YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH

Remember the movie “A Few Good Men” When Jack Nicholson’s character Bellowed “You can’t handle the TRUTH”. Apparently the editors (propagandists for BO) for TIME (America’s PRAVDA and ISVESTIA) decided You Can’t Handle the TRUTH either. Click the LINK and look at the covers for the World, and then the One for the US and Think of Jack Nicholson yelling at YOU!

Time magazine hides Putin’s success from US voters

Time magazine’s cover for its Sept. 16 issue features a picture of contented-looking Russian president Vladimir Putin, complete with a black background and a damning caption that declares “America’s weak and waffling, Russia’s rich and resurgent.”

But Time’s editors are shielding Americans from the demoralizing picture, putting a cheerful, sky-blue photo on the covers of magazines distributed in the United States.

“It’s time to pay college athletes,” says the chirpy, non-political U.S. cover, which shows a ball-carrying football player with arm outstretched.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/16/time-mag-hides-putins-success-from-u-s-voters/#ixzz2f4tmaaHw

94 Comments

  1. Time magazine is one of those media dinosaurs that used to be important, but isn’t any more. You don’t even see it on newsstands today. Ages ago, Time’s “Man of the Year” used to be important, but, much like the Miss America pageant, no one’s been able to name the winner for decades.

  2. I really like the “excuse” TIME gave of not wanting to “demoralize” the nation. One word – OBAMA – and it’s instant demoralization. Putin simply out played BO on Syria. And the alleged Sec. of State, Kerry is equally demoralizing.

  3. Actually, I agree with the idea of paying college athletes.

    When I was a student at the University of Kentucky, I worked because I had to work. I didn’t make much, but I (barely) survived. Colleges are making money off of college athletes, they are, in effect, working for the school, and don’t have the time to work outside of college due to the time devoted to practice.

  4. The Phoenician wrote:

    Obviously it couldn’t have ANYTHING to do with college sports in America being a far more important story to an American audience than to anyone else…

    College sports are important to Americans over the course of time — pun intended — but the Syrian story has been more important in the past couple of weeks.

  5. College sports are important to Americans over the course of time — pun intended — but the Syrian story has been more important in the past couple of weeks.

    Over a number of weeks, yes – which makes any particular article less important. You fail to grasp the point that the calculus of “Article on College Sports” vs “Article on Putin” is different based on market.

    And let’s also highlight one point that shows the incredible derpitude which Yorkshire routinely displays – he’s screaming that Time is “hiding” the story.

    I assume the story about Putin is still in the American edition, available to all who bother to read it?

    In other words, Yorkshire is saying that he believes Americans get their news not from newpapers or TV, and not even from the contents of Time, but from solely the single image on the cover of Time magazine.

    I dunno – should you Americans be insulted that he assumes everyone is as stupid as he?

  6. The Phoenician wrote:

    I assume the story about Putin is still in the American edition, available to all who bother to read it?

    Well, fewer and fewer are bothering to read it, as Time’s circulation has dropped from 4.2 to 3.4 million since 1997. But, as usual, you missed the whole point: Time uses its cover to sell the magazine, and they figure that more Americans would be interested in college football than what a pipsqueak our President is, compared to Vladimir Putin. Given that a majority of the electorate did actually vote for that idiot, I couldn’t exactly blame the editors of Time for thinking that we don’t want to hear the truth about him.

    I dunno – should you Americans be insulted that he assumes everyone is as stupid as he?

    The 2012 election has persuaded me that there are a lot of stupid Americans. No one of any actual intelligence would have voted to re-elect Barack Obama.

  7. In other words, Yorkshire is saying that he believes Americans get their news not from newpapers or TV, and not even from the contents of Time, but from solely the single image on the cover of Time magazine.

    Most uninformed people here don’t want bad news. So, they get their news from “Entainment Tonight” the late night talk shows, the comic news shows, and any show that doesn’t challenge their mind, like you’re prone to do.

  8. Actually, I agree with the idea of paying college athletes.

    I have mixed thoughts about this. OTOH, athletes at the top schools (in football and basketball, at least) are, in essence, pros and ought to be paid as such. Without them there would BE no college sports, and big name sports colleges like Notre Dame make a fortune through ticket sales and TV rights. The top coaches make $millions, so why should the players get nothing? Even in the Olympics they gave up on insisting on “Anateur” status for their athletes, realizing that: 1) The “Amateur” status was often a joke, especially in the old Soviet Bloc countries, 2) It was unfair to the athletes to ask them to often live in near poverty status and pay all their own training expenses just to keep their “Amateur” status, and, most important, 3) They had to ask the question – Do we want the best athletes in the world, or only the best amateur athletes?

    So, if the Olympics could decide to allow athletes to be paid, colleges could, too. OTOH, (and this is the other side of the argument), if we’re going to pay college athletes, why have them go to college at all? Set up lower level leagues like they do in baseball. Then they can get paid and have their sport be a full time job and not have the pretense that they’re there to study or get a degree. Granted, there are a few schools like Stanford that provide a great education along with a strong sports program, but with most big name sports colleges the coach is far more important in the lives of the “Student” athletes than are any of their professors.

  9. Proves you don’t always get what you pay for: TIME MAGAZINE which goes for $3.95 per issue at news stands everywhere is worth every penny of the one dollar the whole enterprise sold for in 2010.

  10. Rope,

    You’re thinking that the Time copy price is worth what its cultural sibling Newsweek sold for.

    I don’t think that there is even a print edition of Newsweek any more.

  11. The 2012 election has persuaded me that there are a lot of stupid Americans. No one of any actual intelligence would have voted to re-elect Barack Obama.

    It took you till 2012? Holy crap! Look at the dumbasses who still support the rodeo clown. They repeat the same old shit over and over and over…….. Sounds like the dumbass that talks about Eric’s book…over and over… Leftists really have a mental problem.

  12. Well, it didn’t really take me until 2012, though I thought that there was at least a possibility that there were enough people with some sense to allow President Obama a four year head start on his presidential memoirs. Clearly my optimism was misplaced.

  13. Well, it didn’t really take me until 2012, though I thought that there was at least a possibility that there were enough people with some sense to allow President Obama a four year head start on his presidential memoirs. Clearly my optimism was misplaced.

    Yeah, well, when one side (Romney) doesn’t fight AT ALL, this is what you get. When will the GOP learn? You run RINOs (1992, 1996, 2008, 2012) and the RINO always loses.

  14. BTW, while Jack Nicholson had great fun in that role, I never thought he even remotely resembled a real Marine Colonel. Real Marine officers are pretty buttoned downed and disciplined, but Nicholson (as he is in most of his roles) always seems on the verge of going completely psychotic.

  15. DNW, thanks for the correction. I recall Time Warner was in negotiations to sell off their magazine division and confused the two weeklies.

  16. Most uninformed people here don’t want bad news.

    Yorkshire, we have finally found a subject you’re the undoubted expert on – what uninformed people think.

  17. Phoenician in a time of Romans
    Tuesday, 17 September 2013 at 19:14

    Most uninformed people here don’t want bad news.

    Yorkshire, we have finally found a subject you’re the undoubted expert on – what uninformed people think.

    I’ve come to the conclusion I don’t give a damn what you think. It just wastes my time.

  18. I’ve come to the conclusion I don’t give a damn what you think. It just wastes my time.

    Uh-huh – it’s really confusing when someone insists on pointing out reality to you, isn’t it? Scary too…

    DO feel free to comment resentfully YET AGAIN about how you don’t pay attention to anything I say – that’s always funny.

  19. Speaking about “not being able to handle the truth”…

    —-
    The typical American family makes less than it did in 1989

    The Census Bureau is out with the annual report on incomes and poverty. And while you might think that after years of stagnant incomes and elevated poverty rates, we would be inured to the depressing facts contained therein, it still somehow has the power to shock.

    For my money, the most depressing fact about the economy is not the fact that household incomes were basically flat in 2012 (the real median household income was down to $51,017 from $51,100 in 2011, a statistically insignificant change). It wasn’t even the fact that 15 percent of the U.S. population was living in poverty, according to the official, flawed definition of the term.

    Nah, the most depressing result comes when you look at the longer view of household incomes in the United States. This chart shows real median household income over the past 25 years; that is, the money earned, in inflation-adjusted dollars, by the family at the exact middle of the income distribution.
    —–

    The chart, incidentally, shows median family incomes decreasing from 1989 to 1993, going up from 1993 to 2000, then trending down after that.

    Presumably Dana will come along to tell us that that can be solved by deregulating business, lowering the minimum wage, and cutting the top tax rate.

  20. The Phoenician wrote:

    Presumably Dana will come along to tell us that that can be solved by deregulating business, lowering the minimum wage, and cutting the top tax rate.

