Absinthe & POWERADE

Sepulchritude Forum: The Absinthe Forum Archives Thru July 2001: Topics Archived Thru Jan 2001:Absinthe & POWERADE
 SubtopicPosts Updated
Archive through January 13, 2001  92   01/13 09:21am

By Pikkle on Sunday, January 21, 2001 - 03:17 pm: Edit

And good day to you young Republican.

By Head_prosthesis on Sunday, January 21, 2001 - 03:12 pm: Edit

That's Mr Prosthesis to you.
GOOD DAY SIR!

By Pikkle on Sunday, January 21, 2001 - 02:10 pm: Edit

Oh jeez Head, the electroshock didn't take
again... no, Mr. Bush isn't my neighbor... unlike
Mr. Orderly who is in fact yours along with Mr.
Seconol, Mr. 5 points and Mr. Straightjacket.
Now run along like a good psycho and shoot
up a Safeway or something... I never shop
there anyway.

By Head_prosthesis on Sunday, January 21, 2001 - 08:24 am: Edit

hail to the chief
he's your buddy
and your nieghbor...

By Pikkle on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 06:25 pm: Edit

Hail the Chief!

By Head_prosthesis on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 06:10 pm: Edit

BUSHY BUSHY BON BON

Bushy bushy bon bon
he so pon pon
White House a' go go
Traffic movey slow slow

By Head_prosthesis on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 08:15 am: Edit

time to make the doughnuts...

By Head_prosthesis on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 08:14 am: Edit

Now that Marlon Omara Khan Estacio Prgatkian is out of the way she's all mine, that Se7en of 9...

By Pikkle on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 08:11 am: Edit

well, at least his sexual orientation is
becoming less of a mystery... how about that
Jeri Ryan?

By Head_prosthesis on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 08:11 am: Edit

GOD BLESS AMERICA
LAND THAT I LOVE
STAND BESIDE HER
AND GUIDE HER
TO THE BED
OF HEAD
FOR TO SCRUG!!!

By Head_prosthesis on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 08:08 am: Edit

Rumple Foreskin was his name
do dah do dah
Tickling anus was his game
oh dah do dah day
Born to hump all night
Born to hump all day
Wipe his taint with a bartop rag
The world is being run by the greys...

By Pikkle on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 08:07 am: Edit

He looks like a postal employee... or like he
lost a lot of money day trading... hope he's not
going to NOLA!!!

By Marc on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 07:59 am: Edit

check out head's profile. he looks like george lincoln rockwell's bastard son.

By Pikkle on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 07:23 am: Edit

Head has some issues...

By Lordhobgoblin on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 03:20 am: Edit

Head,

Your dealer must be giving you quality stuff. Give me his number.

Hobgoblin

By Head_prosthesis on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 02:17 am: Edit

Love letter my ass

By Head_prosthesis on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 02:15 am: Edit

I'll be shedding hair where ever I damn please...

No thanks to you.

By Head_prosthesis on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 02:14 am: Edit

Absinthe & POWERADE®

Pour the POWERADE®
cha cha cha
Pour the Absinthe
rah rah rah

louchey to the left of us

louchey to the right of us

Down the gullet
glug glug glug
Dance with the Fairy
lah lah lah

in goes the POWERADE®

out goes the Molly Maid

By Head_prosthesis on Friday, January 19, 2001 - 11:22 pm: Edit

Ode to Gravy

Are you a good boy Gravy
Did you miss Daddy today
I brought you a treat
Yeah, a big old pork bone

What's this on the rug Gravy
Did you do that
Bad BAD Gravy!
Oh but look at your face

I cant be mad at Gravy
Come here fella
You're my good boy
Come give Daddy some love

By Head_prosthesis on Friday, January 19, 2001 - 10:54 pm: Edit

There is an entry level MILLION DOLLAR venture that I would like to extend to you. My friends of the Forum.

Are you over the age of 40? Are the soft fleshy appendages of your body starting to sink and sag? Do you suffer from loss of elasticity of the man sack? Well I have an exciting new product that will "PUT THE TIGHT BACK INTO THE NIGHT". It's an amazing space age pabulum that actually reverses the effect of aging on skin. Especially in the area of the boulder bag. No more dangling dandies, you'll look and feel like a 18yr old man just coming out of Polar Bear Club meeting.

MILLION... MILLION...

By Head_prosthesis on Friday, January 19, 2001 - 10:41 pm: Edit

Pikkle you are so wrong you arrogant ass.

You come around here only to harass.

Forum or not, I don't think we want to hear your sass.

I can't see the chalkboard at the front of the class.

A case of the shingles is cured by scraping with glass.

Me and the crab lice on my genitals love to soak in lemon grass.

In the future there's a moment when the present is past.

There's a definite heirarchy based on some twisted social cast.

My chicken pecking prevents me from posting more fast.

Dont you dare talk about my grammar, she's vast.

Excuse me sir? Was that you talking or a vile methane blast?

By Pikkle on Friday, January 19, 2001 - 06:59 pm: Edit

Yes, arguing is okay. Unless there is
dissenting opinion after which case personal
attacks seem to be just fine.

By Anatomist1 on Friday, January 19, 2001 - 06:11 pm: Edit

Hersaint,

Would you like a lock of my hair? Perhaps making a voodoo doll of me would be therapeutic.

I didn't say I hated film threads; I just said I didn't see what was so exciting about them that would render political threads tired bullshit by comparison. Film threads are OK, but arguing is more interesting... unless people take it too personally, and degenerate into unimaginative insults. Insults can be OK too, so long as they are pursued with flair and style.

Take a look at the archives and some of Don's rants. Maybe you could learn something. He doesn't just say "You're a hypocrite!", "If you came to my local bar, I'd kick your ass!", he says something with pizazz, and a good time is had by most. Why? Because ordinary, run-of-the-mill animosity is dull.

It's not how much testosterone you can squeeze out of your nads, it's how you play the game.

K.

By Head_prosthesis on Friday, January 19, 2001 - 05:04 pm: Edit

There once was a Power named ade
He was trafficing stolen grenades
when in Thailand he sold
some explosives so old
they said "Constantinople Brigade"

By Hersaint on Friday, January 19, 2001 - 02:33 pm: Edit

Warning Hypocrite alert

Anatomist it was you who bloody started the Film Thread in the first place....

The only thing you ever seem to find of any interest is your own views and opinion’s

"I've tried to be involved in music and film threads before, and I don't see what's so exciting about them" I hear you whinge in your last mail

Well SHERLOCK DONT BLOODY START THEM THEN

By Marc on Friday, January 19, 2001 - 12:30 pm: Edit

Of course I don't consider you muthafukkas "dipshits". I was drunk and feeling ornery. It just seems political talk is so futile, frustrating and, in general, hostile. Whereas film, music and book discussions tend to be more expansive, freewheeling and friendly.
But, you're all correct, there's plenty of room for every subject. My personal preference is the arts as opposed to political argument. My mind shuts down when talking politics. I'm passionate about film, books and music.

By the way, beat poet Gregory Corso died yesterday. He was a drunken boddhisattva with a diamond hard mind and the grace of a Dervish.

By Bob_chong on Friday, January 19, 2001 - 11:33 am: Edit

Anatomist:

Well said. I almost expected a "dancing about architecture" reference to fly loose.

BC

By Artemis on Friday, January 19, 2001 - 11:24 am: Edit

"As a forum member once said, (I forget exactly who but the comment made a lot of sense), there are enough threads on the forum to allow all sorts of discussions."

Black Rabbit said it (the Absinthe Cafe analogy).

By Lordhobgoblin on Friday, January 19, 2001 - 10:56 am: Edit

Marc,

"don't you realize how ineffectual your utterances are? they don't make a difference"

Unlike of course discussions on other threads about our favourite movies or our favorite Beatles songs etc, which of course obviously will make a difference.

As a forum member once said, (I forget exactly who but the comment made a lot of sense), there are enough threads on the forum to allow all sorts of discussions. If a topic of discussion bores you, then fine, join another thread with some other dipshits discussing some other sort of irrelevant bollocks.

Lets not have any of this 'the bollocks I discuss with the dipshits on the threads I like is more important, interesting and relevant than the bollocks you talk with the dipshits on the threads you like'

Each to his fucking own.

Hobgoblin

By Malhomme on Friday, January 19, 2001 - 10:38 am: Edit

Marc,
I think it's just fine to talk about anything here. The common denominator is less the object that is ABSINTHE, but that we are all of us ABSINTHE DRINKERS. We are all somewhat alike in a way that is unique. We are an unrecognized demographic. When we meet in NO I hope we talk more than about just absinthe.

Every one mingle!!!

By Anatomist1 on Friday, January 19, 2001 - 08:31 am: Edit

Marc,

I've tried to be involved in music and film threads before, and I don't see what's so exciting about them. They rarely become what I would call a discussion. Mostly it's just drive-bys. Everyone steps up on the box and declares what they like... occaisionally someone says "Yeah, I like that too." Collective monologues are doomed to lose momentum.

I think it's because art, film, and music are better to experience than talk about. Experiencing these things can be magical, but talking about them rarely is. I'd trade 10 minutes of welding straight lines for all the art critiques in the history of the world. Politics and philosophy, on the other hand, ARE talking, and therefore more suited to this medium.

K.

By Pikkle on Friday, January 19, 2001 - 06:15 am: Edit

*Yawn*

Yeah, talk is cheap... let's all get drunk and
really do something about it.

Head, tell us more powerade stories!

By Tavis on Friday, January 19, 2001 - 05:25 am: Edit

I tend to agree with Marc on this one, but would suggest that he maybe flipped his lid a little on this one. And jerking off is not confined to political threads, and we're probably all guilty to a certain degree.....

By Artemis on Friday, January 19, 2001 - 05:20 am: Edit

I could say the same thing about the music and film threads. Useless, boring, don't make a difference, etc. But I would probably stop short of calling everybody dipshits, motherfuckers, jerkoffs, etc.

By Marc on Friday, January 19, 2001 - 04:06 am: Edit

man, this is some boring shit. same old crap
you find all over the internet. jive talk in a velvet suit. square is square, absinthe or no.

you motherfuckers are obsessed with this political jive talk. don't you realize how ineffectual your utterances are? they don't make a difference. you're jerking off. this website can't sustain any extended film or music threads.
check it out. but threads about fighting, hitler, william buckley and guns rule. how dull. how manly. and how irrelevent. where's the fucking
magic? dipshits, one and all.

By Artemis on Friday, January 19, 2001 - 03:12 am: Edit

Blackjack:

"Sigh. OK, Artemis. Fine. Obviously, I'm wrong. Clinton is just as bad as Hitler or Stalin. He is going to start the purges tomorrow to get them in before his term ends. I'll see you at the camp."

No, they'll kill me trying to get me there. But I hope to see you in better circumstances. Let's get on the outside of some absinthe.

By Head_prosthesis on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 08:14 pm: Edit

Here I sit upon the throne
trying to write this Absinthe poem
Inbetween the gurgles and poofs
I read a bunch of postings
submitted by goofs
All of a sudden it occurs to me
all I had to do was pee...

By Head_prosthesis on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 08:11 pm: Edit

Roses are Red
Powerade Blue
Your ass is looking sweet
Let's get some Barbecue


and get busy...

