It's All About We...

I have so many pictures of my boys like that. Hap...

2010-07-29T03:41:50.388-04:00

I have so many pictures of my boys like that.

Happy birthday!

You wrote: "It is human nature to weigh costs and ...

2010-07-25T18:56:28.424-04:00

You wrote: "It is human nature to weigh costs and benefits and if the benefits you need don't really have much of a cost, well. Why change?"

As you see it.

It's my opinion that our decisions are based on our morality which is formed through metaphors. It's nice to imagine logic (costs/benefits) play into it, but that's only one way of looking at it. It's not the way I think most people live.

When you say you believe people can get out of the situations (where they've started receiving protection from the government in the form of help with food or shelter), I'd really like to see you try and live in those circumstances and—without relying on family connections or friends you know from this life—get yourself out of it. The cycle of poverty is almost impossible to break out of and most people want to get out of it, Don. The system's fucked up. More "handouts" isn't the solution, but neither is claiming the deck is stacked fairly for all of us if we just work hard enough. That's a load of steaming sloppy bullshit.

This is the important paragraph: "So, project thi...

2010-07-25T18:19:10.893-04:00

This is the important paragraph:

"So, project this onto the nation and you see that to the right wing, the good citizens are the disciplined ones - those who have already become wealthy or at least self-reliant - and those who are on the way. Social programs, meanwhile, "spoil" people by giving them things they haven't earned and keeping them dependent. The government is there only to protect the nation, maintain order, administer justice (punishment), and to provide for the promotion and orderly conduct of business. In this way, disciplined people become self-reliant. Wealth is a measure of discipline. Taxes beyond the minimum needed for such government take away from the good, disciplined people rewards that they have earned and spend it on those who have not earned it."

I would soften it a bit, for ex not use value terms like "good" and "spoiled" -- of course he is using the techniques of framing here -- but he describes the general idea. Key phrase or concept as the AD's of the world would put it: "Social programs ... [enslave] people by ... keeping them dependent." I do believe people who depend on government have the ability to free themselves of that dependency. But many people choose not to. It is human nature to weigh costs and benefits and if the benefits you need don't really have much of a cost, well. Why change?

So, us non-progressives don't want to see the mass of humanity elect to be dependent upon those who live within more independent value systems. The consequences of too much of that kind of imbalance are historically disastrous.

I am thankful for sharing the details,If you think...

2010-07-24T09:10:41.996-04:00

I am thankful for sharing the details,If you think it is good for your life then go head

Oh, I like that!

2010-07-22T00:47:06.283-04:00

Oh, I like that!

Paula: That's a big part of it. If progressives wo...

2010-07-14T10:52:30.869-04:00

Paula: That's a big part of it. If progressives would only articulate (better than this) our values, more moderates would be comfortable supporting the causes.

AD: INTERNET CRACK!

You can't disagree with them. They're too general,...

2010-07-14T03:48:41.262-04:00

You can't disagree with them. They're too general, just feel-good fluffy stuff. However, if you move from populist, zero-content statements to actual policy, things change.

By "access to capital," for example, I mean to be paid what your work is worth, which is exactly what someone will pay for it in a free market, not one penny more, nor less. When SHE says "access to capital," she means is making sure that any po' fo'k who "need" enough gets to steal it out of my wallet, by force applied by Government, where necessary.

"Accountability" means (to me) for criminal acts. "Accountability" to the left means for stuff they don't like which may or may not be the same tomorrow as today.

"Freedom from government imposed religion," is something everyone can get behind. But the more general principle that derives from that specific is "Freedom from government." The left's version, boiled down, is "Freedom IS government."

Hail, Oceania.

"Redefining the frames" or the "form" or the "terminology" is simply the left's attempt to obfuscate, disguise, and blur an agenda that would be anathema to any free citizen who knew their actual purpose.

And it won't work.

Even The Beatles knew as early as 1968 that re-defining "frames" (e.g., hiding the agenda) would be necessary or the left was doomed:

"You say you'll change the Constitution
Well, you know,
We all want to change your head.
You tell me it's the institution,
Well, you know,
You better free you mind instead.
But if you go carrying pictures of chairman Mao
You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow..."

...and yet here we are all these years later with the left still trying to dissolve their agenda in enough sugary grape-flavored Kool-Aid that regular people can't taste the bullshit and cyanide.

How could anyone disagree with these? :)

2010-07-12T23:25:03.110-04:00

How could anyone disagree with these? :)

God bless their constant ability to surprise.

2010-07-08T09:34:23.048-04:00

God bless their constant ability to surprise.

I admire that you've revisited the apartheid compa...

2010-07-04T18:26:01.626-04:00

I admire that you've revisited the apartheid comparison!

Good blog with information and nice follow up meil...

2010-07-04T01:55:07.685-04:00

Good blog with information and nice follow up meilleur casino

Ah, Sungold, I didn't see your comment 'til just n...