    As always, you’ve gotten it wrong. Dana would say that the purpose of government is to provide certain essential services that are properly the function of government — police, courts, roads and defense — and that those could be provided for far less than we spend now, but that it is not, and should not be, the function of government to try to regulate the economy or somehow redistribute income.

    I wouldn’t cut the top tax rate; I’d cut all tax rates. I’d move functions that the federal government has assumed which ought to be state or local functions back down to the state or local level, and greatly downsize the federal government.

    Why should SEPTA, the Philadelphia area mass transit system, get most of its operating revenue from the state ($595 million in 2013) and most of its capital funding from the federal government ($187 million)? Why shouldn’t the costs of SEPTA be paid for by the riders of SEPTA? Why should a local responsibility be paid for by the state and federal governments?

    These are the things which drive expenses so high: pulling tax revenues away from the proper levels of government, to feed a bloated federal bureaucracy, and then sent right back down to the local level, creating unnecessary administrative expenses.

    As for the minimum wage, I wouldn’t cut it; I’d eliminate the entire concept: then businesses would have to pay what the market would bear for workers.

  21. Our Editor wrote, These are the things which drive expenses so high: pulling tax revenues away from the proper levels of government, to feed a bloated federal bureaucracy, and then sent right back down to the local level, creating unnecessary administrative expenses.

    Its trickle-back economics, feeding the greedy feds reduces the backflow to state and local governments to a trickle. That’s why taxes keep rising, a rapacious federal bureaucracy continues to expand and metastasize into the new ruling class at the expense of already overly burdened taxpayers.

    We’re becoming a nation of haves and have-nots. The haves have lifetime jobs in governmental bureaucracies and related agencies, while the have-nots are increasingly more tightly regulated and taxed. Once our society is reduced to haves and have-nots (rich rulers vs taxed and regulated poor) Obama will have fulfilled his destiny, he will have eliminated the stabilizing influence of a growing middle class, and effectively divided us into the two distinct classes Marxist ideology defines as a necessary precondition for socialist revolution.

    Obama’s economic disaster has all but crushed the American Dream for our once prosperous middle class and reduced them to food stamps and various forms of government dependency as he’s pumped trillions in borrowed money into the coffers of his Wall Street enablers. ObamaCare will kill off any remaining dissenters, the Democrat Party’s dependent class will gain preferred access to medical services and the few remaining members of the middle class will be subject to the dictates of Obama’s death panels.

    Our Founders correctly identified an ever expanding central government the greatest danger to freedom and liberty and they tried to prevent that evil from oppressing our people by establishing a Republic and enshrining the proper relationship between governors and governed in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

    Which would protect us if we could keep it, but over time the clear protections for our freedoms have been eroded, sometimes willy nilly in response to crisis, but more often systemically, concentrating power in the federal government as state and local authorities have become evermore subservient to Washington DC. Two Amendments, the 16th and 17th, are most responsible: the 16th allowed the people to be burdened with a federal income tax, and the 17th divorced Senators from direct accountability to their respective state legislatures by selecting them according to popular vote instead of by legislative appointment.

    The repeal of those two pernicious amendments would begin the process of restoring the federal government to one our Founders intended: one of, for, and by the people.

  22. I absolutely agree with you concerning the 16th Amendment. The Framers were wise enough to know that the only fair government is the government which treats, including taxes, everybody the same.

  23. Mr Editor, our Founders intended the House of Representatives to be the voice of the people and the Senate to represent state legislatures as part of a carefully designed system of checks and balances. The Senate was to be a powerful bulwark against federal government dominance of state legislatures.

    Additionally, the Constitution was specifically written to limit the the authority of the federal government and only allows amendments if 2/3rds of both houses of Congress agree to put a proposed amendment to state legislatures and requires 3/4ths of them to vote agreement.

    The 17th amendment allowing for the popular vote of Senators stripped state legislatures of a powerful institutional voice and pitted the two houses of Congress against one another. The states lose, the people lose, and the federal government grows nearly unrestrained into a power unto itself, easily able to dominate state legislatures. Which is not what the Founders envisioned, nor is it what the original states approved, it is in fact exactly what they were determined to avoid.

  24. As always, you’ve gotten it wrong. Dana would say that the purpose of government is to provide certain essential services that are properly the function of government

    Dana, you’re talking to someone whose economic theories made East Germany and North Korea the economic powerhouses that they are today.

  25. and the 17th divorced Senators from direct accountability to their respective state legislatures by selecting them according to popular vote instead of by legislative appointment.

    Funny, but I just had this discussion (argument?) with a friend via email a couple weeks ago. It seems that a number of conservatives agree with you, but I never understood why. How is it that a bunch of hacks in the state legislature are supposed to be better at choosing a Senator than the people as a whole?

  26. Eric asked, How is it that a bunch of hacks in the state legislature are supposed to be better at choosing a Senator than the people as a whole?

    Because when representatives appointed by the 13 sovereign states met in Philadelphia in 1787 to revise the Articles of Confederation they soon realized that rather than amend the existing Articles they would be required to draft an entirely new form of government to fit the needs of free men in a new nation.

    Throughout that hot Summer, in tightly closed sessions, the delegates debated the provisions of a new Constitution. The chief points at issue were how much power to allow the central government, and should the people be represented directly or through their state legislatures.

    Eventually the delegates agreed on a bicameral Congress, a House for the people and a Senate to represent the interests of state governments. The hacks who came up with that compromise are now revered as Founding Fathers.

  27. The hacks who came up with that compromise are now revered as Founding Fathers.

    I never said the Founders were hacks, just the members of state legislatures. And most of them are, often easily bribed by special interests and, like all politicians, concerned primarily with getting more power for themselves.

  28. Eric, interesting you bring up bribery, which was one of the arguments by legislators opposed to the popular election of Senators. They contended it was easier and less expensive to bribe an individual than a legislature.

    Wikipedia offers the following condensed version of the opponents’ positions:

    Critics of the Seventeenth Amendment claim that by altering the way senators are elected, the states lost any representation they had in the federal government and that…led to the gradual “slide into ignominy” of state legislatures, as well as an overextension of federal power and the rise of special interest groups to fill the power vacuum previously occupied by state legislatures.

    Some modern scholars also agree:

    Jay Bybee, 9th Circuit Appeals Court (1997) writing in the Northwestern University Law Review:

    Politics, like nature, abhorred a vacuum, so senators felt the pressure to do something, namely enact laws. Once senators were no longer accountable to and constrained by state legislatures, the maximizing function for senators was unrestrained; senators almost always found in their own interest to procure federal legislation, even to the detriment of state control of traditional state functions.

  29. Lighting a Rope sed:
    Some modern scholars also agree:

    Jay Bybee, 9th Circuit Appeals Court (1997) writing in the Northwestern University Law Review:

    Politics, like nature, abhorred a vacuum, so senators felt the pressure to do something, namely enact laws. Once senators were no longer accountable to and constrained by state legislatures, the maximizing function for senators was unrestrained; senators almost always found in their own interest to procure federal legislation, even to the detriment of state control of traditional state functions.

    I look at the now “Hack”, Sen. Mc (war) Cain as a schill for the War Building Contractors. He and Grahmnesty seem to be right there wanting to do intervention. One would think McCain, after his brutal years in a POW camp in Viet-Nam would have issues with war. I also wonder how Arizona feels about another war???? Or does he care what Arizona thinks.

    To me, Senators should not be National Schills for War, not a Senator for Arizona. I do not see anything special about the Senate lately to give them the power they have. I look at Reid and he’s a toady for BO. I feel the Senators are to beholden to their paymasters to serve a six year term without their state being represented properly.

  30. In the early 1900s the popular election of Senators was the holy grail for Progressives, it was a change so important, it represented such a profound break from the Constitution that it was the near equivalent of today’s march toward nationalized health care and it’s attendant loss of personal freedom.

    The 17th amendment drastically weakened state legislatures, all but nullified the voice of the people in Congress, and set the stage for the emerging dominance of the federal government in absolute defiance of the Founders’ intentions.

    The popular election of Senators is the single most subversive change to our Constitution in the history of America’s long slide into to federal despotism.

  31. Dana, you’re talking to someone whose economic theories made East Germany and North Korea the economic powerhouses that they are today

    Cite please.

    Friggin’ idiot.

  32. As always, you’ve gotten it wrong. Dana would say that the purpose of government is to provide certain essential services that are properly the function of government — police, courts, roads and defense — and that those could be provided for far less than we spend now, but that it is not, and should not be, the function of government to try to regulate the economy or somehow redistribute income.

