This ought to cause a fuss. Following up on an examination the progressive bona fides of prominent “raceologist” E.A. Ross, a “quintessential reform Darwinist” whose convictions about the innate differences among the races were widely defended by progressive elites (and mainstream publications like the NYT), and whose subsequent work at the University of Nebraska, along with Roscoe Pound, on “sociological jurisprudence” anchors modern liberalism’s “living constitution,” Goldberg transitions into a broader discussion of racial politics:
It is telling that while we constantly hear about America’s racist past and our need to redeem ourselves via racial quotas, slavery reparations, and other overtures toward “historically oppressed groups,” it is rare indeed that anyone mentions the founders of American liberalism. Again, when liberals are the historical villains, the crime is laid at the feet of America itself. The crime is considered proof of America’s conservative past. When conservatives sin, the sin is conservativism’s alone. But neve is liberalism itself to blame.
Consider the now infamous Tuskegee experiments, where poor black men were allegedly infected with syphilis without their knowledge and then monitored for years. In the common telling, the episode is an example of southern racism and American backwardness. In some versions, black men were even deliberately infected with syphilis as part of some kind of embryonic genocidal program. In fact, the Tuskegee experiments were approved and supported by well-meaning health professionals who saw nothing wrong or racist with playing God. As the University of Chicago’s Richard Shweder writes, the “study emerged out of a liberal progressive public health movement concerned about the health and wellbeing of the African American population.” If racism played a part, as it undoubtedly did, it was the racism of liberals, not conservatives. But that’s not how the story is told.
I’m not saying that people who once called themselves progressives were racist and therefore those who call themselves progressives today are racist, too. Rather, the point is that the edifice of contemporary liberalism stands on a foundation of assumptions and ideas intergral to the larger fascist moment. Contemporary liberals, who may be the kindest and most racially tolerant people in the world, nonetheless choose to live in a house of distinctly fascist architecture. Liberal ignorance of this fact renders this fascist foundation neither intangible nor irrelevant. Rather, it underscores the success of these ideas, precisely because they go unquestioned [or, in my formulation, have so insinuated themselves into the very structure of civic life that they are simply bedrock givens — despite the clear tension between these structural assumptions and the founding principles of this country – ed].
The greatest asset liberalism has in arguments about racism, sexism, and the role of government generally is the implicit assumption that liberalism’s intentions are better and more high-minded than conservativism’s [again, recall the attack on Spencer’s social Darwinism was an attack on his refusal to have the state intervene by way of sanctioned eugenic programs – ed]. Liberals think with their hearts, conservatives with their heads, goes the cliche. But if you take liberalism’s history into account, it’s clear this is an unfair advantage, and intellectual stolen base. Liberals may be right or wrong about a given policy, but the assumption that they are automatically arguing from the more virtuous position is rubbish.
What is today called liberalism stands, domestically, on three legs: support for the welfare state, abortion, and identity politics. Obviously, this is a crude formulation. Abortion, for example, could be lumped into identity politics, as feminism is one of the creeds extolling the iron cage of identity. Or one could say that “sexual liberty” is a better term than abortion. But I don’t think any fair-minded reader would dispute that those three categories nearly cover the vast bulk of the liberal agenda — or at least describe the core of liberal passions — today.
Let the games begin!
“But I don’t think any fair-minded reader would dispute that those three categories nearly cover the vast bulk of the liberal agenda  or at least describe the core of liberal passions  today.”
Maybe ‘welfare state’ and ‘abortion’ are big enough to cover these, but it looks like its missing labor issues as well as privacy and civil liberties. If those terms are big enough to cover these, then Jonah is picking some very loaded ones.
I just can’t. I am so tired, Smithers.
BOOOOOOOOOOOOOBS!!!
Labor issues fall under welfare state. And privacy and civil liberties are also big on the right, just in a different way.
If I don’t respond here for a bit, it’s because of a family emergency. I’m hoping no genetic determinism is at play here, and I would appreciate prayers from those of you inclined to give them.
wouldn’t “welfare state” cover labor and privacy and civil liberties? particularly labor issues as that’s just the government fobbing off some aspects of “welfare” to employers.
Liberalism stands domestically, yeah, like Ansel Adams’ dog.
I’ll do what I can.
okay, take care.
I’ve met him, you know — Goldberg. 6’7″ he is, arms like mighty oak trees, legs like even mightier oak trees: clear grey eyes looking to the far horizon, his lantern jaw set against the approaching storm but yet with a slight hint of a distant smile born of many combats won and mortal enemies vanquished.
I stood almost speechless in his presence in an auditorium at Oglethorpe University — just speechless, weeping silently at the sheer magnetism and force of personality coming off the man in seismic waves; a transcendental, religious experience that kept me awake for a week, as if I had seen the heavens split open in a blaze of orange and purple glory, and all of God’s Great Plan revealed.
Finally, I said to him, “The left prefers be be ahistoric because it makes Sorelian myths easier to construct.”
He turned to me, fixed me with a steely gaze, and stared at me a couple of moments, as if divining the very essence of my soul.
When he finally did speak, it was the sound of distant thunder echoing off ancient mountains, a sound that predates mankind’s puny screeching — a sound that, indeed, is antecedent to the founding of Life on Earth and comes carried through the ether on the shock wave of ancient dying stars. And though he only spoke one word to me during the two hours I stood in his presence, that word is with me still, a perfect utterance seared into my memory, written in gold across the great hall of my mind.
He said, “Exactly”.
(With apologies to Bill Whittle, and Iowahawk.)
Sure thing, Jeff.
I’d also ask where is pacifism in the list?
#5: Sends good cosmic energy your way.
I never heard that it was conservatives that experimented on black men. I just heard it was white people.
My thoughts are with you, Jeff.
Along of the post–original feminism–right to vote and work–are almost conservative in their interest in a level playing field. The uglification that is now called “feminism” is interested in kicking men in the nuts so they may be more easily beaten down.
“And privacy and civil liberties are also big on the right, just in a different way.”
Just because its not exclusive doesn’t have to mean its not what liberalism stands on.
“wouldn’t “welfare state†cover labor and privacy and civil liberties?”
The first I can see as a stretch — definitely not the latter two. Its a stretch, but I don’t think people understand things like the right to organize, and safe workplaces as ‘welfare state.’
Overall, I’d say its safe to say that the establishment in Alabama from 1932 to 1972 was racist. And when the Tuskogee experiments were revealed, we had liberals like Ted Kennedy holding hearings.
“I’m not saying that people who once called themselves progressives were racist and therefore those who call themselves progressives today are racist, too. Rather, the point is that the edifice of contemporary liberalism stands on a foundation of assumptions and ideas intergral to the larger fascist moment.”
The edifice that the Tuskogee experiment has given us is regulation of human experiments in medicine. Or is Jonah’s next book going to be about how people who get treatment for syphillis are ‘standing on a foundation of assumptions and ideas integral to the larger fascist movement.’ ?
Sorry, andrea, but I find it hard to take civil liberties claims seriously from those interested in setting the thermostat, my diet, the kid of car I drive, the kind of speech I’m allowed to use, etc. Those committed to civil liberties wouldn’t need to create “free speech zones” as a bone to classical liberalism.
That having been said, I’m now off to lie in a fetal position and hope that all is well with my better half.
andrea
By liberal commitment to civil liberties are you referring to free speech zones, and limiting speech near abortion centers and on college campus?
The Goldstein, he is faster than I.
My thoughts and prayers are with you and yours Jeff.
#16: Yeah but just like all of your peeps are not interested in theocracy (but some clearly are) and in love with authoritarian overreaches in government (but some are) neither are all liberals interested in what you eat, smoke, or say.
I don’t understand why it is that you bristle when you get lumped in with those Terri Schiavo crazies but have NO compunction about painting all liberals with that same broad brush.
If you weren’t going through a stressful personal crisis, I would tell you that you sure can dish it out…
But since you have stuff going on I will refrain
;-)
but if anyone really cared about facts, one could look at the historical patterns of the black community since FDR and entitlements as they relate to the liberal agenda. You’d find that before liberals infantalized minority cultures, the marriage rate and number of single-parent homes was a fraction of the 70% out-of-wedlock rate going today. Liberals have really screwed Blacks over, sold them into the “plan” to get their vote…truly a success story here, guys. So much for building a positive society.
#17: That sounds possibly serious. I wish you the best.
The right to organize is the right to create labor monopolies, and guaranteed jobs, which meet most definition of welfare statism. The current push of unions to ban private ballots, and to mandate political donations from its members don’t fall under any classic liberal definition of privacy or civil liberty that I am aware of.
Jeff G – The prayers of the JD clan are with you.
The edifice that the Tuskogee experiment has given us is regulation of human experiments in medicine.
Why is Andrea anti-science? Theocon
/spit
Marebear,
Now you’re dragging outcomes into the argument. That’s not fair. We have to stick with the wholesome goodness of the idiot’s intentions (and especially not look at that nasty Planned Parenthood outfit).
painting all liberals with that same broad brush.
We aren’t trying to paint all liberals individually. This post is about broad generalizations regarding the whole movement. Of course not all members are going to feel the same way.
that’s not what he’s doing. you keep assuming some progressives = all liberals = Democrats, which it doesn’t. It’s been pointed out before on numerous occasions, maybe not lately, but Jeff tends to be particular about the words.
“…neither are all liberals interested in what you eat, smoke, or say.”
Just those in power.
“Those committed to civil liberties wouldn’t need to create “free speech zones†as a bone to classical liberalism.”
I’ve heard of free speech zones created when the president comes to town. I’ve also heard of it happening on private campuses. I’ve never heard of it happening on certain campuses like Bob Jones. I don’t understand people who are committed to civil liberties as being people who necessarily care much about what someone does on their own property, what rules campuses, employers or shopping malls make about what sort of speech gets one asked to leave their private property.
I mean, its a nice idea for people to be able to say what they want on someone else’s private property, but it gets complicated fast.
Lisa
It’s real fun to play the “not all ______ ” game, but when the group described seeks to institutionalize, or use the power of government to see through, whatever is being discussed, I think it’s fair to describe the group in those terms.
I mean, its a nice idea for people to be able to say what they want on someone else’s private property, but it gets complicated fast.
Free speech for me, but not for thee.
Ed Brill is slowing down. It took him 33 comments to show up in this thread. Slacker.
