It takes a day like today to put all of that into focus. Cultivate your garden?! I've seen the photos of where she and Meade live. C'mon. Many of us would love to live surrounded by all those expensive toys and have the summer off to order a pile of books for the Kindle and take a few leisurely vacations.I'd said "cultivate your garden" in a comment in that thread. It's a reference to Voltaire's advice in "Candide" — damn, I typo'd "candidate"! — where it's not just advice for the comfortably affluent. Here, you can put it in your Kindle — in English — for $0.00 — absolutely free. You can read the greatest books ever written and never run out of reading material — all free.
The class (and income) issue rarely comes up here. I think it's about time we hashed this out.
As others have pointed out above, Ann's cavalier, gather-ye-rosebuds response is predicated on being financially stable for the rest of her life. She has the good life NOW and will have it till the day she dies (or almost).
Let me repeat, though. I generally enjoy Ann's blog, but today seems like a good time for people to discuss this issue.
And I have the summer off because I choose not to teach during the summer. I choose not to make more money. As for Meade's economic choices, you don't know what they are, and I choose not to invade our privacy by explaining the structure of the economic unit that is our household. But we do, in many ways, choose noncommercial activities over moneymaking things, and we take advantage of the wealth that we have built up in our lives by enjoying our home and the natural beauty of our state and our country. We buy a state park sticker for our car every year and county ski and bike trail passes, and we never run out of incredibly cheap things to do.
If Meade and I were starting our lives together and in our 20s — a topic we've discussed many times — we would put a premium on love and beauty and on maximizing our free time... and our freedom generally. But that isn't where we happened to meet. You may be somewhere else, and if you are, use your brain. Figure out what your values really are and what you should be doing with your life. You are not your job. You are not a slave. Think! Pay attention! Do something with what you have. Don't pester your mind with envy. It's perfectly idiotic to wait for the world to change into a form you like.
That's what Voltaire was talking about when he had his long-suffering character Candide say:
"I know... that we must cultivate our garden."
"You are right," said Pangloss, "for when man was first placed in the Garden of Eden, he was put there ut operaretur eum, that he might cultivate it; which shows that man was not born to be idle."
"Let us work," said Martin, "without disputing; it is the only way to render life tolerable."
The whole little society entered into this laudable design, according to their different abilities. Their little plot of land produced plentiful crops. Cunegonde was, indeed, very ugly, but she became an excellent pastry cook; Paquette worked at embroidery; the old woman looked after the linen. They were all, not excepting Friar Giroflée, of some service or other; for he made a good joiner, and became a very honest man.
Pangloss sometimes said to Candide: "There is a concatenation of events in this best of all possible worlds: for if you had not been kicked out of a magnificent castle for love of Miss Cunegonde: if you had not been put into the Inquisition: if you had not walked over America: if you had not stabbed the Baron: if you had not lost all your sheep from the fine country of El Dorado: you would not be here eating preserved citrons and pistachio-nuts."
"All that is very well," answered Candide, "but let us cultivate our garden."
Posts
563 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 563 of 563"Inga said...
Chickelit, we won the election, how much longer are you conservative men stupidly going to deny what was happening in the state legislatures and the House since 2010.
And conservative women are even dumber if that's possible.
So Chickie fuck off."
Uh, the GOP held the House and did very well nationally at the state level. Why here in WI they took back the Senate and extended their monster majority in the Assembly. Walker had a 54% approval rating on exit polimng.
You should really stick to your normal headline talking points because you are as dumb as a fucking stump.
It really really is social issues ueber Alles for Inga.
Those rich people that Obama and his democrat millionaire buddies are always talking about aren't very smart...or are they???
Furthermore, if you were REALLY smart, why would you be so intent on supporting taxing YOURSELF???
Going Galt is easy. Start by going semi-Galt. That may be all you need to do for a long time.
By a cheap house, cheaper than you have to buy. My house, actually a bungalow, only cost me 1.2 times many annual salary. Most people pay more for a 1 bedroom apartment than I do in payments for a 3 bedroom house with 2.1 acres in the country with a creek in the back. But, it's not a showcase, but I have nearly everything I want.
Buy a used car, preferably a Toyota Camry or other car not made by the UAW, and drive it till it drops. Do routine maintenance to keep it running. My 1998 Camry has 420,000 miles on it and still runs good.
Save, hide or invest you money in ways the government can take the least, now or in the future. Barter, pay cash, get paid in cash, keep it secret. You'll end up rich.
There are all sorts of ways to go Galt. Start going.
Come guys, the American People have spoken. They want us to all get along and completely get behind Barak 2.0
Generalissimo Reid will be unleashing a slew of legislation unlike you've ever seen or read about. An "Adjustment Period" will surely be necessary, and that may as well start tonight. Who is with me?
Michelle Dulak Thomson said...
You were positing some huge divide between the privileged law professor and the plebes far below. In the matter of information it's just not like that.
This is not at all what I wrote. The professors original point was not a contrast between her life and others, but between what others' lives are and what they could be. She used an element of her life as an example, but my point didn't relate to her life at all except in the tangential sense that she's ignoring the costs which in her lifestyle are already sunk but which she is extending into the hypothetical.
Her point was that you can arrange your life a certain was to limit financial needs, that if you're spartan enough money doesn't matter. This is not a small decision such as "can I buy a book today". Rather it is a larger lifestyle choice, and positioning yourself to be able to make those smaller choices costs money.
As to whether any particular item is large enough to be determinitive, who knows. Economists try not to make such distinctions because (a) it's normally not necessary to make the point, (2) in a large enough population anything is enough for some, and (c) it's one example among many and when you aggregate the individual costs the total is often significant.
America has spoken.
Not all Democrats are like Igna, they just dominate the party though with money.
Rich Democrats vs. Poor Democrats
From a Catholic Democrat
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/catholic-democrats-curious-claim-were-the-real-pro-lifers/
"Schneck did concede that the Democratic Party has handled the abortion issue “stupidly” in this election cycle by choosing to “double down” on their support for abortion.
“They haven’t been open at all to the third of their supporters that are pro-life,” he said. “And that’s a big reason why this election is so close.”
--------
No really, many Democrats are 'pro-life', in fact I agree with many social programs at a state level. Just because I'm pro-life doesn't mean I'm dumb or anti-woman.
This afternoon I had to explain to my ten year old about 'the right to choose', I explained to her how the law came to be.
Seriously without profanity, her response was 'WTF'. How could a country this awesome allow something like that to be OK. She's very patriotic, even when the candidate we support loses.
My daughter asked, if was OK to disagree with the law on abortion, because she wants to be a good law-abiding citizen. I said, yes. It is OK, and as pro-lifers and women we not only fight the law we also make sure no pregnant woman is ever abandoned. I even cited some real life examples, of how we helped people. I also mention that abortion is very common, but people do not speak about it. It is very painful to talk about.
Really I didn't want to frighten my daughter, because the realities of abortion are so horrific.
We talked about how this law confused the situation, that men and families can abandon pregnant women, and that the woman is much as a victim in many of these circumstances as the unborn child. My empowerment as a woman, came from those who didn't abandon me. And together we help each other and become stronger and more loving.
I'm a woman, and I thought long and hard about 'women's issues'. This is my conclusion, "Killing those who can not defend themselves doesn't make one happy or make one free or follow any basic tenants that makes us human beings intellectually superior to other primates. In fact it makes us inferior to them."