    Riiiiight – so:

    i, GIVEN that income inequality is a growing problem in the US, as can be shown in any number of statistical measures and

    ii, GIVEN that income inequality past a certain level is associated with (i) economic stagnation and (ii) social tensions, with numerous South American nations as examples and

    iii, GIVEN that these tensions, if not addressed, lead to political instability and bloodshed, as cf said South American nations

    Your solution based on nothing but your own ideological prejudices (“it is not, and should not be, the function of government to try to regulate the economy or somehow redistribute income”) is for the US government to sit back and let the situation continue, to let the US economy stagnate, to let US society degenerate into something resembling 1980s Argentina, and ultimately to let the US collapse.

    Because otherwise this would involve the government regulating the economu or redistributing income, which will kill little kittens or something.

    Great ideology there.

    Of course, wingnuts being wingnuts, let teh denials of reality begin

    - http://rt.com/usa/us-income-inequality-record-breaking-692/

    —–
    Recent survey shows inequality in the US is at its new peak. The richest 1 percent of the population received almost a fifth of the national households’ income in 2012, thus breaking the previous record set in 1928.

    The gap between rich and poor in the US is wider than ever, according to research which uses preliminary 2012 US statistics for income. It’s an update to a comparative analysis tracing income figures back to 1913 and done by economists at the University of California, Berkeley, the Paris School of Economics and Oxford University.

    “Indeed, the top decile share in 2012 is equal to 50.4 percent, a level higher than any other year since 1917 and even surpasses 1928, the peak of stock market bubble in the ‘roaring’ 1920s,” Berkeley’s Emmanuel Saez analyzes the new data in the article, posted at the University’s webpage.

    The study shows measures taken by the US government to get the country out of the Great Depression efficiently contributed to curbing the growth of inequality. However, since the early 1980s the gap between the rich and the poor has been steadily increasing.
    ——

  33. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States#Effects

    But let me help by anticipating the typical wingnut response to these concerns:

    “This is not the type of thing [growing income inequality] which a democratic society – a capitalist democratic society – can really accept without addressing.” – noted Marxist Alan Greenspan.

    “Even conservatives must acknowledge that return on capital investment, and the liquid stocks and bonds that mimic it, are ultimately dependent on returns to labor in the form of jobs and real wage gains. If Main Street is unemployed and undercompensated, capital can only travel so far down Prosperity Road.” – Communist leader William H Gross

    “Inequality hardens society into a class system … Inequality divides us from one another in schools, in neighborhoods, at work, on airplanes, in hospitals, in what we eat, in the condition of our bodies, in what we think, in our children’s futures, in how we die. Inequality makes it harder to imagine the lives of others.” – Red propagandist George Packer.

    It must be neat living in a little bubble of fantasy that lets you deny reality.

  34. http://www.alternet.org/economy/10-ways-america-has-come-resemble-banana-republic

    —–
    10 Ways America Has Come to Resemble a Banana Republic

    What will it take for America to reverse its dramatic decline?

    In the post-New Deal America of the 1950s and ’60s, the idea of the United States becoming a banana republic would have seemed absurd to most Americans. Problems and all, the U.S. had a lot going for it: a robust middle-class, an abundance of jobs that paid a living wage, a strong manufacturing base, a heavily unionized work force, and upward mobility for both white-collar workers with college degrees and blue-collar workers who attended trade school. To a large degree, the nation worked well for cardiologists, accountants, attorneys and computer programmers as well as electricians, machinists, plumbers and construction workers.

    In contrast, developing countries that were considered banana republics—the Dominican Republic under the brutal Rafael Trujillo regime, Nicaragua under the Somoza dynasty—lacked upward mobility for most of the population and were plagued by blatant income equality, a corrupt alliance of government and corporate interests, rampant human rights abuses, police corruption and extensive use of torture on political dissidents.
    —–

    But you lot just keep screaming about “Benghazi!” like the idiots you truly are.

  35. Eric wrote:

    How is it that a bunch of hacks in the state legislature are supposed to be better at choosing a Senator than the people as a whole?

    Well, they certainly didn’t prove any worse at it!

    But the Seventeenth Amendment passed because of popular demand, including a demand at the state level, with the number of states nearing the constitutional threshold for calling a new constitutional convention approaching, and so the Seventeenth Amendment was introduced into Congress, and was ratified within a year of passage through the Congress, at a time when almost all state legislatures met for only a limited time every year.

    As for the states, part of the problem with the federal takeover of so many state responsibilities is that the states let them! By letting the Feds pay for more things, state legislators can say, “See, we balanced the budget without raising your taxes!” Further, while something like 43 states have balanced budget requirements in their constitutions, the Feds do not, and the states are, in effect, passing their own deficits onto the federal government.

  36. Eric, interesting you bring up bribery, which was one of the arguments by legislators opposed to the popular election of Senators. They contended it was easier and less expensive to bribe an individual than a legislature.

    Unfortunately, that’s a rather self-serving argument on their part. All it does is give them more power, and more power is the thing any politician wants above all else.

    Seriously, this could be one instance where the Founders simply got it wrong. Which is one reason they made the Constitution amendable. Indeed (and this will sound like blasphemy to many conservatives) sometimes I wonder about the Electoral College. In theory, it’s supposed to give smaller states more influence in elections, but in reality it has, at least in the last several election cycles, meant that presidential elections are decided by a handful of swing states, to the practical effect that theirs are the only votes that count. If you live in Ohio, Florida, Colorado and a few others, candidates come to your state all the time and you are bombarded with campaign ads. But if you live most anywhere else, you might as well not exist. Indeed, if you’re a Republican living in California or a Democrat living in Texas, your vote is essentially meaningless. If you had a popular election, a Republican candidate might find it worth his while to campaign in California since there are still millions of Republican votes to be had there, and every one of them is worth something. In contrast, under the Electoral system, those millions of votes are worthless, since there are millions more who vote Democrat, and thus there’s no reason for a Republican candidate to campaign or run political ads there.

  37. Dana, you’re talking to someone whose economic theories made East Germany and North Korea the economic powerhouses that they are today

    Cite please.

    You can cite yourself.

    You just went on several long winded rants about “Income inequality”. Well, if that’s your primary concern in life, then North Korea should be your version of heaven. Greatly reducing income inequality was about the ONLY thing Communist countries were any good at, operating under the rubric of “Better that everyone be poor than anyone be rich”.

  38. “Your solution based on nothing but your own ideological prejudices (“it is not, and should not be, the function of government to try to regulate the economy or somehow redistribute income”) is for the US government to sit back and let the situation continue, to let the US economy stagnate, to let US society degenerate into something resembling 1980s Argentina, and ultimately to let the US collapse.

    Because otherwise this would involve the government regulating the economu or redistributing income, which will kill little kittens or something.”

    You are trying to make a covert moral argument here from behind a pose of pragmatism.

    But in fact, a temporary anarchy followed by an associative restructuring which preserves liberty and free association for the self-directing and morally competent, is better than perpetuating a suffocating system of government coerced solidarity with neurotic victims of their own autogenic disorders like you, for the sake of pointlessly perpetuating a system designed to reward your autogenic moral dysfunction, to our cost.

    The price of underwriting your obnoxiousness is therefore a loss of political freedom; whereas the reward for doing so is the burden of experiencing more of the same.

    On the other hand imagine two days of anarchy following that old sagging faced harridan Harry Reid’s hanging himself from the Capitol dome in a fit of exasperated pique. Would that not be well worth it socially?

    And certainly even you would admit that there is at least one case of a human being (more or less), i.e., you, to whom we owe absolutely nothing; and regarding whom it would violate no objective moral obligation our part if we blithely allowed you to shrivel and die in a ditch as a result of your own inherent obnoxiousness.

    If you grant that one case as both logically possible on the one hand, and existentially instantiated in your specific case on the other, then we have some grounds for exploring the application of the same principle to other possible cases outside of that of one pathetic New Zealand librarian.

    And, as a side issue, what possible value would there be in devolving toward equality with you or in “imagining” the life of one like you? “Imagine life in a psychic toilet bowl …”

    You are Phoenician, after all, quite familiar to us. We have read your nihilistic maundering for years, your puling references to your overweight and bad health and medication dependency, witnessed your neurotic obsessions … What is left to imagine? That one who proclaims he [as a member of the class of all humans] is a soulless meat machine heading toward an eternal dead end, has a present being-in-the-world worthy of another’s notice and concern? On what basis would that be? Got a syllogism?

    Oh, of course you may threaten to cause life trouble for others if your worthlessness is not cherished and pandered to by them. That we already know to expect. That is why free men have weapons, if it has somehow escaped your notice until now.

    Citizens of a free country are free to step up to the demands of that freedom, or to find more congenial company among those like yourself. If they can find a small out of the way island where testosterone deficient dodos like yourself may simper and squawk and nuzzle unmolested for a greater or lesser time, then they are perfectly free to join you for all I care. You can all sit around in your adult daycare playing with yourselves until some more vigorous breed moves in and takes your toys, land, and life, away from you.

