What are you?

[GreenEarthAl]

People tell me that I'm a Liberal. Liberal has such a negative conotation these days that every liberal wants to call themselves Progressive instead these days. And then there are folks like myself that go so far as to call themselves pan-progressives. I started calling myself that because I like to reach out across the divides that have progressives/liberals divided into a million different factions.


Electoral Politics: I have many friends that say "Man you got to get in that Democratic Party, that's where they have the resources and that's the only party that has a chance of winning" Then I have friends that say "The Dems are fully bought off, we need to start over. Viva la Green Revolucion!" and then I have friends that insist "Voting is a trap designed to get you to participate in a system that is destructive toward people. Forget voting and work on preparing ourselves for when the revolution comes."

Being pan-progressive, I am a registered Green and I try to never miss an opportunity to describe to people what appeals to me about starting a third party and really taking on the corporate fascists in local elections while we build the infrastructure to take them on nationally. And at the same time I identify all truly progressive Dems I can find and help out their campaigns as best I can in order that we might reclaim sections of the Democratic Party. And I work with the radicals and revolutionaries, they are often some of the smartest people and they can point you to the best books and resources and tell you all about Emma Goldman. I'll often try to get them to register just in case they wake up some election day and realize they need to vote for a referendum or anything.


Let's start with that. I'm'a keep goin'.

[Qdrop]

Political:

independant in thought and ideology. my views span the political horizon...

i'm registered as an independant, but will vote for any candidate that i feel most closely aligns with my core beliefs OR whom i think will best fit the current political landscape to give BALANCE....

[GreenEarthAl]

On the environment: I have progressive friends that say "C'mon. We have to be practical. Trees are nice, but they're not really in any danger and we have to show the electorate that we care about jobs. People are always going to vote for their practical best interests." And I have other friends that are like "Man, the environment is fucked, the Ice Sheets are melting over greenland, the Hudson's filled with Polychlorinated Byphenyls and other Persistent Bioacumulative Toxins that are amassing in dangerous amounts in the fatty tissue of all the marine life everywhere, and they're clear cutting south America. We've got to do whatever it takes to get what little we can get passed into law right now. Sign my petition!" and I've got friends that are like "Fuck it. There's no time. We've got to camp out in front of the trees and put spikes that will screw up their chainsaws and sabotage driftnetting vessels and do it now."

I personally tend to side with the far radical elements in believing that there really isn't much time, but I see my own talents best suited for trying to explain things to as many people as possible. Informing the discussion and all that. That's why I spent ungodly amounts of time in the thankless task of writing books and trying to get people to read them, trying to convert expose one person at a time to my arguments.

I am of the belief that the media and the universities and the multinationals have a huge echo chamber and they use that echo chamber to shout "MAYBE IT'S NOT" so many times that people start walking around with their arms extended like night of the living dead mumbling what they've heard in an advertisement. Like Monsanto and General Electric will spend five decades poluting the hudson river and all kinds of science can demonstrate the sheer stupidity of having PBTs in your water tables, but the Nightly Network News will produce a "MAYBE IT'S NOT" piece, and then all the science is fucked.

Maybe having PBTs in out fatty tissue is causing tumors in folks, but.... MAYBE IT'S NOT.

Well. *phew*. As long as Maybe it's not, I spoze we don't have to worry about it. May as well go back to playing PS2 man cause maybe it's not anything to worry about.

[GreenEarthAl]

On Economics: I have friends that are all "Capitalism is the greatest thing ever. We're in the land of opportunity, we just have to get rid of Bush and his costly wars and deficits and we'll have it made in the shade again." and I have friends that are all "The system needs a major overhaul, and we're never going anywhere without socialized or at least single payer health care, we need campaign finance reform to get K-Street (the lobyists) under control, and we need real regulation back on the corporations. " And I have friends that are "Smash the System! UNCLE KARL IN 2008!"

I tend to be egalitarian, and I don't think that the U.S. has any right to impose capitalism on Central and South American countries that democratically elect socialist and communist governments. I think that's the hight of hypocracy actually. I personally think that Americans are comfortable with Capitalism and only capitalism and that a very egalitarian way of life can, in fact, be acheived under capitalism. I believe a lot of Adam Smith's ideas were far more Egalitarian than what we've ended up with which is why I'm very wary of a lot of my friends who seem to be concerned with nothing more than bringing down the system. I think that the powers that be are very crafty and they're always moving toward reconsolidating power.

However many Magna Cartas you sign, or American Revolutions you have or Worker's Revolts, you still have to focus on the actual goal of egalitariansm if that's where you want to end up. By that I mean to say that I see it as very possible that if there were to be a Revolution, then the powers that be could create an Aristocratic communistic society just as easily as they've crafted this aristocratic American society. And they would tell us how free we are on the news but we might still have the same appaling lack of self determination in practice. And we'd still be ruled by a tiny handful of elites and nothing will have changed for real.

Eyes on the prise you know. Stop arguing about whether the common man is qualified or not to make the weighty decision and make him qualified if he isn't already. Stop waiting for permission and just start educating people. Find yourself some kids and teach. S'not that hard.

[GreenEarthAl]

Prolly enough for now I'm guessing.

[ToucanSpam]

I'm left wing.

[Ace42]

Find yourself some kids and teach. S'not that hard.

Tell that to Socrates... If you tried doing that, you'd end up going down for a stretch, and no "don't you click your fingers at me" juror is going to save your ass.

Step outta line, the men come and take you away.

[King of Rock II]

I'm a socialist.

In Holland you can call yourself a socialist, in the US it seems like socialist is synonymous for communist.

Socialist here just means left wing/progressive.

[Qdrop]

environment:

i don't fall for the Litany bullshit hook-line-and-sinker.

i believe their ARE alot of environmental issues in the world that need to be addressed....but there are only limited funds and resources to deal with them.

thus we should focus on the most apparent and provable issues first....and leave time for research for the others if there is still substantial and credible debate concerning them.

clean drinking water for all is more important then global warming.
we know dirty drinking water will kill you.
we don't barely a damn thing about global warming.

i believe the best bet we have for energy is nuclear power....
and hydrogen cells for transportation...

we need to move away from petrolium...

[Homsar]

I'm what they call independent. Labels suck :p .

[Ace42]

i believe the best bet we have or energy is nuclear power....
and hydrogen cells for transportation...

we need to move away from petrolium...

I think hydrogen is the future. Not just in terms of hydrogen fuel cells, but also in terms of hydrogen fusion power reactors.

[Qdrop]

economics:

i preach for a controlled/regulated (and perhaps capped) capitalism.

capitalism is the best economic structure for human nature on a large scale.
no matter what others say, history shows that capitalism produces the most money for the most people.

communism cannot work on a grand scale.
socialist elements can and do, pehaps....but communism cannot and will not.
period.

it is moot to argue how much better communism would treat it's people....
it's like discussing living on the sun.
why bother....it ain't gonna happen.

yes, capitalism oppresses in some ways.
yes it takes money at other's expense.

i'm fine with that....it most closely mirrros nature.
we are not all equal with equal with equal abilities...and should not be thought of as such.
survival of the fittest...i'll just say it.

egalitarianism is a pipe dream that does not jive with natural law.
to pursue is to waste time, money, and perhaps survival.

some will always be poor and destitute.
that is nature.

with all of our conscious thought and enlightenment, we will never be above natural law.

capitalism works because it is fueled by human nature and it's many greedy needs.
but while greed is the finest fuel...it can also be the machine's own destruction.
it must be controlled....it cannot be allowed to run amok....greed cannot regulate greed if it has the same owner.

through regulation and caps, you can achieve some egalitarian successes...some spreading of the wealth....without attempting to break natural law.

[GreenEarthAl]

thus we should focus on the most apparent and provable issues first....and leave time for research for the others if there is still substantial and credible debate concerning them.

we don't barely a damn thing about global warming.


It seems rather obvious to me that this is an unwise standard of measure for determining a course of action.

Taken to it's logical conclusion it would have us diverting as much of our resources as possible toward the provable and actionable.

Apparent problems with this are:

1. Things that we know little about are likely to remain things we know little about because their study will not be a priority.

2. There's no way to get potential hazards to sign an agreement to affect us by magnitude in order of our knowledge about them.

"Hello. I'm global warming. I would love to cause heat waves, kill off the krill in the antarctic, and melt all kinds of glacial fresh water into the salty oceans, but not much is known about any of it I'm afraid. I was hoping to come back and try again in twenty years or so, but it seems that they're funding more and more scientists to come up with reports about how little is known, and moreover, I don't think they even have the resources to properly deal with me so Bollocs all it may be another century or two before I do anything a'tall."

[GreenEarthAl]

communism cannot work on a grand scale.
socialist elements can and do, pehaps....but communism cannot and will not.
period.


Well now that you've decided and your desision is final (and even punctuated with a "period.") I suppose I'll throw my copy of the Communist Manefesto away.

What if people don't need it to work on a grand scale? What if people just want decentralized anarcho decentralization, where small communities of people who are more communisticly minded wish to live together?

What keps it from working more often than not is that people like William Casey and J.E.Hoover and all of Leo Strauss' deciples make sure it doesn't work by funding some paramilitaries that show up at the commune and solve the problem with machine guns ensuring that no alternative example exists. And so long as no alternative example exists it will always remain possible to say "It can't work. There are no cases where it's ever worked. Show me a case where it's ever worked (so we'll know where to send the paramilitaries next)."

[Ace42]

Indeed, Capitalism was regarded with suspicion as a curiosity to the european monarchies of the Elizabethan period. If you were an aristocrat in England then, you'd be saying precisely the same things about Capitalism, Q.

[Ali]

I'm bored.

[ChrisLove]

economics:

i preach for a controlled/regulated (and perhaps capped) capitalism.

capitalism is the best economic structure for human nature on a large scale.
no matter what others say, history shows that capitalism produces the most money for the most people.

communism cannot work on a grand scale.
socialist elements can and do, pehaps....but communism cannot and will not.
period.

it is moot to argue how much better communism would treat it's people....
it's like discussing living on the sun.
why bother....it ain't gonna happen.

yes, capitalism oppresses in some ways.
yes it takes money at other's expense.

i'm fine with that....it most closely mirrros nature.
we are not all equal with equal with equal abilities...and should not be thought of as such.
survival of the fittest...i'll just say it.

egalitarianism is a pipe dream that does not jive with natural law.
to pursue is to waste time, money, and perhaps survival.

some will always be poor and destitute.
that is nature.

with all of our conscious thought and enlightenment, we will never be above natural law.

capitalism works because it is fueled by human nature and it's many greedy needs.
but while greed is the finest fuel...it can also be the machine's own destruction.
it must be controlled....it cannot be allowed to run amok....greed cannot regulate greed if it has the same owner.

through regulation and caps, you can achieve some egalitarian successes...some spreading of the wealth....without attempting to break natural law.
Im in agreement with much of this, I work for the UKs financial regulator and in previous posts have gone on at length about how I dont think free markets ever produce optimal outcomes, an effective regulator can in theory achieve excellent results for all of society with a basically capitalist framework.

Re the environment, I (like GEA) think dismissing an idea because we dont know enough about it is an inefficient way of allocating resources. There is after all a distinct nonzero chance that global warming is real, manmade and a serious threat to humanity, at what level of probability should we decide that it is worthy of our attention?

I guess some equation incorporating probability of risk realisation and cost into the allocation of environmental efforts/resources is probably the best way to go about it

[Qdrop]

Apparent problems with this are:

1. Things that we know little about are likely to remain things we know little about because their study will not be a priority. i said nothing about cutting research or funding it. let it continue in the same progress it is currently...they've just recently found some rather conclusive evidence (so it seems) that the earth IS warming....(it only took about 35 years). i am saying NOT to through money into a kyoto treaty at this time.

2. There's no way to get potential hazards to sign an agreement to affect us by magnitude in order of our knowledge about them. eh...."culture of fear" symptoms.

"there were 2 shark attacks in florida in the past 3 days....WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING! KILL ALL THE SHARKS!"

"SOMEONE WAS KILLED IN THIER HOME LAST WEEK IN YOUR CITY....YOU NEED TO GET A GUN NOW!"

"we found 1 cow with mad cow disease in your country....PANIC...EVERYONE PANIC....CLOSE THE RESTARAUNTS...WE CAN'T HESITATE...AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH. ..MAD COW MAD COW!"

it goes on and on and on....

be afraid...be very afraid.

fear is the #1 motivator in our culture...and EVERYONE tries to use to thier advantage...

