Ever heard of Princess Martha Louise of Norway? She thinks she can talk to angels. And she claims to be able to communicate with horses (and not just by pulling on the reigns).
Now this may sound crazy to you... and it does to me, too. These things, in and of themselves, are ridiculous. But I'm an atheist and I don't "believe" in supernatural horse shit. However, why should a christian (for example) think this is nuts? If you are a christian, mull that around in your cranium for a minute or two...
Christians believe plants were created before the sun existed, that a man named Noah lived for more than 500 years (and, oh, by the way, he built a boat and put pairs of ALL the world's animals on it and sailed it around the world during a global flood), giants used to walk the earth (Genesis 6), and that Abraham had more than a half dozen kids after he was 100 years old... and that is all from just the first chapter of the christian "holy" book. Christians also believe in a man/god, a virgin birth, talking animals, and on and on and on....
I think you're all nuts... just like Princess Martha Louise!
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
32 comments:
csm,
Do you know what else some Christians believe? I just heard it straight from fucking Fred Thompson's mouth on NPR a fucking minute ago. He said our "rights" come from God. If that isn't fucking revisionist. OUR RIGHTS COME FROM OUR OWN SACRED TEXT AND IT IS CALLED THE "CONSTITUTION" YOU FUCKING IDIOT!!!!! Is it any wonder why we are in the fucking situations(yes, plural)we now find ourselves. Goddamn it!
I think you ought to go easy on the princess. Look, she is still wearing a mullet. Obviously she been checked into the boards more than once too often.
One thing I find curious about those who loudly proclaim their fondness for 'traditional values' is which ones they hold so important, and how 'traditional' they really are. Example- The 'tradition' of having a religious phrase for our 'national motto' is only 50 years old. Yet they seem to feel that not having it on all our money would lead to the utter collapse of the country, or at least it's sudden transmogrification into the dreaded Secular Society. Apparently this is synonymous with Godless Communism or something, and is considered a Fate Worse Than Death.
Then you have the much older traditions that seem to be discarded willy-nilly- such as the idea that torture is wrong, and contrary to not just the laws and principles of our country, but also against the principles of their religious tracts.
Ok, I'm done rambling for now.
Bob, the key to what your are saying is these people are afraid. They deal in fear. Fear is not what made this country great.They even have a fear of freedom and if that isn't stunted maturity I do not know what is.
Good point, bawdy. Before I posted, I actually looked up a bit about the 'national motto', wanting to get my facts straight. Turns out that the first big push to get it stuck on money was a bit before the civil war and the first time it was done was on a 2 cent coin in 1864. From then until the 1930's it's presence on money was sporadic. Since the thirties it's been on all our money, coins and bills. The national motto thing is from the late 50's.
Once it was in place it seems that they now consider such things inviolate and proof of this being a 'christian nation'. Unless of course a 'humanist' wants to contest their presence as unconstitutional, then suddenly they're not really religious in nature at all, only 'cultural'.
By the way, does anyone else commonly have to do the verification thing more than once? I type the letters very carefully, I double check them, and I still have to do it a second time. Curious.
More fear, Bob. Are you really Bob? We better make sure, ya know. And yea it normally takes me two times.
It doesn't matter how many times I attempt to verify; I still make mistakes. For instance, I was just responding to bawdy about Freidman and wrote two paragraphs before I realized I was using Greenspan's biography. Still, one ideologue is much the same as another - make the world conform to a short set of rules.
Yes, Bawdy, Fred Thompson is a looney bird (as I've blogged here several times).
And derF, you're right, she is sporting a mullet. Which brings to mind a question: HWJS (How would Jesus style)? I wonder if he'd be sporting a mullet if he were here today?
And Bob, wouldn't a much better national motto be "Liberty and Justice For All"... it'd be a lie, but at least it would be something noble we could aspire to.
And sorry about the word verification sometimes requiring multiple tries... Google still has some rough spots in their blogging offering.
derF,
The Constitution IS a short list of rules. For comparison's sake the proposed EU constitution is hundreds of pages long which no one seems to want to ratify; which leads to non-existant financial, foreign and trade policies for all concerned. I fail to see the problem with a "short list of rules". If constructed well(which I think our Constitution does a pretty good job of)a "short list of rules" can cover most bases(and the 10th Amendment covers the rest of the bases, federally). Our problem is not the amount of rules we had(note the past tense)but the fact we didn't follow the "short list" we started with. Now we have too many laws and much less freedom.
csm,
I would love for "Liberty and Justice For All" to be our National Motto. It is the true essence of what the Founding Fathers were looking towards(and yeah, you can bring up slavery and the like(American Indians)). And I wouldn't consider it a lie just because we don't quite get there. We are erring humans(nature's big imperfection),but that doesn't mean this country doesn't give it the ol' college try. A motto we had already accomplished would have us resting on our laurels. What I see us needing now is a press not concentrated in just a few hands(and where those hands have been), but again, I see the Internet(The Great Democratizer) as the answer there. Just look at the source for ANY pictures coming out of Myanmar. Its the Internet.
Yep, it's really me. I agree about the motto. A good line out of the oath that they ALSO felt the need to insert religion into after it was already done. But don't get me started on the pledge...
Fortunately, you don’t have to take my word for Freidman’s (and the Chicago School’s) anti-democratic leanings. You may remember that back in Freethinkers Paradise, I referred you all to the film The Corporation. That documentary comes as a two-disc set. One disc has the film plus footage on how it was compiled. The second disc contains interviews of all the ‘wunder-kind’ that were used in the documentary. In Friedman’s interviews he repeats the sentence, “I don’t believe in democracy.” Of course, it is accompanied by various justifications but the point is the same. Democracy is a poor match for a market-driven world. It complicates the efficient exploitation of resources. I think as you study the full body of Freidman’s word you’ll find that freedom in Miltonworld is severely limited.
On the constitution, I’m afraid we have some serious matters of disagreement. To my mind, it is not a short-list but an open-ended envelope. I know this may this may be difficult to accept for those that want to deify the ‘founding fathers’ and convert a painfully constructed political document to a holy writ. However for those who have actually read it, that is apparent. It does provide a list of rules for the structure of Government itself but it also provides, not one but TWO, methods for its own amendment.
As far as who and what is smart… ?!? I just don’t know.
I’m not surprised that you aren’t aware of Freidman’s anti-democratic advocacy, bawdy. It is not an aspect of the market-dictated paradigm that its advocates are anxious to broadcast. It becomes obvious as the market is given primacy (Chile, Indonesia, Burma, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, GWB’s Amerika); there is less resistance if it is kept invisible.
derF,
What makes you think democracy is a "poor match for a market driven world". Would socialism be a better match? Would communism? Please explain.
In what context did Freidman state he didn't believe in democracy? Was this in conjunction with his views of a weak central government? I cannot believe he meant it in regards to financial democracy. Are you telling me that someone who espoused freedom as much as he did not believe in one man one vote? Maybe Freidman was a closet communist, eh?
And pardon me for my ignorance, but what constitutes the second way the Constitution can be amended. I am familiar with the normal process of amendment.
Lastly, you have never disappointed in pointing out the faults of a governmental, financial or demographic situation, but I find you lacking in actual solutions to these problems. All I have seen from you is "compassion". While I cannot and will not argue with compassion as I believe it can go some way in solving this planet's problems; I do not personally feel it is ever the total solution. At times I feel you play your cards close to the vest and that can be maddening. Oh, and you don't know if you are smart or not? Just being coy, maybe?
Answer #1 – Well, my bawdy friend, if you are really wondering what makes me think democracy is a poor match for a market-driven world, I can only surmise that you are not making use of the citations I’ve gone to the effort of providing (The Corporation film, The Shock Doctrine book, The Shock Doctrine Short Film
or the zeitgeistmovie,). Any of these works provide substantial evidence that a market-driven economy works most efficiently within a totalitarian government. Still, history itself irrevocably draws us to the same conclusion.
I provided these citations as aids. So you need not accept my arguments based solely on rhetorical style. Please, use them. If for no other reason than to show us how you are open to all ideas – not just authoritarian assumptions like segregation.
Answer #2 – Had you looked into these citation, you wouldn’t have to ask me redundant questions. Yes, I believe Freidman was a closet totalitarian (excuse if don’t evoke the boogieman of communism). It is questionable how you came to equate “financial democracy”, whatever that is, with “one man one vote.” The market is dictated by currency exchange. Because of this the individual with the most currency has the most powerful voice. As a market-driven society moves towards a larger disparity between the rich and poor – with growing numbers of poor, smaller numbers of rich and a disappearing middle-class – the inequity becomes more obvious. This hardly appears to represent a “one man one vote” ethic.
Answer #3 – There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. One has never been used. The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions.
Answer #4 – I’m a dumb construction-worker, bawdy. Generally, when I express opinions, I am told, “There are two types of People. Those that make decisions and those that bang nail. While you’re here taking to me, you’re not driving nails. So, what am I paying you for?”
derF,
I am going to try to get this all in during my lunch hour because, you see, I am a worker bee also. Your idea of a "market-driven world" seems to leave out the most important ingredient(IMHO), the consumer. If it wasn't for consumers; there would not be a market. This is where financial democracy comes in. If there is only one source of supply for a certain good or service, then there is little "financial democracy". Making sure other countries cannot get a foothold into our economy(through subsidies, protectionist legislation, etc)takes away our choices and isn't very compassionate to others who live on this planet; just ask the cotton farmers in West Africa. This is exactly what the minions who lament that their jobs are going overseas want to see, subsidies and protectionist legislation to keep their indigenous dying industries alive. If you want to see how a totalitarian society will STRANGLE a market, just keep watching Russia hold a hammer over Europe concerning energy. The Europeans are frantically trying to find other sources of energy from anywhere not called Russia. Freedom of choice for consumers is the life blood of markets. It promotes innovation and growth for the many involved. Will there be losers? Sure there will, but as long as we have compassion and a contigency plan(financial support, retraining and the like)these can be worked out. Can you name a totalitarion regime today which has HEALTHY and DIVERSE markets?
"The market is dictated by currency exchange." If you are calling goods and services currency, I don't necessarily disagree with you. If you aren't, I think you are dead wrong. As far as the "one with the most currency" being the most powerful, just ask GM and Ford. In a market society, if you make major blunders(and sometimes not even major ones)you get your lunch handed to you. The big fall as easily and harder in a market economy than in a closed economy. Just take a look at Japan or China. In there systems, employment at any cost(mainly to mute social upheaval)trumps a profit basis and will eventually fail once the string is played out. Japan is almost there and the Chinese government is scared shitless.
I figured out the Constitutional question myself, but thank you anyway. Even though we DO have two ways to amend our holy writ, I still don't find your position that this makes that document an "open-ended envelope" correct. If we had added tons of amendments and watered down the document I would probably agree with you, but we haven't so I don't. I am on record as saying I disagree with the Supreme Court case giving corporations the same rights as individual citizens and I think this may have been where you were going with this, but it ain't easy to amend the Constitution as evidenced by the lack of amendments, especially lately.
As far as your last paragraph in your answer, I think it was a cop out. I didn't ask for your opinions, I asked for your solutions to our problems. I have tried on this blog and Freethinkers to outline solutions to our society's problems. Anyone can rail(and I have done my share of that here too)against perceived blunders segments of our population have embarked on, but I have tried to come up with answers to the best of my limited ability. I promise not to get on you for wasting precious market time for a solution or two.
If you really want answers from me, try this one on for size. People are not worker bees, minions, and/or consumers. If we must be classified for the purpose of discussion, let that category carry the modicum of dignity our humanity entitles us. Let us be citizens (1).
Though this may complicated your market philosophy, it may also assist you in coming to terms with a society in which the market, though significant, plays only a small part.
Since you have “figured out the Constitutional question” yourself, you probably won’t mind me paraphrasing a recent statement from Ron Paul. “Quit debating the Constitution. Pick it up and read it!” Your statement sounds much like, “Don’t confuse me with the facts; I’ve already made up my mind.” The Framers constructed the Constitution so that it could be amended at either the federal or state level. Like an ‘open-ended envelope’. Now let your citizen be truthfully informed (2).
If you have, through some sort of osmosis, picked up on the fact I don’t think corporations
'should have the same rights as individual citizens', you should realize that I have been offering solutions. Maybe you just don’t want to hear the others I’ve suggested.
Please, try the citations and links when you have time (3). Maybe then we won’t have to go over the same ground repeatedly.
derF,
I'll write what I have time for. You called youself a "dumb construction worker" and I called myself a "worker bee"(and, in essence you too, maybe that is your problem, you would rather be known as a dumb construction worker instead of a worker bee, if so I am sorry), so are you saying I shouldn't call my self a "worker bee". Too light-hearted, maybe? Seems like an asinine postion to me. Smoke screen, maybe?
I have no problem using the word citizen and HAVE on many occasions. But when I use the word consumer, it is actually the correct usage(we were talking about markets, derF)and is exactly what I want to convey. And markets are a small part of our society, eh? What parts of our society DON'T have to do with markets?(Probably another question you won't answer? Remember, a totalitarian society with a HEALTHY and DIVERSE economy?)
I get that you have an anti-captitalist streak to you, and hey, I am OK with that; to each his/her own. But I, in my own ignorance probably(can't read between your lines, have problems with big words, whatever), do not remember any of YOUR solutions, so please, one more time, what solutions do YOU bring to the table. I really am curious.
Sorry, bawdy, but I found the structure of your last statement to be all-over-the-place. So, I’ve reorganized the content to make it easier for me to address.
Let me first say that we were not speaking of ‘the market’. We were speaking of the greater community we refer to as society and the relationships within it. You converted that society, through metaphor, in order to apply market principles to societal problems. Then, apparently, you forgot that you were speaking in metaphor. It is much like the way you used covert allegations (communist, socialist), knowing the emotional distress these terms cause in the victims of decades of propaganda, and then proceed as if just leveling the accusation some how makes it true. Is this a technique you leaned from our now-on-sabbatical neo-cons?
Regarding the ‘light-hearted’ diminutization of human assets, I still protest. I have never been a ‘servile or slavish follower of somebody generally regarded as important (minion)’ and I doubt that any self-respecting informed citizen could see themselves that way. As for the hive-mentality you seem to insist on placing me in, again I must protest. A ‘worker-bee’ does not suitable describe me. I am more of a ‘drone-in-harness’ and that classification is assumed with serious reservations. While I may be willing to supplicate myself to harness out of respect for the will of the hive, I am not willing to perform the same ablutions for the Beekeeper. Finally, while shops, of course, must have customers; that does not, of necessity, convert the world to a marketplace.
While this sense of self may seem ‘anti-capitalist’ to you, I don’t think so. I think perhaps a lot depends on definition. For instance, I think the use of capital or currency to represent intrinsic value is a good idea. I’m also in favor of the individual creation of wealth and the concept of private property. However, for me these concepts should be tempered by some sense of community – you, out of respect for your neighbors, should not be allowed to dump toxins into the local aquifer because they are discarded on property you hold title to.
You, on the other hand, appear to advocate the classical ideology of liberal capitalism as expressed in Adam Smith’s (1723-1790) ‘Wealth of Nations’. Smith was a Scottish social philosopher and political economist at a point when the UK’s empire was on its ascendancy. He argued in favor of an economic system based on individual self-interest that would be led, as if by an ‘invisible hand’, to achieve the greatest good for all, and posited the division of labor as the chief factor in economic growth. I’m sure you can understand how questionable an ‘invisible hand’ is. Even in the 18th C, this hand, though perhaps invisible to public scrutiny, was by no means outside human control. The Crown actively pursued legislation and policies favorable to itself and its darling – East India Company Tea Tax, the establishment of the Church of England with the King of England as Christ’s Vicar. Remember though Smith was the subject of an imperial system, his ideas and advocacies were successful largely in proportion with how well they promoted the interests of that system. Remember, even in this bible of capitalism (‘Wealth of Nations’), Smith was harshly critical of the shortcomings of unrestrained free enterprise and monopoly.
In the 20th century the Great Depression effectively ended laissez-faire economics in most countries. This is evident in America with the rise of FDR’s ‘New Deal’. These policies were largely responsible for the phenomenal growth of the famed American Middle-class. However, the demise of the state-run economies of the former USSR and the adoption of some free-market principles in China left neo-liberal capitalism unrivaled by the end of the 20th century. 30 years of deregulation and privatization have been accompanied by a mushrooming disparity of economic well being within and between nations.
You have attempted to place me in the position of advocacy for totalitarian governments. Sorry, no can do! To my mind totalitarian systems, systems focused on advancing and preserving a hegemonic power, can be nothing but adversarial to democratic pursuits. The partnership between corporate and totalitarian interests does not result in a healthy state but, rather, an escalated conversion of public property to private profit. This is evident in the relationship between Krupp and German Nazism or the relationship between Chevron and Unocal and the military regime in Burma.
derF
csm, bawdy, while I can't really compete with you folk in discussing politics and economics, I have to say that this kind of exchange is why I really appreciate this site. Thanks for lettin' me hang out and 'listen' in.
Nonsense, Bob, your contributions are always interesting and informative.
derF
Thanks. Oh, and I think I found a nice link for y'all to peruse:
http://lessig.org/blog/2007/10/corruption_lecture_alpha_versi.html
It's a lecture on corruption by Lawrence Lessig. Very interesting, I thought. It's just over an hour long.
Try this again. I'll have to chop up the link a bit.
http://lessig.org/blog/2007/10
/corruption_lecture_alpha_versi.html
There, that should work, if you reassemble it.
btw, derf, sorry for calling you csm.
No offense taken.
I have been doing some thinking derF and I don't think we are that far apart; just that we may be looking at this from different angles(mine from the right angle, sorry bad pun). When I speak of democracy and even citizenship, I do not necessarily separate these from the markets because to me democracy is an individuals right to choose, whether it be choosing a leader, automobile or what we have for dinner. To me democracy is not just how we elect our government, but it is a way of life. This is why I believe democracy and markets go hand in hand. Freedom is the key to these relationships. So I am in disagreement with you about totalitarianism and markets. Multinational corporations may work better with totalitarian regimes, but markets, I think not. BTW, I heard about a book on NPR yesterday and plan to get myself and you may be interested. It is called, "End of the Line: The Rise and Coming Fall of the Global Corporation" by Barry C. Lynn(this isn't the same Barry Lynn who runs Americans United). I personally think the days are numbered for these corps(corpse) mainly because of the Internet and the empowered consumer(citizen) using their democratic rights, which I have posted before.
I am also on record as stating that I am not in favor of totally unfettered capitalism or large international corporations. Government DOES have a role to play. My thoughts are more in the line of we have a set of individual rights and if anyone or anything(corporations) infringes on those rights the government is there to protect those rights and award damages. I don't think it is right for a private property owner to dump toxic chemicals to the detrement of neighbors. I also don't think it right to have the government tell you, as a property owner,you can't drain the pond on your property to plant an apple orchard even though some rare geese use it for seasonal resting point. That is not why our federal government was formed. I think I may differ from you in that I don't think the government should ever be the first solution for our society's problems, but more likely the last.
As far as my heros go, they all happen to be human beings and as human beings they will have many ideas, some of which I will agree with and some I will not. To me this is just normal. I have the utmost respect for Barry Goldwater, but I do not(I was just a boy at the time so I use the present tense) agree with his Voter's Rights Act stance. To me this is EXACTLY what the federal government was formed for, to promote individual rights for ALL people. I still don't know what context Freidman's "I don't believe in democracy" quote is couched in, but if he did truly believe that way, I would not go along with it. But remember, this is the guy who changed our military into a volunteer only organization, which to me, would be antithetical to a totalitarian regime.
I'm just going to point out that people's thoughts and opinions can change over time, as can organizations. Also that an organization does not necessarily reflect all the ideas of a founder.
Sorry for the non sequitur here, but for some reason I began to think of how often I've heard some folk rant about how a founder of the ACLU was a communist. As if that fact alone somehow invalidates or calls under suspicion the deeds and motives of the whole organization years later.
That is true Bob, and most if not all large corporations started out as smaller organizations, some starting our in garages, bedrooms and kitchen tables.
Ok, here's a hypothetical for you. Part of, if not the ultimate core, of the old idea of wealth vs poverty has to do with the concept of limited resources. There's only so much of X, so if I have 90% you only get 10%.
But...what if 'money' was derived from something not so finite as gold or diamonds- information, perhaps? Not using information AS currency, but as the basis FOR currency.
Since as far as I know there is no theoretic limit on the amount of information that can be discovered, found, whatever, then it might just be possible to conceive of a whole new paradigm for resource allocation.
Yeah, I know...a pipe dream.
I have never considered that, Bob. Give me some time to think about that. I will say there is not an industrialized country in this world that has it's currency backed directly by hard assets(gold, diamonds, etc.). They are all fiat currencies, i.e. the governments control the amount of currency in circulation based on whatever they deem important (interest rates, inflation, etc). Generally, when governments open up the printing presses and print gobs of money, inflation goes up and so do interest rates. When governments do the opposite, in turn, inflation lowers and interest rates come down. Most countries shoot for a balance, but it ain't easy.
One interesting side to this and kinda fun to watch is the dichotomy between France and Germany right now. France wants to have the European Central Bank to open the spigots right now because they are mainly an exporter of goods, so they want the value of the euro to come down to make their products more competitive in world markets. The Germans on the other hand like a strong euro and low interest rates for loans to buy raw materials for its manufacturing sector. The European Central Bank is based on the old German Central Bank, the Bundesbank, which was a very independent central bank, not readily swayed by the prevailing political winds and seriously anti-inflation(which you could understand with the country's history with the hyper-inflation after WWI). The tug o war between these two EU heavyweights over the independence of the EU central bank will be a story to watch.
Bawdy, interesting. I admit that my little pipe dream has to do with changing the paradigm to the point that people realize that if money is only theoretical or electronic, there's really no need to have any limitations on how much money there is, and so there's no real reason to have rich and poor. With effectively limitless money it becomes simply an indicator or placeholder. Of course that level of paradigm shift is highly unlikely to say the least. The human desire to have more/better than the guy next door is always going to drive the concept of wealth. Yeah, I know, my idea is utopian brain fuzz. But it's fun to imagine nobody having to go without simply because there's not enough money for everyone to have plenty. Note...I didn't say enough, or what they need, I said plenty. We will never get away from the haves and have-mores, but I like to dream about getting rid of the have-nots (and not by the means Stalin and Hitler used).
Post a Comment