Patriotism & Taxes: The Big Lie

Goddamnit. (9.75 / 12)

--7.88, --6.56      If I can't rant, I don't want to be part of your revolution.

---

by: Maryscott O'Connor @ Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 16:22:54 PM CDT

Fool. (0.00 / 0)

The Republicans have been succeeding with that message for maybe thirty years. Dems need a scapegoat like the poor, or how about Black people, that everyone from Reagan through Clinton and Bush used to gain the presidency.

Taxes and deficits and the National Debt just will not do it.

So what scapegoat can the Dems come up with? Got me.



Silence is not an option. It merely helps to perpetuate human rights injustices.

---

by: shergald @ Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 16:28:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Douchebag. (6.00 / 1)

--7.88, --6.56      If I can't rant, I don't want to be part of your revolution.

---

by: Maryscott O'Connor @ Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 16:31:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

A hearty second (7.67 / 3)

to your douchebag and I'll raise you a brainless twit.

Bob Higgins Worldwide Sawdust

---

by: BobHiggins @ Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 16:55:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Okay, dimwit. (0.00 / 1)

Are you deaf? Taxcuts for the wealthy! The wealthy, get it. It's called populism.

'Dis is a political blog?



Silence is not an option. It merely helps to perpetuate human rights injustices.

---

by: shergald @ Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 10:16:08 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Douchebag. (0.00 / 0)

--7.88, --6.56      If I can't rant, I don't want to be part of your revolution.

---

by: Maryscott O'Connor @ Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 12:56:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yawn. (1.50 / 4)

Nice recitation.

I guess ou've told us WHAT REALLY IS!  

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 17:08:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Dude (9.25 / 4)

Sierra Leone's one step ahead of us here....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/afr...

For the first time in generations, people have been flocking to pay their local council tax of 5,000 leones (about $1.5, 90 UK pence) in the Sierra Leonean capital, Freetown.

'I don't have a job, but I have paid my tax,' said Mohamed Bangura, 38, at the crumbling steps of what was once sub-Saharan Africa's first university - the wreck of the old Fourah Bay College...

'To see unemployed people paying taxes has surprised a lot of people,' said Herbert George-Williams, the new mayor.

'But the people are desirous for a change. We were able to talk with the unemployed and convince them they should pay their taxes to show their patriotism.'

Red Highways

ouhite

---

by: ouhite @ Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 21:40:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Bravo! (nt) (6.00 / 1)

---

by: weeping for brunnhilde @ Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 01:56:47 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Are you aware that it costs (7.25 / 12)

over a half million dollars every year to move my mega yacht from the Caribbean to the Mediterranean and back to protect it from tropical storms?

With the kind of tax increases and patriotism that you are so misguidedly promoting I would be forced to personally sail my schooner to Cannes causing my wife and myself to forgo our annual shopping trip in Paris and London.

Are you some kind of Commie?

Bob Higgins Worldwide Sawdust

---

by: BobHiggins @ Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 16:51:14 PM CDT

And besides (7.00 / 3)

I would have to lay my crew off, and that would mean fewer jobs.

You don't want to increase unemployment by raising taxes, do you?

Want a third party -- 50 states, 210 media market, 435 Congressional Districts, 3080 counties, 192,480 precincts -- Go get 'em

---

by: TarheelDem @ Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 18:03:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Of course, that's not really 'funny,' cuz it's part of the USCOC rhetoric (0.00 / 0)

in local/civic negotiations...

"I'll hire half the working class to kill off the other half."-- Jay Gould, robber-baron  

---

by: konopelli @ Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 18:09:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Perzacktly (6.00 / 2)

My term for it is "job extortion".

Want a third party -- 50 states, 210 media market, 435 Congressional Districts, 3080 counties, 192,480 precincts -- Go get 'em

---

by: TarheelDem @ Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 18:11:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

But, TarHeel (0.00 / 0)

what if it is true?

If Iwere someone who somehow thought that taxing some people at a greter per centage than others was either fair or what the Founders had in mind, I would, ideally, tax people only on income that would not be being so taxed have a negative effect on anyone else.

In fact, i think that that is exactly what we think of when we say "tax the rich."  We think we are simply taking money for which they have no need, and do not use anyway.

Maybe there shouild be an across the board confiscatory tax on any income (or, better, ealth) that is not savings up to a certain level or used.

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 19:31:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

But Job Extortion is True (6.00 / 2)

States and localities fall all over each other to put together packages of tax breaks and outright cash payments to bring new jobs to their area.

The result is that existing residents wind up paying higher and higher property taxes to (1) offset the tax breaks granted to corporations and (2) handled the upfront costs of providing streets, schools, water and sewer trunks for all the people that the corporation is bringing in.

And the reason for this scam.

If we don't do it, they won't locate here.

Across the board confiscatory tax on income that is not savings? There is one. It's called the FICA or payroll tax.  Across the board confiscatory tax on wealth that is not savings; it's called a property tax.

And then there's the sales tax in all its myriad forms (excise, accomodation, airline ticket,...) that nickels and dimes everyone.

What the Founders had in mind was a head tax on citizens with property.  And this replaced a system of royal and proprietary "quit-rents" for the fee simple use of the king's or proprietors' land.  But then, the Founders for all their foresight didn't let just anybody vote.

Want a third party -- 50 states, 210 media market, 435 Congressional Districts, 3080 counties, 192,480 precincts -- Go get 'em

---

by: TarheelDem @ Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 19:51:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Try to understand (0.00 / 0)

The taxes you cite are nothihng like what iproposed. In fact, the FICA tax is the opposite.

The idea is that whatever you could use (and which would presumably inject money into the economy-- a good thing) would be free from taxation.  So would savings up to a certain level.  The rest would go to the government.

As for the "extortion" on jobs, there is a simple solution:  the locality can simply say "no."  One cannot blame a company for looking for the best deal.  Heck, i know people who consider the locval taxes they would have to pay before buying a house.

Let me say ity again, and sell out more graphically waht i said:

Maybe there shouild be an across the board confiscatory tax on any income (or, better, ealth) that is not savings up to a certain level or used.

Or:

Maybe there [should] be an across the board confiscatory tax on any income (or, better, [wealth]) that is not

1)savings up to a certain level or

2)[income or wealth that is] used.

Is that clearer?  Use it or lose it, except for an allownce for savings, such allownace being generous enough that anyone within shouting distance of average income could not reach the limit.

But then, the Founders for all their foresight didn't let just anybody vote.

Really beneath your level of intelligence, TarHeel.  Usually, to make the logically fallacious argument that we shouldn't consider a certain proposal that the founders made because they made another proposal we don't agree with, the "they endorsed slavery in the Constitution" argument is used.

I think they had the right idea, actually.  it actually had everything a liberal could ask for.  It was progressive.  It taxed only the rich, those rich enough to have real property.

The only problem is that it is a little harder to ignoe the natural limits tothe amount of taxes that can be raised, unlike the present system.


"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 20:20:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

GCY (0.00 / 0)

Really beneath your level of intelligence, TarHeel.

Want a third party -- 50 states, 210 media market, 435 Congressional Districts, 3080 counties, 192,480 precincts -- Go get 'em

---

by: TarheelDem @ Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 20:30:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It was an obvious logical fallacy (0.00 / 0)

So shoot me if i think you are smarter than that!

Do you want to argue that it really wasn't beneath your level of intelligence?

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 20:42:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

you can't be serious--you mean to tell me you (7.00 / 3)

actually hire AMERICANS to do this work?

Say it'ain'tso: the patriotic thing to do is to hire illegal aliens to do this kind of work, and to skip unemployment and taxes altogether, no?  

---

by: keefolderman @ Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 00:29:07 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

So you are not as naive as you pretend to be. (0.00 / 0)

Still, subtlty seems difficult.



Silence is not an option. It merely helps to perpetuate human rights injustices.

---

by: shergald @ Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 10:19:05 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Good for Joe Biden. (8.50 / 4)

I've been saying this for years. You either give a shit about your contrymen or you don't. If you don't, then don't call yourself a patriot.