[Qdrop]

What if people don't need it to work on a grand scale? What if people just want decentralized anarcho decentralization, where small communities of people who are more communisticly minded wish to live together? then find your own country.
you can't "squat" in the US.
you pay your dues (taxes, contribute to the economy, vote, ect) if you are going to reap the benefits- and yes, virtually everyone reaps the benefits in some manner. that ain't free.
if you don't like america's system...either work to try and change it...or leave.
but don't just throw up your arms and say "hey...i don't believe in this system...we're gonna just start our own little system right here, and not have anything to do with the country's system....oh but continue to give us freedom, security, ect...thanks"

What keeps it from working more often than not is that people like William Casey and J.E.Hoover and all of Leo Strauss' deciples make sure it doesn't work by funding some paramilitaries that show up at the commune and solve the problem with machine guns ensuring that no alternative example exists. And so long as no alternative example exists it will always remain possible to say "It can't work. There are no cases where it's ever worked. Show me a case where it's ever worked (so we'll know where to send the paramilitaries next)." eh....that's the mantra that communist lovers LOVE to spit out....
but come the fuck on.

yes...america has engaged in some nasty shit over the decades to create puppet gov'ts that serve our own interest...

but are you really going to blaim 100 years of communist/socialist failures on american espionage and covert sabotage?

what it comes down to is competition....you have to expect countries to compete world wide.....communism could not compete with capitalism on a grand scale....capitalism just produces more money.

i mean, shit...you act as if communist countries like the USSR could never, and never did engage in covert sabotage/espionage on thier own behalf during thier history...please.

don't use the old "america, the cruel landlord" warhorse....

if animal A out-hunts animal B to extinction in the wild (eats up more of the limited resources)...do you blaim animal A?
animal B could not compete....they didn't evolve/adapt fast enough.

nature keeps the balance...in some way or other...or else you are removed.

[Documad]

It is difficult to stomach any major political party. Who wants to identify with one? Both major US ones have a crackpot element. But I think you have to.

If it makes you feel fulfilled to show up every 2 or 4 years and vote for one of the candidates the major parties picked for you, then be an independent. If you want to feel good about your own moral compass but have no voice in your government, join a small party. I spent a lot of time last year talking with people about their party affiliations and it was really interesting. Seems like most of them always end up voting for the same party anyway and they would be better off trying to affect that party's direction. For some, they were withholding support in protest until the party meets their needs. Most futile form of protest I can imagine.

If you live in the US and you want to have any meaningful impact, I'm convinced that you have to participate in one of the two big parties. A staggering number of hugely important decisions are made by low level government appointees. I want a voice in those decisions. I think I have one. I used to be a republican and became a democrat when the religious right took over my state's republican party.

I agree with a lot that qdrop said about the economy and I disagree about some of what he said re the environment. While I don't have a sufficient science background to completely understand, I have worked for a long time with really smart people who do. I must admit that I think that situation is pretty much hopeless in the long run, and I'm glad I don't have kids. I don't know the best long term policy, but I am really upset that the Bush adminstration (via his political appointees) has virtually stopped prosecuting even the worst abusers, and no one seems to care.

(oh, and I don't care what people do in the privacy of their own homes and think that women should decide what to do with their bodies and I think we shouldn't attack another country without a really good reason and even though I think cops are mostly awesome I think that suspected criminals should have some rights so I guess that makes me a liberal even though I dislike the welfare system, etc.)

[enree erzweglle]

I'm a socialist.

In Holland you can call yourself a socialist, in the US it seems like socialist is synonymous for communist.

Socialist here just means left wing/progressive.

Yes, it does mean that here.
You get the stink eye as it is from red-staters who think you're even slightly left. If you called yourself a socialist, they'd string you up and not in the good way.

[GreenEarthAl]

eh....that's the mantra that communist lovers LOVE to spit out....but come the fuck on.

yes...america has engaged in some nasty shit over the decades to create puppet gov'ts that serve our own interest...

but are you really going to blaim[sic] 100 years of communist/socialist failures on american espionage and covert sabotage?

No. I tend to consider "communist failures" on a case by case basis.

My own opinion is that most of the more famous failures of regimes operating under the rubric of "communism" had far more to do with the fact that they were totolitarian, dictatorial and engaged in mass murder on a grand scale. Humans generally do not like to murder indescriminantly and they certainly do not like to be murdered or have loved ones slaughtered. So the USSR had elements of itself working against itself even before the Stalinists, but especially after the Stalinists.

Yet, still the USSR persisted and was ultimately toppled from within and without when Ronald Reagan spent trillions of dollars on an arms race to make sure that there were enough nukes to crack the world in half and so we "won" the cold war but we still have yet to pay off those trillions of dollars (in fact we've headed the other way) and now China and East Asia owns our asses in T-notes (but Enigma assures me that this is a good thing, so please rejoice.)

what it comes down to is competition....you have to expect countries to compete world wide.....communism could not compete with capitalism on a grand scale....capitalism just produces more [capital].

Well, duh! But how do you intend to forbid me from ascribing a higher value to something like human needs than the value I ascribe to capital. I mean, yes, we have zommed to #1 in terms of having the landfills that are the most full of cheap plastic disposable crap, we drive our GDP super high with medical expensing and insurance and reinsurance and securities and such, it's all a very pretty house of cards. All our children have nice service industry jobs fetching iradiated cow patties from the freezer and slapping it on the grill, but, alas, increasing America doesn't actually make things anymore (by design of course because we're not done with out plan to scale back all the workers rights that we had to grudgingly grant the people after WWII, but after we offshore all the jobs and people are ready once again to work under developing nation conditions, we'll bring some back and make some things here) As you might well imagine, none of this impresses me much. Highest GDP to what end? What actual good have we made of it?

Didn't we use that staggering GDP to make our children a priority and inovate in our schools and teach out children critical thinking and make sure their science and math skills were on par with the most educated nations in the world? Spoze not.

I know. We probably designed a health care system that ensured that we all had acccess to quality emergency care and preventative medicine so that we could be the envy of the world in terms of health. Or, no, spoze not.

Maybe we didn't have it to spend on ourselves because we are so, so, so very nice that we spent it charitably on the less fortunate nations. Maybe we made foreign aid a HUGE chunk of our budget and doled out (liberally) the things that developing nations needed to become self sufficient and prosperous. Well, no. Spoze we didn't do that either.

i mean, shit...you act as if communist countries like the USSR could never, and never did engage in covert sabotage/espionage on thier own behalf during thier history...please.

don't use the old "america, the cruel landlord" warhorse....

If the warhorse fits, work it girl - Give us a twirl. Two wrongs don't make a right, in fact they make a big fat hypocrite. A nation that pops off inceasantly about "Spreading Democracy" and yet has been overthrowing Democratically elected governments in Central and South America for decades. Poor marks for adherance to the golden rule.

Bottom line, some humans like to have poor people around to compare themselves to. They cling to aggressive and dogmatic arguments like "IT COULD NEVER WORK! ALL PEOPLE ARE GREEDY! YOU HAVE TO MOTIVATE BY GREED, IT'S THE ONLY WAY!" simply because that is the way they prefer.

They champion "competition" and yet they are really afraid of fair competition and the implications. Anyplace where communities begin to sucessfully live in communal harmony, those communities are eradicated because the power brokers are afraid of real competition and competing on a level playing feild with such ideas. They are concerned about what people would chose if they ever saw they had an option of chosing that rather than toiling for their personal enrichment. They are aided greatly by middle America which likes to think of itself as having an egalitarian sentimentality, but when the rubber hits the road, they want to have someone poorer than they to make themselves feel special.

[Qdrop]

No. I tend to consider "communist failures" on a case by case basis. splendid.

My own opinion is that most of the more famous failures of regimes operating under the rubric of "communism" had far more to do with the fact that they were totolitarian, dictatorial and engaged in mass murder on a grand scale. Humans generally do not like to murder indescriminantly and they certainly do not like to be murdered or have loved ones slaughtered. So the USSR had elements of itself working against itself even before the Stalinists, but especially after the Stalinists. so why is this?
why DID most of the communist failures happen under totolitarian regimes that committed disgusting atrocities? where are the communist nations that exist in relative harmony with it's people?
no really...tell me about them.
if you say the US destroyed them all, i will need some unbiased referance to those accounts.

and I'm asking GEA, everyone....don't butt in.

how many capitalist, free market, democratic countries (within the past 200 years) do know that have committed large scale genocides, operated under fascist totolitarian control, ect? (and don't compare Bush to Stalin...don't do it.)

why is that?


Well, duh! But how do you intend to forbid me from ascribing a higher value to something like human needs than the value I ascribe to capital. I mean, yes, we have zommed to #1 in terms of having the landfills that are the most full of cheap plastic disposable crap, we drive our GDP super high with medical expensing and insurance and reinsurance and securities and such, it's all a very pretty house of cards. All our children have nice service industry jobs fetching iradiated cow patties from the freezer and slapping it on the grill, but, alas, increasing America doesn't actually make things anymore (by design of course because we're not done with out plan to scale back all the workers rights that we had to grudgingly grant the people after WWII, but after we offshore all the jobs and people are ready once again to work under developing nation conditions, we'll bring some back and make some things here) As you might well imagine, none of this impresses me much. Highest GDP to what end? What actual good have we made of it? first off...you are switching the topic to american materialism/consumerism.

the point is, humans like lots of capital. we do. that won't change.
capitalism produces the most for the most people.

whether you like that or not has no effect on if it's true.


Didn't we use that staggering GDP to make our children a priority and inovate in our schools and teach out children critical thinking and make sure their science and math skills were on par with the most educated nations in the world? Spoze not. you're pretty on point there.

I know. We probably designed a health care system that ensured that we all had acccess to quality emergency care and preventative medicine so that we could be the envy of the world in terms of health. Or, no, spoze not. on point there too.

Maybe we didn't have it to spend on ourselves because we are so, so, so very nice that we spent it charitably on the less fortunate nations. Maybe we made foreign aid a HUGE chunk of our budget and doled out (liberally) the things that developing nations needed to become self sufficient and prosperous. Well, no. Spoze we didn't do that either. do some unbiased research on that.
i really hate when liberals scream about how non-generous we are....
check and see who gives the most aid to the rest of the world....for the past 100 years.
no, really....look it up. find multiple sources on it.
cross referance...
when you have time.

then insert your foot in your mouth.

again...i am asking GEA to do this and respond....no butting in, please.


If the warhorse fits, work it girl - Give us a twirl. Two wrongs don't make a right, in fact they make a big fat hypocrite. A nation that pops off inceasantly about "Spreading Democracy" and yet has been overthrowing Democratically elected governments in Central and South America for decades. Poor marks for adherance to the golden rule. plenty of hypocrisy, sure. we tend to act in our best interest...or what we think is in our best interest.
many of these acts helped to solidify and maintain our power in the world and our capital, and increase security (though recent actions could negate that)....capital, security, and power which trickled down to most of us.
you experianced the benifits of those actions, GEA....YOU.

Now, why don't you list the positive actions the the US gov't has undertaken globally in the past 100 years.

if you have any interest in balance and fairness....

Bottom line, some humans like to have poor people around to compare themselves to. They cling to aggressive and dogmatic arguments like "IT COULD NEVER WORK! ALL PEOPLE ARE GREEDY! YOU HAVE TO MOTIVATE BY GREED, IT'S THE ONLY WAY!" simply because that is the way they prefer. another over-used liberal mantra.
"YOU KEEP THE POOR PEOPLE POOR CAUSE IT MAKES YOU FEEL GOOD!"

that continues to be one of the most ignorant and just plain ridiculous arguments concerning social economics.

i suppose people will say anything to dodge the fact that some people just suck at life. they are not very intelligent, not very motivated, have made a plethora of poor life decisions, are unable to compete with the bulk of society in a capitalist system.

this has nothing to do with gender or race.
and may not have as much to do with environment as liberals would like to think.

just plain genetics.
nature.
not everyone can be a success.

but liberals (or the emotionally equivilant) will never accept that.
they think everyone is equal. born a blank slate....

They champion "competition" and yet they are really afraid of fair competition and the implications. Anyplace where communities begin to sucessfully live in communal harmony, those communities are eradicated because the power brokers are afraid of real competition and competing on a level playing feild with such ideas. detailed examples please. no antecdotes.



GEA, i enjoy debating with you.

[BGirl]

I'm pretty well far left/progressive on every issue I can think of.

In 2004 I worked on the Kucinich campaign and voted for Kerry in the general election.

In NY we have fusion voting so I voted for Kerry and other Dems under the Working Families party instead of the Democratic Party.

[GreenEarthAl]

Pleasure to meet you. I also worked on the Kucinich campaign (http://buffalo4kucinich.com/). I also live in New York State. And Also voted down the Green Party and Working Families lines.

:)

[catatonic]

I voted for Kucinich and Kerry, but find myself now to be a moderate populist conservative. It's enough to make me a Republican, but I'm never voting for Bush.

