Kevin, you are completely wrong. Barack Obama is not a socialist nor is he a communist. The central problem here is that when you are as far right as you are..everyone...even us good capitalists are communists.
One need only spend a few minutes on Barack Obama's web site, looking at his economic plans and ideas to see that your views are way off the mark and I really can't figure out why. It doesn't make any sense because you are bright, engaged, and clearly a competent person. I suspect that it has something to do with the "Dogma" line "You can change an idea but you can't change a belief." Your belief system, fed by some who post here, has careened off into a bizarre reality that has no bearing on the facts.
Given the fact that Senator Obama has the strong support of people like Warren Buffet and a slew of corporate donors, I find it hard to believe that they would chuck all that to be subservient to a communist or socialist state. It's not going to happen.
The problem is not Barack Obama but statements like this
"When I see Barack Obama, I see a Communist, and I am afraid. I think he is going to win the election. Does the NRA have a plan if this occurs?"
Just out of curiosity, what is the "plan?" And why does one Asian lady get to define communism? If I put a quote like this up in comments, Unix and DJ would be all over me in second for having an illogical and weak argument.
The American electorate does care, Kevin. We care that our country has been run into the ground by a failed ideology that bears little resemblance to democracy or capitalism.
Here is a challenge for you...should Obama win and our country does not revert to communism, I'd like to see you retract these statements. If the economy gets better, more jobs are created, taxes are cut, and growth begins to occur again...real growth...admit it. It was a pretty tough nut for some on the right to swallow that President Clinton did as well as he did in the 1990s. Clinton who said the other day, that our country does better, from a purely capitalistic view, when more people make and spend more money. We don't have that now and that's a big part of the reason why our country is hurting as much as it is.
So, please, I'm begging you...let go of this foolishness and try to understand that Barack Obama is going to try to return us to good capitalism.
...let go of this foolishness and try to understand that Barack Obama is going to try to return us to good capitalism.
A term which you are completely incapable of defining past "I know it when I see it."
As others have noted, "spread(ing) the wealth" through taxation is the equivalent of Marx's "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."
Obama's entire upbringing - his entire political career - has been linked with communism/socialism. Yet you believe that this has had no influence on his political outlook?
Do I think America is going to go full-tilt Communist under an Obama presidency? No. But with Obama in the White House and both houses of Congress dominated by Democrats, I believe we will head strongly in the direction of Socialism - along the same path blazed by FDR and LBJ. BHO is cut from even more Socialist cloth.
But Hell, we'll keep going that way under McCain, too - just not as fast.
As I said, our choice is between two excrement sandwiches - regular crap, and extra spicy.
Why would these guys have a problem with Socialism. Socialism works great for big corporations. It stifles small and up coming businesses. They will be in the cat bird seat. Actually what Obama will create is Fascism, rather than Socialism. His big corporate, fat cat buddies will get big kickbacks for their support of the great one. Corporations will have more power over peoples lives than ever before.
BTW, how is Kevin Baker far right. I guess far right now means anyone who disagrees with the Left.
"But Hell, we'll keep going that way under McCain, too - just not as fast."
Tell me about it. I was watching a few minutes of the debate with my jaw dropped. Both of these idiots were arguing with each other about how to spend more of my tax dollars to take care of me. Both were arguing over their crappy health care plans. I don't want a health care plan. Keep your grubby paws out of my life and off of my health care. But as some have said, the constituency of people that want to be left alone is miniscule.
"a failed ideology that bears little resemblance to democracy or capitalism."
I can't let this one go. So how does the current(regime, you would call it) not act in a democratic way. Has Bush cancelled any elections or declared himself President for life?
I'll agree that it bears little resemblence to capitalism, but that is one thing Obama, McCain & Bush all agree on, ie.) nationalizing the banks. Is this something Obama is going to reverse? Has he found his inner Ronald Reagan? Do you even believe your own BS?
Here Mark. Read this instead of talking points and see what is better:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/23496.html
Specifically:
"Both candidates also propose changes in how businesses are taxed. Again, there is a stark contrast between the approaches. Senator Obama has put forward a few modest business tax provisions to expand, for example, the research and experimentation credit and a new refundable health tax credit for small business to cover the cost of health insurance premiums. But Senator McCain has a set of expansive proposals that fundamentally reshape the tax system."