--------
And for some practical advice, if you wouldn't share your checkbook/credit with a man, then don't share your vagina with him.
The regular commenters here seem to have plenty of leisure...
I liked Scott's comment, and I am like him, except that I see that boxer as an object of lust rather than envy.
I don't comment often here, but I've been reading Althouse since the beginning, following links from Instapundit. I read a lot of war blogs during the Bush years, but this is the only blog I follow today. I like how Althouse doesn't take politics too seriously, while Instapundit has started to believe his own rhetoric.
I read Candide in high school. It was an easy read, even in French, but I always thought it was an unfair hit job on Leibniz. I haven't studied Leibniz's philosophy in detail, but to me, "The best of all possible worlds" doesn't mean optimism in the pollyannish sense. It means that a world without earthquakes, famine, genocide and disappointing elections would be impossible.
"Cultivate your garden" is still good advice, and Pangloss is right that the misfortunes we survive make us who we are.
With regard to the professor's employment, would she be worse off if she worked for a private university? Even Libertarian Party members (here in the Netherlands) told me they don't mind someone working for tax money if it's a productive job that happens to be dominated by the government.
Garage. Come guys, the American People have spoken. They want us to all get along and completely get behind Barak 2.0"
Well about half voted one way and the other half the other. The president won. The half that didnt vote for him is counting on the congress not to let him do whatever he wants. That is the way the cookie crumbles. Call it obstruction or whatver you like but that is how it does and should work.
Since Inga's no longer here to tell me to f off I just want to ask this:
Why are Inga, shiloh, Ritmo, and others so angry? They won didn't they? What more do they want?
wyo sis said...
What more do they want?
Leftism is the paranoia that somewhere someone may be having an unapproved thought.
wyo sis said...
What more do they want?
Not your soul, many are non-theistic and technically do not believe in having a soul.
"many are non-theistic and technically do not believe in having a soul."
Surely there is a secular equivalent. But what?
Wyo Sis. They think they are smarter and thus should be as well off as the richest of us. This is the burr under the saddles they ride on their high horses.
Surely there is a secular equivalent. But what?
"Julia"
"And for some practical advice, if you wouldn't share your checkbook/credit with a man, then don't share your vagina with him."
I always insist on getting the money up front, then if they run out of the room, I'm still good.
I get pretty disgusted reading rants like Jeffrey's. Most people who have disposable income and leisure time to enjoy it have earned their situation in life. True, some were born to it. By choice, I was self-supporting at 19. Through my decisions and errors I have been four times with total liquid assets below $50.
By virtue of my lower-middle working class origins for many generations, parental upbringing, innate self-reliance, formal education through high school, work ethic, etc., I am now, as I am close to exiting middle age, financially comfortable and have the time to enjoy it.
So, Jeffrey, you can accuse me, if you want, of being a dilettante as I comfortably sit at my kitchen table writing this comment on an upscale laptop. I assure you, my core values remain unchanged and can emerge in full force as quickly as the mythological werewolf ferociously appears in the light of the moon.
You want what I and others like me enjoy? Make different decisions, cultivate wisdom, and get to work. Move your energy from writing comments as you have into working harder.
I get pretty disgusted reading rants like Jeffrey's. Most people who have disposable income and leisure time to enjoy it have earned their situation in life. True, some were born to it. By choice, I was self-supporting at 19. Through my decisions and errors I have been four times with total liquid assets below $50.
By virtue of my lower-middle working class origins for many generations, parental upbringing, innate self-reliance, formal education through high school, work ethic, etc., I am now, as I am close to exiting middle age, financially comfortable and have the time to enjoy it.
So, Jeffrey, you can accuse me, if you want, of being a dilettante as I comfortably sit at my kitchen table writing this comment on an upscale laptop. I assure you, my core values remain unchanged and can emerge in full force as quickly as the mythological werewolf ferociously appears in the light of the moon.
You want what I and others like me enjoy? Make different decisions, cultivate wisdom, and get to work. Move your energy from writing comments as you have into working harder.
"I am one of those old fashioned Republicans and have felt unwelcome and lost for years. Mitt Romney was compromised by having to cater to the extremists in the party. We have to find a way to let the descendants of Eisenhower, Rockefellar and other moderates to re-assert control of the party."-- THIS POSTING I FOUND SEEMS MORE SANE THAN MUCH OF WHAT I READ HERE.
@AprilApple: Thanks for that link.
My 14-year old is smarter than those college students.
LTMG's comment was worth repeating!
R/V: What do you think Eisenhower and Rockefellar would think of the student's ideas in April Apple's link?
Seven Machos said...
How about: don't confuse asshole with troll. How about that?
I guess we see it a little differently. I don't think of her quite like Andy, Ritmo, or garage. It seems to me she's repeating talking points because she's afraid someone might engage non-leftist ideas without a Party representative available. She interferes with others' conversations because a lurker might might otherwise be swayed, as if anything written here effects anything anyway.
And then there's the practice of baiting other commenters into arguments with each other. Or when she's proven to be repeating lies she simply disappears, as if it didn't happen if she doesn't admit it. I don't know where you draw the line, but that's enough for me.
@LTMG: I suspect that Jeffrey is actually less envious of Althouse's money and more so regarding the success of her blog. Just a hunch.
Some people have a pretty low level of envy. Althouse goes cycling with her husband and eats an expensive cut of bacon, and that triggers envy? Jeez did you all grow up in an orphanage where you were only allowed raisins in your gruel on Christmas?... I prefer to save my envy for those who deserve it. Tiger Woods plays golf every day, stays in comp luxury suites, and parties with porn stars. Now there's a life worth envying.....I think it's very cool that Althouse and Meade found true romance just before the last exit, but the other stuff doesn't seem wildly beyond the grasp of most people.
Marshal -- Garage is another commenter who is most certainly not a troll. You are essentially saying that people who disagree with you are trolls. But people who disagree with you are, by nature, going to cause you unhappiness when they write things.
Comment threads are cold fora, where the best commentary is therefore hot. (Television commentary has gone bad precisely because people in a hot forum have decided to act hot.) As a Marshal, I would think you would understand this intuitively.
DADvocate said...
Going Galt is easy. Start by going semi-Galt.
Buy a used car, preferably a Toyota Camry or other car not made by the UAW, and drive it till it drops. Do routine maintenance to keep it running. My 1998 Camry has 420,000 miles on it and still runs good.
If this is all it takes I'm almost there, my 2000 Camry is about to hit 200k. Do we judge by miles or years?
Leftism is the paranoia that somewhere someone may be having an unapproved thought.
I like what you did there.
Seven Machos said...
Marshal -- Garage is another commenter who is most certainly not a troll.
That was the asshole list, as distinguished from the troll. And the're not assholes because I disagree with them, but because their purpose is not to discuss but to vent their hate.
"Comment threads are cold fora, where the best commentary is therefore hot"
I dunno. The boundary between "hot" and "unhinged" seems awfully tenuous. One snarky insult, and boom, there goes all rational discussion.
Yes, Romney the Massachusetts Republican who authored the first universal health care in America is a hard core right winger. That's sanity. Do facts and actions mean anything in judging people, or is it just random association? Romney was the most moderate in the field. Maybe the Republicans should have run Hillary to give people a choice.