I mean, its a nice idea for people to be able to say what they want on someone else’s private property, but it gets complicated fast.
I don’t see anything complicated about the free exchange of ideas at a public university. That is exactly what liberalism used to stand for, and what progressive liberals are increasingly coming out against. When was the last time a group of conservative students shouted down or stormed the stage to prevent a progressive from giving a lecture?
“The current push of unions to ban private ballots, and to mandate political donations from its members don’t fall under any classic liberal definition of privacy or civil liberty that I am aware of.”
I imagine that if classical liberal definition of privacy or civil liberty has anything to say about a union approaching a person and asking them to sign a union card, it would be to allow it and recognize it, rather than to forbid it. Likewise I would imagine that a classical liberal would tell someone to end their contract and leave the group they feel is using their money improperly. I’ve even heard libertarians argue against right-to-work laws
Take care of your family, Jeff.
Prayers, “positive energy,” and “crystal-gripping hopey-changiness” flying your way!
All the best to you and yours, Jeff.
“I don’t see anything complicated about the free exchange of ideas at a public university.”
Its about as complicated as any first amendment issue, in the case of public universities.
You have quite an imagination.
I imagine that if classical liberal definition of privacy or civil liberty has anything to say about a union approaching a person and asking them to sign a union card, it would be to allow it and recognize it, rather than to forbid it.
Why?
Prayers on the way.
Jeff- my best to you and your adorable family.
How far is it the case that self-professed liberals are willing to assert that they do in fact ‘care more’ or ‘have-a-heart’ where conservatives simply do not? Do you see this sort of behavior in the current Dem. led congresses approach to dealing with the military, those poor things, who need succor in their benighted victim status when they finally return home from the evil Bushes war, for which, in the meantime the Dems will only grudgingly pass funding, because, after all, funding the damn thing only puts those poor souls in harm’s way?
Thanks B Moe, I’d decided not to be the mean one today. carry on.
Methinks that Andrea is using nishit’s dictionary which allows people to supply their own definitions to words.
“Why?”
Because its two private entities engaging in a discussion about a contractual relation. I don’t see why classical liberalism would forbid this. I’d say classical liberalism would want to respect and enforce the contract that ensues from that private discussion.
Have you ever been in a union, andrea?
Good luck Jeff. Hope all is well, or at least not permanent.
If its reasonable, please give us an update when you are able to.
if not, none of my business anyhow.
Mcgruder
Apparently Andrea wishes to take everyone down some tangential rabbit hole. The actual topic must be uncomfortable.
How many rights does the Rights Tree have carved on it, andrea?
Rights aren’t like carvings, they’re more like trinkets to be handed out when the need arises.
“Have you ever been in a union, andrea?”
nope, but I’ve entered into some shitty contracts.
“How many rights does the Rights Tree have carved on it, andrea?”
Do you know what ‘right to work’ laws are?
Best wishes to you and yours, Jeff.
I think a Classical Liberal would want workers to have the right to a secret ballot where union membership was concerned so that dissenters wouldn’t be subject to inevitable harassment.
I’d say classical liberalism would want to respect and enforce the contract that ensues from that private discussion.
Do you think classical liberalism doesn’t know coercion when it sees it?
Because its two private entities engaging in a discussion about a contractual relation. I don’t see why classical liberalism would forbid this. I’d say classical liberalism would want to respect and enforce the contract that ensues from that private discussion.
Not in a closed shop. If you want to work there, you have to sign with the union. No negotiating involved. If they employer wants to stay in business, he has to use labor supplied by the union. No other options are available. This is not how good faith, free market contracts work.
Ignoring the relative strenghths of their bargaining position (inidividual employee as compared to the union) allows Andrea to make her pronouncements.
Do you know what ‘right to work’ laws are?
Yes. They are laws that protect my right to negotiate directly with any potential employer who is willing, and not be coerced into ceding this right to a mob of thugs.
Speaking of intentionalism, and and stolen language, I am always wishing people remembered that it used to be INDUCED abortion, and that current lay usage of “abortion” is an abbreviation confusing its original use or meaning. Somewhere along the way in the popular lexicon, the “induced” got dropped, I suppose for being unwieldy when everyone knew what the discussio was about.
But it’s still screwed up.
The unadorned eupemistic term ‘abortion”, in medicine, means, if left unqualified, a *spontaneous* abortion, or other early demise of pregnancy. Abortion in room 3, means the lady has miscarried.
The might be qualified as some other natural demise of or loss or sign of impending loss of early pregnancy –
threatened, missed, tubal, incomplete, &tc.
I once went to the ER with for “threatened abortion” and had to suffer some cretinous medical assistant type trying to correct me ” Oh, honey, abortion is when you….”
“Just tell the doctor what I said” I said rather firmly through my clenced teeth, not being in a mood to suffer fools.
Just thought it was an interesting example of how terms are coopted and corrupted by common usage ( usually for practical reasons), where the orignal meaning now seems foreign or wrong.
It might be silly to object since “abortion”
has always been a euphemistically used with regard to pregnancy. But I believe a lot of people have a knee jerk, straight to the amygdala response to that word, that I do not, having always thought of it in terms of its medical use.
I don’t think of abortion as murder at all.
Because spontaneous abortion is common and natural. If that makes you upset, consider how the usage of words affects a persons emotional response to a sound or a word or a phrase.
“Niggardly” has nothing whatever to do with race or skin color or blackness in the abstract. It’s negative connotation in its own right, however, makes it dangerous to use, in a world where it sounds a good deal like another perjorative that seems to also head straight for the amygdala. Even people who know better might feel a little tug at the emotions. People who don’t will jump over their seats and punch you in the face.
– I for one, stand in awe of all these newly minted rights. Progressives seem to be able to find these things like Easter eggs.
– Problem is there are no free Easter eggs. No matter how pretty they’re painted, these ideas always seem to make their way back to my wallet.
– All the luck in the world to you and yours Jeff.
“Do you think classical liberalism doesn’t know coercion when it sees it?”
If there’s unlawful coercion then there’s no contract.
“Not in a closed shop. If you want to work there, you have to sign with the union. No negotiating involved. If they employer wants to stay in business, he has to use labor supplied by the union.”
So an employer and union have negotiated a closed shop. Now people are upset about this, so they go to the government and forbid that economic arrangement between two parties, and what we end up with are right to work laws, making non-union employees free riders to the union contract. To me this seems to go against classical liberal principles. It sucks for the individual stuck between the two biggies — the union and the shop — but I suppose that happens a lot in classical liberalism.
A union that can’t convince it’s members to vote its way through normal persuasion frankly… sucks.
If they have to resort to coercion, they’re basically worthless.
But we already knew that.
If there’s unlawful coercion then there’s no contract.
Right. What classical liberals might define as ‘unlawful’ is having to make your vote public.
Jeff, may the grace and peace of our Lord protect and heal your dear ones.
“Right. What classical liberals might define as ‘unlawful’ is having to make your vote public.”
What if its done in a free speech zone?
I imagine that if classical liberal definition of privacy or civil Andrea,
liberty has anything to say about a union approaching a person and asking them to sign a union card, it would be to allow it and recognize it, rather than to forbid it. Likewise I would imagine that a classical liberal would tell someone to end their contract and leave the group they feel is using their money improperly. I’ve even heard libertarians argue against right-to-work laws
Do you have any clue as to what “liberals” or “progressives” or the current democrat party stands for, or what a libertarian is? Your comments suggest that you do not.
Are you claiming there is no invasion of privacy to get rid of the secret ballot in union organizing campaigns?
What purpose can getting rid of a secret ballot be for OTHER Than allowing unions to intimidate people? Why does the union need to know how an employee voted? Where’s the freedom and liberty and individual rights in that?
As to “leaving the union” if you don’t like how they spend your money – you liberal fascists have made that impossible in states that don’t allow you to do so. So please – either you know nothing about which you speak or you are just completely and utterly dishonest.
As if you believe in civil liberties.
I’d love to meet this alleged liberterian who argued against “right to work” laws. Either that person is an idiot who does not understand what liberterianism stands for or is lying. Please give me any analysis that would allow the gov’t to coerce someone to join a union in order to get a job and liberterianism.
God I hate stupid or dishonest people. If your damn ideology was so good, why do you need to constantly lie in your arguments? Doesn’t that ever bother you? Don’t you ever say to yourself – you know, if my arguments were any good, I’d simply make a straightforward honest argument instead of always be duplicitious and lying to try and confuse people.
So an employer and union have negotiated a closed shop. Now people are upset about this, so they go to the government and forbid that economic arrangement between two parties, and what we end up with are right to work laws, making non-union employees free riders to the union contract. To me this seems to go against classical liberal principles. It sucks for the individual stuck between the two biggies  the union and the shop  but I suppose that happens a lot in classical liberalism.
Except that you are forgetting that the government already took away the employers rights by requiring that the employer recognize the union as the sole representative of all the employees (even if 49% of those employees don’t want the union) and force the employer to negotiate with the union, and force the employer to give the union certain information, etc., etc.
You are already starting from a position where liberty is denied the employer and many of the employees by the gov’t – and then you want to argue classical liberalism and “freedom of contract”?
Either you know nothing about labor law or you are a dishonest hack.
What if?
What if you boss tells you in a free speech zone that he’ll fire you if you won’t have sex with him?
What is liberal about wanting a law that takes away a worker’s right to make employment decisions privately?
Since you asked, andrea, right-to-work is no less and no more offensive a notion to me than anti-competition measures: Both violate the free market, both require either a literal or a legislative mob rule, and neither ultimately function.
So, how many rights are there? The point being, none do inherently. Structures are designed and rights are imposed, at the least questioning where anybody got the notion they should seek laws to manipulate the private sector, all the while implying a right, that latter construct being a notion contained in only one place in our republic if it is to remain constitutional.
And yeah, what #69 said. Get the cart/horse relationship straight first, andrea. Bandaid feel-good laws are even smellier garbage than the other kind.
So an employer and union have negotiated a closed shop.
No employer will freely negotiate a closed shop. They would be crazy to. They agree to a closed shop because of labor laws heavily biased against them making the only alternative a long and costly strike.
“Please give me any analysis that would allow the gov’t to coerce someone to join a union in order to get a job and liberterianism.”
Wikipedia has arguments against right-to-work laws. But it basically infringes on the contract between the union and the employer, because it forbids them from contracting for a closed shop. Dont like it? Get a job somewhere else. Harsh, I know. But I imagine a lot of the world is.