I don't believe in global warming caused by man anymore after some debate on another board, and I think it would be a good idea for the government to make personal savings accounts of $2000 for each young person that would make everyone retire a millionaire. They'd be personal savings accounts, not related to privatization. It assumes 6% annual growth, a very conservative figure.

As for why I don't believe in global warming now, here's the article:

Leading scientific journals 'are censoring debate on global warming'
By Robert Matthews
(Filed: 01/05/2005)

Two of the world's leading scientific journals have come under fire from researchers for refusing to publish papers which challenge fashionable wisdom over global warming.



A British authority on natural catastrophes who disputed whether climatologists really agree that the Earth is getting warmer because of human activity, says his work was rejected by the American publication, Science, on the flimsiest of grounds.




Radcliffe on Sour power station with Dr Benny Peiser (inset). He disagrees with the pro-global warming line

A separate team of climate scientists, which was regularly used by Science and the journal Nature to review papers on the progress of global warming, said it was dropped after attempting to publish its own research which raised doubts over the issue.

The controversy follows the publication by Science in December of a paper which claimed to have demonstrated complete agreement among climate experts, not only that global warming is a genuine phenomenon, but also that mankind is to blame.

The author of the research, Dr Naomi Oreskes, of the University of California, analysed almost 1,000 papers on the subject published since the early 1990s, and concluded that 75 per cent of them either explicitly or implicitly backed the consensus view, while none directly dissented from it.

Dr Oreskes's study is now routinely cited by those demanding action on climate change, including the Royal Society and Prof Sir David King, the Government's chief scientific adviser.

However, her unequivocal conclusions immediately raised suspicions among other academics, who knew of many papers that dissented from the pro-global warming line.

They included Dr Benny Peiser, a senior lecturer in the science faculty at Liverpool John Moores University, who decided to conduct his own analysis of the same set of 1,000 documents - and concluded that only one third backed the consensus view, while only one per cent did so explicitly.

Dr Peiser submitted his findings to Science in January, and was asked to edit his paper for publication - but has now been told that his results have been rejected on the grounds that the points he make had been "widely dispersed on the internet".

Dr Peiser insists that he has kept his findings strictly confidential. "It is simply not true that they have appeared elsewhere already," he said.

A spokesman for Science said Dr Peiser's research had been rejected "for a variety of reasons", adding: "The information in the letter was not perceived to be novel."

Dr Peiser rejected this: "As the results from my analysis refuted the original claims, I believe Science has a duty to publish them."

Dr Peiser is not the only academic to have had work turned down which criticises the findings of Dr Oreskes's study. Prof Dennis Bray, of the GKSS National Research Centre in Geesthacht, Germany, submitted results from an international study showing that fewer than one in 10 climate scientists believed that climate change is principally caused by human activity.

As with Dr Peiser's study, Science refused to publish his rebuttal. Prof Bray told The Telegraph: "They said it didn't fit with what they were intending to publish."

Prof Roy Spencer, at the University of Alabama, a leading authority on satellite measurements of global temperatures, told The Telegraph: "It's pretty clear that the editorial board of Science is more interested in promoting papers that are pro-global warming. It's the news value that is most important."

He said that after his own team produced research casting doubt on man-made global warming, they were no longer sent papers by Nature and Science for review - despite being acknowledged as world leaders in the field.

As a result, says Prof Spencer, flawed research is finding its way into the leading journals, while attempts to get rebuttals published fail. "Other scientists have had the same experience", he said. "The journals have a small set of reviewers who are pro-global warming."

Concern about bias within climate research has spread to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, whose findings are widely cited by those calling for drastic action on global warming.

In January, Dr Chris Landsea, an expert on hurricanes with the United States National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, resigned from the IPCC, claiming that it was "motivated by pre-conceived agendas" and was "scientifically unsound".

A spokesman for Science denied any bias against sceptics of man-made global warming. "You will find in our letters that there is a wide range of opinion," she said. "We certainly seek to cover dissenting views."

Dr Philip Campbell, the editor-in-chief of Nature, said that the journal was always happy to publish papers that go against perceived wisdom, as long as they are of acceptable scientific quality.

"The idea that we would conspire to suppress science that undermines the idea of anthropogenic climate change is both false and utterly naive about what makes journals thrive," he said.

Dr Peiser said the stifling of dissent and preoccupation with doomsday scenarios is bringing climate research into disrepute. "There is a fear that any doubt will be used by politicians to avoid action," he said. "But if political considerations dictate what gets published, it's all over for science."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/05/01/wglob01.xml

[Qdrop]

^^ i don't doubt that at all.
that shit happens all the time.

liberals complain about "money over truth"...

well, i look at the liberal side and see issues with
"agenda over truth"
"sensitivety over truth"

it's just as decietful..

[GreenEarthAl]

splendid.

so why is this?
why DID most of the communist failures happen under totolitarian regimes that committed disgusting atrocities? where are the communist nations that exist in relative harmony with it's people?
no really...tell me about them.
if you say the US destroyed them all, i will need some unbiased referance to those accounts.

You can demand a blue unicorn of me, but don't be surprised if I can come up with nothing more than a blue horse with a cone glued to it's head. Unbiased references are mythological in nature. And communism has been one of the most devicive issues with the most biased reporting possible. Most any account I can give you, if it supports my ideas on communisms viability will have been written by someone who agrees with my position, and there will exist somewhere a capitalist's counter-article/argument with an opposing perspective.

Most of what I would be inclined to cite would include interviews with those same poor and minority and indigenous communities that you describe above in your "losers of the world, just born that way" speech. And the counter arguments will have citations from Cato people and Bradley Foundation people and PR folks in expensive suits, so sound as you will be more inclined to give more weight to what they say as they are the captains of industry and paragons of success.

Nevertheless I will give it a go. I'm not big on the whole quote everything mess and try to OUTWORD and shout down your opponent. I'm trying to exchange ideas in the hopes of finding arguments that make me rethink my opinions and encourage others to rethink theirs, and I would prefer if everyone felt free to engage whatever I have to say, so even if your name isn't QDrop, feel free to have at me.

ahem.

Why is it that Mao & Joe Stalin and Pol Pot et al commited disgusting attrocities with the communist countries they commanded?

Because that's what they chose to do. Men like Marx, Engles, and Bakunin, for as smart as they may have been, and for enduring as their ideas are, were demonstrably advocates of violence. Advocates of the same kind of Peace through Violence nonsense that the Noeconservative movement is foisting upon us now.

Each of those individuals: Mao, Stalin, etc. Had their own personal failings and circumstances. And it was very unfortunate that they should ever come to power under ANY economic system. Hitler may have been a Socialist in name, but that was largely of convenience. In practice, he was as Capitalistic as any other, and as all of these Ideologies went to war, it seems that ALL nations of All economic systems became morally bankrupt.

For as much as Ann Coulter and friends like to vilify F.D.R. and Truman, they still hold America up as the paragon of virtue in the war of ideas and gloss over the firebombing of Japanese cities, the internment of Japanese citizens and the only detonation ever of a nuclear weapon against a civilian population. Which says nothing of counter-attrocities against the Axis powers in Europe.

Your amerocentric centrism easily excuses all of this because "Hey, we were at war against evil". And so, too, did Mao Tse Tung's forces excuse the slaughter of any number of Chinese because "Hey, we're at war against the evil Red Army and we will be at peace once we defeat them," and so too did Stalin's forces excuse the attrocities they could find out about because they were at war against great evil too.

Was no right, was no wrong. Call me a moral relativist all you like, I've never run from the term. I do believe morality is relative.

I, personally, have no problem accepting that those Communist regimes were more wrong than we were. That seems demonstrably true to me. I do not accept that as a proof that mass slaughters are in any way a foregone conclusion and end result of Communism, in fact I find that argument rediculous.

Moving ahead to more contemporary times, I find that Americans seem to be comfortable with the way we operate against competing communist ideologies. As long as we don't commit massive mass slaughters, we still retain to ourselves the moral high ground. Minor mass slaughters are fine. We forgive ourselves and our government and its proxies any number of minor slaughters that it might wish to perpetrate against indigenous far left movements because, and only because we accept this argument that Communism=Mass Slaughter every time, no exceptions.

My own view is that we are commiting crimes against the potential quality of life for masses of people when we go around chopping off the heads of people's movements around the globe, and that those anti-democratic actions are greater in damage to the human condition, but I realize how abstract of a concept that is and that it takes a lot of work to explain it.

If you really have any desire to understand it from my perspectiveI would invite you to do reading and research on the flashpoints and watershed moments that illustrate what I'm talking about, but obviously that is asking a lot.

I would start with Mohammed Mossadegh's attempt to Nationalize oil fields to use their resources for the benefit of Iran and Kermit Roosevelt's countercoup which is, in my view, immoral.

Read articles on both sides about the occupation and subjugation of Hawaii and the indigenous people's movements there.

Assuming that you aready are well informed on the anti-Cuban position I would invite you to read and critique some pro Cuban Revolutionary history. In fact, read El Che himself. Read about Batista, America's proxy, and why the Cuban people were motivated to overthrow it in the first place.

Read all about the various Inca/Azteca/Myan indigenous movements from Mexico to Argentina. Start with the United Fruit company vs. the people of Guatemala. Read about Catholic Liberation Theology and the School of the America's operatives being sent to crush it. Read about FARC and how their leaders were tricked into putting down their arms, entering politics and then subsequently killed en masse. Why is FARC so violent? Has something to do with the moderate FARC of the passed having all been mass assasinated. Read JOhn Perkin's book Confessions of an Economic Hitman, just go to the library if you're pressed for time and read about Roldos and Toriijos (chapters 24, 26 & 27. They're short) to see an alternative take on Panama and Equador's leaders' assasination by the CIA, to see how the CIA treats even capitalists when they are too progressive and insist on uplifting their people and reject their own personal enrichment.

[BGirl]

Pleasure to meet you. I also worked on the Kucinich campaign (http://buffalo4kucinich.com/). I also live in New York State. And Also voted down the Green Party and Working Families lines.

:)

Likewise. Kucitizens unite! :)

[GreenEarthAl]

You have me correctly pegged as someone who accepts "nurture" in the nature vs. nurture argument. Congratulations, I've already conceeded that before.

I do not accept that some people "suck at life". I do believe that it is possible to create the conditions where there can be success and happiness on a grand scale and humanity can get much closer to acheiving it's potential and value the unique talents and abilities of us all. And I'm so glad I live in good ol Free America where even QDrop is obligated to allow me to continue to believe that way.

I do believe that American Capitalism is a huge step forward toward those goals. It pissed off a lot of my Revolutionary friends that I feel that way, and ascribe any value to those slave-owning white guys that framed the constitution.

I think that Adam Smith and John Locke's ideas about Capitalism were wildly radical and progressive and egalitarian and blasted the Monarchists right in their eye. It took Centuries to acheive, but it was worth the work. Adding ideas like upword mobility and reintroducing Democratic Republic representation for male white land owners was an impressive step forward. Oh how much more impressive it might have been had it not come with a corresponding genocide on first nations people and enslavement of Africans, but what can you do about the past?

I am of the view that we have regressed most of the way back to fuedalism, however. Class mobility is largely mythical these days more than it is a practical reality. We are inundated with articles written by the "successful" detailing how, even if they were born with nothing, they could follow 'these simple steps' and make it from worst to first and we use that to believe our own hype about how anyone can make it if they pick themselves up by their bootstraps. And those who fail to do so just, well, you know, "suck at life."

To give further credence to their argument we are inundated with exaggerated stories of relatively poor people who made it in business. Succeeded by the sweat of their brow. And thus we are lured into an argument of "Personal Responsability" vs. "Products of our Environment".

A false argument if there ever was one because both sides of the argument are true and both sides of the argument are false. If a person, for whatever reason, rejects maturity and responsability and only feels comfortable in a life of what you'll call failure, then all of the Welfare, Sel-Esteem programming and Feel good singalonging in the world will likely fail to make a lasting difference on said person. At the same time, none of us "succeeds" alone. Through dumb luck you will have the right parents, find the right teacher at the right time, or see the right tv show that inspires you to do the self-improvement that makes a lasting difference in your life.

People like me, do believe that you can interviene and provide the quality education on a grand scale that can facilitate the success of nearly all. And are not embrarassed by that belief. And I've been arguing it in debate setting like this for 15 years now and I've yet to be disabused of those beliefs, but I am willing to accept that it's possible, however unlikely, that you just haven't thrown enough words at me yet. And 400,000 more words might be all it takes to get me to love Ayn Rand.

[GreenEarthAl]

Sorry. I meant to say: I love Ayn Rand already, as she is a human being, and one who I give the benefit of the doubt to concerning her well-intentionedness. And 400,000 more words may be all it takes to get me to love AND agree with her.

