1. The President’s tweet—“BORING!”—made me laugh. It was also juvenile. At this point, either this stuff drives you crazy, or it doesn’t. It drives me crazy.
2. It is impossible, literally impossible, to have a coherent debate among ten people. It’s a crummy way to winnow down candidates, and reduces them to sound bites and gestures. Yechhh.
3. People who can’t spot a demagogue like Elizabeth Warren are ripe for exploitation and domination.
4. Amy Klobuchar vanished on-stage. The problem with most moderates is that they can’t figure out how to be aggressively moderate, so they just come across in events like this as gray and uninteresting. People like Klobuchar don’t become President and can’t become President—leaders have to at least seem bold and dynamic. If this is your style—Amy-like reserve—then it is irresponsible and incompetent to run. You’re just wasting everyone’s time, and adding static to the process.
5. Beto pretty obviously wears a wig. I hadn’t noticed this before. I distrust politicians who try to fool us with hair-pieces—always have. It shows insecurity and a willingness to deceive. On one website, there was a question about whether Beto is be-wigged, and the answer was “What difference does it make? Lots of men wear wigs.” Lots of men cheat on the wives, too. Great answer.
6. Again on Beto: gratuitously launching into Spanish is pandering and an insult to English-speaking viewers, who don’t know what is being said. In contrast, any Spanish speakers who can’t speak the language of the country they live in have only themselves to blame.
7. Isn’t Warren’s mantra that the good economy is only an illusion obviously a deception? What socialist nation has a better one, or even as good?
8. Making any level of college free is such a silly and irresponsible proposal that the fact that no one onstage would say so proves how extreme, dishonest and dangerous this group is.
9. The lie that will never die: that fake ’77 cents on the dollar’ myth. It has been debunked and debunked, and unscrupulous pols like Juan Castro keeps repeating it anyway. When any candidate does that, I officially discount him or her as either dishonest or untrustworthy.
10. Castro also became the first Presidential candidate in history to use the term “piss-off.” The Democrats: Just doing their bit to coarsen America, while calling President Trump boorish.
11. In addition to being hopelessly blah, Klobuchar became the first of the candidates to intentionally conflate immigrants with illegal immigrants. That’s another disqualifier.
12. Every candidate likes Obama’s unconscionable deal with Iran (except Booker). I assume they all liked Chamberlain’s deal with Adolf, too.
13. Idiot, making other idiots: Senator Booker says, “If you need a license to drive a car, you should need a license to buy a firearm.” Somebody explain to him about how the Constitution works.
I’m depressed.
And last night was worse.
Ethics Alarms 
For the last point, you already need some form of state issued ID to purchase a firearm from a federally licensed dealer. You have to be federally licensed to sell firearms commercially. So you need some form of ID to buy a firearm from any store that sells them. Anyone who says that you should need a driver’s license to buy a firearm doesn’t understand the current federal laws.
If I buy from a private citizen, I need no ID. This is what they are talking about.
Notice in Texas one can buy a gun from a dealer without accessing the Federal NICS system, if one has a carry licence. No electronic record of the transaction.
Those who support gun control can BITE ME. Don’t think the ones paying the price will only be the hired thugs who come for the guns: once they start confiscation, those who KNOW they are on the list (and have nothing left to lose) will seek out their political oppressors, and show them what gun control really means: hitting what you aim for.
If you engineer a legal way to kill or imprison someone, they have a natural, God given right to defend themselves. The left thinks all of their opponents are stupid, and thus would never do anything to the enlightened left themselves. No, only the hired hands would face injury, in their minds, while the stupid deplorables would die in any resulting gun fight.
There is a rude awakening coming for progressives.
I never mentioned private transactions. Private transactions of firearms should be between only people residing in the same state. Everyone I’ve bought a firearm from requested an ID, though not required. Besides, not every state allows private transactions.
The debate in general seemed to be pandering to people who believed that they’re unable to improve their own situation. I may be wrong, but I didn’t hear anything in the debates that would decrease the role of government, or allow people to better themselves through what means they believe acceptable. It was all government knows best, let us make your choices for you. None of which appeals to me, nor should it appeal to any American.
I find us in violent agreement
I would love to see what a “violent agreement” looks like. I like it!
jvb
Think ‘Tabernacle Church of God’ Sunday service… without the snakes.
I like it. Every political season has me thinking of “O, Brother, Where Art Thou?”
jvb
A fine movie I must watch every 12 months or so… lest I lose perspective.
“It’s a fool who looks for logic in the chamber of the human heart”
-Ulysses Everett McGill
“Oh, George, not the livestock.”
jvb
The debate in general seemed to be pandering to people who believed that they’re unable to improve their own situation. I may be wrong, but I didn’t hear anything in the debates that would decrease the role of government, or allow people to better themselves through what means they believe acceptable. It was all government knows best, let us make your choices for you. None of which appeals to me, nor should it appeal to any American.
It is a fact however that many people — many millions — find themselves in situations in which they are unable to improve their situation. There is a coherent and ethical conversation about why this is and what factors have led to it. That conversation, and those issues, are the concerns of many millions of average citizens. Historically, it has been populist parties in America that have recognized their own situation and need and they have contrasted themselves against the financial and capital class.
While it is certainly true that ‘pandering’ goes on — the manipulation of the democratic system, mediated by TeeVee which is part-and-parcel of our absurd system of the present — and while it is true that the democrats are playing the general population against the wealthy class, nevertheless it is true that people find it increasingly difficult to improve their situation. In that situation, they will vote for what seems ‘in their interest’.
‘Decreasing the role of government’ is an absurd wish, it seems to me. Given the complexity of society, and given what the running of society requires, the role of government cannot diminish. And when one considers the military and the management of a neo-imperialistic economic empire (this is a Neoconservative concept BTW), how could reduced government be considered an objective?