    According to your own stated vision of reality, that loss would ultimately merit little more than a cosmic shrug. According to my vision of reality, your loss would merit even less than that.

  39. DNW, for our friends on the left, income is something that’s just plain deserved rather than something to actually be earned. Because I am a citizen, then I deserve to be fed and housed and clothed and have my medical costs taken care of, even if all that I do is sit on my dead ass.

    And if I don’t earn enough to give me the lifestyle I deserve as a citizen, then someone who works harder and produces more should have more of the fruits of his labor seized to pay for the stuff I want.

  40. Editor
    Thursday, 19 September 2013 at 13:17

    DNW, for our friends on the left, income is something that’s just plain deserved rather than something to actually be earned. Because I am a citizen, then I deserve to be fed and housed and clothed and have my medical costs taken care of, even if all that I do is sit on my dead ass.

    And if I don’t earn enough to give me the lifestyle I deserve as a citizen, then someone who works harder and produces more should have more of the fruits of his labor seized to pay for the stuff I want.

    I think we all agree on what they want from others. But there are [at least] two intellectual problems in grounding what they want: the moral and the logical.

    Since the logical precedes the moral in the intellectual sphere [and yes we know that postmodernism is ultimately anti-rational and anti-deductive in its "justifications"] we can start there with the simple fact that modern liberals/progressives with very few exceptions are all of the flatus vocis school of nominalism. There are for them, no essential or even natural kinds. Therefore, as there is no objective class identity, there can be no deductions drawn from any such membership as there otherwise might be if there were really “human beings” in the sense that the moderate realists of the late middle ages and the natural law theorists of our polity’s founding believed there were. This does not imply that one cannot make predictions or observations regarding how some managerial gambit or coercive act may play out in any given population, however it is drawn up, but it does imply that any implicit appeal to “human values” is nothing more than rhetoric; at “best” a rhetoric of supposed aspiration rather than duty or obligation.

    And if the so-called “aspiration” is shown to be predicted or appealed to on a specious conceptual premise, as it is, then the implied principle as mooted is itself revealed as completely intellectual bankrupt and not even reflective of a possible reality.

    Thus, the left’s “moral” sounding rhetorical appeals to inclusivity and unequal sacrifice of advantage and opportunity in the name of it, are based on implied premises which are logically undercut by their own more foundational views on reality and mind.

    Thus the leftist thing feels a want, knows it wants, but it cannot really say why you should care what it wants, if you have the strength to live well without it, and to crush its intrusive head if it tries to worm its way into your life.

    It’s, the progressive’s, talk of “brotherhood” is pure and cynical cant; designed to provoke sympathy for that which on its own foundational premisses can objectively deserve no sympathy, and mutual feelings for that which on its own assumptions cannot be mutual in any morally binding sense.

    The progressive is a reptile gazing at an unwilling future victim while licking its mandibles of the blood of its last one, and saying ” You are uncooperative and a disgrace to the human race”

    Just look at the face of that bag of moral shit Harry Reid. You can see it.

  41. I must have allowed an auto correct to incorrectly “correct” a typo.

    “is shown to be predicted “, should read

    … “is shown to be predicated ”

    Or I just didn’t strike the “a” key effectively …

  42. FYI, here’s a little background on our Founding Fathers and on some of the circumstances surrounding their accomplishments.

    The Articles of Confederation, ratified in 1781, proved inadequate to govern the 13 States. Many unresolved disputes arose between States, between several States and the central government, and between various individual States and foreign governments. According to George Washington, the chief inadequacy was “no money.” The States declined to fund the central government and there was no mechanism to compel them to share financial burdens. The Continental Congress could print money but by 1786 it was essentially worthless: Not worth a Continental (dollar) was the common expression of universal disdain.

    In response, the Continental Congress, in February 1787, called for member States to send delegates to Philadelphia in mid-May for the purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation, all the original States, except Rhode Island, complied and collectively they appointed 70 experienced and prominent delegates to the Convention. However 15 appointees either declined the assignment, declined to travel to Philadelphia, or were unable to attend for various reasons. (Prominent among the missing delegates were Richard Henry Lee, Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Samuel Adams and, John Hancock.)

    The 55 men who did attend the Philadelphia Convention were an especially distinguished group of American patriots, both native born and immigrants, who represented a broad cross-section of 18th-century elite Americans (Jefferson called them a collection of demigods.) They were well-educated men of means who were dominant in the economic and political life of their respective States, and many were also prominent in national affairs, 80% currently serving or having served in the Continental Congress. Virtually every one of them had taken some part in the Revolt against Great Britain; at least 29 had served in the armed forces during the Revolutionary War, most of them in positions of command, including George Washington, the victorious Commander-in-Chief.

    As a group the delegates had extensive political experience. Two were past presidents of the Continental Congress. Eight of them had signed the Declaration of Independence. Six signed the Articles of Confederation. And two eventually went on to sign all three of the nation’s foundation documents. With almost no exceptions, all 55 delegates had experience in colonial government and in State legislatures. Seven had been governors of their States.

    The major obstacle to agreement on a new Constitution centered around the fear of smaller, less populous, States their influence would be overshadowed by the larger more populous States. Consequently, small States opposed proportional representation plans based on the number of citizens, and insisted on equal representation for all States. Small States argued they were in fact already legal equals and proportional representation would unfairly put them at a disadvantage. Animosity ran so high that Gunning Bedford, Jr. of Delaware notoriously threatened the Convention with secession, “the small States would find some foreign ally of more honor and good faith, who will take them by the hand and do them justice.”

    The Convention was deadlocked on acceptable forms of representation till they eventually reached a compromise formula based on a modified version of the Connecticut Plan offered by delegates Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth: proportional representation for the people in a lower house and equal representation for the States in an upper chamber. (Slaves would count as 3/5ths of a person for purposes of determining proportional representation in the House.)

    “That the proportion of suffrage in the 1st. branch [house] should be according to the respective numbers of free inhabitants; and that in the second branch or Senate, each State should have one vote and no more.”

    Ultimately, the Connecticut Plan was modified to accommodate the more populous States. Benjamin Franklin added the requirement that revenue bills originate in the House, and that Senators, although elected by State legislatures would be free from direct control by State governments.

    Previously, State delegations would vote as a block as instructed by their respective State legislatures. Franklin structured his modification so that the senators would not be required to block vote. This provision disconnected Senators from pressure from state legislatures and made them free agents. Although the Senate would composed of men elected to represent their respective State legislatures, each state was equally represented so Franklin’s plan satisfied the main concerns of the smaller states.

    The Constitution these great men created could never have been ratified by the necessary number of State legislatures (and come to replace the Articles of Confederation) if it had included the provisions contained in the 17th amendment, specifically the popular election of Senators. The Founding Fathers and the State legislatures they represented gathered in Philadelphia to organize the States into a stronger Union than the Articles of Confederation allowed, it wasn’t till the Anti-Federalists objected to the proposed new Constitution on the grounds it lacked specific enumeration of the rights of the people that a series of amendments, the Bill of Rights, was added.

    The delicate task of organizing 13 independent States into a Union required the ratification by a super-majority of those same State legislatures, or at least 2/3rds of them. Is there anyone so naive as to assume any of the original 13 States would have agreed to a new Constitution which replaced their independent sovereign authority with popularly elected Senators unaccountable to their respective legislatures?

    Not then, and not now.

  43. You can cite yourself.

    You just went on several long winded rants about “Income inequality”.

    Yup – citing such concerned people as Alan Greenspan.

    So – you claim “my” “economic theories made East Germany and North Korea the economic powerhouses that they are today“.

    Given that I don’t support Communism, I want a cite.

    Prove it, you lying sack of shit.

  44. The Phoenician angrily wrote:

    Given that I don’t support Communism, I want a cite.

    Prove it, you lying sack of shit.

    Have you ever said, “I am a Communist.” Probably not, at least probably not in public.

    But with the policies you support, policies which subordinate the rights of the individual to what you see as the good of the masses, policies that would take the fruits of the labor of people who produce more to give to those who produce less — or nothing at all — your reasoning is virtually indistinguishable from that of Karl Marx.

    What we have primarily supported here on this site is the freedom of every American to do as he pleases, whether other people like it or not, right up to the point at which he tramples on someone else’s rights . . . and that libertarian idea seems to be anathema to you and to so many on the left. People who are free are free to excel, and free to fail, and both of those things shock your conscience. To you, if someone excels, why the State must take away the excess fruits of his labor, and give them to someone who has failed. To you, if someone has excelled, why he has probably done it on the backs of the less rewarded, while if someone fails, it isn’t because he was stupid or lazy but because someone oppressed him, and that must be addressed, damn it!