By Anatomist1 on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 07:36 pm: Edit

Artemis and Bob,

Regarding the intellectual atmosphere at Universities, I think the far right is just trying to put wind in their sails. Although I am mostly leftist, I have never seen nor heard of an incident at the UW where someone was oppressed via institutional authority for holding, expressing, or promoting conservative views. No doubt that a preponderance of left-thinking persons exists here, and conservatives have to argue and fight more to stay afloat.

Do conservatives want the universities to intervene on their behalf and try to force a consensus so that they can have a more comfortable life? Bill Buckley himself has called for conservatives to stop whining about this. He said that he faced the same adversity when he was in school and it made him smarter and stronger. Would Camille Paglia be any fun if she was surrounded by people that agreed with her? I think that if one was failed or expelled on the basis of one's point of view, as opposed to poor scholorship, erudition, or heinous lack of civility, this would be rather easy to prove.

Here at the UW, we've had Phyllis Schlafly and other prominent conservatives as guest speakers. They had to talk louder and face down hecklers, but so did Louis Farrakhan (although he had Brooks Brothers-clad bodyguards at the ready to scare them into silence).

Having been in a University town, and other towns, I can say that the entertainment, local radio, and everything reflects a greater feeling of openness and thoughtful consideration in the presence of a University than without one. Wisconsin Public Radio (associated with UW and syndicated nationally) in particular often sports the only thoughtful dialogue on the dial. I detect no ulterior motives on the overtly political shows, and especially not on the general interest ones (Conversations With Jean Feraca, To the Best of Our Knowledge). Anyone who objects to anything in any conversation is free to call in and state their case without undue harassment on almost all of the shows (some don't have call-ins): only callers that ramble aimlessly or call too frequently are screened out. Until commercial right-wing hosts display the same kind of openness, I won't respect them.

K.

By Anatomist1 on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 07:03 pm: Edit

Rabbit is getting into a philosophical level of analysis on the issue of 'human rights'. On that level, they of course do not exist. If you took a human, put him in a box, and analyzed him 'till the end of time, you would never discover a "right". Rights are conventions. It is a concept that only has meaning in the context of agreed upon conventions. Since not everyone can agree on the nature of the concept, it does seem to boil down to who has the brute power to enforce their version.

On the other hand, this doesn't mean that it isn't a good idea to try and reach consensus on what might constitute 'human rights'. It's just that you can't resort to arguments from authority, or default to an objective standard -- an agreement has to be negotiated from scratch.

K.

By Black_rabbit on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 04:15 pm: Edit

LH, I am not the gun toting type. While I know an AK-47 wont save me in the end, I would rather die with my boots on and send someone to Hell ahead of me than go quietly. If things ever got bad enough, I would tote a gun. They aren't that bad though. The odds of my being tortured or killed out of hand are low enough that I don't want to play the odds of a gun being stolen from me or misused. They make me uncomfortable, and it would take a greater discomfort to make me have one.

Blackjack and everybody, I just don't grasp this 'human rights' thing. 'Rights' are an abstract concept, not a physical thing. They are like who goes first playing softball or what haircut is snazziest: arbitrary and artificial concepts that only exist because people agree they do. They are based on fashion and practicality. How can there be basic human rights? Might makes rights- if you can enforce your will, you have the 'right' to do whatever you want.

Like, those Texans that die at the hands of the state, probably they would say they have a basic human right to life. But the state has a basic human right to kill them, and the state has the power to enforce their will, which the prisoner lacks.

I have a basic human right to whatever the rest of these monkeys with thumbs won't stop me doing, nothing more, and nothing less.

Not that I am saying I don't have ethical problems with torturing people, but I am saying it's merely the difference between a cat and a mouse. The mouse may squeek, and the cat might listen and not eat him. But the mouse should neither be suprised nor outraged when the cat decideds to do so. Prepared with his little mousey AK-47, perhaps.

By Pikkle on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 03:21 pm: Edit

Serpis and blue Powerade™ is kind of pretty...

By _blackjack_ on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 02:03 pm: Edit

I took a look at the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm), and 1-12 look pretty good, and up to 19 are OK, but most of the rest include rights which can and are deprived of some citizens by due process of law. I don't think that prisoners, for instance, have the right to free assembly or to freely participate in cultural life. I also don't think leisure time is a right; there are economic conditions where it just isn't possible to take of paid holidays and still feed your family, and there is nothing the government can do about it.

It's a shame, really. It started out so well, and I think it weakens itself by including so much stuff that is NOT fundemental to all humans. I'd call 1-12 a declaration of human rights, and the rest of declaration of pretty good ideas...

By _blackjack_ on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 01:47 pm: Edit

Well, about half of Americans own guns, so the average gun owner is, well, pretty average. Most of them are pretty reasonable. Only a very tiny minority ever commit a crime with them, and most of those didn't get their guns legally anyway.

I've only got one gun, BTW, and it's a cowboy-style rifle. I'm more of a sword-person.

By Lordhobgoblin on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 01:24 pm: Edit

Blackjack,

Basic Human rights don't include all of our rights and they are the basic Human Rights include the sorts of things you suggest, due process, freedom from torture etc. A right that may be withdrawn from a citizen is not a basic Human Right but a conditional right that can be withdrawn by society under suitable circumstances and for the greater good.

Black Rabbit, if a government wanted to torture you, I don't think that the fact that you owned an AK47 or something similar would stop them.

Anyway Black Rabbit you don't strike me as the gun-toting type, and Blackjack if all gun owners were as reasonable as you I probably wouldn't hold the same view of gun control that I do now.

Hobgoblin

By _blackjack_ on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 01:23 pm: Edit


Quote:

What's wrong with privatized prisons? The research seems to be in favor.



Well, not the least problem is that their profit motive is to incarcerate more people.

By _blackjack_ on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 01:16 pm: Edit

Thinking about it on my way to work, I will agree with LH that the right to bea arms is not a basic human right, under his definition (which I assume he didn't just pull out of his ass): it is a CIVIL right. It is a right that goes along with the responsibilities of citizenship.

That being said, I'm not so sure that health care would qualify as a human right either. Basic human rights seem to fall under the category of things the government CAN'T do: it can't tortue you, it can't lock you up without due process, it can't take your stuff without cause, etc. Tho one would have a case if a government actively PREVENTED people from accessing health care, REQUIRING the government to provide it does not seem to fall under the onus of basic human rights. Uneversal health care is a good idea, but not a human right.

By Joshua on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 01:15 pm: Edit

i absoulutly agree with black rabbit and lord hob,corporations control too much as it is,in a sense i belive goverment already is privatized,the greedy corporations have got their fingers in every aspect of goverment

By Black_rabbit on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 01:12 pm: Edit

Giving corporations control of basic services is not a good idea. Take a look at the (lack) of electricity in California these days.

They are motivated by profit. So you will see more corners cut, higher costs for service etc. They get X dollars from the gov't to do the job, and the more they can not spend on the job the more they profit. Bad system.

A government program (at least in a good case) cares only about fulfilling it's function. They don't care what it costs in the bad cases, and they don't care about doing their job in bad cases...

So maybe government programs could be set up to compete with each other? The most efficient wins the contract (and therefore keeps their jobs...)
Best O both worlds.

By Bob_chong on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 01:09 pm: Edit

What's wrong with privatized prisons? The research seems to be in favor.

By Black_rabbit on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 01:05 pm: Edit

"The right to own a gun is not the same as the right to fair trial, security, or freedom from torture etc."

Bet me- if the gov't wants to torture you, and you have a gun, you might have something to say about it. If you don't, well, that's your ass, isn't it? You absolutely cannot count on any gov't always remaining (relatively) benevolent, and avoiding such gauche behavior as the torture, murder, and summary conviction of it's citizens.

I don't own a gun (I don't like em) but I do wish the people here in Americay had the legal ability to own military-grade weapons. Our gun ownership abilities at this point are bullshit meant to pacify us.

Can you see going up against an army unit intent on continuing to oppress you with a .45? Better than nothing, but against an APC, short fight. And the bastardos who use such things for murder and thievery already have military grade weapons here. Drive-by shootings are often done with fully automatic weapons. So making them illegal didn't work.

By Pataphysician on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 12:59 pm: Edit

Bob:

What I was trying to get to the bottom of is this prevailing myth that Business is the machine to fairly and efficiently provide for all our needs. From what I've seen, Business is at least as treacherous, stupid and wasteful as Government. Think of Firestone tires, Philip Morris, the triumph of VHS over BETA, Microsoft products. The difference is that we have much less control over Business (increasingly less as deregulators have their way) than we do over Government. "Voting with your pocketbook" is nothing compared to "Voting". And besides, Business slaps on this additional tax called a "profit" which is the only way to motivate it's leaders. More and more of Government's functions are being sold to the lowest bidder and the results are awful. Look at privatized prisons, for instance.

Say, about Russia, how's that whole private ownership of farms working for them now?

By _blackjack_ on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 12:34 pm: Edit

Gee, I've never felt like a moderate before, but I seem to be the balancing force around here.

By _blackjack_ on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 12:31 pm: Edit


Quote:

A human right is something that every single human being, regardless of their morality or mental state is fundamentally entitled to.



Well, that's a fairly limited category of rights. It doesn't include voting, freedom of movement or association, and the right to be secure in one's property. Speech and relgious practice can even be curtailed somewhat for incarcerated criminals and the mentally incompotent, not to mention children . The only things I would put in this category are things like the right to due process, or freedom from being tortured or killed by the government--but many Americans would disagree on the last.

I consider gun ownership on the same level as voting: it is a conditional right, but one essensial for citizens to be able to control their government.

By Lordhobgoblin on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 12:21 pm: Edit

"If government does things better than private business, why don't we nationalize everything? The factories, the farms, the health care system, etc.?"

We should do exactly this. Take the control out of the hands of the large corporations that control us and our governments. Why should we be no more than dispensible pawns whose only value is the profit we generate for them? There's nothing clever about being a wage-slave.

Hobgoblin

By Bob_chong on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 12:19 pm: Edit

First of all, quoting the Constitution is not "splitting hairs."

Secondly, if you want a quick and easy answer to your question, let's single out defense. I'd say defense, without question, should be in the control of elected officials. From the military folks I've talked to, they appreciate having an elected commander in chief, even one they don't respect as a person (i.e., Willie). It gives them the sense that they are acting on the people's behalf, since we have a representational government. Also, IMO the gov't is better equipped to keep secrets. Also, I want a military that can act to protect US interests, even the economic ones. If we have to depose a dictator to keep SUVs running, so be it.

There are many other reasons that can be given by people who know more than I. These are just a few off-the-top-of-my-head ideas.

FWIW, libertarians don't want to privatize everything. That would be a bit ludicrous. It's like asking why pro-abortion folks don't advocate outright infantcide. That would be taking a position to its illogical extreme.

BC

By Lordhobgoblin on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 12:14 pm: Edit

Blackjack,

OK we have different views on the risk of gun ownership.

"Anyone who would sacrifice freedom in the name of safety deserves neither."

All governments out of necessity (to guarantee the well-being of its citizens) curtail their citizens freedom to act in whatever way they please. It all depends what a government chooses as being appropriate to curtail. Your government (and constitution) views gun-ownership as not being appropriate to curtail, the UK government views that it should be curtailed.