"What fresh hell is this?" -- Dorothy Parker

---

by: Curmudgette @ Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 17:05:19 PM CDT

what a sick joke anyway (9.00 / 3)

tax and spend
tax and spend
tax and spend
THAT'S ALL THEY EVER FUCKING SAY!!???? fucking worthless bastards.
where was my familie's tax cut?????? cause I don't see any difference in our checks. a measly fucking $1,000 a year or some shit???? they think this tiny little drop is worth this fucking war??? and groceries and gas are so high we are struggling to get by? all they fucking do is
BORROW AND SPEND
BORROW AND SPEND
PROFIT FROM DEATH
BORROW MORE AND SPEND ON WAR

Biden better start fucking laying it out. and I wish you were his speech writer Maryscott.

Sadie Yates
RIP
2003-2008

---

by: Sadie Yates @ Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 17:22:40 PM CDT

fucking bastards (9.00 / 2)

worthless lying sacks of shit.
the whole lot of them should burn in hell for what they've done ti this counrty and the world the past 8 years. still the same routine. the same lines over and over. the fucking one liners are running rampant. last time it was
flip flopper
tax and spend
9-11

WHY DON'T THEY FUCKING MENTION  BIN LADEN ANYMORE?

Sadie Yates
RIP
2003-2008

---

by: Sadie Yates @ Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 17:27:24 PM CDT

go ahead Mad Scientist.... (6.00 / 1)

tell me I'm angry and full of hate. maybe I am. maybe I don't understand why everybody isn't. if they steal this election we are SCREWED. McCain is bad enough but if he drops ded and that wicked Palin psycho takes over-it's ARMEGEDDON TIME.

Sadie Yates
RIP
2003-2008

---

by: Sadie Yates @ Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 17:30:47 PM CDT

I just don't believe that (0.00 / 0)

I believe:

1)  All i can ask is that a public official do what he thinks is best for the country.  I see no reason to think that any of the four candidates would do what they think is bad for the country.

2)  The presidency does not have the power we like to think it does.  We like to ascribe that power to the president because then we have a convenient whipping boy to blame.  For instance, we like to blame the president for the economy when there is no evidence that the government has all that much influence on the economy, and where it does, it comes mostly from Congress, who control the purse strings and pass laws retgulating commerce.

So, since I think it is a given that both houses of Congress will be Democratic, if McCain dies on inauguration day, and Palin takes over, there will be little she can do that is not approved by the Democrats.

In fact, we Americans in the past have liked this situation, divided government.

Howver, if you have a plausible scenario for armeggedon in this situation, I'll listen.

I think armeggedon may happen, and it will be because we are doing nothing about the looming entitlement crises.  And none of the candidates, neither party, are even talking about it.

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 19:14:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

oh Mad...what would we do without you? (0.00 / 0)

what they think is best for the country is not what I think is best. the current president has proven that the president of the USA (unfortunately) can do whatever he or she wants. if armegeddon happens, it is because religious fanatics like sarah palin take the book of revelations seriously.... although it was written by a persecuted, hunted down mad man hiding out in a cave and some say tripping on acid. the whole rapture thing is just an interpretation of the bible that came up in the past 200 years. but there are plenty who believe that Christ cannot return until there is a bloodbath in the middle east and the chosen people of God (the jews) get thier precious land back. palin is one of these people. thank you for not saying I'm drinking the poison of hatred. just having a bad day.

Sadie Yates
RIP
2003-2008

---

by: Sadie Yates @ Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 20:26:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I agree Sadie (0.00 / 0)

with this:

what they think is best for the country is not what I think is best.

In fact, i can't imagine it ever happening that I would agree with any candidate or politician on what is best for the country.  Even if i was the candidate or politician, I would have doubts.

I disagree with this:

the current president has proven that the president of the USA (unfortunately) can do whatever he or she wants.

Thius is absolutely false.  IOf it were true there would be now, for instance, a revised Social Security program that would allow, their choice, those under 55 to put up to a third (I think it was) of their contributions in some form of private account administered by Social Security.

There are vvarious other examples.  And it is best to remember that there would have been no iraq War (at least as we had it) without Congress, includoing Democrats in the Senate, without whom the authorization could not have passed.  So,m it is true to say that there ould not have been the Iraq War without Congress, but that no matter how much Bush wanted a war in iraq, he could not have done it alone.

if armegeddon happens, it is because religious fanatics like sarah palin take the book of revelations seriously.

Quite a statement.  I might point out that Sarah Palin, if she does take it seriously, and if she become presidetn, would not be the first president to take the Book of Revelations seriously.

I see no indication that Sarah palin would purposely cause a world war centered on Israel just to bring about Armeggedon.  most of these people do not propose sucha thing anyway.  They believe the world happens with the Grace of God, they read the signs, and "look forward in hope."


"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 20:40:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

ok (0.00 / 0)

I'm done.
I'm just so fucking sick of it.
it's only going to get uglier.

Sadie Yates
RIP
2003-2008

---

by: Sadie Yates @ Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 17:35:06 PM CDT

You know Sadie (9.00 / 3)

the Boeing Machinist went on strike a week ago.
I was talking to some friends who are effected and ask what was the clincher that made then decide to walk out.

They said.......

In the fine print of the contract the company wanted to take the retirement pay away from the spouse if the Boeing Employee died. Leaving a spouse with nothing to raise kids or to live on.

Also all new employees would not have a retirement plan.

Back in my working days at Boeing when the hourly employees went on strike it was to gain something.  Today they have to strike just to keep what they have.

The word is that it will be a long one.

You are damn right to be pissed at the state of things.  I sure as hell am.


It is a matter of life and death, see the documentary Food INC and vote no to corporate take over of our food every time you buy groceries  

---

by: Kathleen @ Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 18:46:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

To me, Kathleen (4.00 / 1)

This highleights the reason that we should relive companies of all responsibility for social benefits.

I guess you have to have been unemployed for a few years like i have been to cringe and feel the knife whenver politicians talk about what workers deserve.  it's like, "so, Barack, I don't deserve the same things merely as a human being?"

It is one of those things that shows that the Protestant work ethic is never far below the surface of outr national morality.

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 19:19:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well Mad (7.50 / 2)

that is a good point.  

I do think though companies should be regulated and Costco should be used as the model.

CEOs should only make a percentage about the working employee.  They should not be able to rape the profits and walk away with millions when a company goes under.  How is it possible that a person working 40 hours a week more or less is worth what some of these CEO's make?  When the people actually keeping a company going can barely make enough to pay the bills.

One of the reasons companies gave pensions was to keep valued experienced employees.  Now they only seem to care about their short term bottom line.

Military get retirement benefits when they leave the military after 20 years no matter how old they are.  I am vested with Boeing but I can't receive retirement until I am 65.

The system is way out of balance and needs to swing back for the regular working Joe.

Working man's ball and chain.....


It is a matter of life and death, see the documentary Food INC and vote no to corporate take over of our food every time you buy groceries  

---

by: Kathleen @ Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 21:34:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Unfortunately (5.00 / 1)

One of the reasons companies gave pensions was to keep valued experienced employees.

The world in which this made sense doesn't exist anymore.  People just don't work for 20 or 30 years for the same company anymore, and if they do, it's not because of the pension.  POensions have become an expense that can put a company out of business.

I saw this at the beginning, when a persnnel manager predicted it, and suggested that the answer had to be portable pensions that could be carried from company to company.  Of course, that never happened.

As for CEOs, they get what they can.  Ican;'t blame them for fgetting what they can.  I've heard the same arguments made about athletes and Rock stars.

It's just one of the ways that reality fails to conform to our common sense.  Still, we ask how it could be thatr the shareholders and their boards allow it.

Anyway, i think an argument can be made that health plans and "pension" plans are good for the country, and all the more so when applied universally, and given that argument, we shouild make them the province of government or, perhaps, some powerful NGO devoted to it.  this would also help the government fulfill its role as equalizer in business.  GM, for instance, would not be going bankrupt in part because it is competing against other companies with much less legacy pension costs.

It sounds like you are working towards putting every employee on a strict profit and loss sharing plan.

When the Wankle rotary engine failed, every Mazda employee took a pay cut from the CEO to the janitor while they redesigned, retooled, and produced a new product line.  Here, the CEO wouldhave been fired with a golden parachute, they'd hire another CEO for even more, who had probably been fired recently from another company (he has experience), some middle management types would be "let go," s the company downsized, and the union would agree to 20% layoffs in line workers while they prepared to ask for higher pay and more benefits in the next contract.

