they can be combated just as effectively with far fewer American military bases.
The combined European GDP is about the same as the U.S.'s, perhaps more; it has the money to raise the same military force as the United States (if not the political will).
We don't need to be paying for European defense anymore; the threat isn't as great nor is it shared by both Europe and the United states to the same effect.
Islamic terrorism is hardly a military problem; most of it is espionage and police work. Russia's GDP is far smaller than the EU's; its military is out of date; a sagging, hulking, brittle shell. The Europeans are more than a match for them should trouble arise; though without the U.S. with them their political clout is diminished (somewhat).
Though, who knows, perhaps without the fatherly protection of the US the Europeans may grow a back-bone and seek to solve their own problems for a change. Though, let's hope they don't do it in the traditional European way (dragging each other and the world into massive wars).
I believe the United States is an imperialist power, but probably one of the least terrible and crushing forms that has come into existence.
Unlike most other empires; we tend to not use our military muscle to enforce our will. That may sound strange given our current situation, but given our massive capability and the territory we seek to control we have usually done the controlling through mostly indirect means.
Earlier empires would take on a hostile territory or revolting province by invading, raping and murdering as many people as they could catch, burning the village or town down, and salting the lands. (We'll use Carthage as a wonderful example of such forms of imperialism).
I'd like you to take note what the Huns did to Eastern Europe when they marched across the continent. The Romans had quite the time dealing with entire regions evacuating into their territory.
The United States, though, ended its genocidal tendencies after the Native Americans were gone and present-day America was founded. If anything, we were far more imperialistic in the past than now; and far more violent and destructive.
Nowadays, we are content to bully, spy, propagandize, economically blackmail, and coup our way towards empire. Our list of nations we've directly attacked (after WWII) are small: Iraq(2), Afghanistan, North Korea, North Vietnam, and Serbia.
With regards to Israel (which always seems to come up whenever U.S. imperialism is discussed), the matter is much more complicated than either side is willing to admit. At any rate; it is an indirect form of imperialism at the most.
We do, of course, have indirect control over many nations in Central and South America (but that grip seems to be slipping more and more). Africa is somewhat under our control; and we've engaged in some rather underhanded dealings with regards to Somalia when we helped their neighbors overthrow their popular government.
Asia is somewhat in our control as well, but that is slipping as regional powers such as China grow in importance and as Japan and South Korea become more and more fed up with U.S. presence.
We maintain military bases around the world, from Europe to Asia. But in Europe they seem to be mostly for show; a political bargaining chip at the most when dealing with Russia.
The Middle East is a strange place, our bases there seem to do two things:
1. Make our oil cheaper than the Europe's.
2. Destabilize the region more and more.
Our control over the Middle East slips by the hour, if not the minute; we certainly have far less control over that region than past empires (from the British to the Ottomans).
For the most part, our empire is built to do two things:
1. Make us look big and scary so we can feel good about ourselves (and to help as a bogey-man at negotiating tables)
2. Open up trading opportunities and continue the market for arms sales and military personelle.
I am religious, I believe in gods; but I also find the Flying Spaghetti Monster to be a rather hilarious addition to the Universal Pantheon of gods.
He is as real as any god; in the way that all gods are representations of forces and/or concepts. They are culturally determined faces on fundamental and universal qualities of man and nature.
If you listed the features and powers of FSM and compared him with other gods held be past or present "serious" religions you'd probably find a god that does the exact same things he does; only they look much different.
The ancient polytheists realized this; that's why whenever Greeks would invade a territory they simply merged their beliefs with the locals. (Oddly enough, the Catholics continued this tradition in the form of saints and the Virgin Mary.)
Are you saying that Democratic and Republican nations are not able to be imperialistic powers? Depending on your definition of what is a "Democracy" or "Republic" it is surely accurate to call the Constitutional Monarchy of the UK up until the end of WW2 an imperialist power, as well as Republican Rome, and Democratic Athens.
Democracies are perfectly capable of being imperialistic; alert citizenry or not.
I think you are a little confused in your history. You see, the people that created the Palestinian state were, in fact, the Jews. Palestine has never been its own country, there is no period in history in which the lands now called "Palestine" were under local, or national rule.
The land that Israel and Palestine now sit on has been under the control of a number of empires, the most recent being the British. The British, under the guidance of the U.N., granted Jews control over portions of Palestine and the Arabs were granted another portion.