2010-06-14T21:01:14.635-04:00

Ah, Sungold, I didn't see your comment 'til just now. And you make an interesting point. I think I agree that *informed* mocking might be... okay? Still, making fun of them really does play into that "liberal elite" frame the radical right has brought about so strongly.

I suppose that particular taunt gets me because my progressive/left friends have such a good time with it and see no consequence or impact. They don't realize they're using the language the radical right wants us to use whenever we do mock those "poor uneducated idiots." Know what I mean?

If a friendship can't handle a disagreement... was...

2010-06-14T14:17:37.987-04:00

If a friendship can't handle a disagreement... was it really a friendship?

If an adult can't handle a disagreement... is that person really an adult?

Argument is my favorite form of truth-seeking. Argument as a way to seek truth goes all the way back to Plato (or Socrates? I forget. College was a long time ago). It isn't about fighting or being mad - it's about what YOU know plus what I know = maybe some better understanding for both of us. I learn a lot from argument. (Friendly argument.)

The situation in Israel/Palestine is far too complicated for simple retorts or simple opinions. If you have a simple opinion about it, then you're ignorant of the situation - or else you are possibly a bigot. No person or people can claim their own rights to the extent that they create suffering for others. That's a tenet of this country, what our own laws were based on. And I say that with a nod to BOTH the Israelis and the Palestinians.

I disagree with you a lot, SB. But you offer a viewpoint I hear every day, and it's interesting. I change my mind about things all the time. I call myself a conservative Republican, but about half the time I think conservative Republicans are acting like morons.

This new social practice of drawing a big line in the sand and declaring yourself on a single side of what are actually complicated, multi-faceted issues... or trying to say that your identity is bound up in which side of various issues you are on, and that this identity will pre-determine your beliefs on a variety of unrelated issues... is just one more way for Americans to prove to the world how ignorant they are.

Oh, no. I mean, agreeing to disagree would have be...

2010-06-13T14:24:51.400-04:00

Oh, no. I mean, agreeing to disagree would have been an option if we'd been able to discuss it to that point. Although he said he didn't consider "agreeing to disagree" an option for him. I felt it urgent that we discuss it if he was willing. We had a few email exchanges where he decided I didn't pass his test and he finished our friendship. I still hold out hope he'll change his mind. I'm pretty sure he's made a mistake. Still, I don't understand it enough to really get why it's so awful for him.

I can't tell for sure from your essay whether or n...

2010-06-13T13:00:54.361-04:00

I can't tell for sure from your essay whether or not "Let's agree to disagree" was an option. That is, when you discovered that this was a very strong hot button for your friend, did you decide not to raise the issue?

I can't begin to tell you how much this means to m...

2010-06-08T21:32:02.840-04:00

I can't begin to tell you how much this means to me. More than it should, maybe. But, thank you. :-)

OH, PLEASE COME BACK SOON, SERENEBABE.

2010-06-08T17:49:49.541-04:00

OH, PLEASE COME BACK SOON, SERENEBABE.

Rahul, I do understand what you are saying. Europe...

2010-06-05T16:22:57.256-04:00

Rahul, I do understand what you are saying. Europeans can be and are rude and racist. Just be professional then. Weren't there girls in India to get close to? Why bother spending money to impress an European girl? Americans are different to some extent. After all people are people. Take away the white, black, brown category and see who has more money in any culture. The people with more money and advantages have always looked down upon the people who has less of these. It comes with the territory. Few people having made money will not feel the urge to look down on people. Majority of them will. I have known white people who are extremely humane and friendly in a real sense, not in a fake sense. But it's in America. England had its problem with India and Indians for centuries. And Europe? Their history consists of so much mass murder by each other that it's amazing. The biggest killers of white people are white people. If during the plague the Europeans went to India and begged in the street for food, do you think they would have had the kind of attitude they have now? After all, these people spread out and conquered the resources, set up working governments and most importantly worked hard. Now, they are reaping the benefits. But it won't be for too long. In 50 to 100 years their population ratio will change tremendously. No civilization lasts forever. Not a single group of people can be at the top forever. Remember that when the British entered India, their behavior was very much servant like. They will bow down, say praises to the Indian kings and they did not have the attitude they have now. These Europeans have gone through a lot hardship in the past few hundred years. I guess that is what made them like these. I know a lot of white people who are very nice and genuinely helpful. But they are Americans. Anyway, to generalize is never a good thing. If they came to India to learn something, teach them and send them back. Why did you need to know the name of those people? Why trying to be friendly even after realizing their attitude? If somebody wants to be left alone, leave them alone. Anyway, in 50 to 100 years you will be living in a country that will be doing a lot better than Europe. Greece recently went bankrupt, the country that defined western civilization is bankrupt. Treat them like equal or something lower than you next time you meet these kinds of people. In terms of resources and advantages, they are currently in that situation. But, if somebody is genuinely friendly, respect their friendship. Anyway, no hurt feelings. Always try to be objective.