I suspect that Jeffrey is actually less envious of Althouse's money and more so regarding the success of her blog. Just a hunch.
I would agree with that... but the lack of profanity make it suspect ;)
I have never seen a snarky insult here in these pages, ever. That shit does not happen.
The boundary between "hot" and "unhinged" seems awfully tenuous.
It's a line I ride every day, Paco. You want me on that line. You need me on that line.
Sorry, Marshal. Obviously, it is hard to keep the trolls and the assholes straight.
Romney the Massachusetts Republican who authored the first universal health care in America is a hard core right winger
I was thinking recently that one reason the Obama campaign was successful was that it broke reasons to dislike Romney down into simple, bite-sized thoughtlets.
These thoughtlets didn't have to be true, strictly, they just had to be plausible, at least for the person thinking them. Then the person could hang the big tangled mass of dislike of those icky Republicans/conservatives on that plausible-sounding thoughtlet.
A co-worker told me he couldn't vote for Romney because "he lied too easily". Lying with difficulty would have been ok, I guess. I pointed out that all politicians lie, but nope, Romney = liar. End of story.
And I should point out that in his field, this co-worker is an honest to God genius.
Seven Machos said...
Sorry, Marshal. Obviously, it is hard to keep the trolls and the assholes straight.
It's a subtle distinction. I think the professor would approve of the disciplined nuance.
How is it that the party of drunken sailor spending accuses the other side of inmoderation?
How is it that the party of abortion on demand accuses the other side of mean spiritedness?
How is it that the party of "tolerance" demonises people who disagree with them?
Hint...
They get to set the terms of the debate.
The most important thing to remember, Les, is that you are critiquing Althouse. She is not critiquing you.
Why do you suppose that is? And let's take the easy answer -- that you are a nobody with a trivial life -- off the table...
Paco Wové said...
I was thinking recently that one reason the Obama campaign was successful was that it broke reasons to dislike Romney down into simple, bite-sized thoughtlets.
These thoughtlets didn't have to be true, strictly, they just had to be plausible, at least for the person thinking them. Then the person could hang the big tangled mass of dislike of those icky Republicans/conservatives on that plausible-sounding thoughtlet.
This seems true. The great thing about this tactic is the thoughlets can be contradictory. The left is merely trying to sway the listener, to find the one thing that matters. They're not worried about their own credibility or consistency. Planting that seed of doubt is the only goal.
I had a friend that hit on more girls than everyone else combined. He didn't care that many thought he was a little nutty, and he got laid far more than most of the group.
Yes, Romney the Massachusetts Republican who authored the first universal health care in America is a hard core right winger.
Howard Stern had an interesting interview session, in which he reversed Obamas and McCain's positions. Do you think Obama's pro-life position is helping him, and other inanities. "Oh yeah, Obama's great" was the answer.
It doesn't matter who you elect, so long as there is an (R) to the right of the name, it's anathema to many. We know the press isn't level either.
Perhaps (R)s could infiltrate the (D)s as wolves in sheep clothing. Not a chance! Talk about monopoly power!
Leslyn...
It occurs to me that maybe critics have not read what Althouse wrote there.
I mean I barely could sense in her writing the mildest of defences.
I could be wrong but I dont think Iam.. until convincingly shown otherwise.
I wonder how the people in Greece feel now, after ignoring their problems for years on end so it wouldn't harsh their mellow. Should we continue down their path?
Amid some of the most violent demonstrations in Greece in months, the Parliament approved a sweeping set of austerity measures early Thursday... [Eventually you run out of other people's money.]
The measures, which include sharp cuts to pensions, salaries and social services, as well as tax increases and raising the retirement age to 67 from 65...
In presenting the austerity measures, ...to Parliament, Mr. Samaras acknowledged that the new cuts to pensions and salaries were “unfair,” [As always, the most vulnerable are hardest hit by long-term stupidity masquerading as compassion.] but added that Greece was bound by the terms of its agreement with creditors [China, anyone?].
“A lot of what we’re voting on today are measures we should have taken a long time ago [Duh!],” he said... Future “adjustments,” he said, would come from a crackdown on tax evasion and public sector waste. [Which is what you get when the government aspires to control every dollar in the country.]
[But at least Greek women are taken care of.]
Stella Dimitrakopolou, a 29-year-old graphic designer who donned a surgical mask to ward off tear gas in Wednesday’s demonstration, agreed.
“These measures are inhumane,” she said. “The young generation has no future, and older people have no money and the measures do not help society economically.” [But, hey, I'm sure she has "free" contraceptives, so what more does she need? Forget Kansas, what's the matter with blue states and young people? Destroying your future for a few free goodies tossed out by a pandering and patronizing leadership that won't address real problems hardly seems worth it.]
Read the whole thing:
Greek Parliament Holds, Barely, on More Austerity
I am enjoying this thread very much.
We have to find a way to let the descendants of Eisenhower, Rockefellar and other moderates to re-assert control of the party
We have to find a way to let the descendants of John F. Kennedy and Daniel Patrick Moynihan to re-assert control of the party.
FIFY?
"...in which he reversed Obamas and McCain's positions..."
Yea I saw one this time where they found Obama supporters and then listed a number of Romney's plans for his administration. They were disgusted, said that avoiding those was exactly the reason they were voting for Obama. Then when he told them they were actual Obama actions, and not merely plans the same people still were going to support Obama even though they found his actions terrible and even immoral. A couple of the guys said they were going to have to reconsider, but every woman simply swallowed her disgust and moral objections to say they didn't care - they were still gonna vote for him. Millions of unprincipled, non-thinking voters like that put him back in office yesterday.
It makes you proud.
simple, bite-sized thoughtlets.
Describes the mental capacities of the typical liberal/progressive quite well.
Inhumane?
Ha ha ha.
Stella Dimitrakopolou needs to take a trip to Tanzania or Haiti.
I was thinking recently that one reason the Obama campaign was successful was that it broke reasons to dislike Romney down into simple, bite-sized thoughtlets.
These thoughtlets didn't have to be true, strictly, they just had to be plausible, at least for the person thinking them. Then the person could hang the big tangled mass of dislike of those icky Republicans/conservatives on that plausible-sounding thoughtlet.
Hey, I think that's right.
I had an intelligent person say the "Romney is a liar," thing to me to.
Another, even more intelligent person said, "I'm just voting for Obama because he's intelligent."
"Huh? He is intelligent, but Romney is far more intelligent than he is."
"No way. Romney's just a weird rich guy."
Thoughtlets.
I was thinking recently that one reason the Obama campaign was successful was that it broke reasons to dislike Romney down into simple, bite-sized thoughtlets.
These thoughtlets didn't have to be true, strictly, they just had to be plausible, at least for the person thinking them. Then the person could hang the big tangled mass of dislike of those icky Republicans/conservatives on that plausible-sounding thoughtlet.
Hey, I think that's right.
I had an intelligent person say the "Romney is a liar," thing to me to.
Another, even more intelligent person said, "I'm just voting for Obama because he's intelligent."
"Huh?" I said, "He's intelligent, but Romney is far more intelligent than he is."
"Ha!" She said, "Romney's just a weird rich guy."
Thoughtlets.