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 22:24:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Um, MadSci, the Wankel engine did NOT "fail" (7.50 / 2)

It was touted as something it wasn't, except relatively: fuel-efficient. It was actually a performance powerplant which got damned good mileage for a performance engine. It made Car and Driver's Ten best List five times. And then the car got overpriced.

I had an RX-7, the middle version that looked like a Porsche 928 (Series 4), and went head to head with it performance-wise. It didn't die; it was foully murdered, at 13 years old and over 120,000 miles, by being rear-ended by a minivan...and its front end run into the trailer hitch of a U-Haul truck. At that point, it was running less than 100 rpms faster at 70 mph than it was when brand new. I was getting 25 miles per gallon on it. And this was a car I'd shadowed a Ferrari with, one day on the highway.

Damn, I miss that car. I've seen a few RX-8's on the road recently and given them the thunmbs-up...and yes, it does have a Wankel rotary engine.

But examination of the available data leads only to the conclusion that the biggest beneficiary of the Bush Presidency is Warren Harding. (Steve Mirsky, "Antigravity", SciAm 10/05)
Lex clavatoris designati rescindenda est. (Latin for All Occasions)

---

by: mirrim @ Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 23:01:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

As i recall (0.00 / 0)

The wankle engine was plagued by main bearing failures at age, such failures being not worth repairing.  These failures meant that the average usable life of the engine was much shorter (on average) than comparable piston engine.

I thought it was a damn shame.

Although that particuolar problem could be fixed, it seems that fuel costs killed the popular versions at that time.

But why do you think it was taken out of production for normal consumer cars?  (I'm just remembering what i read at the time.)

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 23:09:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well, mine was still going strong (0.00 / 0)

At 120K, no problems. Hell, most conventional engines don't last 120K these days without a major rebuild. Or at least most people don't keep them that long, Toyotas and Volvos notwithstanding.

I think the problem was something a lot of people didn't realize: you had to keep a close eye on the oil level and top it off occasionally.And get the oil changes done every 3000-5000 miles, without fail. Usually mine needed an extra quart between changes, and I checked the level semi-religiously.

I think it was taken out of production for regular consumer cars because it was such a powerful motor that it over-powered the average car (mine was horrible in the snow, for instance, even in low gears...and I had the manual tranny). And because it needed just that extra little bit of attention to run well, which, let's face it, a lot of Americans aren't willing to give a car.

But examination of the available data leads only to the conclusion that the biggest beneficiary of the Bush Presidency is Warren Harding. (Steve Mirsky, "Antigravity", SciAm 10/05)
Lex clavatoris designati rescindenda est. (Latin for All Occasions)

---

by: mirrim @ Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 23:23:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Right (0.00 / 0)

I didn't know this, but just read that the Wankel engine burns oil by design.  Sort of like my Austin-Healy did, not by design.

Iknew a guy whohad one of the first Toyotas around our parts, go it about 1961, a Corona when Coronas were sort of small and flimsy like the later Corollas, which he used in the hills like a jeep, and which lasted for at least 300,000 miles (when i last had conact with him).  Of course, i knew another guy who did exactly the same thing for exactly as long with one of those Corvairs.  He would drive to work at night in the snow through the woods when the road was impassable due to ice.  Liked that rear engine!

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 23:50:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

My experience was similar (9.00 / 3)

I had either an '80 or '81 Rx7 (i think the last one before the first major body reshaping). What a great car. Both performance and mileage. Other than gas and oil I never put a penny into it. Drove it 100,000 miles, then the kids started appearing. It wasn't really the kids fault, the child seat fit perfectly in the passenger seat, its just that my wife hated sitting under the hatch. I keep eyeing the Rx8's. But I'm still left with the same problem. Dogs will fit fine in the passenger seat.  

to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance .  G. Washington

---

by: Kane in CA @ Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 10:07:42 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Mine was an '86 (6.00 / 1)

Stealth dark gray metallic. God, I loved that car. My friends I think were relieved when it was killed; they were convinced I was going to kill myself in it.

But examination of the available data leads only to the conclusion that the biggest beneficiary of the Bush Presidency is Warren Harding. (Steve Mirsky, "Antigravity", SciAm 10/05)
Lex clavatoris designati rescindenda est. (Latin for All Occasions)

---

by: mirrim @ Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 10:46:58 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

As I further recall (0.00 / 0)

perhaps wrongly (please help)

The retooling was made necessary by Mazda's failed attempt to make nothing but Wankel cars.

I remembered their being touted as qan exampole of the better business practices of japan at the time.  Back then, the japoanese model was seen as something that the Americans should emulate.  So it was thought that an American company mighthave gone under in the same situation.

If things were like they are today, an American company would probably pay the CEO a big bonus.

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 23:22:12 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

By the time the RX-7 went out (0.00 / 0)

of production, most of Mazda's other cars were already conventional engines. I think they started conventional engine production while they were still making the first-generation model RX-7, back in the early 1980s.

They may have retooled, but they didn't shut down Wankel production then. The last RX-7 was made in 2002 (the last few years they were only available in Japan), and they started producing RX-8s in 2004.

So they may have retooled extensively, but they never retooled completely.

But examination of the available data leads only to the conclusion that the biggest beneficiary of the Bush Presidency is Warren Harding. (Steve Mirsky, "Antigravity", SciAm 10/05)
Lex clavatoris designati rescindenda est. (Latin for All Occasions)

---

by: mirrim @ Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 23:34:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'll bet you're right (0.00 / 0)

Mayvbe i should remember major retooling" or a complete retooling in a particular plant.

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 23:52:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I think you are right. (9.00 / 1)

I see the problem as greed.  I get mine and to hell with yous.

One time a retired wealthy oil man ask me what I think should happen to fix the problems.  I said, when the level of consciousness rises to the point where all decisions are made based on what is best for all people, only then can humans evolve to a level where we all want to be. Problems would be so easily solved because greed is gone.  Collective problem solving thinking would take over. Powerful synergy!

Challenges would no longer be about survival. It is fun to think what a world would be like.  You Mad could use that brilliant mind of yours to help solve the world's problems.

Wouldn't it be fun to be a part of a think tank where everyone would brain storm ideas.

One can't help but.......

It is a matter of life and death, see the documentary Food INC and vote no to corporate take over of our food every time you buy groceries  

---

by: Kathleen @ Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 23:11:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

A bit of synchronicity (5.00 / 1)

I was just reading from Gaudium et Spes, from Vatican II.  some excerpts you might like:

Economic development must remain under man's determination and must not be left to the judgment of a few men or groups possessing too much economic power or of the political community alone or of certain more powerful nations. ...

Growth is not to be left solely to a kind of mechanical course of the economic activity of individuals, nor to the authority of government. For this reason, doctrines which obstruct the necessary reforms under the guise of a false liberty, and those which subordinate the basic rights of individual persons and groups to the collective organization of production must be shown to be erroneous.

Citizens, on the other hand, should remember that it is their right and duty, which is also to be recognized by the civil authority, to contribute to the true progress of their own community according to their ability. ...

To satisfy the demands of justice and equity, strenuous efforts must be made, without disregarding the rights of persons or the natural qualities of each country, to remove as quickly as possible the immense economic inequalities, which now exist and in many cases are growing and which are connected with individual and social discrimination. . . .

Justice and equity likewise require that the mobility, which is necessary in a developing economy, be regulated in such a way as to keep the life of individuals and their families from becoming insecure and precarious. ...

Investments, for their part, must be directed toward procuring employment and sufficient income for the people both now and in the future. Whoever makes decisions concerning these investments and the planning of the economy-whether they be individuals or groups of public authorities-are bound to keep these objectives in mind and to recognize their serious obligation of watching, on the one hand, that provision be made for the necessities required for a decent life both of individuals and of the whole community and, on the other, of looking out for the future and of establishing a right balance between the needs of present-day consumption, both individual and collective, and the demands of investing for the generation to come. ...

Private property or some ownership of external goods confers on everyone a sphere wholly necessary for the autonomy of the person and the family, and it should be regarded as an extension of human freedom. ...

The right of private ownership, however, is not opposed to the right inherent in various forms of public property. Goods can be transferred to the public domain only by the competent authority, according to the demands and within the limits of the common good, and with fair compensation. Furthermore, it is the right of public authority to prevent anyone from abusing his private property to the detriment of the common good.