“Are you claiming there is no invasion of privacy to get rid of the secret ballot in union organizing campaigns?”
Don’t surprise me that free speech invades privacy.
Andrea,
As to the Tuscagee expirement,
I love how liberals try to get around all the evil that they did and that their philosophy grew from – as amply demonstrated in Goldberg’s book – by now saying . . . yeah, but liberals then held hearings and made some of those things they had already done illegal . . .
First, that is not a refutation of the fact that progressivism grew from facsism. Nor does it “excuse” previous progressive’s transgressions. After all, isn’t america itself expected to continue to pay for the sin of slavery through affirmative action, etc. etc.? Why then do progressives get off so easily simply by holding some hearings, as you claim in your idiotic comments above? Shouldn’t progressives perform more atonement, reparations, etc.?
While liberals want to tar conservatives with being racists on the alleged “southern strategy” of Nixon, they don’t seem to mind their own real and sordid racist history at all. Why is that?
Er, #68
They believe in civil license. Big difference. Part of the ‘abortion/sexual liberation’ leg.
“I love how liberals try to get around all the evil that they did and that their philosophy grew from – as amply demonstrated in Goldberg’s book – by now saying . . . yeah, but liberals then held hearings and made some of those things they had already done illegal . . .”
What edifice has been built on the Tuskogee experiments other than regulation of human subjects in experiments that exist now?
But it basically infringes on the contract between the union and the employer…
Hell with the union. The union is an infringement of the employers rights by its very existence.
Andrea,
Do you even know what free speech is?
How is forcing someone to vote by open ballot in a union election free speech? How is forcing someone to do anything free speech.
As to wiki – wiki is b.s. most of the time on anything political, and i didn’t ask for a site anyway, I asked for you to give me one argument, which it seems you are either unable or unwilling to do.
So, the gov’t coercing the employer to have to negotiate with a union and then telling an employee that they have to join a union is freedom in your book? Very strange definition.
I’ll tell you what – if you truly believe in freedom, get rid of any laws that force an employer to recognize or bargain with a union. Then you will have true freedom of contract. Until then you have gov’t coercion.
. Dont like it? Get a job somewhere else.
nishi? Is that you?
How about. Don’t like it? Organize a union somewhere else.
JeffG- just saw your post in the comments that you have a family emergency. Prayers for you and your family coming from this direction.
“I love how liberals try to get around all the evil that they did and that their philosophy grew from – as amply demonstrated in Goldberg’s book – by now saying . . . yeah, but liberals then held hearings and made some of those things they had already done illegal . . .â€Â
What edifice has been built on the Tuskogee experiments other than regulation of human subjects in experiments that exist now?
Like all liberals, you either are unable to get the very clear point I made or refuse to respond b/c you know you have no decent response. pathetic.
Again, doesn’t it bother you that you are unable, b/c of your philosophy, to engage in honest debate rather than lies and obsfucation and moving goalposts and trying to change the conversation?
#32: Okay so we all want to interfere in your steak eating, smoking, and F-150 driving. Is it fair to say that you all are pretty obsessed with what is going on in our bedrooms and whether we are married (or gay married) while we are doing it? Additionally, you seem to have a fetish for passing creepy new laws and breeding new government agencies when you get shit-yer-pants scared of something?
I would say that you have a assload of nerve talking about people using the government to meddle in other peoples lives >cough Schiavo cough P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act<…..as a group, you weild the government like a cudgel when it suits you.
I don’t smoke, eat crappy food (most of the time) or drive a gas guzzler. But I am still concerned that people who want to do these things have a right to do so. Those of you who say that just because you are not on the government’s enemies list (for today that is), you don’t worry about making it easier for them to persecute you because “hey, I aint a terrorist”. You don’t worry about yet ANOTHER bloated government agency because at least they are not handing out sandwiches to the lazy and shiftless – they are wasting your money on keeping you from shitting your pants in terror at the Arab Menace.
I don’t really believe that all conservatives believe that shit. But since June is Shitty Generalizations Month…I am all over it.
“You are already starting from a position where liberty is denied the employer and many of the employees by the gov’t – and then you want to argue classical liberalism and “freedom of contractâ€Â? Either you know nothing about labor law or you are a dishonest hack.”
So then the classical liberal notion can’t be that it would necessarily recognize the union card signing. But it can’t be to ban the practice, can it? It cant be to ban speech about the union, can it?
Given that last line, Lisa, I guess all that was just talking to yourself?
Best wishes and prayers to the Goldsteins.
On a lighter note, Patrick Carroll’s #10 comment resulted in a Jonah-lanche.
“Don’t surprise me that free speech invades privacy.”
– It does not comprise free speech. It is free disclosure of another’s private information.
– You are playing the usual disembling game all Progressives so dearly love. Not clever by half, but then they never are.
Andrea,
Keep in mind that the union is an interest aggregating mechanism allowing for more effective use of coalitions for bargaining.
In that sense, the union is no different than a political party, except for the fact that unions have, by and large, set up a system whereby they are one political party faced with an opposition consisting only of independents.
To that extent, in creating a closed shop, it is very nearly identical to behaviors seen in other historical cases where membership in the Party was required to succeed professionally.
Past all of this, however, is idea of non-union employees being free riders on union efforts. In this case, it would be like saying that members of an opposition party are free riders on the national enterprise. This would not be unlike suggesting that any Democrat politician creates a free-rider problem on the confrontation of Communism and the end of the Cold War.
BRD
Like all liberals, you either are unable to get the very clear point I made or refuse to respond b/c you know you have no decent response. pathetic.
The madness continues, full steam ahead!
Wha?
“Is it fair to say that you all are pretty obsessed with what is going on in our bedrooms and whether we are married (or gay married) while we are doing it?”
– No to both. Most people don’t give a flying rat turd what people do in their own bedrooms, or whether or not they do it under legal contract.
– At the zoo on Saturday afternoon ib front of my family is the problem. Yet another strawman Lisa.
Lisa,
Do you think that there is a reasonable chance that Obama’s grandmother – the fabled Typical White Person (the original phrase being the source of much well-deserved mockery), might also be a Typical White Liberal Person – a TWLP – if you will?
BRD
What made them think the methodology of those experiments was acceptable in the first place?
You are playing the usual disembling game all Progressives so dearly love. Not clever by half, but then they never are.
I am kind of having fun with this.
Don’t forget that unions have created for themselves the right to commit violence as a part of their “negotiations”.
Lisa, get over it. Boo-hoo, somebody made a hasty generalization about your side of the political spectrum. Does it apply to you? You say it doesn’t? Then they’re not talking about you.
– That was not aimed at you Lisa, so if you claim it to your bosom I object. Not to the bosom….just the claim.
Do you think that there is a reasonable chance that Obama’s grandmother – the fabled Typical White Person (the original phrase being the source of much well-deserved mockery), might also be a Typical White Liberal Person – a TWLP – if you will?
Generalizations are only worth mocking if a typical liberal utters them, of course.
Lisa,
Point me to any republican running for federal office that wants to pass any law about what anyone is doing in their bedroom.
As to who can get married – I think we at this site have made it clear that most conservatives wouldn’t care about same-sex marriage if the left could convince a majority of people to support and get it passed through a state legislature. We are against the judicial tyranny aspect of it. Of course, the left can’t get a majority to support it – and thus go straight to their favorite – the god-king judge who rules by fiat.
I, on the other hand, could easily point you to many dems runnnig for federal office who do what to control what I drive, what I eat, how much money I make, etc., etc.
And, as to bloated gov’t agencies – I will agree that the last republican congress sucked. Are you really trying to claim that the dems have not been and will not be worse? Seriously?
The dems have been in charge of congress for a couple of years now. Have they repealed the Patriot Act that you hate (but haven’t yet pointed to a single specific provision that you find troublesome)? Have the dems tried to get rid of the Dept of Homeland Security? Do you really believe they will?
So, on balance, based on what you write here, how can you truly support the dems? Based on everything I’ve read that you have written on this site, it seems to me that you really support the dems on only two issues. Gay Marriage and Abortion. I would guess that the unspoken issue you also support dems on is affirmative action.
Other than those issues, you cannot seriously claim that the dems are the better party for smaller gov’t, less taxes, more personal liberty, more economic liberty, etc.
Finally, if you are for nationalized health care – then any claims to support individual liberty are false, as nationalized health care can do nothing but end in the gov’t controlling more and more of everyday personal life of the citizenry, as all aspects of life will connect to health care (eating, smoking, exercising) and thus the gov’t will have an interest in regulating those things to controll healthcare costs. Indeed, there will be little left that the gov’t won’t attempt to totallyt control once nationalized healthcare comes into existence.
As far as national security – that really isn’t so easy to call right/left. In the past, the dems were just as or more hawkish than republicans. Conservative domestic philosophy does not necessarily translate into this or that foreign policy. Neither really does liberal domestic philosophy. Indeed, under Clinton the dems/liberals supported all kinds of military intervention all over the place. So, those kinds of arguments really aren’t a right/left distinction so much as a “team” argument. (as in, the dems support a dem president use of force and the repubs support a repub president). Which is very unfortunate.
A twolip? Speaks out of both sides of her mouth?
Yes.
#97: I know Big Bang. I am just collecting generalizations in general. ;-)
I like that it is annoying Rob Crawford.
@98 Comment by Lisa on 6/9 @ 2:18 pm
Do you happen to remember the html tag for dry humor?
#99: I would guess that the unspoken issue you also support dems on is affirmative action. Where on earth would you have gotten that idea? Seriously. Have I ever indicated that?
It’s annoying because it’s childish. Do you really want to head down the nishi/andrea/thor/sashal path?
So then the classical liberal notion can’t be that it would necessarily recognize the union card signing. But it can’t be to ban the practice, can it? It cant be to ban speech about the union, can it?
Under the labor law regime we currently have, the classical liberal position would be to allow the secret ballot in union organizing campaigns, rather than forcing the employee to publically state whether they are for it or against it.
Banning union card signing is not the issue – again, why do you feel the need to change the argument? Can’t you stick to one argument? Nobody is saying ban the union card signing. They are saying allow the employee to remain anonymous so the union can’t send thugs to his house if he refuses to sign that he wants a union. Ask yourself, what possible reason can the unions have to want to know which employees don’t want the union? Perhaps so they can lean on those employees?