Unfortunately, the Palestinians didn't like this idea and, with the collusion of Israel's neighbors, attempted to invade and take over what Israel was given.
Israel, in its defense, won, pushed back, and took back over the Palestinian territories. (By the way, the Palestinian territories were never going to be independent if the Arabs won; Jordan and Egypt planned to incorporate the territory into their countries).
Israel, due to international pressure, internal political changes, and a desperate need to stop the frequent terrorist attacks on its civilians has had a policy of non-negotiation with terrorists and out-and-out war on them and their supporters while also working to give the Palestinians a nation.
In other words, they started the conflict and Israel has actually been rather kind in its actions. The Palestinians have more of a state than they have ever had in their history. They continue to support terrorism, and it isn't their right to do so.
I plainly stated my beliefs, the one who sweepingly used the "polytheistic" label was you. If you need further clarification please tell me what you'd like me to elaborate on.
"On a side note, it grates me how the religious always try to find a way of pushing the emphisis of proof onto the non-believer, when infact you should be bringing some facts with you to the table in order to back up your argument."
It grates me when people say "no you are wrong, show some facts!" to very large and complicated statements. You never pointed out a point of contention; I don't understand what you find silly or what you need specific proof of.
Additionally, the argument heading was "What is your concept of god", which I answered directly with my concept. I am fully capable and willing to back it up, I just wish to know what parts of my statements you disagree with and why.
My philosophical epistimology follows along the lines of "something is true until proven untrue"; coupled with the concept of "probability" or the "likelyhood" of something being true.
Oddly enough, I have an answer for your question "why is your religion right and all others are wrong?" The answer is, my religion isn't the only correct one. All religions (and ideas) are correct until proven incorrect; either through facts or inherent logical contradictions.
A religion that posits "my god created the universe" can't really be disproven; so it is technically true within a measure of probability.
A religion, however, that says "my god is all good but he kills people when they look too hard at rabbits" is a logical contradiction and the religion is, in part, false.
"Bring one bit of factual evidence to the table to back up your religious beliefs, and then I'll think about changing my tact from bland dismissal to debate. Until that happens, I'll continue to blandly dismiss any and all religion for the nonsense it clearly is. So, if you can, please provide me with one fact about your religion?"
You are on shakier ground than you believe. You do realize that the very fundamentals of the universe have not been proven with facts, they are theories with a high likelyhood of probability (until they are disproven).
You can harp all you want, but the very existence of the universe makes absolutely no sense. At some point something, matter, had to pop into existence from nothing. This completely turns the laws of matter and energy on its head; matter and energy cannot be created nor destroy? But if they cannot be created...how on earth did they come to exist?
Anyways, name what you think is incorrect and I will back it up with logic. Otherwise you are just following preconceived notions and general prejudices.
It's like telling someone that what they are doing is evil without pointing out what exactly about what they are doing is transgressing against the principles of good (or not even enunciating what those principles are).
Yes, there are ways. It all depends on the god, really; but there are a number of divination techniques, spiritual journeys, and "special connections" you could potentially use.
It all comes down to your personality and which god or gods you choose to worship.
Personally, I like to use Tarot to ask them questions; I am more familiar with it and it is quite fun to experiment with.
They'll usually answer your questions, and facilitate explorations into the future. Tarot doesn't actually work without them, you need outside help or else it'd probably be mindless gibberish.
I am sure they'll "communicate" with you in other, more direct ways. If you choose a good god and do wrong; they'll probably send a message or two your way (in the form of bad luck. All I can say is that when I say something bad about someone out loud I seem to immediately trip, stumble, fall, run into something, or get hit by something; nothing official but it is something I think about). If you choose a god of education and you are slacking in your studies, expect some "hints" that you aren't following along with your obligations; bad grades, technical difficulties, usually amiable teachers no longer cutting you slack...etc...etc...
If and when they communicate with you depends on which god you are trying to talk to and whether or not you have done what is expected of you. A god of strength and war won't piddle around with cowardly weaklings to say the least.
I know it sounds hokey, but I really am able to back up my beliefs with logic. I don't mind people not agreeing with my religious faith; not at all, but I don't believe I am baseless in my beliefs.
I formed my belief structure using various beliefs, philosophies, and religions as well as my own understanding of things. I didn't realize my beliefs were terribly outlandish (especially so outlandish as to get "voted down". I found that to be a rather odd thing).