    Do you call that Communism? No, you probably don’t, but I see little difference between what you advocate and typical Marxist boilerplate.

  45. When it comes to the Seventeenth Amendment and the direct election of Senators, I don’t really have a problem with it. Many great Senators have managed to win office who never would have were they chosen by the state legislatures, because they were of a different party than that which controlled the legislatures. Virginia started electing Republican senators before the state legislature went to a Republican majority, and that’s hardly the only example. When I lived in Kentucky, we had Republican Senators John Sherman Cooper, Marlow Cook and, later on, Mitch McConnell, all in years in which the legislature was solidly (conservative) Democrat.

  46. Really? Do you not see the rapid expansion of the federal government came at the direct expense of State legislatures? An expansion which was only made possible by the ratification of the 17th amendment’s radical departure from the original Constitutional provision of constraining the federal government by counterbalancing it with the combined influence of the State legislatures.

    Ratification of the 16th and 17th amendments in the first 4 months of 1913 signaled the culminating victory of Progressivism’s ever expanding federal government over the limited federal government envisioned by our Founding Fathers and approved by the original 13 States.

  47. Why do I ge the feeling that the 17th Amendment and these two articles go together:

    Politics
    Sen. Lindsey Graham to seek authorization for U.S. attack on Iran

    Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) (Progressive RINO) is one of the strongest advocates of an American military strike against the Assad regime in Syria. He was unhappy when President Obama decided to seek congressional authorization for an attack, and then unhappy when his fellow lawmakers voiced disapproval of the president’s plan. Graham believes the diplomatic path chosen by the administration will lead to a debacle.

    Given all that, Graham now says he will work with a bipartisan group of senators to craft a resolution authorizing the president to use military force — not against the Syrian regime but against Iran. In an appearance on Fox News’ Huckabee program over the weekend, Graham argued that such a resolution is essential, because American inaction in Syria will encourage Iran to go forward with its nuclear weapon program, eventually leading toward a Mideastconflagration if the U.S. doesn’t intervene.

    Read more here: http://washingtonexaminer.com/sen.-lindsey-graham-to-seek-authorization-for-u.s.-attack-on-iran/article/2536040.

    Defense Cuts Would Impact South Carolina7:02 PM, Feb 20, 2013

    By Mary Orndorff Troyan, Gannett Washington Bureau

    WASHINGTON – South Carolina’s military bases, civilian employees and defense contractors will all feel the impact this year if the Pentagon moves ahead with plans to slash $46 billion from its budget.

    The cuts are part of automatic “sequestration” spending reductions that will slash defense and non-defense spending nationwide by about $85 billion between March 1 and the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30.

    Army officials project an overall $156 million economic hit statewide, with unpaid furloughs, canceled maintenance projects and fewer contracts.

    The Air Force says furloughs could cost 2,275 civilian employees across South Carolina up to $17.7 million in wages.

    And contractors such as Michelin North America are worried the military will buy fewer tires.

    The sequestration cuts, $1.2 trillion over nine years, were designed to be so onerous that Congress and the White House would feel compelled to avoid them by agreeing to a less drastic long-term deficit reduction plan.

    Lawmakers did approve delaying the cuts from January 1 to March 1, but no long-term plan has emerged.

    Pentagon officials recently began detailing specific impacts on bases and states around the country. They say every installation will be affected and national security will be weakened.

    “The wolf is at the door,” Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Carter told Congress last week.

    Military personnel are exempt from the cuts, which increases the burden on civilians, contractors, operations, maintenance and construction.

    The sequestration cuts are expected to trim more than $34 million from wages paid to more than 10,000 civilians employed by the Defense Department in South Carolina, according to documents provided to members of Congress.

    Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Wednesday that employees will get 30 days notice of any furlough.

    “There is no mistaking that the rigid nature of the cuts forced upon this department, and their scale, will result in a serious erosion of readiness across the force,” Panetta said.

    Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-Seneca, has been especially critical of how the cuts will affect military readiness and has suggested alternative cuts.

    “I’m hopeful that once sequestration starts, that the effects on our military in particular will wake us up and we’ll get on with solving this problem,” Graham said Tuesday in Easley. “Cutting $1.2 trillion is very achievable, and you can do it without destroying the Defense Department.”

    The Air Force said it will have to delay $18.8 million of planned maintenance and improvement projects at Charleston Air Force Base and Shaw Air Force Base in Sumter. The largest is a $11.7 million project for runway work in Charleston.

    Read More: http://www.wltx.com/news/national/article/222850/2/Defense-Cuts-Would-Impact-South-Carolina

  48. But with the policies you support, policies which subordinate the rights of the individual to what you see as the good of the masses, policies that would take the fruits of the labor of people who produce more to give to those who produce less — or nothing at all — your reasoning is virtually indistinguishable from that of Karl Marx.

    Bullshit. You are an ignorant putz who thinks nothing of lying about someone’s position to make up for the weakness in your arguments stemming from your foolishness and stupidity. You don’t have a clue what I am actually stating, because you’ve filled your head with cartoonish crap of your own manufacture.

    I point out the simple fact that Thomas Jefferson advocated progressive taxation to lessen inequality – “Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise.” –Thomas Jefferson to J. Madison, 1785.

    You claimed “my” “economic theories made East Germany and North Korea the economic powerhouses that they are today“.

    Prove it. Provide cites showing that I advocate East German or North Korean style Communism.

    You lying sack of shit.

  49. I point out, Eric, you lying sack of shit, that it’s not that difficult to figure out my actual positions.

    But you have no clue, and you just keep spouting crap, because you simply can’t deal with any intelligent argument. You are a fool, and every word you have typed on this blog has been foolishness.

    You claimed “my” “economic theories made East Germany and North Korea the economic powerhouses that they are today“.

    Prove it. Provide cites showing that I advocate East German or North Korean style Communism.

    You lying sack of shit.

  50. The Phoenician gets indignant:

    But with the policies you support, policies which subordinate the rights of the individual to what you see as the good of the masses, policies that would take the fruits of the labor of people who produce more to give to those who produce less — or nothing at all — your reasoning is virtually indistinguishable from that of Karl Marx.

    Bullshit. You are an ignorant putz who thinks nothing of lying about someone’s position to make up for the weakness in your arguments stemming from your foolishness and stupidity. You don’t have a clue what I am actually stating, because you’ve filled your head with cartoonish crap of your own manufacture.

    OK, then, tell me where in my statement I have misstated the positions you have advocated. Please, be specific.

  51. OK, I followed the Phoenician’s link, and reproduce it here, in its entirety:

    Phoenician in a time of Romans said,
    September 28, 2006 at 7:13

    Hey, Gary, how does this grab you?

    I believe that every country has a right to be kept safe from terrorism, whether in the form of fanatics flying jets into buildings or bombs being dropped by armed forces engaging in illegal wars of aggression.

    I believe that a stable democracy is hindered, not helped by US troops in Iraq. I believe that Iraq will have to go through a civil war before getting there, if it ever does, and US presence both delays this war and excaberates the underlying tension. I believe that any stable Iraqi democracy will not be to the US liking, and that US leaders use the term “democracy” when they mean “government sympathetic to us, even if it is a sham.”

    I believe that empirical evidence shows that low taxes are not necessarily required for economic wellbeing, and that in no way should “the economy” be mistaken for the social welfare of the country or the commonweal.

    I believe that the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution forbids any person from being deprived of life without due process. I also believe that in 1776 English common law (and the writers of said Constitution) understood that fetuses prior to “quickening” were not people. I’m willing to give the status of “person” to any fetus who complains in court that their mother is trying to abort them.

    I believe in marriage, the traditional way, with one woman and one man. I also believe in marriage the non-traditional way, one woman and one woman, one man and one man, and (assuming the administrative hassles can be worked out) more than two of any combination of genders. I believe that marriage is a human right and that one religion’s prejudices should not determine human rights in secular law.

    I believe that the interpretation of the First Amendment to allow “speech” to be defined as legalised bribery by corporations is a direct cause of many of the US’s current problems, and the major reason why democracy in the US is held in contempt by truly democractic countries.

    I believe that Americans cannot complain about illegal immigrants until they first ensure that they have kept all the treaties they ever made with the Native Americans.

    I believe that people matter more than money, and that while economic wealth is good for a country, sacrificing people to get there is immoral. I believe the market is a mechanism, not a god, that regulation of commercial activity is necessary to align blind corporate profit-seeking with actual social good, and that the economy exists to serve the society, not the other way round.

    I believe in entreprenial capitalism as the major basis for an economy, with light regulation aimed at ensuring that corporatist forces are aligned with the good of the community, and some judicious socialism in limited areas where supported by a pragmatic argument.

