I wasn't going to get political on this date either...
Then I opened my email and found this little message and it pissed me off all over again:
To All My Fellow Americans Who Voted for George W. Bush:
On this, the fourth anniversary of 9/11, I'm just curious, how does it feel?
How does it feel to know that the man you elected to lead us after we were attacked went ahead and put a guy in charge of FEMA whose main qualification was that he ran horse shows?
That's right. Horse shows.
I really want to know -- and I ask you this in all sincerity and with all due respect -- how do you feel about the utter contempt Mr. Bush has shown for your safety? C'mon, give me just a moment of honesty. Don't start ranting on about how this disaster in New Orleans was the fault of one of the poorest cities in America. Put aside your hatred of Democrats and liberals and anyone with the last name of Clinton. Just look me in the eye and tell me our President did the right thing after 9/11 by naming a horse show runner as the top man to protect us in case of an emergency or catastrophe.
I want you to put aside your self-affixed label of Republican/conservative/born-again/capitalist/ditto-head/right-winger and just talk to me as an American, on the common ground we both call America.
Are we safer now than before 9/11? When you learn that behind the horse show runner, the #2 and #3 men in charge of emergency preparedness have zero experience in emergency preparedness, do you think we are safer?
When you look at Michael Chertoff, the head of Homeland Security, a man with little experience in national security, do you feel secure?
When men who never served in the military and have never seen young men die in battle send our young people off to war, do you think they know how to conduct a war? Do they know what it means to have your legs blown off for a threat that was never there?
Do you really believe that turning over important government services to private corporations has resulted in better services for the people?
Why do you hate our federal government so much? You have voted for politicians for the past 25 years whose main goal has been to de-fund the federal government. Do you think that cutting federal programs like FEMA and the Army Corps of Engineers has been good or bad for America? GOOD OR BAD?
With the nation's debt at an all-time high, do you think tax cuts for the rich are still a good idea? Will you give yours back so hundreds of thousands of homeless in New Orleans can have a home?
Do you believe in Jesus? Really? Didn't he say that we would be judged by how we treat the least among us? Hurricane Katrina came in and blew off the facade that we were a nation with liberty and justice for all. The wind howled and the water rose and what was revealed was that the poor in America shall be left to suffer and die while the President of the United States fiddles and tells them to eat cake.
That's not a joke. The day the hurricane hit and the levees broke, Mr. Bush, John McCain and their rich pals were stuffing themselves with cake. A full day after the levees broke (the same levees whose repair funding he had cut), Mr. Bush was playing a guitar some country singer gave him. All this while New Orleans sank under water.
It would take ANOTHER day before the President would do a flyover in his jumbo jet, peeking out the widow at the misery 2500 feet below him as he flew back to his second home in DC. It would then be TWO MORE DAYS before a trickle of federal aid and troops would arrive. This was no seven minutes in a sitting trance while children read "My Pet Goat" to him. This was FOUR DAYS of doing nothing other than saying "Brownie (FEMA director Michael Brown), you're doing a heck of a job!"
My Republican friends, does it bother you that we are the laughing stock of the world?
And on this sacred day of remembrance, do you think we honor or shame those who died on 9/11/01? If we learned nothing and find ourselves today every bit as vulnerable and unprepared as we were on that bright sunny morning, then did the 3,000 die in vain?
Our vulnerability is not just about dealing with terrorists or natural disasters. We are vulnerable and unsafe because we allow one in eight Americans to live in horrible poverty. We accept an education system where one in six children never graduate and most of those who do can't string a coherent sentence together. The middle class can't pay the mortgage or the hospital bills and 45 million have no health coverage whatsoever.
Are we safe? Do you really feel safe? You can only move so far out and build so many gated communities before the fruit of what you've sown will be crashing through your walls and demanding retribution. Do you really want to wait until that happens? Or is it your hope that if they are left alone long enough to soil themselves and shoot themselves and drown in the filth that fills the street that maybe the problem will somehow go away?
I know you know better. You gave the country and the world a man who wasn't up for the job and all he does is hire people who aren't up for the job. You did this to us, to the world, to the people of New Orleans. Please fix it. Bush is yours. And you know, for our peace and safety and security, this has to be fixed. What do you propose?
I have an idea, and it isn't a horse show.
Yours,
Michael Moore
www.michaelmoore.com
mmflint@aol.com
posted by JasonJ @ 9/11/2005 05:01:00 PM
27 Comments:
I propose that Moore donate 50 milion dollars to relief in New Orleans.
Just out of curiosity, where do you come up with the 50 mil figure for Michael Moore to donate? Have some of your rich, republican friends opened their wallets that wide? Is there something I'm missing? I mean, come on Jim, what Moore was saying is harder to put down than that. Your infallible leader sat on his hands while Americans died on American soil, for a second time I might add. Bill Maher brought up an interesting question Friday night. Are you ashamed to be an American?
I'll let that sink in for a while.
Can you possibly feel good about being an American when the Big Easy looks like a third world landscape? Would it hurt more if it was Houston? Dallas? Washington DC? Where do we draw the line at who is worthy of priority service from this corporate government? Are the people of Louisiana less worthy because most of them were poor, black people who probably would have voted democrat if they thought their votes even mattered anyhow?
On the record, Michael Moore's organization is fund-raising for the relief effort and has raised over half a million dollars already. Sure, this amount is small change but it is honest money. It isn't money that comes with strings and Blackwater thugs running loose in the streets 'protecting' the wealthy interests from those pesky poor people who worked their whole lives to make the rich what they are. Perhaps that notion is over your head though.
Peace to you and yours JasonJ. Any notion of humanity just dies not occur to the likes of Bloody Hands. While he suggests Mr. Moore cough up some dough he did not post any helpful links for people affected by Katrina. No family contact links, no donation links no nothing just more right filled hate.
Anyways I as I posted in the comments section on my blog I have been having major cmptr. problems and could not access my own blog or yours or mks. I could only go to Moxiegrrrl and then only sometime.
MK seems to have moved. Could you please e-mail me his link? If you no longer have my e-mail I will e-mail you.
I cannot now publish on my own blog for some freaking reason and may have to get new digs. Well my dad was Army so we moved a lot so I guess I'm used to it.
Hope you r weel and your family too.
your friend Human
thats Hope you r well.
Perhaps I was wrong. That is indeed a paltry sum for someone who has besmirched America in every way possible while pocketing multiple millions of (shameful!) dollars. I suggest $100 million instead. Let him give back some significant part of the dirty money he has garnered by his nefarious operations. This is an amount that would hurt him a bit. And the displaced persons that receive his largess will bless America far more than him for this charity. As you may know, I consider him to be the epitome of the Leftwing Moonbats. Sign up to his version of things and you are lost to America. You will have become just another Moonbat.
As to my feelings for America, it is only the greatest country in the world, with the greatest people in the world (and a few Moonbats!). I am extremely proud to be an American. NO does not lie in ruins because of Bush!
You have a wild viewpoint here. first of all, the hurricane was not Bush'es fault. In fact, I am proud that the Feds reacted faster in this instance THAN IN ANY OTHER IN HISTORY. Hurricanes come every year, and they are reacted to, sometimes better than others. It is unfortunate that the Green Party environmental kooks blocked the Corps of Engineers from building a cat 5 levee system and locks back in 1977, and instead let the state spent the money on pet projects and corruption in LA.
