Clive asks whether Obama's campaigning genius hasn't left expectations impossibly high. I've been wondering if what I saw on television on election day was the normal process of transitioning to a Democratic presidency, or something different: the product of economic insecurity, or Obama's stunning personality. Because some of the stuff I saw was crazy.
Being a libertarian, I naturally think that people are too optimistic about the government. But there were people on CNN declaring that Obama was going to lower the price of gasoline and pay their mortgage if they couldn't afford it, lower their tax bill and raise their wages, and presumably, make them taller, smarter, and get the chickweed out of their hair. I'm not exaggerating: there were voters who seemed to think that about three weeks after Obama took office, all their budget problems would be solved. Not that Obama would eventually make things better, or help them get past the rough spots; they were expecting an immediate influx of really quite a lot of money, as well as a rapid and permanent increase in base wages and housing prices.
I don't recall Republicans engaging in this kind of magical thinking in 2000. They, too, seemed to have an unreasonable belief that George Bush was going to improve America a great deal (unreasonable even before 9/11), but as I recall, this was concentrated on intangibles like restoring honor to the white house, not putting an extra $3,000 in everyone's pockets.
I was eighteen when Clinton was elected, and I don't remember if this sort of thing is simply typical of Democratic victories. But the expectations I saw in those "man on the street interviews" were not fulfillable by any president--at least, not until Santa agrees to stand for election.
I don't mean to suggest that all, or even most of the Democrats are filled with impossible dreams of glory. Well, I think they are, but impossible in the ordinary sense that anyone who believes a politician will make their lives substantially better needs to tell me where they get their drugs, because I've never been able to disconnect from reality that completely.
But some number of voters seem to be engaging in truly magical thinking about what is possible from a president. What happens when they get a $500 increase in the child tax credit and military operations in Pakistan instead of fairyland?
Copyright © 2010 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Obama amassed an impressive election coalition, but a horrible governing coalition.
anyone who believes a politician will make their lives substantially better needs to tell me where they get their drugs, because I've never been able to disconnect from reality that completely.
No, you've never been able to connect to reality that completely. Bill Clinton made your life substantially better. George W. Bush made your life substantially worse. You live in Washington, DC for crying out loud. Who and what exactly do you think drives the economy you feed off of?
I mean, come on. Why don't you knock on Ta-Nehisi's door and ask him to explain to you how Lyndon Baines Johnson made his dad's life substantially better? Or perhaps he was just on drugs?
I can only speak for myself, but if we're talking about being taken care of in a material sense, there's no magic wand there. What I hear in Obama's message, is that it's almost (dare I say it) more of a spiritual message. That if we work together, much is possible. So much of what I see in our culture is that we want some kind of pill to make us feel better (Ambien, Viagra, hang-over pill, etc). In actuality, there's a lot of work that needs to be done before these material things or feel-good solutions, that we're so driven to, manifest. And often, when this 'work' is done, we find that those material goals are no longer so important.
They are only acting like normal children. This isn't a bad thing under the age of 18. One of the best ways to teach and discipline children is to give them what they want. Experience is a great teacher.
My 12 year old son overheard this statement yesterday and replied, "When Dad agrees to something with a smile on his face, we have learned to reconsider our request."
Brooksfoe, my life as never been better. I'm not complaining about that aspect. I'm worried about the future based on all this excessive spending that Pres. Bush has left us with. But I don't think promising health care and expanded government is going alleviate my worries.
brooksfoe, tell us how good things will be under Obama. What will the unemployment rate be? What sort of growth in median income should we expect? What about health care costs--how much will they increase or decrease? Put down a marker so we know now what you think a successful presidency looks like, and we can judge it against what happens.
I've spoken with a number of nominally intelligent people here in Manhattan and have observed the same thing.
I get the sense that a lot of people really do not understand (1) how diffuse the President's power is, (2) the degree to which he is circumscribed by both Congress and the Constitution, (3) the generally malign influence of government in people's lives, and (4) the degree to which people mistake charisma for omnipotence.
People, liberals, especially, imbue in Obama the power to remedy all that they have found bad in America in the past eight years; my guess is that if in four years a right-winger is elected president, conservatives will imbue in their man (woman) the same powers.
I think lots of people out there are assuming too much earnestness on the part of us mushy-headed liberals. Have a little faith, please. We know he's a politician.
Another point bears mentioning which the Pro-Bama people ignore: the distance from campaign rhetoric to policy implementation is exceedignly vast. The Federal Government comprises hundreds of thousands of individual actors and trillions of dollars of spending. Neither Obama nor Bush nor any President is the CEO of a fleet, small startup that can turn on a dime. To assume that your quotidian concern will be addressed by a newly elected President in due course is to engage in fairytales, pace McArdle.
Her invocation of a meaningless $500 tax credit and military action in Pakistan strikes me as more plausible.
By the way-- no response to brooksfoe's question. If say, Barry Goldwater was president at the time, no civil rights act. With Johnson, the most sweeping and important bit of civil rights legislation of the 20th century. How can you say that has no impact?
Do you think soldiers in Iraq right now think there would have been no difference between a Bush presidency and a Gore presidency?
You have to remember that many people think the problem of government is malevolence on the part of the Bush administration, and that things really are simple to fix, it's just evil people who stop government working.
Also that what makes good TV is in no way a representative sample (see journalists combing the countryside for outspoken racists)
I might take your "concern" about expectations for an Obama presidency more seriously if you weren't presenting the most ridiculous and extreme examples.
Most voters are not rational. Even if Obama fails to get them their dream job in the next 6 months I doubt they'll blame him.
I don't know if it's possible to quantify which party has less crazy constituents.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_110608/content/01125107.guest.html
Frankly - if Republicans were saner I don't think Rush would have such a large audience.
Bottom line - these are all decent people. But they probably shouldn't be voting.
Another crazy thing is the outright denial of obvious facts. For instance, Obama's website now proposes forced labor for children and young adults:
http://change.gov/americaserves
Yet I just showed this website to several Obamatons; they each actively denied that that "...a plan to require 50 hours of community service..." (wording copied from change.gov) is forced labor.
> as well as a rapid and permanent increase in
> base wages and housing prices.
Actually, I'm pretty sure only the people who already HAD houses believed in the rapid and permanent increase in housing prices.
The people who didn't have houses believed they would become cheaper, with easier access to credit for buying them.
Perhaps because I live in Orange County, California, I have not seen any of this excess optimism.
But I do think I can remember things as strange, especially in 2004. Does the press cherry-pick the most "interesting" responses? I'd say that's likely.
Any Obama supporters looking forward to that "Civillian National Security Force" that will be "just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded" as our military? Where's the money coming from for that? "the rich"?
Megan, I'm guessing that most of your readers/posters are 40 or younger. Because if you are older, you lived through times when government/politicians did make people's lives better. Maybe not your life directly, but likely somebody you knew. I also guess that they're bitter, greedy small minded libertarian-leaning republicans who don't want public roads, schools, transportation, etc. and they have a brain trust of equal to that of the cast of Gilligan's Island.
You, on the other hand, and a few of your posters, do show some redeemable qualities and signs of thought and keen intellect. You do understand that journalists seek out the nuttiest folks in the crowd.
And for your greedy readers, remember: Warren Buffet and T. Boone Pickens are really excited about Obama. What do they know, besides a lot about making money and paying taxes, that you don't?
"For instance, Obama's website now proposes forced labor for children and young adults"
I think the main reason people are denying that is because it seems so off-base as to look like someone just mistyped it. I can't imagine that's an actual proposal. If it is, that's a pretty bad one, and I can't imagine something like that would be passed. That being said, the country might well be a better place if kids grow up doing an hour of service a week. How about we just strongly encourage them to do it?
Anyway, as to the original point of the post: honestly the main reason Obama being president is important is because he's not going to veto stuff. The main reason so much hasn't been done in Congress the past few years (besides cloture) is that they know it's going to get vetoed and very few things have 67 votes.
Other things that come to mind: lots of lifetime judicial appointments, closing Guantanamo, no more torture, executive orders reviewed and hopefully reversed, having world leaders respect the president. That's a start.
But yes, the people expecting an immediate large improvement in their financial situation are delusional. Randy Marsh on South Park was a good example of that.
I really don't think expectations are too high for the people that matter. And even if they are they won't affect Obama.
The country is largely divided into partisans with about 20% undecided. These people don't follow policy but know that they don't like Bush, the war in Iraq, and where the economy is.
As long as Obama isn't Bush, doesn't raise their taxes, keeps us safe and out of wars, and the economy recovers in 4 years he will be fine. The rest of the promises won't matter.
Now the partisans might be pissed if he doesn't say get national health care, but who are they going to vote for instead?
Congress is a different story, the economy might take that long to recover and they have a real potential to over reach. I would guess the democrats see a set back in congress two years from now, but that Obama wins the next election.
Concern troll is concerned.
Funny how that voting for Obama thing didn't work out, and right off the bat you're attacking strawmen of a Presidency that hasn't even taken power yet. It's almost as if you never overcame your small, bitter partisanship at all...
I don't think long-time Democrats are saying those things. I think those comments come exclusively from first-time voters who were driven to the polls either because of Obama's (apparently) electrifying charisma or the fact that he was the first (major party) black candidate. I guarantee you that nobody who is able to name the House Majority leader, or the current Fed chairman, or a country that borders Iraq, is walking around with the notion that Obama is going to start paying their mortgage in a few months.
This is the very first time in national TV history that "man in the street interviews" have discovered lots of people who expect cash in their pockets because of how they voted.
Of course, it is the first time live interviews were done in Chicago without censorship.
The interviewees have very realistic expectations. They know how to get something worthwhile for their vote. That is machine politics. Get yours now because tomorrow is too late.
Everybody knows that politicians are never ever honest and that they will say any lie to get your vote. That's why only clueless idiots decide how to vote by comparing campaign promises instead of campaign cash.
Of course, every year the politicians pass campaign reform laws purportedly to increase honesty but these laws are really designed to prevent honest people from running for office.
And if an ordinary person manages to beat the system and gets a chance at high office, every effort is made to destroy her.
All elections are rigged, by law, and here's proof
http://reason.com/news/show/129852.html
it.
"And if an ordinary person manages to beat the system and gets a chance at high office, every effort is made to destroy her."
Hmmmm...who could this "her" be you're talking about here?
Surely not someone who's every bit as corrupt in all of "her" previous and current offices as the people you're railing against.
You couldn't be talking about that person, right?
As for your lovely article complaining Barr was only on the ballot in 48 states, this clearly needs refuting:
"Congress' approval rating right now is a dismal 19 percent. Clearly, we aren't happy with the people who are governing us. Yet 90-95 percent of the incumbents running for re-election to Congress can expect to win on any given election night."
The approval rating of *Congress* is 19 percent. The approval rating of individual members of Congress are generally 50-65%. People hate everyone else there, not their own representative, because they funnel money and projects into their district/state. Gerrymandering and cumbersome election laws have little to do with it. If you want to stop the 95% reelection, stop pork.
All this is just so much anecdotal flack. I can easily dig up people who think Obama is going to nationalize the oil industry and 'surrender' to Iran and Iraq. Where's the data?
That being said, if you _must_ rely on anecdotes, and on what various individuals say, some opinions mean more than others. And as I recall it, there was a certain someone back in '04 who claimed that the election gave him the political capital to privatize Social Security.
I don't think anyone here can believably claim they've encountered anything that rose to such heights of magical thinking.
Bill Clinton made your life substantially better. George W. Bush made your life substantially worse.
This is an example of magical thinking. The president simply doesn't have that much power. The government doesn't have that much power. If it had that much power, the Soviet Union would be paradise. Of course, leftists deny that an American government could be as evil - presumably because power doesn't attract evil in the U.S., only in other parts of the world because the stuff that humans are made of here is chemically different from all other human beings.
A friend in Manhattan sighed deeply and said "now [that Obama won] everything will be alright". Her husband was just fired (for cause, mind) and she expects Obama to provide the resources for them to continue the lifestyle to which she has become accustomed. Magical thinking much? Not everyone is that stupid, but that doesn't change the fact that a very large number of people are.
For the record, my life is substantially better than it was under Carter, Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton. It has less to do with Bush II and more to do with hard work, learning from mistakes and making good choices (due to learning from bad ones) and because the government didn't sew me into a hopeless future as the nanny states of Europe do.
"Of course, leftists deny that an American government could be as evil"
After eight years of torture and domestic surveillance I really doubt you're going to find too many leftists denying that.
"Bill Clinton made your life substantially better." brooksfoe
TR: You can't know this, don't pretend you can. You can say, correctly, that on the whole the domestic economy improved under Clinton. You can't say anything about individual fortunes from that.
There were people whose lives improved during the Depression. My grandmother went off to California to pick fruit and she liked it. It was an adventure that, for her, worked out. In addition she was apparently not too happy to return to Arkansas when her husband demanded it. And there were also some oil investors, I believe, whose fortunes improved under Hoover. Likewise I'm certain there were people whose lives fell apart due to some Clinton policy or other.
Sure it will get better:
http://www.change.gov/americaserves
All it takes is millions of "paid volunteers" keeping tabs on the citizens and "helping" them to change.
Some words come to mind: Pol Pot, Brown Shirts, Cadres, Stalin, Stazi, KGB, post-colonial Africa tyrannical rulers...
@Ninja Zombie
My school system was one of many that had mandatory community service as part of the requirement to graduate. All Obama is proposing is to make that a standard for public education, rather than leave it as the patchwork, non-standardized mess that it is.
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/NationalServicePlanFactSheet.pdf
This is, by my count, the third post (and lengthy discussion) this week to address purely anecdotal nonsense as if it were evidence of a national trend.
Megan, you know better than this. Some points to keep in mind:
- Selection bias: The "man on the street" who says sensible, moderate things does not get on the air.
- Incentives: The anonymity of comment threads encourages outlandish and extreme statements. The web rewards hyperbole.
- Sample size: Put a check mark on a sheet of paper next to every instance of irrational exuberance (or vile schadenfruede). If you get to 500, you're inside a 5% margin of error (if you had a truly random sample from Obama's 64.9M votes).
Yes, the government has the power to . . . remedy the bad things the government has done. Civil rights was a great thing . . . which undid the legacy of decades of *legal* discrimination. As in, codified into law.
I cannot think of anything significant that Bill Clinton did to make my life better. I mean, there were probably small things that made my life better, but also small things that made my life worse, to a net effect of zero. The attribution of the late 1990s boom to Clinton is magical thinking of the first order.
Adam: "I think the main reason people are denying that is because it seems so off-base as to look like someone just mistyped it. I can't imagine that's an actual proposal."
I showed them the website.
Besides, secret prisons, torture, and eliminating habeus corpus also sounded crazy 8 years ago. Yet here we are.
"That being said, the country might well be a better place if kids grow up doing an hour of service a week. How about we just strongly encourage them to do it?"
That's the other reaction I'm shocked by.
'Obama can't be proposing forced labor. And even if he is, is it really a bad idea?'
I'm becoming more and more afraid of an Obama presidency. People seem to welcome fascism by Obama.
For the record though I'm not saying Presidents make no difference in people's lives. I'm just saying I don't think you can point to any particular individual and say "President X made your life better." At least not without knowing a good deal about the person's situation during that period and what helped/harmed it.
Ninja Zombie,
You're right, I read the pdf posted by Peter at 10:37; it seems that is an actual proposal. I did not know that, nor did I know that something like it is currently in place in many school systems. I don't agree with that proposal.
I also don't think it's a big deal, *at all*. Like I said, if it weren't mandatory and kids just did 50 hours of community service a year, that would be a good thing, right? We're not talking gulag forced labor, we're talking Meals on Wheels. Cleaning up parks. These are good things, though they really shouldn't be required.
Anyway, the rest of the service pdf looks pretty reasonable. If it's expanding community service requirements in schools versus secret prisons, torture, and eliminating habeus corpus, well, I think you're being a bit disingenuous about your fear unless you were much more afraid of Bush. In which case you should at least be glad he's leaving.
Breaking: cynical columnist surprised that man-on-street interviews during once-in-a-lifetime election celebration are overly optimistic!
Megan, you're doing a great job of preserving cynicism as hope washes over the land. You attack straw men you've constructed with the gusto of a king fu master. How refreshing coming from an enlightened Libertarian who supported Bush and his little war in Iraq, then later admitted being wrong without admitting fault and comparing the war in Iraq to a night at the theater that didn't go as planned. If you're representative of Libertarianism than Bob Barr is the movement's high water mark. BTW - have you ever actually read any of the books you recommend?
'Obama can't be proposing forced labor. And even if he is, is it really a bad idea?'
Is forced labour a bad idea? Gee...I don't know. Didn't we fight a war over slavery?
You're asking if slave labour is a bad idea? Really? REALLY?
I can't believe I'm reading this.
"You're asking if slave labour is a bad idea? Really? REALLY?"
Once again, I already said it's a bad idea. What I actually said was that it would be a good thing if they did this kind of stuff on their own.
Anyway, I assume you're just as equally outraged over the school systems like Peter's where this system is already in effect. Right? You are outraged at that school system, right? After all, they have kids in SLAVERY! They're fascist! I hope you're writing and calling that school board today to show how much you disapprove of their policies.
Christ, what is it about politics that makes people so irrational?
We're not talking gulag forced labor, we're talking Meals on Wheels. Cleaning up parks.
It doesn't matter what we're talking about, Adam. That's forced labour. It's still slavery, no matter how you sugar coat it. How do you not see that?
Schools don't exist to provide "community service" (a euphemism for slave labour - and child slave labour, at that). They exist to teach children reading, writing and arithmetic.
I don't understand how Americans are so pissed off about Bush sending terrorist fighters from the battlefield to Guantonimo and at the same time support soviet slave labour policies from Obama. And don't bother telling me that calling it a "soviet policy" is hyperbole. I am from the soviet union and I know exactly what they're policies were and this is EXACTLY the same thing we had.
Megan's gone all soft now. Where's the utter cynicism about everything? Where's the constant looking at the bad side and faux moral superiority? Megan, please get back in the Ivory tower and grace us with your pronouncements about how no one understands anything except you! Get rid of this silly doppleganger! Bring back the real hater Megan! What have you done with her!?
Christ, what is it about politics that makes people so irrational?
I know. Really! People opposed to enslaving kids? Horror. Totally irrational.
Adam, you're being disingenuous. You say you don't like the idea in one sentence and then ask "is it really so bad?" in the next. So, you don't think it's an unacceptable idea. You think it's not so great but you'd be okay with it since we're enslaving people to live in siberia and chop down trees. At least that's how you're presenting your opinion here.
1. When we Republicans (I haven't de-registered yet) give a higher percentage of our incomes to charity we feel a little proud. When Democrats call each other to voluntary service should we feel that bad? It is certainly a strange thing that Dems prefer us to "do" something, rather than cut a check ... but if they are putting their hours where their mouth is, all the good.
2> Voluntary service becoming slavery sounds like the derangement syndrome has begun.
(No need to fear, if you can say "I gave at the office.")
Being a libertarian, I naturally think ...
That will never stop being funny. Wicked-funny at that.
As a strident Obama-hater, my concerns with him are 3 fold:
1. His absolute callous disregard for children in abortion.
2. His palling around with now multiple terrorists and people who get pure joy from terrorism against americans (this latter category is filled by Rev. Wright and his dance of joy when talking about 9/11 and and chickens coming home to roost--utterly disgusting and shocking, and much more inflammatory than the "God Damn America!" comments the right seized on).
3. His ridiculous charge that the current economic meltdown is Bush's fault.
The reason 1. was never brought up was because McCain, for a pro-lifer, isn't really that strident about it--in fact, he's soft on it. If he brought it up, he'dve had to go right on it, or else risk losing more of the base. So Obama's hard-line child killing stance skated by--and, surprisingly, this issue could really have peeled off black support for him.
2. was attempted at, but for some reason, it didn't reasonate. I cannot fathom this, other than Obama being a Teflon-don and a late start by McCain (I think McCain's campaign made a huge blunder in not jumping on him earlier for this). If I weren't a pro-lifer, this would've still shocked me to the core and cast my vote the other way. Obama's friends are murderers and people who enjoy the murder of Americans. period. These are his friends. If a decent person's friends were murderers and supporter of murderers, the decent person would stop being their friend.
3. was muffed a bit. Certainly, voters vote with their pocketbook---if the economy hadn't tanked, McCain wins, or at least, its much closer. But McCain should've painted his attempt to stop the campaign and Obama's disagreement as Obama caring more about getting elected than solving problems---and that could have piggy backed on Obama being a do-nothing senator with only ambition driving him. And talked about how the economic meltdown began when the Democrats took control of Congress--that gas prices shot up and home loans became true garbage when Pelosi began leading the House.
I fear for this administration because Obama is a man who will say anything and agree to anything to get power. He has advocated for murdering children already out of their mother's womb, receives support from murderers and scum that he refuses to denounce, and is constantly image-conscious--at least, when it comes to what a European or U.S. Yuppie would want as an image. He has absolutely no economic plan worth having, and seems to genuinely not grasp economic realities.
I fear this may be Richard III redux. Once ensconsced in power, Richard was useless--because his sole motivation was the kingship. The kingdom fell apart, and Richard does as well. Obama's ruthless ambition terrifies me, but the aftermath of such ambition does as well.
Adam: "I also don't think it's a big deal, *at all*. Like I said, if it weren't mandatory and kids just did 50 hours of community service a year, that would be a good thing, right?"
Honestly, I don't really care what people do with their free time. It's true, it's not as bad as the gulag or torture. But it is forced labor, and it's a line we should not cross.
"If it's expanding community service requirements in schools versus secret prisons, torture, and eliminating habeus corpus, well, I think you're being a bit disingenuous about your fear unless you were much more afraid of Bush. In which case you should at least be glad he's leaving."
The change.gov website (last I checked) doesn't seem to have anything up about eliminating secret prisons or torture. I only found one bullet point about "Improve[ing] Intelligence Capacity and Protect[ing] Civil Liberties" actually related to civil liberties. Something about creating a civil liberties board. Plus, since Joe Biden wrote the Patriot act, I don't see Obama scrapping it (though he may pretend to do so).
I'm glad to see Bush gone. But I see little reason to believe Obama + same party congress and senate is an improvement.
What I'm really worried about is things getting worse. People fanatically love Obama; even the right barely tolerated Bush. And the right doesn't seriously hate Obama, certainly not the way that the left hated Bush. I'm seeing very little Obama-derangement syndrome.
That creates a real potential for dictatorship that did not exist with Bush, and that is what I'm afraid of.
The attribution of the late 1990s boom to Clinton is magical thinking of the first order.
Well, you're a few years younger than me, so maybe you didn't have a clear grasp of what happened politically in 1993 and why the US's budget deficit shrank in the early 1990s.
If you actually think that the only thing government can accomplish is to remedy the ills it has itself inflicted, you've gone off the deep end. Besides being wrong, this doesn't actually seem to me to be what you believe. In any case, you didn't say "if anyone can show me how government made their lives substantially better" (which would in any case be trivially easy to do); you said "if anyone can show me how a politician made their lives substantially better". Given that government inevitably exists and does some things, even a small-government libertarian should admit that it makes a non-trivial difference whether that government is being run by greedy, thuggish morons or public-spirited people of intellect and good will. Consulting the testimony of Germans who lived under Hitler and then Adenauer, Americans who lived under Buchanan and then Lincoln, and so forth is an easy way to get a grasp of this.
There's something deeper hovering around the penumbra of this mood you've gotten yourself into that I'm having trouble pinpointing. It's like you refuse to acknowledge the existence or legitimacy of political sentiment. The thing is, political sentiment exists. And given that it exists, there are responsible and admirable ways of handling and cultivating it, and irresponsible and contemptible ways of doing so. What people in the US and around the world are welcoming at this moment is the election of a politician with an inclusive and responsible style of politics, not a divisive, aggressive and mean style of politics. To be bitter at this moment, when the candidate you supported has won, is simply perverse; I can't understand what is driving you but man, it's hard not to psychologize it.
This is an example of magical thinking. The president simply doesn't have that much power. The government doesn't have that much power.
Well, this president doesn't, but Dick Cheney sure does. You should ask the innocent cab drivers were tortured to death if the (de facto) President has much power. Ask the idealistic and patriotic young soldiers who volunteered to serve their country after 9-11, and ended up in the Iraq Suck, an invasion of nonthreatening country sold on pure bulljive (it's pretty well confirmed). Ask the hard-working and nonpartisan lawyers forces to serve under Monica Goodling, or the ones disqualified because they were rumored to be gay. As the people of New Orleans. Ask the people of New York if a President who actively disregards a memo entitled "Holy Crap, Religious Fundamentalist Nutjobs Are Going to Attack Us Any Day Now" has much power. Ask Afghan wedding parties if a president has much power.
Civil rights was a great thing . . . which undid the legacy of decades of *legal* discrimination. As in, codified into law.
One can't help but wonder what the Jane Galt of 1964/5 would have said about the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act.
Rural electrification. Improved the lives of millions.
This is why I think libertarians are like children, the utter certitude that life doesn't have complications or exceptions. I'm willing to listen to arguments that government often does not do good. The idea that government has never done any good for anyone is a dorm-room fantasy, a child's way of looking at the world.
odograph: "Voluntary service becoming slavery sounds like the derangement syndrome has begun."
Who said anything about voluntary?
"Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to **require** 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year."
http://change.gov/americaserves
This is exactly why I fear Obama. "Just obama derangement syndrome, he wouldn't really push forced labor. Plus it isn't so bad if he does. At least he isn't Bush!"
It doesn't matter what we're talking about, Adam. That's forced labour. It's still slavery, no matter how you sugar coat it. How do you not see that?
Everyone I know had to do a community service project to graduate from high school. I don't know anybody who called it slave labor, except the lazy students who didn't want to do it. I also had to do homework and sit in class for 6-hours a day as well if I wanted to graduate. OMG, slave labor I had to go to high school to graduate from it.
"Voluntary service becoming slavery sounds like the derangement syndrome has begun."
"Everyone I know had to do a community service project to graduate from high school."
OK... then call it what it is: compulsory community service. Required volunteerism is an oxymoron.
I am very happy and proud for Obama's election for what it symbolizes about American race relations. However, I can't fawn over him like many people have..have you watched the twitter election feed or watched their friends' status updates on facebook? I almost envy their hope.
"Unfortunately, my political agnosticism towards any candidate runs deep. No politician, not even those who promise my political desires, could seduce from me such a hopeful affect or sanctity by my worship."
On Wednesday, I heard a high school student interviewed on NPR insist that Obama was going to cure AIDS.
Maybe poor people are excited because GOP propaganda has been promising us a socialist revolution for the past few months? But seriously, the kinds of things that pass for "reasonable" economics among GOP pundits (Social Security is in crisis! Taxing capital gains will ruin the economy!) are just as absurd than the views that you mention, and they are put forth as expert judgment rather than hunches. So, maybe there's a little double standard there?
Anyway, there is at least some small reality corresponding to the kind of expectation you describe, in the form of more moderate increases that Democrats generally produce for most people: less unemployment, increasing real wages, minimum wage hikes, etc.
So, yes, they'll be disappointed, but maybe not as disappointed as Joe the Plumber.
There is a slight difference between:
1) required education; and
2) required work.
#2 is basically forcing someone to work for the community at no cost/little cost. #1 is not. so "required volunteerism" (definitely an oxymoron) IS SLAVE LABOR. It is forcing someone to do work which benefits another at no renumeration. And it is the government requiring it.
Obama: Hope we can change the constitution, because my policies are kinda marxist.
ed -- megan's problem is that she's afraid to look in the box. she's afraid to find out what I discovered as a child, growing up in poverty, when my mom got some help from the government in the form of education from the CETA program and our poverty ended. (Lower middle class seemed rich. I still remember the day in 1975 when I got my first ever pair of new blue jeans.) She's afraid of the nemesis of libertarian philosophy -- that giving folks the tools to help themselves might bring down the walls and usher in an era of socialism. She drank the Joe the Plumber kool-aid.
Funny thing about that is that the best way to end the economic crisis is giving folks the tools to participate in the economy. I don't know why that's so hard for some economists to understand. They seem to think it's best to make everything where it's cheapest and sell it at Wal-Mart. (Can't shop there, the lighting triggers migraines. Thank greedy design for small blessings.)
50 hours of mandatory community service has been part of North Carolina high school graduation requirements for quite some time - I believe more than a decade. A bit of work with google suggests that even a decade ago some amount of "service learning" was in the curriculum of about half of high schools (http://servicelearning.cas.psu.edu/WhatIs.html).
I'd like to add my voice to Kat's -- hailing from the same parts as she, I can only say "Hear, hear!". And the fact that today is November 7th adds an ironic (if somewhat grisly) overtone to the expressed sentiment.
For those who spent their happy childhoods stateside and do not shy away from the concept of mandatory "community service" my advise is to google "subbotnik". That's "субботник" in Russian -- you should be able to copy and paste from this post.
OK... then call it what it is: compulsory community service. Required volunteerism is an oxymoron.
That's what Obama calls it. Required community service.
I'm not particularly hot on this plan -- it'll probably work for some kids and not for others. But I am quite certain that a Republic that weathered Bull Run will survive Obama's community service plan.
This is why I think libertarians are like children, the utter certitude that life doesn't have complications or exceptions.
Word. To that I would add the utter certitude that life does not involve death or injury. Social Security looks pretty dreadful on paper until you consider that most people get eventually get sick, get injured, or die. The Jane Galt argument against Social Security falls apart immediately upon noting those unfortunate, yet blindingly obvious to anyone over the age of 6, truths.
Freddie, I think you are on to something about libertarianism and childhood regression. There's an infantile note struck in even the best libertarian slogans, such as Tom Paine's "I acknowledge no law unless it's to my liking." Seems a good rejoinder to the complaint that governments treat us like children.
If you are not deranged, and you know the limits the Federal government faces you know the only way this could work:
"Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year"
Am I wrong, or is the only way the Feds can require anything of a school is to say that it will lose Federal funding if it does not. So in the bizarre universe where this actually passed congress, it would say that any school receiving funding should include in its curriculum.
Given that respect for the Constitution and individual rights, it might not be that bad an idea.
Slavery? Only if existing requirements (for physical education?) are slavery.
BTW, in some countries students clean their own classrooms. I thought conservatives were in favor of such character and responsibility building activities.
(Meant to say "should include in its curriculum..." with the dots)
You can call it "compulsory community service", or whatever you want, but I call it "unconstitutional." Tell me where the constitution tells you that the federal government has the right to FORCE Americans to perform labor.
Nick Gillespie had a great article on Reason.com about this. It is absolutely true that there is no such thing as a difference between the Republican and Democratic parties - there is simply an "in power" party and the "out of power" party. Suddenly the budget hawks will switch from the Democrats to the Republicans. Suddenly the Democrats will find a few more countries to invade - and if you think that Obama is going to take the troops out of Iraq any earlier than McCain would have then you just haven't been around politics long enough.
Republicans will make gains in 2010 as America fixes the overreaction towards Democrats in congress this year (a large percentage of Americans still didn't know that Democrats ran both houses of congress these past two years, and therefore actually rewarded them for their own low approval ratings). But the majorities are just too big, and Democrats should control all branches of government through 2012. By then we'll see if Democrats in Washington are only mildly unpopular, or Bush-in-2008 unpopular.
When people talked about slavery I first thought they were talking about the adult portions. The school portions have a path (a difficult political path) which could be legal .. and no, not slavery.
Jeff wrote:
"You can call it 'compulsory community service', or whatever you want, but I call it 'unconstitutional.' Tell me where the constitution tells you that the federal government has the right to FORCE Americans to perform labor."
Well, isn't it slavery because you are interpreting the text in an unconstitutional way?
It might actually be nice to say that the Federal government can fund but should not influence local schools ... but got luck getting your congresscritters to yield that power. They looove having their fingers in things.
This is why I think libertarians are like children, the utter certitude that life doesn't have complications or exceptions. I'm willing to listen to arguments that government often does not do good. The idea that government has never done any good for anyone is a dorm-room fantasy, a child's way of looking at the world.
As someone who leans libertarian, I actually agree with this statement. Libertarianism, especially in its stronger forms, is as utopian as Communism. It sounds nice (to some) but it can't work in practice.
But while conceding that Libertarianism would make for a poor governing philosophy, I still think it's useful to have a libertarian or two in the room. Conservatives and liberals often reduce the debate to the "government must do A" vs. "the government must do B". It's worthwhile having someone ask if the government should be doing anything. And even if the answer is yes, it's then worthwhile to ask if the federal government should be the one doing it. That's a different and often useful addition to the debate.
Although I disagree that libertarianism is childish. In fact, I think children are the people for whom libertarianism is least applicable. Libertarianism has a certain naivete, but not the naivete of childhood. Children are not libertarian in any manner.
Tell me where the constitution tells you that the federal government has the right to FORCE Americans to perform labor.
Where does the constitution FORCE Americans to go to school for that matter? I don't hear libertarians crying about the forced tyranny of education.
Freddie says: Rural electrification. Improved the lives of millions.
Or forced a massive investment into rural infrastructure during the time that millions of people were abandoning rural living as well as completely killing off what had been a thriving wind-power industry serving rural electrical needs.
What's that you say? Now the government is spending billions to create a wind-power industry? My goodness, it's almost like they're just trying to solve the problem they caused with their previously well-intentioned policy!
And all of that is not to even mention the fact that nothing is immortal except government programs. Any particular reason we still need rural electrification programs now-a-days?
"That's what Obama calls it. Required community service."
brooksfoe... I stand corrected. Still don't know if it's a good idea, though.
"Where does the constitution FORCE Americans to go to school for that matter? I don't hear libertarians crying about the forced tyranny of education."
This is why libertarians support choice in education. Children should not be forced to go to government-run schools (also known as leftist propaganda centers). One can argue that parents must be forced to get their child an education for the same reasons that a parent must seek treatment for a child with cancer - parents must provide what a child cannot on their own. But this education should be allowed to come in different ways. Charter schools, private schools, home schooling - as long as the kids are learning, parents have a right to influence their education. They can not and should not be FORCED into doing what the government wants their kids to do.
ed says: Social Security looks pretty dreadful on paper until you consider that most people get eventually get sick, get injured, or die.
Actually you might want to check your math. I'm pretty sure that **everyone** dies. Unless abolishing death is one of Obama's campaign promises that I haven't heard?
That said, your point is ridiculous. Yes, bad things happen to masny people. But how does that imply that government action is the only solution? What about insurance? What about managing your finances and lifestyle responsibly instead of relying on the government to take care of your savings for you?
You see, there's the liberal big-government childishness. The state should be organized like a family with Government playing the role of Mommy & Daddy who organize everything and keep the family safe and secure without worrying the little kids played here by the general populace.
Rural electrification. Improved the lives of millions.
This is why I think libertarians are like children, the utter certitude that life doesn't have complications or exceptions.
And this is why leftists (and many right wingers) are childlike followers of the religion of Statism. They believe that only almighty God (the Government) can provide such services. If God/Government didn't provide electricity to rural areas, nobody ever would. They said the same thing about the mail, but here Fedex and UPS goes to rural areas every day and does God's/Government's work more efficiently and with less surly employees than God/Government every day.
Life has many complications and exceptions. "Life's a Bitch" as the saying goes.
What statists of all breeds claim is that one person's complications and exceptions serve as a deed to another person's labor. And they condemn as childish or selfish the person who complains about giving away their labor for free.
You were 19, not 18.
Look, people just got excited and caught up in the moment, okay? And for what it's worth, it's Republicans writing in the LAST YEAR of his presidency about how George Bush is the equivalent of Batman. At least Democrats manage to revise their expectations appropriately in the face of reality.
I'm really not sure why a post griping about excited Obama voters is really necessary or useful.
They said the same thing about the mail, but here Fedex and UPS goes to rural areas every day and does God's/Government's work more efficiently and with less surly employees than God/Government every day.
Last time I checked, it cost me considerably less to send an envelope to rural areas with the PO than it does with Fedex or UPS.
I'm really not sure why a post griping about excited Obama voters is really necessary or useful.
Other than it serves to show the mental disconnect many people have as to not only what government is supposed to be doing, but what it *can* do.
It's okay though - Most of them came by it honestly. They've been repeatedly told over the course of the last year or so that if they want it bad enough, they can do *anything*.
It's totally untrue of course. But if it gets you elected, who's counting right?
And man on the street interviews immediately following a historic election are an accurate measure of this disconnect how? That's about as accurate as polling a sport fan on the possibility of his team's winning next year's championship after he just watched his team win this year's.
They can not and should not be FORCED into doing what the government wants their kids to do.
Then go to private schools instead of public schools if you don't want your kids to do the service. I don't see any mechanism that could be wielded by the federal government that would force private schools to do this.
And I suppose I'm somewhat put off by the fact that as Obama's supporters are cheering in euphoria and singing the national anthem and clapping each other on the back and tearing up with happiness, right-wingers are busy penning blog posts about buying more guns and ammo and fighting the Islamic Marxist tyranny coming their way. Naturally, Megan decides that of the two the happy and excited people are more irritating.
Megan, weren't you 20 in 1992 when Clinton was elected, not 18?
Honestly, I don't really care what people do with their free time. It's true, it's not as bad as the gulag or torture. But it is forced labor, and it's a line we should not cross.
I see the labor but I don't see the force. Where does "forced" come into it?
Under slavery if you don't do the work you get tortured, or even murdered as an example to others. That's slavery.
What are we talking about, here? A situation where the nation's schoolkids do some work in their community, or they fail that unit? Don't graduate, maybe?
If that's "force" then what's the difference between this "forced labor" and the forced trig homework I had to do for hours every night? What's the difference between this and the forced jogging pullups I had to do in PE? What's the difference between this and the fully nude, forced group showers I had to take immediately afterwards?
You're being absurd.
"Last time I checked, it cost me considerably less to send an envelope to rural areas with the PO than it does with Fedex or UPS."
Hmmm... last time I checked FedEx and UPS make money and returns it to the investors while the US Mail service takes money, returns none, and asks for more and more every year.
And since I am not an investor in either and can send a letter much more cheaply via the USPS, this is relevant to me how?
Megan,
History as remembered.
I have read accounts of people reacting to a Presidential election result like that when Franklin D. Rooseveldt was first elected. I can remeber all elections since FDR's third term. I recall no reports of people reacting like that in 11 elections.
Last time I checked, it cost me considerably less to send an envelope to rural areas with the PO than it does with Fedex or UPS.
Only because of a legal monopoly of letter carrying known collectively as the "Private Express Statutes".
Any business other than the USPS can only carry packages and letters by ensuring that everything they deliver is "Urgent" and costs more than $3.
This government-awarded monopoly on letter delivery is what keeps the USPS in business. Otherwise, they would have folded like a cheap card table because FedEx or UPS could easily carry simple get-there-in-a-few-days letters for half the cost of a first class stamp.
A situation where the nation's schoolkids do some work in their community, or they fail that unit? Don't graduate, maybe?
A good next step: "The Audacity Of Hope" becomes part of the federally mandated curriculum. Or actually, pick any other book. The key words are federally mandated.
You still don't have a problem with that? Trouble with people who grew up in a free country as children is that they've never been immunized against this debilitating disease: creeping loss of liberty. You don't see where it is going because you've never been at the other end. And of course you'd never actually listen to people who have.
How does this condition of graduation sound to you: "being a member in good standing of the Young Democrats organization"? Still benign enough?
And man on the street interviews immediately following a historic election are an accurate measure of this disconnect how?
Hm...I said "many people" have a "disconnect" and it's showed by the fact that they think anyone, including government can do things like "pay their rent" or "get them a job"... I never mentioned "accurately measuring" anything.
The fact that *anyone* believes it is problem enough - I don't have any desire to measure it.
And what the hell makes this election so "historic"? It was just another election as far as I could tell.
That's about as accurate as polling a sport fan on the possibility of his team's winning next year's championship after he just watched his team win this year's.
I don't get it Big Dan...
1) Voter hears candidate A make unattainable promise.
2) Voter votes for candidate A based on promise.
3) Voter tells reporter he voted for candidate based on what he should know is an unattainable promise.
4) Blogger points out that some people out there think government can do anything.
How are these related to asking a sport fan to make a prediction? The only way it could be related is maybe a fan-in-the-street interview about a new coach who was hired on the promise of a championship and many of the fans believed not only that he made the promise, but that he was most certainly going to keep it.
"The Audacity Of Hope" becomes part of the federally mandated curriculum. Or actually, pick any other book.
What, like "To Kill a Mockingbird" or "The Scarlet Letter" or "Watership Down"? I don't find Federally-mandated curriculums all that scary - certainly less scary than the idea that students in Minnesota and in Arkansas are learning two entirely different bodies of fact called "science", as though what was true about the physical universe differed in any way between those two states.
Trouble with people who grew up in a free country as children is that they've never been immunized against this debilitating disease: creeping loss of liberty.
I don't see the loss of any liberty. Kids have to be in school; we've established that. That's no longer controversial. (The freedom of children, anyway, is substantially illusory. We don't actually want our children to be all that free, for their own safety.) The only question is why kids in Arkansas should have to learn evolution if kids in Minnesota do, just because adults in Arkansas don't like science. Local control of education seems to be a substantial mistake in the age of a highly mobile population.
And of course you'd never actually listen to people who have.
Oh, for God's sake. You're ridiculous.
How does this condition of graduation sound to you: "being a member in good standing of the Young Democrats organization"?
Kids can't vote; what's the point of that? But maybe a requirement that 18-year-olds participate in politics in some way isn't a bad idea. Maybe we could do it this way - go out and vote in the first election after your 18th birthday, and you can be allowed to buy alcohol. Otherwise you wait till you're 21.
Actually you might want to check your math. I'm pretty sure that **everyone** dies.
It was a joke, son.
You see, there's the liberal big-government childishness.
That is certainly the Rush Limbaugh way of looking at it. We Reality-Based like to think of Social Security as a relatively inexpensive backstop for some of This Life's unfortunate circumstances (like, say, the Great Depression and stuff) for we mortals. There's another word for it: Civilization. It's one avenue to take. Far better, in my opinion, than, say, an adolescent Objectivist Utopian Dreamworld in the Rocky Mountains.
Jeez, you'd think on a Friday afternoon a good libertarian blog would have more discussion about legalizing some ganja. From over excited CNN interviewees to child slavery - bunch o' buzzkills.
Did you just use "fairyland" in the context of talking about Obama? Didn't we learn that that's racist?
The argument over forced or unforced labor misses half or more of the question: what kinds of work will count as service? Not, for example, taking care of one's sick grandmother and certainly not working for cash after school. Let me guess: the kinds that the school (or government of the moment) approves of. Because some kinds are better at building (our kind of) character. What kind is that likely to be?
I did my service 40 years ago by throwing out dodge balls to eight year olds at the community rec. center.
The people who have actual magical expectations for government transformation of private life are hard-left progressives who, in case you haven't noticed, have had nothing but heels-in-the-dirt skepticism of Barack Obama from day one. They know a collaborator when they see one. The ecstasy in the streets you claim is linked to material expectations (could you cite someone who thinks their mortgage is going to be paid?) is a purely culturally and n-based outpouring of relief at what they see as a change in leadership worldview orientation, and perhaps -- perhaps! -- a broad change in the political direction of the country and our international profile.
The real disappointment that awaits Obama resides among favorably-oriented conservatives who, while voting for John McCain or very quietly supporting Obama, and despite hearing from the McCain campaign all abut his alleged "socialism," were nevertheless convinced that they were dealing with a true moderate rather than a liberal who would earnestly court centrist Republicans but cede far less ground ideologically or in high-ranking job appointments than they could have possibly imagined for someone who constantly decried the bitter partisanship of the last twenty years.
There is a major disconnected on the meaning of bipartisanship that will be exposed in ugly detail in early 2009, unless I vastly misjudge Barack Obama. His notion of bipartisanship is all about exhibiting respect and giving a real hearing to a full range of ideas. Republicans' idea of bipartisanship, meanwhile, is primarily still substantial Democratic capitulation on matters of fundamental policy and philosophy. A fight to resolve the meaning of the term awaits Inauguration Day 2009.
"N-based" above is just the remnants of some phrase editing that resulted in a very unfortunate typo. Yikes!
Kids can't vote; what's the point of that?
You missed Max's point. Today it's a requirement to go to school until you're 15 years old. Tomorrow, it's a requirement that you do community service. The next day, it's a requirement that you show yourself to be ideologically clean. Max's point is that it starts small and goes to mind control very quickly.
Community service is not a problem. Mandatory community service is because it prevents children from choosing the best use for their time. As poor immigrants, we had no money to send me to college - no money for anything, really. So, I spent as many hours as I could working to buy clothing, to save for college. Kids who don't work out may also have a better use for their time - studying more, taking additional classes, spending time with relatives, etc.
We require children attend school because it is in the best interests of the child. Forced labour is not in the best interests of the child.
Chet, you would have a problem being forced to learn about religion and being forced to conform to the ideology of the Religious Right, but you have no problem compelling people to follow your view of the world. In reality, the religious right and the left are exactly the same animal.
But maybe a requirement that 18-year-olds participate in politics in some way isn't a bad idea.
Maybe requiring prayer in schools is not such a bad idea.
My point is, it's a slippery slope.
The part of the mandatory community service proposal that I find interesting is the requirements for college students.
When I took my last class in graduate school, I was working 50-60 hours a week in a professional job, and was pregnant with twins to boot. Most of my fellow grad students were also working, and several had small children as well. Two hours a week (which is easily three or four, by the time you throw in transit time) is a non-trivial chunk of an adult's life, especially if you have to pay for child care while you're doing it. It might not be a big deal if Mommy and Daddy pay your tuition and you've got nothing better to do with your weekend than drink beer, but it's an onerous requirement for working students and non-traditional students with families and households.
Leaving aside the question of whether there exists a plausible mechanism to enact such a requirement, why on earth should adults be forced into community service simply because we decided to further our education? Telling me how I've got to spend three or four hours of my free time seems like a pretty serious loss of liberty to me, and you can't justify it by saying I'm a child who can be forced into things for her own good.
"work out...OF NECESSITY"
sorry for the poor editing
Telling me how I've got to spend three or four hours of my free time seems like a pretty serious loss of liberty to me, and you can't justify it by saying I'm a child who can be forced into things for her own good.
Clearly, you're an enemy of the people and need to be re-educated :)
All the people who are laughing as Max and I are saying this should be aware that these things did happen in the past and in the recent past (I'm not that old)and they can happen again. this is how it starts. A little "community service". Seems like such a benign tumor. At first.
A little "community service". Seems like such a benign tumor. At first.
Then detention without trial and torture is full blown cancer, but I didn't see conservatives claiming that was the road to tyranny.
Then detention without trial and torture is full blown cancer, but I didn't see conservatives claiming that was the road to tyranny.
So, your fix for that is more tyranny?
Libertarians by definition are engaged in magical thinking.
To wit there is virtually no evidence that people act in their own self interest on a consistent basis. Or maybe they do but is the measure short, medium or long term. Everyone just guesses and the results make absolutely no sense.
Ken Lay's self interest was deeply flawed to the extent that in the end he just gave up on life and died. Convicted, disgraced, and stripped of much of his wealth. The gleaming tower in Houston was obviously a fraud in so far that they were supposedly one of the most profitable companies in the world, and nobody knew what they did. Millions of people instinctively knew Enron was fishy yet not a single one of those people were allowed within a mile of public policy. The libertarian ideal in practice.
Then detention without trial and torture is full blown cancer, but I didn't see conservatives claiming that was the road to tyranny.
Ah, the favorite Scandinavian dish: red herring. Ok, let's play: I won't even quibble with the skewed definition of terms. The big difference between the violation of liberty you put forward and the one I do is that yours is directed outwards, rather than inwards. You just cannot summon the same indignation when bad things happen to people you don't (or can't) identify with. This is generally a dangerous thing, I'll grant that, but the distance between "enemy combatants" -- whoever they are -- and myself is pretty damn large. Note that I probably have more firsthand experience with hostile state than you do, and I still feel that way.
On the other hand, you just won't believe the vibes I get from the idea of federally mandating reading materials -- or from requiring children to perform "community service" as a condition of their graduation. Note that it is not a requirement to do a certain amount of useful work to get acquianted with the concept of, you know, working. Cutting neighbors lawns or delivering papers (or, come to think of it, writing software) would not qualify -- unless, I guess, it would be done under the auspices of a state-approved NGO. Man oh man... the soviet mindset is descending on you, and you will never even see it for what it is.
Coming back to the torture and detention -- do you think the KGB would be hated and feared in the 'ole Soviet Union if it restricted its persecutions to the American spies and the like? Hell no, the spy thriller (with KGB being the good guys, naturally) was just as loved by Russians as its counterpart was here. It is the fact that most of its activities were directed inside, against their own populace, that made the KGB into a scare for little and big "kids" alike. So if you want to scare me with something Republicans support, bring up the drug raids...
I wrote a piece about the community service piece here
. Pretty dubious program, no?
The last words in the last sentence are beautifully lyrical.
Call the song "what happens when"
"What happens when (we) get ... (war) in Pakistan instead of a fairyland"
Poetic.
Ninja:
I followed YOUR link, and I found:
"setting a goal that all middle school and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year and by developing a plan so that all college students who conduct 100 hours of community service receive a universal and fully refundable tax credit.. "
I did not find the word "require". Or the word "mandatory".
I think I understand your trepidation. But you should fix your link or quote more accurately. It seems to me that what the website YOU sited says acknowledges the limitation of the federal government's power by calling it a goal, not a requirement.
To the original point: I have never heard a man-on-the street interview expressing an opinion that could be backed up. At all. As far as I'm concerned the Onion's man on the street interviews are not much different than anyone else's.
brooksfoe,
No, you've never been able to connect to reality that completely. Bill Clinton made your life substantially better. George W. Bush made your life substantially worse.
Oh please. What possible basis can you have for these claims? Show me the evidence that Bill Clinton made Megan's life substantially better?
Even if you could establish a clear causal relationship between a president and the welfare of a particular individual, showing his effect on the overall welfare of the nation (and world) would be virtually impossible.
You live in Washington, DC for crying out loud. Who and what exactly do you think drives the economy you feed off of?
The economy is driven by many things. Do you have a point? If all you're saying is that the federal government is particularly important to the economy of Washington, because so many people who live there are federal employees and so on, then that is of course true, but so what? How does it mean Clinton made Megan's life better? Or the lives of Washingtonians in general better? Or the lives of Americans better?
Today it's a requirement to go to school until you're 15 years old. Tomorrow, it's a requirement that you do community service. The next day, it's a requirement that you show yourself to be ideologically clean.
LOL! If you say so. Realize, on the other hand, that the "today" that truancy laws came into effect was really about 100 years ago, and suddenly your slippery slope doesn't look all that slippery.
As I said, a "requirement" for community service doesn't seem much different than all the other stuff that we require high school students to do. The naked showering was certainly, in my experience, far more of an onerous burden than the pleasant fall afternoons I spent raking leaves in the yard of some poor old woman who couldn't do it herself. I didn't see then that it was the first step on the path to fascism, and I certainly don't see it now. Certainly not when we already have government schools with government curricula. If that's the "first step to communism", it's rather funny that all these first steps date back to the Red Scare, Cold War days, and were enacted to defeat communism, not begin it.
Show me the evidence that Bill Clinton made Megan's life substantially better?
For starters
This community service conversation strikes me as very odd. 50 hours a year is approximately one hour a week with two weeks off, or three weekends of eight hour days, or two hours a week for twenty five weeks...this is really not that much. Community service requirements are already in place at a lot of high schools, and I imagine the high schools make it very easy to find projects and kids end up doing projects with their friends. It's possible some even do their service during school hours - my high school had a period at the end of the day for extracurriculars; I'm sure we could have done service then.
Plus, there are many different options for community service. Volunteer at a soup kitchen. Read to a kid. Teach arts, dance, sports to kids. Play your musical instrument at a nursing home. Or the more labor-intensive: building houses, planting trees, etc. There are many ways to do service, and I imagine part of the exercise is teaching kids exactly that: there are many ways to serve and a lot of them are highly enjoyable. If you like math, tutor someone in math. If you want to be a doctor, volunteer at a hospital. Some activities are physical, some are intellectual. As someone else mentioned, we all had classes we didn't like, homework, even extracurriculars we did just to pad our resumes - it seems like this would just be like doing homework.
In addition, a lot of kids and teens do community service already because it looks good on a college application. This really isn't anything new, and hardly seems like "slave labor" to me.
As for the college service, you'll notice that you don't have to do it: if you do it, you get a tax credit. And, again, that's 100 hours a year -divided up, it's not so bad.
By the way, as a working adult, I do 10-15 hours of "service" a month. I mentor a teen in foster care. And you know what? It's awesome. We go to the movies, we go to the theater, we go hiking. I'm now helping her apply to college. I do this without having everything in my own life figured out, and I do it because I learned from a young age that volunteering is a good thing - at first, it was not really my choice ("you must volunteer to get into college!") but now it is.
I really don't think a little service learning is the end of America as we know it.
For starters
Sorry, nonresponsive. Your link doesn't even address the question I asked, let alone answer it.
Show me the evidence that Bill Clinton made Megan's life substantially better?
We Reality-Based like to think of Social Security as a relatively inexpensive backstop for some of This Life's unfortunate circumstances (like, say, the Great Depression and stuff) for we mortals.
12% of one's income is a curious definition of "inexpensive". And you've neatly fallen into the fallacy of "X is good, therefore any government program intended to provide X is also good". Some people have difficulty affording food. Somehow we manage to prevent them from starving without nationalizing the food industry.
Somehow we manage to prevent them from starving without nationalizing the food industry.
But we do have a national food production system. You've never heard the jokes about government cheese? It's a pretty successful program since it provides benefits at both ends - it's a subsidy to farmers, and prevents crashes in the market by buying up ag surpluses, and at the other end it supplements food stamps.
Oh, well. The incurious world of the conservative, I guess.
"It's a pretty successful program since it provides benefits at both ends - it's a subsidy to farmers, and prevents crashes in the market by buying up ag surpluses, and at the other end it supplements food stamps."
It also keeps third world agricultural countries poor by depressing the market for their exports. Like most liberal policies, it causes at least as many problems as it solves, and the problems it causes lead to calls for more liberal programs (in this case, Jeffrey Sachs's plan to give .7% of our GDP to the countries we are helping to keep poor).
@rapier
This is what I find amazing. The system we have today was set up this way by statists. It isn't a "free market" - It isn't even close. Not even in the same neighborhood. Yet people like you always point to it, and the players in it, to attempt to make your point that the free market is bad. You take someone like Ken Lay and you prop up a straw man with his story and proceed to knock it over like you accomplished something.
Ken Lay was a sociopath and a criminal. Many of the top execs in major corporations today are both - Just like politicians. The immorality of our government/business relationship and regulatory system makes it so the only real way to succeed in big business or government is to be corrupt. There's very little room for an honest man.
Graft, corruption, lies, and deceit - these are the tools of today's politician and business leader. They use them every chance they get and rationalize it any way they can.
To paraphrase someone smarter than me - If you have to be a criminal to succeed, your system is doomed.
you may be ever so slightly atrasada. look it up, lady. in a Spanish dictionary. no one expected anything of GWB because, well, NO ONE EXPECTED anything of Bush. Because he was elected as a caretaker, amid a nearly-unprecedented boom. We were not at war. No one thought the good times would ever end. You know: pets.com, netscape. That shizzz. And no one much cared whether the president was the pampered (but experienced and really smart) son of a former high government official. Or the pampered (but caretaker, powerless governor of a big state that daddy bought) son of a former high government official. Both of whom had gone to Harvard. Which is somewhere near France. Believe me. You're not young; lose the libertarian schtick. You clearly either don't believe it or can't really pull this line off. No one I know thinks wands are waved, fingers are snapped and, shazzam bitches, everything's new. They just know that maybe they have a chance, now. instead of having dumb venal knuckledraggers claim the high ground and put their brothers and cousins in a meat-grinder that produces grennbacks for their buddies on the back end. You know, for shits and giggles.
@Chet
As I said earlier - Life is full of "unfortunate circumstances" hence the cliche "life's a bitch".
However, one's personal unfortunate circumstance does not give them a deed to the labor of others.
It's one thing to ask that people freely give of their labor to assist others who my have issues. It's a whole other thing to use a gun to force them to.
As for the college service, you'll notice that you don't have to do it: if you do it, you get a tax credit. And, again, that's 100 hours a year -divided up, it's not so bad.
The change.gov page has been changed since this morning -- there was no mention of tax credits or of a specific amount, and the original wording phrased it as being required. Ninja Zombie's post from 11:44 contains the direct quote.
EPA, your 10-15 hours of service a month is admirable, but it's tough for a lot of people to do while also going to school and raising a family -- I saw no mention that you do either. If it's important enough to you that you give up a significant chunk of your leisure time, great, but not everyone's priorities are the same. Some of us would rather mow our own yards and cook for our own families every Saturday morning, instead of working in parks and soup kitchens.
Hey, there's a website out there claiming that under Obama, admission to the National Museum of Natural History in DC will be completely free.
I mean, it's crazy, the things these people imagine government can provide.
http://www.mnh.si.edu/visit/
12% of one's income is a curious definition of "inexpensive".
It costs 12% of income to run Social Security??!! Whoa! I had no idea it was that expensive. I'm not sure that sounds right. Even though he vast majority or right wing blog comments are factally accurate, you wanna recheck your numbers, just in case.
On November 7, 2008 2:51 PM, Xanthippas noted:
Of course, Xanth. "Libertarians" are by nature right-leaning (or simply Right-Wingers), so of course they're more likely to sympathize with paranoid, gun-stockpiling survivalists than overly-optimistic liberals.
Also, wasn't Ms. McArdle considering getting a gun herself? It's therefore understandable that she'd be reluctant to scold her own literal brothers-in-arms.
--Lou
However, one's personal unfortunate circumstance does not give them a deed to the labor of others.
No, it pretty much does. I mean, that's what we agreed when we banded together as a society instead of living as lone hermits.
We are our brother's keeper, to put it Biblically. That's the whole point of the thing. Look, maybe you don't like that, well, that's fine. You're perfectly free to relocate to some other country, one where the dominant social philosophy is "bad things happen to people because they deserve them"; in other words a libertarian paradise such as Iraq.
It also keeps third world agricultural countries poor by depressing the market for their exports
Oh, so now managing the agricultural markets of third-world countries is a major plank of the conservative platform?
No, Chet, it pretty much doesn't, Biblically, unless I missed the part of the Sermon on the Mount which stated, "You are your brother's keeper, and anyone who denies this, or doesn't keep his brother sufficeintly, shall be imprisoned or killed, or forced into exile to avoid being imprisoned or killed."
People who invoke the Bible crudely, in order to lend support to their political beliefs, are behaving hideously. How well did you know Jerry Falwell?
Brooksfoe, when Obama states that criticizing his tax plan is "selfish" he is most certaily acting divisively, every bit as much as when Bush or his supporters would question the loyalty to America of those who criticized Bush's foreign policy.
People who seek the Presidency, with a realistic expectation of winning it, are almost always thugs, in that such people almost always have the intention of using the violent instrument of the state to force others to submit to their will, for no reason, if we are lucky, other than a non-empirically based belief that their proposals will make things "better". It is nearly as likely, if not more so, that their desire to force others to submit, via an instrument of violence, exists merely because the thug finds pleasure in forcing others to submit to their will.
Yeah, LBJ undoubtedly had good, selfless, reasons to force through the Civil Rights Act. He also was the guy who sent several thousand African Americans to their deaths, in support of a strategy which he was privately stating had zero chance to succeed, since he feared that reversing the strategy would cost him a chance at re-election. I wonder if some young man, in the short moments between being struck in the chest by a 5.56 millimeter round, and giving his last breath, while trying to execute a strategy which his Commander in Chief was, in private, was saying could not possibly work, thanked his Commander in Chief for passing legislation which ended segregated water fountains?
JordanT, Adam: What kind of schools did you guys go to, public or private/other? There's a pretty big difference between private schools requiring community service and the entire public school system doing so. In the former case, parents can just send their kids to public school if they object to the required community service; in the latter, many public school parents simply can't afford to send their kids anywhere else. Whereas private school community service is truly voluntary, public school community service is not.
@Chet
Nick: However, one's personal unfortunate circumstance does not give them a deed to the labor of others.
Chet: No, it pretty much does. I mean, that's what we agreed when we banded together as a society instead of living as lone hermits.
Ah, now we get to see the statist in his natural habitat.
He'll explain to you how it's wrong and even criminal for an individual to hold another at gunpoint and take their money.
However, if you have a group of individuals get together and *vote* for one of them to hold another at gunpoint and take their money, then it's perfectly acceptable.
This is the immorality of your current system. This is why your businessmen and politicians are criminals instead of honest men.
Government, if it should exist at all, should exist only to protect the rights and the property of the honest. The system we have today is built to protect the thieves and the looters.
Will Allen is the man.
1. ed, nice to see you're still spouting bullshit again. Clinton had nothing to do with the economic boom of the 90s, except that he didn't step in and screw it up---which would deserve a nice pat on the back, until you realize that the economy only took off when the Republicans took control of Congress and pushed back Clinton and BrunHillary and their ilk spread the wealth/murder the young and old agendas. Unless you believe Al Gore invented the internet and Clinton caused Microsoft and Sillicon Valley peopel to come up with hundreds of technological innovations over 30 years and all bring them to the market in the 1990s.
2. JordanT: "They can not and should not be FORCED into doing what the government wants their kids to do."
"Then go to private schools instead of public schools if you don't want your kids to do the service. I don't see any mechanism that could be wielded by the federal government that would force private schools to do this."
Um, Jordan, 3 things: 1) a government can require mandates of any school that wants accreditation. So, yes, even a private school would be forced into this slavery. So, you're obviously blind as a freakin' bat if you can't see how a government could force it on them.
2) Jordan, baby, listen: some private schools do require volunteerism, but the point is, because they are private, the parents, in deliberately choosing to send the kids their, are choosing those requirments. If you don't like Catholic dogma taught in a Catholic school, leave to public school. But since the de facto school is the local public school, anything required their is not a parent's choice. Forcing a parent to pay money to get a kid out of slavery is so wrongheaded I can't believe you would make that argument.
3) Now, some public schools (i've heard, never seen) do require public service, and that's just wrong. Because public education is required, its compulsory to complete the work. But then again, I'm against required schools because its made loopy lefties like ed think education is a right and not a privilege---and thus allowed pieces of crap to ruin the educational system instead of kicking them out onto the street where they belong.
Yeah, LBJ undoubtedly had good, selfless, reasons to force through the Civil Rights Act.
One presumes he did, since he acknowledged that it would cripple his party--which it did--for the foreseeable future. The modern Republican party which resulted continues to be a charming bunch.
Clinton had nothing to do with the economic boom of the 90s
No, I'm pretty sure that [William Jefferson] Clinton was President of the United States [of America] in the [19]90s. But I'll look it up just to make sure, and let you know if I'm mistaken.
ah, ed, you and stupidity go together like clouds and rain. Once the former opens up, the latter comes pouring out.
ed's logic everybody:
Clinton was president during the 1990s.
There was an economic boom during the 1990s.
Therefore, Clinton was responsible for the economic boom.
The old "this rock keeps away tigers" argument. Brilliant. I'm sure ed also is confident that Bush caused the recent stock amrket downturn.
I'm glad to see ed ignored all the other facts I threw in there. But since the only way ed can understand things is his own stupidity, I'll just piss off the little wanker:
-Republicans were in control of congress in the 1990s until 2006.
-There was an economic boom during those times, and low gas prices.
-When the democrats took control in 2006, gas prices shot up and the economy slowed and the stock market crashed.
-Therefore, the Republicans were responsible for the economic boom, and Democrats were responsible for the economic bust.
Or, better yet:
-Barney became popular in the 1990s.
-There was an economic boom in the 1990s.
-Therefore, Barney caused the economic boom.
Correlation does not equal causation. Statistics 101.
QED, bitch.
Emma,
I agree with you 100% that service is not always the priority and people should use their time as they see fit. You are right; I currently do not have a family and I have completed school. Hopefully, someday I will be lucky enough to have a family (although that, obviously, is not a given) and then I will have to adjust my commitments appropriately.
However, my real point in telling that story was that there are many fun, not-labor-intensive ways to be involved in the community, and I suspect a "community service" requirement in high school is designed to teach kids that. I don't see how walking dogs or helping to plan a benefit walk is really more onerous than baking tapioca pudding in Home Ec or building a box in Technology or being forced to run the mile in Phys Ed. I suspect it is the "free time" vs "school time" that is the issue here, but again, at least when I was in high school, I had quite a bit of homework. Beyond the normal hours of math a night, or the studying for a history test, I had projects to do. Even in junior high school, I had to hunt down leaves and identify them for science projects, I had to build models, I had to research my own geneology, I had to make videos for English class.
We don't know the details, but I suspect that high schools make it very easy to do the service, and I also suspect (in reference to a commenter above) that if a student has significant personal difficulty (taking care of a sick parent or grandparent, a work requirement) that there are ways to compromise on the hours of service required or count the family duty as service.
That's for high school: as to college, I saw both things on the web site, and even I found it odd that it said "required" at first. The reason I didn't balk, however, is because I was quite familiar with what it said on on the original Barackobama.com campaign website. It does use the word "require" but it clearly states "Obama will establish a new American Opportunity Tax Credit that is worth $4000 a year in exchange for 100 hours of public service a year." I suspect if the change.gov website did not reflect that at first, it was an error in the transfer between the two sites, and not a new policy requiring people to do service or not graduate from college (which would be impossible anyway, since there are many, many more private colleges than high schools).
Anyway, I agree with you that you should not have to do community service while in college. However, if the tax credit comes to pass, I'm sure many people will have to analyze what is the most cost-effective way to get through college: is it cutting a few hours off a job and doing the service? Or is it foregoing the service, and the tax credit, to focus on other things? I also suspect that many students who are already involved in service will welcome a little financial reward (which, again, makes it more like a job than volunteer work).
As for Obama's other proposals on service, except for high school, none of them are "requirements." He wants to expand service to increase opportunities and encourage more people to get involved, which I think is a good thing. Oddly, there are many, many, many people in this country (myself included, if I could afford it) who will pay thousands of dollars to be involved in service-learning or travel projects. See: organizations like Earthwatch, Global Volunteers, Globe Aware, Transitions Abroad for Seniors (just found these doing a google search). There are many people who want to get involved but don't know the best way. So harnessing that energy doesn't seem like the worst thing.
I'm sorry for the long post. I was just thinking about all of this overnight and had a lot to say. Another point I forgot to make is this: that doing community service at a young age can also help kids get a sense of what they want to do with their lives in an environment that's not as much pressure as a job. It can also help kids get the skills they need to get a job, as even summer jobs/afterschool jobs can be hard to get these days.
Again, I agree with you that you should NOT be required to do service to complete college, and that as adults, we all have different priorities and commitments. I was merely trying to suggest that Obama's suggestions (and right now, they are only suggestions) on community service do not seem to signify the end of the world as we know it.
Just to clarify my "homework" discussion, I went to public school through high school and then to a private college.
the differences between the activities you mention are this: homework/classes teach skills, at least ostensbily, that get people jobs in the real world and help to function. Math allows you to do a budget, and understand economic arguments, and perhaps, if you're good, go on to become a rocket scientist. Home ec teaches you to cook a meal. Physics comes in handy for simple things like car maintenance and advanced things like, well, rocket science.
Community service doesn't do this; it merely is for the benefit of another, and is an attempt in instill a value in someone through work. And Obama's marxist rhetoric sets off alarm bells in many people---so though you think this "isn't a big deal", looking at his beliefs as a whole convinces many people that this is just his first step of a 1000 "not big deals" that will lead us down the path to state-dominated values and socialism.
You want to teach a kid about being selfless? That's a moral value, and do it to your own or as a volunteer. But forcing it upon people is forcing a value system upon someone---it comes from the same country as forced sex education and forced acceptance of homosexuality. It is an attempt by the state to replace a family's values with state-approved values, which Obama certainly is in favor of, since 1) he is a hardcore leftist and 2) he is now the state.
EPA: "Oddly, there are many, many, many people in this country (myself included, if I could afford it) who will pay thousands of dollars to be involved in service-learning or travel projects. See: organizations like Earthwatch, Global Volunteers, Globe Aware, Transitions Abroad for Seniors (just found these doing a google search). There are many people who want to get involved but don't know the best way. So harnessing that energy doesn't seem like the worst thing."
1. we have things like this. See Peace Corps, Americorps. Free. As well as more expensive ones for those who want it to be more "exotic," like you apparently. What you desire, apprently, is that the exotic ones be free. On my tax dime. Because you're angry you have to make do with cheap ones. nice.
3. You're attempting to impose your own moral needs on me. I desire that I can travel to Hawaii every year for a month. it makes me feel good and makes me more pleasant as a person and increases my productivity. But its too expensive for me. So I demand you subsidize my trips, even though you have no desire to go there (hypothetically). After all, in the end, it makes everyone's life better, because I'm happy and nice to people and makes me more generous and makes my work better. And its good for me. So you have to do it. On your tax dime. nice.
I would argue that you can learn a great deal from community service as well, depending on the kind of service, and many of those learned skills come in handy in jobs. As mentioned, I suspect that kids get to choose their projects, which means they can choose something they are interested in, can learn more about, and can see if it's something they want to pursue as a career. I have learned a tremendous amount, including confidence and the ability to deal with people of all types, through service, and I did not learn these things just by doing my homework. I suspect, however, that going into more detail about my views on this - and why I really don't believe it's "slave labor" - would not be all that helpful.
Also, I am not a fan of applying value judgments to things that are innate to human beings (like homosexuality). Ugh. That's just too depressing for me to even talk about.
EPA: "I suspect if the change.gov website did not reflect that at first, it was an error in the transfer between the two sites, and not a new policy requiring people to do service or not graduate from college (which would be impossible anyway, since there are many, many more private colleges than high schools)."
1. how would it reflect the change? I think that Obama wanted it required, but putting that on his website during the campaign would have hurt him. So he waited. And then thought no one would care. And now took it off when he found out he can't weasel like he wanted to.
2. Um, EPA, again, the accreditation argument: no private college that wants accreditation and government funds would not have the requirment; otherwise they would cease to be a real college. So being private doesn't shield you from government regulation.
Basic Fact,
I said nothing at all about having the government subsidize exotic volunteer travel programs, or about me being angry because I couldn't afford them. I'm not. If I want to save money to do something like that, I will. I was merely suggesting that there are a lot of people who enjoy service quite a bit, and actually wouldn't mind doing more if they felt it was of real benefit to the country.
Some of Obama's proposals specifically have to do with expanding Americorps and Peacecorps, as there are many people who want to be involved in those programs who are turned away. They also have to do with expanding opportunities for people to use their skills to volunteer in constructive ways.
I don't know how much that would cost you, or me, as taxpayers. I don't know for sure what the cost/benefit analysis would be, and maybe most taxpayers would find it too much and would write to their representatives to try to get it voted down if it ever really comes up in the first place. But I was certainly not suggesting that I was angry because I don't get to do volunteer work on your dime.
EPA, you started off reasonably, but you're veering off into loony land:
"I would argue that you can learn a great deal from community service as well, depending on the kind of service, and many of those learned skills come in handy in jobs."
---Yes, I guess being forced to pick up trash in a park can prepare you for a career as a garbage man. But the purpose is not to train for a career; the purpose is to give something to someone else for free.
"As mentioned, I suspect that kids get to choose their projects, which means they can choose something they are interested in, can learn more about, and can see if it's something they want to pursue as a career."
----I love this "I suspect" language. Because forced labor is always a choice. This is about forcing the kids to be indoctrinated, not about career choices; this is about instilling a moral value, not about any career training.
"I have learned a tremendous amount, including confidence and the ability to deal with people of all types, through service, and I did not learn these things just by doing my homework."
----Yes, voluntary service. Just like I learned a tremendous amount about comraderie, teamwork, preparation, keeping in shape, and dealing with disappointment through playing sports a child. This does not mean that sports should be required.
"I suspect, however, that going into more detail about my views on this - and why I really don't believe it's "slave labor" - would not be all that helpful."
--no, because you're comparing your volunteerism with non-volunteerism. Apples to oranges.
"Also, I am not a fan of applying value judgments to things that are innate to human beings (like homosexuality). Ugh. That's just too depressing for me to even talk about."
---Right. That's lefty codespeak for "accept or die." You istate that it is innate and judging it makes you depressed. So you think it is morally ok. Moral judgments, in your view, are ok if they refelct your values (i.e. all people should be forced to clean up a park and take care of ghetto brats) and not ok if they don't (i.e. homosexuality is good normal thing, it shouldn't be shown to be bad). This is a duplicitous argument and marxist--only your moral values may be taught and reinforced through education.
"I was merely suggesting that there are a lot of people who enjoy service quite a bit, and actually wouldn't mind doing more if they felt it was of real benefit to the country."
----So, all the current progams don't benefit the country? then the answer isn't to expand them, its to scrap them. They don't work. Somehow, thought, I don't think that's what you want...
Since there are both free and costly ways to serve people, there is no need for this crap from Obama unless it is, again, to force values on people who don't want them. Heck, even those *evil* religious groups have some volunteer programs that help people and are free for you--but then again, they believe in morality that is not imposed by The One, so they must be evil and stamped out (except Reverend Wright, he's black).
Basic Fact,
You're putting a lot of words in my mouth. We obviously disagree on service, religion, homosexuality, etc. But to suggest that I said all religious groups are evil and should be stamped out is a complete misinterpretation of my words. I am not religious, but I not think religion should be stamped out. I do, however, have strong feelings about homosexuality in particular: there is plenty of evidence, both first person and through biological studies, that it is innate. And even if it were not innate, and it were a choice, isn't religion a choice? So shouldn't you be able to practice your religion and homosexuals get to be homosexuals? If you want to teach your kids that homosexuality is bad, so be it, but church and state should be separate. As such, homosexuals should be afforded, under government law, all freedoms that other people in the US are. And religious groups should be (and are) protected by law.
I think, however, homosexuality is about as much a choice as me being born a woman was a choice.
I was forced to go to religious school for years as a kid. It didn't take. I was forced to do volunteer work (obviously it was not entirely volunteer, as you say) and hated it, but when I got older and wanted to be more involved, because I'd had those experiences, I knew what to do. I also hated every second of my schooling, but it definitely benefited me and now I enjoy learning.
I also did not suggest that the current programs for service in the US are not working: they are, and more people want to be involved. As far as people wanting to better use their skills to benefit the country, I only meant that perhaps letting people know the best ways to utilize their skills is a good thing.
Also, I just found this website on accreditation for colleges, which I did not entirely read through. http://www.chea.org
It's interesting. I will probably go through it later in the day, because I am interested in learning more about exactly how the government can influence private universities, and I admit to not knowing much about it.
At any rate, it has been an interesting debate, and you have given me much to think about. But I fear we have completely hijacked this thread, and I also must start doing my weekend work.
Best,
EPA
Yes, ed, that was what I was referring to: LBJ's private conversations, in whch he recognized what his civil rights stance would cost his party, and in which he acknowledged that his war strategy was doomed to failure, as he sent thousands to their death, because he wanted to maintain his electability through 1968.
EPA:
1. My feelings on homsexuality are mixed. I do, like you, believe it is innate and natural. However, many, many human things are innate and natural--murder and rape, for extreme examples, always have happened. No, i'm not comparing them, i'm using them as extreme extenstions of your logic--reducio ad absurdam, or something to that effect, to point out that your validation of them is flawed. I do think that the "Will & Grace" effect--successful, mainstream entertainment that support homosexual lifestyles as positive--has convinced a lot of people; but as these shows are propaganda, and not fact based, I don't think that many people have actually looked at homosexuality outside of these caricatures (e.g. that some studies report findings of 70% or more of homosexuals having been sexually abused during childhood, suggesting homosexuality is an unhealthy reaction to abuse and not innate).
More to the point, just because something is innate doesn't mean it should be considered ok. Like I said, plenty of humnan actions and desires are innate; we don't consider them ok.
2. Comparing your religious upbrining with your volunteerism upbringing don';t apply here---I assume it was your parents making you do both, or the private school you were at. I'm sure you'd be up in arms if the public school required 50 hours of religious training per year; atheists would decry it, as would agnostics, as would many religious people, even though "you assume" that there would a laundry list of religions to choose from. The reaction is similar here: some people don't want to do volunteerism for philosophical reasons, others think that volunterrism only works if you, ahem, volunteer.
FYI, Obama's rhetoric suggests, however, even more: a "re-education" for those for whom the volunteerism doesn't catch on.
3. You suggested such programs were not currently offering a "real benefit" to the country. that implies that the current programs do not work. And people can be involved--I;'ve never heard of TeacforAmerica or NYCteacher volunteers being turned down. Or any private charity shunning help. Sure, some have standards that are high--peace corps---but most just need warm bodies. In short, there is no shortage of volunteerism a person can do in this country, so the expansion of programs you feel do not cause real benefit is illogical, unless you are merely trying to salve a wound you have from guilt, and pass on the cost of the medicine to others.
4. Don't forget a government can deny federal funding to get its way, or take away a school's tax-exemptions. Obama's mindset is very Roussou (sp?) of forcing people to be free---whatever the cost. His minions already trashed Palin and Joe the Plumber. Do you think a small school is any match?
As to charm, let us keep in mind that the Democrats, at least prominent Congressional Democrats, are the ones who wish to threaten violence in order to get politically oriented radio programming that they prefer. They are thugs, every bit as much so as any racists in the Republican party.
Regarding race-based thuggery, let us also keep in mind that it was the Democrats who only four years ago saw fit to give one of the very limited speaking slots at their national convention to a man who helped incite a murderous firebombing, when using rhetoric like "We will drive the white interloper out!", and stood silenty while an associate next to him at a rally spewed rhetoric like "We will make this cracker suffer!"
False equivalences are unbecoming. Nice try, Winger, but that flies about as much as Creation Science. We got the fossils, and we got the Youtubes too. No sale.
My feelings on homsexuality are mixed. I do, like you, believe it is innate and natural. However, many, many human things are innate and natural--murder and rape, for extreme examples, always have happened. No, i'm not comparing them,
Ladies and gentlemen, your modern Republican party. Classy.
And W-All, please come with specific examples. Otherwise, you sound like Basic Fact. Thanks in advance.
Otherwise, you sound like Basic Fact.
Or for that matter, Megan.
I said I was going away, and clearly I have not. But, Basic Fact, you are right that my parents forced the religious school on me. I did already mention that I went to public school. I only meant to suggest that sometimes we do things we don't like - and sometimes they benefit us, sometimes they don't. Sometimes they change our way of thinking, sometimes they don't. If you object very strongly to a community service program in place at your child's school, I'm sure that you can make a case to your child's principal and explain your reasoning. My point in all this is that it is extreme to assume the community service will be hard labor of some sort: there are many, many different ways to serve, there are many valuable things to learn (and, in fact, you can make practical use out of the things you learn in school by doing community service), and if someone does service and decides they hate it, they can abandon it after high school, just as most people abandon subjects they do not like.
It's not all picking up garbage.
I did not suggest that current programs are not offering a real benefit to the country. I have, however, done volunteer work that seems useless, and I'm sure many people have, so I was just suggesting that programs tailored to people's skills would be welcome. Part of doing volunteer work, for me, has been finding the right fit. I think Obama's suggestions involve allowing people who have special skills to better use them.
As for homosexuality, I know quite a lot of homosexuals, and not a single one has been sexually abused. They have come from warm, loving families and are warm, loving people. I know that is anecdotal, and I'm sure some have been sexually abused, just as many heterosexuals have. But, the point for me is that I see these warm, loving people discriminated against, or told they are immoral, or told their love is less than other people's when they cannot have what other people have, and it's heartbreaking.
I understand that you think that just because something is innate it is not necessarily okay, and certainly the crimes you've listed are certainly abhorrent and not at all comparable to homosexuality (which, yes, I personally have no objection to). And in this case, I truly believe there is much more damage done by discriminating against homosexuals than there is by just letting people be themselves.
Also, I don't think learning about different religions would be a bad thing, although, you're right, I would object to being forced to practice in school. However, I would welcome my future children learning about the history and practices of all religions.
@EPA
"Obama will establish a new American Opportunity Tax Credit that is worth $4000 a year in exchange for 100 hours of public service a year."
Wow -
You're going to let us have some of our money back. All we have to do is give you 100 *more* hours of our life.
What do they call this? Compassionate Statism?
And let me guess, they're going to offer this not just to those who actually *pay* taxes, but the looters as well - That way, they can steal even more money from the producers.
Lovely.
I'm now upset for myself for my last post, for even suggesting that sexual abuse might be a cause of homosexuality, or listing it in the same sentences as heinous crimes. I was temporarily trying to view it from a religious perspective and respond to the previous post, but I feel that I misrepresented myself. Ugh.
So, for penance, I give you a web page from the American Psychiatric Association:
http://www.healthyminds.org/glbissues.cfm
Nick,
That tax credit is to be applied to college costs so that college is more affordable for those who want to go to college. I don't think it has anything to do with getting your own income tax money back. Based on your statement, I'm certain I don't agree with you on taxes, as I have little objection to paying them, so it's not even worth an argument. But I do hope that if this tax credit should ever come to pass, you do the research and find out exactly what it means, who it benefits, and who it does not benefit. Don't count on a statement from a message board (mine or anyone else's) to be true.
My brain hurts. I need lunch.
Best,
EPA
ah, ed, I missed you and your nonsensical posts! Please, let's have some more.
And EPA--yes, like I said, I agree that homosexuality is innate. And the studies that suggest sexual abuse are by organizations that aren't in favor of homosexuality, and, therefore, the studies are suspect.
However, the American Psychiatric Association's declassification of homosexuality as a disease/disorder in 1973 was based not any new evidence; rather, it was based upon political pressure. Leading gay medical professionals, one of whom famously wore a paper bag to hide his identity, lead the charge to declassify it. The gay rights movement, in its nascent state, sought the declassification as necessary to a larger goal. But the APA's change responded to political pressure, not factual changes.
What's more, the APA has fought against people who wish to transform themselves from gay to straight, and this has caused a split amongst psychiatrists. In fact, one of the leading researches who fought for declassification now fights against the APA's stance; his view is that the APA should support anyone's preferred sexual orientation, and that the atatcks upon therapies are political in nature (which they are, led by gay rights groups) and not based upon facts.
Hey ed, still no responses to my posts ripping you a new one on your logic of Clinton being responsible for the 90's economic boom?
Surprise, surprise, dumbass.
and in which he acknowledged that his war strategy was doomed to failure, as he sent thousands to their death, because he wanted to maintain his electability through 1968.
Indeed. A low point from a crazy complex and deeply corrupt politico. The Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act were nice, though. It brought us Nixon, Cheney, Atwater, and who knows how many other of the very worst of modern politicians. On balance, it may have been worth it. (Note: I don't think he sent the solders to a futile war (a la Iraq!) because many were black, as your comment suggests. That seems out of character.)
And EPA: I pointed out that I wasn't comparing, I was merely taking the argument that "innateness=ok" to the extreme, which was disproved. If you want to get all hot and bothered by it and try to make the false claim that I was comparing them, then you're really not arguing maturely or intelligently. Logically extending an argument is not the same as drawing equivalency or a comparison.
anything ed tries to add to the argument is ed being ed, which is a synonym for stupid on this board.
Hey ed, still no responses to my posts ripping you a new one on your logic of Clinton being responsible for the 90's economic boom?
Other than the one at 2:35, you mean? It was, after all, a Basic Fact, BF. You said Clinton had nothing to do with the economic boom in the 90s, and I pointed out the Basic Fact that Clinton was President in the 90s, clearly implying that he may have had something to do with the economy. Something. Not everything. Something. What ever happened to that record budget surplus the President Cheney inherited, anyway?
Surprise, surprise, dumbass.
Ladies and gentlemen, your modern Republican party. Stay classy, BF.
"The Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act were nice, though. It brought us Nixon, Cheney, Atwater, and who knows how many other of the very worst of modern politicians."
ed, are you really trying to say that the Civil Rights Act caused the success of a right wing politician whom few blacks voted for?
Yep, now see the inner workings of the insane, people.
it was based upon political pressure
A single, non-nonsensical link would be awesome. Thanks in advance.
By the way, Jesus never rode a dinosaur. AFAIK. Also.
oh ed, this is fun. I've never shot fish in a barrel, but it can't be as easy as this:
"It was, after all, a Basic Fact, BF. You said Clinton had nothing to do with the economic boom in the 90s, and I pointed out the Basic Fact that Clinton was President in the 90s, clearly implying that he may have had something to do with the economy. "
---Um, ed? I agree that you implied that Clinton had a lot to do with the economic boom. You reasoned that because of the economic boom when he was President, Clinton did it and improved Megan's life.
I pointed out that your only argument was his being president at the same time. I pointed out that the causes of the boom were the technoloigcal innovations of the 90s (internet boom, software, etc.), things Clinton had nothing to do with, which caused the boom.
Aslo, little boy, I pointed out a flaw in your logic: the boom took off when Clinton had an opposition Congress in there, which blocked his attempts to burden society. So, in other words, you're screwed either way: either Clinton had nothing to do with the boom, or else the boom happened because Clinton was held back by Congress.
Then again, I'm sure you have mounds of economic data and economic acts passed by Clinton that caused the entire bubble period of the 90s. Wait....you got nothing, son.
Again, bitch, correlation does not equal causation. Clinton had nothing to do with the 90s boom. Suck it.
"What ever happened to that record budget surplus the President Cheney inherited, anyway?"
---Hmm, remember the economic downturn caused by Sept. 11th? Remember the surplus was caused by overtaxation? Remember the collapse of the bubble?
I love the "president Cheney" line. Just another truism of the left: Bush has to be a puppet. I don't care if I have no evidence, its true. The lack of evidence proves the conspiracy.
ed, don't quit now, I need to hear your magical pie in the sky proof of Clinton's economic mastery.
What's more, the APA has fought against people who wish to transform themselves from gay to straight
I hear they're also down on drowning to cure witches too, but this is the Ultra-Liberal APA we're talking about.
Hey ed, here's some scholarly justificationt that the APA's about face on homosexuality and disease came from political pressure:
http://www.jstor.org/pss/3561829
And, little boy, for the current APA position on conversion therapy, for good measure:
Here's a site where the President of the APA, in 2006, states no opposition to conversion therapies (p.s., the site is actually anti-conversion therapy):
http://www.thoughttheater.com/2006/09/exgay_leaders_misconstrue_apa.php.
I would love to see your evidence on how Clinton caused the 90s economic boom. Oh wait. You got nothing, son.
ed, I do take back my argument on the APA stance on conversion therapies, as they are now officially neutral; hwoever, as the about face came in 2006, it's a fairly recent change.
and, also, note that 37% of the APA still felt that homosexuality should still be classified in 1974.
hey eddie boy...
what, no evidence that Clinton caused the 90's boom?
SHOCKING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Again, bitch...Suck it.
Your modern Republican party, classy as ever.
Oh, and I didn't bother clicking your links, but thanks anyway.
And keep up with your valiant War on Straw. Thanks for your service to our country.
Um ed...where is your evidence that Clinton had anything to do with the 90's economic boom?
You said he did. I challenged your argument. Now is the time for facts, boy.
Ah, ed, the typical liberal: ignore all facts, stick your head in the sand, and force people to live your fanatsy land. On pain of death.
Biblically, unless I missed the part of the Sermon on the Mount which stated, "You are your brother's keeper, and anyone who denies this, or doesn't keep his brother sufficeintly, shall be imprisoned or killed, or forced into exile to avoid being imprisoned or killed."
Well, Jesus doesn't quite put it that way. What he actually says in the Bible is "it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven", as well as "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's", and additionally "I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me."
But, you know, we're talking about the words of a fictional character. I was simply borrowing a turn of phrase. Whatever. Nonetheless, non-insane persons recognize the value and usefulness of a society banded together for collective action and shared prosperity, as opposed to merely a geographically-proximate arrangement of unconnected individuals. The rest are libertarians, I suppose.
However, if you have a group of individuals get together and *vote* for one of them to hold another at gunpoint and take their money, then it's perfectly acceptable.
Well, some people want to enjoy the benefits of living in America - especially in an America that has graciously made them rich - without paying the bills for it.