There is a collusion, odd as that seems, between business interests and economic interests and the establishment of socialized systems. Business interests require aggressive government. And yet the people ask for more social services. What results are the sorts of systems that we see developing.
Aliza,
I guarantee that unless someone is in a complete coma everyone can improve their situation.
If improvement means making huge strides overnight then such thinking is pie in the sky.
It takes work and sacrifice to advance. If you require government to help you then you will sit back and wait.
Despite overwhelming obstacles, language barriers, no government programs or even public schools immigrants came here and thrived because nothing held them back.
Even if there were no public schools one can learn to read, perform mathematical functions, and reason. With these skills and a strong desire to learn anyone can improve their situation because there are more people out there to help you get ahead than you may think. The question is will you help someone else learn what you have learned so they may improve.
Government creates as many if not more barriers to success than they do programs to help.
Here, again, I find myself in and I take the position of attempting to get a clearer picture of the truth. The truth is always more complex, more knotty. The reason I do this is as I say: I perceive that we live within *systems of lies* and getting to the truth is very difficult. And that is why I offered a counter-opinion to Andrew: part of probing.
My argument is not that someone cannot improve his or her situation. I have not proposed that anyone I know, who struggles (and I know a few) are expecting ‘huge overnight strides’. Nor am I speaking about people who are sitting and waiting for government help (though every situation you mentioned is real and there are people who think like that).
Even if there were no public schools one can learn to read, perform mathematical functions, and reason. With these skills and a strong desire to learn anyone can improve their situation because there are more people out there to help you get ahead than you may think. The question is will you help someone else learn what you have learned so they may improve.
All these things are true, in an abstract sense. What I said was:
And they find themselves within complex, pre-designed systems which work very well for the people who own and control those systems, and they turn people into *aphids* that are milked. This is not to say that I am incapable of understanding reciprocal systems — for example, of paying interest for capital loan. I am speaking to large systems in which people become trapped. But this does not mean that I cannot or do not see the advantages, even in being ‘trapped’. For example, the way that a home loan is structured.
People that choose to remain ignorant will continue to blame someone else for their failures to advance.
Those who rely on the “it’s complicated” argument do so to avoid facing the real truth in which they are a major player.
Your assertion of people being unable to improve themselves in a relatively market oriented economy with a free public education to the 12th grade at a minimum is laughable. If you mean it is more difficult for some than others due to their choices or the choices of their guardians, then I agree to some degree.
Your assertion of government being unable to be smaller relates directly to the assertion I commented on above. Had you considered government is skewing markets and choices and therefore must get smaller for things to get better?
By the way, smaller government diminishes the damaging systemic collusion you see.
My views are far more complex. My orientation is toward a model more in line with Catholic social doctrine. So, I naturally, and necessarily, have some issues with purely ‘market’ models. I speak about a general malaise in the nation and I have for a loooooonnngggggg time.
I approach the entire question from a holistic or perhaps a ‘macro’ perspective (or meta-political if you wish). So, to me, the nation appears sick and troubled. Not only the physical body but the spirit and the soul. And the reasons why things have come to this impasse, those things concern and interest me.
That is why I said:
And they find themselves within complex, pre-designed systems which work very well for the people who own and control those systems, and they turn people into *aphids* that are milked.
From where I stand, I see issues and problems, and I am not only speaking of economics.
You may laugh all you wish. Laugh, laugh until your jaw dislocates! But I laugh too. I laugh at a group of people whose vision remains locked into narrow channels of view.
The reason that some people laugh is because you routinely say things like this: “Here, again, I find myself in and I take the position of attempting to get a clearer picture of the truth. The truth is always more complex, more knotty.” We read this from you and it is pretty clear that this attitude allows you to NEVER make a decision. It is a type of intellectual masturbation the most people outgrow after their time in a college dormitory.
The idea that you need to have perfect (or nearly so) information in order to make a decision is a true fallacy and you are crippled by it.
To make decisions on incomplete or shallow information cannot turn out well, that seems true.
Not to be able to see well or realistically, that is also a problem. (For example I speak often about people who cannot seem to see their own country accurately, not as they imagine it to be, or thought it to be at one time, but as it is now. That seems a perilous defect).
You should be happy that in some areas I am indecisive, or not ready to take a final position. The areas I work in are difficult, troubling, and even dangerous.
However, it is not true that I have made no decisions. And I write about many of my conclusions.
The comment about college dormitories and masturbation is interesting to me. When did you attend college? Where? I am not at all certain that the typical college experience qualifies one for making any important decisions, and judging by what has happened in the country generally in the period of time when there was a huge increase in college attendance, I think it could be suggested that perhaps more time in other occupations than self-pleasuring might have proved more advantageous.
The idea that you need to have perfect (or nearly so) information in order to make a decision is a true fallacy and you are crippled by it.
Right. Very well then. I would ask you to show me how to come to the decisiveness that you seem to feel you have. You won’t, I don’t think, but it is a logical question to ask given your speech.
I find it difficult to accept that with the current economic situation, that it is impossible for millions of people to improve their situation. With unemployment at a 50ish year low, it seems that many people are able to make a step in the right direction. What I got from the debates, however, was not that the government should help people improve their situation, but that the government is the only entity that can improve anyone’s situation. One only has to look to socialist countries to see how that idea plays out.
I do not believe that I quite understand what you mean when you talk about a new imperialist economic empire. It seems to me that you are saying that corporations are working with the government to allow the corporations more control over the people. I can agree with that, insofar as the big 5 tech companies, Apple, Alphabet, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft, do seem to be trying such control to one degree or another.