Not Bush'es fault. Even if bush HAD realized to great danger NO was in during the first term, and had persuaded Congress to go along with those billions,there was no way it could have been completed by now anyway.
It is unfortunate that there was not a Mayor of NO that had the common sense to declare a city emergency and evacuation order among other proper preparations in NO itself before the hurricane hit, such as ordering all city employees, including the bus drivers to stand by their busses and other transport means like trucks and service vehicles.
It is a terrible thing for a third of the police to desert their posts, albeit understandably they were concerned for their own families. But with busses rolling and firm preparations begun, their fears would have been allayed.
There was a plan for the evacuation of NO. It was ignored shamefully by the Mayor. Meanwhile Bush had already signed the necessary papers for the Feds and Military to move into No and start their rescues and such, but he could not get the Governor to sign the papers. She refused because "she didn't want to declare Martial Law." Military units were poised ready to swarm into NO, and so was the Red Cross and the Salvation Army, but the governor refused to let them in.
Not until the levees broke did the stupid person agree to Federal intervention, to her total shame.
She didn't even call out the LA National Guard, which is her duty. And they had plenty of troop power there to help, so said their commander, who had also pleaded with this incompetent woman to call them out early-enough to be useful. But no, it was, in their eyes, up to the Federales to save their bacon, but too late to prevent the flooding from the levees. Sometimes it is simply tough shit. No one should expect the Feds to react in less than 72 hours for anything! But once given the green light, they got there in force and had things in reasonable order quickly enough, no thanks to those incompetant locals. Poor old Brown was blocked in every way on site by the Mayor and the Governor.
Do you think...no, it couldn't be...that those Democratic Moonbats in charge down there were making NO a failure for the Feds and Bush deliberately? Sure seems so to me!
Bush took responsibility for any failure of the Feds in this situation, and offered up Brown as a sacrificial lamb. He agreed that the Feds were slow in beginning to respond, which highlighted a weak FEMA situation. But FEMA could not have prevented the flooding in the first place! I dare say that no one could have by then. Now, it is being dried out and cleaned up, ready for reconstruction, with Bush leading the effort.
I am not proud of the NO locals; I am proud of the Military response, and the peoples response to the disaster. That makes me even prouder to be American. Billions will be spent there to make NO whole, and better. What the Greens blocked the Bush Administration has unblocked. That is the promise for the future of NO.
Look! Americans don't wallow in their sorrow, or stick their heads in the sand when a natural disaster or a manmade one hits the nation. They turn around and ask: "What needs doing?" and then proceed to do it. I am proud of that heart we show in disaster mode. We went through a hurricane two years ago, with huge trees falling everywhere, no water, no electricity for 8 days, power lines down cutting off streets and all that, but no flooding. The damage is gone now, and it will be for NO sooner than anyone expects.
And for your snide friend there, I am supporting two poor family groups, about 10 people, that came here on a bus with nothing, until they can get on their feet. We do what needs to be done. I have the resources to do this, and don't want any more from outside. Let the Red Cross or Salvation Army do things their way; I will do them my way: Directly to those affected.
This is the American Way, Right?
My but we are an angry man today aren't we? Not exactly very Christian of you now is it? Not to get personal, but I find it interesting that Michael Moore should strike such a violent chord within you. Usually you are so much more reserved than that. But what would make you say that Mr. Moore should post say $100 Million to the disaster relief effort? Has Herr Fuhrer offered up such a ransom from his personal coffers? I mean, you obviously hate Michael Moore, but for all you can say about his personal political viewpoints at least he made his money in an honest manner. He has made his bankroll making films which criticize our appointed federal administration. His doesn't have bloodstains on it from selling arms internationally to the highest bidder in the name of (gasp) free market economy. Gimme a break, I don't feel bad for anyone with that on his resume'.
And what exactly is all this moonbat bullshit in this latest rant anyhow? What exactly is a moonbat? Go ahead and hang your head high. Sing your Lee Greenwood song about 'proud to be an American', But don't come on here ranting about how aweful Michael Moore is. I frankly don't care. Period. I have no investment in his world. I just happen to agree with him from time to time. I won't deny the local administration did their share to botch this but you and I both know this runs deeper than that. Our federal government didn't feel it was important enough to shorten their vacation over; and for what it was worth, every media outlet which isn't owned by Rupert Murdoch reported on local efforts to save the poor trapped citizens who had no place to go. Sorry that the Governor didn't want to turn the Administration of her state over to Haliburton and Blackwater Security. I'm sure that she will take this option into consideration more readily next time.
But as far as saying 'Bush didn't do it.....it's the treehuuggers' faults', you sir, are the one with the wild viewpoints. Oh that's right, global warming is a totalitarian scare tactic that us liberal, gay loving, tree hugging, megolomaniacal lefties perpetrate to scare all the good conservatives into buying Korean made automobiles and further decay our perfect little , do no wrong, economy........does that about sum it up for you????
Anyhow, we're still talking about Rousseau for main talking points. I anxiously await your response on some of our current issues and the new chapters. I need to point out though, that I still have not seen any proof to your original assertions that Rousseau was of the ilk of Stalin, Lenin, or Marx. I would remind you that I enjoy sharing differing opinions with you but I have not forgotten those ill remarks made so long ago; and I will not be satisfied until one of us has to concede our error.
Mr. Moore is a distortionist and a prevaricator. That he is held in such high opinion by people of the left speaks volumes for their stupidity; dress up the lies in a dishonest and reprehensible movie and they sell to a gullible and adoring leftwing minority.
If you think earning money doing that is "honest" then we have no basis for trust and understanding. There is no limit to what the left (including Moore)will do to attempt to get Bush. But you did distance yourself to a degree from Moore. That is at least a beginning.
Global Warming is yet another issue. It is not, however, whether the Earth is warming up, it is whether the trend is a natural cycle of events as we have seen before, or an irreversible uptrend that we caused in some measure.
I submit that the latter is nonsense on the face of the physics of the situation. Man can't do enough to cause such a phenomena, unless he sets off several tens of nuclear weapons at the same time.
You have really condemned the Governor! That she hesitated to save her citizens from drowning because of her aberrant fear of Halliburton and such speaks for itself if that whacky idea were to be true!
And, yes, I still see Rousseau as a direct influence and "forerunner" (AS wIKIPEDIA PUTS IT) of the Lenins, Marxes and Stalinists.
Our Fathers totally ignored Rousseau. Can you reason why?
There are a number of unprincipled people in our society who not only hate this country but take every opportunity to knock it down. They likewise have a passionate and again unprincipled and irrational hate for George W. Bush, no matter what the subject. One reads into every diabolical tome from these people that illogical hatred of America and Bush over and over.
Oh, they contend that they love America, but it is an America that should be transformed into what they think it should be, and it is terrible in their eyes that such changes have not already been accepted by the people. Never mind the Constitution, they want it to mean what they think it should say!