Yes, Obama's fluff tax breaks are just that - fluff. Then we get:
Senator Obama provides tax relief directly to individuals, without major changes in how the tax system interacts with or affects individual and business decision making. Senator McCain provides broad tax relief and channels most of it to businesses, with the notion that the best way to help workers is to encourage investment and ensure that the U.S. remains competitive in the global marketplace. The policies present very different choices: redistribution versus economic growth, and short run versus long term.
Redistribution is socialism and that is Obama's platform. Short sighted and pandering, his policy is! - yay!
I just showed one example. Want to see his ignorance on Constitution? Want to see how ignorant he is about market economics? Want to see how bad his judgment of character is?
Kevin, you are completely wrong. Barack Obama is not a socialist nor is he a communist.
Hey Mark! Nice to see you again.
Well, since you're still not dealing with your direct and obvious lies, making you a liar, that means that Obama must be a socialist and a communist!
The 2nd link also includes you inability to define "good capitalism.
even us good capitalists are communists. Newspeak doesn't become you, even as much as you use it. Given the fact that Senator Obama has the strong support of people like Warren Buffet and a slew of corporate donors, I find it hard to believe that they would chuck all that to be subservient to a communist or socialist state. It's not going to happen.
No, Mark. And the temptation to point out what an idiot you're being is incredible.
They're not doing that to be subservient to the state.
They're doing it to be IN CHARGE OF IT.
As much as we've pointed it out to you, the fact you can't grasp that yes, people do want regulation - that benefits them. They want it to support their power, their gains, their benefits. Buffett will lose nothing to Obama.
And why does one Asian lady get to define communism?
Because, Mark, she's got personal experience. She's a primary source. (Remember how you were using the Frosts as "primary sources?" and taking their word on factual issues they refused to substantiate uncritically?) This is her opinion based on her life and experience.
If I put a quote like this up in comments, Unix and DJ would be all over me in second for having an illogical and weak argument.
It's hardly stopped you in the past, won't stop you in the future and you still don't see the difference. She's seen Communism up close and personal. She sees it in Obama. She might be wrong, but the reason her viewpoint is important is that she's got the personal experience. Funny thing, the people who used to live under the Soviet and Chinese systems aren't supporting Obama. That might, maybe, should, perhaps twig off a light in even your brain.
We care that our country has been run into the ground by a failed ideology that bears little resemblance to democracy or capitalism.
It hasn't. It doesn't... Oh, hell, you're just a Troofer. (The administration also bears little resemblance to classic Republican values, and has compromised and worked with the Democrats during the last 8 years, but it's just the WTC 7 to you.)
Here is a challenge for you...should Obama win and our country does not revert to communism,
You don't know what it is. You can't judge that. You can't even admit to Obama's past now, his rhetoric, supporters, actions, and beliefs!
I'd like to see you retract these statements. If the economy gets better,
Which it will in 18 months at the latest. Unless Obama really cocks it up. And we won't have an internet then. But it'll rebound regardless, especially if he makes short-term decisions- like Clinton - scrapping defense spending, budgets, equipment. So that when we need the military again, it's not up to the task.
more jobs are created, taxes are cut, and growth begins to occur again...real growth...admit it.
If I believed he was going to cut taxes it might be an interesting bet. But he's not. He's going to increase they money going to the people who currently aren't paying taxes now. That's his math. So they pay -20 now, they'll get 40 back, I'll be charged +10, and on average, we had a "tax cut". And that's not counting how much my after-tax dollars will get eaten up with his "windfall" profits taxes, and increases on businesses (where anything over $250k in *receipts* is "big").
It was a pretty tough nut for some on the right to swallow that President Clinton did as well as he did in the 1990s.
He got some credit. Then we found out how much the "peace dividend" had paid for that. Remember? No, no, you won't. It was a choice, presuming we wouldn't need the military after the Cold War ended. Oops.
So, Mark, how about going back to those threads and dealing with your open lies, defining "good capitalism", and stop trying to ignore that you've been exposed as naked, without any truth to your imperial ideological clothes?
Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect works as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward-reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them.
In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story-and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read with renewed interest as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about far-off Palestine than it was about the story you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.
That is the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. I'd point out it does not operate in other arenas of life. In ordinary life, if somebody consistently exaggerates or lies to you, you soon discount everything they say. In court, there is the legal doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, which means untruthful in one part, untruthful in all.
Markadelphia just can't remember that bolded part! So he can't see why, when his conclusion is so far away from a logical, factual conclusion, say, on Obama and gun rights, that it damages anything else he'd conclude. So he thinks that he gets to start over every time, forgetting that we remembered his previous missed judgments, conclusions, and outright lies.
"Given the fact that Senator Obama has the strong support of people like Warren Buffet and a slew of corporate donors, I find it hard to believe that they would chuck all that to be subservient to a communist or socialist state."
Why not? After all, they'd be chillin' in the Dacha with the Anointed One anyway. Power goes to those "more equal" than the rest in a communist state, y'know...
Now this is really interesting. The money quote is:
"A while back I chatted with a University of Chicago professor who was a frequent lunch companion of Obama's. This professor said that Obama was as close to a full-out Marxist as anyone who has ever run for president of the United States."
Well, that's not just hearsay, it's a relatively small sample to be compared to.
"As I said, our choice is between two excrement sandwiches - regular crap, and extra spicy."
Kevin, that comment had me rolling on the floor! Of course, I am laughing because I am so tired of crying. I just saw a column by Laura Hollis that raised the same issues, though with less detail than your exquisite piece. Still, it's about time someone in the media named this man's politics-communism.
"We care that our country has been run into the ground by a failed ideology that bears little resemblance to democracy or capitalism."
Okay, I'll actually agree with a fair amount of that statement.
Actual, true democracy is simply translated as mob rule. This country was founded as a representative republic to avoid precisely that problem. "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
Capitalism is simply expressed by the phrase, "money talks". Capitalism differs from other socio-politico-economic systems in that the basis of power (money) is something that can potentially be gotten in large amounts by ANYONE. It touts itself as providing greater freedom for greater numbers simply because race, religion, gender, political views, etc., do not represent an absolute bar to gaining power. True, such considerations can make things more difficult, greed is only one aspect of human nature and cannot be counted on to consistently trump *all other* facets of human nature. But *enough* money can overcome such considerations in time. Capitalism is thus utterly dependent on the value of money for its ability to operate at all.
All major currencies in the world today are fiat moneys, whose value is derived solely from the political strength of the government issuing them. Thus, our "capitalist" economy is based on money whose value is entirely fictional, or rather money that has value *only because we choose to believe* it has value. Starting earlier, but culminating in the Bretton Woods Agreement of 1944, all major currencies have thus been devalued, and thus true capitalism is fictional.
Also keep in mind that capitalism rests on the assumption that anyone can, in theory, make enough money to be powerful. As such, government distortions of who can make how much doing what, and under what restrictions, remove the economy further and further from capitalism with each new enactment. Some obvious examples include:
The IRS, by requiring the customer (taxpayer) to surrender value without offering equivalent value in return.
Affirmative Action, by requiring employers to at least partially base their assessment of the value of an employee on race/gender/sexual orientation/handicapped status/etc., rather than whether or not said employee is best for the job.
Government requirements for insurance, by requiring customers to patronize a given industry, thus creating a "command economy" in that area. Insurance is only one of many areas where this is being done, albeit the most obvious one.
ANY dilution of the concept of "equal justice before the law". Whether a given law is just is not the point. If your congressman, your child's teacher, your plumber, your doctor, the local cop and the guy who picks up your garbage are not equally at risk of losing their freedom under ______ law, then said law undermines the foundation of a capitalist economy. If the consequences of breaking a law can be modified by your race, gender, sexual tastes, political views, social status, wealth or job description, then the "anyone can be successful" foundation of capitalism is having flaws *forced* into it by the legal system.
Note that true capitalism will ALWAYS, by definition, be flawed by the prejudices inherent in all humans. Where humans have complete freedom to choose where they bestow the value of their knowledge and labor, upon whom and for what goods or services, those choices will be affected by the personal prejudices of the humans concerned. That ALL humans, including you, me and everyone here, have some sort of prejudices and are influenced by them, I consider self-evident. However, human prejudice is dynamic, attitudes change over time. As an example, witness the attitudes toward race, gender and tobacco, to name just three, from your grandfather's time to your own. Laws, on the other hand, are static. They prescribe a pre-set response to a given action, and that response does not change unless and until legislators go back and change it, whereupon a new, but still static, response is enacted.
The point of all this is to show that 1) you are right in that our system "bears little resemblance to democracy or capitalism", but also 2) it never has borne much resemblance, as by the time slavery and the disenfranchisement of women were gone, there was little time before fiat currency became the rule, and that 3) your pet causes are every bit as damaging to democracy and capitalism as the ones you dislike. The is no such thing, indeed CANNOT be such a thing, as a "level playing field". But to force the playing field unlevel in directions that favor those who agree with you and punish those who do not, and then *lock that tilt into place*, is not a practical solution.