(but prolly not)

[GreenEarthAl]

Likewise. Kucitizens unite! :)

*high five*

(y)

[catatonic]

Sorry to let you guys down by becoming slightly more Republican. I still agree with most of the ideas presented here.

[Qdrop]

You can demand a blue unicorn of me, but don't be surprised if I can come up with nothing more than a blue horse with a cone glued to it's head. Unbiased references are mythological in nature. And communism has been one of the most devicive issues with the most biased reporting possible. Most any account I can give you, if it supports my ideas on communisms viability will have been written by someone who agrees with my position, and there will exist somewhere a capitalist's counter-article/argument with an opposing perspective. . you are wise in the ways of article debating...
but none the less....
just give me something.
i hear time and time again about how there HAVE been workable, peaceful communist systems around the world in the past 100 years...but they were all obliterated by the US or someother nefarious foe.
yet when i ask for specific details....i get the run around.

you must either give these examples or retract that statement.
it's the responsible thing to do.


Why is it that Mao & Joe Stalin and Pol Pot et al commited disgusting attrocities with the communist countries they commanded?

Because that's what they chose to do. Men like Marx, Engles, and Bakunin, for as smart as they may have been, and for enduring as their ideas are, were demonstrably advocates of violence. Advocates of the same kind of Peace through Violence nonsense that the Noeconservative movement is foisting upon us now.

Each of those individuals: Mao, Stalin, etc. Had their own personal failings and circumstances. And it was very unfortunate that they should ever come to power under ANY economic system. Hitler may have been a Socialist in name, but that was largely of convenience. In practice, he was as Capitalistic as any other, and as all of these Ideologies went to war, it seems that ALL nations of All economic systems became morally bankrupt.. so are you saying that is purely coincidence that all of the major commumist/socialist nations of the past 100 years were systems built on totolitarianism and genocide?

if someone of FDR's stature ran the USSR in the middle of this century...it would have been a resounding success.
we'd all be waiving the red flag?

it isn't the system, it's the leaders? pure and simple.

you leave no room that perhaps for such systems like communism (that run so countrary to human nature and natural free market conditions) to work, they would require totolitarian control?

.For as much as Ann Coulter and friends like to vilify F.D.R. and Truman, they still hold America up as the paragon of virtue in the war of ideas and gloss over the firebombing of Japanese cities, the internment of Japanese citizens and the only detonation ever of a nuclear weapon against a civilian population. Which says nothing of counter-attrocities against the Axis powers in Europe.

Your amerocentric centrism easily excuses all of this because "Hey, we were at war against evil". And so, too, did Mao Tse Tung's forces excuse the slaughter of any number of Chinese because "Hey, we're at war against the evil Red Army and we will be at peace once we defeat them," and so too did Stalin's forces excuse the attrocities they could find out about because they were at war against great evil too.

Was no right, was no wrong. Call me a moral relativist all you like, I've never run from the term. I do believe morality is relative.

I, personally, have no problem accepting that those Communist regimes were more wrong than we were. That seems demonstrably true to me. I do not accept that as a proof that mass slaughters are in any way a foregone conclusion and end result of Communism, in fact I find that argument rediculous. .
well, it's like this.
i really don't want to go in circles playing the "who's more moral game". for ANY nation to get to the level that we have and to STAY there...you gotta do some nasty shit (ethically nasty- ethics being a man-made construct that has no value in nature).
you pay the cost to be the boss.

look around at nature...see what social animals do to remain head of the pack...or in the name of competition.
it aint pretty.

what i will argue for...is pragmatism.
not what's more or less moral...
but what WORKS for the MOST people.

i do not believe communism does.
not in comparison to capitalism.
not in comparison to....well...anything.

it's a paper economy.

and ACe and others would be quick to say "well america's system of capitalism is a far cry from textbook pure capitalist free market".

yeah, it is.
good. well done.

but it works.
it works for most of the people.
it works better than anything else.



My own view is that we are commiting crimes against the potential quality of life for masses of people when we go around chopping off the heads of people's movements around the globe, and that those anti-democratic actions are greater in damage to the human condition, but I realize how abstract of a concept that is and that it takes a lot of work to explain it. .
no, i see what you are saying.
what is the real benefit in the long run...and to whom?
is it REALLY in our best interest to do what we have done around the globe?

sometimes yes...other times, no.


I would start with Mohammed Mossadegh's attempt to Nationalize oil fields to use their resources for the benefit of Iran and Kermit Roosevelt's countercoup which is, in my view, immoral.

Read articles on both sides about the occupation and subjugation of Hawaii and the indigenous people's movements there.

Assuming that you aready are well informed on the anti-Cuban position I would invite you to read and critique some pro Cuban Revolutionary history. In fact, read El Che himself. Read about Batista, America's proxy, and why the Cuban people were motivated to overthrow it in the first place.

Read all about the various Inca/Azteca/Myan indigenous movements from Mexico to Argentina. Start with the United Fruit company vs. the people of Guatemala. Read about Catholic Liberation Theology and the School of the America's operatives being sent to crush it. Read about FARC and how their leaders were tricked into putting down their arms, entering politics and then subsequently killed en masse. Why is FARC so violent? Has something to do with the moderate FARC of the passed having all been mass assasinated. Read JOhn Perkin's book Confessions of an Economic Hitman, just go to the library if you're pressed for time and read about Roldos and Toriijos (chapters 24, 26 & 27. They're short) to see an alternative take on Panama and Equador's leaders' assasination by the CIA, to see how the CIA treats even capitalists when they are too progressive and insist on uplifting their people and reject their own personal enrichment.
are these the examples you speak of when citing workable, semi-peaceful communist/socialist enterprises that were sabotaged in some way by the capital west?

some of these i am quite familiar with (cuba). i am a fan of Castro in many ways...
and find the history of Che and Castro and communist Cuba to be fascinating.
so much story there...from so many angles.

but i will explore some of these subjects you suggest.

[SobaViolence]

if one of us is in shackles then we're all in chains.

i'm a humanist. ideology is poisonous. compassion is the cure.

[GreenEarthAl]

you are wise in the ways of article debating...
but none the less....
just give me something.
i hear time and time again about how there HAVE been workable, peaceful communist systems around the world in the past 100 years...but they were all obliterated by the US or someother nefarious foe.
yet when i ask for specific details....i get the run around.

you must either give these examples or retract that statement.
it's the responsible thing to do.

Fair enough. I will take some time to work on this.

[Ace42]

but are you really going to blaim 100 years of communist/socialist failures on american espionage and covert sabotage?

I can't think of any evidence to support non-circumstantial (and thus admissible) reasons.

There have been plenty of capitalist totalitarian dictators. And most of the Communist dictators were propped up by Stalin and post Stalinites. Gorbachev was a great reformer, but he was screwed over by the hard-liners.

[guerillaGardner]

I'm definitely Green.

i believe their ARE alot of environmental issues in the world that need to be addressed....but there are only limited funds and resources to deal with them.

I don't think it's about funds or resources. It's about changing the way we live. I think the changes can be made by focusing on the direct personal benefits they produce as well as environmental benefits - fast, cheap public transport, better food, better health. Too much is made of change for the environment's sake. We should inject a little selfishness into the green movement.

thus we should focus on the most apparent and provable issues first....and leave time for research for the others if there is still substantial and credible debate concerning them.

That is if you limit how creative our responses are. One small change can have multiple effects. We need to develop multi-objective strategies and in so doing deal with multiple problems all at one time.

clean drinking water for all is more important then global warming. we know dirty drinking water will kill you. we don't barely a damn thing about global warming.

We can deal with more than one problem at a time. Why are you so against the possibility of global warming? Do you represent some interest that would be affected by stricter environmental laws? Why wouldn't you choose caution if there is even a slightest doubt?

i believe the best bet we have for energy is nuclear power....and hydrogen cells for transportation...

Nuclear power is just great until you have to find somewhere to put the waste or a reactor is blown up.

A combination of wind, photovoltaic, passive solar, wave and biogas power would be way better combined with better use of the power we generate. We need to decentralise production, bringing production and consumption closer together to reduce our transport needs and free us from our dependence on oil.

[Ace42]

it's a paper economy.

It's a token economy. And as any fule kno, token economies are used to condition people into conforming.

You could argue that capitalism works so well because it uses Orwellian (Skinner's) techniques to oppress the people, making overt totalitarianism like those seen in the examples you give of other economic models unnecessary.

I'd say there is plenty of evidence for this - look at how idiots like Gizmo are brainwashed into mindless conformity without any overt oppression. Totally blinded to the manipulations working upon them.

[Qdrop]

You have me correctly pegged as someone who accepts "nurture" in the nature vs. nurture argument. Congratulations, I've already conceeded that before.
i see.

I do not accept that some people "suck at life". I do believe that it is possible to create the conditions where there can be success and happiness on a grand scale and humanity can get much closer to acheiving it's potential and value the unique talents and abilities of us all. i certainly believe that we, as a society, should do ALL we can to equalize the playing field and give everyone the best possible environment to sustain thier life with. without question, environment plays a direct role in someones motivation and success.
but beyond that, i suppose we part ways. to say that genetics do not play a majority role in someones behavioral traits, and thus likelyhood of success is simply ignorant of the current science.
to the point that is irresponsible to do so....and damaging.

but not to brow beat you, or give you "the argument of intimidation"...this is self evident science...
pick up any contemporary book or study on genetic hereditary traits....
you can't spit in the wind....

I do believe that American Capitalism is a huge step forward toward those goals. It pissed off a lot of my Revolutionary friends that I feel that way, and ascribe any value to those slave-owning white guys that framed the constitution. then we are in agreement there.


I am of the view that we have regressed most of the way back to fuedalism, however. Class mobility is largely mythical these days more than it is a practical reality. We are inundated with articles written by the "successful" detailing how, even if they were born with nothing, they could follow 'these simple steps' and make it from worst to first and we use that to believe our own hype about how anyone can make it if they pick themselves up by their bootstraps. And those who fail to do so just, well, you know, "suck at life." the environments and playing fields are not yet equal (though great strides have been made IMHO).
but even when and if we come to that day when the vast majority of americans have equal oppurtunity and great schools to learn in....
you will still find failure...you will still find poverty.
that is natural law.

if you are seaching for utopia...your search will never end.

To give further credence to their argument we are inundated with exaggerated stories of relatively poor people who made it in business. Succeeded by the sweat of their brow. And thus we are lured into an argument of "Personal Responsability" vs. "Products of our Environment". so simply dismiss the Personal Responsibility argument outright? a product of corporate, out-of-touch, white men who see the world with GOP blinders on and live at the KATO institute?

A false argument if there ever was one because both sides of the argument are true and both sides of the argument are false. ahh.. i see.

If a person, for whatever reason, rejects maturity and responsability and only feels comfortable in a life of what you'll call failure, then all of the Welfare, Sel-Esteem programming and Feel good singalonging in the world will likely fail to make a lasting difference on said person. exactly, GEA. that's called genetics. that's what i'm talking about.

At the same time, none of us "succeeds" alone. Through dumb luck you will have the right parents, find the right teacher at the right time, or see the right tv show that inspires you to do the self-improvement that makes a lasting difference in your life. i do not believe in luck on virtually any level.

People like me, do believe that you can interviene and provide the quality education on a grand scale that can facilitate the success of nearly all. And are not embrarassed by that belief. And I've been arguing it in debate setting like this for 15 years now and I've yet to be disabused of those beliefs, but I am willing to accept that it's possible, however unlikely, that you just haven't thrown enough words at me yet. And 400,000 more words might be all it takes to get me to love Ayn Rand. perhaps you could try reading less Ayn Rand and more science. look into behavioral psychology, ect...
take a differant route other then economic/social theory....

[Qdrop]

I can't think of any evidence to support non-circumstantial (and thus admissible) reasons.

There have been plenty of capitalist totalitarian dictators. And most of the Communist dictators were propped up by Stalin and post Stalinites. Gorbachev was a great reformer, but he was screwed over by the hard-liners.

It's a token economy. And as any fule kno, token economies are used to condition people into conforming.

You could argue that capitalism works so well because it uses Orwellian (Skinner's) techniques to oppress the people, making overt totalitarianism like those seen in the examples you give of other economic models unnecessary.


hmmm...
segue: do you suppose that perhaps ANY large scale political/economic system requires some form of "population behavioral control"-- simply due to the size of the populace and tendancy for mass groups to make truly stupid decisions (group think, mob mentality)?

not to come off thinking like hitler or anything.....

[Qdrop]

It's about changing the way we live. I think the changes can be made by focusing on the direct personal benefits they produce as well as environmental benefits - fast, cheap public transport, better food, better health. Too much is made of change for the environment's sake. We should inject a little selfishness into the green movement. can't argue with that....