    I believe any country able to communicate with its neighbours and having more than a thousand soldiers already has the tools necessary to “win” the “War on Terror”. I believe in having the best minds and best policy possible to reduce and mitigate terrorism.

    I believe Osama bin Laden can kill Americans. I believe George W Bush has started the process of killing America.

    I believe people who attempt to parse torture off as interrogation are immoral

    I believe people who use the term “socialism” without reference to collective control over the means of production are ignorant.

    I believe people who attempt to justify the existence of the poor without having a working knowledge of the GINI index are puppets to someone else’s ideology.

    I believe that people who state that universal health care doesn’t work in Canada first need to show why the US has louser health statistics.

    I believe that killing or jailing innocent people is bad. I believe that this also applies when said innocent people are brown, Muslim, and captured as part of the “War on Terror”. I’ll even go further and state that those people captured fighting for the Taliban in Afghanistan (the defacto government of the time) or as part of an Iraqi resistence against the US occupation are also innocent, at least to the extent of being prisoners of war rather than criminals.

    We believe in one person, one vote. Diebold or Katherine Harris is not that person.

    We believe that commanders have a responsibility to use their armed forces only in the defense of their nation, in the collective defense, or in the defnese of innocents – not in useless aggressive wars.

    We believe that George Bush chose to fight in Iraq, killing scores of thousands. In the absence of any plan for Iraqi troops to strap water-wings to their arms, swim the Indian and Pacific Oceans and invade California, the Iraq war was a war of aggression by America. We believe that George Bush is therefore a war criminal under the Nuremberg principles.

    We believe that government is justified by the defense of the rights of its people and the promotion of the commonweal. This includes the right of people to go to lunch without expecting to get salmonella.

    We believe that the US was running a budget surplus in 2000. We believe it is not now. We have read David Stockman’s “The Triumph of Politics”.

    We believe that science has more answers than the Bible or any other holy book. We believe this is proven each and every day through medicine, through industry and through technology. We believe there is more empirical evidence for Maxwell’s Laws than Noah’s Ark.

    We believe that schools, libraries, hospitals and parks enhance the commonweal. We believe that, in a democratic system, it is right and good to levy taxes and authorise government to pay for these things.

    We believe that corporations never freed the slaves; a government did. We believe that corporations never willingly protect the right to life; governments do. We believe that corporations never willingly gave us an eight hour day; government legislation did. We believe that the natural state of unchecked, undiluted government is best typified by Stalinist Russia – but that the natural state of unregulated, undiluted capitalism is best typified by a East Asian sweatshop.

    We believe that we don’t have to live in either, and that those claiming we do are dangerous fools, whether they worship Marx or Friedman.

    We can take that as a point of discussion, although I do note the odd switch from the first person singular to first person plural, almost as though at least part of the Phoenician’s statement was copied — without attribution — from another source.

  52. Taking from the Phoenician’s statement on Sadly, No:

    I believe that empirical evidence shows that low taxes are not necessarily required for economic wellbeing, and that in no way should “the economy” be mistaken for the social welfare of the country or the commonweal. . . .

    I believe that people matter more than money, and that while economic wealth is good for a country, sacrificing people to get there is immoral. I believe the market is a mechanism, not a god, that regulation of commercial activity is necessary to align blind corporate profit-seeking with actual social good, and that the economy exists to serve the society, not the other way round. . . .

    I believe in entreprenial capitalism as the major basis for an economy, with light regulation aimed at ensuring that corporatist forces are aligned with the good of the community, and some judicious socialism in limited areas where supported by a pragmatic argument.

    The breaks are necessary, because there were so many paragraphs not related to the economy in between.

    What I see in that is a slight homage given to entrepreneurial capitalism, but filled with all sorts of statements and justifications for inhibiting capitalism. From what the Phoenician has advocated on this poor site, as well as the older one, I have failed to see any position of his in support of capitalist productivity or the rights of the individual to the fruits of his labor, other than complaints that some low-end workers aren’t being paid enough, and a continual advocacy of positions which require the taking of the wealth and income of the most productive people and redistribution of such to the less productive through either government services or outright payments.

  53. Dana writes,

    “We can take that as a point of discussion, although I do note the odd switch from the first person singular to first person plural, almost as though at least part of the Phoenician’s statement was copied — without attribution — from another source.”

    Interesting to be reminded of how (extra) poorly Phoenician in a Time of Romans performs when he doesn’t have a spell check alarm warning him that he’s wandered out of orbit and become lost in the solecism.

    And you don’t need to “fisk” Phoenician’s litany (notice he provides no real argument, as usual) in order to show that he’s incoherent. He provides that service himself. With that incoherent and incompetently performed litany of his in mind then, it seems he ought to become a supplier for Perry Hood when he seeks a a leftist pablum fix, by joining up with those pirouetting dimwits at “AddictingInfo“. Phoenician would fit right in.

    Phoenician in a Time of Roman’s paragraph concerning “entreprenial capitalism” (sic) was a real howler.

    Do you suppose he actually wrote it himself?

  54. The delicate task of organizing 13 independent States into a Union required the ratification by a super-majority of those same State legislatures, or at least 2/3rds of them. Is there anyone so naive as to assume any of the original 13 States would have agreed to a new Constitution which replaced their independent sovereign authority with popularly elected Senators unaccountable to their respective legislatures?

    Not then, and not now.

    Right, but as I said, the Constitution was designed to be amendable. And the 17th Amendment wasn’t just dropped out of the sky from some dictator, but rather approved through several different levels of democracy.

    But the question I keep asking is – Why, in a practical sense, are state legislators better qualified to pick Senators than the people as a whole? Are they better, wiser, more noble, less corruptable?

  55. Really? Do you not see the rapid expansion of the federal government came at the direct expense of State legislatures? An expansion which was only made possible by the ratification of the 17th amendment’s radical departure from the original Constitutional provision of constraining the federal government by counterbalancing it with the combined influence of the State legislatures.

    Right, but that assumes state legislators are less susceptable to corruption than that state’s voters as a whole. All evidence points to the contrary. State legislators, for example, have every incentive to vote for Senators who will bring home the most pork, since doling out pork helps get them votes.

    On the larger issue, the elephantine growth in government began, not as a consequence of the 17th Amendment, but rather the election of one Franklin Roosevelt anf the start of the New Deal.

  56. Given that I don’t support Communism, I want a cite.

    And I want a Gulfstream jet.

    But, as the song says – You can’t always get what you want.

  57. It’s curious that Phoenician in a Time of Romans complains that,

    ” … it’s not that difficult to figure out my actual positions”

    as if: 1, his collectivist views are not already clear enough from what he has recently written on this blog and its predecessor.

    And as if 2, informing ourselves as to “his” supposed real views by searching out and then reading through a snarky and less than coherent profession of faith he deposited on another blog site seven years ago, was somehow a reasonable expectation on his part.

    And, as if 3, having once read through that particular argument-free litany, anyone rational would come to the conclusion that Phoenician in a Time of Romans was anything but the emotion driven collectivist we had already concluded him to be.

    So Phoenician believes this, and Phoenician believes that. And seven years ago Phoenician believed that by responding with a “I wanna play too” line to “Gary’s” clever rejoinders to “Sidhe”, that Phoenician was somehow making up points lost on his side.

    And now, he seemingly expects that his collectivist call for ” judicious socialism” (“I believe people who use the term “socialism” without reference to collective control over the means of production are ignorant”) in some limited areas, where “supported by pragmatic argument” will demonstrate that he is not a social collectivist.

    I don’t know which is more pathetic. The fact that he imagines that that sorry desiderata of his would tell us something that we didn’t already know, or that he treasured it up for all of these years.

  58. I point out, Eric, you lying sack of shit, that it’s not that difficult to figure out my actual positions.

    Sure, Pho. Because I have 24 hours a day to do nothing but troll all over the Internet looking for stuff you posted nearly a decade ago on some obscure site I’ve never heard of.

    But, more to the point, it’s not so much I don’t KNOW what your positions are, but more that I don’t CARE. You have nothing of value to offer any of us.

  59. From the Phoenician’s 2006 statement:

    I believe that the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution forbids any person from being deprived of life without due process. I also believe that in 1776 English common law (and the writers of said Constitution) understood that fetuses prior to “quickening” were not people. I’m willing to give the status of “person” to any fetus who complains in court that their mother is trying to abort them.

    Obviously, those are two different times, given that “quickening,” when the pregnant woman first feels movement from her unborn child, occurs well before the child is able to “complain in court” about anything.

