| Page 2 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)
|
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:46:23 -0800, Robert Sturgeon
wrote: On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 00:59:35 GMT, (George Cleveland) wrote: On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 10:08:40 -0800, Robert Sturgeon wrote: On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 11:19:53 GMT, *snippage* The corporations have never lost control over the day to day lives of Americans. If that was so, the corporations would not have allowed the imposition of social security taxes, collective bargaining, the SEC, high income taxes, fair housing laws, OSHA, EPA, the ADA, minimum wage laws, all the rest of the post-1933 nanny/security state. But all those - and more - WERE enacted, because the corporations did lose their power. Jeez, I couldn't have made a better case for strict regulation of corporations. Virtually every one of those "nanny" state regulations has made the lives of working people tolerable under capitalism. Without them the existence of capitalism itself would be in doubt. Revolution, *Red revolution* was on the agenda in the U.S. in the 1930s. Laissez-faire capitalism had failed. Roosevelt was able to deflect the demands for radical change by making humane reforms to an inherently inhumane system. Their influence was moderated during the 30s but they regained their power during the second world war and by 1948 had succeeded in eviscerating the labor movement. By the 50s they suceeded in eliminating the most creative elements who were opposed to their rule. No American president, including FDR, has ever questioned the basic economic assumptions that guarantees the seat of priviledge that the ruling class believes it deserves. In the 1930s, and still today, the ruling class consisted of the bureaucrats, think tank residents, Congress critters, university presidents and professors, lawyers and the rest of the operational personnel of the security state. Baloney. Ask yourself, "Whose decisions have a greater effect on my day to day life, my boss or my congressman?" If the corporations were really in control, there is no way Martha Stewart and the rest of the accused corporate types would be in any legal trouble at all. In the glory days of rule by the industrialists, the tycoons did much more outrageous things, and generally got away with them. Why would a competitor of Martha Stewart be any thing but pleased that she was in hot water with the feds? FDR's "brain trust" was not made up of corporate CEOs. JFK's "best and brightest" had McNamarra (sp?) from the corporate world, and he was a dismal failure. Same with LBJ - professors, lawyers, politicians. If you mean that not even FDR tried to eliminate the market system and the right to spend one's own time and money more or less as one sees fit - so long as you don't interfere with the governors' view of how public life should be conducted - you are of course correct. He was a control freak, not a communist. The question that hasn't been asked for almost a hundred years in this country is "Who creates wealth, and who has the right to gain the most from its creation?" -- Robert Sturgeon, proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy and the evil gun culture. |
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency...?)
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 23:01:50 GMT,
(Babberney) wrote: On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:35:56 GMT, Strider wrote: "Junk science" is identifiable because it has an "answer" and sets out to prove that answer. All effort is toward proving the "answer" and any evidence to the contrary is ignored, or worse, suppressed. Science is supposed to begin with a theory and set out to prove or disprove that theory. The Christian Scientists are a glaring example of junk science. Strider Well defined. What does that have to do with politics? Junk Political Science? Strider K For more info about the International Society of Arboriculture, please visit http://www.isa-arbor.com/home.asp. For consumer info about tree care, visit http://www.treesaregood.com/ |
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)
OK - so what? That is hardly news. The media lies to people, but the science - properly done - is not political. I know enough science and engineering to winnow through most of it in technical areas, but I have to work at medical subjects a little harder to feel comfortable with the answers. People who WANT the truth can generally get it, people who really prefer slogans and tabloid science, be it painted up ever so pretty, generally never bother to try to find out what the real science is. For the most part, right now, the worst offenders in the tabloid science racket are the liberals and their bullshit scenarios. When you trace the bullshit back to its source, it tends to devolve to some graduate student's computer projection which doesn't do anything else right, but the part that predicts what the liberals want, is touted as being the revealed word of God. It gets tiresome having to listen to the media, who uncritically publish the bullshit and just can't find the column inches to print the sober rebutttals by competent scientists. On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:07:58 -0800, (paghat) wrote: In article , Greylock wrote: Good science is apolitical. If one may define economics as political, the political impact on science is terrible. At the EPA and FDA for examples, careers have come to sudden ends because someone or another focused on findings that this or that product had been proven to be unsafe, & anyone who doesn't want their careers squelched soon learns to self-censor & give "good" spins to things that may be profitable if the harm is overlooked. The data itself, bought & paid for by the interested parties, may more often than not be accurate, but may well have been designed consciously or subconsciously to NOT assess the bad with the good, but to only assess the good. When receiving funds from an "interested party" who will renew grants only if "answers" please them, these answers tend