By its very nature private property has a social quality which is based on the law of the common destination of earthly goods. If this social quality is overlooked, property often becomes an occasion of passionate desires for wealth and serious disturbances, so that a pretext is given to the attackers for calling the right itself into question.

[Citations removed]

I remember quoting this against the priests who didn't like socialism.  Did you see the  notion that private property is good so long as it's used for the benefit of society?

And the notion that all should contribute according to their ability and receive according tot heir needs is all but stated outright.

However much such contemplation takes us into some Utopia of grand feelings, there are practical problems.  So...

I said, when the level of consciousness rises to the point where all decisions are made based on what is best for all people, only then can humans evolve to a level where we all want to be.

I won't argue with that, but, unfortunately, there will never be a decision which will be the best for all people.  Unfortunately, for any decision, there are winners and losers.  Normally, this is resolved by designating certain classes of people as unworthy of winning, and not caring if a decision makes them a loser.  one thinks, steriotypically, of the royal classes in 18th century Europe, who supposedly didn't care if the poor had bread.  and here, it can be said that no one cares much if a decision has an adverse effect on Exxon-Mobil, it's officers or employees.

I hope that's not a downer.

What it means is that we have to continue to work where we can, onour own personal small scale.

And, that may be good, because you would not want my little mind trying to solve world problems.  I can't even solve my own!  I'll leave that to smart people like Tarheel and those with expansive souls, like you.

[Please imagine a funny and happy gif here meant to convey my heartfelt appreciation of your expansive soul]


"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 23:43:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

On this point (0.00 / 0)

I don't agree:

 Unfortunately, for any decision, there are winners and losers.  

When the level of consciousness rises greed is no longer the priority therefore no loosers.

Remember the Americian Indians had a belief no one could own the earth it belonged to all creatures equally.  Therefore the oil, water and all things in the earth could not be own by the few but by all and so on.

Please Mad spare me this.....

because you would not want my little mind trying to solve world problems.

Your gift is the way you see the big picture.  Your own problems are the result of a lower vibrating society that is based on greed.

My gif ....  brother Mad.....

It is a matter of life and death, see the documentary Food INC and vote no to corporate take over of our food every time you buy groceries  

---

by: Kathleen @ Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 05:41:15 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I like talking to you, Kathleen (4.00 / 1)

You're nice.

As i wrote about winners and losers, it came to my mind that in business, the ideal is the "win-win" situation, where both sides in a deal get something that they want.  Isn't it odd that we tend to think of just these people as greedy?

As for the Amerind and Na-Dene, I think they are too much romanticized.  they were just as human as anyone else.  There was plenty of conflict and war before the whites arrived, and the Iroquois Confederacy was great just  because it overcame such natural conflict and was so unusual.

As for greed, i think we all have it.  I think it is normal to apply the term only to those who have more than we do.  But you and I are conversing here on expensive devices totally unneccesary for our existence.

To me, the problem is not greed, but attachment.  Just as in Stoicism, the writings of Marcus Aurelius and Epictetus tell us that one can follow that philosophy as an emperor or as a slave, one can have little or much and still be plagued by or free of attachment to things.  I think for most of us, attachment is a constant temptation, and a continual struggle.

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 06:26:08 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

What is the difference..... (0.00 / 0)

between greed and attachment?

As humans we can learn, we can be broken yet heal ourselves.

We can travel down one road and and say nope this ain't it AND choose a different road.

I am not romanticizing the American Indian just saying there is much we could learn from the beliefs they had.

It is a matter of life and death, see the documentary Food INC and vote no to corporate take over of our food every time you buy groceries  

---

by: Kathleen @ Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 06:51:56 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Greed and Attachment (10.00 / 1)

Good question.

I don't have a formal difference, but one i feel in the usage.  Attachment is sometimes called "craving."

Greed the way it is used here almost always means avarice, and so is a narrower term.  In addition, I get the sense that greed is used here to describe people who not only have avarice, but who have been successful in satisfying it to some extent.  And sometimes, i think people here think that that is a sin, or even the great sin.  

It reminds me that one genius posted an essay here some time back in which he offered the proposition that money is to liberals as sex is to fundamentalist Christians.

For me, I can't know of another's attachment merely by knowing what he owns or has.  Here, using the term greed, it is presumed that if one is rich, he is greedy.

But I see attachment to money, greed if you will, in the obsession some people have with what others have.  For it is certainly possible, common, really, to be attached by desire to what one doesn't have.  So, i would say that the greatest greed exists in those who are most obsessed with how much wealth others have, who are always comparing, their own wealth with some rich person, the average wealth of rich people with some class of poorer people, the income of CEOs with that of janitors.  It is this obsession that masks a true craving, often sublimated into very erudite writings, an ongoing attachment to wealth.

Politically speaking, this often results in a "politics of envy," where "look what they have" can be the theme.  ("It's not fair, dear voter, and if you vote for me, I'll make sure you get more, and they get less.")

The politics of envy can easily become the politics of resentment, and can also move on to the politics of revenge.

What i know is that there is a CEO, basketball player, or rock musician out there someplace who is making $20 million a year.  yet, despite this fact, my porridge tastes just as sweet, the birds sing just a beautifully, and my cat loves the touch of my hand.  i would not trade the one for the other.  But some become so attached to other people's wealth that it ruins the taste of their porridge, deharmonizes the songs of birds, and makes them inattentive to their cats.

So, in the ideal, to be unattached to wealth means that we see what we and others make and have with the same equanimity.  We treat it as we do everything that comes into our minds:  we note that it comes into our mind, and then we let it go, seeking ever to be mindful of the here and now.

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 07:30:38 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

OK I see........... (6.00 / 1)

Damn I love this!!!

porridge tastes just as sweet, the birds sing just a beautifully, and my cat loves the touch of my hand.  i would not trade the one for the other.  But some become so attached to other people's wealth that it ruins the taste of their porridge, deharmonizes the songs of birds, and makes them inattentive to their cats.

Beautifully said, brother.

I see wealth as a tool yet when 95% of the wealth of a country is held by 5% of the people and the rest live  poverty I have a problem with that. One example is Bolivia.

I define greedy as someone who covets things not necessarily someone who already has things. A person who spends  great energy and who's top priority is to get money and things.

It is a matter of life and death, see the documentary Food INC and vote no to corporate take over of our food every time you buy groceries  

---

by: Kathleen @ Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 09:06:29 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

You jogged my memory on something. (11.00 / 1)

POensions have become an expense that can put a company out of business.

That's debatable, unless you're talking about the pension plans for the CEOs who "get what they can."

I blogged this issue a while back, with regards to GM's massive lay-offs. From the Wall Street Journal.

To help explain its deep slump, General Motors Corp. often cites "legacy costs," including pensions for its giant U.S. work force. In its latest annual report, GM wrote: "Our extensive pension and [post-employment] obligations to retirees are a competitive disadvantage for us." Early this year, GM announced it was ending pensions for 42,000 workers.

But there's a twist to the auto maker's pension situation: The pension plans for its rank-and-file U.S. workers are overstuffed with cash, containing about $9 billion more than is needed to meet their obligations for years to come.

Another of GM's pension programs, however, saddles the company with a liability of $1.4 billion. These pensions are for its executives.

This is the pension squeeze companies aren't talking about: Even as many reduce, freeze or eliminate pensions for workers -- complaining of the costs -- their executives are building up ever-bigger pensions, causing the companies' financial obligations for them to balloon.

"What fresh hell is this?" -- Dorothy Parker

---

by: Curmudgette @ Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 07:40:46 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thank you (0.00 / 0)

Good article.  Last line:

GM has often said its U.S. pension plans added about $800 to the cost of each car made in the U.S. in 2004. It declines to say how much was due to executive pensions.

Now, what if there were no liability for pensions at corporations?


"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 08:10:45 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

They'd still charge the $800 (6.50 / 2)

It would make no difference in the cost of the car. Either the manufacturer would keep that $800 tacked onto the price of the car, or the dealer would put it in as part of his mark-up, or they'd split it somehow.

You see that I have absolutely no trust in the ultimate "benevolence" of the "free market".

But that's just for the worker's pensions. I suspect that the difference for decreasing executive pensions, golden parachutes, and the like would be much greater, but I still would not expect a change in the price of a car.