    But, let’s be real here: a one year old child is unable to complain in court, and a two year old child is unable to complain in court. Were the Phoenician’s “logic” carried to its logical conclusion, no human being as yet unable to communicate at a level to complain about his treatment would have any right to not be killed. Under the Phoenician’s “logic,” Helen Keller could have been killed, at any age, because she couldn’t have complained in court, something which would also be true of many handicapped people. Dogs and cats, which cannot complain in court, could legally be skinned alive under the Phoenician’s “logic.”

    This is what happens when liberals try to think; they fail, because actual, logical thought is simply not part of their nature.

  60. The Phoenician wrote:

    I believe in entreprenial capitalism as the major basis for an economy, with light regulation aimed at ensuring that corporatist forces are aligned with the good of the community, and some judicious socialism in limited areas where supported by a pragmatic argument.

    Now, just what does this statement mean? Karl Marx made what he believed to be “pragmatic argument(s)” for socialism, as he defined socialism, which completely eliminated private property. “Judicious socialism” means nothing more than what one person or group of people judge to be a good place to employ socialism, and that judgement will be different for different people.

  61. But, more to the point, it’s not so much I don’t KNOW what your positions are, but more that I don’t CARE.

    You care enough to lie about them, you sack of shit.

    You claimed “my” “economic theories made East Germany and North Korea the economic powerhouses that they are today“.

    Prove it. Provide cites showing that I advocate East German or North Korean style Communism.

    You lying sack of shit.

  62. You care enough to lie about them, you sack of shit.

    I simply drew a conclusion based on your own stated positions. You’re always whining about “Income inequality” and Communist countries like East Germany and North Korea should be your ideal since both of them had FAR lower income inequality than the US.

  63. This is what happens when liberals try to think; they fail, because actual, logical thought is simply not part of their nature.

    “Thinking” isn’t the issue here, nor is “Logic”. Evil is. Pro-abortion is a lot like pro-slavery. A lot of intelligent people defended slavery. They did it because defending slavery was more important than telling the truth.

  64. The New Zealand Neurotic Phoenician in a Time of Romans writes:

    “You claimed “my” “economic theories made East Germany and North Korea the economic powerhouses that they are today“.

    Prove it. Provide …”

    Eric spoke offhandedly as he might be expected to when he is commenting on the ideological principles advanced by a demonstrably neurotic Internet troll.

    Had he taken the bother to formulate at a higher level of abstraction, he would have moved his explanation up one level and said that the materialist and collectivist presuppositions which shape your philosophical and social anthropology, are the same presuppositions, which when reformulated as political axioms and policies, and allowed to progress to their proponents’ satisfaction, have led to the human disasters we have witnessed in North Korea and the Soviet Union and Cambodia, and so forth.

    The foundational principles you use to “justify” the indulgence of your twisted socially coercive and redistributive tastes, are in fact the same ones used by Stalin or Pol Pot and many like-minded others.

    The obvious difference is that you in particular, lacking even a sliver of their power and ability to dictate to others, can only make a nuisance of yourself rather than create population wide catastrophes.

    As Dana and I both pointed out, you have admitted yourself to be a proponent of a so-called “judicious socialism”; “socialism” being that which you have yourself defined as ” … collective control over the means of production …”

    There is no doubt from your other remarks concerning the “role” of the economy (that is to say the productive life expenditures and rewards of individual humans) as existing for the promotion of what you conceive of as a the social good, that you believe that “the economy exists to serve the society”.

    Thus you present “the economy” (whether you believe it or not) not as the summing of the acts of producing individuals, but as a socially owned product. But, since on the materialist’s and socialist’s own principles that product is nothing less than the future venue, the ongoing production, and the accumulated capital of the actual lives of other persons, it is entailed that according to you the operative moral principle in associative ordering, is that people exist by social leave for the utility of other people.

    There is no mystery as to what and who you are. You’ve told us. Why complain when one of your names are used or your works are pointed out?

  65. ” Eric
    Saturday, 21 September 2013 at 12:12

    This is what happens when liberals try to think; they fail, because actual, logical thought is simply not part of their nature.

    “Thinking” isn’t the issue here, nor is “Logic”. Evil is. Pro-abortion is a lot like pro-slavery. A lot of intelligent people defended slavery. They did it because defending slavery was more important than telling the truth.”

    I don’t always completely agree with that line of reasoning but there is something to be said for it.

    For example, slavery was justified, by some, on the basis that the typical slave was, because of state-of-nature developmental limitations, incapable of independent activity or moral judgement. His subjugation thus supposedly served both his interests and the “commonweal”. A social place for everyone, and everyone in his contributing place.

    Of course, one difference is that it was at least formally and by statute unlawful to kill a slave willfully by the time of the Civil War, with the punishment upon a hypothetical conviction being capital. However it’s difficult to imagine such a penalty being actually administered unless X, having a grudge against Y’s favored servant, entered Y’s property and shot the servant down before white witnesses. I’ve not done any research online in order to try and determine whether such a case ever took place.

    As we know there are also laws restricting the ability of persons to lawfully kill foeti, though some like Obama have advocated a virtual abandonment of restrictions. And some are now seriously arguing for what I and no doubt others had once parodically mooted as the left’s inevitable advocacy of the concept of “postpartum abortion”, i.e., infanticide.

    I think they actually call it “post-birth” or “after-birth” abortion.

  66. Eric wrote: On the larger issue, the elephantine growth in government began, not as a consequence of the 17th Amendment, but rather the election of one Franklin Roosevelt anf the start of the New Deal.

    You’ve confused cause with effect. Without the 16th and 17th amendments there would have been no New Deal which first established and then drastically concentrated central government authority in a multitude of new federal agencies all of which both directly and indirectly diminished the rights of State legislatures. The New Deal’s radical concentration of federal authority made a mockery of the 10th amendment, powers which has been specifically reserved for the States and the people now became the exclusive province of Washington DC.

    Only Senators no longer beholden to State legislatures for their continued presence in Congress could have voted to ignore long established State governmental prerogatives and approve New Deal legislation. It amounted to a treacherous stab in the back only made possible by a combination of the 17th amendment and FDR’s willingness to intimidate the US Supreme Court.

    Only the combined interests of State legislatures is sufficient to restrain the obsessive lust of the federal government to expand it’s authority. Our Founders understood that simple truth and sought to institutionalize Constitutional protections to prevent what they knew to be the greatest threat to freedom and liberty. The Popular election of Senators disconnected Congress from the States and eliminated the Founders institutionalized restraint on federal growth.

    The 17th amendment was the poisoned apple that felled the Founder’s carefully crafted Republic, which now *turns and turns in a widening gyre, our best leaders lack conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity. The blood-dimmed tide is loosed upon the land, and everywhere the ceremony of innocence is drowned: A rough beast in the shape of a lion with the head of a man, its gaze blank and pitiless as the sun slouches toward Bethlehem to be born, its hour come round at last.

    *My apologies to WB Yeats.

  67. You’ve confused cause with effect.

    That may be true, but where we differ is: What is the cause and what is the effect?

    Only the combined interests of State legislatures is sufficient to restrain the obsessive lust of the federal government to expand it’s authority.

    That assumes state legislators were willing to vote as principled small government libertarians, both then and now. Where is the evidence for this? I would imagine a great many state politicians LOVED the New Deal and all the pork barrel spending it brought to their states. Even today, as Dana has pointed out many times, state politicians are happy to have the Federal government pay for crap that they ought to be paying for themselves, whether its bike trails or light rail or whatever.

    I think the problem goes FAR deeper than anything affected by the 17th Amendment. It was identified as early as the late 1700′s by a Scotsman whose name I’ve forgotten. His famous quote goes something like this:

    Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters find out they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury.

    Needless to say, Franklin Roosevelt exploited this principle with a vengeance. Get the voters to stop voting the national interest and instead vote their own selfish interests, and pretty soon you have so many people dependent on government that they feel obliged to keep voting for whoever keeps the benefits and the pork flowing. And that’s why government never stops growing. Even Republican politicians feel obligated to vote for programs and projects that put money in their voters’ pockets because, if they don’t, some other politician will. Whether the 17th Amendment exists or not, this process will continue because it is profitable for politicians for it to continue, and it doesn’t matter if those politicians are selected by voters voting their self interest or state representatives voting their self interest. The net result is the same – a nation of people going to Uncle Sam with their hands out going “Gimme! Gimme! Gimme!’

  68. I simply drew a conclusion based on your own stated positions.

    Cite, fuckwit.

    You’re equating concern about income inequality with support for Communism – but as I have shown, even Alan Greenspan expresses these concerns. Which means that you’re so fucked in the head you think Alan Greenspan is also a Communist.

    You claimed “my” “economic theories made East Germany and North Korea the economic powerhouses that they are today“.

    Prove it. Provide cites showing that I advocate East German or North Korean style Communism.

    You lying sack of shit.