Okay, down to the one point where I *actually disagree* with the statement I quoted. The use of the phrase "We care." I think the evidence shows conclusively that the majority of Americans DO NOT, in fact, "care that our country has been run into the ground by a failed ideology that bears little resemblance to democracy or capitalism." If they did, they would not be so supportive of a political party that once openly prided itself on institutionalizing racism against blacks and now openly prides itself on institutionalizing racism against whites. They would not be supportive of a political party that openly prides itself on demanding punishment in the absence of any wrongdoing against its enemies and applauds wrongdoing without any punishment among its friends. They would not be supportive of people who consistently confuse "revenge" with "justice".
I suspect that what the American electorate cares about is disgust, even fury, with being flatly lied to. Not only lied to, but so blatantly lied to as to insult their intelligence. This, I believe, is why approval ratings for Congress is down to single digits, in BOTH parties. I believe that the sole reason for Sen. Hussein's success is that he's such a gifted speaker, regardless of what he actually does or does not say. As he said himself, "I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views." In other words, he's such a good salesman that people *believe* they are buying something new, something different, something *they want*, instead of the same old pap with a new label. Thus, those swayed by his oratory love him because he's offering Hope and Change, something new and different, even though it's actually merely a projection of their own views and desires. Those not swayed by his oratory see the same old pap with a new label, and are disgusted with being lied to and having their intelligence insulted.
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2008/10/comment-left-elsewhere.html (17 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
Kevin, you are completely wrong. Barack Obama is not a socialist nor is he a communist. The central problem here is that when you are as far right as you are..everyone...even us good capitalists are communists.
One need only spend a few minutes on Barack Obama's web site, looking at his economic plans and ideas to see that your views are way off the mark and I really can't figure out why. It doesn't make any sense because you are bright, engaged, and clearly a competent person. I suspect that it has something to do with the "Dogma" line "You can change an idea but you can't change a belief." Your belief system, fed by some who post here, has careened off into a bizarre reality that has no bearing on the facts.
Given the fact that Senator Obama has the strong support of people like Warren Buffet and a slew of corporate donors, I find it hard to believe that they would chuck all that to be subservient to a communist or socialist state. It's not going to happen.
The problem is not Barack Obama but statements like this
"When I see Barack Obama, I see a Communist, and I am afraid. I think he is going to win the election. Does the NRA have a plan if this occurs?"
Just out of curiosity, what is the "plan?" And why does one Asian lady get to define communism? If I put a quote like this up in comments, Unix and DJ would be all over me in second for having an illogical and weak argument.
The American electorate does care, Kevin. We care that our country has been run into the ground by a failed ideology that bears little resemblance to democracy or capitalism.
Here is a challenge for you...should Obama win and our country does not revert to communism, I'd like to see you retract these statements. If the economy gets better, more jobs are created, taxes are cut, and growth begins to occur again...real growth...admit it. It was a pretty tough nut for some on the right to swallow that President Clinton did as well as he did in the 1990s. Clinton who said the other day, that our country does better, from a purely capitalistic view, when more people make and spend more money. We don't have that now and that's a big part of the reason why our country is hurting as much as it is.
So, please, I'm begging you...let go of this foolishness and try to understand that Barack Obama is going to try to return us to good capitalism.
...let go of this foolishness and try to understand that Barack Obama is going to try to return us to good capitalism.
A term which you are completely incapable of defining past "I know it when I see it."
As others have noted, "spread(ing) the wealth" through taxation is the equivalent of Marx's "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."
Obama's entire upbringing - his entire political career - has been linked with communism/socialism. Yet you believe that this has had no influence on his political outlook?
Do I think America is going to go full-tilt Communist under an Obama presidency? No. But with Obama in the White House and both houses of Congress dominated by Democrats, I believe we will head strongly in the direction of Socialism - along the same path blazed by FDR and LBJ. BHO is cut from even more Socialist cloth.
But Hell, we'll keep going that way under McCain, too - just not as fast.
As I said, our choice is between two excrement sandwiches - regular crap, and extra spicy.