What I remember about Candide is that she ran around getting screwed which, in proper rhetoric, should have been shameful; however Candide remained happy and carefree. How, you may ask, could the Republicans not have seen this coming? Did they really think Americans given a chance to aspire to French happiness would not have said 'oui!' Now there are a few laggards, myself among them, who, like the faithful son in the story of the Prodigal Son who are going to bitch and belly ache and be unhappy in the garden. You see we are hostile-dependent. Told not to have abortions, we don't; go to work, and we do. Don't hire immigrants to mow the yard, see Romney, M., and we don't; and when our champion doesn't get his reward and our chances for a little more relaxed garden time are reduced; well, ma cherie, we have now an ambivalent relationship.
"As others have pointed out above, Ann's cavalier, gather-ye-rosebuds response is predicated on being financially stable for the rest of her life."
Horse crap. Your life is what you make of it. I admire Ann for the well thought through life she has lived. I would be willing to bet love and beauty have always been important to her and that she has always found time for them. I think that is why she and Meade are a great match. There are a lot of people with her education and much greater incomes in the legal profession that lead miserable lives devoid of both love and beauty.
Personally I'm not ready to put the election away yet. I want answers!
You want answers?
I think I'm entitled to them.
You want answers?
I want the truth!
You can't handle the truth!
Son, we live in a world that has political parties. And those parties have to be guarded by men with consultants. Who's gonna do it? You Caplight? You, Garage? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Romney and you curse the Rinos. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Romney’s loss, while tragic, probably saved careers. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saved Old Guard asses...You don't want the truth because deep down, in places you don't talk about at Starbuck’s, you want me on that campaign. You need me on that campaign.
We use words like polling, demographics, negative advertising, bullshit...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defeating candidates, obfuscating the truth to the faithful and making obscene amounts of money while making sure nothing really changes. You use those words as a self righteous punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who votes and elects under the blanket of the very corrupt system I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up an iPhone 5 and start tweeting. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to!
Here's another family that should just forget politics and concentrate on their garden:
Today my husband came home and told me that his boss informed him today that a layoff is planned. Small aerospace/manufacturing plant.
We are worried. We were worried before the election that if the direction didn’t change, we’d face an ugly economic future. It may already be coming true for our family.
Unlike Obama, they didn't even get one day as a honeymoon after the election to spend relaxing in their garden. I guess there's no tenure in the aerospace industry, huh? Which confirms what other commenters have said on these threads -- people's circumstances vary and not everyone has the luxury of knowing they'll have a job tomorrow. It's not jealousy, it's realism to point that out.
Well now you know what the people in Detroit in 1974 felt like as it all started to slip away.
"Well now you know what the people in Detroit in 1974 felt like as it all started to slip away."
Yes, for all the people saying things will return "to normal" soon enough -- maybe they will, and maybe they won't. But there's certainly no guarantee. You make enough stupid decisions and "normal" changes to something else. As it has in Detroit.
Ann,
A good response, if you choose to respond at all, to a statement like the one that inspired this thread is, "It is none of your business."
This is right:
"bpm4532 said...
thus begins phase 2 of the left-wing take-over. Identify, locate, and vilify your opponents one-by-one. Grind them into submission.
Straight out of the Alinsky playbook.
11/7/12 1:34 PM"
Hold the line.
"wyo sis said...
Since Inga's no longer here to tell me to f off I just want to ask this:
Why are Inga, shiloh, Ritmo, and others so angry? They won didn't they? What more do they want?
11/7/12 8:10 PM"
It isn't enough for them to win. You have to believe what they believe.
When I was a kid in school I read Orwell's 1984 as a warning to be on guard against totalitarian statism. Inga, shiloh, Ritmo, and others read it as a blueprint.
The last line of 1984:
"But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.
http://www.george-orwell.org/1984/0.html
Jeffery is right.
Also, I see the multimillionaire TV pundits are preaching magnanimous acceptance of the outcome. O'Reilly, for one, Hannity for two. They can well afford to self-servingly rise above the common fray, given their high positions and bloviated incomes.
But we're down here where policy matters. Down where coercive government destroys everything it touches. Not up there with the O'Reilly's enjoying gold-plated lunches.
Lets put the election into context. Democrats will not look at Obama's record, so trying to appeal to them using logic is a lost cause. (I'm sure libs would SA the same about republicans).
But let's not think that this is necessarily a groundswell change to dems any more than Bush's 8 years was a groundswell towards conservatism.
Here's the truth - beating an incumbent is very hard. Its only happened like 10 times. And Obama is the first black president.meven with an abysmal record, his base is not going to give him up.
The upside though is this. His record sucks balls. History will show he oversaw the biggest increase to the national debt ever. Hie continues to oversee record unemployment for 3 years. His stimulus was a failure. His health care plan will officially kick in and it will really hurt. Unless he goes to the center he will continue on this course. The math of the situation will dawn on people as it gets worse. THe dems can't wait till after the election to pass their budgets. Every time they do so they over reach terribly which almost always brings out a reprisal.
Most importantly. He can only serve two terms. Joe Biden will not draw the crowds of an Obama ever. And his successor will have to defend his record and run on it. Meanwhile republicans can run against it. Who is waiting in the wings? there is no real star on the bench.
Yes it will suck for four years, economically, but that is four years of ammo to build up and use next term.
W in 2004 got more votes than Obama did yesterday and McCain in 2008 got more votes than Romney did yesterday. 2004 was an R+5 electorate and yesterday was a D+5 electorate. (2008 was a D+7 electorate).
There are fewer Rs out there or the ones out there aren't voting (or more likely both). Romney won independents yesterday, though W in 2004 and McCain in 2008 lost independents. (McCain in 2008 won more votes than Kerry in 2004). Romney was a pretty good nominee, as was McCain. Looking out to 2016, I dont see anyone who is going to improve the voting totals of McCain/Romney.
Based on what McCullough just said, I think the only reasonable conclusion is that evangelicals and social conservatives sat this one out.
Which sucks.
The Republicans need to get back to understanding that winning a presidential race means coalition building. I include myself. I thought Romney would obviously win because economics trumps everything when the economy is terrible. I was woefully wrong.
Hallelujah! One of them finally admits they were wrong.
It was I that said I thought evangelicals sat it out first here, give credit were credit is due.
Social issues trumped the economy with evangelicals, heh.
7m,
I'm starting to think there are fewer Evangelicals and/or W was the high-water mark of keeping the big tent together.
You could run someone who would get every Evangelical vote in the country but would still lose b/c other Republicans might not vote for them and independents might break for the Dem.
W ran a great campaign in 2004. He got out all the R vote and did well enough with independents. That will be difficult to ever repeat. Repubs need to start getting thebDem coalition to start turning on each other and drive down their vote a bit. Let Obama be their high water mark.
Inga -- I am rehashing a statement I made earlier.
Your position is very sad. You may be right that social issues are vital, but you are wrong that people with conservative social positions are going to capitulate. They won't. And we'll be stuck in a bitter culture war which is almost certain to come out in a way you are not self-satisfied with.
But, anyway, to to be clear: I think it's not so much about social issues as it is about coalitions. There is no majority coalition around my issue, which is: let's have the most materialistically kick-ass economy for every American, ever.
Dems won't turn on each other while there are Tea Partiers and Evangelicals running your Party, lol. Won't happen. We will remain a united front.
Seven, your Party needs to remove it's extremists, learn to work with Dems in Congress and fucking kick Grover. Norquist to the curb.