somehow to be found. By and large doubleblind studies are apolitical & you can detect, from most peer reviewed & published data at least, what any bias might have been, you can tell that though they "proved" such-&-such had a health benefit they failed to factor in side effects, so some other study would be required to assess the bad, for which no funding is forthcoming from the interested parties. One of my favorite examples was a Davis University study that proved mulch from recycled tires killed all plantlife within one week because of the zinc content, but by the time the vendors of rubber mulch got their hands on the data, it was interpretted as "improves the quality of zinc deficient soils" & "suppresses weeds." The "spin" amounted to a lie though narrowly & literally it was true. The Davis research itself was funded by the rubber industry & was riddled with positive asides, but the data provided was unambiguous & conclusive: it rapidly killed all the plants. Even data presented in peer review publications, and which make it pretty clear that something very bad is in the making (regarding greenhouse effect for example), but by speaking statistically rather than in absolutes, there's always wiggle-room for politicians to claim a finding is the opposite of what it was. Politicians serving industrial interests ahead of public health do this as a matter of course -- so while it is often the case that the actual science was apolitical, by the time the scientific finding reaches the public in "pop" & "PR" contexts, it is so thoroughly politicized to "prove" diamatrically opposed conclusions that a public that rarely goes to MedLine or a Health Science Library for the original data never know quite what to believe -- & frequently end up chosing a side on the basis of their own politics instead of the never-seen complete data. Occasionally a company like Monsanto generates in-house data that is completely fabricated or so slanted as to be worthless, but looks real on the surface. Non peer-review journals & academic vanity presses produce intentionally fraudulant results that bewilder the public. Even "good" science tends to be so couched in so many qualifiers or undecipherable language that it can instantly be turned into "lies, damned lies, & statistics" by abusers of the findings, even when not by the complete findings themselves. The bottomline is that science as it reaches the public is politicized. It is less so for the extreme minority who rely on peer-reviewed journals, but for the majority these are awfully hard to track down, & the garbled versions in magazines or newspapers rarely bare much resemblance to the original. -paghat the ratgirl Facts are gathered, a theory is advanced, and if the theory is found to explain the facts the theory is accepted until further facts support or contradict it. Junk science starts with a theory and then selectively accumulates facts to support the theory. Inconvenient facts are ignored in the pursuit of proving the theory. Good scientists are not necessarily apolitical, but proper adherence to the science and the facts does not allow for the insertion of political dogma. If you start with the theory, the dogma is built in. Most of the junk science being promoted these days is coming from the far left nutballs and the far right religious nutballs. Most of the press for the junk science goes to the far left nutballs. far . . . . Keith |
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)
|
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)
"Strider" schrieb im Newsbeitrag ... Ah, but they would describe the sky as a darkened haze on a clear afternoon. They would, in spite of evidence to the contrary, go on to blame Bush for the darkened sky. They would repeat this lie continually and people like you would come to believe it. Strider So you like demolishing self-built strawmen? Volker |
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 14:23:06 +0100, "Volker Hetzer"
wrote: "Strider" schrieb im Newsbeitrag ... Ah, but they would describe the sky as a darkened haze on a clear afternoon. They would, in spite of evidence to the contrary, go on to blame Bush for the darkened sky. They would repeat this lie continually and people like you would come to believe it. Strider So you like demolishing self-built strawmen? Volker I don't build them. I burn them. What color is the sky, Liberal? Strider |
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)
Xref: kermit rec.gardens.edible:65640 rec.gardens:259463 misc.survivalism:501562 misc.rural:115611 rec.backcountry:172445
Robert Sturgeon wrote: On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 02:23:58 GMT, (George Cleveland) wrote: (snips) If that was so, the corporations would not have allowed the imposition of social security taxes, collective bargaining, the SEC, high income taxes, fair housing laws, OSHA, EPA, the ADA, minimum wage laws, all the rest of the post-1933 nanny/security state. But all those - and more - WERE enacted, because the corporations did lose their power. Jeez, I couldn't have made a better case for strict regulation of corporations. Virtually every one of those "nanny" state regulations has made the lives of working people tolerable under capitalism. Without them the existence of capitalism itself would be in doubt. Revolution, *Red revolution* was on the agenda in the U.S. in the 1930s. Laissez-faire capitalism had failed. Roosevelt was able to deflect the demands for radical change by making humane reforms to an inherently inhumane system. Perhaps you don't realize it, but above you have made my case that the corporations did lose their power. "Laissez-faire capitalism had failed." Indeed it had. Except that it hadn't. First of all, there never was a period of "laissez-faire" capitalism. That's a myth perpetuated by leftwing teachers' unions in high school "history" classes for over 60 years. Secondly, the depression was NOT brought on by any "failure" in the market. The depression occurred because the Federal Reserve cut the money supply by some 30%. I don't mean they cut the growth rate of the money supply; they cut the absolute amount