Let them continue to speak about the union, nobody is saying they can’t. Let them continue to try and get union cards signed. Nobody is saying they can’t do that. Just let the employee’s choice remain secret.
How is it any different than an election. Would you argue that we should do away with the secret ballot in elections and make every voter voice his choice in public? Why not?
I’ll agree to allow them to get rid of secret ballots for union elections when we get rid of secret ballots for all elections.
#99: I would guess that the unspoken issue you also support dems on is affirmative action. Where on earth would you have gotten that idea? Seriously. Have I ever indicated that?
that was a total generalization. You have indicated that you are a minority, and I have known very, very few minorities who are not total supporters of affirmative action. So, if you are against affirmative action (in the sense of quotas), that is simply one more major difference you have with the dem party.
I look at what Bush has done for years under the PATRIOT Act compared to what FDR (or later HUAC) did for years without the PATRIOT Act and conclude that the law has been rather harmless.
I don’t care much about what goes on in other people’s bedrooms if I’m not allowed to at least watch. I do sorta care that if and when gay couples can start taking the marriage deduction, my friendly gov’t will squeeze me for more of my paycheck. That’s not an opposition to gay marriage as much as the deduction generally, as well as it is pointing out that the progg social agenda often imposes costs on others — at least as much as F-150s do. It’s why people who claim to be fiscally conservative, but socially liberal are fooling themselves.
Rob,
To be fair to Lisa here, I get eighteen kinds of irate when I self describe as “X”, and then people tell me that I therefore believe “Y”, when in fact, “Y” is antithetical to the belief system of “X”.
I have had long, long drawn out arguments about whether or not neoconservatism has a strong evangelical, theocratic foundational component devoted to the imposition of strong moral influence in domestic legislation.
At the end of the day, saying “Boo-hoo, somebody made a hasty generalization about your side of the political spectrum. Does it apply to you? You say it doesn’t? Then they’re not talking about you” is the same kind of error as saying: “Boo-hoo, somebody made a hasty generalization about your
side of the political spectrumrace/religion/beer prference. Does it apply to you? You say it doesn’t? Then they’re not talking about you”It’s sloppy. While granted, the “Not all ‘A’ are ‘B'” arguments are a favored tactic of those trying to escape responsibility, I think we have an obligation to note that Lisa argues in good faith, and repay the inclination.
However, when it gets to the Nishtard, do what you will. Preferably with a 2.5 MT airburst.
BRD
“Ask yourself, what possible reason can the unions have to want to know which employees don’t want the union? Perhaps so they can lean on those employees?”
Because those are the ones it needs to win over.
“How is it any different than an election. ”
Because one is the government and the other is a private party. There’s sometimes a difference, and I thought it would be a big one to a classical liberal.
I appreciate that at one point it seemed like the best idea in a barrel full of stinkers. It probably did some good at opening doors that were barred shut. But it was a crappy, halfassed solution that the country quickly outgrew. I must say that if our country hadn’t been such asses in the first place, we would not have had to sit around figuring out how to FORCE people stop barring the doors to their fellow Americans.
And yes, that was yet another generalization. ;-)
And believe me, from the vitriolic “Obama is a retarded affirmative action candidate” chanting coming from the Hillary supporters, I would have to say that there are less Dems in love with AA than you think.
Andrea,
Do you think that the private ballot in political elections is important? I see no reason you have given for unions that could not apply to political parties, except, perhaps, that destroying your career is somewhat less unpleasant than becoming a refugee.
BRD
#104: You are just irritated because getting pigeonholed is shitty and you know it, but you want to continue doing it because it is fun when someone else is the target.
Yeah, no one ever got annoyed with the phrase “typical white person”. It was barely commented on.
#108: Thanks BRD. You are a great American.
But it can’t be to ban the practice, can it?
Nope. It would be to make union membership voluntary, and make negotiating with the union voluntary, so the union would have to bring something to the table besides threats. Look at the IBEW for an example of a union that is competitive in right to work states and open shops.
#110: I would have to say that there are less Dems in love with AA than you think.
Perhaps. But, if that is the case, why is anyone that says AA’s time is past immediately denounced as a racist by the left?
#113 Lisa, you’re quite welcome – just so long as you don’t diss on my beer preference. ;)
flying rat turd
Great MMA reference BBH!
“I see no reason you have given for unions that could not apply to political parties, except, perhaps, that destroying your career is somewhat less unpleasant than becoming a refugee.”
I think it varies from state to state, but in general aren’t political parties free to know that I am a member of their party, and my membership is even public record?
But its not just a question of it being less unpleasant. We think differently about how you participate in government versus how you participate in private associations. At least in terms of how the state is involved in regulating speech.
Andrea,
I might be coming in to this late, but I thought the questions revolved around the ability to cast a ballot in secret, and the ability to avoid being coerced into joining an organization.
BRD
– #108
– An airburst might not do it. Remember, certain species can flatten themslves out to a paper thin thickness, and slither under almost any argument.
And just as a side technicality, I think voter registration roles show what party you are registered to vote with (i.e. in which primary election do I elect to have a say), but whether or not that is the same as joining the party officially or paying dues to that party is a different question.
“Ask yourself, what possible reason can the unions have to want to know which employees don’t want the union? Perhaps so they can lean on those employees?â€Â
Because those are the ones it needs to win over.
Baa haa haa haa …
Oh, shit, you’re not serious are you?
Fittingly, the book by my toilet right now is a pop-etymology snoozefest about English words that have fallen out of use. It’s gift-shop garbage except that, in passing, words that are still used come up, with their older meanings, and an unpleasant politico-linguistic lesson, attached.
For example, “windfall,” one of the keywords of this election so far, originally referred to burnable wood or edible fruit blown off trees in storms, which detritus, traditionally, was free for the taking by passersby, regardless of whose trees it fell from.
That’s not what “windfall” means when McCain/Obama uses it as a lefty scare-word in his fake anti-business — fascistically fake, in fact — threats, is it? It doesn’t mean anything but “BOO! CAPITALISTS!” A public that remembered the origin of the term wouldn’t be a suitable one for him to use it on, propagandistically, in this way. But we’re not those people. In the presence of politics, there can be no such people.
I’ve noted here before what SarahW says above about “abortion,” complained of “libertarian” losing its (current, second) meaning, recommended against wrongheaded reclamation attempts like “classical liberalism,” and noted the subconscious truth-telling in the reactionary revival of “progressive.” There’s no point in talk like that.
Back to “windfall.” In old-timey talk, the related, now-legal term “usufruct” literally meant “fruit usage.” It was already metaphorical, in kind of the same way we understand it, by the time it showed up in law — where it’s changed, and is changing, being changed, even now, in an instructive way. It’s become a pure nonsense-word lawyers use to steal property from non-lawyers. <–LESSON
Everyday words can’t be recovered from politics, once absorbed, and words of political origin don’t mean anything. This (latter) is why so many can’t read Goldberg’s book. I have other complaints about it, but here’s the heart of its failure (strategic failure; as pop history, it’s solid): the words it relies on to make its case have no meanings. They serve only to identify their speakers. And Goldberg’s argument winds up, through the magic of politico-psycho-semiotics (or whatever), being effectively only what his dumbest non-readers say it is: “You guys suck.”
Because it can’t be anything else. It’s a political argument, an exchange of shibboleths (…in the original meaning of the term) with only political non-meanings. Wishing for a politics that’s linguistically rational, which Jeff does here sometimes, is wishing for the end of politics.
(I’m for that.)
Labor unions? I share Henry Clay Frick’s view of them.
I think the three legs are better put:
‘Protectionism’ , ‘License’, ‘Tribalism’.
It gets right to the essence of the Welfare State, Abortion, and Identity Politics.
1. People want to feel safe and not fear death. The welfare state is a way to describe how this is achieved in our modern context.
2. People want to believe that they can do what they want without fear of consequences. The concept of license embodies the idea that you should have the liberty not just to do what you want but to do so without consideration of the results. Abortion is a key issue, as it reflects this idea in a way very particular to our times.
3. People want to belong to something. The easiest way to give this feeling while keeping people manipulatable is to lump them into large, artificial categories – tribes.
When evil’s afoot, shoot it in the leg?
Because those are the ones it needs to win over.
A little crowbar diplomacy, no doubt.
“…the end of politics.”
– A singular possible case where “the end would most assuredly justify the means.”
113# As are you Lisa.
A day or so ago when you groused about over-generalization against Liberals by the denizens of PW I thought about it and couldn’t identify any offhand. Along comes G Banana as your confirmative ammunition. But whatever you may do, please don’t leave us.
Perhaps these species are less than paper-thin to begin with. Maybe they have no thickness at all, and are just two-dimensional beings. We can only see them when they turn their face or their ass to us, otherwise they disappear.
I don’t know where I was trying to go with that.
Cranky-d,
I’m not sure either, but it seems you got there?
3 hours in the hospital waiting room, and still my wife hasn’t been seen by a doctor.
Can’t wait until we get socialized health care. That way, at least, NOBODY will get seen EQUALLY!
Fuckfuckfuckfuckityfuckfuck.
River C,
Isn’t it a swap? The illusion of security plus the illusion of a free license plus tribal membership in exchange for the serf’s collar? “Protectionism” isn’t quite the same as the illusion of security, is it? That aside, you have it pegged – the progs found the LCD long ago and have been peddling all that is low and base ever since in order to plant their flag at the highest point of the manure pile.
Jeff- that’s horrible! I’m going to encourage my kids to be emergency room physicians. I know there’s a shortage.
I hope everything is ok. I am traveling this week and I will be very very quiet which is ok cause lately I have had no brain. Not sure how that happens. Biorhythms? But a quick prayer for you and yours –
To All……it’s surprising to me that with all the discourse regarding individuals “Rights”, nobody has brought up the subject of “Responsibilities”. With every right we enjoy, we also have the responsibility to live within the guidelines of those rights, e.g. the right to vote, wherein you are responsible for adherence to the rules of that state in which you live, or even something as trivial as the right to drive a car, you have the responsibility to earn a drivers’ license and drive in accord with the laws of the state, city, town in which you are driving. The progressive/liberal bent it seems, is to “give” the rights away (e.g. illegal aliens voting rights) without the inherent responsibilities associated those rights. Thanks for the opportunity, and the Right to say my piece.
Jeff,
I am both sorry (and pissed) to hear that. I hope the next report is better, but keep us updated in any event.