But examination of the available data leads only to the conclusion that the biggest beneficiary of the Bush Presidency is Warren Harding. (Steve Mirsky, "Antigravity", SciAm 10/05)
Lex clavatoris designati rescindenda est. (Latin for All Occasions)

---

by: mirrim @ Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 09:16:29 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Who ever argued for (0.00 / 0)

the "benevolence of the free market?"

That's preposterous.

I remember Phil, the owner of the little diner in Murphy Brown talking about the coffee craze:  (paraphrase)  "I wish my dad was here.  He'd love it.  Take 20 cents worth of coffee, add a little sugar, a bit of hot milk, a dollop of whipped cream, and charge four dollars for it.  He could never have dreamed of it!"

Another old rule of the free market:  "A fool and his money are soon parted."  (See previus paragraph.)

The only thing we can really say about a free market is that it has a tendency to bring to market what people want and/or are willing to pay for.  Centrally controlled markets are apallingly bad at this.

And free markets allow for "horse trading."

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 09:35:27 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Jeebus, Mad (0.00 / 0)

I was being sarcastic and rhetorical, not literally quoting anyone!

Although, actually, I was getting/do get something of that kind of claptrap...from my medical colleagues. Ironically, the same ones who hate the idea of single-payer medicine, because they "don't trust the government". As if Blue Cross and United Health (a for-profit health care insurer ::rollseyes::) in this state have been paying us so well.

But examination of the available data leads only to the conclusion that the biggest beneficiary of the Bush Presidency is Warren Harding. (Steve Mirsky, "Antigravity", SciAm 10/05)
Lex clavatoris designati rescindenda est. (Latin for All Occasions)

---

by: mirrim @ Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 09:54:45 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well, mirrim (0.00 / 0)

you're right, I don't remember anyone calling the free market "benevolent," but there are all those ideologues that think it is some cosmic aspirin that can cure all ills.

Word of woarning:  I watched the PBS special a while back on universal health care in five countries.  Most of the doctors liked most of the aspects of it, but none in any of the five countries covered liked their own compensation.

You should expect a one-third loss of income if such a system is put in.  And there is no guarantee that it would be accompanied by tort reform in malpractice.  That would be a real squeeze.

(Note:  it seemed like in some of the system, the one-third drop took a couple of years.  In the German episode, the doctor was distressed because they were cutting the compensation of doctors because of rising expenses.)

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 10:04:46 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hell, I already make (9.00 / 1)

1/3 less than my colleagues in Mass. and Conn. because Blue Cross, et al. reimburse differently in each state and RI's reimbursements suck.

Single-payer at least would ensure that we were paid equally...and that low-income areas would not suffer for lack of MDs, as long as the population was there. Right now, a lot of areas are underserved because you can't make a living there.

Two caveats about single-payer: something would have to be done about malpractice insurance. The European countries with single-payer systems put them in before malpractice became a major financial issue and have kept a tight rein on it since then (or have handled it through the national health programs). Also, some provision for office expenses has to be taken into account; most national health services cover these as well.

You cannot ask someone who is paying $100-200K (more in some areas) in insurance that has to be in place before they even open their doors to take a 1/3 cut in gross income, especially in my (historically poorly reimbursed) specialty. Or ask them to pay for their office staff out of their own salaries.

But examination of the available data leads only to the conclusion that the biggest beneficiary of the Bush Presidency is Warren Harding. (Steve Mirsky, "Antigravity", SciAm 10/05)
Lex clavatoris designati rescindenda est. (Latin for All Occasions)

---

by: mirrim @ Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 10:59:04 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I agree (0.00 / 0)

Although i bet that there will be a variance in compensation geographically.  How does Medicare work it?

Unfortunately, the Trial Lawyers are huge contributers to politicions, including those who say they don't take money from lobbyists.  But I've been fighting this one since i came on the net.  Some think that those lawyers who hit jackpots for a client now and then are heroes.

A start would be to put punitive damages like Maritime common law in that recent Supreme Court decision, at 1:1 with actual damages, maximum.  The French people I worked with some years back just thought we were crazy.

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 11:11:13 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

And imagine how cheap (7.00 / 1)

those cars could be if they could avoid paying salaries to their workers?!!! Nah. Mirrim is right. They wouldn't pass their savings along to consumers.

"What fresh hell is this?" -- Dorothy Parker

---

by: Curmudgette @ Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 09:21:28 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I think that (0.00 / 0)

old man Ford, an ardent capitalist, settled that when he raised his workers' wages well above those that were being made in other similar shops.

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 09:37:08 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Ah... the men in grey flannel. (0.00 / 0)

Where are they now?

"What fresh hell is this?" -- Dorothy Parker

---

by: Curmudgette @ Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 09:40:44 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Uh--- (0.00 / 0)

I don't know.  Down at Geoffrey Beene's place?

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 09:50:27 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yeah, MadOne, and the current crop (6.00 / 2)

of automobile CEOs have lost sight of his point, a lot of them.

Ford's reasoning, IIRC, was simple: he wanted his workers to make enough money that they could afford to buy a car...from him.  

But examination of the available data leads only to the conclusion that the biggest beneficiary of the Bush Presidency is Warren Harding. (Steve Mirsky, "Antigravity", SciAm 10/05)
Lex clavatoris designati rescindenda est. (Latin for All Occasions)

---

by: mirrim @ Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 09:58:24 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Plus (0.00 / 0)

the more normal reasons-- to keep good workers, for instance.  It is true that he wanted to see Fords in the lot.  it was kind of a novel way to look at workers, as consumers of one's own product.

Now, wouldn't it be nice if everyone who worked at the hospital made enough to be able to afford its services?  

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 10:08:30 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

yep (6.00 / 1)

I worked for Northrop Aircraft  in California many many years ago but we didn't have a union. allot of people are going to be screwed on retirement.

Sadie Yates
RIP
2003-2008

---

by: Sadie Yates @ Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 20:28:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Lovin' it (5.00 / 2)

Absolutely right the fuck on, Joe.

Though I do have my concerns.

I read a theory once (and god knows you can believe everything you read, right?) that said the moment Mondale lost to Reagan was the debate where Reagan said that Mondale was going to raise taxes and Mondale responded something along the lines of, "Yes, I will because I'll have to since you've spent this country into oblivion."

But all anyone took away from the exchange was "ZOMG!  MONDALE IS GOING TO RAISE TAXES!"

I worry the something similar might happen here.

The anti-tax psychosis that this country has is one of the things that drives me battiest.  Whipping it up is probably the right's most brilliant move in the past 40 years or more.

---

by: John Brown's Body @ Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 18:05:17 PM CDT

Mondale's line (6.00 / 2)

Mr. Reagan will raise taxes; and so will I. He won't tell you. I just did.

Want a third party -- 50 states, 210 media market, 435 Congressional Districts, 3080 counties, 192,480 precincts -- Go get 'em

---

by: TarheelDem @ Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 18:13:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Innit the "gated community" is the Murkin Dream? (0.00 / 0)

Murka's becoming the world's exemplar of a gated community, with the "big fence," and the checkpoints and raodblocks, and cameras everyfuukin where, and tough thug-cops, and the rest of the Homeland Security apparati.

And taxes are the "association fee" you pay for the privilege of having the lawns kept trim, and the 'undesirables' mostly kept out.

Comparatively speaking, of course, we don't really pay much. But we don't get much either, even though what we're getting is decreasing all the time, and what we're giving is gonna increase...

My favorite "taxation" metaphor/analogy/simile (like, wow)...

"I'll hire half the working class to kill off the other half."-- Jay Gould, robber-baron  

---

by: konopelli @ Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 18:07:02 PM CDT

Come, let us reason together (0.00 / 0)

Chris Matthews jsut told me on my TV that Joe Biden never said that paying taxes is patriotic.  Whatver the truth of that is, I am not here to argue the real or imagined sytatements or intentions of the saintly Democrats and the evil Republicans.  I am here to simply examine the proposition.

It is my opinion that the proposition that paying taxes, or even the paying of more taxes byt rich people, is patriotic is illogical and silly.  It is a kind of souindbite reasoning we fall into nowadays.

And let me say here that I do not blame Obama, McCain, Palin, Biden, nor the McCain or Obama campaigns, nor even TV pundits for being shallow.  It is simply the nature of the beast, the confluence of modern media with out increasintgly short attention span and its cultural fallout.