McCullough -- Evangelicals are out there. The problem is getting them to the polls. Most take the give unto Caesar thing very seriously and it's in their very charters to ignore material politics for the sake of the eternal soul.
If it's true they sat out, it was either the Mormon thing or the economic emphasis thing. Probably both.
Inga -- Your party needs to remove its extremists and kick Nancy Pelosi to the curb. How do you expect to ever take the House or even close to a majority of state houses?
Your analysis is excruciatingly, embarrassingly shallow. It's just sad. I am sorry for you. You should probably swear this place off again and leave in a huff.
I'm sorry for your Party Seven, you're destined to never win another presidency, oh well.
Inga - too bad for you the House originates all spending bills.
Inga, I'm not a R or D. And don't kid yourself. There are plenty of fault lines in the D coalition that a non-Obama won't be able to hold together. Blacks will not be 13 percent of the electorate and will note vote 95 percent D. And the pension and fiscal crisis in blue states like Illinois, New York, and California is ready to blow up. The Dems will have to clean up their own mess and cut the pensions of their union backers. There is no Scott Walker in these states to blame. Dem governors have no choice but to cut and they will take all the blame.
Senate has a nice Democratic majority though, doesn't it?
Your analysis is excruciatingly, embarrassingly shallow. It's just sad. I am sorry for you. You should probably swear this place off again and leave in a huff.
You should have seen her embarrassing performance last night: drunk, getting a damp, sticky vag over Obama and telling people to stop writing comments while the president was speaking.
It takes a lot of... something... to show one's face so soon after that.
No, I only told one person's to STFU, because she kept blabbering at me during his speech. Plus she was annoying me in other ways too, as you often do my little chubby chocolate buddy.
Palladian, you were far drunker than me and flirting with Ritmo, LMAO. I bet you had an orgasm when he sent you love.
I only had two chocolate martinis.
Thanks for that, Palladian. We are obviously dealing with an artless, unsophisticated dolt here.
because she kept blabbering at me during his speech
Hilarious. Uproarious. You prove Palladian's point and so much more. But I wouldn't expect someone your intellectual level to be able to multitask, Inga, or to be able to close a webpage when someone on the Internet is writing something that might be disagreeable to you.
Whatever Seven, go suck Palladian's dick, I'm sure you're familiar with it.. How's that? Night, going to dream of my sexy President, mmmm, mmmm, mmmm.
Also, McCullough is right. Democrats have a shit storm brewing in their own failed blue states.
On a larger, more theoretical level (Inga you should definitely skip this part): I used to oppose socialism and crony capitalism on moral grounds. I no longer do, because it's unnecessarily difficult. The fact is that socialism and crony capitalism do not work. They fail always and everywhere, even though people of good will long for them to work.
Whatever it takes Inga has it.
Earlier in this thread, I was defending Inga as an asshole, not a troll. I take it back. She comes here, gets herself worked up in a righteous tizzy, insults everyone, huffs out and swears never to return. Rinse. Repeat.
Very strange. I think Inga is very likely mentally unbalanced.
Whatever it takes Inga has it.
"it" being a venereal disease.
Bullshit I never once said I was leaving and wouldn't return, are you snorting cocaine again?
No that was too mean, even though Seven deserves it.
AND my dear blue masked man, I'm having fun.
Me and Palladian are doing cocaine, and giving each other reach-arounds. Sure. You got us.
I thought you were leaving in a huff. What happened?
Troll.
Nope I'm never leaving.
Inga -- The problem is that you drive good and valuable commentary away with your drivel. McCullough had something meaningful to say, as did I. But you interject immature sophistry and it grinds to a halt.
That is the very definition of a troll. You are a troll.
Palladian, I'd be careful doing old Seven, you never know where his dick has been. Danger Will Robinson!
Well, I do apologiize to mccullogh who seems a decent sort, unlike you.
I'll not address you if you don't address me.
I'll not address you if you don't address me.
Irony.
Shhhh, let mccullogh speak.
I think I sort of "get" Inga. She's a little lonely, she likes to engage people, being provocative accomplishes that. Like a sister that enrages you so much you want to scream, but somehow you know that she needs this. Meade said it on a different thread. She wants to connect.
I read a lot of pop psychology stuff. Does it show?
Ah, I read the thread, Meade was referring to liberals in general, not me specifically.
Nite!
Yes he did.
I didn't say he said it about you. I just like the idea that that could be part of why you come here. Human connections are good things, right?
I comment here to make connections. Meade just helped me see things from a different perspective re you and other commenters here.
Well, yes Sis, human connections are good, but I don't know about the humans here at times, very vicious, of course I reciprocate.
As for psychoanalyzing me, it's fun but don't get carried away, it's impossible to really know someone online?
Now I must get to bed, babysitting in the morning for my three year old granddaughter.
She provides a service er supply and demand as the blog hits just keep on comin'. Indeed, she's a con pied piper, much like her hero, Limbaugh. Bottom line, peeps who have a problem w/her, her lifestyle don't have to read. http://www.sg-job.com/
I think maybe I'm getting a little closer to figuring it out.
It's kind of like trying to annex the Sudetenland except it's done on the internet and it's impossible.
I think maybe it's something along those lines.
I'll keep working at it.
roesch/voltaire said...
"I am one of those old fashioned Republicans and have felt unwelcome and lost for years. Mitt Romney was compromised by having to cater to the extremists in the party. We have to find a way to let the descendants of Eisenhower, Rockefellar and other moderates to re-assert control of the party."-- THIS POSTING I FOUND SEEMS MORE SANE THAN MUCH OF WHAT I READ HERE.
Of course you like it, It's democrat-lite.
Now, if it's possible I've become even more conservative, less classical liberal.
Original intent, baby!
A commenter yesterday said:
You all do know that you are all paying a portion of the professor's salary? You do know that a portion of her paycheck comes from being forcibly taken out of your paycheck, that you all have to work a little more each day so that she can have the luxury of smelling the roses?
I have not read ALL the comments so perhaps someone corrected this misconception. Law students pay tuition at the University of Wisconsin and in return they attend classes taught by the accomplished Professor Althouse.
Her salary is not forcibly taken from your paycheck. It is derived from tuition paid--in fact humongous law school tuitions fund far more than law school professor salaries today.
Althouse has worked for everything she has. She earned that pension.
Inga -- The problem is that you drive good and valuable commentary away with your drivel.
Yup.
The people claiming that Althouse enjoys some kind of special privilege make me want to vomit. If you are an able-bodied person living in the USA, you have no one to blame for your failure but yourself. Even in its current weakened state, our country serves up an almost endless buffet of opportunity for self-improvement.
If you are unhappy with your standard of living, work more, invest in improved job skills, invest, and make sure that you are properly insured. If you were to put in 10 to 15 years of hard work and saving, everything that Althouse has can be yours.
"The country was stupid enough to vote Zero back in because they want free shit."
No, the country voted Obama back in office because they feared, with reason, Romney would take more away from the little they already get for their tax dollars.
Their mistake is in thinking Obama will be any better. He continues the aggressive wars abroad that are bleeding our tax dollars away from us, and he has spoken of "austerity" and "tightening our belts," meaning, he, too, has his eye on slashing Medicare and Social Security...just so the Wall Street swine can get their greedy snouts into that trough of freed-up money.
The American citizens are not asking for "free stuff," they're expecting to get something back for their tax dollars. We pay for government and we should see returns on our tax expenditures, not see it go to bail out thieving bankers and financiers or to continue funding mass murder abroad or the expansion of the American surveillance and police state.