Everyone is entitled to an opinion I suppose. I would enjoy a debate rather than bland dismissal, though.
Would you like to point out what is insane about my belief structure, specifically, and find some logical or factual fault with it?
All truth is a matter of probability. All that can be known is the relative possibility of something being the case, or the truth. There is absolute truth, but only an all-knowing god would be able to know it. For us humans there is only well-educated guesses and relatively air-tight logic as our highest attainable knowledge of the truth.
I don't believe the city-state is a viable option as the dominant form of government anymore.
City-states are extremely susceptible to the economic development and climate of their region (and the world). Nowadays, to be prosperous, a city, town, or outland requires the productivity of a nation to survive (in the modern sense). We can talk about how interconnected nations are when it comes to resources and trade; far more interconnected are the cities within a given nation.
Allow me to give you an example: If the state of Montana were to secede (or be kicked out), especially if all of its towns and cities seceded to become independent, the people would find themselves living in the third-world. Because of how interdependent and complicated the economy has become; because individuals, towns, counties, states, and even nations no longer have the capacity to produce what they need and want internally; no city or state can stand alone without being knocked back a few pegs on the standard of living scale.
Montana, other states, regions, and classes all depend on Federal aid and development; assistance they would not get were they to be individual city-states.
To put it bluntly, millions to billions of people rely on large governments combining the productive capacity of all of the cities under it and using that capacity to redistribute money and manpower to more equally benefit the population.
What people don't recognize is that while we do, in fact, tax the rich to give to the poor we also tax the rich cities and states to give to the poorer cities and states.
Without this we would see all of the rich creating or moving to their own city-state and leaving the poor to flounder.
There are many gods, not one single, all-mighty, all-knowing, all-good, all-all ruler of all creation.
The highest of the gods would be the universal god, the universe itself. This god, however, is impersonal and neutral. Don't expect any help from it; it is nature itself and is therefor entirely impartial to your wishes and demands. You are as important as a deer,a rock, the planet Saturn, and Alpha Centauri as far is it is concerned.
Behind creation is the universal force of contradiction; the force that brought something from nothing, light from darkness, and sentience from thoughtless matter.
Below the universal god and in accordance with the universal force of conflict there are innumerable gods and goddesses representing various forces on earth (and elsewhere, I would assume). These deities act in accordance with the forces which they are a part of, they are the self-aware aspects of these (as far as I believe).
Good, evil, and essentially neutral; they are diverse and many and they listen only to those they deem in accordance with their force (if you are a good person a good god will help you, only evil gods help the evil) and, depending on their temperament, may expect some amount of personal skill, effort, and sacrifice in order to solicit their assistance.
While I don't really care what a particular religion believes a sexual act or sexuality to be, sinful or not, he spread a number of stereotypes that are false on their face.
First and foremost, he pretends that homosexuals, myself included, are absolute slaves, servants to their sexual desires. That we are so wrapped up in our sexual "deviance" we cannot belong to any other sort of community.
This is true of many homosexuals (and heterosexuals) but to pretend that this is true of most or all is egregiously prejudiced and unusually ignorant of someone who has so much talent in literature.
"I did learn that for most of them their highest allegiance was to their membership in the community that gave them access to sex."
Let's not forget he is bringing up the stereotype of the theatre homosexual, as if the homosexual culture there is the same for all kinds of homosexuals. (Surprise surprise, I was never in theatre).
My own allegiances don't put the homosexual community and sex as my no. 1 priority, either. The same goes for my boyfriend. He puts his family and his craft first, then me. As for myself, he is my no. 1 priority, then comes my politics and religion. I have never been to a gay club, I have only had a few partners, I did go through a promiscuous phase that lasted for three months when I was a sophomore in college, and I have been with my boyfriend for nearly two years (and have never cheated on him).
I don't believe most homosexuals are the outlandish, clubbish, hypersexual fiends that he is trying to portray us as. God knows there are plenty like that, but no more than there are oversexed heterosexuals.
I find the criticism that homosexuals are too into sex strange coming from the billions of straight people on the planet. I find it hard to believed that so many children would exist today if it weren't for an intense sexual passion held by most people.
Card has some strange conceptions, I wonder why he doesn't mind people marrying and having children; as I am willing to bet that most people put their family above all other things (even their church). If the church were to come down on a family member I would be extremely surprised if Card himself would toss that person away rather than defend them (especially if it was his wife or child).