Andrew I agree.
Those that wish to claim there is some hidden truth about the forces holding back the masses, that is quite obvious to anyone who choose to see their truth are themselves unwilling to accept that hidden truth is a four letter word. – WORK.
If I were to summarize the Dem platform from these debates, it would be the following points:
1) Free everything
2) Open borders
3) Abortions ‘R Us
I’m not a political wizard, but it seems to me this can be an uphill battle for them, to be polite.
Pretty on point.
They are making the 2004 mistake of running against President Trump instead of each other. During 2004 the DNC candidates spent all their time bashing George W. Bush and no one could distinguish themselves from the pack. They ended up with John Kerry.
NSFW, but a pretty funny take on the debates: https://youtu.be/AFsmrfwGIv4
There were two significant issues with Kamila Harris that validated my opinion of her.
She said: “Guys – the American people don’t want to see a food fight they want to know how we will put food on their table”.
No Senator, I don’t think most Americans want to know how government will put food on their table. Most Americans know that is their responsibility. They want to know how hard you will make it to allow them to be free and independent of government in raising their families. Americans want to know what you will do to solve problems that they themselves or the market cannot address.
Second, Joe Biden disqualified himself when he failed to explain why he was against bussing and Kamila Harris disqualified herself on the same issue.
Those two are idiots. In Baltimore in 1971 whites did not oppose bussing blacks to white schools. the opposition to bussing kids centered on bussing white kids out of their neighborhoods to go to schools on the other side of town so that adequate seats were available for the black kids. This is like telling Rosa Parks to get up so a white could have her seat.
I was right smack dab in the middle of this argument. In the summer of 1970 we were informed that I would need to attend a new school built about six miles from home rather than the high school that I expected to go to that was in my neighborhood less than 1/4 mile away. The rationale was that court ordered desegregation efforts mandated a certain number of black students be allowed to attend the predominantly white school in my neighborhood. Naturally like all resources there is a finite limit to the number of classrooms and seats in those classrooms. Battle lines were drawn but not because of race. The rationale behind court ordered bussing is that inner city schools were blighted and not equal to those in white neighborhoods by bussing black kids to white neighborhoods the black students would get an equal opportunity at education. The problem with that theory is that unless you have excess capacity to absorb the new students you have to bus the existing students to the second class schools. In effect, the court said we need to provide equal access so some students will have to suffer so we distribute the suffering equally among the races. I never got bussed but the solution was hardly desirable from an educational perspective. Students living within one mile of the school were allowed to attend but any black student from any area of Baltimore City could choose among all the schools in the system. Northern High School graduating class of 1974 had over 2000 students. To accommodate the court ordered bussing and to meet the demands of white residents (who by then were fleeing in droves) the school adopted split shifts of 4 hours of instruction. Tenth grade went from 12 – 4PM and 11th and 12th grades went from 8-12AM.
Harris’ interjection of the bussing issue to Biden tells me either she sees everything through the racial lens of Black America or she understands these issues but exploits race when she can.
Biden should have shot back: In the 70’s we had to balance the racial demands of many with finite resources something a six year old could not understand. He is a dim bulb.
When Harris made the food-on-the-table remark, I thought of two things: (1) it was a witty remark to refocus the debate, such as it was, and (2), more importantly, of Herbert Hoover’s campaign slogan of putting a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage (Republican though he was – I guess the stock market crash of 1929 took the wind out of that sail). It also showed that the Democrat solution to every problem/issue is more and bigger government. The churches and other religious organizations have been sidelined; the government has stepped in and is now the savior of the country.
jvb
Kamila Harris disqualified herself on the same issue.
Indeed. I heard parts of the exchange on the radio this morning. Harris was in near tears describing that “brave little girl” who was part of the second class to integrate in her city. How could big mean Biden deny that “brave little girl” that opportunity? Where would that “brave little girl” be today if she did not get that quality education?
Harris was described as “winning” that exchange by the NPR analyst…
#8. “Making any level of college free is such a silly and irresponsible proposal …”
Well, not exactly. The Tennessee Promise program, in place since 2015, shows some, ahem, promise, although it is not completely ‘free’ (TANSTAAFL). Other states are experimenting with similar programs.
Graduating high school students can qualify for payment of their tuition and most fees at some 40 community colleges and colleges of applied technology to pursue an Associate’s degree or technical certification.
They must meet a few requirements, including some community service, enrollment for a minimum of 12 hours per semester, and maintaining at least a 2.0 GPA. They also must seek and use other forms of financial aid first, including Pell grants and a couple of Tennessee scholarship programs.
Somehow, this low-tax state has found the funds to do this, and it recently has been expanded to include adults without a degree.
Not only that, it’s being expanded to UT 4-year college programs for students with a family income under $50,000.
The fact that students must fund their own room and board and some other expenses, must meet certain academic standards, must perform community service, and must use other available scholarship awards make this different from free college for all. And, it seems to be working.
This appears to be a sane approach to the issue. It doesn’t fit the Progressive mold,however, since it has qualifications; it doesn’t include “everyone”.
The Progressives are aware that their voters are not the same people who would pursue a course of study that is hard, or truly productive. They tend to favor soft topics, such as the Studies-studies programs; useless in the marketplace.
Sanders has proposed to eliminate ALL student loan debt. For everyone. College will be free. Free, I tell you! But, did anyone actually read his plan? It won’t be free. He will impose a tax on the sales and purchases of stocks and bonds, which is supposed to fund the costs of college education. So, that Wall Street investment banker will now pay for everyone’s higher education. How is that just? How is that right? Sanders’ plan assumes that the federal government has the power to take people’s property without compensation.