I don't even blame the columnists, who are incresingly shortened.  It is just the way it is.

Here is my reasoning, set out for any to question:

Proposition 1:  To be patriotic, and action must be freely chosen.

Proposition 2:  The payment of taxes is not freely chosen, but rather coerced under threat of law.

Conclusion:  The payment of taxes is not and can't be a patriotic act.

I think that proposition 2 is unassailable.  Some might want to quibble with proposuition 1.  So let me argue this way.

Let's say for the sake of argument, that reciting the pledge of allegiance is a patriotic act.  (And this is exactly why Eisenhower's 'under God' is so odious; it makes acdceptance of a deity a part of a patriotic act.)

Now, suppose someone holdss a gun to your head and tells you that if you don't put your hand over your heart and recite the peldge, he will blow your head off.  let's suppose you have good reason to believe that he will follow through on his threat.  (You saw his voter retgistration card, and he is a Repbulican, say.)

So, if you have any sense, youy would do as he says.  But i would argue that it would not be a patriotic act.  You would not argue, at a later date, "sure, I'm a patriot.  I r3ecited the pledge of allegiance back on [naming the date]."

Now, I will here confess that years ago, when i first started paying taxes, for the first four years, when I was carefree and without obligations,m I donated my refund to the government.  I found out that you can give money to the government and, unlike the case for your taxes, you can designate, "earmark" as it were, the use of the money.  So I designated the amount of my refund for redufction of the national debt.

I think, if you wish, that you might argue that this is a patriotic act.

It always slays me when rich people make statements that they should pay more taxes.  Who stops them from contributing money to the government?  Michael Moore once said on air that he thought anyone making what he did should pay 70% of his income to the government.  Does he?  If he did, I would call him a patriot.  If he does not, he's just an hypocrite.

To me, the perq oif actually designating what any money you give the government above your taxes should be enough to induce anyone who believes ythat taxes should be higher to contribute.  I specifically wanted to avoid havcing my contribution used for the Vietnam War.  And i was concerned about the debt.  Perfect.

So, let's see Warren Buffet back up his ironic statements about his taxes with a large contribution.

Does this make any sense?

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 19:06:19 PM CDT

I guess Warren didn't think the government (11.00 / 1)

is spending it's money wisely these days, but as far as him keeping it or giving it all to his kids, he's already started giving most of his fortune to charitable organizations.

Most will be going to the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation,

Buffett has pledged to gradually give 85% of his Berkshire stock to five foundations. A dominant five-sixths of the shares will go to the world's largest philanthropic organization, the $30 billion Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, whose principals are close friends of Buffett's (a connection that began in 1991, when a mutual friend introduced Buffett and Bill Gates).

The Gateses credit Buffett, says Bill, with having "inspired" their thinking about giving money back to society. Their foundation's activities, internationally famous, are focused on world health -- fighting such diseases as malaria, HIV/AIDS, and tuberculosis -- and on improving U.S. libraries and high schools.
...
snip
...
Because the value of Buffett's gifts are tied to a future, unknowable price of Berkshire, there is no way to put a total dollar value on them. But the number of shares earmarked to be given have a huge value today: $37 billion.

Cheers!

"Truth has no time of its own. Its hour is now -- always, and indeed then most truly when it seems most unsuitable to actual circumstances."

---

by: roysol @ Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 19:56:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

That's true (0.00 / 0)

But honesty compells me to report:

1)  maybe Warren doesn't think the government in general isspending its money wisely, but I am sure he thinks that some parts of government are, maybe the national Science Founjdation, or someof its projects.  he could earmark his money for exactly what he wanted.

2)  The usual argument made by those who don't think that charity is the same as taxes is that ttaxes are constant, and by the rich getting a tax break by giving their money to charity, it increaases the tax burden on those who aren't rich enough to afford to do large charity contributions.  thus, the actual tax burden is increased for the poorer and middle class individually.  (This is an argument against the deduction for charity, for instance.)

In addition, the tax breakj for charity amounts to giving some people a choice in how their money is spent, while the normal taxpayer has little say.

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 20:25:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

So by your Prop. #1, MadSci... (0.00 / 0)

any GI who was drafted (as opposed to volunteering) during WWII, Korea, or Vietnam was not being patriotic, just because it was required by the law?

As you can see, I dispute your first proposition.

Conversely, we do have a choice as far as paying taxes are concerned. We can take our chances with jail time. That is still a choice, albeit not one with a desirable outcome...but then, we make lots of choices we think we can get away with which may not have desirable outcomes.

Lastly, I remind you of the ancient principle of TANSTAAFL. I for one don't see much difference between, for instance, subscribing to a private fire department and paying taxes to support one...except that the tax-supported one will probably be cheaper for the individual, since everyone (supposedly) is supporting it, and not just a group of subscribers.

But examination of the available data leads only to the conclusion that the biggest beneficiary of the Bush Presidency is Warren Harding. (Steve Mirsky, "Antigravity", SciAm 10/05)
Lex clavatoris designati rescindenda est. (Latin for All Occasions)

---

by: mirrim @ Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 21:27:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Odd, mirrim (0.00 / 0)

But i thought of the same objection, but omitted consideration to shorten the comment.

And, no, strictly speaking, i don not think that submiting to the draft is patriotic.

But in some cases, those who were going to join anyway used the draft to enter the armed forces.  This was oftenthe case in WWII.

On the otherhand, one of my brothers drew a 7 in the draft lottery, so he enlisted in order to get considerations he wouldn't have gotten as a draftee. (He never handled a weapon after basic training.)  So I woulodn't count this a patriotic act.

Note, I am focusing on the entrance itself.  Certainly, what hapopens after enlistment can be patriotic.

The consideration here is that patrioticsm is a virtuue.  and virtue  (and vice) must be freely chosen.

So let's look at your other cconsidertion, that somehow taxes are freely chosen because we can take our chances with jail.  This is the kind of thing one hears from the strict authenticity existentialists.  I don't want to argue philosophy.  I'm using the notion in its normal range.

So, in mny example, you would say that the person extorted at the point of a gun to pledge allegiance is free because he could choose to be shot.

Or, if someone kidnapped your family and threatened to kill them if you didn't rob a store and give them the money, then if you "freely chose" to rob the store to save the lives of your family, you would then be guilty of robbery, and should be liable for all the penalties at law prescribed.

I don't buy it.

I for one don't see much difference between, for instance, subscribing to a private fire department and paying taxes to support one

I would say there would be no difference (except in the matter of administration) IF the only penalty for not paying the tax was that you didn't get any service ("sorry, ma'am, our records show that you aren't subscribed and so we can't respond" being the same as "sorry ma'am, our records show that you didn't pay the fire tax, so we can't respond.")  On the other hand, both the taxpayers (through their representatives) and subscribers to a private fire department could determine that it ws in the taxpayers' or subscribers' interest to respond to fires within their area.  

In Arizona, there was a famous case a few years ago where a house burned down across the street from a fire house because it was not in their jurisdiction!

So, no, I don't think there is anything patriotic in being drafted, and I don't think there is anything patriotic in paying taxes under threat.

I'd much rather call patriotic those who contribute to their government even when they don't have to.  Wouldn't you?  

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 22:07:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

And another thing.... (6.00 / 1)

Biden is on to something here:

"It's time to be patriotic ... time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut."

This sort of exhortation almost always works.  it galvanizes.  It induces in us the feeling that we are a part of something greater, and that by participating we are a part of something good, that we are helping each other, that we matter, and that we are good.

It has wporked many times in the past, for FDR, for JFK, for Reagan, and it can work now.  He just has to move it to something other than taxes.

I will remind the gathered that this is exactly what Bush did not do after 911.  (Spend and do as usual doesn't count.  And it leads to satirical take offs like that from Bridget jones:  "If I stop drinking, the terrorists win.")  Bush has been justifiably criticized. for not inviting everyone to bvecome a part of an effort he saw as just and good for the country, but which has fallen on a very few and their families.


"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 20:58:58 PM CDT

Makes sense to me. (6.00 / 1)

That has a strong ring of truth to me, and I would love to see Biden run with it. It is certainly downright unpatriotic for those with the most means to find ways to pay less taxes, as a percentage of income, then those with quite modest means. I would, conversely, think it patriotic to accept, even welcome, changes in the tax code that meant they would give back more to this country.

---

by: Siri @ Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 21:46:23 PM CDT

Taking Patriotism Away from the RIght (11.00 / 1)

In the Republican (economic liberalism) worldview, patriotism = protecting the freedom of individuals (especially rich ones) to maximize their own profits, to satisfy their own greed. That's essentially how they define liberty, in those vulgar economic terms.

The Democrats have been reluctant to point this out for decades now. Why? Because they've been tied to essentially the same interests as Republicans, but they have to disguise it more because their populist base has always included unions, women, minorities, etc . . .  The DLC and the Clintons used the DLC to push the party in the direction of economic liberalism (neoliberalism), which explains why Dems have been so "good" at losing elections.

Time will tell if Obama is any different, but what we might not know about him is trumped by ALL we know about McCain. As a leftist independent, temporarily registered Democrat, I'm willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt and see what he does in office. McPain/Palin is clearly out of bounds. We can't allow them to win this election.

---

by: DocG @ Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 22:07:14 PM CDT

Really? (0.00 / 0)

Never heard that before.  Got a link?

I've heard Republicans define patroiotism as "love of country" and as "defeinding the right of individuals to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," that liberty and that pursuit of happiness to be spent as each individual himself or herself sees fit.

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 22:27:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's basically the Lockean/Hamiltonian view of the role of the state. (10.00 / 1)

I put it in pretty crass terms, but that's what it boils down to. Adam Smith recognized it:

HERE: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall...

It cannot be very difficult to determine who have been the contrivers of this whole mercantile system; not the consumers, we may believe, whose interest has been entirely neglected; but the producers, whose interest has been so carefully attended to; and among this latter class our merchants and manufacturers have been by far the principal architects.

and here: http://manybooks.net/pages/smi...

But a company of merchants, are, it seems, incapable of considering themselves as sovereigns, even after they have become such. Trade, or buying in order to sell again, they still consider as their principal business, and by a strange absurdity, regard the character of the sovereign as but an appendix to that of the merchant ; as something which ought to be made subservient to it, or by means of which they may be enabled to buy cheaper in India, and thereby to sell with a better profit in Europe. They endeavour, for this purpose, to keep out as much as possible all competitors from the market of the countries which are subject to their government, and consequently to reduce, at least, some part of the surplus produce of those countries to what is barely sufficient for supplying their own demand, or to what they can expect to sell in Europe, with such a profit as they may think reasonable.

---

by: DocG @ Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 22:35:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Odd. I was unaware that... (0.00 / 0)

any of Locke, Smith, or Hamilton was a Republican.  i was looking for a link to a modern day Republican who defined patriotism just as you say they do.

Instead you linked to the writings of someone who ius not a Republican, and who didn't even define in these quotes, anyway, patriotism.

Smith's most imporatnt work, btw, by his estimation, was his Theory of Moral Sentiments.  He thought that trhere was a natural empathy in man which could be exploited for social good, but that it could not come to the fore unless there was enough wealth in a nation to support it.  His book on The Wealth of Nations is seen as his argument that capitalismis the best way for a nation to develop the wealth to promote social good.  he certainly never envisioned a system where the excesses that even he saw would be ignored.

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 22:54:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Right, Adam Smith is often cited as if he is a patron saint for the market, (0.00 / 0)

but he was quite critical of it and its excesses.

What I wrote reflects what they THINK patriotism must mean, what they say in private, not what they say in public.

---

by: DocG @ Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 23:42:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

And you (0.00 / 0)

know this how?

Are you sure that if i could give John McCain truth serum (or hook him up to one of thse Star Trek truth checkers) and question him as to what he meant by 'patriotism,' he would answer that it meant protecting the freedom of (especially rich) individuals so that they could maximize their own profits to satisfy their greed?  You don't think he might have something more and different to say?

Are you saying that Republicans would be in favour of passing a law that said that if someone did not seek maximum profits or to satisfy his greed, perhaps living as a starving artist, that he should be forced to be free (according to their definition) much as Rousseau proposed that some would have to be forced to be free?  Or do you think it is more they might be saying that freedom doesn't mean much if it only means having freedom to choose to pursue just what others say should be pursued?

it just sounds too much like a prejudicial stereotype, just like the ones heard on the right, to the effect, poerhaps, that all liberals are levelling, wealth-distribution socialists.

And the fact is, I've known Republicans all my life, and I have never known more than a few that could even speak in those terms.

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 00:02:38 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Remeber, too, that the original version of our "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" (0.00 / 0)

was "life, liberty, and the pursuit of estate or property"

While Jefferson penned the words, "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" in our Declaration of Independence, the notion actually evolved from Locke's "life, liberty, and the pursuit of estate" and Adam Smith's "life, liberty, and the pursuit of property." Smith's version even found its way into The Declaration of Colonial Rights, crafted by the First Continental Congress in 1774. We in the United States act monstrously because in spite of Jefferson's re-wording, we did not divorce ourselves from Locke's and Smith's notions. We perceive an inextricable link between our happiness and the degree of material success we achieve.

Here: http://dandelionsalad.wordpres...

---

by: DocG @ Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 22:51:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Ok, what's the argument (0.00 / 0)

The words "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" in the Declaration of Independence were dervived from Locke (and maybe Smith) so we should.....

The words stand or fall on their own.

The fact is that the classical liberals from Locke and Hobbes to the Founding Fathers and beyond opposed the Divine rights of kings, even ifr simply transferred to government, whereby8 property and life belonged to the king (or, sometimes, the Church) and were sort of lent to the individual, who had to give them up when required to their rightful owner, the king.

The words in the Declaration encapsulate a great principle:  Each person owns his own life.

Collectivism is based on a different principle:  like the Divine Right thepory, it claims that each person does not own his own life (and such people often use "individualist" as a term of derision), but that life belongs to some collective, often summed up as "society."

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 22:59:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yes, and the founders, like Orwell's pig in Animal Farm, clearly believed that (0.00 / 0)

some individuals were more equal than others.

Madison:

Mr. MADISON. We are now to determine whether the republican form shall be the basis of our government. I admit there is weight in the objection of the gentleman from South Carolina; but no plan can steer clear of objections. That great powers are to be given, there is no doubt; and that those powers may be abused is equally true. It is also probable that members may lose their attachments to the States which sent them-Yet the first branch will control them in many of their abuses. But we are now forming a body on whose wisdom we mean to rely, and their permanency in office secures a proper field in which they may exert their firmness and knowledge. Democratic communities may be unsteady, and be led to action by the impulse of the moment.  Like individuals, they may be sensible of their own weakness, and may desire the counsels and checks of friends to guard them against the turbulency and weakness of unruly passions. Such are the various pursuits of this life, that in all civilized countries, the interest of a community will be divided. There will be debtors and creditors, and an unequal possession of property, and hence arises different views and different objects in government. This indeed is the ground-work of aristocracy; and we find it blended in every government, both ancient and modern. Even where titles have survived property, we discover the noble beggar haughty and assuming.

The man who is possessed of wealth, who lolls on his sofa, or rolls in his carriage, cannot judge of the wants or feelings of the day laborer. The government we mean to erect is intended to last for ages. The landed interest, at present, is prevalent; but in process of time, when we approximate to the states and kingdoms of Europe; when the number of landholders shall be comparatively small, through the various means of trade and manufactures, will not the landed interest be overbalanced in future elections, and unless wisely provided against, what will become of your government? In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of the landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be jsut, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, they ought to have permanency and stability. Various have been the propositions; but my opinion is, the longer they continue in office, the better will these views be answered.

---

by: DocG @ Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 23:49:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

That's right (0.00 / 0)

A democracy that does not protect the rights of the minority against the majority is, in fact, a tyranny of the majority.  that a minority is "opulent" is not argument against its protection.

De Toqueville thought that democracy was bound to fail as soon as the poorer majority discovered that they could use the vote to vote themselves boons.

At any rate, i don't thnk it is fair to see the founding fathers as gods.  I think they were aware of the failings of mortal men, and designed a government with those failings in mind.

Such formulae as that in the De=claration are best seen as ideals to be set as goals toward which to evolve.

I think Barack obama said it quite well:  

This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected.

We can either focus on the distance from the goal, focus on that imperfection, and decide that the goaql is either not worthy to be sought, or that our country must tear down its freedoms and institutions to achieve it by some totalitrian or collectivist means, or se can focus on the gap with an eye toward doing a small part toward continuing the progress, as slow and as halting as it may be.  We cannot "let the perfect be the enemy of the possible."

And we cannot confuse the philosophical, metaphysical equality expressed in the Declaration, nor the imcoimplete political equality expressed as an ideal in the Constitution, with equality of outcome, which depends on more than a government should be asked to control.

In fact, since you charge the Republicans with speaking of patriotism in "vulgar economic terms," I would suggest that the left is actually more likely to speak in vulgar economic terms, often confusing the lofty notion of metaphysical equality, or the political ideal of political equality, with economic equality, sometimes going so far as to say that the existence of a large gap in income beteen righ and poor, or, sometimes, any gap between rish and poor, or, among the most faithful of the true believers, that there are rich at all, is evidence that trhe Constitution and our government hasn't worked.

It sometimes shockes me how much of what the left talks about comes down to material things.  When Thomas Frank wondered why lower middle class people worked for a Republican party in Kansas that operated against their interests, what he meant by "against their interests" was exactly against their economic interests.  That these people may have thought that there were other interests more important than the economic never seems tohave occurred to him.  It was all about "vulgar economics."

And, indeed, in our little discussion here, haven't we, you and I, defaulted to a discussion of economics?  Do you plan to arghue that instead of the Republican discussion of patriotism and freedom in vulgar economic terms, we should have a Democratic discussion of patriotism and freedom that doesn't mention economics?

Orwell, as i am sure you are aware, was satirizing exactly those who descend into nonsense by miscontruing the notion of equality in terms or outcome.  In fact, for those who do so, the philosophical and political meanings become less important.  "REal" equality would have nothing to do with politics or metaphusics.  (In orwell's case, he was satirizing Marxists, for whom the individual is subservient to society, in both a metaphysical sense, and a political sense.)  The irony, one that Orwell delighted in pointing out, is that in this system, there is not even equality of outcome; just the pretense of same.

My favourite image in this regard is of old Joe Stalin partying late into the night with the "inner party," laughing and shouting, "give me some more of the People's wine."

As Orwell seems to argue at times, it is a natural outcome of collectivism.  The question of whether a progressivism must alwaus lead to a repressive, totalitarian sustem was never settled by Orwell, so far as i know.  But he certainly thought that it was enough of a natural tendency that it could only be avoided with directed effort.

I must say, I thank you for this discussion, and Imust apologize for the effusion.  And i should report that I have grown com=fortable with imperfection and the world as it is, for the most part.

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 00:50:06 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Wrong ... (0.00 / 0)

"De Toqueville thought that democracy was bound to fail as soon as the poorer majority discovered that they could use the vote to vote themselves boons."

 He never wrote that.  I defy you to cite where it's found if you say otherwise.  It's not found in either of the volumes of Democracy in America ---the only place one would expect to find it.

 Your claim---often spouted in internet fora---is rubbish.


Read - think - speak - doubt; create - explore - give - love.

---

by: proximity1 @ Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 04:47:57 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Interesting, proximity (0.00 / 0)

You may be right, and if you note, I didn't say he wrote it.

I got this from a professor years ago, and mis-remembered it.  Here is the quote I was looking for:

The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money.

Must be my democratic instincts that distorted it to the people directly.

And you are right that it was not only my professor who used this quote, but i found it in articles all over, even in an Iranian Journal, where they were discussing how the west saw Islam in the 19th century, and used some quotes from De Tocqueville.

But, as you not, none attribute this quote to any writings.

On WikiQuote, this is listed with many others under "Unsourced," but not under either "Disputed" or "Misattributed."

So, perhaps, it wold be best to use this:  "attributed to De Tocqueville."

What do you think?

So, my claim is not that he wrote it (and i defy you to show that that was my claim), but that it was and is attributed to him.

Where do you think it came from?

Also note that the attribution was made as a part of polite form, where one gives credit where one thinkws it belongs, and one avoids writing as if something heard elsewhere is his own.  The comment itself, the wisdom of it, is all that counts in my comment.  It would make no difference to the argument of the comment if I wrote "Someone said...."

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 05:59:54 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

a scoundrel invented it, ignorant know-almost-nothing morons repeat it... (7.00 / 1)

I got this from a professor years ago, and mis-remembered it.  Here is the quote I was looking for:

   The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money.

Must be my democratic instincts that distorted it to the people directly.

And you are right that it was not only my professor who used this quote, but i found it in articles all over, even in an Iranian Journal, where they were discussing how the west saw Islam in the 19th century, and used some quotes from De Tocqueville.

But, as you not, none attribute this quote to any writings.

On WikiQuote, this is listed with many others under "Unsourced," but not under either "Disputed" or "Misattributed."

So, perhaps, it wold be best to use this:  "attributed to De Tocqueville."

What do you think?

 I think this episode shows the little regard you habitually have for accuracy.

 I think that, rather than the equally inane "attributed to Tocqueville"  one should write "falsely attributed to Tocqueville"

 and, in your case, you ought to have written,

  "A professor of mine once asserted that Tocqueville wrote"... etc.

  To attempt to take refuge in the hilariously lame defense that you hadn't claimed that Tocqueville wrote it, merely that he thought it, (or, by some stretch, maybe said it).  That, again, is a demonstration of your shitty stance-taking in argumentation here.

  My argument is that he neither said, wrote nor thought the view which you second-handedly attribute to him.  And, indeed, your restatement of the supposed "quote" changes nothing of substance since I knew perfectly well the supposed citation to which you referred.

"The comment itself, the wisdom of it, is all that counts in my comment.  "

  Nonsense.  Your use of the saying depended and depends entirely on the false assumption that it's from Tocqueville since it is Tocqueville's immense prestige which lends this piece of "conservative" idiocy the only respectability that it enjoys.

  The moment that one admits that this view had and has nothing to do with Tocqueville's written opinions, it loses---as it ought to---any value as a saying.

  The statement attributed to A de T  above is, instead, a gross distortion of his true views as he wrote them.  Among democracy's faults and weaknesses which he recognized as inherent there is nothing of this piece of nonsense which points up, by the way, that you are also flatly mistaken to describe it as containing   wisdom.

  It's a foolish claim repeated by foolish people who are, on top of that, also largely ignorant of Tocqueville's writing.

  Obviously, in ignorant America, this sort of specious bullshit is long-lived since so few people have any basis of familiarity by which to counter it.

 Now, are you gonna go on repeating it?  That's my expectation of you.

Read - think - speak - doubt; create - explore - give - love.

---

by: proximity1 @ Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 08:52:30 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Do I know you? (0.00 / 0)

An odd, out of nowhere question, I know, but you remind me exactly of a special person I once knew. An anomaly really.

" I know your face... Eowyn"

;^)

---

by: supersoling @ Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 19:04:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

What the fuck is wrong with you people? (7.00 / 2)

I've read MSOC's essay and I find nothing particularly surprising about it.

But there are 52 comments under this essay that I have not read and I know that down there, somewhere, the Mad One is causing trouble!

Am I wrong or is the Em-Sock lady simply saying that she agrees with Obama/Biden that people who make over 250,000 smackers a year should pay more or less the same level in taxes that they paid under Clinton?

This is fucking controversial?

Mad, what are you doing down there?!

CAUSING TROUBLE!

ROFLMAO!




Lord of the Karmafishes

---

by: Karmafish @ Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 23:46:57 PM CDT

Karma, you ignorant bastard (7.33 / 3)

I'm not down there, I'm up there.  (Oops, now I'm down there, too.  Never mind.)

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 00:04:16 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

but he was right (6.00 / 1)

I can't bear to read your ideas on confiscation...  

-pyrrho-

---

by: pyrrho @ Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 02:54:39 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Actually Karma (6.50 / 4)

Mad was a good boy and the exchange was one of the most interesting, thought provoking I have read in a long time.

Brovo Maryscott!

He ain't heavy he's my brother.

It is a matter of life and death, see the documentary Food INC and vote no to corporate take over of our food every time you buy groceries  

---

by: Kathleen @ Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 06:02:30 AM CDT

[ Parent ]