"Warren Buffet and a slew of corporate donors"
Why would these guys have a problem with Socialism. Socialism works great for big corporations. It stifles small and up coming businesses. They will be in the cat bird seat. Actually what Obama will create is Fascism, rather than Socialism. His big corporate, fat cat buddies will get big kickbacks for their support of the great one. Corporations will have more power over peoples lives than ever before.
BTW, how is Kevin Baker far right. I guess far right now means anyone who disagrees with the Left.
"But Hell, we'll keep going that way under McCain, too - just not as fast."
Tell me about it. I was watching a few minutes of the debate with my jaw dropped. Both of these idiots were arguing with each other about how to spend more of my tax dollars to take care of me. Both were arguing over their crappy health care plans. I don't want a health care plan. Keep your grubby paws out of my life and off of my health care. But as some have said, the constituency of people that want to be left alone is miniscule.
"a failed ideology that bears little resemblance to democracy or capitalism."
I can't let this one go. So how does the current(regime, you would call it) not act in a democratic way. Has Bush cancelled any elections or declared himself President for life?
I'll agree that it bears little resemblence to capitalism, but that is one thing Obama, McCain & Bush all agree on, ie.) nationalizing the banks. Is this something Obama is going to reverse? Has he found his inner Ronald Reagan? Do you even believe your own BS?
Here Mark. Read this instead of talking points and see what is better:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/23496.html
Specifically:
"Both candidates also propose changes in how businesses are taxed. Again, there is a stark contrast between the approaches. Senator Obama has put forward a few modest business tax provisions to expand, for example, the research and experimentation credit and a new refundable health tax credit for small business to cover the cost of health insurance premiums. But Senator McCain has a set of expansive proposals that fundamentally reshape the tax system."
Yes, Obama's fluff tax breaks are just that - fluff. Then we get:
Senator Obama provides tax relief directly to individuals, without major changes in how the tax system interacts with or affects individual and business decision making. Senator McCain provides broad tax relief and channels most of it to businesses, with the notion that the best way to help workers is to encourage investment and ensure that the U.S. remains competitive in the global marketplace. The policies present very different choices: redistribution versus economic growth, and short run versus long term.
Redistribution is socialism and that is Obama's platform. Short sighted and pandering, his policy is! - yay!
I just showed one example. Want to see his ignorance on Constitution? Want to see how ignorant he is about market economics? Want to see how bad his judgment of character is?
Obama is a walking, talking disaster.
M'delph is off his meds.
Socialism that "works" great for big corporations, isn't that called by another name..?
Kevin, you are completely wrong. Barack Obama is not a socialist nor is he a communist.
Hey Mark! Nice to see you again.
Well, since you're still not dealing with your direct and obvious lies, making you a liar, that means that Obama must be a socialist and a communist!
The 2nd link also includes you inability to define "good capitalism.
even us good capitalists are communists.
Newspeak doesn't become you, even as much as you use it.
Given the fact that Senator Obama has the strong support of people like Warren Buffet and a slew of corporate donors, I find it hard to believe that they would chuck all that to be subservient to a communist or socialist state. It's not going to happen.
No, Mark. And the temptation to point out what an idiot you're being is incredible.
They're not doing that to be subservient to the state.
They're doing it to be IN CHARGE OF IT.
As much as we've pointed it out to you, the fact you can't grasp that yes, people do want regulation - that benefits them. They want it to support their power, their gains, their benefits. Buffett will lose nothing to Obama.
And why does one Asian lady get to define communism?
Because, Mark, she's got personal experience. She's a primary source. (Remember how you were using the Frosts as "primary sources?" and taking their word on factual issues they refused to substantiate uncritically?) This is her opinion based on her life and experience.
If I put a quote like this up in comments, Unix and DJ would be all over me in second for having an illogical and weak argument.
It's hardly stopped you in the past, won't stop you in the future and you still don't see the difference. She's seen Communism up close and personal. She sees it in Obama. She might be wrong, but the reason her viewpoint is important is that she's got the personal experience. Funny thing, the people who used to live under the Soviet and Chinese systems aren't supporting Obama. That might, maybe, should, perhaps twig off a light in even your brain.
We care that our country has been run into the ground by a failed ideology that bears little resemblance to democracy or capitalism.
It hasn't. It doesn't... Oh, hell, you're just a Troofer. (The administration also bears little resemblance to classic Republican values, and has compromised and worked with the Democrats during the last 8 years, but it's just the WTC 7 to you.)