To those celebrating this plan, have you asked yourself the following question: If you assume the federal government has the power to give you things, don’t you realize that that same government has to the power to take things away from you? Do you not realize that, by supporting that position, you have subsumed yourself to the unlimited and unfettered power of the federal government? How does that align with the Framers and the underlying social contract in the US Constitution? Do you not understand that the Bill of Rights is a document limiting the power of the federal government? When did you become central statists or monarchists?
The very same federal government you hate (police departments, the military, and agencies like ICE, anyone?) are the ones who will enforce those rules and powers against you. In the late 1960s and early 1970s (a time where most current social problems can be traced to) there was a huge distrust of the federal government. Hell, Abbie Hoffman (bozo that he was) was running around telling everyone not to trust anyone over 30 years old – except him (he was exalted and immune, bozo that he was). Now, those 1960s radicals are in every agency and level of government. They are on school boards making curriculum decisions. They are taxing boards setting local and state tax policy. They are in the federal agencies setting tax, environmental and social policies. The “deep state” is the bureaucracy that works in the background “saving” snail darters from extinction when in actuality it is an end around eminent domain – it allows the federal and state governments to limit the use of one’s own property. If it can be shown that X land is an historic migratory route for Y animals, then the government can tell the landowner that the land cannot be used for the intended purposes, rendering the land useless to the owner.
jvb
Thank you for mentioning the Tennessee Promise program. My sister’s grandson is a Tennessee Promise scholar, and earned an “Applied Technology” associates degree in CAD/CAM technology while also obtaining his welding certification. He is now employed part-time as a welder/machinist while working on an engineering degree at a nearby state university. The accompanying scholarship program requirements of community service, etc. were apparently too much for several of his cohorts who were dropped from the program at various intervals. He saves money by living with his mom and has the good sense to forgo a more materialistic lifestyle while he works on bigger goals. I consider the tax revenues spent on this program, in which college is not at all free in the sense that the Dems use term, to be money well-spent.
For many college courses of study of which I am aware (like the various “-Studies” programs), the term “free” accurately describes their actual value. in my opinion.
There is nothing wrong with states creating social welfare programs for its voters.
Voters who disagree still have choices. They can move to another state. When the Feds take it over all choices are gone short of emigrating to another country.
There is a reason for calling the states the laboratories of democracy. Smaller populations can devise taxation and spending programs based on citizen wishes. They are free to experiment as they choose and absorb the costs or reap the benefits. It is managerial incompetence to try to implement an untested idea across every business unit. Such idiocy can bankrupt the entity.
Exactly, Chris — a point I should have made.
I always loved the “70 (or 77) cents on the dollar” trope. By their reckoning, my wife earns zero cents for every dollar I make, talk about oppression! Of course, that’s notwithstanding that all our finances are held in common. Yet nobody would suggest I derive no benefit from the cooking and cleaning and laundry she does. That’s “uncompensated labor” and it’s considered a burden on her for the benefit of others.
No, no, no. Your wife is not oppressed. You however are supplanting the government’s role to provide for women that choose to be caregivers.
Those numbers are lies anyway. For women under 30 the number is 94% and rising despite the pregnancy risk cost. Even for women over 30 it is no worse than 86% and rising.
Should women be respected and treated equally? You bet. Should we encourage them to add balance to decision making processes in the workplace whenever possible? Absolutely. Should we offer the same level of authority and power to all who earn it? Of course. Should we assume every company has the same ability to adjust pay via legislative fiat? Insane.
1. It doesn’t drive me crazy, but it does make me shake my head in disgust. Having said that, behaving like an oversexed 12-year old bully who dropped out of private school is the President’s “brand,” and he owns it shamelessly. For good or ill, he is at least totally consistent with his image, particularly on Twitter.
As long as he doesn’t turn the USA into Venezuela, I suppose I can live with it, since a better alternative does not seem to be available.
2. It wasn’t a debate, it was a group-grope among the Democrats and their media sycophants.
3. Warren is the same person who, for years, claimed that she was a minority Native American. Her demagoguery is nothing next to her dishonest lack of integrity, and I hope you realize you just called out 40% of the American public.
4. “Aggressively moderate” is an oxymoron. “Bold and dynamic” in the case of the Democratic party means willing to destroy the economic viability of the United States by fracturing it into small, mutually antagonistic sub-groups, destroying our founding principles, and reproducing the old Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. What’s old is new again.
Given those realities, gray sure looks good to me by comparison.
5. Beto is a furry. He should be treated just as seriously.
6. Spanish was a gimmick when the Bushes did it, and is no less gimmicky now. If only the media would point out the Democrats are aping a family they universally loathe…
7. See 3 above. Dissimulation is Warren’s stock in trade.
8. Oh, I don’t know if free college is silly — it seemed to work well for the old Soviet Union. Oh, wait…
9. They can’t help but repeat the 77 cent myth. It sounds too good, and it always seems to put Republicans on the defensive. Michael Jackson had it right in Billy Jean:
This lie has become the truth. Sucks, but that’s reality.
10. Their excuse: Because Trump.
11. Disqualifier? To whom? Not to the Democrats. In fact, using the term “illegal immigrants” or “illegal” in any immigration context is a disqualifier.
12. Probably. Peace through weakness.
13. They probably want a license for speech, too, because rights are only rights to the politically correct. For all others, they are privileges. Booker’s thinking is spot on Democratic Party.
I’m not depressed, because we’re finally getting to see exactly what most rational people have been complaining about, but that has been refuted at every turn — the Democrats have gone ’round the bend, full Soviet. If we elect them, at least we know what we’re getting, or at least, we know it’s a repudiation of our founding principles from top to bottom.
“They probably want a license for speech, too, because rights are only rights to the politically correct. For all others, they are privileges. Booker’s thinking is spot on Democratic Party.”