Just about one hundred percent of their ideas for change are a result of their desire to foster communism or socialism onto the body politic whether it is wanted or not. Then too, they are students of Marxsism, which means that they promote the dissolution of America as it stands, want to reduce it to amorality, sexual permissiveness, sundering the idea of marriage and family, promoting the idea of state-raised children, erasing religion as a factor in moral behavior and everyday life, allowing euthanasia and abortion any old time by anyone of any age, and seriously wanting chaos in social intercourse, in order to have their so-called elite crew able to take the reins of power and reshape the country into a quasi socialist/communist state that they end up controlling -- forever, as it will inevitably turn out!
Moore is one of them, as is Chomsky. In fact, I had posted early on a list of them on my site back in February, I believe. All of the Extreme Left in America should be identified as enemies of the state, since they are working incessently against the Constitution, or to bend it to their will. That also goes for the Extreme Right too, when they try to push true Theistic government onto us.
These factors are what bring out the hatred in me. They are all for revolution in America, and that brings out the fighter in me to do all I can to prevent such a thing from ever happening.
I am not against ordered, within-the-system changes to improve our government and our capitalistic overreaches, and to improve the lot of all citizens in a reasonable manner, but not by the marches, demonstrations, riots, insurrections and bodily harm that herald revolutions.
Mannning said:
"There are a number of unprincipled people in our society who not only hate this country but take every opportunity to knock it down."
Yes, but could you please leave the Republicans out of this conversation for a moment.
See how things can be taken out of context? I can manage to twist truths and misinform just as well as you can. So are you hereby equivocating George Walker Bush and the United States of America now? You do realize that this pathetic excuse of a man (for lack of a better word) is a servant of the sovereign and not THE sovereign don't you? Yes there are people who hate America. Some of these persons come from the left and some of these persons come from the right, but why do I find you here politicizing only the few, who in your personal opinion, do not share your particular world view as being 'evil and corrupt'?
May I quote you Jim?
"Oh, they contend that they love America, but it is an America that should be transformed into what they think it should be, and it is terrible in their eyes that such changes have not already been accepted by the people. Never mind the Constitution, they want it to mean what they think it should say!"
Every citizen has a unique opinion on what being an American is, what a man should be and do, and what the Constitution is interpreted to mean. For you to imply that this is a static document which means exactly what you interpret it to mean merely proves my point for me. It is a right we assume as 'self-evident' that we may decide for ourselves who we are and how to live our lives in accordance to our idea of self fulfillment. This notion that because a person does not follow your ideology lock, stock, and barrel; he must hate America is your opinion. Now here is my opinion. Your position here is the one that is dangerous to what we as Americans hold to be most important.
Shall I continue?
"Just about one hundred percent of their ideas for change are a result of their desire to foster communism or socialism onto the body politic whether it is wanted or not...."
Do you really believe any of what you wrote in this entire paragraph? I mean, come on here. I can get this kind of intellectual argument out of Sean Hannity!! And he's a fucking moron from the word GO. Ok, I will give you some space to substanciate these outlandish claims but I expect some concrete answers not more of this polemic babbling. I do not think I need to remind you that I have read most of Karl Marx' writings so I am capable of giving you whatever argument you think you need to have here. Personally it irritates me that you feel the need to keep lumping Marx in with Stalin and Lenin just like you keep dumping Rousseau in with the aforementioned grouping. But hey, it's still a free country so call it however you wish. I'm not the one who looks uninformed when you make such associations. I've said all along, just bring something intelligent to the table if you're gonna argue with me. What you have presented here is garbage through and through. I am personally saddened if this is the best you can do here.
Oh dear! You begin with assumptions and end with more! It seems that you jump onto the wrong track up front, so I will address that first. I identify only two examples of such people who have exhibited the hate-America syndrome all over the world. The speeches of Moore and Chomsky in Europe are far and away more virulent than any they have presented in the US, probably because they can get away with it there and be applauded for it. Perhaps you need to read some of them to get my point. (I will find the links again.)
>>Yes there are people who hate America. Some of these persons come from the left and some of these persons come from the right, but why do I find you here politicizing only the few, who in your personal opinion, do not share your particular world view as being 'evil and corrupt'?<<
Here is another place where you go astray. What I said was:
>>>>All of the Extreme Left in America should be identified as enemies of the state, since they are working incessently against the Constitution, or to bend it to their will. That also goes for the Extreme Right too, when they try to push true Theistic government onto us.<<<<
Note the words "all" and "extreme"; it connotes MANY revolutionaries and jackasses in my opinion, of all political stripes.
Note also that I carefully omitted the right and left of center of the political spectrum, which constitutes the mainstream of our two party system, or used to before the Left was subverted by the extremes, leaving no middle-of-the-road Demos around.
I do not understand the use of the term "equivocating" Bush and the US. Bush is the President of the US. You may not like him, as many leftward people don't, but as long as he is the President, he deserves at least the respect due to that office, and not the cacophony of silly and false attacks drummed up at every turn in the road just to have the story published on page 1 before the people, and way prior to the truth coming out on page 26 many days later.
There are enough critical issues with Bush that the overweaning hatred of the man on some people's part tends to take up far too much of the nation's energy. I, too, have serious problems with Bush, but I do not yell and scream about it. I write to all the people that I think have influence, and state my opinions. I have a pile of responses from the leadership at least acknowledging that they read my words, and "would take it in mind", for what good that does.
Senators John Warner and George Allen are very responsive.
The following statement is shocking in its lack of anchoring in what to be an American is all about.
>>Every citizen has a unique opinion on what being an American is, what a man should be and do, and what the Constitution is interpreted to mean. For you to imply that this is a static document which means exactly what you interpret it to mean merely proves my point for me. <<
First of all, the Constitution is supposed to be "relatively static" by design, and only modified through the process of amendment carefully spelled out in the Constitution itself.
Second, while every citizen may well have his own cockameme ideas as to what the Constitution and the Law of the Land says, or "ought to say", it is obvious that the individual's interpretation of the law will fail utterly before the courts, who have the full and unique responsibility to interpret the Constitution and the Laws as stated therein. My opinions on the Law must fail before the authority of the Courts, and so must yours.
So I follow the Constitution and Laws as interpreted to the best I can.
Furthermore, the courts' sole job is to interpret the law, not to make law. New laws must be legislated, and must reflect the will of the people as represented in Congress. This is another sticking-point with those who see the Constitution as a "living document" to be changed by the whim of a few or a minority. Not so!
If there is something I do not like or that I want to see in the law, then I must promote it through the proper channels and by proper and legal means. That does not mean that I can flaunt the existing law because I simply don't like it. Try it and see!
(And, by the way, you know, of course, that the Declaration of Independence was made legally part of the Constitution don't you? However, one must be very careful about the applicability of it in all circumstances!)
So I will state again that there are those who want to change the laws, and change the Constitution in ways that are not what our Constitution allows. Not MY interpretation of the law or the Constitution, but their own unique ideas. The case that strikes me the most is Abortion. The permission to abort was not legislated, it was dictated by the court.
There is a list published recently of all the decisions of the SCOTUS that have no discernable basis in the Constitution. This list is the indictment of the SCOTUS for legislating from the bench, and these acts are simply not right and should be stopped. (If you like I will hunt that list down too, as I remember it it was about 25 or 30 decisions long.)
Let me ask you a question. As a socialist, are there changes you want to have made in the Constitution or the settled law of the land? Do any socialists you know want to change any laws of the US? If yes, then are the changes in the direction of greater socialism?
Then try asking the same of communists, if you know any. Are their desired changes in the direction of greater communism in the US?
If not, why are they around at all?
If so, then look to the specific changes they want in common. Are there not many similar ones? I suspect there are very many important ones, and the clamor for big, big changes seems to me to originate with those groups of politicos.
Do you, for example, want public services to be run by the government? Do you want all large corporations broken up, or even taken over by the government?
So I overreached with saying "about 100%", I did it for effect, and I got an effect! LOL!
Maybe it is more like 50%! Non-zero anyhow!
You know the idea: creeping Socialism or Communism, which has been a documented concept and direction from the far Left for many years. Marx's idea of demoralize and destroy the existing society and its institutions, etc etc.
I will take the Wikipedia piece on Rousseau as reasonable: he was stated there to be "the forerunner of Marx, Lenin and Stalin," may they all rest in peace.
Ok, so this last comment is a bit more like it. I will not say that everything Michael Moore says is beneficial to the general population, as for Chomski.....don't read the man. I have enough politics and philosophic problems in my life without the man. So I guess I reall have no opinion in this case. So far, I guess we are somewhat in agreement. Although I will not hold all that Moore says contemptible to the general good. I do find that the man tends to raise questions that need to be answered, but are typically ignored for one reason or another.
To speak of George Bush, I will offer this man my respect the day he earns such respect. Don't make me point out the obvious shortcomings of this present administration with cheap shots like googling 'miserable failure,' it's just too easy for me to do. And as a matter of fact, given the context of your previous comment, I do not feel I erred when using the term 'equivocate' in the Aristotolian sense of the word for your placement of George W. Bush and America in the same train of thought. From my point of view, I felt sleighted by soch vocabulary. Mr. Bush is an elected official (if one can even believe that), and as such his duty is to the betterment of his constituency which includes even those who did not vote in his favor. Any man who looks to fill such large shoes needs to be an amazing diplomat and a natural leader. This role requires enormous charisma and grace under pressure. These are qualities that I find severely lacking in our current president, not to mention this man's utter disregard for truth, as well as his lack of civic knowledge. To assert that any attack on his leadership is synonymous with attack on our version of civil society is totally off base. Be sure, I know enough about American history to understand that this is not the first regime to espouse cronyism in America, but I wholeheartedly believe that this administration is running neck-and-neck with the Grant administration for the all time first place honors.
Now as far as operating inside the boundaries of the law to effect change in America, I don't think this is a point that can or needs be argued. War is a terrible thing, a fact I am sure you need no reminder of. Civil war is by far the worst kind of all, pitting brother against brother and neighbor against neighbor. It destroys the infrastructure, the environment, the fraternal love for one's countrymen, and the economic prospects of all involved. I therefore find it difficult to believe that men educated enough to effect change would consider violent overthrow of our way of life. You and I have argued to point of Capitalist society almost into the ground and I fail to see where a continuance of this argument would be productive. You can argue that Socialism desires to effectively alter the fabric of society all you want but in turn a Socialist can argue that the current societal norms are just a product of a hierarchical Christian conservative bullying of the masses into living under a system that they feel is oppressive and stunts genuine human growth potential. Is either view right? Is either wrong? The answer is highly subjective and varies widely from person to person. Take for example Socrates' version of the republic as told by Plato. What can one say about such a proposed society? Would it be fair? Would it be possible given man as he is? Who would be wise enough to make such a lasting society work? Is this an early blueprint for Communism or Fascism? Or is there even a difference other than point of reference and degree? Official orthodox history teaches us a much rosier picture of our past that such revisionist historians as Howard Zinn, but unless we can look both versions of the truth squarely in the eye and say 'I'm Ok with that' and learn from both versions of our past we will never be able to get beyond the current politicking of what 'feels' right to us. I do not wish to go on and argue the Supreme Court with you. For the most part I have always agreed with you on this subject as you may recall from the warblogging days. These men and women have an important job to do that is often neglected in leau of trying to usurp the authority of the Legislative branch. The same can be said of the Executive branch when they begin evangelizing and dictating what should and should not be law from the pulpit. Yes the president is a man and has an opinion, and no that does not give him the right to shout it from the highest mountains simply because he gets so much free media exposure.
I hope this clears some of this argument up. We still have bigger fish to fry here. I wish very much to continue the discussion of Rousseau. I have added a link to the Social contract in it's entirety for reference. I realize that trying to read a book with no pages isn't the same and cannot hold the same level of attention, but it is the best I can do in these circumstances.
I believe that the only way ahead is to put the controversy over Bush into a sealed box and put the box on a shelf. We are looking at the man through different eyes and with different sources of information. So be it.
However, there is perhaps one area where we have some real agreement, and that is in the abuse of Executive Orders by the President. I was inflamed by Clinton's use of them, and I am certainly consistent about not appreciating government by executive fiat on Bush's part either. This I haven't much direct knowledge about. It is worth looking into.
I posed several questions to you over socialism and communism as you see them today, but from what I read, you didn't answer them directly, if at all.
It does seem that we have at least partial agreement on Moore, but nolo on Chomsky. (it is hard to say that everything someone says is wrong or bad, especially if you don't know that!) If you followed Churchill's fiasco in Colorado, you have the essence of Chomsky also.
We seem also to feel the same about the Supreme Court, so those items can be shelved for good reasons.
As an aside, I have read Anthony Napolitano's book,
"Constitutional Chaos" rather carefully. It is scary how the government can and does act, especially the police and judiciary, if they have a mind to do so. These kinds of actions must be stopped.
I have a printout of the Social Contract I got early on to make my block diagram. Incidentally, you never did comment on it that I recall, except to say you received it. As I indicated in another comment, that is probably why I have raised some issues sooner than the text you post covers it.
I have read ahead to the end more than once, and dabbled in between.
Reading sentences out of context, of course! And reading between the lines, plus projecting into the future as well!
Another question for you. I have culled out a number of points that I believe are holes in the SC, and have written about them. You have stated that you believe that there are holes too. What specific holes do you see?
Bravo! You did include the date on comments! Very handy here!
Update on the refugee families. One family has returned to New Orleans area, and the other family is getting ready to return. But one of the older sons has decided to stay here. Seems he found a girlfriend, and wants to be with her and go to the local college, while working part time. Good for him!
No serious thoughts tonight: I am taking a break from commenting for a few hours.
It is interesting that when I pose several hard question to you, you go off on yet another vacation from this blog. Lost you taste for analysis?
Ok I admit, my absence from this argument has been excessive. I have my reasons and they are not your concern Mr Farrar; but to get to the point, we can have this argument if you would like.
I get the impression that you are looking for me to speak for the collective grouping of socialists and or communists, a position I am afraid I would not be comfortable placing myself in. I will tell you my own position in these hard questions however, and should anyone who would happen upon this argument in the near or not-so-near future wish to add-to or refute this position then I will leave it at that.
First though, I would like to clear up a thing or two perhaps. In your response on October 13 you begin with a rant, continue on that path, and end ranting.
Let me quote...
"Oh dear! You begin with assumptions and end with more! It seems that you jump onto the wrong track up front, "
and skipping ahead a few sentences...
"All of the Extreme Left in America should be identified as enemies of the state, since they are working incessently against the Constitution, or to bend it to their will. That also goes for the Extreme Right too, when they try to push true Theistic government onto us."
and also...
"I do not understand the use of the term "equivocating" Bush and the US. Bush is the President of the US."
This is a fair place to start. Have I made assumptions? About your intent or your written words? If you are truly going to ask the tough questions then answer them as well. You are inferring in this thread that 'the left' doesn't love America. That we should all be tried and convicted of treason. Let's not pretend that you do not feel that way and let us not pretend that this is not what you are saying here. You stand here accusing me of dodging questions, yet you have not answered mine to satisfaction either. Perhaps you think that when I am barraging you with questions I am speaking rhetorically and really do not want answers from you. Make no mistake sir, I am speaking to you on these questions. This is my web site and you chose to come here and argue with me. If you are going to play the role of interlocutor then you will be expected to answer with proof or at least an honest opinion when you are asked by me. If you do not like that then go away and do not comment here. This is not a game of 'Make Jason defend his political ideology'.
But to move on.....
I find it curious as to why you backpedal about calling the left 'enemies of the state' by saying that 'hey, the extreme right are just as bad', to paraphrase. Isn't it convenient that when push comes to shove you decide to make such a clarification. Maybe you should have said this in the first place. For the record I will say that I fucking HATE this right wing tactic!!!!!! What you meant in reality is what you said in the first place. Hey, if that's how you feel; at least have the balls to admit it to yourself, if not to me as well. Just admit that you cannot stand the little working man. Just admit that you somehow feel superior to the janitor in the airport who doesn't get out of your way fast enough. Just admit that you feel nothing but contempt for the black man behind the counter at Mc Donalds who asks you if you would like two apple pies for a dollar with your order. Just stop for one minute and admit you don't like me or my pristine, egalitarian idealisms and you would love nothing less than to see me swinging from a rope. It's ok, I'm pretty thick-skinned.
I'll move on though. I think you fully understand what I mean when I say equivocation. This term is meant in the classic Aristotolian sense of the word as referring to a technique used by sophists throughout the ages. You take two things that are different and find some small piece of common ground to compare them by and then convince the listener that then are indeed the same thing. This is another favorite tactic of the right. It is also a favorite tactic of your beloved ID crowd but that is another argument. But I digress. George Walker Bush IS an elected official. He is not GOD, he is not the SOVERIEIGN, he is not the United States of America. George Bush is a man. He is a cowardly man at that. You can easily sit here and tell me you do not like him much either but I do not see you standing at the front of the line trying to have such a fascist 'evildoer' removed from office as promptly as possible.
And another thing, don't stand there accusing me of not "...anchoring in what to be an American is all about." I'm sorry, was there supposed to be a test on this one? You do realize I was born and raised here don't you? I think you are saying here that I do not fit YOUR mold of what a proper citizen should be or how a GOOD citizen should conduct his affairs. Is this an accurate assumption Jim? You know, for somebody who hates Jean-Jacques Rousseau so much, you really do sound like him sometimes. I just thought I'd point that out to you. I am a private citizen. I am Jason John Kreul. I am me, not Joe Citizen, not some abstract collective of what ideal society should be, I am who I am.
Now if you want to go on telling me how the Constitution is a 'static' document then let us discuss this static document. In that case, I guess you get to count three-fifths of your household slaves in the census and poor, propertyless individuals like me don't get to vote at all. So tell me, which version of our fairy tale history do you subscribe to Mr. Farrar? If I had to guess I would say the '50s version where there was a fire in every hearth and a chicken in every pot. Everyone worked hard and went to church on Sunday. Children were quiet and obedient. They didn't do drugs or listen to rap music. Blacks sat in the back of the bus and drank from separate fountains than whites. And everyone was ever vigilant against the great red menace. Does that sum it up. Guess what buddy, that world was a lie. Not every hearth had a fire and not every pot had a chicken in it. Not everyone went to church and some peoples' children were left at home to their own devices, left to discover drugs and disobedience by parents who worked all the time or were drug abusers and rabble themselves. Understand also that Negroes did not infact like drinking from their separate but equal fountains and sitting behind the white man. They fought back then and they fight back now.
You ask me, 'As a Socialist, are there changes you want to have made in the Constitution or the settled law of the land?' Yes there are changes I wish to effect. The first would be the 'law of the land', how about the law of the peoples' or does the original statement bely the true nature of government in all situations. The true law cares not about men, about equality and fairness of conditions of life for the common man. The true law is to protect the property rights of those who would fence a piece of ground and say "this is mine, you cannot be here." The true law of the land cares not how many working men and women must live in squalor and die in unsafe living-working conditions for the sake of priviledge. Indeed, the true law of the land is erected to maintain this status quo of priviledge so that some men may feel superior to others. This is our Western European heritage. Some men must be reduced to subhuman to elevate others to their superior ranks. You can pretend that you live in an America that was founded on truth, fairness in justice, and a liberty for all men to do great things if they so put their minds to it; but the fact of the matter is as you so candidly point out, we are not all created equally. We do not all start the race on the same starting line and the finishing line is much closer for some of us than others. You can blame personal greed. You can say 'it's not my fault.' You can tell yourself that poor people are poor because they are lazy, stupid, unmotivated, dirty, immoral or whatever it takes you to look in the mirror without killing yourself. What you cannot do is convince me that you and I are not part of the problem and as such are not responsible for exacting an equitable solution to our domestic as well as our foreign policy crises that have gone on as long as we have said we are a 'people'. Did you ever stop to wonder why there seemed to be communists every where you looked back in the '40s, '50s, and '60s? Did you ever stop to wonder what the enticement was about a system that the government sponsored media kept insisting was so evil and ridiculous? Growing up in the height of the cold war period I did. The differece is I decided to investigate both sides of the question for myself. I didn't just take somebody else's word for it.
So the question before us is would I change things. Yes. How? By any means necessary is my answer. I have previously stated that I am not overtly advocating violent overthrow of our governmental system; however, the powers that be are doing their very best to insure that this is the only course of action left available to the people of America. And this I fear is the question you are not asking me but indeed are dying to know. At some point in time it will become necessary for the working class to regain control of thier birthright by violent overthrow of the current system of government. This is unfortunate and unfortunately inevitable. The problem with basing a system of government on a lie 'for the people, by the people' is that at some point in time the 'people' are going to call your bluff. And when you are few, catering to the few, and they are many the outcome is inevitable. Should our government decide to use its nuclear arsenal on our population there will be grave consequences for the surviving members of the regime when the smoke clears and we attain victory.
I hope this answers your questions my friend. I'll try harder in the future to make my presence felt more often.
>>I get the impression that you are looking for me to speak for the collective grouping of socialists and or communists,...<<
Well, only if your positions were coordinated with the parties concerned. Barring that, whatever you tell me is fine. My first curiosity was whether you were active in one of the parties. Then I was curious as to your positions themselves.
>>>>"All of the Extreme Left in America should be identified as enemies of the state, since they are working incessently against the Constitution, or to bend it to their will. That also goes for the Extreme Right too, when they try to push true Theistic government onto us."<<<<
An obviously extreme statement from me, designed to elicit comment. However, I am decidedly against extremism on the Left or Right. The Far Right scares me perhaps more than the Far Left, because they are very militant and super-religious fanatics, which is not my style at all. Believe it!
>>>This is not a game of 'Make Jason defend his political ideology'.<<<
My thrust was to get you to define your positions well enough that I would know where you are coming from when responding. A matter of understanding, not defending. Sorry if you took it as a challenge.
>>>Just stop for one minute and admit you don't like me or my pristine, egalitarian idealisms and you would love nothing less than to see me swinging from a rope. It's ok, I'm pretty thick-skinned.<<<
As a matter of fact, I am making an honest attempt to grasp your point of view and how you came by it. Since I instinctively developed a conservative and Republican viewpoint, after very early on looking at most alternatives, I find it highly interesting to look at the problem of developing a view from "the other side," as it were, at this time.
I am not sure where your idea came from that I am not mindful of the problems of low wage earners, and treat them indifferently if at all!
I do remember very well not being able to afford a car, eating on credit, picking up odd jobs, and living in places I hope never to see again. I do remember the used furniture and make-dos that we had to go through. Yes, I am comfortably off now, but that is after a 43 year effort to get to this point, and some good luck.
I hope I treat the people I encounter in all walks of life with respect. I suppose you thought otherwise because of my sometimes belligerant posts, or in general because of being a Conservative. Not very Christian of me if so!
Egalitarianism would seem to champion equal outcomes as well as equal opportunity. I do disagree with that, although I do want a safety net for those who cannot make it for one reason or another, and help in retirement if it is needed. I think you will find that the 1929 Socialist Party had a list of legislation they wanted enacted in the future. All of it HAS been enacted now. We have moved rather far towards Socialism.
Perhaps not far enough for you?
>>>George Walker Bush IS an elected official. He is not GOD, he is not the SOVERIEIGN, he is not the United States of America. George Bush is a man. He is a cowardly man at that. You can easily sit here and tell me you do not like him much either but I do not see you standing at the front of the line trying to have such a fascist 'evildoer' removed from office as promptly as possible.<<<
No, I won't try to support removing GWB from office. I do not believe he is a facist evildoer, and I do believe in the main lines of his policies. Far more, of course, than I would someone from the current leftist Democratic party. So, while I have a litany of things I do not like about GWB, it is more in the line of execution of the efforts than in the motives and thinking behind them. Thus, I am looking to support yet another Republican for President in 2008.
>>>The true law cares not about men, about equality and fairness of conditions of life for the common man. The true law is to protect the property rights of those who would fence a piece of ground and say "this is mine, you cannot be here." The true law of the land cares not how many working men and women must live in squalor and die in unsafe living-working conditions for the sake of priviledge.<<<
The assumption you are making here is that as some people rise economically, others MUST fall. If I own property, you can't? Doesn't make sense to me. It is a free economy. This is tantamount to saying that we should take all earnings and divide them equally between all citizens, so that they all live at or near the poverty line. That penalizes those who create businesses and jobs, and invest their profits to create more businesses and jobs in the good old fashioned capitalist way.
There are those who are left behind for one reason or another. They cannot make a living wage. They require help. That is what welfare is all about. And charity.
Some time, we might discuss some of the attempts to create better housing for the poor and indigent, and how they turned out. And what is at the root of many of these problems. The traps many find themselves in, and what solutions make sense.
>>>At some point in time it will become necessary for the working class to regain control of thier birthright by violent overthrow of the current system of government. This is unfortunate and unfortunately inevitable.<<<
I sincerely hope not! Such a disruption would be bound to kill the golden goose for us all, and set us back into the 16th century.
(not finished yet)
>>Every citizen has a unique opinion on what being an American is, what a man should be and do, and what the Constitution is interpreted to mean. For you to imply that this is a static document which means exactly what you interpret it to mean merely proves my point for me. <<
First of all, the Constitution is supposed to be "relatively static" by design, and only modified through the process of amendment carefully spelled out in the Constitution itself.
Note that I did not say merely "static," I said "relatively static," and further recognized the amendment process of the Constitution. Since the time of slavery, there have been significant amendments to the Constitutiion: Amendment XIII, for example, abolished slavery once and for all in 1865, or didn't you know that?
What I was carping about was your statement to the effect that everyone has his own opinions as to what the Constitution means. That may be so, but if their interpretations are not in accord with those of the Supreme Court, their interpretations are simply invalid. Then too, everyone has his own interpretation of what being American is all about, you said. True, but again, if they do not embrace the Constitution (as amended!)as interpreted by the SCOTUS, they are far, far off base.
Then too, if one wants certain changes to be made, the legislative and amendment processes are the only proper ways.
Otherwise, one is acting beyond the pale of civilized behavior, much as terrorists do.
I recall JMF yelling about the DOI, and its call for revolution because of grievances against the King. The DOI today does not apply to new grievances, since the Constitution superceeds and incorporates it with processes for handling such matters, as well as sedition and treason clauses for those who want to change it by force (the US Code, for instance).
I take the Constitution to be a (relatively)stable basis for our government by law.
The next topic I wanted to comment on is Property Rights. I go with many of our FF, who believed explicitly that the right to own property is the fundamental ingredient necessary for freedom to be realized. Not preservation of existing property ownership, but rather the right for any citizen to own property free and clear. That is a huge difference, and it inhibits government from becoming the dominant landlord of the nation, and thus the oppressor of the citizens, as was the case in the USSR.
Later!
You brought up class warfare, seemingly right out of Marx. Well, I don't want to debate Marx just now, unless that is in essence one of your positions; that is, you being a Marxist/Socialist.
So you believe that the worker class will revolt here in America? If you believe what you wrote earlier, then you should be in the forefront of those trying to explain to the workers why that is an extremely stupid idea, and working with the political powers that be to effect worthwhile changes. Splinter groups do not have political power in a two-party system as we have. The best they can do is to bleed votes from one or the other party, hoping that their man wins. So why not simply vote for the one closest to the positions you want to pursue? So, work with either or both the Dems or the Repubs to influence the legislative directions of Congress and the President with good ideas.
In my opinion, the Dems have not offered a constructive piece of legislation based on great analysis, logic and foresight since Bush came into office, but rather, have simply been the Party of No. That is surely a dumb way to conduct the business of the state when we are faced with fateful financial decisions now.
No Jim, I did not realize that there was a 13th Amendment to the Constitution. I probably couldn't count that high anyhow. I'm curious, what in your expert opinion did the 13th Amendment solve in the way of problems for the black man in 1865 anyhow? I am also curious as to whether or not you will stand here and expect me to believe that Lincoln's first thoughts were on guaranteeing human rights to African slaves.
There are a great many things that you and I can safely say we will never agree on here. So many that I am at a loss to where I should begin, but let me start with this thought. The way I see it, your point of view is clouded by your vantage point. You will never be able to step outside of the box that a life of capitalistic ideology has trapped you inside. Thus, you will never be able to comprehend what I am trying to impress upon you. I've been spending some time lately researching Cognitive Dissonance Theory and I think this helps me understand the barriers to genuine communication between the two of us. I also remember back to my HS Physics teacher once explaining that when people reach a certain age they consciously and/or subconsciously refuse to factor any new information. They stop learning new things. Fortunately for me, I am still young enough to stop periodically and reassess my belief systems. What I seek is the truth. For the sake of doing what is best in my life, I wish nothing more than to know what that best thing is. Yes, I am a Socialist. No, I cannot support the Americanized version of English Capitalism. Does this mean that I never stop and reevaluate my position from time to time to see if what I believe is still valid? That would be incorrect. This is the reason for my current hiatus. I have been spending time studying Social Psychology and reading authors from various other disciplines that I usually ignore, while analyzing my philosophy from a different side.
What I find is that I dislike our current system even more than before. You speak of my radical left brethren as only marginalizing the two party system and should we really want to effect change that we need to get with the program and start marching on the ballot box. I would say to you that this process has been tried and tried in the past without positive results. What we find in your two party system are two sides of the same corrupt coin. We find two parties who have sold their souls to the same corporate devils for a slice of the power pie. While I have no doubt that many men and women have gotten themselves involved in politics for very honorable reasons; they are invariably corrupted by a system that allows corporations to sit on policy councils in quasi-governmental agencies while deciding what is theoretically best for those who have no voice in the matter. While you might not mind the fox watching the hen house, I find it most disturbing.
This brings me to my deepest understanding of your position. Do you know why Capitalism has been so wildly successful? It feeds off of individuals desires to feel better than others. The negative interdependence or competition does not allow for win/win outcomes. Instead, one can only feel victorious if he has done the same thing as his counterpart and done it better, faster, and with less effort that the counterpart (read competitor) in this 'contest'. In your world, if someone is going to win, then sombody has to lose. That's OK, I get it. I know, you feel that of course this is how things are. It's the ONLY way things CAN be, right?
Ultimately, we can beat this argument into the ground. And if you would like, that is just what we will do. I will open a new thread for each and every one of thes redresses and we can hammer them into the terra firma. Otherwise we can just agree to move on and return to the topic of discussion...Rousseau.
You wrote>>>This brings me to my deepest understanding of your position. Do you know why Capitalism has been so wildly successful? It feeds off of individuals desires to feel better than others. The negative interdependence or competition does not allow for win/win outcomes. Instead, one can only feel victorious if he has done the same thing as his counterpart and done it better, faster, and with less effort that the counterpart (read competitor) in this 'contest'. In your world, if someone is going to win, then sombody has to lose. That's OK, I get it. I know, you feel that of course this is how things are. It's the ONLY way things CAN be, right?<<<
Now you have puzzled me but good!
It is beyond my belief that our system is a win/lose proposition! Winning, whatever that means, is available to all, in my opinion, in a free Capitalistic Society. In fact, I believe it is one's personal reaponsibility to make the attempt to "win" in whatever measure you like--wealth, security, acceptance, fame, celebrity, respect, skills, intellectual accomplishment...you name it! But to think that a win by one person is a loss by someone else is simply false on the face of it, unless you are talking about one-on-one competitions, such as political or sports races.
Take wealth: what wealth I have was earned, and I didn't stomp on anyone else to get there. I didn't have to.
Take security: Along with wealth comes a measure of home and hearth security, but in public, one's wealth does not help a hell of a lot. My friends in the Towers were well off financially, and it didn't help them a bit.
Take acceptance: One earns acceptance by honest and forthright efforts, personal integrity, and good citizenship.
I guess one has to add "exposure" to this, because you can't be accepted if you are not known. So participation in events, organizations, and social affairs is called for.
Fame and celebrity were never my objectives, so I pass on those.
Skills: Yes, I built a skill level over my time in industry through hard work and study, even unto the last days of my tenure. That skill level was respected and rewarded.
Intellectual accomplishment: Obviously, those who cannot contribute anything to our intellectual enterprise will not receive recognition for it! LOL!
It would be, on the other hand, a shame if someone that could contribute intellectually, chose not to do so for illogical, emotional reasons.
You said: >>>They stop learning new things.<<<
Well, my friend, on the basis of my own personal program of learning, I can say that I have remained in learning mode my whole life! And on a widely diverse set of subjects too. It is strange that you accuse me of "ossification", just as I have begun yet another program!
So you believe that I cannot see your point? Your point seems to be: "From each according to his abilities, and to each according to his needs." The essence of the Socialist dogma lies in that quote.
I suggest to you that it isn't lack of understanding, but rather total rejection of that concept that causes me to accept the alternative Quasi-Capitalist system we live under and to continue to argue for it, and to seek refinements to it.
I do not believe in Utopian dreams, especially those that are virtually impossible to realize in my (remaining)lifetime, and which would completely discombobulate our way of life in the US.
I do not believe in revolutionary experiments with whole societies when the most probable end result is historically not friendly to liberty, freedom and democracy.
You wrote: >>>I'm curious, what in your expert opinion did the 13th Amendment solve in the way of problems for the black man in 1865 anyhow? I am also curious as to whether or not you will stand here and expect me to believe that Lincoln's first thoughts were on guaranteeing human rights to African slaves.<<<
Not being an historian, and not being well-versed in the stepwise progression of slaves into greater freedom and full rights of citizenship throughout the nation, I can only comment that all of such steps were welcomed by me and my family for generations.
Yes, I come from a family of former slave-holders. These slaves were given their freedom by my great-great grandfather well prior to the Civil War as a matter of conscience, and they were treated well afterwards too, treated as people not slaves, those that stayed on the farm of their own free will.
My GGG fought for the Confederacy also, and lost an arm in the Battle of Nashville, while serving under General Hood, according to the family stories. Strange thing was, four of his former slaves fought with him as his personal guards, and another ran the farm during his absence.
President Lincoln was first and foremost trying to hold the Union together.
As for the 13th Amendment, it was a formal and necessary beginning for slaves to be freed from legal servitude. It took a long time for other real freedoms to be realized in our nation, and the remaining biases against people of color are still there in many places, although these biases are usually suppressed from direct view.
On to Rousseau then!
You wrote: >>>What we find in your two party system are two sides of the same corrupt coin.<<<
The WE here must be you and your fellow Socialists, whom I would wager are morally and ethically no better than OUR two parties! Especially if they champion revolution! People die in revolutions. People die just after revolutions are won, too, in massive gulags or ditches, because they opposed the winners. Utter Madness! Why would I want to believe in something that would be so distructive, when we have a far better society right at hand? I would oppose it, and thus be imprisoned or killed.
(I notice that you didn't label yourself as to whether you are a Marxist or not. I am assuming that you are. If not, please educate me on the particular brand of Socialism you do believe in.)
You wrote: >>>What we find in your two party system are two sides of the same corrupt coin.<<<
The WE here must be you and your fellow Socialists, whom I would wager are morally and ethically no better than OUR two parties! Especially if they champion revolution! People die in revolutions. People die just after revolutions are won, too, in massive gulags or ditches, because they opposed the winners. Utter Madness! Why would I want to believe in something that would be so distructive, when we have a far better society right at hand? I would oppose it, and thus be imprisoned or killed.
(I notice that you didn't label yourself as to whether you are a Marxist or not. I am assuming that you are. If not, please educate me on the particular brand of Socialism you do believe in.)