"What I remember about Candide is that she ran around getting screwed which, in proper rhetoric, should have been shameful; however Candide remained happy and carefree."
Candide was a HE. Perhaps you're thinking of Terry Southern's modern take on it, CANDY.
Also, Candide's perpetual, oblivious optimism in the face of his ongoing trials is not meant to be seen as a virtue in the character, but as a fault. The whole novel is a critique of the head-in-the-sand denial of reality and baseless optimism by people who endure terrible tragedies and wrongs done to them. Such passivity and denial of reality prohibits the actors from taking action to correct or improve the dire circumstances facing them.
Dr. Pangloss is not meant as an exemplar of wisdom but of the foolishness of abstract philosophizing even when disaster doesn't just threaten but has stricken...again and again.
"Yes, Romney the Massachusetts Republican who authored the first universal health care in America...."
Romneycare is NOT "universal health care," or anything like it. It is a scheme whereby uninsured citizens are required by law to buy private insurance. The rationale for it--as for its copy on the Federal level, "Obamacare," (or, as I call it to give credit to its progenitor, "Obamneycare")--is that more people in the pool of insured means costs of fulfilling policies are spread out among more people, keeping premiums down overall. This scheme always ignores the profit motive by the private insurers, whereby no amount of profit is ever enough, and thus there is an ever-insistent drive to cut costs, to pay less for fewer treatments in order to keep the profits expanding.)
The problem is that most people without insurance don't have it because they can't afford it, or because they have been denied it due to "pre-existing conditions." (We ALL have a "pre-existing condition;" it's call life.)
Those who cannot afford to buy insurance even under compulsion by law are--I believe this is so of Romneycare, and it true of Obamneycare--provided vouchers or some sort of assistance to buy insurance. However, one can be sure whatever minimal assistance is provided suffices to buy only low-quality policies that provide minimal coverage, such that the insured will still find that in many instances and for many medical treatments, their coverage...won't cover.
(This is true today of people who already pay exorbitant amounts each month for their insurance premiums and for their deductibles.)
Bob. Can I call you Comrade Bob?
I hope you don't teach economics.
20 trillion in debt, comrade Bob. Share with us, please, how are we going to pay that down. Not me specifically, because I'm an old comrade and not much use to the state anymore, but how are YOU, comrade, and your friends going to fleece my children and grandchildren to pay for this profligacy?
"20 trillion in debt, comrade Bob. Share with us, please, how are we going to pay that down."
Bringing well-paying jobs back to America, thereby shoring up our tax revenues, will help, as will requiring a more fair (i.e., heftier), tax requirement of the wealthy and of corporations that do business here. (I don't call them "American corporations," as few, if any, of the corporations that were founded here and are still purportedly "American" corporations see themselves as such. They are now "international.")
It will also help to remove all our troops from abroad, shuttering most, if not all, of our military bases, and slashing the War budget drastically, (i.e., well over 50%, even as high as 75%).
I do not expect any of the above to happen.
The Althouse Comment Universe
Governor Walker effectively cuts the salaries of all state workers in WI:
"Fuck 'em - they're lazy, entitled union thugs. Let 'em get a real job!"
President Obama gets re-elected:
"Life is really hard. Why can't I find a job? This isn't fair! People are suffering. Stop taunting us with your iPad, Althouse! I don't like the way your posts make me feel!"
You want a job, go take one of the ones that seemed to be growing on trees when you darlings were vilifying people who work for the state.
Robert Cook said...
Bringing well-paying jobs back to America, thereby shoring up our tax revenues, will help, as will requiring a more fair (i.e., heftier), tax requirement of the wealthy and of corporations that do business here. (I don't call them "American corporations," as few, if any, of the corporations that were founded here and are still purportedly "American" corporations see themselves as such. They are now "international.")
How are you going to bring them back.?
Martha@6:20am/
You DO know, don't you, that at one time one did not have to attend law school to practice law, all one had to do was "read law," taking the bar, passing and then begin one's practice. If it was good enough for Lincoln and Gov/Senator Huey P. Long
(two notables that come to mind) why is this not the case today? ANS: The law has become unionized. To practice now one must get one's union-card in the form of a law degree from an "accredited" law school. Thus law-school tuition is nothing more than the functional equivalent of union-dues and law school professors like Ann nothing more than the equivalent of union bosses living large off the sweat of dues-paying workers.
You DO understand that, Martha, right?
PS to Martha:
There are law schools in this nation whose grads have over a 50% failure rate on the bar exam, leading to the question: What's the point? What's the justification for their existence?
Part of what is wrong here is that we are complaining that Romney lost because people want to take stuff from us. What do the illegal immigrants want? Mostly an opportunity to work for crumbs on the table in their ancestral homeland that we took over. What do 'women' want? Mostly a right not to carry a baby to term because of a Church they don't have a relationship with, a Church that lived through the murder of millions in Europe without too much of an 'excuse me'. And yes, eventually we will go bankrupt but what is the difference exactly in the bonds issued under Bush and under Obama? Deficits matter when?
Martha's error was asserting that tuition pays for the law school. Tuition is a revenue source, but the school receives funding from the state too. People pointing out that Wisconsin citizens pay part of her salary are referring to paying state taxes then funnelled to the school.
And yes, eventually we will go bankrupt but what is the difference exactly in the bonds issued under Bush and under Obama? Deficits matter when?
This is why you never compromise on spending. Those you compromise with react by (1) increasing their spending demands further, and (2) blaming you for the result.
I think we've finally cracked Cook's code.
He's of all things ... an isolationist!
We'll get rid of Pelvis if you get rid of Boehner.
You can say a lot of things about Boehner, but he's never said anything as monumentally stupid and politically tone-deaf (not that it matters in SF) as "we have to pass it to find out what's in it."
Maybe we'll get Cook to describe his Government Fairy Wand on another thread.
"How are you going to bring (well-paying jobs) back?"
That's the question, isn't it? How will Obama do it? How would Romney have done it? They both promise to somehow "create" jobs, but...how are they going to do it?
Unless there are positive and negative inducements to the corporations to bring jobs back to America...it is not going to happen.
Which means we will continue with high and higher unemployment or underemployment, and with employment at poorer wages and few or no benefits. Which means no matter what your candidate said--no matter which one that was--the jobs situation is not amenable to magic solution by the President. Perhaps canceling the various "free trade" agreements (NAFTA and their like) we have agreed to over the past decade and half would help, or other regulatory inducements, or imposition of tariffs and/or tax penalties & benefits to those companies who do/don't bring jobs inside our borders can help.
Certainly, the mis-named and nonexistent "free market" won't do it. That will just result in the jobs staying abroad until such time as Americans are willing to work for wages less than what workers abroad are paid. Which means...low-paying jobs!
The I.W.W. had their theory right decades ago...they realized that in order for labor unions to have real influence over fair treatment and fair pay for workers, the whole world would have to be unionized, as capital, even then, could relocate more easily than could labor. Of course, correct theory notwithstanding, the idea of a global union was a pipe-dream.
Vergil Xenophon and Marshal:
So now we are against public universities?
first they came for the intellectuals.......