Not all legal rights are basic human rights, (although this does not necessary imply that they are not appropriate rights). A human right is something that every single human being, regardless of their morality or mental state is fundamentally entitled to. Surely you can see that gun ownership is not in this category. You don't have to view it as a basic human right to believe you should have this right. I can't believe you think that all governments that have a different legal position on this from that of the USA are violating their citizen's human rights.

The American Constitution was drawn up by Americans for Americans. It does not represent a basic set of fundamental values that should be imposed on the all citizens of all other countries. We are entitled to our own systems, as you are yours. However we are all entitled to have the same basic Human Rights. Whether gun-ownership is right or wrong it is not a basic Human Right.

Hobgoblin

By Pataphysician on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 12:03 pm: Edit

Well, I didn't think I needed to even bring up the Constitution. There's nothing in what you quoted that would bar the Government from farming those services out, is there? Or are you saying that Government alone must provide the aforementioned? Then wouldn't "promote the general welfare" mean providing health care and food? Anyway, the Constitution is a mere technicality that laissez-faire capitalists would change if it got in their way.

You're just splitting hairs and stalling. Here, let me try again:

On strictly practical terms, legal technicalities aside, is there any function of government that would NOT work better if it were privatized?

By Bob_chong on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 11:51 am: Edit

"Promoting" is a lot different than ensuring, establishing, or providing.

I would say that the gov't does plenty to promote general welfare. In fact, many people could argue that gov't regulation and interference in such arenas as health care has the opposite effect of promotion (e.g., gov't price fixing can cause its own problems).

BC

By _blackjack_ on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 11:46 am: Edit


Quote:

We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare,




Ypu forgot to emphasise the "general welfare" part...:)

By _blackjack_ on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 11:44 am: Edit

Well, I consider being able to control ones government to be a basic human right. The guns are simply a tool to do so. 99% of the time, votes and free speech do the trick, but there are extreme cases where guns are necissary, and if you deny people the ability to own guns, you deprive them of the ability to control there government when it is needed most.

It's not just Northern Ireland and South Africa. Colombia, Estonia, Brazil, and Mexico all have higher firearm homocide rates than the US--2 to 10 times as high, despite far more restrictive gun laws. Taiwan and the Philippenes have higher overall murder rates, tho their firearm rates are lower. Finland, Norway, Sweeden and Canad have rates of gun ownership nearly as high as the US, but negligible rates of guno homocide and homocide overall.

Yes, there is a risk in allowing people to own guns, but it is clear that cultural and economic factors, not the presence of guns in-and-of-themselves, are to blame for high rates of gun homocides. And the risk to freedom in NOT allowing people to own guns is also great. Obviously, we have different views on which risk is greater. I am a product of my culture, and you of yours. Another product of my culture, Benjamin Franklin, said, "Anyone who would sacrifice freedom in the name of safety deserves neither."

By Bob_chong on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 11:40 am: Edit

Yeah--gov't farms were a huge success in the USSR. I see what you mean.

As for why we should not privatize defense and the judicial system? There's a little thing called the Constitution--perhaps you've heard of it--that states, "We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

By Pataphysician on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 11:11 am: Edit

"If government does things better than private business, why don't we nationalize everything? The factories, the farms, the health care system, etc.?"

Let's see, nationalize factories? Probably not. Farms? Yeah. I could see that working more smoothly than the current system, which is mostly de facto nationalization anyway, and of course, the large-scale corporate farms that are becoming the norm are disasterous in every way. Health Care? Obviously.

But now, back to my question: if private, profit-driven management functions better than government, why not privatize the police? Or the military? Or the judicial system? Is there any function of government that would NOT work better if it were privatized?

By Lordhobgoblin on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 10:59 am: Edit

Blackjack,

I'm not saying that the right to bear arms is not a right under the US system, but it is not as Artemis put it a "God" given right. It is NOT a basic human right. There is no danger from responsible people owning weapons but unfortunately not everybody is responsible or can be trusted. My view is that the danger posed by such a minority owning dangerous weapons outweighs the benefits to reponsible gun-owners. This is the view taken by the UK and other governments and I agree with this and I feel much safer for it. A government that does not permit its citizens to own an AK47 is not violating those citizen's human right. I know you all like your guns but put the right to own them in perspective. The right to own a gun is not the same as the right to fair trial, security, or freedom from torture etc. It is not a basic human right (and for believers it is certainly not a God given right as Artemis seems to think).

For me its a matter of safety when I agree with the UK governments stance. Its not about the morality of owning a gun.

As for Northern Ireland, the situation is a situation of a armed guerrilla (or terrorist depending on your view) organisations trying to overthrow the government (or defend it), and the killings are carried out by these organisations, not by private citizens. You cannot compare this with a normal situation. The South African violence is also politicaly motivated and is not a normal situation.

Anyone would think that to say that private citizens should not be allowed to own weapons is attacking their human rights. Blackjack I know you like your guns but it is not one of your basic human rights to be allowed to own them, anyone who implies it is is talking nonsense.

Hoboblin

By _blackjack_ on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 10:48 am: Edit

Artemis,

See what Bob has to say on the subject of comparing people to Hitler in the Sweden thread...

By _blackjack_ on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 10:48 am: Edit

Government does SOME things better, not all, or at least, it is in a position to ensure that ALL people get certain things, like education, protection from crime, basic subsistance, and perhaps health care. Private interests can certainly provide a better quality of services, but they do so at the price of denying them to those who cannot afford them. If something is essential to provide to EVERYONE, the government is the best provider we have come up with so far.

Personally, I'm not married to the idea. If private interests prove themselves capable of providing social services to everyone, I will be happy to dismatle the government system, but the burdon of proof is on them. They've got to spend their own money, demonstrate that everything the Libertarians say is true, before I'd be willing to risk these essential services.

By Bob_chong on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 10:22 am: Edit

Pataphysician:

If government does things better than private business, why don't we nationalize everything? The factories, the farms, the health care system, etc.? Is there any practical or philosophical reason not to?

I don't agree with it. I'm asking the liberals. I sincerely want to know.

BC

By Bob_chong on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 10:09 am: Edit

Blackjack:

Jesse Jackson is the Mac of the Year:

http://www.nypostonline.com/news/nationalnews/20501.htm

BC

By _blackjack_ on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 09:49 am: Edit

Sigh. OK, Artemis. Fine. Obviously, I'm wrong. Clinton is just as bad as Hitler or Stalin. He is going to start the purges tomorrow to get them in before his term ends. I'll see you at the camp.

By Fluid on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 08:40 am: Edit


Quote:

You've posted some thought-provoking, well-argued, insightful stuff...



well, thank you Artemis   J


Quote:

With regard to body language, have you by chance read "The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life"?



No, not yet, but I just went and found it at Amazon - I'll throw it in my next order. Ahhh "the script"... that's why it's important to surrender to the flow... let the director direct, and everything will turn out just right!!!

...but maybe that's off topic. I still haven't tried Absinthe and Powerade.

Fluid

By Pataphysician on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 07:54 am: Edit

If private business does things better than government, why don't we privatize everything? The police, the military, the judicial system? Is there any practical or philosophical reason not to?

I don't agree with it. I'm asking the libertarians. I sincerely want to know.

By Artemis on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 07:40 am: Edit

Well, the tide of political invective seems to have ebbed. Before departing this particular beach forever (I mean it this time, maybe), I would be remiss if I didn't stroll across the litoral one last time, picking up shiny things to admire them, and throwing the occasional stinking crustacean back into the water where it will have less occasion to offend. I thank everybody for a spirited discussion, but I don't think we're going to convince each other, so I for one am going to give it a rest after this post.

LORD H:

"Since when has the right to bear arms become a "God-given" right?"

Since Homo Sapiens let go of the tree limb.

"‘God' did not personally write the American Constitution"

No, God-fearing men wrote it. God-fearing. Not "God"-fearing. God-fearing.

"Nor is the right to bear arms recognised as a basic human right."

You're wrong. The Declaration of Independence says:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,"

Some of these rights, which, as the phrase above clearly points out, come from God, were thought to be so important that the Constitution was amended to describe them in some detail. The Constitution does not *give* us these rights. They are ours merely by virtue of our human birth. The Constitution proscribes the government from *infringing* upon these rights. The right to keep and bear arms was thought so important, that it was made number two on the list.

"Unlike the right to social security in times of unemployment and adequate healthcare etc, which do form part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights."

Liberal asswipe. Nobody has the "right" to anybody else's money in any form.

"I suppose you believe that Britain, Ireland and many European countries are totalitarian states denying people basic human rights because their citizens may not bear arms."

Have you been following the "progress" of the law in England with regard to communication over the Internet? Moves to outlaw encryption, outlaw remailers, turning every ISP into a tool of Big Brother. They've already disarmed you, now they're telling you that your personal communication cannot be kept private. Better wake up.

"Personally I feel a lot safer for it, only 2 instances in the past 15 years in the whole UK of nutters walking in and randomly wasting people in schools and on a high street etc."

The only time I've ever felt unsafe in the U.S. is a direct result of being disarmed. If I'm armed, the only way some idiot shooting up a McDonald's is going to hurt me is if by sheer bad luck he shoots me first. Otherwise, he shoots one or two people at most before I kill the bastard. Have you ever noticed what puts a stop to those killing sprees? THE ARRIVAL OF MORE GUNS!!!!


ANATOMIST1

"The influx of corporate money that steers programs toward particular technological outputs and erodes the U's committment to pure research are the real threat -- a profusely bleeding wound."

If they're footing the bill, why shouldn't they steer the research? I'm more concerned about the biggest sugar daddy of them all, the U.S. Treasury. Taxpayer money, filtered to schools operating with a liberal bias, steering us toward particular *social* results, that's the threat and the festering sore in my view.

"Bra-burning committees trying to reduce 'hate speech' and the like are more like a persistent headache."

I bow to your direct experience, but I think Bob Chong's point is good. A Christian has a different tale to tell of the arena than does a lion. I only know what I've heard on Rush, what I read in "Imprimis", etc. but it seems to me that on a lot of campuses, conservatives can only get along if they keep their views private. God forbid they should actually try to promote those views.

BLACK RABBIT

"Actually, ol' Adolph went on quite a few rants about how you can't take away people's religion, you don't have the right and even if you think you do, you shouldn't dare as they won't stand for it. He was wise in that at least."

He was even wiser than that. He GAVE them a religion that delivered them right into his hands. He appropriated the trappings of religion and sewed them seamlessly into his political party. The torchlight parades, the banners, the icons, the preaching from a towering pulpit, etc. Have you ever listened to a translation of those speeches? He wasn't really saying anything of substance. It was the symbolism, not the substance, that captivated the yahoos.
.
If you haven't read it, you should read "The Occult Origins of the Third Reich". You'll see Nazism in an entirely new light.


BLACKJACK:

>"The nationalism"
>United Nationalism

"Which is, of course, the OPPOSITE of nationalism... "

No, it's not. It's substituting one bland nation for a legion of vital nations. We were born to be tribal, and to tribes we shall inevitably return.

"Or bombing civilians in Iraq to boost the price of your oil stocks. I think both actions were deplorable."

To ensure the availability of oil and to boost the price of oil stocks isn't quite the same thing, but I wasn't in favor of the Gulf War, for what it's worth.