Emergency Rooms are the tenth level of hell or thereabouts. Unless you really are dying at the moment, there is always someone worse off and thus you get put off.
Thoughts and prayers to you and yours, Jeff.
Because it can’t be anything else. It’s a political argument, an exchange of shibboleths (…in the original meaning of the term) with only political non-meanings. Wishing for a politics that’s linguistically rational, which Jeff does here sometimes, is wishing for the end of politics.
Speaking of shibboleths, here is a great essay on intellectualism and linguistics (the second of what is developing into a series), that includes a discussion of shibboleths.
Jeff,
Having had extended dealings with the health care system lately, I unhelpfully point out that this is quite typical. The bizarre notion that socialized medicine will improve things is… well, I have no idea from where it comes. I think it comes from the people who know they would never actually have to participate in it.
Best wishes for you and your family.
Hey, Jeff, did you hear about the busy ER doctor who pulled a thermometer from behind his ear and said, “I wonder what asshole has my pen?”
Sorry, it’s the only ER joke I know. Prayers for you and the family.
Jeff- She’s been triaged, at least??
Prayers from the Roots.
#5
You got em.
Jeff,
I hope all’s well. You have my prayers. If there’s anything else I can do for you, please just ask.
Patrick
—
Jeff, my doctor couple friends are specialists with enormous overheads and payrolls…and all but predetermined rates, fees, practices, policies, regulations, and hence, profits. Both would like to simply get out — some six million dollars in combined annual billings and six day work-weeks just to furnish eight specialists $500k mortgages and the constant threat of being sued into oblivion. They are simply told what to do and what to make.
In other words, you don’t have to wait for the shining day medical socialism finally occurs; Congress had already steamrolled the private medical sector and your bride’s unfortunate wait is probably an outcome of that collectivization.
It never ceases to amaze me just how dictated most of modern law is against the free individual. Anything is legislated these days, and nary an eyebrow goes up. The Constitution? What Constitution.
I find the issue of labor unions to be exceedingly boring. I have no idea why they’re needed anymore. I’ve never belonged to a labor union, and if given the chance, I’d turn it down cold.
So I’ll change the subject.
I just found this via Jonah’s blog:
Jeff, I hope it turns out to be something eminently fixable. Maybe you should have brought a vial of pig’s blood and rigged up pumping arterial spurt to get in first. I know I would have.
SarahW,
I can tell you from experience that just checking in gets you triaged. There’s some additional stuff that goes on thereafter, but as soon as you check in you are put into one of several categories. Basically, unless you are suffering from major trauma (life threatening only) or a disease that is immediately recognizable as life threatening (i.e., you are bleeding out your eyes) you are fairly low on the ER’s totem pole.
I am so inclined, Jeff. My prayers for her immediate recovery.
Oh, a fine scotch, I know how it works.
It was a failed attempt to get info using subtlety, about how properly that triage was carried out.
Oh, Af Scotch, my italics went in the wrong place, and looks smart-aleckier than meant.
– #135 – jocko:
– You do realize, I hope, that using words like “responsibility” indescrimenently can cause serious injury to Progressive heads.
– Jeff….take not a second away from you sweets, but when you can keep us up to date, and Keep good thoughts as the Hunter family will.
Prayers for you and yours, Jeff. I frequently lurk here and enjoy the site, wish I could help.
I’m so sorry to hear of your ER troubles and hope your wife will be ok.
My wife has a medical condition that lands us in the ER around once a year. I’m in Southwest Michigan and we have never waited even an hour to be seen. Usually no more than 15 or 20 minutes. We spend hours waiting for test results to come back but not to be seen. Things must be really different in Colorado.
Again, we are praying for you and your wife.
Seems like the comments have strayed a bit from the Goldberg piece that Jeff used to begin this thread.I haven’t read “Liberal Fascism” yet, so I’m enjoying these extended quotes. There isn’t any valid or intelligent reason I haven’t read the book, I’m just to cheap to buy it in hardback when I know some really cheap friend will just ask to borrow it and never return it to me. What I have read so far has been very interesting and right on point.
To me it seems rather obvious that rationalizations for “ethnic cleansing”, Tuskeegee and Hitler’s “Final Solution” are a direct result of Darwinism’s “survival of the fittest” mantra, Marx’s version of a Godless society enslaved to science. In a world devoid of absolutes, there are no moral or aescetic boundaries. Because there is no transcendent value to human life it becomes devalued.
Modern “progressives”, whether or not Lisa fits into this mold, often take the moral high ground in debates by asserting their values are more virtuous than those of conservatives. They either fail to define these values when challenged, and often rely on modern media to push and defend their ideas as more “popular” rather than intellectually defend the same. When someone disagrees, as Jeff often says about identity groups, they are labeled disparagingly (as “haters”, “bigots” etc.)
The new church of the modern “progressive” is the religion of the environment, and the truly righteous devoutly devote more time to these issues than the heartless conservatives.
Anyway, thst’s what I think this section of the book is discussing. Hope everything is o.k. Jeff.
Jeff, here’s hoping everyone is back up and around very soon.
Andrea’s assertion, vis a vis the free exchange of ideas in academia: “Its about as complicated as any first amendment issue, in the case of public universities.”
Only if it is parsed down to the most simplistic terms, but that’s not how it works in the real world. Having partially taken the long march through the institutions myself, as both a student and teacher’s assistant, I can state from personal experience that the conservative viewpoint, rather than being thoughtfully considered and refuted in the classroom with facts and logic, is frequently sneered at as hopelessly ignorant and racist, with the professor often leading the finger-pointing. The proponent of the conservative viewpoint is treated to shame tactics rather than substantive argumentation in order to shut them up. I learned very quickly that if I was going to make it through with my degrees and in the good graces of the professors and colleagues who potentially held my career in the balance, I was going to have to tell them what they wanted to hear.
So for andrea to blithely brush this type of issue off as merely “complicated” as little more than a lazy dodge in order to avoid confronting the actual suppression of free speech that takes place on campus both officially in the form of speech codes, sensitivity trainings, and the like; and unofficially in the classroom when students and even some instructors are treated as social pariahs for daring to present anything outside of the academic orthodox progressive viewpoint, with instructors frequently serving as the judges of what is acceptable and what isn’t.
From a human standpoint, this is to be expected on some level when an institution becomes so insulated with a singular philosophical viewpoint that anything that deviates from it is considered to be on the level of religious heresy. One of the hallmarks of Marxist thought is that Marx himself never actually spent a great deal of time living among the lower classes he was affecting to champion, and so developed a philosophy that was completely ignorant of human nature. In the same manner, academics very rarely spend much time outside those places where their viewpoint is not reinforced, and thus tend to greet diverse viewpoints with a great deal of disdain (for all the bluster about acadmics needing to discover “new” interpretations, very rarely will you see their works deviate from the current holy trinity of class, gender, and ethnicity). How any progressive can assert that this is not a foundation for the supression of the free exchange of ideas is a great a demonstration of narcissistic ignorance as you can find in modern political life.
#131: I hope everything is ok.
Mr. Goldstein, my prayers go out for you and your family. Waiting in an ER is a gutwrenching combo of anxiety and boredom. Hope it ends soon and well.
Hope everything turns out OK. Don’t be afraid to make a stink. Squeaky wheel etc…
Hey I say this all the time, but I don’t think you can say sincere kind words too much. You are all fine folks and I love arguing with you all. But I don’t think anyone has the heart to argue the interesting points on Jeff’s posts right now until we hear that all is well with him and his tribe.
I will check back later.
:-)
Again, my best thoughts.
As for me, I have been both Union member and “management” read “salaried wage slave”. As “management” I was forced to travel to a plant that was on strike, cross the pickets, and man the lines for 16 hour shifts three weeks in a row. If I didn’t we’d lose our largest contract and go out of business.
The tires were slashed on our van, the motel we were put up in kicked us out because they didn’t want to get burned down, I got hit in the head with a dried cow pie ( I was lucky, the cost accountant got hit in the face , accidentally of course, by a cardboard sign wrapped around a two by four) and generally verbally abused and threatend. One of us in “management” called someone on the picket line an “asshole” during the cowshit shower and was fired for “mistreating an employee”. You know what they wanted? They wanted three full shifts during shutdown. When there was no work to do and we were re-tooling.
They got it too, and that factory closed a year later.
Anyway, I can’t force myself to subscribe to any kind of political party, group or belief system that calls the chronically unemployed “workers”.
Jeff – If you have one of those dark blue windbreakers with ICE in big letters on the back and in small letters over the left front put that on. Walk slowly around the ER staring at the other people waiting. I think you’ll suddenly find it less crowded and your wait time considerably less.
That was my experience almost four years ago in a Houston ER. Don’t ask. Just a suggestion.
Yeesh. I hope all turns out well, Jeff.
I just started posting at this site this afternoon and don’tknow what is going on with Jeff G. other than his emergency room post (Grrrrrrr!!!). Jeff, please accept my most sincere wishes for a speedy recovery for whomever in your family is suffering.
de opresso libre!!!!
Jeff, my thoughts and prayers go with you and your family.
{{{prayers}}}
I find the issue of labor unions to be exceedingly boring. I have no idea why they’re needed anymore.
Democrats are usually aware that their party is largely funded and run by unions, and they’ll go all Upton Sinclair on you if you make an issue of it, but the argument over whether or not unions are the last bulwark preventing a return to 1920’s style laissez faire capitalism misses the point that private-sector unions like the Teamsters are penny ante for the Democrats. The real players are the public employee unions. The Upton Sinclair rhetoric does not apply to public sector workers, who are protected by civil service rules, and who enjoy better pay and benefits than comparable private-sector workers.
When Uncle Sam cuts a check to a government bureacrat among the various automatic deductions for taxes is a deduction for union dues. This dues money is used to fund the Democratic party, and various liberal candidates and causes.
I HOPE! your situation CHANGES! for the better.
Bonus Bye-Ku from Taranto
Bye-Ku for Hillary Clinton
She was sure to win
Then sure to lose: either way
Inevitable
Double “Good Vibrations” for your wife, Jeff.
And a healthy dose of the “evil eye” for the dorks making you wait.
I hope by now you’ve got the attention you need, from an appropriately apologetic yet brilliant doctor.
When Uncle Sam cuts a check to a government bureaucrat among the various automatic deductions for taxes is a deduction for union dues. This dues money is used to fund the Democratic party, and various liberal candidates and causes.
Wow. If that isn’t a conflict of interest, or forced political advocacy, I don’t know what is. That’s also one of the reasons why I will never become a teacher in the public schools. I hate those teacher’s unions with my whole soul, and I don’t even have a kid in the system.
I would appreciate prayers from those of you inclined to give them.
Done.
Lisa:
painting all liberals with that same broad brush.
What is being discussed is the general Progressive ideology, as manifest in the American political scene as “a liberal”, and is currently controlling(and even more currently leading) the Democratic Party.
Is every Dem a progressive? No. But enough are to vote in Progg leadership, and those are the ones being talked about in general terms. (h/t #30, N.O’Brain)
By the sound of things girl, I think that you, like President Reagan before you, have been left by your party.
liberalism stands, domestically, on three legs: support for the welfare state, abortion, and identity politics.
Where does hate of the Second Amendment fit in. I can never figure out why a progg will fight for a womans right to choose for her body, but not for the right of self defense.
If you support the 2nd Amendment Lisa, I’m not talking about you…
Jeff G
I’m skipping down all these comments to say my prayer are with you and yours.
Peace be with you and may the healing grace of the Lord be with you and all you love.
“…Liberalism stands…on three legs…” with the fourth in the air as it pisses on your shoes, and expects you to thank it for cleaning them.
As for unions, I have belonged to the UMWA in Wyoming, but have been one of the few non-union operating engineers in central California(as a US citizen that is) for 20+ years. I am sympathetic to the concept of unions, and thankful for the contribution they have historically made in building the middle class. Without them, tradesmen like myself wouldn’t be able to buy the non-essential goods and services that have made the American economy what it has been.
Having said that, I will echo Aldo and say government workers shouldn’t be able to unionize. If they are the publics employees, and funded by my tax dollars, then I want a say in the contract, which should be renegotiated whenever a new Representative is elected.
Tea anyone?
Incidentally, the city of Valencia, CA just declared bankruptcy because they can’t pay their labor/pension obligations.
Jeff-
In my prayers and best wishes.
“If they are the publics employees, and funded by my tax dollars, then I want a say in the contract, which should be renegotiated whenever a new Representative is elected.”
At least for municipalities a referendum.
Jeff G @ #131
There isn’t really a lack of doctors or nurses that are willing to work ER (#1 daughter, the RN, went into ICU at her hospital with the understanding she’d eventually get to ER. That’s her first choice)… the problem is that for hospitals ER’s are a giant black hole … they legally cannot turn away anyone or question them. So any number of people use them as free regular care thus 3 or 4 hour waits
and that’s supposing you even have an ER in your area
Jeff,
All my best to you and your family.
Be well Mrs. Jeff.
We need you.
My prayers with you, Jeff.
#148 Comment by A fine scotch on 6/9 @ 4:30 pm #
Last time I was in an emergency room I complained of my vision leaping side to side and loss of balance. It got me in right away, as it turned out I had experienced a TIA (trans ischemic attack – micro stroke). Otherwise I would have waited with the herd.
N.B. – I haven’t experienced any symptomns since and the MRI and EKK showed everything clear, and my bloodwork showed my cholesterol was so low it wasn’t dangerous to anything. Strange, really.
#173 Wow. If that isn’t a conflict of interest…
If you keep peeling back layers of the onion you will discover that the institutional Left is funded in large part by your tax dollars. For example, Wade Rathke is the founder of SEIU Local 100, which organizes public sector workers. He is also the co-founder of ACORN, which gets government grants for supposedly non-profit operations while also running voter-fraud operations for the democrats. Rathke is also the Board Chairman of the TIDES Foundation which launders money from mainstream donors to radical Left organizations, and which also receives numerous Federal grants. Somehow I’m reminded of our earlier discussion of consanguinity.
The public employee unions like AFSCME are the 800 pound gorilla in Democratic politics, but professional associations often operate in the same manner. Professionals like lawyers and psychologists pay hundreds of dollars a year to their trade associations, which are often heavily involved in funding the Left.
#177 Incidentally, the city of Valencia, CA just declared bankruptcy because they can’t pay their labor/pension obligations.
This is becoming a problem at the state and local level, where Democratic office-holders negotiate contracts with the same public employee unions that finance their campaigns. The union is sitting at both sides of the table, and no one is representing the taxpayers.
Jeff G. –
Prayers and direct requests for grace for you and yours, from Utah.
You may be in luck; everyone tells me it’s a local call from here.
BRD –
Graze is your friend. They might survive overpressure in a shelter. Digging out through a meter of radioactive glass… not so much.
oops, here is the link describing the TIDES FOUNDATION.
Here….maybe this will cheer everyone up.
Charlie II: Banana King
Jeff,
Prayers and best wishes to your family.
We hope everything goes well.
Thanks!
ChrisP
Hey Nishi!
I don’t have sound on my computer at the moment. I’ll check out the clip later.
Get Well Soon, o wife of host.
Jeff,
I hope it’s not as bad as you make it sound.
But until I learn otherwise, you are in my heart and my prayers.
Good luck my friend, and thank you again for being the “angel of PW”.
TLD
Jeff:
I came to the thread late, but your #5 made me jump to the bottom here. I’ll keep reading for news of your family emergency, but know that this morning on my way to my house painting job, I’ll detour to the church and say a rosary for you and yours.
Take care, Jeff, and I hope everything’s well.
Jeff G – I hope this morning finds you and yours doing exponentially better than yesterday.
Still early morning here on the leftcoast. I’m just getting ready for work and had to check for any new news on the ER run.
Now sending a new round of prayers and good thoughts your way.
“The proponent of the conservative viewpoint is treated to shame tactics rather than substantive argumentation in order to shut them up.”
From a civil liberties perspective, the first amendment ain’t gonna protect you from shame. It’s going to protect the person calling out shame on you, whether they’re right or wrong. Civil liberties doesn’t mean you wont end up a pariah.
Civil liberties doesn’t mean you wont end up a pariah.
Don’t I know it.
Jeff, I hope this morning finds you and your family well.
#174: Yes. I thought about my objection to the generalizations of liberals a little bit. I realize you can’t really have a philosophical discussion without using a generalization as your jumping off point. But sometimes it is annoying. Especially when the conversation veers to “why all liberals are liars” or “why all liberals are incapable of reason”.
#188: Hi Nishling. That was cute. Thanks!
Maybe Lisa could provide us with a link to a site with lots of sugartits to lighten the mood around here this morning. I no longer trust MayBee to do so, still scrubbing my bleeding minds eye from the last one.
well….since our fearless leader is bizzy, i’ll jack this thread with an analysis of the conservative movement wich Lisa im sure will enjoy.
Conservatives and the American Right — Corey Robin
discuss, lulz.
;)
h/t <a href=”http://theamericanscene.com/2008/06/06/corey-robin-on-conservatism#comment”The American Scene, an awesome site.
Reihan and Jim Manzi are daily must-reads for me.
American Scene
Jeff, here’s hoping that all will be well for your better half.
Prayers, yes.
I would just as soon turn to an excavating company to perform open heart surgery as I would turn to The Nation for an assessment of conservatism.
You do realize, Nishi, that advanced science will be one of the early casualties as predicted in almost all of the future scenarios postulating our pass between the twin peaks? You should want to have a lot of conservative friends in your posse.
It’s a bell curve sort of thing…
Here you go,JD. [nsfw]
;)
heres somemore light entertainment for you Proteins.
This one’s goin out to my gal Hil.
when she ruled the world
I used to rule the world
Seas would rise when I gave the word
Now in the morning I sweep alone
Sweep the streets I used to own
I used to roll the dice
Feel the fear in my enemy’s eyes
Listen as the crowd would sing:
“Now the old king is dead! Long live the king!”
One minute I held the key
Next the walls were closed on me
And I discovered that my castles stand
Upon pillars of salt and pillars of sand
I hear Jerusalem bells a ringing
Roman Cavalry choirs are singing
Be my mirror my sword and shield
My missionaries in a foreign field
For some reason I can’t explain
Once you go there was never, never an honest word
That was when I ruled the world
It was the wicked and wild wind
Blew down the doors to let me in.
Shattered windows and the sound of drums
People couldn’t believe what I’d become
Revolutionaries wait
For my head on a silver plate
Just a puppet on a lonely string
Oh who would ever want to be king?
I hear Jerusalem bells a ringing
Roman Cavalry choirs are singing
Be my mirror my sword and shield
My missionaries in a foreign field
For some reason I can’t explain
I know Saint Peter won’t call my name
Never an honest word
But that was when I ruled the world
ooooo ooooo ooooo oooooo ooooo
(repeat with chorus)
I hear Jerusalem bells a ringing
Roman Cavalry choirs are singing
Be my mirror my sword and shield
My missionaries in a foreign field
For some reason I can’t explain
I know Saint Peter won’t call my name
Never an honest word
But that was when I ruled the world
Oooooh Oooooh Oooooh
Hi, all. Well, after spending nearly 12 hours in the ER and undergoing a battery of tests, my wife has been given a clean bill of health — though no answers as to what caused her problems. But I suppose many things were ruled out, which is a plus.
Thanks for all your thought and prayers. Much appreciated.
Oh, and while I’m here, I should mention to nishi that one of the positive blurbs on Goldberg’s book comes from the co-author of The Bell Curve.
ZOINKS, SCOOB!
serr8D, just as you guys are deconstructing progliberalism, the otherside is deconstructing religious conservatism, in the exact same frame of spacetime with the exact same crude tools, ie history.
my point (that only Lisa will get) is that it doesnt matter which side of the looking glass we are on, its still a mirror world.
That’s a relief to hear. Glad tidings.
Jeff, that’s great news. I once had to sit in an emergency room for 12 hours after my youngest daughter’s car accident. I wouldn’t wish that experience on anyone.
Godspeed.
yay!
we rejoice for Mrs. Jeffs health. Pain is teh suxor.
;)
dur, i dig murray.
you like LF too.
that doesnt mean i have too.
you Proteins outta be grateful for one thing.
Obama dodged the bilary bullet for us all.
;)
btw, Jeff, i dig you too.
ill be scooby to ur shaggy anytime.
;)
or were u think of me as Thelma?
zinkies.
More like Scrappy-Doo.