I bounce in through Archer all the time. Lots of p...

2010-06-02T08:34:36.001-04:00

I bounce in through Archer all the time. Lots of people going through stuff right now, it seems. Be well.

Jane

Wow! Jane, I had no idea you ever even looked at m...

2010-06-01T19:19:30.038-04:00

Wow! Jane, I had no idea you ever even looked at my blog. I'm honored. I expect I'll be back relatively soon. Just taking care of some personal stuff. Thanks for commenting. I feel a bit like Eeyore, "Thanks for noticing..."

great site really informative i learned a lot grea...

2010-06-01T15:16:10.236-04:00

great site really informative i learned a lot great stuff keep it up

I don't feel I know you well enough to write to yo...

2010-06-01T09:58:35.410-04:00

I don't feel I know you well enough to write to you directly, but wanted to say I hope you are okay, and take good care of yourself while you are on hiatus.

I have stayed out of this conversation for a varie...

2010-05-30T23:14:28.276-04:00

I have stayed out of this conversation for a variety of reasons. First, because I feel pretty strongly about it, and I have found over the past few months that when I feel something strongly, I actually don't want to discuss it online... I'd rather discuss it with a person in person and feel like I'm learning something about that person in turn. Online conversation ultimately frustrates me, perhaps, in part, because of the potential for a "mind slamming shut" moment like just happened above. I've seen it happen too often, and it frankly has started to pain me so much that I find it easier to just avoid it, as much as a subject might interest me.

Obviously, we know who everyone is here. My husband likes to "explain terms" for the very reasons he has stated above. Without common definitions, conversation is impossible. In this case, for instance, many people define agnostic as "not caring." I think it was you, actually, who sent around a quiz just a few months ago that did this exact thing. It was a quiz at belief.net or somewhere like that that lumped everything not a part of the big major religions as "don't know/don't care." Dang, that quiz pissed me off. Anyway, the "don't care" definition of agnostic is an extremely common definition. By starting by explaining the term, my husband was attempting to make sure you understood where he was coming from. If you disagreed, you were invited to say so. But had he not explained the term, you each might have continued to throw sentences back and forth and not understood exactly where the other was coming from.

Anyway, that's all I'll say on the subject. Like I said, it's not worth it to say more online.

You said: As for "chair," at what point does a sto...

2010-05-30T23:12:34.461-04:00

You said:
As for "chair," at what point does a stool or bench become a chair? Do we all agree on that? I doubt it.

I say:
Of course not. But the fact that the bondaries of the definition are fuzzy emphatically does not mean that we can't identify things that are clearly not chairs. Same thing with gods.

You said:
Okay. I consider you a friend so I've given you latitude on tone here, but I simply can't read your post when you say "let me start by explaining the term." Do you not realize what a condescending asshole you sound like?

My mind just slammed shut. I'll come back to your comment because you've had some interesting points and because I've considered you a friend. But, seriously, do you not realize you sound like you think I'm an idiot?

I say:
Perhaps the biggest problem in online communication is that tone is so difficult to read. I sincerely apologise for any offense; it was not intended, as I hope you will see from my attempted clarification below.

The definitions of atheism and agnosticism are horribly misunderstood. I cannot count the number of times that I have run into exactly the misconceptions that you have voiced. This is a common problem... To the point that there are numerous FAQs on the subject (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/intro.html is an excellen example). So in this context, starting by explaining the term is definitely not calling you an idiot... It is acknowledging that these philosophical positions are commonly misunderstood, extremely nuanced, and, since they are central to answering the questions you asked of me, necessary to clarify. Yes, I almost certainly rushed the intro to the definitions, and also came across as much more abrupt than I should have. My main excuse is that I am discovering that I hate typing on this iPhone, and was feeling pressure to finish up the post so that I could turn my attentions back to the family. Nonetheless I'm extremely sorry about the tone. But I hope you will agree that the clarifications that I made were in fact necessary for the discussion.

Further (and this is NOT intended as a justification of my tone), do you realize how offensive your original post is, in tone, to an atheist? Your post basically boiled down to, "You're wrong. You just don't know it yet, because you haven't thought it through enough." I ignored that tone, because I too consider you to be a friend, and instead focussed on working to clear up some directly-stated misconceptions.

a-h-scientist

Okay. I consider you a friend so I've given you la...

2010-05-30T21:22:45.110-04:00

Okay. I consider you a friend so I've given you latitude on tone here, but I simply can't read your post when you say "let me start by explaining the term." Do you not realize what a condescending asshole you sound like?

My mind just slammed shut. I'll come back to your comment because you've had some interesting points and because I've considered you a friend. But, seriously, do you not realize you sound like you think I'm an idiot?