"You insult everyone who died in the holocaust"

Nonsense. It's not possible to insult dead people. I get sick of people playing the holocaust card every time someone tries to engage in an honest discussion of Hitler or the Nazis. Those people died because they submitted like sheep to the slaughterhouse. They had no choice but to submit because they were unarmed. It will NOT happen to me. Better to die on my feet than to live on my knees.

As to making Bob Chong look moderate, I want no part of moderate. If you're standing in the middle of the road, you get run over. Interesting that John Ashcroft was excoriated by some liberal clown over that very statement in his confirmation hearing yesterday. And Ted "The Swimmer" Kennedy has the unmitigated gall to say the words "women's rights" to Ashcroft. It would be funny if it weren't so disgraceful.


PIKKLE::

"And penalties would be harsh for offenders and unlicensed mustaches shorn on the spot."

And what of "stick-ons"?

"and make baseball only two innings... with one stike per batter, one out per inning and
fifteen outfielders."

My dad, who hated basketball, said they should give both teams 100 points and play five minutes.


FLUID:

You've posted some thought-provoking, well-argued, insightful stuff, especially:

1) how we treat strangers
2) how we treat beggars .... etc.

With regard to body language, have you by chance read "The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life"? It is so revealing it's frightening. It went further than all the Zen texts I've ever read (and I've read a lot of them) toward convincing me that what I think of as "me" is just a script being played out.

By Pikkle on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 07:11 am: Edit

Have you ever seen the movie "Deadlock?"
One of Rutger Hauer's more memorable
flicks... you need to see it before making that
kind of irresponsible statement. Hell no, I
don't want my head exploding because I didn't
pay my speeding ticket...

By Pataphysician on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 06:57 am: Edit

If private business does things better than government, why don't we privatize everything? The police, the military, the judicial system? Is there any practical or philosophical reason not to?

By Head_prosthesis on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 05:22 pm: Edit

The lining of my mouth is sore
I just bedded down with a Hillbilly Whore
I think my penis might fall off
The Absinthe forum would surely scoff
They take everything serious and too much to heart
At least Black Rabbit and Pikkle fart

By Pikkle on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 05:15 pm: Edit

and make baseball only two innings... with
one stike per batter, one out per inning and
fifteen outfielders.

By Pikkle on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 04:56 pm: Edit

And something has to be done about the
mullets too... or there is no god... wait, I all
ready know that.

By Pikkle on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 04:50 pm: Edit

Could I also propose a mustache license...
There are too many of the stylistically
challenged out there wielding such folicular
implements with little or no regard for the
affect they have on society. There should be
certain criterion met, rigid testing and annual
licensing. Of course there would be different
categories of licenses and certain types would
have to be outright forbidden. And penalties
would be harsh for offenders and unlicensed
mustaches shorn on the spot. Summarily
shaved!

By Black_rabbit on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 04:40 pm: Edit

In honor of the bizarre turn (and beginning) of this thread, we should organize a Poweraid concert. Like farm-aid, band-aid, and all of the rest, only ours will be to help absinthe drinking freaks (or non-freaks, if you prefer) rise to postions of leadership within the governments of the world.

We will hand out the absinthe before we solicit the donations. If we can get someone from Abu Dabi wasted and he brings his checkbook, we're in like flynn! We will buy and bribe our way in to presidencies, monarchies, oligarchies, and other forms of government ending in 'ies.'

Then we can all test out our wack-ass political theories on REAL PEOPLE! It would be great- Anatomist and Bob could throw food at each other at state banquets, and we could bomb Radomil's factory using NATO planes. Then we could start an apocolyptic war over molebdynum-mining rights in Antarctica or something equally obscure, get deposed, and spend our remaining years drinking away the money we embezzeled in a cafe somewhere (probably France, as legalization would be our first order of business.)

My first act will be to mandate Deva be served in school lunches. Then I think I will outlaw the name 'larry' just for the hell of it. A short, brutal, drunken reign, followed by years and years of people telling their history classes what a collossal bastard I was.

You've got to have a dream.

By Pikkle on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 03:53 pm: Edit

Good, keep it that way! I don't wear a beret, I
wear a fishing hat because when you're
fishing, nothing else in the world matters...
unfortunately I only fish about once a year so I
wear it golfing instead, my other outdoor
solice. I heard the ATF and the PGA are
getting together to require licences on golf
clubs, specifically sand wedges. Anyone
know about this? Deadly weapons you know,
a well outfitted populace is difficult to control,
especially when they're in those bunkers.

By Fluid on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 03:29 pm: Edit

My beret is a milky emerald color

By Pikkle on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 03:25 pm: Edit

Wow, Head, you should have named this
thread "Absinthe and Paranoia-ade." I feel like
I'm back on one of those patriot forums.
Careful of those guys in the blue berets!

By Fluid on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 03:16 pm: Edit

Well yeah, I'm a city kid, but I did move to the burbs last summer, and things are better here, no doubt.

I'm actually a short-haired, ex-hippie, suit-wearing, soft-spoken sensitive new age guy. hah.

I'll stand by my example, and I know it doesn't apply as much to small-town America. However, the general fear we have of strangers isn't limited to the big city. I've got family all over the country (from NOLA to Oregon) and I have spent extended periods visiting them and their towns. General feel I always got was that people don't feel safe talking to a stranger, especially one with an accent.

Being different is a social crime in the USA. Sounds harsh, but it is true, relatively speaking. I remember one time in the Netherlands, I was waiting for a tram in Scheveningen and there was this guy, drunk & drinking out of a paper bag, walking his dog. Now this dog, who was certainly born white, had been dyed pink. So I'm eyein' this guy and his strange looking dog when all of a sudden there's two cops lookin' at him. As they walk up to him, I think the least they will do is lecture him on animal rights and public intoxication. What did they do? Gasp! They wanted to pet his dog!
"What a cute dog!"
The drunk replies "yes, he loves the attention. Wanna drink?" He swaggers and pulls a bottle of vodka out of the bag.
"No thanks, we are on duty."
"Ahhh okay. Maybe tommorrow?"
"Maybe. Have agood day."
.... and that was it. Not only that, but this was in front of the Casino Hotel on some very pricey real estate. Never in America, no where would that ever happen.

I suppose it comes down to immediate suspicion, whereas in many other places what I've felt is immediate trust. Does someone have to earn your trust or do you give it freely and let yourself get burned once in a while? The answer to social ills lies in the response to that question, I believe.

Fluid

By _blackjack_ on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 03:05 pm: Edit

OK, other problems: the Netherlands does not have trial by jury.

By _blackjack_ on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 02:59 pm: Edit

Off the top of my head, the Netherlands has absurdly restrictive weapons laws--to the point that you can't collect swords and kitchen knives are questionable.

New Zealand? It seems to have largely escaped the gun-control hystaria that has overtake Australia (and, oddly, also has a lower crime rate.) I don't know anything negative, off-hand, except for that whole British Commenwealth thing, but I'll look into it.

Iceland? I get seasonal affective disorder...

By Anatomist1 on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 02:46 pm: Edit

OK. On a less facetious note, how about Iceland, New Zealand, or the Netherlands? I've always heard great things about these places.

K.

By Anatomist1 on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 02:44 pm: Edit

Fluid,

I think you should consider moving to a small town. In cities, people are packed so closely together, most people try hard to ignore as many of them as possible. Move somewhere near the middle of nowhere, and I think you'll find people a lot more interested in one another. Of course, if you're some kind of big-city, weird-hair, absinthe-drinking freak, their interest may not seem very positive.

K.

By _blackjack_ on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 02:43 pm: Edit

Lichtenstein? Hmm. Their taxes seem pretty low (not that I care), but the Prince retains way too much power, and there is no real spereation of executive and legslative power. Women have only had the right to vote since 1984. I haven't been able to find any info on things like gun-control, seperation of church and state, censorhip or repoductive rights...

(And, yes, I know you were being facetious)

By Fluid on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 02:27 pm: Edit

Well, it depends on the standards... if you are talking financial or theoretical freedoms, this place (US) is tops. No disagreement.

I'm talking about social issues though (not social programs). I'm talking about our ability to connect genuinely with one another, and of all the places I've been to, this place is at the bottom.

Example - "How's it going?"; a phrase repeated so often here that it's meaning has nothing to do with its literal interpretation. It's a question that requires no response. In fact, if you respond with anything other than a repeat of the same phrase, you are likley to be viewed as "odd". The phrase really means "I see that you exist. Now leave me alone."

That is a very low level of personal interaction that we have all experienced here (well, I am in a big city) and it, among other examples, are all indicative of a people that have lost touch with each other. That disconnection, in some way, contributes to violent outbursts and all sorts of social ills.

The "why"s of it could be TV, lack of education, or any number of things. I believe that we have been socially engineered to be this way, by an elite group of power mongers a la X-files. But I don't care, I do my part to subvert it (by loving my neighbor, speaking my truth, encouraging others to think critically, expressing my emotions and making it safe for others to do same, etc.), and that's it.

We can't change this with guns, we can only change it by becoming better human beings. The guns are just there to keep the government off our backs while we figure this out.

btw, I do not own any guns, nor do I plan on ever owning one. (ahhhhh maybe a crossbow)

Fluid

By Anatomist1 on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 02:16 pm: Edit

Lichtenstein?

By _blackjack_ on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 01:28 pm: Edit


Quote:

Unless you have a great job with accompanying benefits (respect from police, credit cards, etc) this coountry sucks ass.



I disagree. Keep it in perspective. Most of the world lives in abject poverty. Even the poorest Americans have access to resources--education, medical, and political--that most of the world can only dream of. Sure, we fall short of a few European countries as far a social services go, but we make up for the difference in overall prosperity, opportunity, and individual self-determination, not to mention controls on government power. Can you suggest a country that is better?

By _blackjack_ on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 01:22 pm: Edit

For the record, the gun-control laws that Hitler used to his advantage in Germany had actually been enacted before his rise to power, in fact for the very purpose of disarming paramilitary groups like the Brownshirts.

And LH is right that the US Constitution has no mention of God. The British Parliament, however, derives its power, nomially, from the monarch by the Grace of God. I know this has little bearing on how their government actually functions, but it does account in art for our differing attitude on guns. To the US, government is made by men and men must have the power to unmake it. In the UK, the government is foundationally ABOVE the people, so there is no need to provide for their ability to bring it down.

By Fluid on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 01:20 pm: Edit

Well said Tabreaux,

You know a couple years ago I remember the ATF wanted to regulate and license the sale of chainsaws...

Maybe if we invested more time, money and compassion in schools we wouldn't have such a large segment of the population feeling disenfranchised, cheated out of "the dream" or otherwised so pissed off that that they wanna kill someone.

Unless you have a great job with accompanying benefits (respect from police, credit cards, etc) this country sucks ass. And I say that because I've lived and traveled in much of the rest of the world. Financially, the US is pretty darn good place to be born. But socially, we may as well be in Hell.
By "socially" I mean
1) how we treat strangers
2) how we treat beggars
3) how we deal with homeless
4) disparity of power between police and citizens
5) how we "break bread" with family - are we polite or genuine?
6) what we say about those we disagree with
7) our definition of "friend" vs. "acquaintance"
8) how well we read body language and use that info
9) our respect for truth vs. law

I could go on (today is my day to rant) but I think we all get it.

It's a good thing that all the worlds problems can be solved on a posting forum!! Thanks Kallisti...

Fluid

By Tabreaux on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 12:56 pm: Edit

Whether intent pulls the trigger of a gun, wields a knife, or swings a bat, it is still intent. Intent is the problem, not the weapon. Without intent, even the most lethal of weapons is harmless. Treating the source of a sickness is far more logical than treating the symptoms. The source of violence is not found in the weapon.

By Fluid on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 12:36 pm: Edit

The right to bear arms, in theory, is for protection of life, limb and property AND more importantly, to ensure that the government never has the power to enforce laws that go against the will of the people, or the rights of a minority.

That's why Hitler had to round up the guns first: to make it safe for going after target groups of citizens (drug users, gypsies, gays, Jews, etc). Do you think the Gov. of Switzerland would ever be able to round up a minority group and send 'em off to camps? I imagine that the armed citizenry of Switzerland would stand up within their cantons and fight the Federals.

What if your governement decided the country would be better off without whatever minority group you belong to, ie. Absinthe drinkers. Would you want to defend yourself against an unreasonable detention (or worse) or would you simply succumb to the prevailing wind of politics?

Very few non-targeted citizens died in Germany during Hitler's reign. Why? Because they were afraid to stand up because they lost their guns to his safety campaign, which I imagine the current US anti-gun initiatives are mirroring.

Its all history, and we shouldn't repeat it.

By _blackjack_ on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 12:32 pm: Edit

LH-

For the record, the right to bear arms is integral to the US system. It's a different system than yours.

As far as safety goes, contrary to the reports you may hear, there are NOT many cases of nutters walking into schools and shooting people in the US. That sort of crime is absurdly rare. We do have a higher murder rate than you do, but there is nothing to link that direactly to the legality of guns. There are places with gun laws as strict as yours that have the same or higher murder rates than the US (notably, South Africa, Mexico and Northern Ireland.) It's a cultural thing.

By Lordhobgoblin on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 12:20 pm: Edit

Artemis,

"people denied the God-given right to defend themselves with arms"

Since when has the right to bear arms become a "God-given" right? "God" did not personally write the American Constitution.

Nor is the right to bear arms recognised as a basic human right. Unlike the right to social security in times of unemployment and adequate healthcare etc, which do form part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The legality of allowing a citizen to bear arms is not a basic human right. I suppose you believe that Britain, Ireland and many European countries are totalitarian states denying people basic human rights because their citizens may not bear arms. (Personally I feel a lot safer for it, only 2 instances in the past 15 years in the whole UK of nutters walking in and randomly wasting people in schools and on a high street etc).

Hobgoblin

By Daedelus on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 11:29 am: Edit

I actually never suffer having anything removed form my check. I just have to cough up a big fat one on the 15th of each year. Such is the life of a struggling architect trying to get a business off the ground. and don't worry I let Engineers do all of the math. LOL

daedelus (notice the sheepishly small "d")

By Daedelus on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 11:21 am: Edit

I know, I know I'm way ahead of you.....

I actually went to the small public school of mathematics and minored in smoking pot and drinking tequila at lunch. Yet I was still valedictorian. Bunch of dumb-asses in that school I tell you. And then there were the students.

daedelus

ps. I blame it on my damn calculator!!!!!!!!!!!

By _blackjack_ on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 11:19 am: Edit

Artemis,

First of all, I have never defended the present regiem of the US. I supported John Hagelin in November. But trying to color it as facist is absurd.

>"The nationalism"
>United Nationalism

Which is, of course, the OPPOSITE of nationalism...

>"and the militarism.'
>Bomb an aspirin factory to take the heat off >your sorry sex criminal ass.

Or bombing civilians in Iraq to boost the price of your oil stocks. I think both actions were deplorable.

>"The suppresion of dissenting opinion"
>Universities all over the U.S.

Universities are not the government. It's a different thing when a private institution asks for a certain code of conduct than when the government imposes one by force. I went to probably the most politically-correct school in the country (Sarah Lawrence, where Ivan Bosky's son was expelled for laughing when somebody was called a faggot) and I was more than free to express every dissenting opinion I had, as long as I did not personally attack individuals in the process.

>"and invasion of civil liberties."

>Machine gun toting thugs invade a home to kidnap
>a small boy and return him to a communist
>shithole, compound full of nonconformists burned
>to the ground, people denied the God-given right
>to defend themselves with arms, voting process
>corrupted by a party that thinks it has a God-
>given right to win, etc. etc.

Don't forget the drug war, started by one republican, and escalated by another. I do not condone any of this (except returning a child to his father...really now), but these are not comperable to a facist state.

>"The lack of popular consent."

>Well less than half the people put the above >monster in gear.

Bush, you mean? Sorry, you can't have it both ways. Our electoral system needs reform, but it's hardly a dictatorship.

>Glad you've admitted a certain liberal regime >fits in so well.

>You lose every day that liberals have any power
>to actually affect anything. The ONLY difference
>between Bill Clinton and despots such as Hitler
>is that Bill lacks the balls to put the jackboot
>on your neck. At least Adolf was honest.

You insult everyone who died in the holocaust, or in Stalin's purge, or at the hands of the Taliban's obscene perversion of Sharia, when you imply that the state of the US comes anywhare near resembling a dictatorship. You're making Bob sound moderate.

Dictators, for the record, do not step down peacefully when their four years are up.

By Bob_chong on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 11:16 am: Edit

But the $1K per year you speak of is not "free" or some kind of handout. Just a small, small reversal of the check-jack they do every time (Chris Rock). You'll still have plenty of your wages removed before your check ever reaches you--don't worry.

BC

By Daedelus on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 11:10 am: Edit

post prompted by my inability to use a calculator.
I stand corrected

so give me a thousand free dollars per year.

daedelus

By Bob_chong on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 11:03 am: Edit

Dead:

That's 10K total over ten years. No one ever said 3 tril in one year. That's impossible. So it's more like $1K per year.

BC

By Lordhobgoblin on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 10:57 am: Edit

Bob,

I am not one to equate conservatism with racism but you are definitely very wrong when you state that

"First of all, it should be pointed out that Nazism, a.k.a. National Socialism, was, well, socialist."

The fact that "National Socialism" contains the word "Socialism" in it's title does not mean it is a form of Socialism. Nazism is a form of Facism not Socialism.

A Facist revolution does involves the mobilisation of the working classes but with Facism the working classes are used by the forces that control capital. The workers do not share in any redistibution of wealth, capital remains in the hands of "Capitalists".

A Socialism revolution on the other hand involves power being taken by the working classes for their ends. Capital does not stay in the hands of the "Capitalists" and capital is re-distributed.

The reason that "Capitalists" seem to fear Socialism more than Facism is that Socialism threatens to take away their control over capital in a way that Facism does not.

Indeed with the exception of WW2, (when Western Europe was under direct military attack and had to act), the track record of Western 'democracies' has been to back Fascist states and oppose left-wing Socialist states. It's all about the interests of the large corporations that control wealth and power in the West.

We could argue forever about what "socialist" governments past and present actually live up to their being classified as Socialist but this has no bearing on the nature of Socialism.

You are wrong Bob, Nazism is not a type of Socialism. To say that is, is at least as wrong as saying that the Republican Party is a type of Nazi Party.

You personally may not like Socialism, but the Socialist family does not include the Nazis.

Hobgoblin

By Daedelus on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 10:53 am: Edit

I admit I was a little off base on the "hundred-thousand dollar check" thing. Last time I played around with those calcs in my head I was plastered.
So ther you go. But...

there are currently 283.5 million per USCensus Bureau stats. The tax cut is something like 3 trillion. That gives us $105,820 tax cut per person
(or $35,273 per trillion dollar tax relief). By my calcs, that is $10 grand a year. I'll still be watching my mailbox.

daedelus

By Bob_chong on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 04:06 am: Edit

Daed:

It takes only a $3.53 tax cut per every man, woman, and child to make a billion.

A trillion dollars, over ten years, would be something like $353 less in taxes (per person) every year for ten years.

Of course, some make more than others and would therefore receive a bigger cut. Your $200,000 check means that you are in the upper 1%, no? But your idea that we all get a couple hundred thousand is funny. Have you even grossed much more than that, aggregately? If everyone got a couple hundred thousand, that would be something like a $56.6 quintillion tax cut. LOL.

BC

By Daedelus on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 03:50 am: Edit

Yes, but capability, and action are two vastly different things. Are the Repubs really going to give us a umpteen trillion dollar tax cut. I think not. If they did we would, each and every one of us, need to get a bix fat check for a couple of hundred thousand dollars, directly from the USofA.

I'll keep my eye on my mailbox.
daedelus

By Black_rabbit on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 03:49 am: Edit

Fluid, the more I see, the more I come to beleive it really is all about the bread and circuses.

In America, we have both. The sheep graze, and bleat, and are lead to slaughter. When they stray from the flock, there is always the sheepdog. There is enough grass for all the sheep, and, well... it's not so bad in the pasture after all. So what if they aren't allowed out?

And can you blame them? Who would risk the security and safety of their loved ones? It is one thing to say 'damn this system, I want freedom!' if you live alone in a little apartment somwhere. A whole other ballgame if you look into the trusting eyes of your three-year-old and know that, should you push it too far with uncle sam, they will die with you when the brakes fail on your car for no apparent reason. Most people have families, or other things (like their lives and the fact they aren't in prison) they are loath to risk.

There must be a compelling reason to risk, and it's hard to come up with one that works unless you are in very dire circumstances indeed (like not having enough to eat, or feed your kids.)

By Daedelus on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 03:47 am: Edit

I don't know BR. I have some friends who are some pretty odd cooks.

daedelus

By Bob_chong on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 03:46 am: Edit

Daed:

Of the two parties we're stuck with, I think that only one of them is capable of limiting the powers of the fed. gov't.

What sorts of gov't imposed tyranny would I like to be "liberated" from? Let's start with taxes and Social Security and work from there.

Some disagree and say corporations are the real evil, yada yada. But I don't remember ever having my wages directly garnished by a corporation or working for three months out of every year for a corporation. Nader and Anatomist (and maybe you) would disagree. That's cool.

As for my thoughts on Rush, I think I've called him alternatively an "entertainer" and "idiot." He can be both, all in the same sentence. But people like him; therefore, he exists. He fills a void.

To someone on the fringe, the two parties look indistinguishable. I am not so far out a libertarian to think that Clinton and Bush are the same.

If one can't stand vanilla ice cream and loves chocolate ice cream, but the only two choices are vanilla and strawberry, which do I choose? Certainly not vanilla.

BC

By Daedelus on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 03:46 am: Edit

Amen fluid!

The whole Executive order thing is quite amazing. The US has been in a perpetual state of "National emergency" since the Great Depression. In a state on "National emergency" the Constitution that we all hold dear is effectively suspended. Of course They don't want Us to know that. And what is really frightening is that the only one who can suspend the "state of National Emergency" is the President, and there is no way in hell any new and future president is going to effectively remove his most powerful means of single-handedly legislating. It is a sorry state indeed.

apathetically waiting on the revolution.
daedelus

By Black_rabbit on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 03:40 am: Edit

sorry- I wrote 'cook' when I meant 'kook.'