Why does he not decry the "allegiance" of the husband and wife to each other and their children? I suppose it is because the church endorses such unions, such allegiances. Still, it would be a tacit endorsement of an allegiance above an allegiance to the church.
It's hypocritical, it is two-faced, and it is no less prejudiced than saying homosexuals are evil and need to be cast out of society.
I also find it unlikely that he even had homosexual friends; noone would talk about their friends in such a mean-spirited and dishonest manner. If he did he must have fallen in with a rather bad crowd (and I am sure he was in with promiscuous heterosexuals as well). Of course, when heterosexuals do it it is a sin, which they can be counseled out of. When homosexuals do it it is an inherent and immutable flaw that is inseparable from being a homosexual.
A promiscuous heterosexual has strayed from the righteous path.
A promiscuous homosexual is just being a homosexual, the only way to stop being promiscuous is to stop being homosexual altogether.
What's irritating is that it is difficult for people like Card to meet different kinds of homosexuals. Most of us are difficult if not impossible to spot off the street, we also tend to keep our sexuality and relationships secret for fear of persecution. This puts all of the scrutiny on the most obvious homosexuals; the ones who tend to be the most outlandish and the most sexual.
We can't be spotted off the street like people of differing races, we don't have huge populations and large churches, we hide, and many of us don't even identify as homosexual. This sort of discover-channel esque "hidden world of the homosexual" breeds misunderstanding, misinterpretation, and stereotyping.
It's irritating, and the media doesn't help one bit. Homosexual television shows and movies tend to play into these stereotypes rather than disprove them and we aren't even allowed to speak on political and social issues that matter to us personally, much less more general issues.
Rachel Maddow of Air America is the only openly gay political commentator with national syndication that I know about.
During the gay marriage debate it was hard to see a single homosexual defending our rights on the political debate programs and specials.
All most people know about us is that we like the same gender, we are obsessed with getting married (or killing marriage), and we are very girly and artistic. All stereotypes contained within Card's very "thesis".
Again, this is why I doubt he's had much real contact with the gay community. He might have known two homosexuals (vaguely, and through other friends) but I doubt he's been in a serious friendship with any of us.
I would say "Communist", but due to the complicated nature of using that term I will spell out a few basic rules I believe a good government would follow:
1. It is run by all of the people, for all of the people. Minorities enjoy the same status as the majorities; no ethnicity, religion, sexual minority, gender, nationality, politics, philosophy, race, color, or other preference,viewpoint, or biological trait should be placed in a subservient position.
2. It is run by all of the people, for all of the people in a democratic manner. Through accountable representatives, councils, direct democracy, or systems that employ a number of these methods.
3. There is a distinct and independent judiciary; it has the power to check the will of other political branches as well as the people. It is used to protect the minorities and the majorities, uphold the law and stability of the nation.
4. The government, at all times, attempts to enforce the following concepts and meet the following goals:
Survival
Stability
Common Prosperity
Equality
Justice
Liberty
In order of importance, actually.
5. It would be best if it accomplished these things without a cumbersome bureaucracy or an overzealous police force. Some things should be allowed for given emergencies and circumstances beyond the control of that government (natural catastrophe, war, plague).
6. War is a defensive measure, it should not be used offensively unless under extreme circumstances or in the defense of a progressive nation or entity. (Let's say, to defend a Social Democracy against a Fascist Dictatorship.). At all times a government and the people that support it should not only protect their rights and freedoms but those of people around the world.
7. The economy must be kept in the hands of the working people. No corporation, government, or over-powering entity should control the economy. As such, the government should provide a supplementary role in the economy through grants, loans, and control only those parts of industry and commerce absolutely necessary for the people's and the economy's stability and prosperity. (Heavy industry, resource collection, mass transit, some media, Space..etc..etc..)
Additionally, non-democratic economic entities such as corporations, partnerships, sole proprietorships..etc.. should be kept relatively small (or non-existent). Small family businesses, coops, family farms, non-profits, and some forms of sole proprietorships should be the major driving forces of the economy.
Remember, whosoever has the money has the political power. If everyone had about the same economic power they'd also have about the same political (or potential, as not everyone uses this power).
I think that covers the most important stuff. Not exactly a concise and full description, but a start I suppose.
There are a couple of reasons why you are wrong:
1. Iran knows that it will be wiped off the face of the earth should it take out Israel; either directly or through a clandestine attack. We would find out, and even if we only suspected we'd probably nuke them anyways.
2. Giving terrorists a dirty or other sort of nuclear weapon is something the Iranians would probably never do (on purpose).
It is very likely that they will give it to a cell that would use it to overthrow them and install a rival theocratic sect (or a sect that believes its government to be corrupt).
Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and other Islamic, fundamentalist nations are finding themselves at the wrong end of radical Islamic terrorists. None of these governments really believe in Islam, they are just in it for the power, money, and privilege. The people, and the terrorists, know this well enough.
None of these governments is likely to give an extremely dangerous weapon to a group they do not directly control and which is likely to turn on them whenever they get the chance.
I don't believe so. If ever there was a reason against war, nuclear arms would be it. These compact cylinders of pure death have been, some speculate, the only reason we havn't seen a full-scale world war yet.
In fact, there hasn't been a war between any major or moderate power since nuclear arms came onto the scene. There have been, at best, minor scuffles and proxy wars fought in third world nations.
Because of the terrible destruction wrought by a nuclear war, the major powers are weary of engaging in warfare with any but the most defenseless of nations (Iraq, Vietnam, Argentina, Afghanistan, Serbia...etc..). This effect has no doubt saved hundreds of millions of lives; as another World War would have been quite likely some time during the Cold War era (or even now, as tensions mount between the U.S., China, Russia, and the E.U.).
Now, a World War is still far from impossible, but the deterrent of nuclear arms is unmistakable; to the point where nations such as Russia make open threats about "defensive" measures (such as Star Wars) that would effectively neutralize nuclear arms as a threat.
There seems, even now, a desire within many governments to wage war with other major powers. There are many within the corridors of political and economic power that are just dieing for a major war. The only thing that keeps them from letting loose on the world is the knowledge that their precious mansions and legacies would actually be at risk should they engage in a major war.
Before, of course, the rich and powerful could be reasonably assured of their safety, especially if the war went well. With nukes they know there is no winning, no getting out unscathed, little chance of even survival.
It'll never matter how many millions of their citizens, their worker ants, get sacrificed. They wouldn't bat an eye if entire continents were polluted with the bodies of men, women, and children. They've got the televisions, they've got the schoolbooks, and they've got their privilege; they needn't worry about us too much.
I am sure that without nuclear weapons populating this world George W. Bush would have invaded many, many more countries than Iraq and Afghanistan, and much larger ones at that. We could have just as easily been swindled into stalemates in the frozen Siberian tundra as we were trapped in the desert sands.
We'd be after Chinese-Americans just as readily as Arab; it doesn't take much to rile the American people up.
Nukes, though, make everyone think twice about a war. From the top all the way down to the very bottom. Which is why, of course, they'd like to see this little nuisance resolved.
I would say true introspection, the combating of delusions and the facing of the reality of who you are, what you can be, what you cannot be, and what your place truly is. You cannot begin to conceive and understand the world around you unless you have a full grasp of self, the truth of your own personality and the physical container which holds it.
2. Revolts are likely, we see it with people like Lou Dobbs, Bill O'Reilly, and their European counterparts. However, they are fighting against history; trends far greater than the little power they have. Nothing short of a resurgence of Fascism (true, Hitler-like Fascism) would ever be able to stem the tide. Even then, like Hitler's regime, it would fall eventually.
3. I think you looking at the superficial aspect of language, its "official" school and dictionary based context.
I think we can all agree that many kinds of people can hear the same words and phrases and come back with very different meanings, the same especially goes with cultures.
Even if we cast aside common colloquialisms we'll find the meanings of English words and phrases are taken to have radically different meanings given the cultural context.
The simple act of drinking an espresso can mean something different if you are in backwoods Alabama, inner city D.C., or downtown Seattle.
Wave a Confederate flag in Atlanta, then wave it in Chicago.
Wear a red headband in various neighborhoods in L.A. and its suburbs, check out the reactions.
Try speaking to someone in backwoods Appalachia, an African American from East Saint Louis, and an Anglo Saxon from the ritziest suburbs in Maryland and you'll find yourself met with a version of English you'd find it difficult to understand.
I live in a rather diverse neighborhood, and god if I havn't met quite a number of English "interpretations".
I am talking about what language and communication really is, symbols. It doesn't matter if two or more groups share, ostensibly, the same language. It matters whether they are actually, symbolically, culturally the same.
The United States, England, Canada, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, India, Hong Kong, and other nations all speak "English". But in many of those places you'd scarcely realize it.
4+5. What I am saying is that your multicultural programs will inevitably bring about mono culture through synthesis. Honestly, though, television has done a better job at this than the classroom ever could.
You may think you havn't adopted different cultural traits and traditions, but most of the assimilation goes on unnoticed. Most of the assimilation, as I mentioned above, probably doesn't happen through formal education, rather, mass media and day to day interaction tends to be the most effective and swift method of synthesis.
Watch your words, see how many came from an external culture. Where you picked them up you may never know; but further education would certainly increase the rate at which this occurs, especially if schools are effectively desegregated.
6. That is precisely the case, but that is a trend towards monoculturalism, not multi. A truly multicultural system would foster the growth of cultures, not slowly bring them into one giant culture. We have seen every group of people who were allowed to mix with the general culture give up their ancestral ways and adopt the dominant thought structure (or get the dominant one to accept theirs).
These sorts of cultural appropriations are absolutely desirable. They keep a culture healthy and vibrant; closed-off societies tend to stagnate and die off; it's those that adapt and adopt that keep going.
The laws and constitution of any country reflect its dominant culture. If a culture is forced to abide by the laws and constitution of a nation it IS being forced conform.
For the most part Saint Patrick's day falls in with Christmas and Halloween as holidays that have pretty much lost their original meanings. Christmas is present day, Halloween is scary candy day, and Saint Patrick's is drunk day.
The Irish have long been assimilated into our culture, though they keep some traditions and they at least know where they came from their holiday is our holiday, it is mostly nostalgia and drinking not a show of ethnic pride and cultural difference.
The Mexicans will end up the same way; their holidays will become our holidays, they'll remember where they came from with pride, but for the most part they will look, act, talk, and behave like your average American.
I do know that the Europeans aren't entirely happy with their cultural mixing, but the trend is clear. The fact also remains that they work well together when they aren't asserting cultural independence or superiority.
I really don't see much of a difference between fundamentalist Christianity and fundamentalist Islam. As the western world turns more towards secular ways of thought and governance they have turned away from severe repression of women, ethnic and religious minorities, sexual minorities, and no longer fight explicitly religious wars (or commit acts of genocide against particular faiths).
I also believe that the brand of fundamentalist Islam we are seeing nowadays is a new thing, and a regional one. How Islam is expressed (or any religious doctrine) tends to be an ethnic endeavor. Particular ethnic groups express their religion in particular ways; a Muslim in Pakistan is much different than a Muslim in Morocco. This is sort of beside the point though.
I also agree with you that immigrants should adopt their host country's language and ways as best as they can. I also think we can learn from the new inductees. There should be a cooperative effort to combine the two cultures (though the larger culture, which is actually composed of many, many cultures shouldn't be expected to do most or even half of the changing).
As for allegiance to other nations, I don't believe that is much of a problem, if anything when Mexicans or other groups wave other flags it is symbolic of their heritage, not their allegiance.
I also believe that if oppressed, a particular culture or group has every right to defend itself, even if it is new to a country or region.
Usually people vote for people who most agree with their viewpoints. I would venture a guess that people who have already made up their minds about Obama do not agree with the conservative viewpoint.
It doesn't matter who McCain is and what he stands for, as long as it is conservative or more conservative than Obama people who are more on the left side of the spectrum are going to go with the left choice.
People who are not on the left of the spectrum but are disgruntled with how the Republican party operates or find their specific policies to be failures or amoral usually will just stay home in November. Most people don't vote against their principles to spite someone who isn't faithfully serving them, as far as I know anyways.
That's the funny thing about multiculturalism. Living in Saint Louis you can go through all the various neighborhoods that still revel in their ethnic pride. I've checked out my own ethnicity's section "The Hill", the Italian side of town.
Of course, it is Italian in history only. The people all talk and act like typical Americans, the only difference is that the fire hydrants are painted like Italian flags and there are more Italian restaurants.
I expect the burgeoning Mexican part of town (which I live right next to) will end up the same way.
For the most part, Multiculturalism seems to be just a cross pollination of sorts anyways. The only way to be both multicultural and keep cultures from merging together into one is to enforce strict segregation.
I can note the difference between "The Hill" and the "North Side" as a good example. While the Hill merged with the surrounding culture (because Italians look like Anglos anyways) the African Americans (which are easily the most discriminated against population) are still extremely different from their white counterparts. African Americans speak differently, act differently, and wear completely different clothes than the greater culture. As such, there is a great deal of misunderstandings between the two groups.
I think it's quite telling that there is a definitely "black" way of talking and acting as well as a "white" way. If a black or white act outside of their race's culture they are quickly labeled a "whigger" or not really black.
A couple of points in response to that:
1. Multicultural does not necessarily mean acceptance, in effect it is a division not a cooperation. Cultures exist only as opposed to and separated from others, that is the essence of a culture, or else it is indistinguishable and unidentifiable.
2. Multiculturalism does not seem to be either a national or global trend.
As for the first point, studies have been conducted which lead me to believe that multiculturalism breeds conflict and misunderstanding, prejudice even.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/
This does not come as a surprise when you look at what "culture" actually is. First and foremost it is a codified method of communicating, it includes ideas and concepts as well as specific expressions of those ideas and concepts. Of course, different cultures have different languages as well as viewpoints (not a bad thing inherently, of course).
When you have an environment, or a society, in which many cultures exist you have a situation of large numbers of people not being able to communicate effectively with one another.
It is hard to work together when you cannot even comprehend the other person's way of thinking.
The second point actually comes from your multicultural stance. If your solution to the conundrum mentioned above is multicultural education you'd find yourself within quite a vexing paradox.
Ya see, if you start teaching all of the cultures within a society about all of the other cultures you are effectively training them. They are going to adopt some of what you have taught them, each of the cultures, as they interact more and more, will merge more and more with their cultural neighbors. The more "multicultural" and open a society is, the more the cultures mix. Understanding begets merger begets monoculture, in effect.
We are seeing this all over the world, cultures are merging, dialects and languages are going extinct, nations are joining into regions and regions are coming together on a global stage.
To say the least, this cultural welding has come with the benefit of peace. Look at Europe, once a land of many cultures and languages they have found themselves joining together as "Europeans". They all speak English, all of them, and their cultures are becoming less and less distinct. Their languages survive, to a certain extent, but you can be sure that as they come together a common language will be as assumptive as a common currency.
But what do we also see in Europe? As most of the native Europeans drop their religiosity and come together immigrant Muslims are finding it hard to adapt. Conflicts have raged in France, Germany, and England as the conflict between secular western belief structures comes head to head with conservative Islam.
It is my opinion that we would find ourselves in a much better position, both in social cohesion and in thought, if we worked to demolish the artificial and arbitrary boundaries of cultural difference.
I don't, of course, mean forced rehabilitation and mind control. I do emphasize education programs and community outreach, programs that will work to bring common understandings and practices among the various groups in a society.
Only when we understand each other can we see an end to ravenous competition and conflict and the start of competitive thought and social development.
I am sort of on the fence with this, but I lean towards monoculture.
I don't feel that every culture or way of life is acceptable, you have to draw the line somewhere. Where and how you draw the line is a matter of personal taste and philosophical grounding, of course.
I would like, through education, mass media, law, and economic incentive/disincentive, to see a monoculture with many viewpoints. If that makes sense.
To give an example:
I'd like to see a complete breakdown of racial, ethnic, national, religious, gender, and sexual cultural division and instead see people grouped by patterns of thought and conceptual understandings. In other words, political and philosophical differences; which I find to be meaningful. I am willing to make an exception for religious thought, though the two major religions in the western world have very little intellectual value. Islam and Christianity seem to be rooted in ethnic/cultural upbringing and not any real thought or honest exploration of a man or woman's spiritual inclinations.
I would love to see some religious diversity, but I don't think that will happen until the monopoly of Christianity in North and South America and Islam/Christianity in the Middle East and Europe are broken.
I am not atheist by the way, but at this point "religion" is just another word for "ignorance" when living in the states. Until we see a renaissance of religious thought (which will hopefully be brought about by the breakdown of cultural barriers) I'd rather have religion excluded from intellectual promotion endeavors until it is safe to assume it won't just be a promotion of monotheism (which is an inherent intolerance of other faiths and gods as well as thought itself).
So you are saying you are quitting the Republican party? Please tell me which group (political, religious, ethnic..etc..) or nation doesn't or hasn't killed innocent civilians, no matter the context.