The other slogan I remember about Socialists is that: "the ends justify the means!" Even you said something like that. If everyone believed that, including the conservative faction, then there would be slaughter in the streets, as each faction tried to impose the final solution to all of the peenanky argumentation, creeping Socialism, multicultural and diversity nonsense trotted out by the Left.
The Counter-Revolution would be awesome!
This is a great justification for the Second Amendment! The 60 million US gun-owners, and their 240 million guns, would react forcefully to any attempted revolution; including me and my arsenal.
Please forgive me here but....Are you done yet dumbass?
If we are to drop this subject, then let's drop it and move on. If we are going to continue to flame on, then fine, I will also. The major difference being that I will most likely say something other than stupid one-liners from my favorite political pundits' bag-o-tricks.
You know, some days you are just plain full of shit. I have finally figured out where you get your disturbing ideas concerning socialism, Rousseau, etc.; I just finished a biography on Castro and think I understand where you are coming from. It doesn't make you any less of an idiot, but at least I can understand where your misdirected ideology eminated from. Realize this, Fidel Castro was not a socialist. Fidel Castro was not a communist. Fidel Castro was not a good friend Che Guevera, nor a good leader, nor a man of principle, nor is he going to live forever. Fidel Castro is a second rate dictator; but he is not my idea of a hero.
Once again you and I must extend our argument over the 'merits' of Capitalism as a way of life; and once again, I find myself nausiated by the mere idea of repeating what can never sink into that closed mind of yours. Why can you not see that THE basic assumption and driving force of capitalism is WIN/LOSE. There is no mutual gain, there can never be positive interdependence between individuals because the entire system is based on a competative model existence. I understand that you want to argue that competition is good for everyone because it forces innovation and 'progress', an unlikely thesis coming from someone who forces creationism down my throat. I must say that this is merely dialectic bullshit however. Your model forces person A to do the same thing in direct conflict with person B's goal in order to achieve success at person A's goal. What this competative model effectively forces is every contestant to constantly re-invent the wheel every day. There can never be any remarkable innovation when all participants must be in direct opposition to all other participants. I fronkly find this Hobbesian model a poor excuse philosophically. You stand here and have the nerve to tell me that wealth can be created without impeding the success of another individual. I say once again you are an idiot. Your wealth, if I remember correctly was made selling arms? Am I correct? Then your wealth was actually created selling death overseas to fascists who would have children killing one another for the exclusive benefit of the prevailing regime. I would argue that this is 'stompping on' other people to accumulate your wealth. I would also argue that the act of accumulating wealth itself is an act of aggression against your fellow man; but this is another concept that as a capitalist pig you will never be able to grasp.
Which brings me to my next gripe as long as we are on the subject. You love to throw around words like liberty, and freedom, and democracy while associating your terminology with 'free market' and 'capitalism' as if any educated person is supposed to take your interpretation seriously. I will grant that you obviously believe in liberty as the utmost important dogma of any system. It is an ideology that is pervasive in all of your postings here on my blog. It is also one of the subtle differences in our philosophies which comes out in our differences on Rousseau. While Rousseau evangelized about civil liberty, the type of liberty that you find most beneficial to your personal outlook is natural liberty. We can argue this point but given your selfish nature, it is not difficult to understand where this attitude emanates from. I would argue though that Rousseau's interpretation and though somewhat teleologically inferred conclusions on the outcome of natural liberty are the most sound on this subject. This is my criticism of our uneducated, fat, lazy, capitalist society in general. We as a people are far too ignorant to care whether or not what we do has an impact on anyone or anything else on the planet. Your fucking religious leaders are always preaching that we are all part of the same world, all 'god's' children while playing host to fascist ideology and totalitarian dogma. You speak of liberty, but for whom? For the strongest? For the most clever rat in the maze? Your capitalist model is masochistic and self defeating. In the end, as Marx has predicted long ago, Capitalism will collapse on itself. This is the problem that fuels our global struggles. Selfish greed has caused Hobbes' idea of one against all to become a self fulfilling prophecy. Argue if you will about whether or not this can be the only outcome all you want, but the plain fact of the matter is that this is the outcome of this system. We will most likely never be able to test this model against a more collective model with a more sound philosophy behind it considering the cancerous effects that capitalism has had on science, ie the unlocking of the secrets of the atom, and its influence on technology. Your liberty will be the death of human civilization, enjoy asshole.
I guess that brings me to your freedom. Yeah, you're free. Free to add to the collective disease that we call America, free to abuse your fellow man and rob him of his dignity, free to go to church on Sunday and pat yourself on the back for all the good things you do. You are free to do a great many things. Of course, you don't have to think about all the people in third world countries who have to live in squalor for your 'freedom' and 'liberty'.......
And what the fuck do you know about democracy, Nazi? You are nothing more than a corporate sycophant. Remember one thing imperial supporter. Rome fell while the Romans were too busy patting themselves on the back to notice the Rhine had frozen over and the gauls had crossed over to attack. Bring up the second amendment to intimidate me all you want, just remember that such things have a way of reciprocating. He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword; and bullshit aside, there is never anything romantic or glorious about death. Our society will fall, it is not a matter of whether or not you or I desire it to fall or prevail. Our part is irrelevant here. What must be noted is that our small virtues will be overcome and replaced with something different, hopefully better.
Well, I know I am on the right track when a Leftie resorts to flaming instead of rational arguments. Dumbass? LOL! Full of shit! LOLOL Idiot! He He! Closed mind! Smile! Forces creationism? Really? Asshole! Now I know you are losing it! Capitalist Pig! nice copy from Marxist "dialectic!" Nazi? Wrong, you have actually lost it! Corporate Syncophant! I like that! It sounds good. Imperial Supporter! Where did that come from? And, to my puzzlement, you insert Fidel Castro into this rant. I don't recall mentioning Castro or Cuba in a very long time in any blog. So you threw him into the mix as a confusion point?
Now let us step back and reread what you have said without the flames. You have said that you are right and I am wrong! You have set forth claims that you do not substantiate. WIN/Lose for instance! Your silly argument says that you (A) can't "win" because I(B) did? Oh, we didn't have the same goals, though! And not the same skills. And not in the same timeframe. So you have to bend into a pretzel to find your direct competitors with the same skills and opportunities? This is straining to make an obscure point.
Wealth creation "raises all boats."
Perhaps you are simply not competitive, not skilled-enough as a machinist, and not motivated enough, or shrewd enough to strive for a better situation for yourself and your family, after all of this rant. Maybe you are in the wrong job.
Or, maybe you want to be GIVEN your "Just Way of Life" from some paternalistic government or society. Take from the rich and give to the ...give to you!
I will not fall into flaming on the idea of suddenly dividing the planet's wealth evenly across all people everywhere. Work it out! This would: 1) wreck all of the economies worth anything, and b) ensure that we would all starve in a matter of months. There is no such thing as true altruism, and no such thing as a free lunch. Any other route to sharing the wealth and property over all peoples in a reasonable time would also wreck the economies and starve the people, but maybe at a somewhat slower rate. Look at the USSR as an example.
Since you have resorted to flaming instead of rational posting, it is time to close up my participation here. Goodbye.
OH, I forgot! MERRY CHRISTMAS!
Post a Comment
<< Home