"The law has become unionized. To practice now one must get one's union-card in the form of a law degree from an "accredited" law school. Thus law-school tuition is nothing more than the functional equivalent of union-dues and law school professors like Ann nothing more than the equivalent of union bosses living large off the sweat of dues-paying workers."
One might also say that the law has become so complex that in order to insure clients seeking legal representation can trust in their attorney's knowledge of current law and competence to apply that knowledge in practice that a law school degree is a sensible minimum certification.
Why removing the profit motive from delivery of health care is necessary
Martha said...
Vergil Xenophon and Marshal:
So now we are against public universities?
I'm for being honest. Sorry you think that puts you on the other side from me.
Marsha is obviously not allergic to straw, else why her affinity for straw-men? Get real, Marsha, and address the point.
Marsha is also obviously a busy-body nanny-type totalitarian. She insists she knows how better to spell my nome de plume than do I.
Cook,
Perhaps canceling the various "free trade" agreements (NAFTA and their like) we have agreed to over the past decade and half would help, or other regulatory inducements, or imposition of tariffs and/or tax penalties & benefits to those companies who do/don't bring jobs inside our borders can help.
Great idea! Let's call it the Smoot Hawley act in honor of the last time we tried that. It turned a financial bubble burst into the Great Depression, but I'm sure our government bureaucrats, I mean our Heroes to the People, have some great ideas about how to not let the crisis go to waste. Maybe it wasn't so bad since income inequality was so much less and that seems to be the left's primary economic concern.
Certainly, the mis-named and nonexistent "free market" won't do it. That will just result in the jobs staying abroad until such time as Americans are willing to work for wages less than what workers abroad are paid. Which means...low-paying jobs!
It's true that drone manufacturing jobs are gone. Although the return is not when Americans agree to third world wages, but rather until third world countries become sufficiently wealthy their wages increase. But if you weren't such a morose one trick pony you'd see see those jobs are being replaced by others. There are more jobs handling the increased trade, more jobs coordinating activities than there ever have been before. All our companies exporting services need more workers as they increase production, in part because people previously too poor to afford anything now have more income. Businesses in other parts of the world need representatives here to manage their products.
Free markets work, unfortunately they take time and the transition is painful. But there is no other choice that offers less pain or a brighter future. Another Great Depression is not the answer.
Marshall,
It's rather disingenuous of you to suggest Smoot Hawley was the cause of the great depression, when it was only a contributing cause, and was instituted after the financial crisis was already underway, to try to forestall continuation of the failures of American companies that were a result of that already ongoing crisis. In other words, it was medicine that made the illness worse, rather than causing the illness to begin with.
It also had to do with placing high taxes on import of goods.
My suggestion has to do with the government providing positive and negative inducements to purportedly "American" companies to bring jobs back to our shores.
Is this possible? Could it work? I don't know. Doing nothing--our present strategy--certainly won't bring back robust American employment.
Cook - your thinking is outdated in 2012. We live in a post-industrial economy.
Uh, the GOP held the House and did very well nationally at the state level. Why here in WI they took back the Senate and extended their monster majority in the Assembly. Walker had a 54% approval rating on exit polling.
You should really stick to your normal headline talking points because you are as dumb as a fucking stump.
So ticket splitting or gerrymandering?
"Cook - your thinking is outdated in 2012. We live in a post-industrial economy."
Only because industry has left our shores.
Accepting that we live in a post-industrial economy is to accept that we live in a post-jobs economy.
Cook,
It's disingenious of you to say I wrote the SHA caused the great depression without incorporating the rest. I explicitly wrote it turned the financial bubble burst into the great depression, so my explanation clearly lays the trigger of events with the financial crisis. Whining about the difference is semantics, my point is both clear and correct.
My suggestion has to do with the government providing positive and negative inducements to purportedly "American" companies to bring jobs back to our shores.
Which of course you cannot do, and it's obvious you know that because you're trying to move from specifics to the abstract to hide the simple fact that there are no policy options which can produce the effect you wish to see. So we're still at the same place: you say we need another Great Depression to save us. Thanks for the offer, but we'll pass.
Robert Cook said...
"20 trillion in debt, comrade Bob. Share with us, please, how are we going to pay that down."
Bringing well-paying jobs back to America, thereby shoring up our tax revenues, will help, as will requiring a more fair (i.e., heftier), tax requirement of the wealthy and of corporations that do business here. (I don't call them "American corporations," as few, if any, of the corporations that were founded here and are still purportedly "American" corporations see themselves as such. They are now "international.")
Brilliant!! Comrade Bob! A Brilliant solution!! The cadres are excited about this new policy!!
But tell me Comrade Bob. How are these high paying jobs going to be joyously flowing into our beloved country when we penalize them with higher taxes? Why should capitalist running dog corporations settle here if they are subject to the same high taxes, comrade Bob?
It will also help to remove all our troops from abroad, shuttering most, if not all, of our military bases, and slashing the War budget drastically, (i.e., well over 50%, even as high as 75%).
Again, comrade Bob. Brilliant!! I see a Workers reward in your future for sure! We nullify all our treaties with our so called friends overseas and let them fend for themselves. Yes! Brilliant!
Reduce our military by 50-75%! Again comrade Bob your insights bring shame to the rest of us. Why hadn't we seen this before? Surely there is some wrecker in our midst who knew this and did not share it! The cadres shall root them out and eliminate them!
Perhaps with the enormous savings to the Fatherland we could pay down our national debt and pay some other country to patrol our shores?
Russia perhaps? After all they are already doing it for free!
I do not expect any of the above to happen.
No, Comrade Bob, it won't. The marketplace will take care of the first thing and our constitution will take care of the other.Your childlike faith in the progressive way is, to be frank, frightening and more than a little sad.
I hope tour chosen career doesn't involve peoples health in any way. I'm mostly frightened for them.
Cook doesn't want to accept that we live in an global industrial economy where any job can be anywhere. There is nothing sacred about an American, Chinese or Indian job. If you aren't willing to compete globally, then you die.
Virgil Xenophon said at 10:01 am:
Marsha is also obviously a busy-body nanny-type totalitarian. She insists she knows how better to spell my nome de plume than do I.
Ah Virgil, you too must be a busy-body nanny-type totalitarian..... OR just prone to typos.
My name is MaRtha not MarSha.
"We nullify all our treaties with our so called friends overseas and let them fend for themselves."
Our treaties with our "friends" are rather more in the nature of protection rackets. We're there really to impose our military presence around the world for out own geopolitical advantage, rather than to "protect" our "friends."
"Perhaps with the enormous savings to the Fatherland we could pay down our national debt and pay some other country to patrol our shores?"
I don't like the term fatherland, just as I don't like the too-similar name "homeland" that Mr. Bush put into play.
That said, why would we need to worry about paying some other country to patrol our shores? I didn't say we should entirely eliminate our military, only that we should drastically slash our expenditures. We could certainly keep enough of a force sufficient to patrol our shores.
We're not in danger of invasion by foreign armies, and responding with military forces to terrorist acts--few and far between as they are and have been--is rather like the proverbial swatting a fly with a bazooka.
Again, we don't employ and fund out giant war machine in defense of ourselves, but to impose our military might on the world, (as well as to provide a ready made money pump of tax dollars to the munitions manufacturers and other companies that service the war machine...it's a built in graft machine). We're like the bully who, as he assaults a hapless victim, keeps saying, "Stop making me hit you!" Or, like the police who pile en masse atop a suspect and, as they punch and stomp the outnumbered and helpless perp, keep yelling "Stop resisting! Stop resisting!" This is really just theater for for any live witnesses or recording devices that might spy their assaults.