It's patently obvious you are using the "first group", the "fair" group as an example of liberalism. For once, oddly enough, I agree with you.
Liberals are much too passive, much too peaceful, much too lenient with those who would do them and others harm.
Violence as a means of defense, in war or the execution of justice, is perfectly acceptable to me. I may be a leftist but I am no passivist. Murderers, war-mongers, nations, cultures, groups, and individuals who rely on oppression and violence to secure their place need to be countered with force.
People who value their lives so little that they are willing to destroy themselves, their nation, and the civilizations of the world should be forced to give up their ways or be met with consequences (wouldn't you agree, Mr. Joe?).
Of course, that means that we must all start making sacrifices to stave off global climate change, anyone that resists should have the full force of the law against them. After all, isn't it suicidal to value personal mechanical transport over survival? Isn't it especially suicidal if said person lives below sea-level?
I think Joe's little thought experiment has done us all a world of good! He's shown that anyone who refuses to live a more eco-friendly life does not value their own (or anyone else's) and they are not worth preserving (especially if they refuse to change)!
Actually, they kind of swept most of that under the carpet. They barely cover it in school textbooks, if at all, and they still havn't apologized to the Chinese, as far as I know.
That's rather silly. Ancient is used to describe things, beliefs, societies, religions, and people which originated in or existed long before our present time. It isn't condescending at all, it is factually correct.
This is also coming from someone who practices an "ancient" religion from the classical period, Hellenic Paganism.
I'm a dedicated Computer gamer, but things seem to be going downhill for this side of the industry. Because of the continual emphasis on graphics over gameplay it's harder and harder to keep up with the dwindling, yet extremely graphics intensive games.
Back when I started gaming on the compie there were hundreds of games to choose from, creative titles spanning many different genres from hundreds of small and large companies.
Since then, however, computer gaming companies have been eaten up by a handful of mega-corporations (such as EA games). EA and like entities are trying to make huge amounts of money by emulating the consoles. Of course, that means making mostly shooters and rpgs at the expense of strategy and sim games.
I am more and more thinking about evacuating computer gaming and going over to consoles. The hassle of computer gaming, the expense, the lack of titles that really interest me, and the ever decreasing number of games in general are really pushing me out of the industry.
The problem with Wikipedia citations is that those sources may not be credible or created by credible associations or experts in that particular field. They are also hampered by the fact that many important sources of information (non-internet sources or non-free internet sources) are left out almost entirely.
Having a citation does not necessarily make a particular article legitimate. If you look at any recent propaganda books you'll find plenty of citations (even Ann Coulter has them in her frivolous tripe).
There are much better sources of information that Wikipedia, books, real encyclopedias, reputable news agencies, scientific bodies..etc..etc.. Wikipedia is only useful as an introduction, a hint as to what may actually be true. At best it can provide some rather well-rounded introductory material, at worst it is a jumbled piece of clumsy, misleading garbage.
Might I remind you that the ever increasing human population is already living over and above its means? We are already stripping the planet bare and taxing its natural resources beyond what it is capable of repleting within a short to medium term.
You can bet that you will find your paycheck gouged no matter what happens. Would you like it to bring us a new planet to colonize and exploit or catastrophic resource wars? Perhaps instead of education and high tech jobs you'd rather see your paycheck go to stave off hunger and poverty among the billions of people who cannot be economically supported? Who cannot find jobs in an overcrowded world, or food in an increasingly hungry world?
Our government budget is in the trillions already, perhaps we could transfer war funds to projects that will bring jobs and genius to our country. The United States can either be a leader in scientific research and interplanetary exploration and colonization or it can be a faction in a global war for resources and money.
There aren't that many pointless things to be debate, just people. Most dedicated partisans, egotistical demagogues, trolls, sociopaths, and selfish blow-hards are impossible to debate with. There is no chance of it getting anywhere, they've already made up their minds.
Anyone can twist facts, words, phrases, and logic to make themselves "right". Unless you and the other person/people are debating in good faith there is little chance of it getting anywhere.
Though, with these people you can still use them as training devices, they are a challenge (unless they are completely ignorant, then there isn't much to learn). Sharpening your skills and honing your arguments is all these sorts of people are good for; if you're looking to expand your mind and maybe convince others of your "truth" you'd better look elsewhere.