  69. DNW wrote:

    “Thinking” isn’t the issue here, nor is “Logic”. Evil is. Pro-abortion is a lot like pro-slavery. A lot of intelligent people defended slavery. They did it because defending slavery was more important than telling the truth.”

    I don’t always completely agree with that line of reasoning but there is something to be said for it.

    For example, slavery was justified, by some, on the basis that the typical slave was, because of state-of-nature developmental limitations, incapable of independent activity or moral judgement. His subjugation thus supposedly served both his interests and the “commonweal”. A social place for everyone, and everyone in his contributing place.

    The most famous example of a contrary point would be Thomas Jefferson. He was opposed to slavery, thinking it harmful to the slave, the owner, and society in general, but opposed manumission as well, believing that such would lead to slave uprisings. He was one of the wealthiest slave owners in Virginia, but his estates were overburdened by his debts, and freeing his own slaves would have meant financial ruin, something he was never far from anyway.

    My guess is that Mr Jefferson would have been happier if slavery had never existed in America, but saw no way of ending it during his time.

    Slavery was justified by all sorts of people for man different reasons, but I don’t see how you can escape the benefit that they received from slavery — even the non-slave owners, who benefited by not having competition from blacks — from their arguments; how can we know that their arguments would not have been different had they lived in Maine?

    Morality aside, slavery was a terrible economic system, one which could not have survived the industrial revolution. My guess is that, had the Confederate States been allowed to secede, slavery would have slowly vanished from them as well, simply due to the terrible economics of slavery. Article 9, § 4 of the Confederate Constitution stated that “No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed,” but that would have limited only the Confederate government itself, and not the individual states. States like South Carolina, where the economy was most dependent upon slavery, and which had very large slave populations, would have been among the last holdouts, while states like Tennessee and Texas, where slavery was not so economically important, would have been among the first where slavery would have vanished.

    Of course, that’s all blind speculation a guess, but I think it’s a good one.

  70. Cite, fuckwit.

    Sorry, chum, you ain’t getting any. As I said above – You doth protest too much, thus confirming that my original point was correct.

  71. slavery was a terrible economic system, one which could not have survived the industrial revolution.

    Except, as of 1860, both the Industrial Revolution (in the North) AND slavery were thriving. Slavery seemed to work just fine for agriculture, especially Southern style agriculture. Indeed, if the perception was that slavery was outmoded and destined to soon fade away, why then did the Southern states risk EVERYTHING on its defense?

  72. Indeed, if the perception was that slavery was outmoded and destined to soon fade away, why then did the Southern states risk EVERYTHING on its defense?

    I wonder — would oil companies, say, risk everything on the defense of its product when something new and better comes along? That’s what humans do when what they know and what makes them comfortable is threatened: They fight for it.

  73. I wonder — would oil companies, say, risk everything on the defense of its product when something new and better comes along? That’s what humans do when what they know and what makes them comfortable is threatened: They fight for it.

    Actually, what corporations – smart corporations – do, is ajust and adapt to new technology.

    Take shipbuilding. For thousands of years, ships were made of wood and relied on sail (and sometimes, oars). Then, in just a few decades, wooden sailing ships became obsolete and all new ships were made of metal and ran on steam.

  74. Sorry, chum, you ain’t getting any.

    That’s what I thought.

    And now everyone knows you’re a lying sack of shit.

  75. Eric wrote:

    Except, as of 1860, both the Industrial Revolution (in the North) AND slavery were thriving. Slavery seemed to work just fine for agriculture, especially Southern style agriculture. Indeed, if the perception was that slavery was outmoded and destined to soon fade away, why then did the Southern states risk EVERYTHING on its defense?

    The South had more grievances than just slavery; the South was particularly concerned about tariffs that hurt them and helped the North.

    However, the Industrial Revolution was simply further advanced in the North. Delaware and Maryland still had slavery, but it wasn’t that big a part of their economies.

    That the Industrial Revolution would have killed slavery doesn’t mean that everybody saw that coming.

  76. Eric wrote:

    I wonder — would oil companies, say, risk everything on the defense of its product when something new and better comes along? That’s what humans do when what they know and what makes them comfortable is threatened: They fight for it.

    Actually, what corporations – smart corporations – do, is ajust and adapt to new technology.

    Take shipbuilding. For thousands of years, ships were made of wood and relied on sail (and sometimes, oars). Then, in just a few decades, wooden sailing ships became obsolete and all new ships were made of metal and ran on steam.

    And sometimes progress isn’t that obvious, and sometimes people with a huge investment and skill in the older technologies feel that they have to fight, or they will be left behind, because they fear that they can’t adapt. Olympus survived and thrives because they got into digital cameras early; Kodak, once the leading photography company in the world, is failing.

  77. Ed:
    Olympus survived and thrives because they got into digital cameras early; Kodak, once the leading photography company in the world, is failing.

    Here’s the underlying reason Kodak has failed: It was the APS cameral and film. In the early 90′s when digital (invented by Kodak BTW) started it’s push, Kodak came up with the APS Camera and film that was the bridge camera between film and digital. (the recording media in the digital camera is based on the Kodak APS film size) But what APS was supposed to do was give you a taste of digital at the time digital cameras were 1MP or less. But film had the resolution of 16MP or better and had digital instructions on how the picture was taken, metadata.

    At the same time, Kodak was wasting a Billion Dollars on this, the camera makers went full bore digital. By the time Kodak dropped APS and went digital, it was too late. They were light years behind the others and never caught up. Now I see NOKIA has a 41MP camera phone and Kodak is settling lawsuits.

  78. Now I see NOKIA has a 41MP camera phone and Kodak is settling lawsuits.

    And now the digital camera seems to be going the way of film, except for professionals. Digital cameras were the hot thing ten years ago, but now most people just use the cameras in their phones.

  79. That the Industrial Revolution would have killed slavery doesn’t mean that everybody saw that coming.

    I’m not sure it would have killed slavery. As long as the South remained agricultural, they probably could have continued to made slavery work. Certainly, in 1860, slavery was showing no signs of fading away AT ALL.

  80. Eric wrote:

    And now the digital camera seems to be going the way of film, except for professionals. Digital cameras were the hot thing ten years ago, but now most people just use the cameras in their phones.

    I use the camera in my phone when I want to send pictures, but Elaine got me a nice Olympus digital for Christmas, and that’s what I use for my posted photos. It takes more detailed pictures.

  81. And it’s interesting to see that Eric isn’t the only lying sack of shit on the right-wing…

    http://digbysblog.blogspot.co.nz/2013/09/evidence-based-governance-versus-faith.html

    —–
    Proponents of austerity, however, were lying about their motives. Strong words, but if you look at their recent reactions it becomes clear that all the claims about expansionary austerity, 90 percent cliffs and all that were just excuses for an agenda of dismantling the welfare state. That in turn helps explain why the intellectual collapse of their supposed arguments has made no difference to their policy position.
    [...]
    To both its credit and detriment, the Left saw the failures of Communism and determined to be above all pragmatic and pratical: where capitalism and free markets can achieve the best outcomes for the greatest number, let them flourish unfettered. Where unbound capitalism creates grossly unjust inequalities, crashes into resource shortages or fails to provide the best outcomes, government of the people must step in. The entire argument between progressives and neoliberals is about where those areas are, and their extent–financial markets, energy and healthcare being prime examples of each, respectively. But the internal battles of the left are reality-based regardless of which side one is on.

    The Right never had such a reckoning. Between the 1930s and 1960s the Right bided its time in fear of competition with other economic systems, but never came to grips with the failures of its own ideology. It remains mired in the theological doctrine of the gods of the market. Free market principles cannot fail; they can only be failed.

    If the free market is clearly ill-equipped to deal with providing healthcare at a national level, it still must be the fault of something else. A scapegoat must be found, even if it’s as silly as tort lawyers, because the economic principle cannot fail. At a pragmatic level, a rightist insisting that the free market provide healthcare is as silly as a leftist insisting that the government nationalize the hairbrush market. A pragmatist knows that different methods work better in different circumstances. As it turns out, progressives tend to be a fairly pragmatic bunch.

    But for the Right, arguments are never based on the empirical evidence, but amassed to justify what they already “know” to be true in their hearts. It’s hard to run a country divided between pragmatics and zealots but there we are.
    —–

  82. But the internal battles of the left are reality-based regardless of which side one is on.

    Snort! These are the clowns who embraced Communism back when it seemed to be “Working”, and only saw problems with it when the TRUE reality based leaders, such as Reagan, Thatcher, and former Pope John Paul II helped bring it crashing down with virtually no help at all (and, often, a lot of hindrance) from the left wingers.

    To paraphrase PJ O’Rourke – These people were reality based, all right. Like Hirohito after Nagasaki.

Comments are closed.