"Cook doesn't want to accept that we live in an global industrial economy where any job can be anywhere. There is nothing sacred about an American, Chinese or Indian job."
Oh, I accept it...I have no choice. But, any job doesn't have to be anywhere. That it is this way now doesn't mean it's the natural order of things outside our capacity to influence.
It's interesting that many here who castigate Obama as uniquely responsible for our high unemployment are also quick to assert that there is nothing that government can or should do to bring those jobs back, or that the "free market" (as mythical as God) will somehow bring about this miracle of job regeneration.
Someone earlier snarked about my alleged belief in a "magic government wand," but this continued faith in the "free market," (sic) (which has wrought the loss of our jobs to other lands) to reseed our land with jobs is far more in the way of magical thinking than my recognition that government can do things to bring about financial and employment regrowth.
That said, why would we need to worry about paying some other country to patrol our shores? I didn't say we should entirely eliminate our military, only that we should drastically slash our expenditures. We could certainly keep enough of a force sufficient to patrol our shores.
But comrade Bob! What if the cost of our self protection costs more than the 50 or 75 % you want to reduce!! What if by some progressive miracle a device could be built that will completely make our dear Motherland free from harm by any quarter-sea land or air. Would it be worth many trillions more than we are already spending to protect ourselves? Even at the cost of-dare I say it- of our sacred social programs?
The cadres await your most progressive answer.
Robert Cook said...
It's interesting that many here who castigate Obama as uniquely responsible for our high unemploymentAfter four years, yes he is are also quick to assert that there is nothing that government can or should do to bring those jobs back, That conversation is in your head. There is a lot the government can do via regulation and taxes than can accelerate job growth or that the "free market" (as mythical as God) will somehow bring about this miracle of job regeneration. They have everywhere they are tried. Why should here be any different
Someone earlier snarked about my alleged belief in a "magic government wand," but this continued faith in the "free market," (sic) (which has wrought the loss of our jobs to other lands), No it hasn't, but you just keep telling yourself it has. to reseed our land with jobs is far more in the way of magical thinking than my recognition that government can do things to bring about financial and employment regrowth. No it's not. It has been proven time and time again
Comrade Bob. You're not blind. You just refuse to look.
I keep trying to teach you, but you are stuck. Some peyote may be in order here. You need A Rusty way to knowledge.
"What if the cost of our self protection costs more than the 50 or 75 % you want to reduce!!"
Why would it? We haven't fought a necessary war, or a war of even arguable "defense," since WW II.
With our stores of nukes, who is going to attack us?
At present, our War budget is as large as all the other nations in the world combined. If we slashed our War budget 50% to 75%, we would still be on par with or have a larger War budget than most other countries in the world...assuming we even need to be.
Note, I am playing as if you are arguing in good faith, which you are not. You pretend we need our current budget to keep us "safe" while ignoring the great deal of military spending that is either sheer waste or pure graft.
I guess Cook never heard of "asymmetrical warfare". How does having a stockpile of nukes help when Islamists are blowing up trains, buses and planes?
"How does having a stockpile of nukes help when Islamists are blowing up trains, buses and planes?"
Oh, please.
Where is all this ongoing domestic carnage resulting from terrorist acts?
Where is all this ongoing domestic carnage resulting from terrorist acts?
Do you love to tempt fate?
"Do you love to tempt fate?"
I don't think there is such a thing as "tempting fate."
There are risks both likely and unlikely, serious and not. One applies one's resources to possible threats in proportion to their likelihood and gravity.
It is unwarranted to maintain the largest military budget in the world by orders of magnitude in case a small band of unaffiliated stateless thugs with boxcutters might carry off a bombing somewhere or other.
Our response to 9/11--to this day--has been as grossly and murderously disproportionate, and as ineffective in its purported goal--insuring we are safe from the potential for future terrorist acts--as would be dropping a neutron bomb on Los Angeles in order to end its gang problem.
Disciplined and intelligent police work is the more appropriate application of resources to each problem.
Robert Cook said...
"What if the cost of our self protection costs more than the 50 or 75 % you want to reduce!!"
Why would it? We haven't fought a necessary war, or a war of even arguable "defense," since WW II.
You haven't answered the question;
What if by some technological feat we could protect our country, all of it, but the cost would be trillions more than we are spending now risking even our social programs to do so, would you do that?
With our stores of nukes, who is going to attack us?
At present, our War budget is as large as all the other nations in the world combined. If we slashed our War budget 50% to 75%, we would still be on par with or have a larger War budget than most other countries in the world...assuming we even need to be.
That's not the question I'm asking Bob. Once again. If we could protect our country from all attacks from the air ,land and sea, but it would cost many more times what we are paying now even at the risk of our social programs would that be permissible
Note, I am playing as if you are arguing in good faith, which you are not. You are wrong You pretend we need our current budget to keep us "safe" while ignoring the great deal of military spending that is either sheer waste or pure graft. I'm not ignoring anything, Bob. You're refusing to answer the question.
Your the one arguing in bad faith.
Cook - tell us how big the defense budget should be. How many aircraft carriers, cruisers, destroyers, fighter jets, tanks and Marines should we have.
"What if by some technological feat we could protect our country, all of it, but the cost would be trillions more than we are spending now risking even our social programs to do so, would you do that?"
No.
As I said: one applies one's resources proportionate to the threats in order of their probability and gravity.
We face more likely harm from a lack of resources for our populace than from attacks by other nations.
"Cook - tell us how big the defense budget should be. How many aircraft carriers, cruisers, destroyers, fighter jets, tanks and Marines should we have."
Alex, don't be sophomoric.
The world looks like a very different place if you can't get fired from a job that pays some multiple of the median family income in your community.
Robert Cook said...
"What if by some technological feat we could protect our country, all of it, but the cost would be trillions more than we are spending now risking even our social programs to do so, would you do that?"
No.
As I said: one applies one's resources proportionate to the threats in order of their probability and gravity.
But you never know where the threats is going to come from. You've cut your ability to find and deal with threats by 50 to 75%
(We face more likely harm from a lack of resources for our populace than from attacks by other nations.)
A gratuitous assertion that can be equally gratuitously denied.No we don't.
You would rather be defenseless than lose your social safety net.
Robert Cook said...
"Cook - tell us how big the defense budget should be. How many aircraft carriers, cruisers, destroyers, fighter jets, tanks and Marines should we have."
Alex, don't be sophomoric.
He's not. It's a good question.
How much Army, Navy, and Air Force resources do we need to protect both shores, the Caribbean, and both boarders?
How far out from these do we need to project our strength?
How big of a Navy? Will we need aircraft carriers? Can we protect our shipping and the shipping of our trading partners. Can we project our strength away from our boarders if a neighboring state threatens us?
How big should our standing army be? Should we train our militia like Switzerland does?
If one of our allies calls on us how we respond? Do we need allies?
Do we need treaties?
True stuff
Russian attack submarines are patrolling our territorial waters. Venezuela is taking delivery of ballistic missiles from Iran that have the capacity to reach the United States. Umpteen Islamic agents have entered the United States from our southern boarder.
The ball is in your court Robert. It's you job to defend the United States. What are you going to do.
Post a Comment