I agree with this. The Democrats no longer believe we are born with inalienable rights (except maybe to sleep with whomever we want and murder as many unborn babies as we can). Rights are granted by government, just as they were in Georgian England, which means that rights can be taken away or regulated by government. It’s just common sense that we can’t let people determine what’s in their own best interests. They need government to tell them what’s in their best interests.
Just not the Trump government, of course.
What’s old is new again…
If we elect them, at least we know what we’re getting, or at least, we know it’s a repudiation of our founding principles from top to bottom.
Those principles have been progressively undermined in the course of 100+ years. This has happened as the republican ideals were subverted as America began to operate as an empire. My view is that it began notably with the Spanish American War and the Philippine Occupation. It was noted then what the damage to republican principles was and would be. It was debated vigorously then. And other choices were made. It is a large question of causation. Therefore, to understand what is going on in the present one would have to make a list of the myriad ways this has come about. From ‘top to bottom’ this has already happened. It us ‘systemic to America’ and it is part-and-parcel of the Americanopolis.
I amazes me that this cannot be seen with clarity.
M’kay.
Right, and here one gets typical snide responses to serious and important considerations. I really don’t mind nor take it personally. When I notice it I simply try to point it out. It shows your problem, certainly not mine.
If you cannot see or discern the real events of history — what has happened to the country and in the country — you will have no way to contribute in a positive sense to amelioration.
Aliza, I understand it’s important to you, and you think you are delivering truth.
I just think you like to opine ad nauseum about deep meanings for things. That’s fine. Just don’t expect detailed responses from me if I think they are not relevant to the instant topic, regardless of their potential deep background value.
I just didn’t want you to think I ignored you completely, hence the snark. What I was trying to tell you is, “Thank you, but I have no interest in responding to this particular exposition.”
Glenn, friend, it is really OK!
Please try to understand that I have worked myself into a certain position here. And I have been worked into it. It was a mutual creation. Do you know what I mean? So, instead of complaining about this I have resolved to make the most of it. I will just go forward, not caring of the consequences, in describing what I see.
I register your (what I think is unfair) comment about the ad nauseum of deep things. You do know that I have gotten this since Day One and even from Jack? It is just a way that ideas you don’t understand are ridiculed.
I am only going to take advantage of your (I think shallow) criticism and … work to perfect my ideas. If they are wrong, I will certainly find out, eventually!
But I am not wrong. And I can argue my points successfully anytime, anywhere. I will prevail! 🙂
Well, I can’t fault anyone for trying to improve themselves.
As to your arguments, well, you’re absolutely a legend in your own mind. But you gotta start somewhere … 🙂
This was actually one of the few comments of Alizia’s that I agreed with (not so much the part about the Spanish-American War, but about the slow erosion of founding principle over the last 100 years).
-Jut
Can you name on that you especially disagreed with? So I can get some orientation?
Alizia,
Pretty much all of them. But, I have to say some of that is the eyes glazing over (after a time), which is why I don’t respond in such cases.
However, off the cuff, I am not sure I agree with your characterization of American Conservatism.
—Jut
My question was ironical. You write nothing that interests me, and I make a point of reading all your posts, perhaps because of your St John’s background. I don’t remember you ever responding to posts of mine.
Oh? And do you define yourself as an American Conservative? I find next to nothing of relevance, value and importance in American Conservatism. I find them to be clowns who serve progressive/liberal interests and outcomes. Clowns & Cowards is how I put it.
I do get in trouble though for non-mincing of words!
I tend in this direction.
But I am aligned with a school of thought that is highly critical of false-conservatism. The general tenets that inform my thought are largely intolerable in our present.
“That is why, of all those who consciously or unconsciously oppose the Majority cause, the modern conservative is the most dangerous.”
Ouch! That is, of course, why I make often reference to ‘traitors & cowards’. I know I am getting through of course, despite ‘dynamic silence’.
And I know that you have no argument of any sort. So there’s that! 🙂
I write nothing that interests you ? Well, at least we have that in common. (Odds are, you did not get that joke. (Until now, perhaps.))
But, you are right, I rarely respond to you, mainly out of constraints of time.
At any rate, I am not convinced that you have any clue about what American Conservatism is., or, more particularly, how it evolved with respect to progressivism. American Conservatism is not simple Burkeanism Conservatism.
-Jut
Well perhaps someday you will go into it, when time permits. Please note that if Richard Weaver is by you considered to be ‘American Conservative’ that I have a great deal of respect for him and many of those similar to him. In fact, it is those fellows, Weaver especially, that influenced me at the start, Lo the somewhat less than a decade ago …
When I refer to American Conservatism I refer perhaps more to its modern, visible manifestation.
I submitted to you an article — I doubt you read it or would read it — that does contain a whole slew of critical stance.
Saying that you write nothing that interests me is not an attempt to insult. I don’t understand your principle concerns. You rarely write about ideas and this has baffled me, given your educational background. Why is that? Time constraints again?
I did read the article you posted. Why would you think I did not?
I am not sure I agree with it.
I do not know Weaver, so I don’t know that I agree with his general beliefs.
Why do I not discuss ideas? This is not a blog on the abstract. It is a blog on the application of principles. Philosophically, I disagree with Jack on several broad issues relating to the scope of his blog. Some of those are definitional (his definition of “ethics” is delimited in a specific way); there is no point in arguing about those definitions; you just operate within the defined field of play.
On a related point, but more philosophical, Jack views ethics in a way that excludes a wide field of ethical thinking. Part of that may be definitional. But, for instance, Jack’s propensity for cranial expulsion is directly contrary to the ethical teachings of the ancient stoically. Now, is that because of a latent self-loathing he feels because of the implicit understanding that the greatest stoic philosopher, Epictetus, was Greek? Or, was it because of his internalized anger that the Romans, bastards that they are, stole stoicism from the Greeks, just like every other fine art the Greeks produced.