That is if you limit how creative our responses are. One small change can have multiple effects. We need to develop multi-objective strategies and in so doing deal with multiple problems all at one time. vague. very vague.
but again...sounds good.


We can deal with more than one problem at a time. how do you divide the resources (capital) up?
Why are you so against the possibility of global warming? the science. look at the science. it's still very shakey. it's certainly not implausible...but there is just too much unknown about it for us to dump trillions into trying to halt/slow it....that is, even if we can.

Do you represent some interest that would be affected by stricter environmental laws? not at all. well other than being an american in the american economy, which would be severly hurt by the kyoto treaty.

Why wouldn't you choose caution if there is even a slightest doubt? again....due to what spending trillions on the kyoto treaty would do to the global economy.
before we get that drastic....we need to be ALOT more sure.

Nuclear power is just great until you have to find somewhere to put the waste or a reactor is blown up. of course. all major fuel sources have inherant danger. that is unavoidable.
but great progress has been made in it's safety and efficiancy since 3 mile island.
it's simply too great of a resource to be dismissed.

just think....50 years down the road: no more wars for oil. no more supporting nations that fund terrorism against us, because we're hooked on their petrolium.

self sufficiancy.

A combination of wind, photovoltaic, passive solar, wave and biogas power would be way better combined with better use of the power we generate. oh man. that is so far off.
maybe for a town of 1000.
but these energy sources wouldn't begin to support a large city or industry. not any time soon. you need to realistic, no idealistic.

We need to decentralise production, bringing production and consumption closer together to reduce our transport needs and free us from our dependence on oil. sounds good.

[Ace42]

but there is just too much unknown about it for us to dump trillions into

Trillions into. That money came from exploitation of natural resources. It is not "dumping trillions that we have into" so much as "giving up millions that we might not deserve."

[QueenAdrock]

I consider myself a moderate, which in this day and age equals me being a democrat.

I'm open to ideas, as long as they're not extremely radical, which is the exact reason why I'll NEVER be a Republican (unless they pull their heads out of their asses and come up with more John McCain's).

[Ace42]

segue: do you suppose that perhaps ANY large scale political/economic system requires some form of "population behavioral control"-- simply due to the size of the populace and tendancy for mass groups to make truly stupid decisions (group think, mob mentality)?

not to come off thinking like hitler or anything.....

Maybe they do, maybe they don't. But I don't fancy living in Airstrip 1, nor any other Brave New World so to speak.

I object to a system of mind control, even if the mind-control operates without direct human control (even though it is clearly subject to human manipulation by the oligarchies).

There is an Italian former politician who is under house arrest there, who theorises that human society is capable of a "hive" mentality that is hyper-efficient and much more satisfactory than the unnatural power-systems we have imposed upon ourselves. He says that in this (much more) organic system, a lot of the problems associated with oligarchies (IE corruption, etc) will not be an issue.

He also says that society will move away from financial credit towards social credit as a currency, much as society moved away from labour credit to financial credit.

IE, before money people valued resources, then people valued the ability to craft these resources, now people value the ability to facilitate the craftsmen (unskilled labour more often than not) - service industries, more than the production.

The next step is when people value social interaction (making each other feel good, etc) more than financial interaction.

To me, that makes sense - people are willing to spend thousands and thousands of pounds of products to make themselves feel happy, and they always want more and better. The logical extension of that is isolationist - a person alone to enjoy their aquisitions, something I think is not satisfying.

Instead people will value friendship and interpersonal relationships more, and as such consumerism will wain. Thus people will work to share labour and have free time to enjoy with each other, rather than fulfill their role in order to get "their share."

Anyone who has ever "subbed" a friend on a night out drinking just because they'd rather not leave that person behind has vindicated this principle. In a very mercenary sense, they are paying for the other person's company.

[EN[i]GMA]

This thread got convuluted fast.

And libertarian, to answer the question.

[guerillaGardner]

how do you divide the resources (capital) up?
the science. look at the science. it's still very shakey. it's certainly not implausible...but there is just too much unknown about it for us to dump trillions into trying to halt/slow it....that is, even if we can.

That's the point I was trying to get across - finding other ways than investing in anti-pollution measures. I'm for giving people and communities positive incentives to become more self-sufficient. Currently we expect people to make the changes required out of the goodness of their hearts. But we need to make people change for the better out of self interest as it's a better motivating force than altruism.

For instance, could we create a public transport system so good, people prefer it to their cars, one that would be self financing as a business. Perhaps not, but that's the kind of thing I'm suggesting - changes made out of personal choice rather than for the planet, but which just happen to benefit the planet. It becomes no longer a matter of investment or austerity.

There are also ways that green choices can help economies - better health leading to healthier workforce - less days off, less demands on hospitals. Less cars on the road, less cost of road building, less road accidents. Jobs in green industries - public transport, renewable energy, recycling.

not at all. well other than being an american in the american economy, which would be severly hurt by the kyoto treaty.

It has been estimated by some large multinational insurance companies that if damage caused by weather continues to increase at the current rate, the cost will exceed Gross World Product in a few decades. The people making these forecasts aren't the stereotype of the woolly headed green that most people might imagine. These are hard nosed business people looking at the situation coldly and rationally.

Ultimately, what they predict would screw up the US economy just as much as having an infrastructure committed to oil, etc, when there is none left.

again....due to what spending trillions on the kyoto treaty would do to the global economy.

I think I covered this one. Find creative incentives to make green lifestyles a positive, personal choice regardless of the effect on the environment and we don't have to invest in the Kyoto treaty.

before we get that drastic....we need to be ALOT more sure.

Perhaps by the time we are sure it will be too late and we will know what we should have done but no longer have the choice.

of course. all major fuel sources have inherant danger. that is unavoidable.but great progress has been made in it's safety and efficiancy since 3 mile island. it's simply too great of a resource to be dismissed.

Here's a compromise - what if we generated our electricity in a number of ways - solar, wind, wave, biogas, hydro (interesting article on hydro in this month's Utne) mixed with better conservation and use of energy, including passive solar and we make up the shortfall of what's required with other sources, including nuclear if we really need to. This would at least make the best of our renewable resources while at least reducing the need for nuclear, just as long as we produced the maximum that we could with renewables.

self sufficiancy. oh man. that is so far off. maybe for a town of 1000. but these energy sources wouldn't begin to support a large city or industry. not any time soon. you need to realistic, no idealistic.

The thing is could we sell the idea of self sufficiency at various levels? I think a lot of people would love to be self sufficient to some degree, even if not totally. The problem is that they don't know how. If there was organised support to help people develop self sufficiency I think that there are a lot of people out there who would grab with it both hands. We just haven't tried it or put the effort into this that we need to.

I think people do actually long for a more authentic, natural way of life and we can really tap into people's dreams as much as their concern for the planet, if not more so.

People have to understand that they can choose their level of self sufficiency, that they don't avoid work any less by not being self sufficient - that its just choosing a different kind of work that perhaps, just perhaps, could be more satisfying.

The challenge is to make sustainable living a positive lifestyle choice, way more than a political or ethical choice.

[Qdrop]

It has been estimated by some large multinational insurance companies that if damage caused by weather continues to increase at the current rate, the cost will exceed Gross World Product in a few decades. The people making these forecasts aren't the stereotype of the woolly headed green that most people might imagine. These are hard nosed business people looking at the situation coldly and rationally. i would need to see those articles/studies.
plus, "some" means a varying opinion. what are some other opinions.


I think I covered this one. Find creative incentives to make green lifestyles a positive, personal choice regardless of the effect on the environment and we don't have to invest in the Kyoto treaty. i like that.

Perhaps by the time we are sure it will be too late and we will know what we should have done but no longer have the choice. typical scare tactic.
bush and comp. used this tactic to get the patriot act passed too.....



everything else you are saying sounds great.
you truly have put alot of thought into this....more than many other loud-mouthed, "all rhetoric, all the time" green posters on here.
i dig your sentiments....

[Ali]

guerillaGardner, don't waste your time with this jesse.

Futile.

[guerillaGardner]

guerillaGardner, don't waste your time with this jesse.

Futile.

I like a challenge Ali
:)

[Ferdinand_2]

MOD


Oops,that is for political discussion :o
Ok,apolitic

[GreenEarthAl]

you are wise in the ways of article debating...
but none the less....
just give me something.
i hear time and time again about how there HAVE been workable, peaceful communist systems around the world in the past 100 years...but they were all obliterated by the US or someother nefarious foe.
yet when i ask for specific details....i get the run around.

you must either give these examples or retract that statement.
it's the responsible thing to do.


To start, I disagree with your premise. The lack of an example that is acceptable to you can not serve as disproof. If someone maintains that they hung out at the crash site of an alien space ship and then they bring us to that crash site and there's nothing there and then they launch off into a litany about the government coverup and hiding of the crash site, the lack of evidence can be understood by everyone as a reason for serious skepticism, but it doesn't serve as proof that there was never anything there.

However, since there is a lot of physical evidence of materialists ransaking communalists throughout recent history, we can make get on with some of that. I will grant you, before I even begin, that the document trail for many instances are sketchy, and conceed that I'm not holding any of these instances up as perfect societies, as they were all subject to some human failings. My own personal belief is that these societies were much closer to happiness than we are and that the individual members of them were more valued than the agrigate member of our present society.

The Noble Native:

Arawak Indians Genocided into non-existence by the Spanish so it's difficult to ask them exactly what life was like, but Christopher Columbus himself described them thusly "so naive and so free with their posessessions that no one who has not witnessed them would believe it. When you ask them for something they have, they never say no." which you can claim to be abarant behavior, but some 3 million people seemed to get along reasonably well for quite a long time with such behavior as the cultural norm prior to the European materialist conquest which was aptly described by Bartolomé de las Casas "[the Spaniards] thought nothing of knifing Indians by the tens and twenties and of cutting slices off them to test the shaprness of their blades... [Indians are made to] dig, split rocks, move stones and carry dirt on their backs to wash it in the rivers, while those who wash gold stay in the water all the time with their backs bent so constantly it breaks them".

the Haudenosaunee (http://www.sixnations.org/) Many thousands of people from our region who lived in relative peace for centruries. Despite recent conservative attempts at discounting and diembling around the history of the Haudenosaunee, they actually were very peaceful people and they absolutely did influence the formation of our representative democracy in the 13 colonies. They possessed nothing except in common, chosing to share houses, land, what was hunted, etc, among the entire village or tribe.

the Asakiwaki Noted for their refusal to move west of the Mississippi the tribes lifestyle can be inferred from cheif Black Hawk's words "[the Asakiwak] has done nothing for which an Indian ought to be ashamed. He has fought for his countryman, the squas and papooses, against the white men, who came year after year, to cheat them and take away their lands. You know the cause of our making war. It is known to all white men. They ought to be ashamed of it. Indians are not deceitful. The white men speak bad of the Indian and look at him spitefully. But the Indian does not tell lies. Indians do not steal. An Indian who is as bad as the white man could not live in our nation; he would be put to death, and eaten up by wolves. The white men are bad schoolmasters; they carry false books, and deal in false actions" and he goes on to contrast the colonists' society and the Indians' society insisting that the Colonies' consist of "all talkers and no workers" which, to some extent, dispells the idea that people can not be motivated to work hard for the common good of their society without being motivated by greed.


Mestizo Movements:

The Spanish, finding it very difficult to conquer the natives on the mainland in central america by the sword alone, realized more success in conquering them by a combination of the sword and the cross. However, there existed within the Bible many things that the native movements could adopt and blend with their own cultures and justify an continuing egalitarian existence that the papacy couldn't forbid outright. Communalistic ideas continue to reassert themselves over and over again in Central America despite all attempts to put them down by the US and G8 Allies.

Guatemala After World War II took a look around and found that the United Fruit Company (the same people who had recently brought the world the rape, murder and subjugation of the Hawaiian peoples) had "bought" up much of Guatemala from people who did not rightfully own it and had no authority to sell it to them. There was a popular people's movement on the rise and several communists had even been elected to government. The people elected a president --by a wide margin-- named Jocobo Arbenz who reclaimed The United Fruit Company held land (and compensated them for it) and then redistributed it to the people (largely peasant farmers). The United Fruit Company got pissed off and used the CIA and the US Air Force to retake the land and overthrow the democratically elected government and replace it with the pupet government of Carlos Castillo Armas. This all touched off a civil war in which 100,000 guatemalans died, but hey, at least the United Fruit Company got a lot of cheap fruit. The details of this were largely hidden from the American people (as evidenced by the fact that nearly nobody here knows about it (not that they know where Central America even is to begin with, but still))

Columbians Much is made of FARC the "Terrorist Organization" of Columbia. But are they terrorist or terrorized? As US Multinationals like Al Gore's Dad's Occidental Petrolium, Coca Cola and various cut flower merchants began to set up shop and exploit columbian workers, the workers began to unionize. Workers' movements around the world showed up to help them including Soviet Communists, though most of the movement remained autonamous and Columbian. Under the guise of the War on Drugs the Reaganites attacked trade unionists forcing them to become more militant. As the 80s drew to a close the FARC was offered a truce and told that they could hold offices of political power if they would lay down their weapons and join the government. This deal was betrayed by the US's proxy government and many members of FARC who came out to hold office were mass assasinated. The FARC that remained were far more reactionary since most of their best and brightest leaders were killed and so the new FARC was much more violent than before and seeking retribution. There exists still a trade unionists movement that is primarily unafiliated with FARC, but sometimes FARC will seek to protect them becuse companies like Coca-Cola will still hire paramilitaries that will try to assasinate them and force them into complicity and contented acceptance of slave wages.

Nicaragua & El Salvadore was perhaps the strangest instance of all because you had simultaneous instances where the US gov't was trying to prop up one Democratically elected government and destroy the Democratically elected government right next door with the most hipocritical rhetoric imaginable. Then toss into the mix the fact that they were funding this Contra faction illegally with secret weapons sales to Iran, the country they were purportedly against in the Iran Iraq war.


Internal Domestic Communalism

The U.S. governement has also been hard at work killing people and disrupting people's popular communalistic movements at home. J. Edgar Hoover and W. Mark Felt and friends did all kinds of undercover things which at the time were considered "conspiracy theories" if you suggested they were being done, but history has proven that they were in fact being done even more than anyone imagined.

The Black Panther Party Which ingaged in subversive acts like teaching black people self-reliance and educating black people about their rights under the law and even went so far as to FEED school aged children for FREE (oh the horror) so that they could concentrate on their education, was attacked time and again by the CIA and COINTELPRO. Fred Hampton was killed by the CIA directly. Bobby Seale, Assata Shakur, Jamil Al Amin, Geronimo Pratt, Huey Newton and any number of other black activists were hounded mercilessly and misrepresented in the media for promoting self-advocacy and community building for urban black communities.

the Weather Underground Regardless of what you think of their tactics, it seems apparent that much of their concerns have been vindicated in light of discovered FOIA documents revealing that the FBI was considering plans to kidnap their children and such.

Move Organization Inarguably an attempt to establish an autonomous egalitarian community on properties that they owned. Jailed by police illegally for alegedly shooting a police officer that many Philly police now privately admit was shot by a fellow officer. Attacked again by police for holding amplified demonstrations in their home that protested the continuing incarceration of the Move-9, and many women and children were killed by an incendiary bomb dropped on their house and then forced back into the fire by police shooting at them as they tried to exit with their hands up.

Rainbow Gatherings et al Neverminding all of the jokes about how hippies don't wash themselves and all, the Rainbow Family has been growing over the years and establishing zones of alternatives to capitalism/materialism and exploring ways to live in community. Other more comercial versions like Burning Man get tens of thousands of seekers of alternative ways of living. The government is searching out ways to destroy these too, just a couple weeks ago they confiscated the means by which the Rainbow Gather could make clean water for the gatherers.


Tell me if you need more.

[emreka]

Hello all. This is my first post and a good one to begin with.



I can only tell what i am not.


I am not pro-war, militarist, opportunist and terrorist. What this makes me, i dont know.

[GreenEarthAl]

Welcome.

[GreenEarthAl]

but beyond that, i suppose we part ways. to say that genetics do not play a majority role in someones behavioral traits, and thus likelyhood of success is simply ignorant of the current science.
to the point that is irresponsible to do so....and damaging.

but not to brow beat you, or give you "the argument of intimidation"...this is self evident science...
pick up any contemporary book or study on genetic hereditary traits....
you can't spit in the wind....

It is possible to disagree with "current science" without being ignorant of it. It sounds like the same eugenicist bullshit that Sir Francis Galton was trying to push on the world 150 years ago. The same bullshit that was used to justify the rollback of Reconstruction in the south and ultimately the same bullshit that the Nazis were studying and theororizing on and using to justify their genocidal doctrines.

I am of the belief that if you take a handsom white baby from Apalachia who's gamily has "failed at life" (as you like to put it) for several generations, and switch that baby with a handsome white baby from the Hamptons at birth, you would end up with negligable potential for success or failure. And what little deviations there would be would be due to environmental factors, not genetic factors (i.e. poor people tend to live with greater exposure to mercury and lead and other heavy metals that interfere with intelligence when introduced into prenatal brain tissue through the mother).

Also, I seriously can not believe that you are older than Freebaser.

[Qdrop]

It is possible to disagree with "current science" without being ignorant of it. not unless you can articulate your disagreements in a scientific manner.

It sounds like the same eugenicist bullshit that Sir Francis Galton was trying to push on the world 150 years ago. The same bullshit that was used to justify the rollback of Reconstruction in the south and ultimately the same bullshit that the Nazis were studying and theororizing on and using to justify their genocidal doctrines. oh please.
yeah, i'm a fucking nazi.
such dogmatic scare tactics....
"he's talking about genetic differances...he must be eugenic loving nazi racist....and if you agree with him...so are you!!!"

argument of intimidation.


I am of the belief that if you take a handsom white baby from Apalachia who's gamily has "failed at life" (as you like to put it) for several generations, and switch that baby with a handsome white baby from the Hamptons at birth, you would end up with negligable potential for success or failure. And what little deviations there would be would be due to environmental factors, not genetic factors (i.e. poor people tend to live with greater exposure to mercury and lead and other heavy metals that interfere with intelligence when introduced into prenatal brain tissue through the mother). first, race has nothing to do with this.
if there are significant genetic differances between those 2 children, then those differances will show themselves DISPITE THE CHANGES IN ENVIRONMENT.

that is not to say that the environment does not play a role. it can foster or blunt genetic abilities, ect.

GEA, if you are going to argue against science....use science. don't feed me anectdotes.

show me studies that prove genes play no role in behavior or mental ability.
really...let's see em'.

here's a supreme challange...
read "The Blank Slate" by Stephen Pinker...and tell me if it doesn't reach up and slap you in the face and knock you out cold.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0142003344/qid=1121090848/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_ur_1/102-4900971-1616114?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

ya know man....
i'm really losing alot of respect for you....particularly when you take stances like this.

you're a nice, diplomatic, kinda guy.
you usually are calm, rational, witty.

and then you take dogmatic, unsubstantiated stances like this.

unsupported by science or research...just pure ideology.
when pressed to support it...you can't. but your sentiment persists.

pure dogma.

Also, I seriously can not believe that you are older than Freebaser. come on, man.
you're above that....

[GreenEarthAl]

oh please.
yeah, i'm a fucking nazi.
such dogmatic scare tactics....
"he's talking about genetic differances...he must be eugenic loving nazi racist....and if you agree with him...so are you!!!"

argument of intimidation.

Are you sure you're older than Freebaser?

First, to keep us from getting locked into a duality of tangential arguments where were aren't actually arguing against what the other has actually said let me go back and clarify some important points.

I am not of the belief that genetics play no role in personal make up. I am, have been, and expect to continue to be of the belief that the overwhelming majority of personal constitution is experiential and circumstantial. I believe that physical environmental factors like BPTs and heavy metals are a mid level determinant and that genetic factors essentially a low level determinant. But I have never argued that they are a non-determinant.

Moreover, I do belive that genetic factors such as skin color and aesthetics are a huge determinant in a persons constitution and that is why I injected them into my own anecdote. I never accused or alluded to you having any opinion on skin color one way or another. I think it's rather obvious that skin color has a situational impact on the constitution of nearly every American due to America's history however that's why I went to the lengths of taking them out of the equasion for my anecdote.

GEA, if you are going to argue against science....use science. don't feed me anectdotes.

show me studies that prove genes play no role in behavior or mental ability.
really...let's see em'.

here's a supreme challange...
read "The Blank Slate" by Stephen Pinker...and tell me if it doesn't reach up and slap you in the face and knock you out cold.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0142003344/qid=1121090848/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_ur_1/102-4900971-1616114?v=glance&s=books&n=507846


I'll read that one if you read this one:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060006781/ref=pd_sxp_f/103-1903456-4745458?v=glance&s=books

And further, I can frame the debate any way I feel like framing the debate. And then you can choose to contue having a discourse with me or not. I don't care that some shmoe wrote a book about what he feels are the precise percentages that genetics determine a person's constitution. People can and have written books declaring, conclusively, any number of things, and then people who want to believe that way latch onto those books and insist that they are proof positive of their position. If the theories advanced in such books don't jibe with what my own senses and experience tells me and they can offer no reasonable explaination for the reason why my senses may be misleading me then I typically don't put much stock in them. I've been directed to any number of articles in the past that were surely going to change my opinion and turn me to the Nature side of the nature vs. nurture argument and they have yet to do so. And I'm happy to keep an open mind and read more articles when time permits but I continue to doubt that any are going to present me with anything that is going to radically change my mind.

For every book you can link to on Amazon that stumps for nature, I could produce a link that stumps for nurture and what would that prove. There are more books that posit about Nurture because that's the trend in accepted "liberal" universities science. That's why all those Amazon reviews on the book you linked to are so happy about Pinker's book, because they seem like they're dying for someone to examine the issue from the nature side. Clearly his ideas aren't en vogue so try not to represent them as such.

And representing them as proof positive and declaring yourself the winner and the ruler of the debate club is just silly and makes me wonder how you can be older than Freebaser.

ya know man....
i'm really losing alot of respect for you....particularly when you take stances like this.

Given your expressed and admitted and reiterated and bragged about high self opinion, I know this will be difficult for you to believe, but I actually couldn't be any less concerned about your level of respect for me.

you're a nice, diplomatic, kinda guy.
you usually are calm, rational, witty.

and then you take dogmatic, unsubstantiated stances like this.

unsupported by science or research...just pure ideology.
when pressed to support it...you can't. but your sentiment persists.

pure dogma.

:rolleyes:

come on, man.
you're above that....

Whatever. When Aid said "I seriously can't believe you're older than me" it made me laugh. A lot. I used it, and will likely use it again because it still amuses me. Laugh at yourself a little or don't, or have a coniption fit about it. Makes little difference to me.

[Qdrop]

I am not of the belief that genetics play no role in personal make up. I am, have been, and expect to continue to be of the belief that the overwhelming majority of personal constitution is experiential and circumstantial. I believe that physical environmental factors like BPTs and heavy metals are a mid level determinant and that genetic factors essentially a low level determinant. But I have never argued that they are a non-determinant. ok.
now tell me why you think that.
scientifically.

you must have some understanding and respect of science to think that.


Moreover, I do belive that genetic factors such as skin color and aesthetics are a huge determinant in a persons constitution and that is why I injected them into my own anecdote. I never accused or alluded to you having any opinion on skin color one way or another. I think it's rather obvious that skin color has a situational impact on the constitution of nearly every American due to America's history however that's why I went to the lengths of taking them out of the equasion for my anecdote. well, on a social level...yes, they make a differance.
however, skin color...or what we determine to be "racial differances" have not been proven to have any corrolation to intelligence or behavior.
it's not impossible...but it has never been substantially linked....
and if there are any differances among regionally diverse people as far as intelligence or behavior, they are likely to be very very small.



I'll read that one if you read this one: no, you won't. we both know it.

And further, I can frame the debate any way I feel like framing the debate. sure. it just depends if you want to make a valid point...or just state a spurious opinion.

I don't care that some shmoe wrote a book
some shmoe, huh? look up stephen pinker....compare his accomplishments to your own.
if he's a shmoe...what's that say about you or I for that matter?

about what he feels are the precise percentages that genetics determine a person's constitution. no one can or has done such a thing. that is impossible.
we can show percentages of variance between genetics and environment from one person to the next...but not the actual differances within that person.

People can and have written books declaring, conclusively, any number of things, and then people who want to believe that way latch onto those books and insist that they are proof positive of their position. sure. but how do decipher who's worthy and who's full of shit? how does your "baloney detection kit" work? by what benchmarks?

If the theories advanced in such books don't jibe with what my own senses and experience tells me and they can offer no reasonable explaination for the reason why my senses may be misleading me then I typically don't put much stock in them. rest assurred....that book, and others would work just fine for you then.

are you sure you aren't just defending your dogmatic stubborness about social issues you've grown to put so much stock in?

I've been directed to any number of articles in the past that were surely going to change my opinion and turn me to the Nature side of the nature vs. nurture argument and they have yet to do so. why is that?

And I'm happy to keep an open mind and read more articles when time permits but I continue to doubt that any are going to present me with anything that is going to radically change my mind. great attitude.
jesus, why bother living your life if you are not open to learning or changing?

it's almost as if you are implying that the man you are now and the beliefs you hold now....will never change.
my...aren't you lucky.

and people say i'm an arrogant know-it-all....

For every book you can link to on Amazon that stumps for nature, I could produce a link that stumps for nurture and what would that prove. and now take the next step. how do you decipher which is more accurate? again, what are your benchmarks to decipher? i call them into question...

There are more books that posit about Nurture because that's the trend in accepted "liberal" universities science. correct.

That's why all those Amazon reviews on the book you linked to are so happy about Pinker's book, because they seem like they're dying for someone to examine the issue from the nature side. Clearly his ideas aren't en vogue so try not to represent them as such. tell me, why do you think they are not en vogue? and tell me, should popularity always dictate accuracy?

the thing is, though....these aren't HIS views first of all. he does share them...but this book is more an edited collection of studies and research...and it points to one direction.

the truth is that these views ARE in vogue as far as research and studies and genetic knowledge.
it's just that people are terrified to verify them ....and would rather vilify....for social reasons. you are among them.

And representing them as proof positive and declaring yourself the winner and the ruler of the debate club is just silly and makes me wonder how you can be older than Freebaser. no, it makes me a man of science...rather then ideology.

it's really great how you attribute intelligence purely to age.


but i get the joke.


Given your expressed and admitted and reiterated and bragged about high self opinion, I know this will be difficult for you to believe, but I actually couldn't be any less concerned about your level of respect for me. eh...you don't lose sleep over it.
but it irks you.

you will be thinking about this long after you log off.

we both know that.


Whatever. When Aid said "I seriously can't believe you're older than me" it made me laugh. A lot. I used it, and will likely use it again because it still amuses me. i guess i overestimated you. i won't do that again.

i will lower my expectations of you in the future.

[GreenEarthAl]

Thinking about you after I log off:

Probably true. Been known to happen. In no way changes the fact that I actually couldn't be any less concerned about your level of respect for me.


Reading Mr. Pinker's book:

Incorrect actually. I rpobably would read his book if I can find free access to it. I haven't any money to be able to afford to buy it, but given that I have so much free time at work for reading I will generally read whatever might satisfy my intellectual curiosity.


Mr. Pinker's status as a shmoe:

One's publication record has no bearing whatsoever on shmoeness or non-shmoeness. Any shmoe can write a book, nearly any wealthy shmoe can get it published, many departments in acedemia actually require it. My and your shmoeness also has no bearing on Mr. Pinker's shmoeness.


Open Mindedness:

Why are you taking my expressed open mindedness and using it argue about my closed-mindedness? Nearly no one in any serious debate is under any obligation to adopt their ideological oponents beliefs over their own. I remain open to them. I stated that. And then, in order that I be honest, I expressed how they are unlikely to sway me more than anything I have read which supports what I have read previously. That's what we all tend to do. We give more credence to the readings that support what we want to believe than to those that oppose what we want to believe.

I don't think that there being more books out there that advocate for the nurture side makes it necessarily a "truth", and I do believe that it's a false dichotomy because both are factors. I do not believe that our "men of science" are advanced enough to prove anything conclusively one way or another which is what fascilitates the ability to sell such books in these days and times. There is still a great amount of flux around what role genetics play in our so called "human nature" and I watch, interestedly, as it unfolds.


What criteria I use:

So as to what my own benchmarks are, they are largely phillispohical, anthropological and empirical. (And yes even anecdotal, if it would displease you.)

I look at my own self. I am reservedly impressed by some of my own accomplishments and I speculate on their origins. Why am I able to write as well as I am? It has a lot to do with having an English teacher as a grandfather who would correct my English during my formative years. It has to do with me having Ms. Kittleson as an English teacher in high school. I am highly skeptical about there being any writing gene, and its ability to have developed in any significant way over the miniscule period of time that humanity has had writing.

I make a decent website because of experiential factors. I was fortunate enough to have Mr. Adlderdice as my computer Math teacher, and had I not had him I would be a completely different person. I am of the view that there is no underestimating how vital a role circumstance plays in personal development. Just turning on the tv at the right time and catching some television program by random chance can have more of a deterministic outcome on an individuals personhood than whether they have a genetic predisposition to this or that.


Your lowering your expectations of me:

Again, not anything that bothers me to any real degree.

[Qdrop]

Thinking about you after I log off:

Probably true. Been known to happen. In no way changes the fact that I actually couldn't be any less concerned about your level of respect for me. we shall see.



Reading Mr. Pinker's book:

Incorrect actually. I rpobably would read his book if I can find free access to it. I haven't any money to be able to afford to buy it, but given that I have so much free time at work for reading I will generally read whatever might satisfy my intellectual curiosity.

we shall see.

Mr. Pinker's status as a shmoe:

One's publication record has no bearing whatsoever on shmoeness or non-shmoeness. Any shmoe can write a book, nearly any wealthy shmoe can get it published, many departments in acedemia actually require it. My and your shmoeness also has no bearing on Mr. Pinker's shmoeness. beyond his publication status.



Open Mindedness:

Why are you taking my expressed open mindedness and using it argue about my closed-mindedness? Nearly no one in any serious debate is under any obligation to adopt their ideological oponents beliefs over their own. I remain open to them. I stated that. And then, in order that I be honest, I expressed how they are unlikely to sway me more than anything I have read which supports what I have read previously. That's what we all tend to do. We give more credence to the readings that support what we want to believe than to those that oppose what we want to believe. but facts are facts....evidence is evidence.

i have been forced to change/evolve my beliefs thoughout my life as evidence makes itself known.

it irks me that i was wrong....but i'm man enough to accept and move on.

I don't think that there being more books out there that advocate for the nurture side makes it necessarily a "truth", and I do believe that it's a false dichotomy because both are factors. well great.

I do not believe that our "men of science" are advanced enough to prove anything conclusively one way or another which is what fascilitates the ability to sell such books in these days and times. so not much faith in science, you say?

There is still a great amount of flux around what role genetics play in our so called "human nature" and I watch, interestedly, as it unfolds. true.
and do your beliefs evolve as our knowledge "unfolds" as a scientific society?
so far, you are well behind the times....though you use rhetoric (whether it true or untrue) like "There is still a great amount of flux around what role genetics play.." to defend your slowness to accept what challenges your pre-existing beliefs...

What criteria I use:

So as to what my own benchmarks are, they are largely phillispohical,i noticed.

anthropological not even close.

and empirical. (And yes even anecdotal, if it would displease you.) anecdotal yes....empirical...no.

Why am I able to write as well as I am? It has a lot to do with having an English teacher as a grandfather who would correct my English during my formative years. hmm. i wonder if your grandfather passing on his genes to you had any effect as well? can't discount that, can you?

It has to do with me having Ms. Kittleson as an English teacher in high school. someone fostered a natural talent you possessed? great. this is how environment can play a big role.

I am highly skeptical about there being any writing gene, and its ability to have developed in any significant way over the miniscule period of time that humanity has had writing. a "writing" gene? eh, probably not.
but a cognative predaliction to extrapolating, creating, grammar, linguistic skill, etc...
sure.

that's really THAT hard for you to digest?

I am of the view that there is no underestimating how vital a role circumstance plays in personal development. i can see that.
genetics seem to set the parameters....environment places us somewhere in those parameters.

Just turning on the tv at the right time and catching some television program by random chance can have more of a deterministic outcome on an individuals personhood than whether they have a genetic predisposition to this or that. wow. you're waaaaaay out on the limb on that one.

and this is what i'm talking about: you have NOTHING to back that up with. it's just a feeling you have.
wait, let me guess...empiricism based on your personal experiance.
the same empiricism that allowed you to not allow for the possibility that you genetically inherited your grandfathers skill with english (assuming you are related).

this is why i don't have as much respect for empiricism from anectdotes.


Your lowering your expectations of me:

Again, not anything that bothers me to any real degree.

we shall see.

[marsdaddy]

I would describe myself as "Bleeding Heart Liberal" and enjoy that label. I believe in humanism, compassion, and the value of human life above all else. I like Capitalism, but it has many inherent flaws -- like the idea that each person in a transaction thinks they're getting a fair deal, when objectively one party is getting a better deal than the other, and might be left with buyer's/seller's remorse, affecting their next deal.

I'd also like to clear up what I think is some confusion -- maybe mine? I understand Communism and Democracy as political ideologies. And Socialism and Captialism as economic ideologies. My preferred situation would be a Social Democracy, pretty much the system under which KOR lives. Sidenote: It also irks me when people say being Jewish is an ethnicity. IMHO, it's a religion. Israeli is the ethnicity -- if the person is from Israel.

Back to some of the arguments at hand. I have watched my child (and friends' children) develop and can tell you that the nuture vs. nature argument is alive and well in my life -- and unanswered. I see so many examples of the validity of each everyday.

A friend has two kids, about 15 months apart, that were raised pretty much in the exact same environment -- obviously, one had a younger brother, etc. At age 5 and 6, they couldn't be much more different. The older one is well spoken but introverted. The younger one's vocabulary is more limited but he's very outgoing and friendly. Will they both be successful, contributing members of society? Probably, because they're both middle class, white males with two caring parents, getting good nutrition, regular check ups, and are generally away from most toxins. But, I don't think genetically, it's possible for them to be much different -- sorry, no science here, just gut instinct.

As far as natural law and Capitalism, I'd argue that while people will always gravitate towards a self-centered viewpoint, our consumerist society has really blinded people to the bigger picture. And if we looked at a bigger picture, maybe we'd see that what's best for us today, might not be down the road.

We now have 2 wage earners in most families, bigger houses, bigger cars, more stuff, but is our quality of life better? I'd argue no, and I think most people would agree with me that it'd be better for our society if we didn't consume at the expense of human connection and long term wealth -- interwined? -- but admittedly I don't have any science to support my position.

Do other people agree/disagree with me about a better quality of life today, than say 50 years ago? Who has time to think about it? Who has time to familiarize themselves with the issues at hand? Why are we voting on more bond measures and referendums than ever before? Is this all part of a master plan?

Oh, I guess I'm a conspiracy theorist, too.

[Qdrop]

A friend has two kids, about 15 months apart, that were raised pretty much in the exact same environment -- obviously, one had a younger brother, etc. At age 5 and 6, they couldn't be much more different. The older one is well spoken but introverted. The younger one's vocabulary is more limited but he's very outgoing and friendly.
[...]
But, I don't think genetically, it's possible for them to be much different -- sorry, no science here, just gut instinct.



what do you mean by "i don't think genetically"?

because from what you are saying ("A friend has two kids, about 15 months apart, that were raised pretty much in the exact same environment")...the differances would HAVE to be mostly genetic.

[marsdaddy]

what do you mean by "i don't think genetically"?

because from what you are saying ("A friend has two kids, about 15 months apart, that were raised pretty much in the exact same environment")...the differances would HAVE to be mostly genetic.Fair enough...I guess what I meant was, they're genetic differences will most likely not determine their ability to be a societal success.

[Qdrop]

Fair enough...I guess what I meant was, they're genetic differences will most likely not determine their ability to be a societal success.

and you rest that mostly on the fact that they are white middle class?

i never pegged you to be a classist....


and you want another big bomb?

if you truly look at the studies and research over the past decades...(are you ready for this?)....

parenting seems to have very little effect on the outcome of children.
it hinges FAR more on genetics (the nature) and group socialization (friends, social interacation, conformity to groups) (the nuture or environment) than on how much the parent read to their children or what kind of disipline structure was used.

virtually every parent that hears that is instantly outraged (which i understand), considering all the media coverage hoopla parenting has had in the past 15 years alone...

but it seems to add up to a bunch of hooey...

i know you'll bash me for this...but i'm just the messenger...

[marsdaddy]

and you rest that on the fact that they are white middle class?

i never pegged you to be a classist....Actually I think you have, or some other 'clever incendiary' term you keep on file when someone doesn't agree with you or meet your "science" test.

So let me try to better understand you, are you saying genetics is more of a determining factor than class/opportunities/environment of whether someone is successful?

I'd think that if we were all given the same opportunities, not everyone would strive to control all of the resources (mine, mine mine!) -- some would be 'richer' and some 'poorer'. But still, if everyone had the same opportunities -- environment -- I bet most everyone would contribute to society enough to have a roof over their heads, food in their tummys, and make purchase decisions where avoiding toxins mattered -- just some examples, of course. I call this my "benefit of the doubt" theory.