By Fluid on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 03:37 am: Edit

While attending a major US university, I started a chapter of a national activist group in '91 that specifically targeted:
1) the use of inner city high schools as military recruitment centers while NO other career fairs / guidance were offered
2) The myth of tax allocation to social programs (something like 96% to Defense while .1% to Education)
3) Gulf War lies (Bush family ties to Kuwait Royals and Oil)
4) Environmental abuses by large corporations, including use of military by Oil companies to quiet environmental protesters in developing nations
5) The erosion of rights by treating people as corporations rather than natural citizens (equity law vs. constitutional law)

What happened: Our main office was broken into. What was stolen, with no visible means of entry:
1) computer
2) files
3) hidden hard copies of membership lists which were hidden:
  a) inside a tv
  b) up inside a closet door
What was NOT stolen:
1) The tv
2) The stereo
3) A Rolex stting out on the desk

A few days after that happened, as I'm walking home from class, a woman gets out of her car near my door and takes my picture, then gets back in her car and drives away.

The suppression of dissent is alive and well... to find out, try any of the following:
1) speak out against the tax code
2) keep and bear an arm
3) attempt to declare yourself a natural citizen with constitutional protection
4) organize a free and public gathering on "public" lands (State or National Forrest)
5) take a soapbox to your local park and begin speaking on what you don't like about your governement
6) make noise about the second explosion at OK City
...and the list goes on.

Statistics to look at:
1) What percentage of the population works for the governement?
2) How many ARMED Federal Agencies are there?
3) How many of those ARE NOT required to wear insignia?

Other questions:
1) What gives the President the right to issue "Executive Orders" that ursurp the governemtnal process laid out in the Constitution?
2) What sorts of powers will FEMA have when a State of Emergency is declared?
3) Why does the government want a list of gun owners? Why did Hitler want the same?

yadda yadda yadda... again the list goes on.

I love my country. I don't trust the governement. In fact, I fear for the experience my children and grandchildren will have as "free citizens". That said, I'm happy to let things go, see what happens and also post things like this whenever someone blindly believes they are Free as our forefathers intended. No offense, but things are not as good as TV would like us to believe.

Fluid

By Black_rabbit on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 03:32 am: Edit

"The similarities continue. Hitler and the Nazis were resolutely pro-gun- control, pro-speech-code and anti-religious. "

Actually, ol' Adolph went on quite a few rants about how you can't take away people's religion, you don't have the right and even if you think you do, you shouldn't dare as they won't stand for it. He was wise in that at least.

Hitler filled their bellies, and he made a defeated nation proud, and he gave them a great purpose (as they saw it.) There was a void to fill in the lives of Germans, and he filled it- it was just unlucky for them it was Hitler who showed up. They were willing to overlook the rest.

Just like we would be if we had a few really hard years.

If FDR had said 'the problem is the gypsies!' along with filling their bellies, giving them their pride back, and a reason to go on, to prosper, no one but the gypsies and the odd cook would have done a damn thing about the 'gypsy question.'

If there is another lasting depression, we are very much ready for a Hitler of our own, and 50 years later people will go on about what shitheads we all were.

By Bob_chong on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 03:27 am: Edit

Artemis is absolutely right about the contemporary university environment.

In class yesterday, as people were introducing themselves, everyone white made some odd "apology." One guy said that he grew up white and middle class but was "now finally emerging from that."

LOL.

The rise of critical ethnography is the best example of suppression of opinion. Write a feminist ethnography and you're hailed as a genius. Poke holes in the methodology and conclusions and you are tarred and feathered.

K--don't you think that your disagreement with Artemis post stems, at least in small measure--from the fact that you are a leftist and therefore among like-minded people at these universities you speak of? You know, how Nader won your district and all that... I admit my agreement with Artemis is due to the fact that as an anti-leftist, I am NOT among my people in the u. setting.

It's a Daniel in the lions' den thing. But if you're a lion, it looks a lot different...

BC

By Daedelus on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 03:25 am: Edit

Bob,

for a self-proclaimed "libertarian", why do you come off so much as a republican apologist? I'm not wanting to pick any sort of fight, but am just generally curious. I know many "libertarians" (and on may issues I am one myself) and I don't think any of them would be caught dead saying anything nice about the republicans politics, especially in regards to the "programmer" Rush. What gives?

daedelus

By Bob_chong on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 03:15 am: Edit

Anatomist:

Chill out, man. If you look at the two "Nazi" posts, you'll notice that I was quoting someone else.

All I wrote in the first post was:
(sorry to quote something so long. --BC)

And the second:
Wow, K. Nice attempt to insult me. Would it be possible for you to express your opinion without personal invective? Thanks. BC

Your diatribe against me in your last post was totally uncalled for. Disagree with the content or disagree with me, but you'll find that I have not insulted you in months. I am not so quick to anger.

BC
Propaganda Artist &
Class Act


P.S. I don't remember that other poster calling Echo their "favorite band." They just said it was a good show. And they wrote "BM," not me. I quoted it b/c it was funny. They can insult my "favorite" bands all they want. I don't give a fig.

By Anatomist1 on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 02:59 am: Edit

Artemis,

As someone who has spent much of the last 14 years in various college and university enviroments, your equation of the contemporary U with the "suppression of dissenting opinion" a la totalitarianism sounds pretty silly. By and large, it's still a much freer, more wide open venue for the exchange of ideas than any information venue that is wholly owned and editorially controlled by corporations. It probably compares favorably to the intellectual environment at Universities anywhere in the world. I could go down there and embark on a PhD course of study on just about anything, although some would involve more arguing than others.

The influx of corporate money that steers programs toward particular technological outputs and erodes the U's committment to pure research are the real threat -- a profusely bleeding wound. Bra-burning committees trying to reduce 'hate speech' and the like are more like a persistent headache.

K.

By Anatomist1 on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 02:42 am: Edit

"Nice attempt to insult me. Would it be possible for you to express your opinion without personal invective? Thanks"

Wow, Bob. For someone who just got through with a post that called me stupid and insinuated that I should be punched in my 'goddamn' face, that sentiment is really touching. Seems you are quite the propaganda artist yourself.

My post was a limited engagement with 2 specific goals: 1) to demonstrate that people who disagree with your analysis of Nazism are not "stupid" 2) to demonstrate a resonable line of reasoning along which radio demagogues can be likened to Nazis. I'm not trying to convince you of anything, because I know from experience it isn't worth the trouble. As a bonus, it seems I was able to demonstrate yet again that you are the first player in a argument to stoop to insults and threats, and the first to cry foul when anything approaching the same comes your way. Now I see you are on another thread insulting someone's favorite band without provocation or explanation. You really are a class act, man.

K.

By Pikkle on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 12:12 am: Edit

All of this has what to do with absinthe and
powerade? Must have been the 'power' part of
powerade.

By Artemis on Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 11:23 pm: Edit

"The nationalism"

United Nationalism

"and the militarism.'

Bomb an aspirin factory to take the heat off your sorry sex criminal ass.

"The suppresion of dissenting opinion"

Universities all over the U.S.

"and invasion of civil liberties."

Machine gun toting thugs invade a home to kidnap a small boy and return him to a communist shithole, compound full of nonconformists burned to the ground, people denied the God-given right to defend themselves with arms, voting process corrupted by a party that thinks it has a God-given right to win, etc. etc.

"The lack of popular consent."

Well less than half the people put the above monster in gear.

"In short, the exact same things I don't like about every other totalitarian regiem, racist or not."

Glad you've admitted a certain liberal regime fits in so well.

"I win."

You lose every day that liberals have any power to actually affect anything. The ONLY difference between Bill Clinton and despots such as Hitler is that Bill lacks the balls to put the jackboot on your neck. At least Adolf was honest.

"Thank you, drive through."

Do I get fries with that?

By _blackjack_ on Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 06:12 pm: Edit

BTW, the idea that Hitler had any real commitment to socialism has large holes in it. Sure, he used a socialist party as a means of ascent to power, but if you look at what he did in power, he was VERY friendly to the wealthiest of the bourgiousie and industry, who profited greatly from his war machine. I can pull up some references if you need them.

BTW, I don't truck with calling people Nazis, unless they really are. Limbaugh isn't a nazi. Bucchanan I'm not so sure about...

By _blackjack_ on Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 06:02 pm: Edit


Quote:

And one last point I feel compelled to point out. I’ve never met a real social-welfare state leftist who could answer the following question without having to think real hard: “Aside from the murder and genocide, what exactly don’t you like about National Socialism?”



The nationalism and the militarism. The suppresion of dissenting opinion and invasion of civil liberties. The lack of popular consent. In short, the exact same things I don't like about every other totalitarian regiem, racist or not.

I win. Thank you, drive through.

By Bob_chong on Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 05:26 pm: Edit

Wow, K.

Nice attempt to insult me. Would it be possible for you to express your opinion without personal invective? Thanks.

BC

============
...which brings us to the fascinating cultural-political fact that Leftists in fact do have more in common with Nazis than modern conservatives do. Let me be clear: I am not calling the Left a bunch of Nazis; that would be as wrong as calling the Right a bunch of Nazis. But, if you are willing to concede that a modern conservative is not inherently a racist, anti-Semitic bigot, then this is actually a pretty obvious point. I should say that if you can’t concede that a modern conservative is not an inherently bigoted person then, again, you are a very ignorant and silly person addled with a profoundly irrational view of politics.

First of all, it should be pointed out that Nazism, a.k.a. National Socialism, was, well, socialist. And you know, socialists believe in certain things that my intellectual confreres do not but that Harvard Yard and Jesse Jackson types do believe. That’s why John Maynard Keynes — the still-reigning God of liberal economics — had nice things to say about Nazi fiscal policy...

W.E.B. Du Bois, the founder of the NAACP, traveled to Germany in 1936 and found much to admire about the dictatorship, which he called “absolutely necessary to put the state in order.” According to Du Bois’s esteemed biographer, David Levering Lewis, Du Bois “found National Socialism to be neither ‘wholly illogical,’ nor hypocritical, but to be still ‘a growing and developing body of thought’ in which he divined an ‘extraordinary straddle’ between capitalism and communism....” He was there on a grant to study “the way in which popular education for youth and adults in Germany has been made to minister to industrial organization and advance; and how this German experience can be applied so as to help in the reorganization of the American Negro industrial school, and the establishment of other social institutions.”

In other words, from a liberal’s perspective the Nazis really seemed to be on to something in the 1930s. The same year Du Bois went to Germany, nearly a majority of Americans told Gallup pollsters that they thought the New Deal could turn into a dictatorship. Indeed, FDR called Mussolini an “admirable Italian gentleman,” and in the 1930s Mussolini had great things to say about FDR’s program.

There are many conservatives of a certain flavor who to this day see a great deal of Fascism in the New Deal. Indeed, at the time there were liberals who saw it too. William Green, president of the American Federation of Labor, declared that FDR’s Civilian Conservation Corps “smacks of Fascism, of Hitlerism, of a form of Sovietism.” When FDR’s New Deal centralization started to get out of hand, the Supreme Court let it be known that he’d better cut it out. To which FDR responded with his court-packing scheme, which seemed to some an anti-democratic effort.

The similarities continue. Hitler and the Nazis were resolutely pro-gun- control, pro-speech-code and anti-religious. They regulated everything and dumped billions into public-works projects. Further, the intellectual cross-pollination between German eugenicists and the founding mothers of modern feminism is remarkable.

Recall that Margaret Sanger, the still-revered founder of Planned Parenthood, was an undiluted eugenicist committed to, in her words, the elimination of “weeds . . . overrunning the human garden” and the segregation of “morons, misfits, and the maladjusted." Her journal, The Birth Control Review, was a convenient transmission belt for racist bile. Lothrop Stoddard, who also was on Sanger’s Board of Directors, wrote in “The Rising Tide of Color Against White World-Supremacy” that “we must resolutely oppose both Asiatic permeation of white race-areas and Asiatic inundation of those non-white, but equally non-Asiatic regions inhabited by the really inferior races.”

Of course, much of this is more than a little unfair. FDR may have put some Japanese people in camps, but he was by no means a Fascist... In fact, FDR was a great American, though perhaps an overrated president. W.E.B. Du Bois denounced the anti-Semitism of the Nazis and later the Holocaust with great alacrity and sincerity. Keynes was by all measures honorable, if a bit confused about the merits of social spending. Margaret Sanger, on the other hand, would probably be quite comfortable exchanging recipes with Eva Braun in the bunker.

Nonetheless, the embarrassing fact for the Left is that if you subtract the peculiar bigotries of Nazism (Communism had its own bigotries) you are left with a fairly conventional centralized socialistic approach to governing...


--Jonah Goldberg

By Anatomist1 on Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 04:44 pm: Edit

Oh, and BTW I saw footage where Buckley warned Noam Chomsky: "I'll smash you in your goddamned face!" too. It was right at the beginning of the show, and Chomsky hadn't said much more than hello. Chomsky wouldn't call anybody any names, and would probably have serious reservations about killing a mouse. Buckley was just a spoiled bully and an asshole. He seems much more civilized these days.

K.

By Anatomist1 on Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 04:38 pm: Edit

I think you should check your thermometer, Bob: the little thingy has popped out.

Actually, I would identify the definining elements of totalitarianism, and hence Nazism as having less to do with your favorite three topics -- money, money, and money -- and more to do with the fashion in which power is attained and maintained. The truly unique thing about Nazism, in particular, that made it seem qualitatively worse than prior genocides, was the way in which thought and language was twisted in order to make state policies seem logical and inevitable. It was the propaganda machine that made it work: the clever use of scapegoating, the fueling of hatred, and the propagation of confusion that were the seeds.

The goal was to leave each citizen isolated and terrified, and therefore easily controlled by the few who controlled the guns and the information. Race theories and gas chambers became useful elements in the scheme, but the key element was drilling hatred, fear, isolation, confusion, and a sense of utter hopelessness into the souls of the public. Hitler had more power than a talk show host today: he could set up powerful feedback loops by augmenting propaganda with terrorist goon squads, and random murders. Later, he deliberately appointed multiple seperate agencies to the same tasks, kept their heirarchies of authority distinct, answerable only to him, and ignorant of each others' activities. Confusion and isolation on all levels of government and society meant more dependence upon centralized authority and more distrust and suspicion of one another. Many believe that the true purpose of concentration camps wasn't so much to exterminate people designated as enemies of the state, as it was to train soldiers and workers in cruelty and willingness to fully dehumanize others... and to give birth to fear inducing rumors.

I see a definite connection between the key elements of Nazism, so-defined, and the behavior of power-serving demagogic radio bullies who use their pulpits to propagate confusion, lies, and antagonism today. Seeds are seeds, and Nazism stands as a supreme, horrible example of what such seeds can grow into if good people stand idly by and do nothing. Anyone who incites people to scapegoat others, helps them to feel justified in their hates and fears, and can't get a fact straight should be severly scrutinized.

If you choose to take a view of Nazism that focusses exclusively on property rights and particular governmental structures, then I suppose you never have to worry about anything like it happening again. You can just get out your checklist, and if you can't check all the boxes, you can proceed to call everyone Chicken Little. I think this is a mistake. Conditions change. To prevent horrors from recurring you have to look at more essential elements. If you think the exaltation of 'free markets' is, in itself, adequate insurance against a new totalitarianism, look at the growing concentration of wealth and power, the increasingly monolithic control of information resources, and the increasing sense of confusion, fear, and powerlessness in individuals everywhere today. Petty demagogues like Rush hoodwink the powerless into supporting more power for the wealthy, more police authority, more prisons, and less civil rights. They aren't outright Hitlers, but the harm they do is unmistakeable.

K.

By Bob_chong on Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 02:48 pm: Edit

Of course, the smear that American conservatism is akin to Nazism is not new. Indeed, over 30 years ago, Gore Vidal, called William F. Buckley a “crypto-Nazi” on TV. To which Mr. Buckley, fed up with the slander, responded: “Now, listen you queer, stop calling me a crypto-Nazi or I’ll sock you in the goddamn face.”

Which brings up the appropriate response to such accusations. Calling someone a Nazi is as bad as calling them a “nigger” or a “kike” or anything else you can think of. It’s not cute. It’s not funny. And it’s certainly not clever. If you’re too stupid to understand that a philosophy that favors a federally structured republic, with numerous restraints on the scope and power of government to interfere with individual rights or the free market, is a lot different from an ethnic-nationalist, atheistic, and socialist program of genocide and international aggression, you should use this rule of thumb: If someone isn’t advocating the murder of millions of people in gas chambers and a global Reich for the White Man you shouldn’t assume he’s a Nazi and you should know it’s pretty damn evil to call him one.

However, if you’re not too stupid to recognize the difference, but you just think saying such things will get you more attention from the press, make you a hero to some constituency, or simply makes you sound impressive, than you deserve to be socked in the goddamn face.

And one last point I feel compelled to point out. I’ve never met a real social-welfare state leftist who could answer the following question without having to think real hard: “Aside from the murder and genocide, what exactly don’t you like about National Socialism?”

And I’ve never met a conservative who didn’t have an answer at his fingertips. So, who’s really closer to being a Nazi?

--Jonah Goldberg

(sorry to quote something so long. --BC)

By Tabreaux on Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 11:36 am: Edit

"It's OK for one to be liberal yet think JJ is a moron, isn't it?"

Anyone, liberal or conservative, who can think their way out of a paper bag, will eventually reach the obvious conclusion that JJ draws power and notoriety from illustrating, if not encouraging, 'racism'. No one is more acutely aware of this than JJ. This should come as no shock, as similar practices were employed by countless individuals for many centuries before him.

As far questioning his faith, *we* can question his faith, but *we* aren't who/what he needs to be worried about where that is concerned.

By _blackjack_ on Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 11:06 am: Edit

I'm not a fan of Jesse. I just thought an ad hominem attack on him out of the blue was unneccisary. I disagree with him on many things, but I don't feel it necissary to call his faith into question.

I don't know why exactly you find it odd that a clergyman would support abortion rights. There are plenty that do. A quick search seems to indicate that Dr. King, however, may not have been one of them. Several pro-lifer sites claim him as one of their own, anyway. I have yet to find any specific quotes.

Affirmitive Action? He was one of the people who fought for it in the first place. ( http://slate.msn.com/HeyWait/96-07-26/HeyWait.asp ) Americans United for Affirmative Action was founded by his son. Many proud, hard-working African Americans, including our Secretary of State designee, have benefited from, and support, Affirmative Action. General Powell doesn't see it as a handout.

By Anatomist1 on Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 10:39 am: Edit

Blackjack,

I bet Al could've gotten away with calling it "Alan Keyes is a Large Person of Color Who is in Need of Special Educational Opportunities".

I agree about the fat jokes. I'm surprised Ebert didn't get jump into the aisle and dance a jig when Siskel croaked. As you have probably noticed, I take an unerringly dim view of ridiculing people on the basis of their appearance. Everyone should have to be the fat kid for a few days -- the world would be a far more compassionate place. On the other hand, ridiculing people on the basis of their being idiots is fine with me, unless they're so idiotic that it becomes sad...

K.

By Bob_chong on Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 10:39 am: Edit

I don't care, really. I just meant that you have showed far too much erudition in various matters in this forum that would have never led me to believe you were a Jesse Jackson fan.

It's OK for one to be liberal yet think JJ is a moron, isn't it?

I mean, I think neither Falwell nor Limbaugh are very clever, and I'm a conservative (or probably more correctly, a libertarian). Just b/c someone shares similar political views as I doesn't mean I'll defend them.

As for MLK, I wonder if he'd think affirmative action is an insult or joke...as if people are incapable of earning a position unless it is a handout from white folks.

And talking about abortion is pointless, so I won't. I meant in that first post that it seemed odd that JJ was pro-abortion. I mean, if I found out that Tom Waits was a huge N'Sync fan, I would also think that's odd. But it's not illegal or totally impossible or anything. Just odd. But then someone would counter, "but we can't attack N'Sync b/c they disagree with you..." or something like that.

BC

By _blackjack_ on Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 10:13 am: Edit

The man obviously has his flaws, but, again, I don't see what his political stance has to do with his faith. Or do you think Christianity is incompatible with the left? Do you have similar doubts about Dr. King? I have no idea what his stance on abortion was, but he certainly had socialist leanings.

By Bob_chong on Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 10:00 am: Edit

BJ:

I would have never figured you for a Jesse Jackson apologist.

BC

By _blackjack_ on Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 08:21 am: Edit

Do I have to quote Bertrand Russell again? There are certainly people who call themselves liberals, who are in fact just conservatives 20 years ahead of the curve, but real liberalism is about being open to change.

By Lordhobgoblin on Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 07:13 am: Edit

Bob,

"Funny how it never runs the other way, though, isn't it? I've never met anyone who had been a conservative and then later became liberal."

Bob, not everybody becomes more right-wing with time, some of us (like myself) grow increasingly in the other direction as we age. I however am not a liberal.

Liberals are nothing more than conservatives with guilt complexes, scratch the veneer of liberalism and underneath you'll find conservatism.

Hobgoblin

By _blackjack_ on Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 06:08 am: Edit

Heck, even Strom Thurmond is more liberal than he used to be...he'd kinda have to be...

By _blackjack_ on Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 06:07 am: Edit

The thing that bugged my about the Al Franken book is that, of all the things about which one can mock Rush, Al chose his weight. Speaking as a fat man, I don't understand why it is so acceptable to mock someone's weight just because you don't agree with them. Had someone written a book about, say, Allan Keys, and called it "Allan Keyes is a Big, Colored Idiot," it wouldn't have been nearly so funny...

By Anatomist1 on Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 05:18 am: Edit

Actually, my mother and stepfather became liberals. They were hard core Republicans when I was a little kid, and my step father used to tell nigger jokes about Jessie Jackson. This past election my mother voted for Nader, and my stepfather likes to make equations between Bush and other non-human primates.

Actually, someone else brought up the Nazi-Rush association first. Initially, I thought it a bit hyperbolic, then I thought, "Yeah, that's about right." If I had a time machine, and I could use it to give Rush the same oppurtunity as Joseph, I'd be willing to bet cash money he'd take the job. When Al Franken took a big dose of his own medicine to him, I didn't feel sorry for him. I wouldn't have done it, but there's no stopping Karma.

K.

By _blackjack_ on Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 04:05 am: Edit

Come to think of it, Bob, if slavation is by grace alone, what does Jesse's position abortion have to do with his being a man of God? If he has accepted Jesus, he's saved, right?