Or, maybe he is just too hot-headed to pay attention to stoic ethics.
Or, maybe it is because stoic ethical thought is not the sort of ethics involved in many of the topics. (Legal ethics, for example, deals with a largely defined set of rules that operate as their own system. Other general ethical principles may have little or no bearing in that defined field.)
So, I could harp on ideas. Or, I could simply deal with the application of ideas to specific issues. To answer an Ethics Quiz here, I need not expound on an esoteric ethical theory to explain my answer. That benefits no one, and likely would distract from the issue. Instead, the ideas drive the response, which is not theoretical as much as it is a practical application of principles to a particular problem.
(By the way, I don’t think you got my joke. )
-Jut
Well said.
I’ve changed my mind. You and Chomsky have to break up, now. You are seriously losing your mind. Empire? What effing empire? If we were an empire we’d still control the Panama Canal and the rest of the world would be enjoying the costs and not-so-placid seas south of Tierra del Fuego for over 100 years now. Do yourself a favor, stop reading theses loons.
Here is the funny thing: that I am here to give you instruction. To ‘school’ you as Michael West used to say. That you do not grasp that the US has an empire, and must balance between ’empire & the republic’, as George Friedman argues, simply amazes me.
This is why I say that you do not understand your own present nor your own *context*. You do not have the tools to make a coherent and responsible analysis. You rely on bizarre idées reçues that you glean from ‘news sources’. But to understand the present requires much more engagement.
George Friedman spelled it out in direct, realpolitik terms:
There are three global realities that must be faced in the coming decade. First, the United States has become an empire, shaping and reshaping the world through its actions. Second, it is an unintended empire, which means that it neither recognizes the reality of empire nor is prepared to exercise that power prudently. Finally, the greatest challenge to that empire does not come from outside, but from the profound tension between empire and republic.
Here, you can watch it.
Now, I am not a disciple of George Friedman, and he is definitely not a lefty, and his use is to illustrate 1) that he has a grasp of the basic situation, and 2) to show you how the Neoconservatives actually think: those who manage both ‘the republic’ and the ’empire’.
You have never read Chomsky and what you know of him is anecdotal. I have the advantage because I have read him in depth. Chomsky is a ‘Machiavellian’ in essence. And as a Machiavellian he merely describes ‘how power functions’. The more power, the more ‘Machiavelli’ is a common-sense way to look at it.
Because I refer to Chomsky’s references to *how power functions* does not mean that I accept Chomsky’s larger views, or his ‘agenda’ if you will. But we have already been over this!
This is such basic material and you stumble over it.
…control the Panama Canal
Here is another example of a form of dangerous ignorance. There was this little invasion of Panama that was carried out, perhaps you remember it? The function of the invasion was to decimate the corrupt police-military establishment but more importantly to crush and remove opposition parties. This is simply realpolitik news, m’boy, and I literally can’t believe that you do not understand how power works in this world!
You do not administer the Panama Canal, yes, that is true. But you control it and there is no danger of it falling out of your control. And the reason is because an existent opposition was obliterated.
You understand none of this because, I gather, you stare at the propaganda-box in the middle of your living room. I suggest that you take your eyes off that devilish, deceiving screen . . . and begin to do some reading.
Good Lord!
I don’t watch television (with minor exceptions) and definitely don’t watch television news. You are an arrogant assumptive fool.
As for the Panamanians, you could say the same about any people who have superior technology, ingenuity, work ethic who seek opportunity around the globe. They are all imperialists. When are the Vikings and Saxons going to fix the empire problems they created in the British Isles. Or how about the Iroquois and the destruction among less bellicose tribes in pre-European northeast North America? Perhaps the Chinese and their Middle Ages (and even earlier) dominance over Pacific peoples, excepting for Japan.
Your mind is dominated by academic anti-American historical myopia. Break up with Chomsky. Do yourself a favor.
A perfect, even academic, example of ‘projection’!
Your mind is dominated by academic anti-American historical myopia
Nice try, Mr Jim! I may get details wrong — and I am happy that you don’t watch TeeVee — but your opinions have been formed in a tightly controlled milieu, and that was the point. Now, if understanding that milieu is ‘anti-American’, and if having a critical position toward these structures is also ‘anti-American’, you sir need to go back to patriot’s school! Seriously.
Arrogance for you — and for a whole class of Americans with the power and responsibility that influences the masses (excuse the vulgar term) — is any person who challenges your ‘presuming arrogance’. This is how you play the Game of Coercion. And this is how the Game of Coercion is played: ridicule, shame, accusations, accusations of ‘anti-Americanism’. But you have no ideas which ‘America’ you are defending.
Getting any clearer, Mr Jim? (Of course not …)
You have no capacity to grasp what is ‘anti-American’ because in fact your own ideology is infused with concepts and positions that if examined could be described as anti-republican. And there is the conflict that Friedman speaks of: the tension between ’empire’ and ‘the republic’. That tension should be of primary concern for you if ‘patriotism’ has more than rhetorical value for you, but you lock yourself into a structure of opinion which has been determined for you, not one that you arrive at through free intellectual process. This is why *we* begin to define you as more dangerous than those we obviously recognize as partially crazy or driven by pure sentimentalism. You actually can work with ideas. But in your case you do not have an accurate grasp of reality, and you have a very poor understanding of what your country has become as distinct from what it says it is. Nevertheless, you will never succeed in causing me to back away from my dedication to uncovering the truth about our present. You use the same emotionalized tactic of the SJWs and yet you are blind to it.