Here is a challenge for you...should Obama win and our country does not revert to communism,
You don't know what it is. You can't judge that. You can't even admit to Obama's past now, his rhetoric, supporters, actions, and beliefs!
I'd like to see you retract these statements. If the economy gets better,
Which it will in 18 months at the latest. Unless Obama really cocks it up. And we won't have an internet then. But it'll rebound regardless, especially if he makes short-term decisions- like Clinton - scrapping defense spending, budgets, equipment. So that when we need the military again, it's not up to the task.
more jobs are created, taxes are cut, and growth begins to occur again...real growth...admit it.
If I believed he was going to cut taxes it might be an interesting bet. But he's not. He's going to increase they money going to the people who currently aren't paying taxes now. That's his math. So they pay -20 now, they'll get 40 back, I'll be charged +10, and on average, we had a "tax cut". And that's not counting how much my after-tax dollars will get eaten up with his "windfall" profits taxes, and increases on businesses (where anything over $250k in *receipts* is "big").
It was a pretty tough nut for some on the right to swallow that President Clinton did as well as he did in the 1990s.
He got some credit. Then we found out how much the "peace dividend" had paid for that. Remember? No, no, you won't. It was a choice, presuming we wouldn't need the military after the Cold War ended. Oops.
So, Mark, how about going back to those threads and dealing with your open lies, defining "good capitalism", and stop trying to ignore that you've been exposed as naked, without any truth to your imperial ideological clothes?
You'd think Marky would get tired from dragging those goalposts around.
But I rather have a cadaver sandwich than the Marxist Lite sandwich.
And while we're discussing the concept of "Primary Sources"...
The truth be told, in all my years in the Capitol I have never met a legislator who harbors more contempt for the law-abiding firearm owner than does Barack Obama.
Now, Markadelphia, were he an honest debater, could try and convince us that this man's personal experience is wrong. With facts.
But instead, he'll go on feeling and emotion and insist that no, that's not the case.
In this case, the primary and secondary sources agree quite nicely with the historical record... and totally at odds with Markadelphia's conclusions.
I'd forgotten about the Gell-Mann amnesia effect. (Til I pointed it out recently in another comment thread.)
Markadelphia just can't remember that bolded part! So he can't see why, when his conclusion is so far away from a logical, factual conclusion, say, on Obama and gun rights, that it damages anything else he'd conclude. So he thinks that he gets to start over every time, forgetting that we remembered his previous missed judgments, conclusions, and outright lies.But it could easily appear that Markadelphia suffers from it quite badly.
http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speech-whyspeculate.html
"Markadelphia just can't remember that bolded part!"
Yes, he can, and even more, he understands it. He just can't admit it. What it insulting is that he treats us as if we can't remember it.
"Given the fact that Senator Obama has the strong support of people like Warren Buffet and a slew of corporate donors, I find it hard to believe that they would chuck all that to be subservient to a communist or socialist state."
Why not? After all, they'd be chillin' in the Dacha with the Anointed One anyway. Power goes to those "more equal" than the rest in a communist state, y'know...
Now this is really interesting. The money quote is:
"A while back I chatted with a University of Chicago professor who was a frequent lunch companion of Obama's. This professor said that Obama was as close to a full-out Marxist as anyone who has ever run for president of the United States."
Well, that's not just hearsay, it's a relatively small sample to be compared to.
But, well, damn ...
Yeah, I just saw that myself.
Given Obama's background, I am not surprised.
The other quote from that piece:
"Talk about playing into the most extreme stereotype of your party, that it is infested with socialists."
Sometimes stereotypes are based firmly on reality.
"As I said, our choice is between two excrement sandwiches - regular crap, and extra spicy."
Kevin, that comment had me rolling on the floor! Of course, I am laughing because I am so tired of crying. I just saw a column by Laura Hollis that raised the same issues, though with less detail than your exquisite piece. Still, it's about time someone in the media named this man's politics-communism.
I weep for my country.
Regards,
PolyKahr
"We care that our country has been run into the ground by a failed ideology that bears little resemblance to democracy or capitalism."
Okay, I'll actually agree with a fair amount of that statement.
Actual, true democracy is simply translated as mob rule. This country was founded as a representative republic to avoid precisely that problem. "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
Capitalism is simply expressed by the phrase, "money talks". Capitalism differs from other socio-politico-economic systems in that the basis of power (money) is something that can potentially be gotten in large amounts by ANYONE. It touts itself as providing greater freedom for greater numbers simply because race, religion, gender, political views, etc., do not represent an absolute bar to gaining power. True, such considerations can make things more difficult, greed is only one aspect of human nature and cannot be counted on to consistently trump *all other* facets of human nature. But *enough* money can overcome such considerations in time. Capitalism is thus utterly dependent on the value of money for its ability to operate at all.