As Joseph Crespino shows in “Civil Rights and the Religious Right,†one of the main catalysts of the Christian right was the defense of Southern private schools created in response to desegregation. By 1970, 400,000 white children were attending “segregation academies.†States like Mississippi gave students tuition grants, and until the Nixon Administration overturned the practice, the IRS gave donors to these schools tax exemptions.
i guess this might be one reason judeoxian ethics weren’t such a good bulwark against slavery.
;)
#209: Yay! I am glad that everyone is healthy and happy.
The Bell Curve?!?!? Hiss, spit, mreoooowwwwww, pfffffffft pfffffffft
Slinks away under couch and issues low, menacing growls.
Velma.
Jinkies.
rotflmao, Karl.
;)
ty maybee.
^_^
ffft Lisa, the Bell Curve is just data.
is it a bogeyman for the left?
corey’s thesis that the Right has actually grown from feudalist roots correlates with the human property theme.
like pro-life.
the idea that women have reproductive choice is anti-feudal.
Lisa, nishi has repeatedly said that “only luddites deny differences between [racial] groups”. She’s a firm believer not only in the Bell Curve, but that it (rather, her interpretation of it) should drive public policy.
Discuss…
Nishi
There’s a better argument to be had at bloggingheads Willkinson/Haidt discussion. Check it out.
Nishi, STFU. You have no idea what motivates people, and seem intent on assigning them motives rather than actually listening to them to figure out WTF motivates them.
You’re a dishonest little prick, a wanna-be fascist, and a spoiled brat. I’m just glad you write like you have brain damage, because it guarantees no one will take you seriously.
nishi = Woodrow Wilson = The Mystery Machine
like pro-life.
the idea that women have reproductive choice is anti-feuda
How many times did you read “A Handmaid’s Tale”? Was it your favoritest book eva?
nishi=RED HERRING
Nishi: I am more daunted by my inability to make sense of the data than the the acrimonious, shrill conversations it nearly always spawns. Since I can’t make sense of it, I can only stare wide eyed at the people angrily shouting about it. I am don’t believe that the two guys who did the study were some kind of racist eugenicists trying to prove that Teh Negroes are Teh Stupid. But I don’t know what to do with race/intelligence data anyways except say d’oh! So I just ignore it all.
(Hisses from under the couch.)
JeffG – Negative tests can be almost as frustrating and scary as positive ones, if the cause of problems is not adeqautely explained, or the simple explanation turns out not really to fit.
Best wishes and prayers still beaming your way – and I hope everything is really just fine and symptoms simple or fluke-ish…BUT…. Should puzzling or seemingly unconnected symptoms appear, keep track, and don’t assume they are unrelated. Sometimes the unexpected is the lynchpin of diagnosis, and while ER’s can catch a lot of things, they have, by design, some holes in the net.
Best to you and yours, S.
A Handmaids Tale was a GREAT book. I used to call John Ashcroft the Colonel.
You have no idea what motivates people, and seem intent on assigning them motives rather than actually listening to them to figure out WTF motivates them.
That happens a lot. Very easy to do during a rant.
Thanks, Sarah. We gave the docs all the info of the symptoms and some (what may be) unrelated symptoms, which prompted them to run some extra tests. Nothing showed up on the CAT or MRI, nor the EKG or in the bloodwork.
I was worried about a clot or a mini-stroke, but they couldn’t find any such things. Could be stress related. My big worry was (and is) MS, now that no tumor was found.
#234: Good advice indeed.
I liked Handmaid’s Tale. In fact, a friend of mine did her dissertation on Atwood. But I didn’t take it particularly seriously. If anything, I think the roles will be reversed, once nishi can figure out a way to engineer women to bench 460. Then it just becomes a battle of flexibility, and our hideous junk gets in the way.
Doomed, we’ll be.
Doomed, well yes, but in the meantime there is Bar’B’Que and Beer to console us.
#239: Did you ever read Oryx and Crake? That was pretty crazy/creepy too.
i already wrote it at GNXP, Jeff.
Y-not?
think of the economic advantages.
toilet seats can be made in one piece.
That the book has been recruited by the Pro-abortion crowd has tainted the novel for me. Of course, it didn’t help that I was assigned to read it in a “feminist literature” class in college.
Of which I have no one to blame but my own dang self.
My tests came out negative also, Jeff, and the MRI and EKK didn’t show anything. It has been put down as a TIA, a mini-stroke. I haven’t had any problems in the past year – so far so good.
I hope your wife has the same good fortune.
well..i think that is interesting…the opposition to eugenics via judeoxian ethos is perhaps just endorsing the concept of human ownership as in ownership of children and gametes, ownership of citizens by the state.
is slaveholding and the dogma of LIFE! actually the opposite of eugenics?
also, i think i totally punk’d JHoward on eugenic luck and Ringworld Engineers.
;)
the opposition to eugenics via judeoxian ethos is perhaps just endorsing the concept of human ownership as in ownership of children and gametes, ownership of citizens by the state.
is slaveholding and the dogma of LIFE! actually the opposite of eugenics?
Now that is some damn fine crazy.
Slaveholding would be under the same heading as eugenics – treating humans as commodities.
#244: I am immensely glad that you are in good health, Mike. That sounds really scary.
#243: I have the same issue with Ayn Rand. My enjoyment of her books as well as the awesome art-deco cinematography of the movie “The Fountainhead” has been irrepairably tainted by the cranks who love her.
the whole patriarchial dealio too.
The Christian right was equally galvanized by the backlash against the women’s movement. As Marjorie Spruill demonstrates in “Gender and America’s Right Turn,” antifeminism was a latecomer to the conservative cause. Through the early 1970s advocates of the Equal Rights Amendment could still count Richard Nixon, George Wallace and Strom Thurmond as supporters, and even Phyllis Schlafly described the ERA as something “between innocuous and mildly helpful.” But once feminism entered “the sensitive and intensely personal arena of relations between the sexes,” the abstract and distant phrases of legal equality took on a more intimate and concrete meaning. The ERA provoked a counterrevolution, led by Schlafly and other women, that was as grassroots and nearly as diverse as the movement it opposed. So successful was this counterrevolution–not just at derailing the ERA but at propelling the Republican Party to power–that it seemed to prove the feminist point. If women could be that effective as political agents, why shouldn’t they be in Congress or the White House?
Schlafly grasped the irony. She understood that the women’s movement had tapped into, and unleashed a desire for, power and autonomy that couldn’t be quelled. If women were to be sent back to the exile of their homes, they would have to view their retreat not as a defeat but as one more victory in the long battle for women’s freedom and power.
In an interview with the Washington Star, just one of the many absorbing documents gathered by Story and Laurie in The Rise of Conservatism in America, Schlafly described herself as a defender, not an opponent, of women’s rights. The ERA was “a takeaway of women’s rights,” she insisted, the “right of the wife to be supported and to have her minor children supported” by her husband. By focusing her argument on “the right of the wife in an ongoing marriage, the wife in the home,” Schlafly reinforced the notion that women were wives and mothers first
Schlafly is the Serena Joy of the conservative movement.
The cut and paste button is working again.
hmm…actually, hitler wasn’t practicing eugenics. he just used it as a rationalization.
he was practicing genocide.
well, abortion rights and transhumanist issues are at the heart of libertarian is.
does a citizen own their own body or not?
Is body grble hazzanimo. Yo.
Goldberg confuses state-imposed eugenics with individual eugenics (or transhumanism) and free market eugenics (which everyone practices).
haha, i don’t think Goldberg knows what he is talking about, vis a vis “eugenics”.
Nishi, you’re muttering.
well, abortion rights and transhumanist issues are at the heart of libertarian is.
As for life, well everyone knows that a good libertarian will define it in such a way as to not interfere with abortion rights.
But a little genocide here and there is alright in nishit’s world.
Jeff, I had some really puzzling symptoms. weakness, and pain for a long time, then I saw a neurosurgeon. He deduced what was wrong (I had been walking around with a broken C5, and the broken bit was pressing on my spinal cord) and put a titanium plate in my spine. I highly recommend seeing a neurologist for weird strokey symptoms.
Possibly won’t fix everything, I still have damage left, but it’s better than not checking everything out.
Sadly, the plate in my spine does not help me understand whatever the hell nishi’s yammering about.
haha, fragnabble market based aggggllsnarfle.
matoko didn’t think things through when she saw eugenics and thought of fixing all of the problems in the world. She didn’t know the horror that had been done in the name of eugenics, and refuses to acknowledge them lest she have to rethink her position.
That is a generous guess.
Thanks, Lisa. It was very unsettling.
Which counts for exactly nada, because it’s only a book.
I know: so hard to keep fiction and reality sorted out, sometimes. Especially if you’re nishi.
dur, Slart, a punk is a punk.
;)
c’mon, give me props!
i skooled him!
hehe
Very relieved to hear Mrs. Jeff is cleared.
The idea that the nishit could school JHoward on anything other than the dynamics of being teh krazy is laughable.
And nuggie? You’re so utterly wrong on so many things — FLDS, rights, McCain’s medicals, eugenics in fiction, the import of quantum physics, males, religion, politics, life, reality, probably God, words, thoughts, intents — it’s pointless to engage you.
Except for the trolling motive. So yeah, you’re welcome.
skooled in griefer terms means “created a rich alternate reality in which the verification of my correctness was never in doubt”.
ãÂ΋¶飲ã¿ã®æºÂã®駄らã—ãªã„女付ãÂÂ
célibataire d’idiot de bavardage
It takes talent, I admit, to pat yourself on the back, with that degree of vigor, for nothing at all. It’s not a particularly useful talent, though.
I suppose all of this skooling took place on another thread, where nishi typically hijacked it in a direction no one wanted to go, and then declared victory because people were too disinterested to engage.
Another notch on the Ono-Sendai deck, I imagine. Counting coup in contests that no one else is participating in. Typical.
nuggie proves that excess specialization, especially when combined with a flavorful warping of some sort, ends up with the host knowing absolutely everything about nothing.
also, morons, the whole “strengths and weaknesses” of ToE that the DI is shoehorning into legislation is so that your personal taxes will be raised to force schooldistricts to buy their crappy book.
capitalisma si!
Well, except, you know, except for your screaming at the wrong crowd.
She keeps forgetting that she lives in the positive-slope region of the Bell Curve.
Positive slope region? Does that mean the left-most 10%?
Actually, anywhere to the left of center.
She is a fuckin’ two-digit, on a good day.