There was a simple point brought out just above: the nature of the empire that the US oversees. You indicated that you had no understanding of this, and your ignorance of the question is where the real foolishness is. An honest would would have admitted ignorance. But you do what your ego directs you to do: obfuscate!
As for the Panamanians, you could say the same about any people who have superior technology, ingenuity, work ethic who seek opportunity around the globe. They are all imperialists. When are the Vikings and Saxons going to fix the empire problems they created in the British Isles. Or how about the Iroquois and the destruction among less bellicose tribes in pre-European northeast North America? Perhaps the Chinese and their Middle Ages (and even earlier) dominance over Pacific peoples, excepting for Japan.
I gave those Chattering Teeth to Steve Weatherspun. Is it ethical that you steal them and wind them up here!? Look into your heart . . .
The point, my Darling Quack, was not necessarily to condemn the US for its position, but rather to clearly see it, and to describe it, so to be able to understand the conflict and contrast between ‘republican values’ and the Constitutional values, and those conflicting values and exigencies demanded by administration of an empire (such as it is). The meta-political approach helps one to better understand the larger picture and to begin to draw connections to the ailments that beset us in the present. On this blog, speaking generally, you examine symptoms — the ‘surface’ as I call it — and *you* have very little strength in seeing a larger picture. There are reasons why you remain in *surface*, and the reason is because you are intimately connected to and complicit in both creating and upholding the false-ideology of a bizarre, anti-intellectual, deceptive ‘conservatism’. There is a name for this! You are part of the problem and in no sense, that I can discover, do you represent a solution. You want to be, this I grant, but you are held back by errors within your intellectual position. Remember: I am here to help.
That is my general take and I have come to it very independently of Noam Chomsky!
If we were truly an empire we’d have subjugated the world by the end of 1946 with our nuclear hegemony. Instead we got about the business of rebuilding destroyed nations to the detriment of our home industries. In the Korean War we could have nuked the Chinese army at the Yalu, we didn’t. In 1969, we balked at dividing up the spoils of China with the Soviets when they invited us to jointly nuke them. In Afghanistan, we could have herded up the Taliban and AlQaeda with Special Forces and tactical nuked the few survivors further into the stone age and told the world to eff off. Didn’t happen. Two weeks ago we chose to back away from conflict with Iran though we could, with some effort, cripple or end them militarily and topple the mentally deficient running their country. Even this weekend our President, perhaps unadvisedly, walked across the DMZ to show a willingness to talk and advance diplomacy with a dictator rather than being confrontational, which we could easily do to great effect.
Have we made blunders and done bad things? You bet. Does that make us imperialists? Nope. In fact, the US has been a model of restraint compared to any part of the human race at any point in history possessing similar power.
You will, no doubt, retort by puking up some shite you’ve been reading this week as if handed down by God. So, go ahead; I won’t be responding.
I suggest that you examine George Friedman’s view of what ’empire’ means, because that is what I mean. It is a reasonable understanding. If you grasp that, you will then have the possibility of understanding what I mean by the tension between (neo-) imperial ambitions and responsibilities, and those related to the Republic.
You simply do not understand what I get at and why. Though it is not complex, and it is not irrational, and it is definitely not anti-American, you stumble over it.
The rest of what you have written — with the use of the most bizarre and actually kind of demented use of a *we*, as if you and *we* have any part in it! — can be examined with a critical eye. Your many errors are right there, in that.
I asked you to speak about the machinations of Bolten and Pompeyo in respect to Venezuela. You didn’t take up the task because, I gather, you would fail it. To see outside of the machinated narratives that are presented is difficult, especially when your own *self* is falsely tied to upholding them. Why? Who knows! What do you gain through joining yourself with false-narratives?
Here, this shows better what *our* struggle begins to look like:
It is indisputable that the US has acted in its own self interests. What nation hasn’t? It is also open to discussion if US foreign policy in Latin America was misguided during the during much of the last century, and in the 2000s the US has tried “nation” building to its everlasting failure. But, I don’t see that the US has acted as an “empire”*. Acting in a nation-state’s best or strategic interests does not necessarily characterize that nation as an empire. The Soviet Union was an empire – it occupied the majority of Eastern Europe under the control of Moscow. Same with Nazi Germany. Great Britain, Spain, France, Portugal, Japan and China were empires. The US?
Mirriam-Webster defines “empire” as ” a major political unit having a territory of great extent or a number of territories or peoples under a single sovereign authority especially, one having an emperor as chief of state”. The US is markedly different. The US has not occupied other territories under a single sovereign. There are satellite territories (Guam comes to mind) but those areas are politically independent of the US, though US influence remains strong.
jvb
*Ed. Note: Dammit! I wanted a simple definition of “empire” so I googled the term. The first 50 billion results are for that studid HBO-Smollett show. Jerks.
Above, my dear child, I made reference to George Friedman who does offer a definition of ’empire’. Clearly, it is neo-empire that he is speaking about. This might be a starting point for you to begin to develop a realistic view of your own nation.
Then, you might wish to proceed to understanding the internal affairs of the Nation, but you’d be seeing it in a different way. More from *outside* and from *above*. This is not the only way to ‘understand America’ but it could prove better than your present method, which does not and will not bring you into knowledge, but into self-deception which, sadly, your own ego must uphold.
Saying this, I do not wish to offend you personally, and I am not speaking personally. I am speaking about American Conservatives and their clownish, compromised, sold-out intellectual Clown World.
Sorry! I make deliberate efforts to be direct. Now, please insult me back with real panache in Cyrano de Bergerac style! (Added points if you make it rhyme, and a stuffed animal if you employ interesting alliteration!)