The IRS exists to collect payment on the America bill. Just like any of your creditors. The best part is - unlike your cable company, or your mortgage lender, every two years you have an opportunity to vote on how big that bill should be, and what should be done with the money.
Funny, that. My landlord, on the other hand, keeps forgetting to come around and get my input on what she should do with the rent checks I keep sending her.
Government, if it should exist at all, should exist only to protect the rights and the property of the honest
Uh-huh. That's fine - I had an adolescence, too, when I read Atlas Shrugged. Of course, I grew out of it. Not sure what your problem is.
Chet:
"But, you know, we're talking about the words of a fictional character."
---Chet, you really going to this canard? For shame. I could point out that a Jewish mystic wanna-be rabbi with a following in 30 A.D. was about as common as finding a catholic in the vatican today, but hey, doubtful that logic would work on you. Go ahead and rabble rouse with some made up ideas and have fun. Ed can join you, if he did ever learn to read properly.
Jesus also called the rabbis and crowds who ruthlessly enforced laws as hypocrites and sinners and encouraged his followers not to listen to them or pay them heed. But hey, whatever works for you.
Chet's philosophy is ultimately self-defeating. Once he starts putting the ankle weights on the dancers who dance better and protecting the dishonest and making them run his government---well, the dancers stop dancing and move away, and the dishonest steal from him.
Witness: Chicago.
I love it when college kids liberals call libertarian philosophy immature. Apparently, between the 3rd and 4th bong hits during Freshman orientation, maturity and statistical data showing the efficiency of government magically pop into their heads. Also, moral proof that allowing murder is ok, so long as its unimportant people.
Nonetheless, non-insane persons recognize the value and usefulness of a society banded together for collective action and shared prosperity, as opposed to merely a geographically-proximate arrangement of unconnected individuals.
Indeed. It's called civilization. And it's pretty awesome. As noted previously, way better than a fictitious Utopian libertarian (poorly written) society in, say, the Rocky Mountains. Way better. W00t Reality-Based!
Funny, that. My landlord, on the other hand, keeps forgetting to come around and get my input on what she should do with the rent checks I keep sending her.
Dude, did she ever find a venue for her dance quintet--you know, her cycle?
Jesus also called the rabbis and crowds who ruthlessly enforced laws as hypocrites and sinners and encouraged his followers not to listen to them or pay them heed.
Not only that, but he notoriously stiffed waitresses and pretended to give that tip money to Teh Poor. Well that's what I heard, anyway.
eddie boy! there you are! I see you still have absolutely no facts to justify the 90s economic boom being a resutl of Clinton. Epic Fail by you, my fine brainless friend!
"Not only that, but he notoriously stiffed waitresses and pretended to give that tip money to Teh Poor. Well that's what I heard, anyway."
--Well, unlike you, ed, I don't go on what I heard from the local bum on the street, but from reading it. You know, the whole "vile hypocrites" thing in the Caesar story; the whole rebuking them for having money changers in the Temple and for criticizing him for healing on the Sabbath; and, of course, the whole "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" thing.
But hey, just go on what the bum tells you. He's your future, because, as well all know, a fool and his money are soon parted. ;)
I see you still have absolutely no facts to justify the 90s economic boom being a resutl of Clinton.
Of course I did. Several hours ago. Look closely. Pay attention. Show your work. And for God's sake, chew with your mouth closed.
"Not only that, but he notoriously stiffed waitresses and pretended to give that tip money to Teh Poor. Well that's what I heard, anyway."
Jesus was also staunchly opposed to the idea of progressive taxation. At one point he even called it--bear with me, I'm quoting from memory--"kinda gay."
Basic Fact,
I realize you were not making the comparison between rape, murder, and homosexuality and were only attempting to illustrate a point, but I was annoyed with myself for not forcefully stating that I see absolutely nothing wrong with homosexuality. I have very deep love for many homosexuals, and it is difficult for me to read comments suggesting they are mentally ill or "immoral." I'm sure they would beg to differ with those assessments.
I followed your JStor link, but the Thought Theater link did not work. I have no doubt there was political pressure, just as there has been politial pressure on various groups to accept women, minority religious groups, and many other minorities (not the APA in particular).
I fundamentally just do not understand, and don't think I ever will, how one person being gay hurts another person. Homosexuality in no way inhibits a person's ability to partake in society, nor does it damage anyone else in society. I guess I can understand that if one person is gay and in the closet, he wants to feel okay about staying there. And you know what? That's absolutely his choice, if he thinks he'll be happier - however, that's not a decision I would want to make for anyone, and certainly not a decision that should have to be made because of society's intolerance to homosexuality. I also understand that many religions take issue with homosexuality, but I have no real understanding of why, when many other aspects of religion have changed over the years, this one cannot also. Or at least be reexamined, based on evidence, which now includes, in addition to first person testimony, brain scans and other biological studies.
I do not pretend that I can change your mind about this any more than you can change mine. However, I would ask that you consider that there are many people out there who are gay and who have gay loved ones, and that someday, you too could have a loved one come out to you, and ask yourself how that would feel and how you would react.
Thanks and have a good night,
EPA
But EPA, what about Science? You never mentioned Science. And by Science, I mean, of course, The Bible.
Let me get this straight. You're saying that the "opportunity to vote" gives you a level of control over how much of the money your government takes and what is done with it that is superior to your control over how much you spend on your cable service, mortgage, and rent? I want to make sure I'm understanding, because I'd hate to waste time actually taking engaging with something you may have meant as a joke.
My guess is that people want something different, and so you have to choose between two flawed people. You kind of know that neither can give you everything, but if you want some change, you go with the guy who really wants more change.
If a guy promises you a cake (Obama), you end up with a slice. If a guy promises you a slice (McCain), you end up with a crumb.
Also, I think most people assume that little can be done until the financial system is fixed, and that Cain was not the person who was going to get that done, focused as he was on our "number one threat" in his head: terrorism.
@Chet
Well, some people want to enjoy the benefits of living in America - especially in an America that has graciously made them rich - without paying the bills for it.
So living in the US is a privilege now? If you buy something from me, I owe you part of it back as a cost of doing business with you - Is that it?
This is the problem with statists and looters - They've convinced themselves that everyone steals their money and therefore if you have any, you've obviously stolen it. Since you stole it, you have to "give back" to the community that allowed you to steal it in the first place.
The IRS exists to collect payment on the America bill. Just like any of your creditors. The best part is - unlike your cable company, or your mortgage lender, every two years you have an opportunity to vote on how big that bill should be, and what should be done with the money.
Democracy - four wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. Claiming that the sheep got to vote on the matter is asinine on it's face - you realize this right?
The bottom line is that no matter how you attempt to rationalize it - stealing money from someone is theft. And if your system of government is based on theft, it's doomed to fail. Eventually you'll run out of producers to steal from. Without producers, those who depend on them for their existence will have no where left to turn.
So they'll turn on each other.
The bottom line is that no matter how you attempt to rationalize it - stealing money from someone is theft.
If you don't care for civilization, you could always move to Borneo and initiate a libertarian Utopian society in the jungle, waiting it out while the rest of us turn on each other. All you really need is a passport and the courage of your convictions. I'm certainly not going to stand in your way.
"[Government cheese is] a pretty successful program since it provides benefits at both ends - it's a subsidy to farmers, and prevents crashes in the market by buying up ag surpluses, and at the other end it supplements food stamps.
Oh, well. The incurious world of the conservative, I guess."
All together, my libertarian and conservative colleagues: at what cost relateive to reasonable alternative policy options?
Mega,
I *certainly* remember Republicans' magical thinking in 2000: It was that a man who'd been a failure at everything that wasn't handed to him on a silver platter (and even most things that were) could somehow tackle a job as demanding as POTUS.
After W's election, the magical thinking merely spread, with ideas like "There is no such thing as 'global warming,'" "Iraqis would just *love* an American occupation of their country!" and (my personal favorite) "The president is not bound by the law."
Hopefully, we'll see more reality-based administration this time around.
BloodofPatriots
@ed
That's it? That's your whole argument? Love it or leave it? Priceless. Where have I heard that before?
"Move somewhere else..."
ROFL - You can't refute anything so you just tell your opposition to move...LOL
Listen - If your definition of "civilization" includes using mob rule to hold people at gunpoint and take their money, then I don't need to move to the third world. Your policies will bring it to me soon enough.
You can already see it happening. Things are crumbling around you, but you're too ignorant and blind to see it. To people like you, it's always the fault of someone else - typically the rich not "giving enough back". And the solution is always the same - take more of their money to throw at the problem.
Your system doesn't enable civilization, it destroys it.
Nick:
Stop thrashing the straw; I never wrote "love it or leave it". I'm suggesting that if things will deteriorate as you say they will, and you are as prescient as you claim (as for prescient, I'll stick with these geniuses), you should git while the gittin's good. Or are you so selfless that you feel the need to warn the U.S. of its wayward ways on blog comments (you may be more successful on a street corner, thumping your dogeared copy of "Atlas Shrugged" as you desperately plead with passersby)?
I believe in progressive taxation, the decreasing marginal utility of U.S. dollars, and that, unlike economic mastermind Dick Cheney, enormous hugeass deficits do matter. You seem to believe that nudging the highest tax rate up a few percentage points will launch the industrialized world into some sort of dystopian hellscape. As with noted com-symp Neo-Leninist/Marxist (or was that Marxist/Leninist?) icon Alan Greenspan, I'd like to return to the upper bracket tax rates from the recent era of peace, prosperity, and massive budget surpluses. That's all. You, George Bush, Jr., Sarah Palin, and Nobel Laurette Dr. Joe the Plumber think that's a recipe for disaster. When will that happen, by the way?
@ed
"Thrashing the straw"?
You said if I don't like civilization, implying that your world - stealing money from people who earned it - was civilization, then I should move until it collapses. Sounds like love it or leave it to me. Coincidentally enough - the same thing I've heard from conservatives when I argue with them about their policies on war and nation-bulding. Just like them, you can't refute so you resort to the same hyperbole, empty platitudes, and ad homenim they display when confronted with the truth.
One does not have to be prescient to see how things will turn out. If you have four wolves and a sheep voting on dinner then the sheep will naturally lose. Once it's gone, the wolves will inevitably turn on each other as there will be nothing else left. That we are talking about 250 million wolves and 75 million sheep doesn't change the argument, just the values in the equation.
As for what I believe?
I believe our system of government is based on theft. Theft is immoral. Ergo, our system of government is immoral because you can't be a little bit immoral any more than you can be a little bit pregnant.
I believe that eventually we will run out of producers to steal from.
I believe we're already past that point and whatever changes we make now are pissing in the wind. Not unlike Hugo Chavez, we built a mountain of social programs on an illusion of wealth that wasn't created by hard work and honest value of products set by the market, but by the stroke of a government pen and values based on nothing but desire.
I believe our system of government protects the criminals and those who are destroying our society at the expense of the honest and hardworking individual - the financial and the auto industry bailouts are perfect examples. Politicians make the majority of their money not from their salaries, but from the businesses that they regulate and therefore, when push comes to shove, they don't care about protecting the honest taxpayer, but the corporations.
As for your attempts at guilt-by-association... Not that I have to refute baseless arguments and logical fallacies, but I tend to associate more with people like Frédéric Bastiat, Adam Smith, Ludwig Von Mises, F.A. Hayek, Murray Rothbard, Lysander Spooner, and H.L. Mencken.
You know...idiots like that.
Sounds like love it or leave it to me.
That's because, well, you know...
Not that I have to refute baseless arguments and logical fallacies, but
...with logical fallacies. Your modern Republican party: Still not getting Teh Subtle. Still not doing nuance. Have fun with Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Jonah Goldberg, Ann Coulter, and Sean Hannity. Your kind of guys.
I believe we're already past that point and whatever changes we make now are pissing in the wind.
Then you should make for Borneo at your earliest convenience, what with the irretrievably imminent collapse of our Way of Life and coddled criminals on the loose. I'm not saying "love it or leave it." I'm suggesting that if you truly believe things are as you claim they are, the only logical option for you is to sack up and start up a real live version of Galt's Gulch (and Borneo seems like a good place for that, hardly the only one). Though I do honestly believe our great nation would be better off without you and your ilk (Mssrs. Limbaugh, Savage, Goldberg, Coulter, and Hannity noted above), I'm not the one suggesting that you ought to leave. You are.
@ed
ROFL...I grow bored with this.
I'll leave you with two things:
First, you're consistent. Consistently bad and wrong, but consistent nonetheless.
And second, since you seem to be stuck on the Ayn Rand theme for some reason (lord knows I didn't mention her - She was a lovely writer and probably a very nice person, but she's a minarchist for crying out loud...)
What makes you think I haven't already done a John Galt? Remember, he continued to live and work in the society that shunned him even until the end - he just refused to produce anything.
What makes you think that I'm still one of the producers?