Although, technically, this discussion is overm since Anatomist brought up the Nazis.

(And I think Chelsea Clinton is cute...)

By _blackjack_ on Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 03:45 am: Edit


Quote:

Funny how it never runs the other way, though, isn't it? I've never met anyone who had been a conservative and then later became liberal.



I have met plenty, especially people who grew up in rural or provencial areas, or who grew up wealthy, and then later became exposes to a wider cultural experience or to the suffering of others. Most of my father's family went through that.

Moreover, I would say that the entire society is in the process of becoming more liberal. Ideas that were middle-of-the-road 50 years ago, like segregation, are now highly reactionary, and ideas that were radical, like women's rights and social security, are now manistream.

I am not going to get into an abortion debate with you, Bob, but neither side of the issue has any biblical authority behind it. The Bible is silent on the subject, and many early church fathers supported abortion. You cannot attack Jesse's vocation simply because he disagrees with you.

By Anatomist1 on Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 02:22 am: Edit

I think this whole line of justification is rather childish: most parents won't even accept it from 6 year old kids. Whether some one else did something wrong first, or is doing it too, is not an valid justification for doing something wrong oneself. It has a definite nyah, nyah, nyah flavor to it. One is responsible for one's own actions first and foremost. Period.

K.

By Pikkle on Monday, January 15, 2001 - 11:28 pm: Edit

Hey, all is fair in love and war... and politics is
nothing more than war.

By Bob_chong on Monday, January 15, 2001 - 03:16 pm: Edit

I didn't mean he was without malice--I just meant most of his misinterpretations are done out of not knowing any better (rather than always purposefully being an idiot). For example, he has no idea that correlation and causation are not the same thing. But for a HS educated ex-sportscaster, I'm not surprised.


So you hate the guy. "Goebels" is a bit strong, though.

If you want real hate speech, look at the left. Their bread-n-butter is victimization and separtism. But they don't have a monopoly on it. Also, can anyone explain how the "Reverend" Jesse Jackson is pro-abortion? WTF? I'm not trying to open the abortion debate, but doesn't it seem odd that a so-called Man of God is into abortions?

BC

By Anatomist1 on Monday, January 15, 2001 - 03:06 pm: Edit

Yeah, people want pectoral and gluteal implants too... doesn't make em dignified. I dispute the notion that Limbaugh isn't full of malice.

For me, the defining episode of Rush was back in the early days of his TV show. He was gaining popularity at the time, so I watched it to give him a chance. He devoted almost two entire shows to showing a couple of terribly unflattering pictures of the then-early-teenage Chelsea Clinton, and making lots of eye-rolling jokes about how hideously ugly she was, part of it under the guise of "apologizing" for the first airing. Call me naive, but I had never before conceived of anything so dispicable as a grown man with a national pulpit using his position to deliberately ridicule a poor teenage girl about her appearance.

Add this to all the other sundry cruelties and lies he has perpetrated from his carefully sheltered position, and you come up with a man who, in my book, is about nothing but causing harm and arousing hatred: a Goebels for the modern age. If growing older involves inevitable descent into the support of such a vicious demagogue, I hope to die soon.

K.

By Bob_chong on Monday, January 15, 2001 - 02:36 pm: Edit

"Liberal thinking is not something everyone outgrows..."

Funny how it never runs the other way, though, isn't it? I've never met anyone who had been a conservative and then later became liberal.
(Lobotomy patients excepted.)

As for Rush, he is full of shit some of the time (misrepresents things through ignorance rather than malice), but he fills a void. Love him or hate him, he exists because people want it. Kind of like absinthe. (And didja know that guy made $30M last year?)


BC

By Head_prosthesis on Monday, January 15, 2001 - 04:51 am: Edit

IT'S NOT MY DRINK... AHHHH!!!

By Pikkle on Monday, January 15, 2001 - 04:47 am: Edit

Go drink your Serpis and Powerade™ Head...
this topic has grown beyond you.

By Head_prosthesis on Monday, January 15, 2001 - 04:40 am: Edit

You guys are ruining my topic

By Pikkle on Monday, January 15, 2001 - 04:33 am: Edit

It's obviously not okay to be human in some
people's worlds.

By Artemis on Monday, January 15, 2001 - 01:29 am: Edit

"He just makes up facts to support his opinions"

Learned it from the Democratic Party; it's the core of their public relations effort.

"He's in pain, as are many men and women of his generation."

Show me a man who's not in pain and I'll show you a dead man, either literally or emotionally.

"In such situations he chokes horribly"

I've seen him choke and I've seen him flourish, such as with Tim Russert. To be fair, he has his arena, which is behind the microphone. It's not the most popular radio show of all time for no reason.

By Eric on Sunday, January 14, 2001 - 09:18 pm: Edit

whats the difference between rush limbaugh and the hindenberg?

one is a bloated nazi gas bag, and the other is a dirigible.

By Anatomist1 on Sunday, January 14, 2001 - 02:14 pm: Edit

So far as I know, Limbaugh has only come out from behind his call screeners a few times, to guest host and be a guest on more main stream shows. In such situations he chokes horribly: turns red and has difficulty producing a sentence. Like a hothouse flower, he can't survive outside the cushy custom environment he has built for himself and his sycophants.

Now, if you want a conservative with brains AND balls, I'd have to take William Buckley. He only kisses asses that taste good to his puckered old lips, and when he stages debates he invites heavy hitters from the opposing team. If Rush wasn't mentally and emotionally challenged he'd do the same.

K.

By Marc on Sunday, January 14, 2001 - 01:18 pm: Edit

If I end up thinking like my father, it will be a disappointment not only to myself, but, to him.
I think it is every child's purpose to evolve beyond the teachings of his parents and masters.
My father is a retired Naval officer from Texas.
He's a good man, but a product of his times. He's a man's man who has difficulty expressing his emotions. He has built up 7 decades worth of armor. He's terribly repressed. I know he's always admired my free spirit and rebelliousness. I think he secretly wishes he had followed his heart and become a writer. I love him, but I'm so glad I'm not like him. He's in pain, as are many men and women of his generation.

By _blackjack_ on Sunday, January 14, 2001 - 12:56 pm: Edit


Quote:

If you're talking about Rush Limbaugh, I consider that a gross misrepresentation of what happens on his radio show.



Yeah. He doesn't bother with that. He just makes up facts to support his opinions...

And, for the record, I'm probably more conservative than my parents, but they're flaming pinkos. My grandfather was a union organizer. My best friend's mom was president of NOW and her grandfather was a bomb-tossing anarchist agitator (they've still got his explosives shop out in the shed.) Liberal thinking is not something everyone outgrows. Nor should they.

By Artemis on Sunday, January 14, 2001 - 12:33 pm: Edit

"Of course, I didn't have to live in South Africa to know or say apartheid was bad. But, if I flew into a hysterical rage about it, I'd be full of shit, and you'd wonder how I got that way."

No I wouldn't. See, I understand perfectly how your father can get into that rage. I'm perfectly capable of getting into a rage about things I merely hear about, simply because even knowing they exist pisses me off that bad. Now, you may regard this as a character defect or a psychological problem, and you may be right.

"If you found out I got 95% of my news and info from talk shows and publications run by demagogues who do their best to shelter their audience from real debate, and consider endless, mean-spirited personal attacks on the worst proponents of opposing ideas "arguments"...

If you're talking about Rush Limbaugh, I consider that a gross misrepresentation of what happens on his radio show.

"well, then you'd think I was a sheep."

No, I don't. I've seen you speak for yourself, so I know better. And I don't think your father is a sheep, either. He's probably like me; what he hears is Rush *VALIDATING* what he's thought most of his live. And I'm willing to bet, when you get to be your father's age, which is probably closer to mine than yours, you will be thinking more like your father than you do now. A LOT more.

By Anatomist1 on Sunday, January 14, 2001 - 08:28 am: Edit

Of course, I didn't have to live in South Africa to know or say apartheid was bad. But, if I flew into a hysterical rage about it, I'd be full of shit, and you'd wonder how I got that way. If you found out I got 95% of my news and info from talk shows and publications run by demagogues who do their best to shelter their audience from real debate, and consider endless, mean-spirited personal attacks on the worst proponents of opposing ideas "arguments"... well, then you'd think I was a sheep.

K.

By _blackjack_ on Sunday, January 14, 2001 - 07:21 am: Edit

I don't think people don't have the right to condemn PC, but, compared to REAL prejudice and oppression, it's a walk in the park.

By Artemis on Sunday, January 14, 2001 - 07:13 am: Edit

"On the other hand, you have people like my father and his fellow dittoheads who can easily achieve a red-faced, vein-popping grimace as they rant about the evils of PC like it involved the indiscriminate murder of schoolchildren."

Your father may well bear or has borne the burden of it in the workplace - "sensitivity" training and bullshit of that sort. I know I have.

"People like this experience PC largely through the filter of conservative media snippets and incidents cited in editorials. Their stridency is unearned, and their behavior that of unthinking herd animals."

Horseshit. I don't have to have something bite me in the ass to know I don't like it or to know it's bullshit. People who have never been to South Africa or suffered racial bigotry of any kind have only experienced what goes on there through the liberal media and the incidents cited in editorials. If that means they aren't allowed to condemn it, they've got a whole lot of shutting up to do.

By Anatomist1 on Sunday, January 14, 2001 - 04:19 am: Edit

Yes. There are plenty of us here in Madison who have suffered on the front lines of PC. I would describe my own disposition to it as weary. That is, I have been hit with so much of it that getting angry about it isn't worth the trouble. On the other hand, you have people like my father and his fellow dittoheads who can easily achieve a red-faced, vein-popping grimace as they rant about the evils of PC like it involved the indiscriminate murder of schoolchildren. People like this experience PC largely through the filter of conservative media snippets and incidents cited in editorials. Their stridency is unearned, and their behavior that of unthinking herd animals.

K.

By Lordhobgoblin on Saturday, January 13, 2001 - 10:07 pm: Edit

Thanks Don. To a point I probably am in agreement with him.

You're right though, it can be a tricky subject to express any views on as its all too easy for people to end up being labelled as something they're not.

Hobgoblin

By Don_walsh on Saturday, January 13, 2001 - 09:58 pm: Edit

Lord H: I'm not agreeing with Anatomist (or diagreeing) just explaining:

The phrase is a little convoluted, but what he is saying is that the stridency is disproportionate to the amount of suffering. 1X suffering gets 100X stridency. Or whatever multiple.

I am not arguing the merits, just clarifying. You are arguing that striency should = injustice. You and Anatomist are therefore in agreement.

I think his premise is debatable, though. However I'm not a spokesman for the gay community so I'm not the appropriate person to rise to the challenge. As a 'het' guy even though kinky, it's a no-win proposition for me to champion a gay cause. I'll either be labelled as gay by the outsiders or resented by the gays as an outsider myself. I've seen it happen and it ain't pretty.

By Lordhobgoblin on Saturday, January 13, 2001 - 07:42 pm: Edit

Anatomist,

"and certainly haven't suffered enough harm from it to justify their stridency"

What is your line of logic on this?

Surely the more that people suffer from an injustice the more vehemently they are likely to oppose it.

I'm not arguing with you, just curious.

Hobgoblin

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page |Delete Conversation |Close Conversation |Move Conversation