All major currencies in the world today are fiat moneys, whose value is derived solely from the political strength of the government issuing them. Thus, our "capitalist" economy is based on money whose value is entirely fictional, or rather money that has value *only because we choose to believe* it has value. Starting earlier, but culminating in the Bretton Woods Agreement of 1944, all major currencies have thus been devalued, and thus true capitalism is fictional.
Also keep in mind that capitalism rests on the assumption that anyone can, in theory, make enough money to be powerful. As such, government distortions of who can make how much doing what, and under what restrictions, remove the economy further and further from capitalism with each new enactment. Some obvious examples include:
The IRS, by requiring the customer (taxpayer) to surrender value without offering equivalent value in return.
Affirmative Action, by requiring employers to at least partially base their assessment of the value of an employee on race/gender/sexual orientation/handicapped status/etc., rather than whether or not said employee is best for the job.
Government requirements for insurance, by requiring customers to patronize a given industry, thus creating a "command economy" in that area. Insurance is only one of many areas where this is being done, albeit the most obvious one.
ANY dilution of the concept of "equal justice before the law". Whether a given law is just is not the point. If your congressman, your child's teacher, your plumber, your doctor, the local cop and the guy who picks up your garbage are not equally at risk of losing their freedom under ______ law, then said law undermines the foundation of a capitalist economy. If the consequences of breaking a law can be modified by your race, gender, sexual tastes, political views, social status, wealth or job description, then the "anyone can be successful" foundation of capitalism is having flaws *forced* into it by the legal system.
Note that true capitalism will ALWAYS, by definition, be flawed by the prejudices inherent in all humans. Where humans have complete freedom to choose where they bestow the value of their knowledge and labor, upon whom and for what goods or services, those choices will be affected by the personal prejudices of the humans concerned. That ALL humans, including you, me and everyone here, have some sort of prejudices and are influenced by them, I consider self-evident. However, human prejudice is dynamic, attitudes change over time. As an example, witness the attitudes toward race, gender and tobacco, to name just three, from your grandfather's time to your own. Laws, on the other hand, are static. They prescribe a pre-set response to a given action, and that response does not change unless and until legislators go back and change it, whereupon a new, but still static, response is enacted.
The point of all this is to show that 1) you are right in that our system "bears little resemblance to democracy or capitalism", but also 2) it never has borne much resemblance, as by the time slavery and the disenfranchisement of women were gone, there was little time before fiat currency became the rule, and that 3) your pet causes are every bit as damaging to democracy and capitalism as the ones you dislike. The is no such thing, indeed CANNOT be such a thing, as a "level playing field". But to force the playing field unlevel in directions that favor those who agree with you and punish those who do not, and then *lock that tilt into place*, is not a practical solution.
Okay, down to the one point where I *actually disagree* with the statement I quoted. The use of the phrase "We care." I think the evidence shows conclusively that the majority of Americans DO NOT, in fact, "care that our country has been run into the ground by a failed ideology that bears little resemblance to democracy or capitalism." If they did, they would not be so supportive of a political party that once openly prided itself on institutionalizing racism against blacks and now openly prides itself on institutionalizing racism against whites. They would not be supportive of a political party that openly prides itself on demanding punishment in the absence of any wrongdoing against its enemies and applauds wrongdoing without any punishment among its friends. They would not be supportive of people who consistently confuse "revenge" with "justice".
I suspect that what the American electorate cares about is disgust, even fury, with being flatly lied to. Not only lied to, but so blatantly lied to as to insult their intelligence. This, I believe, is why approval ratings for Congress is down to single digits, in BOTH parties. I believe that the sole reason for Sen. Hussein's success is that he's such a gifted speaker, regardless of what he actually does or does not say. As he said himself, "I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views." In other words, he's such a good salesman that people *believe* they are buying something new, something different, something *they want*, instead of the same old pap with a new label. Thus, those swayed by his oratory love him because he's offering Hope and Change, something new and different, even though it's actually merely a projection of their own views and desires. Those not swayed by his oratory see the same old pap with a new label, and are disgusted with being lied to and having their intelligence insulted.
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>