It redefines words on the fly. What’s the opposite of “fascinating?”
It wouldn’t be quite so pathetic if nishi would actually read what she’s linking to. There’s nothing in what she linked to, or even in what that article links to, that indicates there’s any danger at all of my tax dollars being hijacked to by that book.
Someone wrote a textbook. Big deal. It sucks, and it’ll probably get suggested in a few places, and interest will peak, and it will die an innocuous death. Yawn.
Jeff G.
If you need to talk to anyone about MS now or in the future write me. My wife was diagnosed in 1996 with it.
I pray that is not it but medicine has advanced quite a bit in the past 10 years. We shall offer more prayers for you and yours.
…my point (that only Lisa will get) is that it doesnt matter which side of the looking glass we are on, its still a mirror world.
Only if you can’t break out of a two-dimensional world view.
“What’s the opposite of “fascinating?â€Â
– “braindead”
– Glad to hear things are looking up Jeff.
Nishi, you got the point of the novel wrong. What you took as its core issue was merely description.
And for fuck’s sake, you pre-ordered a copy of a book you already read, in belief that it’s a new book, despite the blurbs for the book being from people who have been fucking dead for a couple of years already!
You actually want us to think you’re smart?!
In nishi-world, it would be verboten to put such thoughts in textbook form. Or even in written form.
Her ideal would be to prevent them from being thought. Perhaps she can locate the gene for them…
I have ordered 5 copies of that textbook, to read one right after the other.
no, once “strength and weakness” language gets signed into law, the DI will sue to force that verbage be in textbooks.
and..i did so punk JHoward.
theres no way turning into a protector was “lucky” for teela. she lost her freewill.
the point of the book was that the Citizens tried to breed for individual human luck, but wound up breeding for the luck of the Ringworld.
How’d that arms experiment turn out, ishii?
i preordered inferno II from pournelles website
wtf is your problem
C’mon, ishii, you’re among friends.
Were they able to twiddle their thumbs behind their backs?
“The first I can see as a stretch  definitely not the latter two. Its a stretch, but I don’t think people understand things like the right to organize, and safe workplaces as ‘welfare state.’”
andrea,
…”the right to orgasmitize..”
There. Fixed that for you.
nuggie, you utter, lying, waste of time.
Brown was engineered. She was hereditarily engineered for a specific, chosen purpose by means of a eugenic methodology.
Teela Brown’s entire purpose for the sake of the expedition, regardless its outcome, was the eugenic enhancement of what was believed to be her personal luck, such perceived luck being necessary for success.
You utter, lying, waste of time.
Does anyone else (Ha!) find it disturbing that matoko wishes to make policy based on a character in a novel? If that is fine and good, then why should we not make naval and/or foreign policy based on the career of Horatio Hornblower? At least Hornblower is a character grounded in reality.
Hey, Indiana Jones is an archeologist – we should make a study of his career required for all archeology students, Heinrich Schliemann and Louis Leakey be damned!
kk JHoward…how is the Holocaust eugenics then?
Here is a book that illustrates the contribution of scifi to science quite nicely.
The Possibility of Time Travel in an Einsteinian Universe by Dr. J. Richard Gott.
300
;)
you are cognizant, i hope, JHoward that the genetic component of “Jew” is semite, sames those sand niggahs.
hahaha, Judaism is like, a volunteer religion! hahaha, NOT a race.
;)
why JHoward, i swear, you just as ignorant as Hitler.
eugenics can’t operate on religion!
hahahaha
For the love of God! Will some one please get this fucking psycho bitch off me?
ferznubble! gribble me like eugenics theocon panderer luddite gizzengable.
rowr
#298 – the eugenics were part of the holocaust because the lesser peoples were being removed to make more room for the proper Aryans. Amongst others being exterminated as being ‘unfit’.
Truly, matoko, you should read some history before you latch on to something with as filthy a reputation as eugenics. I am surprised that someone as self-proclaimed intelligent as you does not know to look before you buy.
Ah, the precocious; they leap before looking and then try to convince everyone that they ‘meant to do that’. (If you do not look over that history and report here what you have learned, we will continue treating you as we do. A word to the wise, though in your case it may be wasted.)
It burns. IT BURRRRNNNSSSS!
Thot I’d revisit the little hell nuggie’s constructed here one last time. What’s all this about Nazis and why is the nug confusing me with some who cares? Bet she can’t cite a single comment of mine with the words eugenics and Hitler.
Zoom! It burns. IT BURRRRNNNSSSSEEESSS!
This here is some high-grade stupid that nishi has tapped into. If only there were some use that high-grade stupid could be put to.
If Teela lost her free will, how did she let herself be killed?
And when the hell did Miss Genetic Determinism start believing in free will?
Im just pointin out that neither Hitler or Jonah Goldberg know what eugenics is.
Extermination of the JEWS is ethic cleansing or genocide, not eugenics.
If Teela lost her free will, how did she let herself be killed?
read the book.
she forced Wu and Nike an Chmeee to kill her BECAUSE OF THE MATH!
Hitler don’t know much of anything these days. And taking the Jews out of the gene pool in pursuit of a master race? Definitely not eugenics.
the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, esp. by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits…
It’s not as though killing people discourages them from reproducing, right?
Nishi happens to be correct on the point of Teela Brown, as completely irrelevant to anything in the physical world as it is.
Teela Brown became a protector, which means she’s driven to do absolutely anything to ensure the safety of her…what was it…tribe? Family?
Including getting herself killed, if that’s the best move. Of course there were some built-0in constraints against getting herself killed deliberately, but obviously those were not impossible to get around.
But again, this argument is irrelevant to anything that happens outside of the books, which means that it’s completely irrelevant to everything, to at least several dozen decimal places.
The Jewish genocide was not the beginning and end of the Nazi eugenics program in any case.
Eugenics is not so narrowly construed as to not include an excuse for genocide. As in, ‘The best way to eliminate the genetically inferior (insert reasons) is to exterminate them.’
That’s eugenics.
pablo, the Jews are semites, except for converts.
Eterminating Jews is wiping out a religio/ethic group, and it is NOT EUGENICS.
River Coxcytus
Eugenics is also Free Market Eugenics, and the Transhumanist Manifesto.
Hitler just used eugenics(which is a term that Goldberg also seems not to unnnerstand) as a rationalization for ethic cleansing.
Eugenics, like Science and guns, can be used for good or evil.
Independent of use, they are all value-neutral.
Again, nishi you miss the point. If you view other ethnic groups as genetically inferior (as was commonly believed by many people at various times, Nazi Germany included) then it may be an extension of eugenics to simply eliminate them. You’re doing the fallacy of Wells, i.e, that there are no categories only unique things. Genocide can be eugenics without being entirely eugenics itself.
His rationale would have been impossible had there not been significant belief that the eugenics was correct in asserting genetic inferiority of certain groups.
Slart, since I raised Niven as an aside to point out the use of eugenics in fiction — Teela Brown’s example included generations of designer breeding for luck, per #296, and Louis Wu was himself similarly given breeding rights for his socio-economic standing — I’ll point out that nuggie has replaced the point with some bullshit about Brown’s ultimate, unforeseen protector-ism defeating free will, blah, blah, blah.
Wrong answer on nuggie. Whether she’s right on protectors per the eugenic thrust of a rather simple earlier point is likewise utterly irrelevant.
Whether she’s therefore wrong on eugenics overall remains the point. Whether nuggie continues to refuse to answer the question put to her about the point of mankind itself is the point. Whether nuggie continues to bash xians and fundies and baby-rapers and any number of other strawmen and unfair or invented stereotypes is the point, especially gien her obvious religious hypocrisy.
And so on and so on and so on. Yeah, nuggie is walking irrelevance. What better way to troll.
Eugenics is also Free Market Eugenics, and the Transhumanist Manifesto
These are buzz-words, and I don’t know what they mean. I will attempt to derive a meaning based on context clues.
‘Free Market Eugenics’ would seem to indicate the idea that if people want to pay for eugenics they should be able to – which according to the normal free market ideas would limit itself to those you have bodily ownership of, i.e. you and your children.
‘Transhumanist Manifesto’ must refer to a particular document, but how it relates to the topic is uncertain. I would take it that somehow eugenics is part of the Transhuman Manifesto. Myself, I would prefer to remain genetically unmodified.
Per the very definition of the word, eugenics was the tool the nazis believed advanced nationalism and racial superiority/purity. Whether Holocaust victims, as a “religio/ethic group” said, hey, these boys think they’re doin’ their kind a favor is quite freaking irrelevant.
Of course, your particular brand of warpage, nuggie, might define eugenics by the outcome, judging after the fact whether the gene pool advanced or declined by way of any horrific intervention whatsoever.
In your unique way, you may be on to something normal humans can’t really consider…in much the same pattern of thought that has the Teela Brown eugenics experiment judged solely on it’s final outcome.
The rest of us’ll probably go on thinking the Nazis had a particularly bent reason to do what they did.
Nishi, when everybody else has a different understanding of a term than you do, they’re not the ones who have it wrong.
Contradiction is rife, what with all the mental gymnastics — contrast #317 and #318.
In a nutshell the problem is consistent across all the topics (and definitions) she’s habitually wrong about: Can’t define much of a principle about anything. In fact, each particular new episode is apparently initiated just for the mayhem it’s calculated to cause.
Getting upside down on eugenics just follows: If it didn’t achieve an actual genetic advancement, it ain’t eugenics, damn the definition of “advancement”, except grossly, which is the incumbent problem left perpetually unreconciled. Ditto intentions, ditto the literal Nazis, ditto the fictional Teela Brown, probably ditto reality. And, ditto the contradiction whereby having been asked to identify the point of virtually anything hawked as fervently as it is, there’s silence.
So adoring Reynolds for his enthusiasm for medical nano-tech means awaiting the endorsement of genetic modification he’ll probably never make. Likewise, projecting all over folks like Pournelle and Derbyshire means eventually finding those minds explore entirely superior points of view, from which comes rejection.
And the most obvious indicator? Perhaps the FLDS debacle, where hosts of rights simply went by the boards as a primal hatred of stereotypes and strawmen prevailed.
Without an identified, underlying principle there’s no problem with eugenics (including no reasonable definition of the word): There’s no accountability to any reliable standard of either original principle or final outcome, which is now tacitly admitted.
BUMPER STICKER:
NO
(Not Obama)