of money in circulation by 30%, leading to a massive and uncontrollable deflation. Milton Friedman basically won his Nobel prize in economics for showing this. As to whether industrial capitalism was more humane that the mixed economy of the New Deal/Great Society - that's purely a matter of opinion. I would choose the capitalists over the New Dealers, but it was in the past, right? The arrow of time is apparently a one way street. Their influence was moderated during the 30s but they regained their power during the second world war and by 1948 had succeeded in eviscerating the labor movement. By the 50s they suceeded in eliminating the most creative elements who were opposed to their rule. No American president, including FDR, has ever questioned the basic economic assumptions that guarantees the seat of priviledge that the ruling class believes it deserves. In the 1930s, and still today, the ruling class consisted of the bureaucrats, think tank residents, Congress critters, university presidents and professors, lawyers and the rest of the operational personnel of the security state. Baloney. Ask yourself, "Whose decisions have a greater effect on my day to day life, my boss or my congressman?" That's easy - my Congressman. I don't have a boss. On the other hand, my Congressman (I assume you mean - my Representative) is a Democrat and probably has less influence than my neighbor's dog. If the corporations were really in control, there is no way Martha Stewart and the rest of the accused corporate types would be in any legal trouble at all. In the glory days of rule by the industrialists, the tycoons did much more outrageous things, and generally got away with them. Why would a competitor of Martha Stewart be any thing but pleased that she was in hot water with the feds? Because that means they have good reason to fear for their own safety. FDR's "brain trust" was not made up of corporate CEOs. JFK's "best and brightest" had McNamarra (sp?) from the corporate world, and he was a dismal failure. Same with LBJ - professors, lawyers, politicians. If you mean that not even FDR tried to eliminate the market system and the right to spend one's own time and money more or less as one sees fit - so long as you don't interfere with the governors' view of how public life should be conducted - you are of course correct. He was a control freak, not a communist. The question that hasn't been asked for almost a hundred years in this country is "Who creates wealth, and who has the right to gain the most from its creation?" Oh, it's been debated lots. Surely you're not an advocate of the labor theory of value??? Really - don't bother to open that one. It's ridiculous and I will not respond. Been there - a waste of time and electrons. -- Robert Sturgeon, proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy and the evil gun culture. |
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 16:13:42 GMT, Jonathan Ball
wrote: Robert Sturgeon wrote: On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 02:23:58 GMT, (George Cleveland) wrote: (snips) If that was so, the corporations would not have allowed the imposition of social security taxes, collective bargaining, the SEC, high income taxes, fair housing laws, OSHA, EPA, the ADA, minimum wage laws, all the rest of the post-1933 nanny/security state. But all those - and more - WERE enacted, because the corporations did lose their power. Jeez, I couldn't have made a better case for strict regulation of corporations. Virtually every one of those "nanny" state regulations has made the lives of working people tolerable under capitalism. Without them the existence of capitalism itself would be in doubt. Revolution, *Red revolution* was on the agenda in the U.S. in the 1930s. Laissez-faire capitalism had failed. Roosevelt was able to deflect the demands for radical change by making humane reforms to an inherently inhumane system. Perhaps you don't realize it, but above you have made my case that the corporations did lose their power. "Laissez-faire capitalism had failed." Indeed it had. Except that it hadn't. First of all, there never was a period of "laissez-faire" capitalism. No, of course not. I was using his term. I took it to mean something along the lines of, "those who favor laissez faire capitalism," i.e., industrial capitalists. They did fail. Their stock market failed to preserve the capital invested in it during the late 20s. Then they failed to stop the New Deal's security state from displacing them at the top of political power. People had lost faith in industrial capitalism as the basis for their economic well being. They turned instead to the New Deal. That's a myth perpetuated by leftwing teachers' unions in high school "history" classes for over 60 years. Secondly, the depression was NOT brought on by any "failure" in the market. The depression occurred because the Federal Reserve cut the money supply by some 30%. I don't mean they cut the growth rate of the money supply; they cut the absolute amount of money in circulation by 30%, leading to a massive and uncontrollable deflation. Milton Friedman basically won his Nobel prize in economics for showing this. The reduction of the money supply (made necessary by the previous inflation caused by fractional reserve banking) could have been accommodated in the economy if costs had been allowed to decline. But instead the FDR administration put in place even more costs such as higher income taxes, SS taxes, collective bargaining, a disruption in the capital market by the imposition of the SEC, institutionalizing inflexible wage rates, etc. They made the depression worse and much longer than it needed to be. We did need a market correction to wash out the inflation and bubble market speculation which occurred during the 20s. We did not need the Great Depression. FDR didn't save us from the depression. He made it worse. (rest snipped) -- Robert Sturgeon, proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy and the evil gun culture. |
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)
Robert Sturgeon wrote:
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 16:13:42 GMT, Jonathan Ball wrote: Robert Sturgeon wrote: On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 02:23:58 GMT, (George Cleveland) wrote: (snips) If that was so, the corporations would not have allowed the imposition of social security taxes, collective bargaining, the SEC, high income taxes, fair housing laws, OSHA, EPA, the ADA, minimum wage laws, all the rest of the post-1933 nanny/security state. But all those - and more - WERE enacted, because the corporations did lose their power. Jeez, I couldn't have made a better case for strict regulation of corporations. Virtually every one of those "nanny" state regulations has made the lives of working people tolerable under capitalism. Without them the existence of capitalism itself would be in doubt. Revolution, *Red revolution* was on the agenda in the U.S. in the 1930s. Laissez-faire capitalism had failed. Roosevelt was able to deflect the demands for radical change by making humane reforms to an inherently inhumane system. Perhaps you don't realize it, but above you have made my case that the corporations did lose their power. "Laissez-faire capitalism had failed." Indeed it had. Except that it hadn't. First of all, there never was a period of "laissez-faire" capitalism. No, of course not. I was using his term. I took it to mean something along the lines of, "those who favor laissez faire capitalism," i.e., industrial capitalists. They did fail. Their stock market failed to preserve the capital invested in it during the late 20s. Then they failed to stop the New Deal's security state from displacing them at the top of political power. People had lost faith in industrial capitalism as the basis for their economic well being. They turned instead to the New Deal. That's a myth perpetuated by leftwing teachers' unions in high school "history" classes for over 60 years. Secondly, the depression was NOT brought on by any "failure" in the market. The depression occurred because the Federal Reserve cut the money supply by some 30%. I don't mean they cut the growth rate of the money supply; they cut the absolute amount of money in circulation by 30%, leading to a massive and uncontrollable deflation. Milton Friedman basically won his Nobel prize in economics for showing this. The reduction of the money supply (made necessary by the previous inflation caused by fractional reserve banking) Fractional reserve banking does not by itself cause inflation. We still have fractional reserve banking today. could have been accommodated in the economy if costs had been allowed to decline. Costs DID decline: that's what deflation is, and we experience a horrific deflation. But instead the FDR administration put in place even more costs such as higher income taxes, SS taxes, collective bargaining, a disruption in the capital market by the imposition of the SEC, institutionalizing inflexible wage rates, etc. The depression was well under way long before Roosevelt was inaugurated in 1933. They made the depression worse and much longer than it needed to be. The "making worse" didn't happen until 1937, when the administration cut spending in pursuit of a balanced budget. We did need a market correction to wash out the inflation and bubble market speculation which occurred during the 20s. We did not need the Great Depression. FDR didn't save us from the depression. He made it worse. (rest snipped) -- Robert Sturgeon, proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy and the evil gun culture. |
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 18:08:51 GMT, Jonathan Ball
wrote: But instead the FDR administration put in place even more costs such as higher income taxes, SS taxes, collective bargaining, a disruption in the capital market by the imposition of the SEC, institutionalizing inflexible wage rates, etc. The depression was well under way long before Roosevelt was inaugurated in 1933. Gentlemen...below is the #1 reason the Depression was far more than a market readjustment http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=66 Read it and then discuss it in this thread, alone with its permutations and history of what it later wrought, even though itself only lasted for 2 yrs. Gunner " ..The world has gone crazy. Guess I'm showing my age... I think it dates from when we started looking at virtues as funny. It's embarrassing to speak of honor, integrity, bravery, patriotism, 'doing the right thing', charity, fairness. You have Seinfeld making cowardice an acceptable choice; our politicians changing positions of honor with every poll; we laugh at servicemen and patriotic fervor; we accept corruption in our police and bias in our judges; we kill our children, and wonder why they have no respect for Life. We deny children their childhood and innocence- and then we denigrate being a Man, as opposed to a 'person'. We *assume* that anyone with a weapon will use it against his fellowman- if only he has the chance. Nah; in our agitation to keep the State out of the church business, we've destroyed our value system and replaced it with *nothing*. Turns my stomach- " Chas , rec.knives |
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)
What you say is correct and it is also politically correct bullshit !! On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 08:19:51 -0800, "Rico X. Partay" wrote: "Bob Peterson" wrote in message ... Diet for a Small Planet is hardly evidence of anything other than left wing kookiness. If you want to trust your life to something that nutty then do so, otherwise have some animal products in your diet. When you use adjectives like "left wing" in a technical discussion about nutrition you tend to show you have an adgenda that has nothing to do with the merits of the argument, and you thereby lower the credibility of anything useful you may have to say. To paraphrase Al Franken, arguing about whether a diet is "left wing" or "right wing" is like arguing whether al-Qaeda uses too much vinegar in its salad dressing. It may be true, but it's completely beside the point. Hope this helps. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:44 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter