You do realize you're quoting unweighted figures, right?
Were you to look at the figures for real GDP growth, you would see
that the GDP shrunk half a percent in 2000Q3. If you go to the monthly figures, you will likewise see that the real GDP shrunk steadily
through January of 2001, even though Bush was not sworn in until the end of the third week of January, and did not have an economic team
in place for some time thereafter.
I had worried that one major misunderstanding on your part per post was too high a rate for you to keep up. I'm somehow gratified to see
that it wasn't.
This just gets better and better. I'm referring, of course to this `bon mot' of yours:
the economic downturn, and the much more important loss of over three million
jobs
-- as if the latter were anything but a result of the former, or could be fixed without
fixing the former.
Heh. Hehehehehe.
The rest of your post, including your assertion that we shouldn't listen to the official
economic figures, because they come from `the man' or something, but should instead get
our economic information from left-leaning think tanks of dubious funding, and your quoting
of data from such sources after Jhon has just pointed you to the actual numbers, hardly
bears a response.
Nothing I could say could possibly make such statements from your post look any less
serious than they already do.
Jhon has already dissected your points, so I'd only like to point out how laughable your response to him is -- in
your view we're not supposed to take the Commerce Department's own numbers because they're ``the man'' or something,
but any lefty think tank you stumble on must be telling The Truth.
That doesn't even pass the laugh test.
Even more to the point, Jhon has shown that UCLA (hardly a bastion of right-wing ideology) had projected (accurately)
the Clinton recession as early as December 2000, based on the contraction which had already occured in the previous quarter.
Even if you believe Bush `caused' the recession, to assert that that negative growth, which began in 2000Q3, and continued
in 2001 even before the day of Bush's inauguration, was somehow caused by Bush is laughable. Truly laughable.
Your attempt to blame `fear of Bush' for these stock market contractions is even more laughable. Looking at
the Dow's historical performance, we can see that:
The Dow rose on news of Bush's election, at the start of November 2000, but fell drastically as the election was challenged in court
later that month
The Dow rose on the news that Gore's attempt to steal the 2000 election had failed, in December 2000
Before September 11, under Bush's hand, the Dow had almost returned to pre-Clinton-recession levels, but dove after 9/11
The Dow rose again when Bush received the largest midterm election win of any President in the history of the US, in
November 2002
The Dow rose again when Bush's party made major gubernatorial gains in November (not March, js7a) 2003
And then, as if you were concerned that you had not yet made yourself look sufficiently ridiculous, you assert that
the decline in the stock market from 2000 through 2002 (also starting on Clinton's watch, though you previously
ridiculed the idea that Clinton might be to blame for the recession from which Bush recently drove a stunning recovery)
was ``the cause'' of the Clinton recession -- as if this causality could only flow in one direction.
So again, I'd say you've already shown your unseriousness to those reading this thread.
I do blame Clinton for the recession which began during his presidency -- and I would credit him had
he managed to turn it around. But he didn't, and Bush did, so Bush deserves the credit for turning it
around.
But other than that, your chronology falls flat -- eight months (the period from the economy's peak
some time in July 1990 until consistent growth began again in March of 1991) is not three quarters,
even if it does begin on a quarter boundary, and in any case you're counting the entire period of slowing,
rather than the period of negative real GDP growth.
Also, you are aware that the NBER is a private think tank,
and not an official measure of anything, right? And that this fact, combined with their reticence about
revealing who pays their budget makes it particularly interesting that they use a definition of `recession'
so different from that in the dictionary?
So again, your average is holding at one gaffe per post of yours -- do you really want to keep this up?
Inasmuch as a `recession' is defined
as ``three consecutive quarters of falling real gross national product'', to claim, as you believe this
graph does, that a recession occured for one quarter in late '91 is a meaningless statement. One
suspects, of course, that you chose to link to an image alone and not the article from which it came
because the article would have made this fact clear.
Of course, we can always take your definition of `recession', for the sake of argument. If we do, we
see that even by your definition, the `recession' of '91 ended during the presidency of George
H. W. Bush. So as a final gaffe in your series of gaffes, you have made exactly the point which
you were trying to oppose: that Clinton cannot be credited for the economic growth of the nineties
since it began before he was president.
To whatever extent you want to keep making these posts, you're welcome to, but as you're now averaging
about one major gaffe or misunderstanding per post, doing so is certainly not serving to reduce
the impression that you are an unserious (and rather confused) person.
Anyone who's read this thread to this point, of course, knows that what you `cited'
so far as a guide to cost of living in Sweden and America are a few anecdotal quotes as to apartment
prices in a few places in Sweden -- to which you compared two of the highest-priced real estate markets
in the US, and still found a difference less than the difference between Swedish and American
salaries.
You're similarly evasive in your new claims here: How does linking to a gif image of a graph of job
creation in the seventies and eighties tell us anything about anyone's definition of a recession. Are you
confused? Or are you trying to show that you haven't run out of silly gaffes to make in this threa?
Really, at this point, anyone reading this thread knows what your opinions on politics (from your claim
that free speech is less important than free drugs to your claim that Bush deserves no credit for
an economic recovery which began on his watch, but Clinton deserves all credit for years of growth
which began in 1985, to your belief that what Americans need to make their life better is more taxes (!))
and knows from what level of knowledge (from confusion between per capita GDP
and mean salary to odd ideas about which month elections are held in the US (March? really?)) you are
speaking.
Nothing I could say at this point would demonstrate your basic unseriousness and state of confusion better
than you have already done, so I won't try.
As I said, I think the readers of this thread have more than enough information
to judge your position and my description of it. That you repeat your statement that
imprisoning drug users bothers you more than fining people for taking unpopular political
positions, even while continuing your claim that `no really, your socialism will be different from
all those other socialisms which murdered and oppressed all those millions of people' only
cements the point.
That your assertion that there was a recession in the early nineties, by the way (hint: words have
meanings, js7a, and a recession is defined as three consecutive quarters of zero or
negative growth), rather than a brief period of slowed growth which ended well before the end
of George H. W. Bush's presidency, and your failure to provide a single statistical measure
of Swedish or American cost of living (which would have to differ by a factor of at least
four to substantiate your claim) provide two more such gaffes on your part only heightens
the amusement value of your post...
So as I said, I think you've said quite enough to show anyone reading this where you stand. Good day.
Believes that free speech and the right to take unpopular positions are unimportant compared to the `right' to do drugs
Doesn't know the difference between per capita GDP and mean income
Thinks US gubernatorial elections are held in March (do you vote?)
Thinks a weak dollar (which boosts domestic sales and US exports) is worse than a strong dollar (which harms domestic sales) during an economic
recovery
Believes that Clinton should be credited for an economic boom which started in 1985, but Bush should receive no credit for an economic turnaround
which began while he was president
Thinks that socialism, having only killed 100 million people in the last century, deserves another chance.
Believes that a Swede earning 12,000 a year is not poor, but an American earning four times that is
I'd say by now the readers of this thread have more than enough information to evaluate the dream world you've constructed for yourself.
You're really asking if the crime rate and standard of living in the US are better than in 1980?
Do you even remember 1980? Have you ever lived in New York or LA?
As for voting, have you read the article you posted? It mentions the lawsuit in passing (also not
specifying what counties are being sued or on what charges), and then, as with your last post, goes
on to the author's own accusations.
And then you go on to the alleged `spoiler effect', but this is nothing but democracy in action, as
we've discussed. If people actually wanted Gore more than Bush, or Bush more than Gore, they would
not have voted for Nader or Buchanan. In real life, both Nader and Buchanan campaigned on the idea
that their was no useful difference between Bush and Gore, and those who voted for them agreed. To
suggest that a European-style system, which gives undue voice to tiny minority parties despised
by the general population is somehow better than this makes no sense at all, as far as I can tell.
And finally, back to Sweden: we have just seen that by the Swedish government's own numbers, salaries
in general in Sweden are between a quarter and a half of what they are here, and salaries for skilled
positions (such as Senior Programmer) are often as little as a tenth what they are here. In response
to this, you've repeatedly asserted, without a scrap of evidence, that the Swedish cost-of-living is
lower than the US by more than this (i.e. by more than a factor of two to four). If this is really
your claim (and so far, the only example you've given us is one or two cheap apartments in Sweden, while
acknowledging that gasoline is four times as expensive there), you need to put up some evidence.
But again, throughout this thread, you've considered yourself above such fact-checking, since for you
it suffices to assert that those who disagree with you are either `deceived' or acting for their own
interests -- an odd claim for someone who himself commits such gaffes as declaring free speech unimportant
next to free drugs, confusing per capita GDP with mean income, stating that US gubernatorial debates are
held in March, believing that a strong dollar (which discourages domestic consumption) is better than a
weak dollar (which helps domestic markets and US exports) for an economic recovery, and so forth.
I'd say that by now those reading this thread have more than enough information to evaluate the manichean
dream-world you've constructed for yourself.
Actually no -- I watched Dean on ``Hardball'' myself long before reading Krauthammer's column, and
found Dean's remarks offensive at the time (and Krauthammer's interpretation fair). After all,
here's Dean saying that he's worried about `corporate penetration' in the case of News Corp., which
has 8% market share and owns none of its own distribution channels, but not in the case of, say, CNN,
which (through Time Warner) owns almost all of its own distribution channels?
That doesn't even pass the laugh test...
As for free speech, I'll say again: If the right to voice unpopular opinions without being punished is less important to
you than the right to do drugs without going to jail, I'd say the readers of this thread have all the information they
need to judge whether your brand of socialism is really as compatible with freedom and democracy as you claim.
You're confused -- many of us conservatives stayed home in '92 because we were disappointed with George H. W. Bush, who had raised taxes and wimped out in Iraq. Very few indeed were `cocky' or even particularly enthusiastic about the sitting president.
But I suspect you're too young to remember that.:-)
Again, you're confused here -- you have never shown a single statement on my part that abortion is my deciding factor
on any issue.
However, if it answers your question: I would vote for a candidate who wanted capitalism but would continue to allow abortion
over a candidate who wanted socialism but would ban abortion, without a moment's hesitation. I would likewise vote for a candidate
who would defend the US aggressively against terrorism but would continue to allow abortion over a candidate who would appease
our enemies and weaken our defenses, again without a moment's hesitation.
I say this, not because I believe abortion is desirable, but because I believe that either of socialism or a weak defense against
terrorism would result in far more American deaths than abortion ever has.
I'd ask you a mirror question, however: although you've asserted that socialism does not harm democracy and human rights, you have
also asserted that you consider a nation where marijuana is free, but free speech is punished to be `more free' than a nation with
free speech but prohibition of marijuana.
Do you likewise consider socialism more important than free speech? Is this why you are backing a candidate (Dean) who has said he
will use government agencies like the FCC to go after television networks he disagrees with?
Here we go again -- your ideological slip is showing once more.
You believe that the words of Jesus mean one thing. Most Christians believe that they mean something else.
Your response? To claim that those Christians aren't listening to the words of Jesus, but to something else.
You take, for instance, a different view of what Jesus meant than the apostles did. Could the apostles be wrong,
and you be right? Of course. While unlikely (since in his life and at the Pentecost Christ personally inspired the apostles,
while you know of his life only through the writings of those apostles), this would be possible. But would any sane
reader of this thread conclude that you understand Christ better than those who spoke with him in person merely on
your assertion, without you providing any argument why they were wrong? I doubt it.
And yet you turn around and apply the same `logic' to your politics. You assert that we should believe that you
are correct, while ``everyone else is being fooled'' (mirroring the logic of the lunatic who tells us that he is sane
and `everyone else is crazy'), and hold this as a reason why you should not be held to the same basic standards of
reason (that you attempt to understand and refute your opponents position, not merely assert that it is dishonest)
as everyone else.
That such an assertion of near-infallibility on your part is accompanied by such basic errors as confusing per capita
GDP with mean income, or asserting that US gubernatorial elections are held in March, merely heightens the absurdity
of the situation.
Thus, as I said before, until you overcome this juvenile and escapist dishonesty, I am not going to waste much effort
responding to your posts. When you show that you can honestly state and attempt to refute the positions you disagree
with, then you will have shown yourself a serious enough person to be worth further debate.
I'm rather disappointed that you remain entirely unwilling to consider the possibility that anyone might honestly
disagree with you ``on the issues''. To the extent which you believe that no one could believe in prohibition of
hard drugs without doing so for greedy personal reasons, and to the extent to which you refuse to realize
that people (in fact, the vast majority of people) disagree with you on economics not because they have been `brainwashed'
or otherwise duped, but because they honestly differ with you on what works, you will never have an honest grounding
for your own position.
Thus, with each post in which you exercise this juvenile and escapist close-mindedness, I find myself taking your position
far less seriously, not more. Someone who tells me that I do not hold my position honestly has already foreclosed for himself any opportunity
to question the perfectly legitimate and honest reasons (however mistaken those who honestly disagree may find them),
and thus has foreclosed any useful discussion which might have occurred.
With this in mind, I'm unlikely to spend any more time on this thread after this round until you show some ability to comprehend and disagree
with views you oppose, rather than dismiss them or impute their motives. I may, time permitting, continue to point out factual errors
in your position (including your assertions, so far, that gubernatorial elections are held in March, that per capita GDP is the same thing as
mean income, that a falling dollar harms, rather than helps economic recovery (hint: Alan Greenspan has spent a lot of time cutting interest
rates to keep the dollar low, because a low dollar boosts US goods in both domestic and foreign markets, and thus spurs job creation), and so on),
but that will be the limit of my participation -- I will have been wrong in judging that you had anything more than `khasim' to bring to this thread.
Now, to give it one last round, on to your post:
Freedom: If you are really of the opinion that freedom of expression and the right to hold unpopular political
positions are less important than legalization of hard drugs, you have just confirmed, in spades, my statement that socialism
is a system which destroys human rights when implemented. I think you should consider this statement, and tell us what you
could possibly have meant by suggesting such a thing.
Even with this bizarre stance of yours, I find it fascinating that in order to boost your claim that ``nonviolent drug
offenses'' are the norm, you cite total drug crime numbers -- including production, dealing, drug-related racketeering,
and so forth. Which do you think is more likely? That CJCJ doesn't have the real numbers on non-violent drug incarcerations,
or that the real numbers don't support their case, so they don't use them?
So, I repeat -- if your idea of ``more free'' than we are now is a country where drugs are more loosely prohibited, but unpopular
opinions are punished and unpopular politicians can be murdered in the street after the police refuse to protect them, well...
Democracy: We can note, for starters, that one of the sites you choose to direct us to to find out about `democracy'
is from Greg Palast, who is far better known for his advocacy of the theory that Bush carried out 9/11 than for voting rights issues.
Do you consider this theory of Mr. Palast's viable as well? If so, of course, you will have completely clinched my opinion that
you are not a serious person. If not, I'd say we can both agree that there is no reason to believe that Mr. Palast is applying
any higher a standard of honesty and accuracy to the subject of voting rights than he has applied to the attacks on New York and Washington.
Aside from Mr. Palast's work, you cite an LA Times article pointing out that the Justice Department is allegedly considering a lawsuit
against three Florida counties for unspecified voting problems -- and yet t
Patience, patience, `js7a'. I don't think there are any of your posts or points to which I have not replied at this
point,
including the one you repeat here. Read my responses, and then decide how you wish to reply.
In light, both of the issues of tone and of position which I've raised here
and here (and of the overlap between that post and here), I think you
should look over this post, reconsider it's content (and particularly tone), and decide if much of this post is what you meant to say, in
particularly the following points:
What percentage of their income do you think the rich spend on `vacations'?
Do you think the word ``only'' (admittedly mistaken in haste) makes a difference in the quote? I.e. do you think that
``Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.'' also means ``Render
unto Caesar the things which are not Caesar's''? ``Compel others by force to Render unto Caesar the things
which are not Caesar's''?
Do you really believe that the following describes an act of non-violence:
After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and his brethren, and his disciples: and they continued there not many days.
And the Jews' passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem,
And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting:
And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables;
And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise.
Do you believe that the admonition to turn the other cheek includes an admonition not to use your strength to prevent it when others
are being slaughtered?
Do you believe that Christ accepted suicide, and would have considered allowing someone to cut your throat to be acceptable, in the name
of ``turning the other cheek''? If so, why did Christ evade the authorities until betrayed by Judas Iscariot?
Do you believe that when one says ``a whip is for cracking, not for cutting'', this is an assertion that a whip is not a tool of violence,
or an assertion that the threat of violence should be used when it suffices? Do you believe that a `scourge' is the same type of
whip a cowboy uses? How does this relate to your earlier claims about the whipping of slaves?
Isn't it true that a family which qualified as ``food insecure with hunger'' would still be meeting a nutritional standard not available
to even the middle class in much of the world?
Having read my other posts and hopefully considered the matter, do you think your assertion that those who differ from you on the
interpretation of the Bible are ``jumping through hoops'' for greedy and personal reasons is correct?
Have you actually ever lived with ``the poor'' and seen how they live in any meaningful sense? Have you, as I have, lived in places like Harlem, Prospect Park (before
gentrification) and Union City, New Jersey?
Have you ever tried to raise a family in this country before deciding how much of their income other people should be willing to give up?
Do you think Clinton's tax hikes, both explicit (and large) and implicit (by refusing to authorize the usual per-decade re-indexing of tax
brackets against inflation, thus driving many middle-class Americans into the highest tax brackets) had nothing to do with the recession which
began in May of 2000?
On that note, we're decorating our Christmas tree with the children tonight, so it's very unlikely you'll hear more from me before tomorrow. Please
take some time to read the two posts linked above, consider their content, and then decide how (and in what tone) you want to answer these
questions.
Now, on to the first half of your post, though if you skip this response,
I shall be disappointed.
You begin thus:
On the contrary, there are a whole lot of other reasons for different interpretations, such as the influence of the Holy Spirit for
example. Who knows -- you may have been guided to your interpretation and me to mine just so that we might have this discussion. We
got off on the wrong foot, but have both learned plenty so far in this thread. I'm sorry about the connotations of some of the words
I find myself using; please try to look past them (e.g., one person's brainwashing is another person's enlightenment.)
I don't really intend to comment on your question of why different interpretations of the Bible are possible, as I don't think you
have yet really honestly acknowledged that interpretations might honestly differ. So far, in fact, you have waved aside interpretations
of Christ's words which have been taken by greats from St. Augustine to Thomas Aquinas, from St. Athanasius and St. John Chrysostom to Reinhold Niebuhr
and C. S. Lewis, and attempted to wave them away with a rhetorical trick, to wit:
I want to understand your interpretation of scripture, which is why I asked you if you believe the words of Jesus should take precedence
over the other portions of the Bible. There are plenty of denominations that agree with Quakers on this point, and plenty that do not. What
is your take on the subject?
and (elsewhere):
Are you even familiar with the books of the gospel?
and (also elsewhere):
It seems that you aren't very familiar with the Bible. As a Quaker, I happen to know that you are very wrong about this because of the
very reason that (1) Quakers rely on the quoted words of Jesus as supreme to the rest of biblical text, and (2) Quakers migrated from
England to Pennsylvania to avoid persecution: Romans 13:1-7. Please see [gospelcom.net].
If it is really your assertion that those over history who have disagreed with you have done so, not by disagreeing with you on the
meaning of Christ's statements, but by taking other portions of the Bible `over' Christ's words or by not understanding what they were reading, then you hold your belief on much shakier
grounds than you think you do. If you believe that no other interpretation of Christ's words is possible, after all, you equally cut yourself
off from any grounds to usefully disagree with those of us (and the vast majority of Christians fall in this category), who disagree with
your interpretation.
I won't even dignify your claim that having been persecuted grants your interpretation credence, by the way -- by that argument we would all
be Jews (as I was), or Puritans (as some of my ancestors were, also settling here when tortured and expelled from England) and those of us who are Orthodox Christians, of a faith which faced a
millenium of persecution under the Turk would have more claim on correctness than you would. Let us say, instead, that we shall rest our arguments on Christ's meaning on rational investigation,
and on the traditions handed down through a church which has existed continuously since the Resurection and the Pentecost, and surely we
will be closer to the Truth than we should be through any mere contest as to who had been most oppressed down through the years...
You'll note that I skippd a point of yours above -- we'll get there at the end of this post.
You then continue:
More than what? I can not bring myself to believe that you truly believe that socialism and capitalism are mutualy exclusive, but you keep
writing as if you do. Would you please state your position on this matter?
Philosophically, the two are, of course, exclusive. You either believe that
I'd say your last three paragraphs here display a rather jaundiced
and inaccurate view of life in the US, so, in the spirit of Jeane
Kirkpatrick's witticism that it is important for Americans to `face
the truth about themselves, no matter how pleasant it is', I'd like
to address a few of the points you make there before speaking to
the questions you raise earlier in your post.
You begin by saying:
Where is the liberty in our proportionally huge prison population
bloated with nonviolent victims of prohibition? Too many people
who go down the path Rush Limbaugh has end up in jail with manditory
minimum sentences measured in decades. Is that more liberty than
exists in England, the Netherlands, Denmark, etc., where prohibition
is an afterthought and treatment for abuse comes first?
which is certainly an improvement in tone from a few posts back,
when you were suggesting that any who disagreed with Dean's plan
for tax hikes were themselves abusing prescription drugs, but still
falls short of being a really weighty point.:-)
First off, we can probably both agree that some prohibition,
particularly of marijuana is a bad idea -- no, don't bug your eyes
out when I say that: remember that National Review and the
Wall Street Journal are just about the only mainstream
venues calling for decriminilization of marijuana -- but this is
true not because of the number of people in jail for marijuana use,
but because the criminalization of such a substance (whether or
not it's use is a good idea -- it's not) is a bad idea, and one
which, in the case of lesser drugs such as marijuana, almost
certainly does more harm than good to the state of the rule of law in the US.
But smoking a joint is hardly the most dangerous and damaging
activity for the government to prohibit, so let's look at the state
of civil liberties in the countries which you claim are `more free' than
the US:
England:
Now don't get me wrong, I like England -- I value them as an ally, and I've lived
and worked in London at several points. But if you think that England is somehow
`more free' than the US, you're mistaken.
We are, after all, talking about a country which has:
the Official Secrets Act (compare the criminal penalties placed on newspapers
publishing such information in the UK with the upholding of the
free press in the `pentagon papers' case),
England is also facing legislation which would eliminate the right to a jury trial for most or all offenses,
conclusion: friendlier to drugs, perhaps -- but certainly not `more free'.
Netherlands:
While Amsterdam is certainly pot-friendly, the Netherlands
are not otherwise a particularly civil rights utopia. To start with,
the Dutch have extensive laws providing for punishment of unpopular
positions in the name of preventing `hate speech' (one preacher,
for example, was recently fined a substantial amount of money for
advocating caps on immigration). And that's not even asking why
the Dutch police refused to provide protection to a popular but controversial politician
who had received death threats, and who was murdered shortly thereafter.
Conclusion: drug-friendly for sure, but `more free'? Only if your opinions are popular.
This is exactly what I'm talking about -- faced with someone who disagrees with you about the meaning of Jesus's
words, you purport that you are facing someone who values words of others over those of Jesus. This shows an essentially
arrogant aproach, in that you discount the possibility of honest disagreement with you on a very real and specific question: what Jesus meant.
Nor is your interpretation one which makes a whole lot of sense -- if Jesus' actual intention was for all of us to ``sell whatever
[we] have'', after all, who would we sell it to? And what effect would such a sale actually have? Would a massive glut of used
goods on the market combined with a massive decline in consumption actually help the poor? Or would it take away such jobs as are
available now? Can such redistribution actually create wealth? Can the lot of the poor actually be better improved by a redistribution of
a fixed amount of capital than by constant creation of new capital, new jobs, and new wealth?
And if this is not, in fact, a literal commandment, does not your argument rather fall apart? If I open a factory, am I not doing much
more to help ``the poor'', many of whom will now have jobs which will last far longer than the original seed capital would have lasted
if given to charity (or taxes!) directly? Why does Jesus' commandment always mean giving men fish to you, and not teaching them to fish -- or offering
to buy such fish as they may catch at market price?
And this arrogance is not confined to this issue -- throughout your post, you speak of people being `brainwashed' or supporting
conservative policies `despite' the issue of poverty, when in actuality you are faced with the fact that the vast majority of
people disagree with you that massive tax hikes (including the ones Dean is calling for) are anywhere near as helpful to the poor
as the economic growth which such hikes stifle.
Nor, with all the death, misery, and oppression caused in the last century by those calling themselves socialists (many of whom
did not call themselves communists at all) is it any more use for you to say ``I support socialism, but not communism' -- if you
were to tell us that you ``support fascism, just not Nazism'', you would not be taken seriously, and I see zero difference, save
perhaps that the socialists were allowed to commit their crimes in many more places than the fascists were, and thus succeeded in killing and
enslaving many more people.
Finally, on the questions of your statements on poverty, here are some of the things you've said:
The very rich... [earlier `brainwashing' insults deleted per your commitment to a more civil tone]... are winning.
Do you want to aid them on their greedy path to riots, or do you want a superior quality of life?
and
I know many Christians who think abortion is wrong and
gravitate to the G.O.P. because of it, rationalizing their giveaways to the rich because of that one very emotional issue. I wonder if
you are in that category.
and
Is abortion a more important issue to you than poverty?
All of which, I would say, show a clear unwillingness on your part to acknowledge that the disagreement here is not whether `poverty' or
`quality of life' is important, but whether the American system of
capitalism, which has produced a better answer to poverty (in what other country in the world
are `poor' neighborhoods full of lincoln navigators, widescreen tvs and cell phones?) and to
quality of life than any other, is worth keeping, or must be dumped in the interest of higher
taxes and quaint homilies about `equality' (of outcome, of course -- never of opportunity).
But this is grist for another post, which I shall write in response to your other one.:-)
More generally, the arrogance I noted above is fully on display in this post
of yours -- for you, anyone who doesn't agree with you that two quotes (only
one from the Christ) misinterpreted and taken out of context do not outweight the entire remainder
of the teachings of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in both testaments
does not `give credence to the words of Jesus'.
Likewise, anyone who disagrees with you that a system which murdered one hundred
million people in the last century, primarily the poor, and brought misery wherever it went, primarily
to the poor, is the best thing to be done for the `poor' in America `doesn't care
about poverty'.
I mean really, that doesn't even pass the laugh test.
Again, each of the other socialist regimes I named was perfectly willing to come
to power on various theoretical reasons why the regimes which had gone before
were not `real' socialism. I see no reason why you should expect to be taken any
more seriously pushing your brand of `real socialism' than you would be if you came
to us with some theoretical justification why national socialism was not `real fascism', and
asked us to give fascism another chance.
As for your specific questions:
I do not ascribe to your interpretation of the quotes you have taken out of context. Nor have
any but a radical fringe of Christianity throughout history. I find the Quaker idea that Jesus,
who after all told us to render unto Caesar only that which was Caesar's intended socialism as
absurd as the Quaker idea that Jesus, who regularly used military analogies in his preaching, and
who personally drove the money changers from the temple with a whip of cords, intended us to
be pacifists in the fact of evil and oppression.
As for poverty, to answer the remainder of your questions in one blow, I believe that job creation
and economic growth are what solve poverty, and I believe that in the American system they have
already, by and large, done so. Yes, that's what I mean: no one in the United States today
is `poor' in any historically or internationally meaningful sense of the word at all. The
`poor' in America wear designer clothes, drive cars (to be `poor' is to drive a Hyundai instead of
a Lincoln), have homes, refrigerators, televisions, and ``all the fixings''.
More to the point, I believe that systems such as welfare, for which you advocate massive tax hikes,
have consistently worsened the condition of the poor, both by breeding dependency and discouraging
industriousness, and by taking investment capital and spending money out of the economy which could have
done much more to eliminate poverty.
I'm also, incidentally, fascinated by the basic arrogance of your position. As long
as you stick to the idea that no one could possibly interpret the Bible differently
than you do except through ignorance or bad faith (nevermind that you belong to a sect which interprets the Bible
drastically differently than the vast majority of Christians over the last nearly 2000
years), you will never have an honest appraisal of anyone else's beliefs, and your position
will thus be as uncivil and unpersuasive as it is arrogant.
Likewise, as long as you think those who support capitalism do so out of personal greed or
out of having been brainwashed, and fail to see that us capitalists are capitalists exactly
because capitalism provides more improvement in standards of living for the poor as well as
the rich, you will never have an honest understanding of the position you are arguing against,
and your argument will be likewise uncivil and upersuasive.
When you stop expecting others to take it as a given that capitalism is bad for the poor (it isn't),
and stop thinking that those of us who are conservatives must be conservatives `despite' capitalism,
you may understand the position of those of us who see how America has produced more liberty,
more democracy, and more prosperity at all levels of society than other system in the world's
history and rejoice.
Again, you persist in providing anecdotal prices from a single field
(real estate) in lieu of any actual statement of cost of living. As I
already pointed out, if anecdotes are proof, then the cost of gas in
Scandinavia means that the cost of living is two to four times higher
there.
Likewise
you persist in counting Swedes receiving sub-minimum wage from government
workfare as `employed' (the difference between `registered' and `total'
unemployed, which we have discussed repeatedly), even though the Swedish
government itself describes total unemployment as 7.9%.
Neither of these tactics reflects very well on your position. Don't you
think maybe you should step back, look for some actual data to back up
your claims, and then try again?
I think you really don't get this -- if someone were to come to you, and explain
that you should embrace this philosophy he had called fascism because it was better,
but we should ignore the millions of people murdered by fascists in the last century
because that was not real fascism, but Nazism, I (as most people) would tell him to
go boil his head.
Very similarly, if you come to me and tell me that I should be a socialist, despite
the tens of millions of people murdered by socialists in the last century because
those were not real socialists, I (as most people) will tell you to go boil your
head.
If you wish to associate yourself with murder, poverty, and oppression, that is your
right -- I won't even tell you not to -- but you should not expect to be taken very
seriously if you do so.
And if the endpoint of this discussion is that Howard Dean is the preferred candidate
of people who want socialism in the US, well, that's useful information to.
Yup, keep saying that -- I'm sure people will consider your claim to be just
as correct as your claim that Bush was president in 2000 -- though not more.:-)
Slashdot Mirror
You do realize you're quoting unweighted figures, right?
Were you to look at the figures for real GDP growth, you would see that the GDP shrunk half a percent in 2000Q3. If you go to the monthly figures, you will likewise see that the real GDP shrunk steadily through January of 2001, even though Bush was not sworn in until the end of the third week of January, and did not have an economic team in place for some time thereafter.
I had worried that one major misunderstanding on your part per post was too high a rate for you to keep up. I'm somehow gratified to see that it wasn't.
Good day.
This just gets better and better. I'm referring, of course to this `bon mot' of yours:
-- as if the latter were anything but a result of the former, or could be fixed without fixing the former.Heh. Hehehehehe.
The rest of your post, including your assertion that we shouldn't listen to the official economic figures, because they come from `the man' or something, but should instead get our economic information from left-leaning think tanks of dubious funding, and your quoting of data from such sources after Jhon has just pointed you to the actual numbers, hardly bears a response.
Nothing I could say could possibly make such statements from your post look any less serious than they already do.
Jhon has already dissected your points, so I'd only like to point out how laughable your response to him is -- in your view we're not supposed to take the Commerce Department's own numbers because they're ``the man'' or something, but any lefty think tank you stumble on must be telling The Truth.
That doesn't even pass the laugh test.
Even more to the point, Jhon has shown that UCLA (hardly a bastion of right-wing ideology) had projected (accurately) the Clinton recession as early as December 2000, based on the contraction which had already occured in the previous quarter. Even if you believe Bush `caused' the recession, to assert that that negative growth, which began in 2000Q3, and continued in 2001 even before the day of Bush's inauguration, was somehow caused by Bush is laughable. Truly laughable.
Your attempt to blame `fear of Bush' for these stock market contractions is even more laughable. Looking at the Dow's historical performance, we can see that:
And then, as if you were concerned that you had not yet made yourself look sufficiently ridiculous, you assert that the decline in the stock market from 2000 through 2002 (also starting on Clinton's watch, though you previously ridiculed the idea that Clinton might be to blame for the recession from which Bush recently drove a stunning recovery) was ``the cause'' of the Clinton recession -- as if this causality could only flow in one direction.
So again, I'd say you've already shown your unseriousness to those reading this thread.
Good day.
I do blame Clinton for the recession which began during his presidency -- and I would credit him had he managed to turn it around. But he didn't, and Bush did, so Bush deserves the credit for turning it around.
But other than that, your chronology falls flat -- eight months (the period from the economy's peak some time in July 1990 until consistent growth began again in March of 1991) is not three quarters, even if it does begin on a quarter boundary, and in any case you're counting the entire period of slowing, rather than the period of negative real GDP growth.
Also, you are aware that the NBER is a private think tank, and not an official measure of anything, right? And that this fact, combined with their reticence about revealing who pays their budget makes it particularly interesting that they use a definition of `recession' so different from that in the dictionary?
So again, your average is holding at one gaffe per post of yours -- do you really want to keep this up?
Inasmuch as a `recession' is defined as ``three consecutive quarters of falling real gross national product'', to claim, as you believe this graph does, that a recession occured for one quarter in late '91 is a meaningless statement. One suspects, of course, that you chose to link to an image alone and not the article from which it came because the article would have made this fact clear.
Of course, we can always take your definition of `recession', for the sake of argument. If we do, we see that even by your definition, the `recession' of '91 ended during the presidency of George H. W. Bush. So as a final gaffe in your series of gaffes, you have made exactly the point which you were trying to oppose: that Clinton cannot be credited for the economic growth of the nineties since it began before he was president.
To whatever extent you want to keep making these posts, you're welcome to, but as you're now averaging about one major gaffe or misunderstanding per post, doing so is certainly not serving to reduce the impression that you are an unserious (and rather confused) person.
Good day.
Anyone who's read this thread to this point, of course, knows that what you `cited' so far as a guide to cost of living in Sweden and America are a few anecdotal quotes as to apartment prices in a few places in Sweden -- to which you compared two of the highest-priced real estate markets in the US, and still found a difference less than the difference between Swedish and American salaries.
You're similarly evasive in your new claims here: How does linking to a gif image of a graph of job creation in the seventies and eighties tell us anything about anyone's definition of a recession. Are you confused? Or are you trying to show that you haven't run out of silly gaffes to make in this threa?
Really, at this point, anyone reading this thread knows what your opinions on politics (from your claim that free speech is less important than free drugs to your claim that Bush deserves no credit for an economic recovery which began on his watch, but Clinton deserves all credit for years of growth which began in 1985, to your belief that what Americans need to make their life better is more taxes (!)) and knows from what level of knowledge (from confusion between per capita GDP and mean salary to odd ideas about which month elections are held in the US (March? really?)) you are speaking.
Nothing I could say at this point would demonstrate your basic unseriousness and state of confusion better than you have already done, so I won't try.
Good day.
As I said, I think the readers of this thread have more than enough information to judge your position and my description of it. That you repeat your statement that imprisoning drug users bothers you more than fining people for taking unpopular political positions, even while continuing your claim that `no really, your socialism will be different from all those other socialisms which murdered and oppressed all those millions of people' only cements the point.
That your assertion that there was a recession in the early nineties, by the way (hint: words have meanings, js7a, and a recession is defined as three consecutive quarters of zero or negative growth), rather than a brief period of slowed growth which ended well before the end of George H. W. Bush's presidency, and your failure to provide a single statistical measure of Swedish or American cost of living (which would have to differ by a factor of at least four to substantiate your claim) provide two more such gaffes on your part only heightens the amusement value of your post...
So as I said, I think you've said quite enough to show anyone reading this where you stand. Good day.
That's a mighty high horse for someone who:
- Believes that free speech and the right to take unpopular positions are unimportant compared to the `right' to do drugs
- Doesn't know the difference between per capita GDP and mean income
- Thinks US gubernatorial elections are held in March (do you vote?)
- Thinks a weak dollar (which boosts domestic sales and US exports) is worse than a strong dollar (which harms domestic sales) during an economic
recovery
- Believes that Clinton should be credited for an economic boom which started in 1985, but Bush should receive no credit for an economic turnaround
which began while he was president
- Thinks that socialism, having only killed 100 million people in the last century, deserves another chance.
- Believes that a Swede earning 12,000 a year is not poor, but an American earning four times that is
I'd say by now the readers of this thread have more than enough information to evaluate the dream world you've constructed for yourself.Good day.
You're really asking if the crime rate and standard of living in the US are better than in 1980?
Do you even remember 1980? Have you ever lived in New York or LA?
As for voting, have you read the article you posted? It mentions the lawsuit in passing (also not specifying what counties are being sued or on what charges), and then, as with your last post, goes on to the author's own accusations.And then you go on to the alleged `spoiler effect', but this is nothing but democracy in action, as we've discussed. If people actually wanted Gore more than Bush, or Bush more than Gore, they would not have voted for Nader or Buchanan. In real life, both Nader and Buchanan campaigned on the idea that their was no useful difference between Bush and Gore, and those who voted for them agreed. To suggest that a European-style system, which gives undue voice to tiny minority parties despised by the general population is somehow better than this makes no sense at all, as far as I can tell.
And finally, back to Sweden: we have just seen that by the Swedish government's own numbers, salaries in general in Sweden are between a quarter and a half of what they are here, and salaries for skilled positions (such as Senior Programmer) are often as little as a tenth what they are here. In response to this, you've repeatedly asserted, without a scrap of evidence, that the Swedish cost-of-living is lower than the US by more than this (i.e. by more than a factor of two to four). If this is really your claim (and so far, the only example you've given us is one or two cheap apartments in Sweden, while acknowledging that gasoline is four times as expensive there), you need to put up some evidence.
But again, throughout this thread, you've considered yourself above such fact-checking, since for you it suffices to assert that those who disagree with you are either `deceived' or acting for their own interests -- an odd claim for someone who himself commits such gaffes as declaring free speech unimportant next to free drugs, confusing per capita GDP with mean income, stating that US gubernatorial debates are held in March, believing that a strong dollar (which discourages domestic consumption) is better than a weak dollar (which helps domestic markets and US exports) for an economic recovery, and so forth.
I'd say that by now those reading this thread have more than enough information to evaluate the manichean dream-world you've constructed for yourself.
Good day.
Actually no -- I watched Dean on ``Hardball'' myself long before reading Krauthammer's column, and found Dean's remarks offensive at the time (and Krauthammer's interpretation fair). After all, here's Dean saying that he's worried about `corporate penetration' in the case of News Corp., which has 8% market share and owns none of its own distribution channels, but not in the case of, say, CNN, which (through Time Warner) owns almost all of its own distribution channels?
That doesn't even pass the laugh test...
As for free speech, I'll say again: If the right to voice unpopular opinions without being punished is less important to you than the right to do drugs without going to jail, I'd say the readers of this thread have all the information they need to judge whether your brand of socialism is really as compatible with freedom and democracy as you claim.
You're confused -- many of us conservatives stayed home in '92 because we were disappointed with George H. W. Bush, who had raised taxes and wimped out in Iraq. Very few indeed were `cocky' or even particularly enthusiastic about the sitting president.
But I suspect you're too young to remember that. :-)
Again, you're confused here -- you have never shown a single statement on my part that abortion is my deciding factor on any issue.
However, if it answers your question: I would vote for a candidate who wanted capitalism but would continue to allow abortion over a candidate who wanted socialism but would ban abortion, without a moment's hesitation. I would likewise vote for a candidate who would defend the US aggressively against terrorism but would continue to allow abortion over a candidate who would appease our enemies and weaken our defenses, again without a moment's hesitation.
I say this, not because I believe abortion is desirable, but because I believe that either of socialism or a weak defense against terrorism would result in far more American deaths than abortion ever has.
I'd ask you a mirror question, however: although you've asserted that socialism does not harm democracy and human rights, you have also asserted that you consider a nation where marijuana is free, but free speech is punished to be `more free' than a nation with free speech but prohibition of marijuana.
Do you likewise consider socialism more important than free speech? Is this why you are backing a candidate (Dean) who has said he will use government agencies like the FCC to go after television networks he disagrees with?
Here we go again -- your ideological slip is showing once more.
You believe that the words of Jesus mean one thing. Most Christians believe that they mean something else. Your response? To claim that those Christians aren't listening to the words of Jesus, but to something else.
You take, for instance, a different view of what Jesus meant than the apostles did. Could the apostles be wrong, and you be right? Of course. While unlikely (since in his life and at the Pentecost Christ personally inspired the apostles, while you know of his life only through the writings of those apostles), this would be possible. But would any sane reader of this thread conclude that you understand Christ better than those who spoke with him in person merely on your assertion, without you providing any argument why they were wrong? I doubt it.
And yet you turn around and apply the same `logic' to your politics. You assert that we should believe that you are correct, while ``everyone else is being fooled'' (mirroring the logic of the lunatic who tells us that he is sane and `everyone else is crazy'), and hold this as a reason why you should not be held to the same basic standards of reason (that you attempt to understand and refute your opponents position, not merely assert that it is dishonest) as everyone else.
That such an assertion of near-infallibility on your part is accompanied by such basic errors as confusing per capita GDP with mean income, or asserting that US gubernatorial elections are held in March, merely heightens the absurdity of the situation.
Thus, as I said before, until you overcome this juvenile and escapist dishonesty, I am not going to waste much effort responding to your posts. When you show that you can honestly state and attempt to refute the positions you disagree with, then you will have shown yourself a serious enough person to be worth further debate.
I'm rather disappointed that you remain entirely unwilling to consider the possibility that anyone might honestly disagree with you ``on the issues''. To the extent which you believe that no one could believe in prohibition of hard drugs without doing so for greedy personal reasons, and to the extent to which you refuse to realize that people (in fact, the vast majority of people) disagree with you on economics not because they have been `brainwashed' or otherwise duped, but because they honestly differ with you on what works, you will never have an honest grounding for your own position.
Thus, with each post in which you exercise this juvenile and escapist close-mindedness, I find myself taking your position far less seriously, not more. Someone who tells me that I do not hold my position honestly has already foreclosed for himself any opportunity to question the perfectly legitimate and honest reasons (however mistaken those who honestly disagree may find them), and thus has foreclosed any useful discussion which might have occurred.
With this in mind, I'm unlikely to spend any more time on this thread after this round until you show some ability to comprehend and disagree with views you oppose, rather than dismiss them or impute their motives. I may, time permitting, continue to point out factual errors in your position (including your assertions, so far, that gubernatorial elections are held in March, that per capita GDP is the same thing as mean income, that a falling dollar harms, rather than helps economic recovery (hint: Alan Greenspan has spent a lot of time cutting interest rates to keep the dollar low, because a low dollar boosts US goods in both domestic and foreign markets, and thus spurs job creation), and so on), but that will be the limit of my participation -- I will have been wrong in judging that you had anything more than `khasim' to bring to this thread.
Now, to give it one last round, on to your post:
Freedom: If you are really of the opinion that freedom of expression and the right to hold unpopular political positions are less important than legalization of hard drugs, you have just confirmed, in spades, my statement that socialism is a system which destroys human rights when implemented. I think you should consider this statement, and tell us what you could possibly have meant by suggesting such a thing.
Even with this bizarre stance of yours, I find it fascinating that in order to boost your claim that ``nonviolent drug offenses'' are the norm, you cite total drug crime numbers -- including production, dealing, drug-related racketeering, and so forth. Which do you think is more likely? That CJCJ doesn't have the real numbers on non-violent drug incarcerations, or that the real numbers don't support their case, so they don't use them?
So, I repeat -- if your idea of ``more free'' than we are now is a country where drugs are more loosely prohibited, but unpopular opinions are punished and unpopular politicians can be murdered in the street after the police refuse to protect them, well...
Democracy: We can note, for starters, that one of the sites you choose to direct us to to find out about `democracy' is from Greg Palast, who is far better known for his advocacy of the theory that Bush carried out 9/11 than for voting rights issues. Do you consider this theory of Mr. Palast's viable as well? If so, of course, you will have completely clinched my opinion that you are not a serious person. If not, I'd say we can both agree that there is no reason to believe that Mr. Palast is applying any higher a standard of honesty and accuracy to the subject of voting rights than he has applied to the attacks on New York and Washington.
Aside from Mr. Palast's work, you cite an LA Times article pointing out that the Justice Department is allegedly considering a lawsuit against three Florida counties for unspecified voting problems -- and yet t
Patience, patience, `js7a'. I don't think there are any of your posts or points to which I have not replied at this point, including the one you repeat here. Read my responses, and then decide how you wish to reply.
In light, both of the issues of tone and of position which I've raised here and here (and of the overlap between that post and here), I think you should look over this post, reconsider it's content (and particularly tone), and decide if much of this post is what you meant to say, in particularly the following points:
- What percentage of their income do you think the rich spend on `vacations'?
- Do you think the word ``only'' (admittedly mistaken in haste) makes a difference in the quote? I.e. do you think that
``Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.'' also means ``Render
unto Caesar the things which are not Caesar's''? ``Compel others by force to Render unto Caesar the things
which are not Caesar's''?
- Do you really believe that the following describes an act of non-violence:
- Do you believe that the admonition to turn the other cheek includes an admonition not to use your strength to prevent it when others
are being slaughtered?
- Do you believe that Christ accepted suicide, and would have considered allowing someone to cut your throat to be acceptable, in the name
of ``turning the other cheek''? If so, why did Christ evade the authorities until betrayed by Judas Iscariot?
- Do you believe that when one says ``a whip is for cracking, not for cutting'', this is an assertion that a whip is not a tool of violence,
or an assertion that the threat of violence should be used when it suffices? Do you believe that a `scourge' is the same type of
whip a cowboy uses? How does this relate to your earlier claims about the whipping of slaves?
- Isn't it true that a family which qualified as ``food insecure with hunger'' would still be meeting a nutritional standard not available
to even the middle class in much of the world?
- Having read my other posts and hopefully considered the matter, do you think your assertion that those who differ from you on the
interpretation of the Bible are ``jumping through hoops'' for greedy and personal reasons is correct?
- Have you actually ever lived with ``the poor'' and seen how they live in any meaningful sense? Have you, as I have, lived in places like Harlem, Prospect Park (before
gentrification) and Union City, New Jersey?
- Have you ever tried to raise a family in this country before deciding how much of their income other people should be willing to give up?
- Do you think Clinton's tax hikes, both explicit (and large) and implicit (by refusing to authorize the usual per-decade re-indexing of tax
brackets against inflation, thus driving many middle-class Americans into the highest tax brackets) had nothing to do with the recession which
began in May of 2000?
On that note, we're decorating our Christmas tree with the children tonight, so it's very unlikely you'll hear more from me before tomorrow. Please take some time to read the two posts linked above, consider their content, and then decide how (and in what tone) you want to answer these questions.Now, on to the first half of your post, though if you skip this response, I shall be disappointed.
You begin thus:
I don't really intend to comment on your question of why different interpretations of the Bible are possible, as I don't think you have yet really honestly acknowledged that interpretations might honestly differ. So far, in fact, you have waved aside interpretations of Christ's words which have been taken by greats from St. Augustine to Thomas Aquinas, from St. Athanasius and St. John Chrysostom to Reinhold Niebuhr and C. S. Lewis, and attempted to wave them away with a rhetorical trick, to wit:
and (elsewhere):
and (also elsewhere):
If it is really your assertion that those over history who have disagreed with you have done so, not by disagreeing with you on the meaning of Christ's statements, but by taking other portions of the Bible `over' Christ's words or by not understanding what they were reading, then you hold your belief on much shakier grounds than you think you do. If you believe that no other interpretation of Christ's words is possible, after all, you equally cut yourself off from any grounds to usefully disagree with those of us (and the vast majority of Christians fall in this category), who disagree with your interpretation.
I won't even dignify your claim that having been persecuted grants your interpretation credence, by the way -- by that argument we would all be Jews (as I was), or Puritans (as some of my ancestors were, also settling here when tortured and expelled from England) and those of us who are Orthodox Christians, of a faith which faced a millenium of persecution under the Turk would have more claim on correctness than you would. Let us say, instead, that we shall rest our arguments on Christ's meaning on rational investigation, and on the traditions handed down through a church which has existed continuously since the Resurection and the Pentecost, and surely we will be closer to the Truth than we should be through any mere contest as to who had been most oppressed down through the years...
You'll note that I skippd a point of yours above -- we'll get there at the end of this post.
You then continue:
Philosophically, the two are, of course, exclusive. You either believe that
I'd say your last three paragraphs here display a rather jaundiced and inaccurate view of life in the US, so, in the spirit of Jeane Kirkpatrick's witticism that it is important for Americans to `face the truth about themselves, no matter how pleasant it is', I'd like to address a few of the points you make there before speaking to the questions you raise earlier in your post.
You begin by saying:
which is certainly an improvement in tone from a few posts back, when you were suggesting that any who disagreed with Dean's plan for tax hikes were themselves abusing prescription drugs, but still falls short of being a really weighty point. :-)
First off, we can probably both agree that some prohibition, particularly of marijuana is a bad idea -- no, don't bug your eyes out when I say that: remember that National Review and the Wall Street Journal are just about the only mainstream venues calling for decriminilization of marijuana -- but this is true not because of the number of people in jail for marijuana use, but because the criminalization of such a substance (whether or not it's use is a good idea -- it's not) is a bad idea, and one which, in the case of lesser drugs such as marijuana, almost certainly does more harm than good to the state of the rule of law in the US.
But smoking a joint is hardly the most dangerous and damaging activity for the government to prohibit, so let's look at the state of civil liberties in the countries which you claim are `more free' than the US:
England:
Now don't get me wrong, I like England -- I value them as an ally, and I've lived and worked in London at several points. But if you think that England is somehow `more free' than the US, you're mistaken.
We are, after all, talking about a country which has:
England is also facing legislation which would eliminate the right to a jury trial for most or all offenses,
conclusion: friendlier to drugs, perhaps -- but certainly not `more free'.
Netherlands:
While Amsterdam is certainly pot-friendly, the Netherlands are not otherwise a particularly civil rights utopia. To start with, the Dutch have extensive laws providing for punishment of unpopular positions in the name of preventing `hate speech' (one preacher, for example, was recently fined a substantial amount of money for advocating caps on immigration). And that's not even asking why the Dutch police refused to provide protection to a popular but controversial politician who had received death threats, and who was murdered shortly thereafter.
Conclusion: drug-friendly for sure, but `more free'? Only if your opinions are popular.
Denmark:
Her
This is exactly what I'm talking about -- faced with someone who disagrees with you about the meaning of Jesus's words, you purport that you are facing someone who values words of others over those of Jesus. This shows an essentially arrogant aproach, in that you discount the possibility of honest disagreement with you on a very real and specific question: what Jesus meant.
Nor is your interpretation one which makes a whole lot of sense -- if Jesus' actual intention was for all of us to ``sell whatever [we] have'', after all, who would we sell it to? And what effect would such a sale actually have? Would a massive glut of used goods on the market combined with a massive decline in consumption actually help the poor? Or would it take away such jobs as are available now? Can such redistribution actually create wealth? Can the lot of the poor actually be better improved by a redistribution of a fixed amount of capital than by constant creation of new capital, new jobs, and new wealth?
And if this is not, in fact, a literal commandment, does not your argument rather fall apart? If I open a factory, am I not doing much more to help ``the poor'', many of whom will now have jobs which will last far longer than the original seed capital would have lasted if given to charity (or taxes!) directly? Why does Jesus' commandment always mean giving men fish to you, and not teaching them to fish -- or offering to buy such fish as they may catch at market price?
And this arrogance is not confined to this issue -- throughout your post, you speak of people being `brainwashed' or supporting conservative policies `despite' the issue of poverty, when in actuality you are faced with the fact that the vast majority of people disagree with you that massive tax hikes (including the ones Dean is calling for) are anywhere near as helpful to the poor as the economic growth which such hikes stifle.
Nor, with all the death, misery, and oppression caused in the last century by those calling themselves socialists (many of whom did not call themselves communists at all) is it any more use for you to say ``I support socialism, but not communism' -- if you were to tell us that you ``support fascism, just not Nazism'', you would not be taken seriously, and I see zero difference, save perhaps that the socialists were allowed to commit their crimes in many more places than the fascists were, and thus succeeded in killing and enslaving many more people.
Finally, on the questions of your statements on poverty, here are some of the things you've said:
and and All of which, I would say, show a clear unwillingness on your part to acknowledge that the disagreement here is not whether `poverty' or `quality of life' is important, but whether the American system of capitalism, which has produced a better answer to poverty (in what other country in the world are `poor' neighborhoods full of lincoln navigators, widescreen tvs and cell phones?) and to quality of life than any other, is worth keeping, or must be dumped in the interest of higher taxes and quaint homilies about `equality' (of outcome, of course -- never of opportunity).But this is grist for another post, which I shall write in response to your other one. :-)
More generally, the arrogance I noted above is fully on display in this post of yours -- for you, anyone who doesn't agree with you that two quotes (only one from the Christ) misinterpreted and taken out of context do not outweight the entire remainder of the teachings of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in both testaments does not `give credence to the words of Jesus'.
Likewise, anyone who disagrees with you that a system which murdered one hundred million people in the last century, primarily the poor, and brought misery wherever it went, primarily to the poor, is the best thing to be done for the `poor' in America `doesn't care about poverty'.
I mean really, that doesn't even pass the laugh test.
Again, each of the other socialist regimes I named was perfectly willing to come to power on various theoretical reasons why the regimes which had gone before were not `real' socialism. I see no reason why you should expect to be taken any more seriously pushing your brand of `real socialism' than you would be if you came to us with some theoretical justification why national socialism was not `real fascism', and asked us to give fascism another chance.
As for your specific questions:
I do not ascribe to your interpretation of the quotes you have taken out of context. Nor have any but a radical fringe of Christianity throughout history. I find the Quaker idea that Jesus, who after all told us to render unto Caesar only that which was Caesar's intended socialism as absurd as the Quaker idea that Jesus, who regularly used military analogies in his preaching, and who personally drove the money changers from the temple with a whip of cords, intended us to be pacifists in the fact of evil and oppression.
As for poverty, to answer the remainder of your questions in one blow, I believe that job creation and economic growth are what solve poverty, and I believe that in the American system they have already, by and large, done so. Yes, that's what I mean: no one in the United States today is `poor' in any historically or internationally meaningful sense of the word at all. The `poor' in America wear designer clothes, drive cars (to be `poor' is to drive a Hyundai instead of a Lincoln), have homes, refrigerators, televisions, and ``all the fixings''.
More to the point, I believe that systems such as welfare, for which you advocate massive tax hikes, have consistently worsened the condition of the poor, both by breeding dependency and discouraging industriousness, and by taking investment capital and spending money out of the economy which could have done much more to eliminate poverty.
I'm also, incidentally, fascinated by the basic arrogance of your position. As long as you stick to the idea that no one could possibly interpret the Bible differently than you do except through ignorance or bad faith (nevermind that you belong to a sect which interprets the Bible drastically differently than the vast majority of Christians over the last nearly 2000 years), you will never have an honest appraisal of anyone else's beliefs, and your position will thus be as uncivil and unpersuasive as it is arrogant.
Likewise, as long as you think those who support capitalism do so out of personal greed or out of having been brainwashed, and fail to see that us capitalists are capitalists exactly because capitalism provides more improvement in standards of living for the poor as well as the rich, you will never have an honest understanding of the position you are arguing against, and your argument will be likewise uncivil and upersuasive.
When you stop expecting others to take it as a given that capitalism is bad for the poor (it isn't), and stop thinking that those of us who are conservatives must be conservatives `despite' capitalism, you may understand the position of those of us who see how America has produced more liberty, more democracy, and more prosperity at all levels of society than other system in the world's history and rejoice.
Again, you persist in providing anecdotal prices from a single field (real estate) in lieu of any actual statement of cost of living. As I already pointed out, if anecdotes are proof, then the cost of gas in Scandinavia means that the cost of living is two to four times higher there.
Likewise you persist in counting Swedes receiving sub-minimum wage from government workfare as `employed' (the difference between `registered' and `total' unemployed, which we have discussed repeatedly), even though the Swedish government itself describes total unemployment as 7.9%.
Neither of these tactics reflects very well on your position. Don't you think maybe you should step back, look for some actual data to back up your claims, and then try again?
I think you really don't get this -- if someone were to come to you, and explain that you should embrace this philosophy he had called fascism because it was better, but we should ignore the millions of people murdered by fascists in the last century because that was not real fascism, but Nazism, I (as most people) would tell him to go boil his head.
Very similarly, if you come to me and tell me that I should be a socialist, despite the tens of millions of people murdered by socialists in the last century because those were not real socialists, I (as most people) will tell you to go boil your head.
If you wish to associate yourself with murder, poverty, and oppression, that is your right -- I won't even tell you not to -- but you should not expect to be taken very seriously if you do so.
And if the endpoint of this discussion is that Howard Dean is the preferred candidate of people who want socialism in the US, well, that's useful information to.
Yup, keep saying that -- I'm sure people will consider your claim to be just as correct as your claim that Bush was president in 2000 -- though not more. :-)