[marsdaddy]

and you want another big bomb?

if you truly look at the studies and research over the past decades...(are you ready for this?)....

parenting seems to have very little effect on the outcome of children.
it hinges FAR more on genetics (the nature) and group socialization (friends, social interacation, conformity to groups) (the nuture or environment) than on how much the parent read to their children or what kind of disipline structure was used.

virtually every parent that hears that is instantly outraged (which i understand), considering all the media coverage hoopla parenting has had in the past 15 years alone...

but it seems to add up to a bunch of hooey...

i know you'll bash me for this...but i'm just the messenger...I'm not outraged, and I'm not bashing you, but I'd look very carefully at those studies before I trusted them. What do you mean by outcome? Do you mean how much money someone makes? How do you measure success?

[Qdrop]

So let me try to better understand you, are you saying genetics is more of a determining factor than class/opportunities/environment of whether someone is successful? it's difficult to say "more of"....heredibility variance can be anywhere from .25 to .75.....so it can be "more of" or possibley "less of".....but tendancy is be at least .5.
i can give you sources on how these numbers are found.


I'd think that if we were all given the same opportunities, not everyone would strive to control all of the resources (mine, mine mine!) -- some would be 'richer' and some 'poorer'. But still, if everyone had the same opportunities -- environment -- I bet most everyone would contribute to society enough to have a roof over their heads, food in their tummys, and make purchase decisions where avoiding toxins mattered -- just some examples, of course. I call this my "benefit of the doubt" theory.
well, if you are speaking about "success" and in that manner....you're correct.

and it stands to reason...humans evolved to be survivors. the mass majority of us will "have what it takes" to be "successfull". but again, that's more of hereditaty trait at it's root.....not based on class.

this get's tricky when explaining that....but it's fun...

[Qdrop]

I'm not outraged, and I'm not bashing you, but I'd look very carefully at those studies before I trusted them. as well you should.

What do you mean by outcome? Do you mean how much money someone makes? How do you measure success? i'm not talking about success in and of itself.
i'm talking purely about the person they become, and all those variables.
i'm talking about the the behavior they will exibit throughout thier lives....
it apprears to depend mostly on genes (scientific fact) and group socialization (more theory....but substantiated).

[GreenEarthAl]

Ah nostalgia. This was kinda fun back in the day.

Anyone wanna do more of this?

[Ali]

I'm undecided.

Communism and Capitalism both fail for the same reasons - greed and corruption.

The only system that would truly work would be that described in Plato's Republic. Only with a truly enlightened individual in charge can a society exist without victims. Sadly, it takes ruthlessness to remove the ruthless and tyranny replaces tyranny ad infinitum.

[Pres Zount]

I'm a red over the bed. I gave up arguing over the internet becasue I have to go to work.

"Tell me if you need more."

Qdrop doesn't listen. Ive already told him about the paris commune, venezuela, and the fact taht people lived in communes for hundreds of thousands of years pre-history.

[STANKY808]

I won't label myself in this forum (suffice to say I admire the work of Errico Malatesta and Emma Goldman) but I just wanted to add to that list - the worker run factories in Argentina as shown in the documentary The Take!

[GreenEarthAl]

I just recently saw the move "The Take" and I would recommend it to others.

[catatonic]

As you know I voted for Kucinich and if I could go back today I would vote for him again in the 2004 election.

In the 2008 election I would probably vote for one of 6 Democrat candidates that has more education, and would vote for Winona LaDuke in the Green Party but not over Kucinich.

I think voting is a trap and we need the simple reform of allowing just those with 10% above average IQ to vote and those with 50% above average IQ to run. I don't intend to vote unless any candidate is smart enough.

You, GreenEarthAl, told me that I must focus my efforts on informing the electorate, but I think what I just proposed is far better, informing the electorate about filtering the electorate. I've brought this up on many boards and nobody's ever complained. Wikipedia says the idea is supported there just needs to be more accuracy in IQ.

The fact of the matter is Kerry had a lower IQ than Bush. There are ways to hide having a low IQ, and Kerry knew all of them. I had no clue he was dumb. (he admitted being dumb himself afterwards) But had someone smarter than Bush ran, maybe they would have won.

[Qdrop]

Ah nostalgia. This was kinda fun back in the day.

Anyone wanna do more of this?

i'm down.

[Qdrop]

I'm a red over the bed. I gave up arguing over the internet becasue I have to go to work.

"Tell me if you need more."

Qdrop doesn't listen. Ive already told him about the paris commune, venezuela, and the fact taht people lived in communes for hundreds of thousands of years pre-history.

it's 2006.

name me some economically successful planned economies that exist today, or have existed.
successful.

i'm talking economies on a national level. countries.


at this stage in history, with virtually the entire WORLD VOLUNTARILY switching to market based systesm (capitalism), while planned economies continue to fail the masses...
arguing for communism and claiming it's success is akin to saying creationists have a point.

[BangkokB]

I took the Libertarian party test and amazingly I fit in that group...It's almost as if it's like it's designed that way

But this one surprised me~ I took the test that more inquisitive and has been around since 95~it revealed that I'm a Green Party backer:eek:

Mainly I'm for cutting defense budget to the bone~but soldiers that served are takin' care of medically. More for the people than the selling of weapons. And upping up effectial social programs. Corporate welfare is stripped and bared like a naked whore.

[Pres Zount]

it's 2006.

name me some economically successful planned economies that exist today, or have existed.
successful.

i'm talking economies on a national level. countries.


at this stage in history, with virtually the entire WORLD VOLUNTARILY switching to market based systesm (capitalism), while planned economies continue to fail the masses...
arguing for communism and claiming it's success is akin to saying creationists have a point.

Who bumped this one?

Oh well...


err, ar you saying that capitalism MUST be correct because it its 2006 and that is what we have??

Succesfull economies that lean towards planning = Venezuela, Cuba. Soon to be Bolivia, maybe even Mexico in the near future.

[catatonic]

Hey hey hey I just want to say

Fuck Fox News for declaring a winner in the Mexican election.

[icy manipulator]

socialist i guess. last election i voted for the Socialist Alliance, even tho their policies are totally different than my ideas in my head. Cbf going into a long explaination

[Pres Zount]

^ same here.

[icy manipulator]

you best. i've heard from zorra that we have pretty similar political ideologies

[racer5.0stang]

Hey hey hey I just want to say

Fuck Fox News for declaring a winner in the Mexican election.

I didn't know mormons used offensive language. You might have to say a few Hail Marys for that.

[catatonic]

Think of it as a Mormon-Raelian-Agnostic hybrid if you would, or just accepting that I'm pretty well nobody.

[Qdrop]

Who bumped this one?

Oh well...


err, ar you saying that capitalism MUST be correct because it its 2006 and that is what we have?? no, because it's 2006 and that is the economic system the has won-out or is winning out VOLUNTARILY throughout the world.

Succesfull economies that lean towards planning = Venezuela, Cuba. Soon to be Bolivia, maybe even Mexico in the near future.
HAHHAAHAAHAHAHAAA....

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/hi/countries/index.html
click through these.

Bolivia's stab at free marketing is failing because the people are unwilling to take the initial pain, and some subsequent suffering during the transition.
they did the "shock therap"...but now the president has been stopped from raising taxes to attack interest rates, and has been stopped from free-trading because the locals refuse to trade with other countries that are not also free-trade.
in order to run a free market system well, you need a completely free country.
it's sad too, because you take a look at bolivia's economic past, and thier planned economies (paired with thier near despotic political system for a time) was catastrophe.
some people never learn.

Mexico just has a problem competing, period. they are an economically weak country when it comes to industry/innovation.
they lack the $$ to fund thier own industries to a competative level.
they don't create enought export to benifit from free trade.
free markets aren't working too well for them, not because capitalism is flawed or unfair....but because Mexico just "sucks" at it.
sadly, socialism won't do much for them either.

Cuba? thier living standards are still well below even 1989 standards, they have barely come out of thier decades long slump.
and immigration from Cuba to US continues at lunatic rates.
gee, prez...why is that?
why would the people leave a socialist country in droves and come to a capitalist one?

you've basically givin me a handful of failing or stagnant countries as examples of successful planned economies, pres.
got anything better?

[Pres Zount]

So you agree with fukayama then - 1990 was the end of history? The idea that Capitalism will last forever is IDIOTIC. Society is in constant inetria.

Capitalism has not lasted forever, and it wont last forever.


I would call Venezuela succesful. I would call Cuba succesful compared to other countries in the carribean.

New socio-economic structures take time, (especially ones that rely on global change) capitalism took hundreds of years, Russia took 20 to go from backwards to superpower.

[Qdrop]

So you agree with fukayama then - 1990 was the end of history? The idea that Capitalism will last forever is IDIOTIC. Society is in constant inetria.

Capitalism has not lasted forever, and it wont last forever.


I would call Venezuela succesful. I would call Cuba succesful compared to other countries in the carribean.

New socio-economic structures take time, (especially ones that rely on global change) capitalism took hundreds of years, Russia took 20 to go from backwards to superpower.

if you want to argue FOR socialism, you might want to stay away from historical arguments. virtually EVERY planned economy has failed or is failing in the past 80 years: Russia (ussr), India, most of Latin america, Europe (pre wwII)....
while Free Market system nations, and the transition of countries TO free market systems have risen: Russia to free market, India, Japan (coming out of thier slump now), China....

i know you believe in the dream, but it's time to look out the window and see reality.
socialism and planned economies are dying faery tales. they NEVER worked well on large scales, and were always plagued with more problems than a natural free market.
again, arguing for socialism and planned economies is akin to arguing for creationism: everyone is going to laugh at you.

[Qdrop]

Russia took 20 to go from backwards to superpower.
you might wanna take a deeper look at Russia economic "strength" from 1920's to 1990.
they hid much of thier failures behind the iron curtain...but by the 1970's, enough spying had shown the USSR's economy to be a fuckin hollow shell...bolstered by vitually 75% military spending and military manufacturing...while thier people starved and sat in squalor.

[abcdefz]

I can't imagine defining myself as a liberal or conservative. I'd think that any thinking person would have an array of opinions all over the spectrum.

[Pres Zount]

you might wanna take a deeper look at Russia economic "strength" from 1920's to 1990.
they hid much of thier failures behind the iron curtain...but by the 1970's, enough spying had shown the USSR's economy to be a fuckin hollow shell...bolstered by vitually 75% military spending and military manufacturing...while thier people starved and sat in squalor.

are you kidding?

Starving and in squalor? That's a pretty big statement. I would love to know why you htink this, as I'm pretty sure I'm a bit more up to date on my soviet history than you, and the only case of starvation I've heard of was the Ukranian famine - which was pretty much planned by the stalinists.

For all faults of the ussr, poverty was not one of them.

[Qdrop]

are you kidding?

Starving and in squalor? That's a pretty big statement. I would love to know why you htink this, as I'm pretty sure I'm a bit more up to date on my soviet history than you, and the only case of starvation I've heard of was the Ukranian famine - which was pretty much planned by the stalinists.

For all faults of the ussr, poverty was not one of them.

again, click on this:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/hi/countries/index.html

click on "Russia" and click on the "economic" timeline section.
click through the decades and get your kleenex out....i'm sure you'll be tearing up....

and this PBS, and this history and data is from Commanding Heights book and it researchers...this isn't some conservative, pro-west revisionism....

[Pres Zount]

Says nothing about starvationa and squalor.

Shortages meant long lines and long waits for food - but nobody starved.

Maybe you should look for some before / after 1990 infant mortality and life expectancy rates.


re: your website: 'liberals' are pro-west too, you know.

[Qdrop]

Says nothing about starvationa and squalor.

Shortages meant long lines and long waits for food - but nobody starved.


jesus...it was hyperbole...people weren't literally dying in the street from starvation...but when grocery stores are literally empty, and you have to stand in line for bread (if there's any left), and milk is a luxary...shit man, that's close.
and that's damn near squalor to me.

stop splitting hairs and admit that the social lifestyle of the average Russian between 1930's and 1990 was one of extreme subsistance, depression, and uncertainty.

take off the rose-colored glasses.


re: your website: 'liberals' are pro-west too, you know.
liberals love socialism and the ideas of a plannned economy.
Marx is like porn to them.
they jack-off to Lenin posters....

[Pres Zount]

You could say depression, I wouldn't say uncertainty.

Guaranteed a job, a house and food (eventually).

compare that to some capitalist countries like.... ethiopia?

[Qdrop]

compare that to some capitalist countries like.... ethiopia?

without land ownership or property rights, capitalism is useless to the poor.

but with property rights granted, capitalism is the best, if not the only, tool to help the poor.

look up
HERNANDO DE SOTO Economist; Founder and Director, Institute for Liberty and Democracy, Peru

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/hi/people/pe_name.html

[Pres Zount]

Look up : Das Kapital

and read it by tonight.

[alexandra]

i'm awesome.

[Lyman Zerga]

hmm racist?