I’ll accept nothing less! Dazzle me! 🙂
Insult Challenge happily accepted:
You have the intellectual agility of a small soap dish.
How’s that?
jvb
Not bad, not bad.
Don’t make me come down there…..
“If we elect them, at least we know what we’re getting, or at least, we know it’s a repudiation of our founding principles from top to bottom.”
If that happens, we better get ready for a REALLY rough ride. Good thing I lost all my father’s guns in a tragic boating accident.
That’s a damn shame, Slick. You’ll probably catch an indictment for endangering all those innocent fish.
But I can tell you’re all broken up about it. Maybe that will help. 🙂
Eviro-cops at front door: “We heard you lost guns in the lake. We want to investigate fish endangerment.”
Me: “What lake? Guns? Who told you that?!? Never had any evul guns!”
Heh.
Just tell them the boat was on the trailer when the accident occurred.
You had one of those, too, huh? Boating accidents are always SOOOO tragic.
What a coincidence! Me too.
Re: No. 5: Apparently, Beto is a hairly disabled furry.
As an aside, I have never paid much attention to Lord Beto, even when Hollywood told me I should vote for him to replace Ted Cruz as senator. I have never even thought that he might be coiffure challenged. After Jack stated it, I did look for other photos and, whoa! He wears a wig.
jvb
“…differently-abled furry.”
Watch it. 🙂
Sorry. I hang my keyboard in shame.
jvb
On 5 and 6:
I don’t care about Beto’s wig. I don’t care about it any more or any less than I care about the makeup that every individual on that stage had on, or the clothes they wear. People put way too much emphasis on looks, some men do bald well, some don’t, and I think a bald Beto would look even more squirrelly than he already does. The fact that his politics are garbage notwithstanding, I don’t think the way someone looks is particularly important… If Quasimodo were up on that stage and was the only one not advocating tax increases, free shit for everyone, and post birth abortions, I’d hope we could get over his looks to vote for him, and if he thought a wig might cause people to overlook the rest of his looks, I’d paste it on his head myself.
That said, I think the word for “Pander” in Spanish is actually going to need to be changed to “Beto” after that display. Not only was the change in language egregious, but it almost guaranteed that nothing but the way they were done almost guarantees that nothing but bumper stickers were said during those lapses.
To put this into perspective… French is the second official language in Canada, and during our Federal Leader’s Debates, the Candidates are expected to be functionally bilingual, and both accept and respond to questions in both English and French, but the venue is supposed to have both English and french translators available to translate what the leaders are saying for live and television audiences in real time (live audiences usually get earpieces). The candidates are supposed to be able to represent all Canadians, the voters are only supposed to represent themselves.
Beto, Booker and Castro didn’t have translators, and most of their audience is monolingual in English, if they had actually rolled out anything of substance in Spanish, their audience would have missed it, which… I don’t think would have gone over well, even with that audience… So they were left with bumper stickers: “No Kids in Cages.”, “Free shit for all.”, “Abolish ICE.” I don’t speak a lick of Spanish, but do I have it about wrapped up? I’d bet money I’m right.
Beto did not say the same thing in Spanish, though. The English comment was that everyone should participate in economic success; what he said in Spanish was (effectively) that everyone should gain from the economy AND that ever person should participate in the political process regardless of status.
jvb
I thought I heard the ‘reconquista’ sentiment in there…
No, that’s basically what I assumed, I didn’t expect them to self-translate.
The other thing I’ve heard people say about Booker and Beto in particular is that their Spanish is *bad*… Which I find amusing.
Interesting how all the media outlets (NYT, Washington Post, Boston Globe) have their respective dogs in this hunt.
Yeah, that’s funny. Don’t forget Vox, HuffPo, and Slate, too.
Let’s not discriminate against online-only, it’s the next protected class, don’tcha know.
Salon, The Nation, The Guardian. The list goes on.
I’m also thinking this is a very recent development. It may be more completely blatant this campaign than ever before. Such obvious rooting seems unprecedented.
It makes me queasy the way Democrats all of a sudden are big proponents of licenses and ID’s when it comes to exercising 2nd Amendment rights. However, they act like obtaining identification is a triathlon event or the impossible dream when it comes to using ID’s as a requirement to exercise one’s voting rights. Be consistent and promote continuity at the very least.
Well stated.
jvb
Simple explanation: Poor people and people of color and people who vote Democratic (but I guess I repeat myself) evidently don’t buy guns! Not legally, at least? Two separate demographics! Hah!
I don’t know if O’Rourke wears a hairpiece, but he seemed to have enough hair left up top when he did a livestream on Facebook while getting a haircut: https://www.facebook.com/betoorourke/videos/670671816719604/
Maybe this explains why he staged that stunt? Being bald since in my twenties, I’d like to know if he’s using Rogaine. If not, I’d wager he’s headed (so to speak) for Joe “Plugs” Biden territory in the not too distant future. But no, he doesn’t appear to be wearing a wig.
Nothing wrong with being bald. Very few women find it objectionable. Lots of guys have a fit about it, though. They seem to find it terrifying.
IO wonder why no one pointed out that no one needs a license to buy a car.
As a matter of fact, no jurisdiction in the United States prohibits persons convicted of DUI-related manslaughter from buying a motor vehicle.
Here is a comment from Chris Morton about the debate.
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/guns-democrat-debate-talk-turns-to-guns/#comment-4280577
It’s as if twenty plus copies of the retarded clone of Homer Simpson from the Hammock of Horror skit all decided to run for President simultaneously.
I have no comments, but reading makes my imagination run wild, so here’s my ignorant question of the day:
The U.S. has no official language at the federal level, so is it conceivable that congress could pass laws in Spanish or Ukrainian or Russian with no translation? Or are there other regulations that require English in government documents?