Fatal flaw...

[Larry Gude]

...I had a very interesting, robust and spirited conversation over the weekend with some young folks. Very smart, very articulate, educated and, one in particular, very, very educated.

The subjects ranged from the mosque at ground zero, FOX news bias vs. the rest of the media's bias, government transparency, global warming/environmentalism, Islam in general, and the wars and whether or not they are Holy Wars.

Without writing a book about it which I, happily could, the one thing that mattered most, that really has deep implications, is the view that, on the one hand, we, per our Constitution, should have absolute fealty to it and have no objections to the location of the mosque whatsoever in terms of opposing it.

On the other hand, is the cavalier position that most Muslims see Islam and extremism the same way most Christians see Christianity and it's extremism; that most of us are smart, reasonable people that just wanna get along and don't take all this religious stuff literally or all that seriously.

Clearly, there is the religious freedom to practice ones faith as they choose...in this country. However, that does not address the issue of what you can do, when and where and the counter argument of civility; just because you can, should you?

I found and pointed out the inconsistency of, on the one hand, arguing that we should take our founding documents very seriously and very literally, at least as regards religious freedom, and, on the other hand, the convinced opinion that they, Muslims, won't. That our sensibilities and bias' should and do take a back seat to our rules and laws vs. those of Islam will be interpreted literally and moderately.

These is a core weakness and danger, that I see, of progressive ideology; we should be literal and they won't be. Whoopie and Bahar motivated me to pursue this argument further. They are towering examples of this mind set in action. They are free to speak. They would not be in a Muslim nation. Not to a man. Not like that.

So much for yet another flimsy, and dangerous, progressive construct.

 

[Vince]

...I had a very interesting, robust and spirited conversation over the weekend with some young folks. Very smart, very articulate, educated and, one in particular, very, very educated.

The subjects ranged from the mosque at ground zero, FOX news bias vs. the rest of the media's bias, government transparency, global warming/environmentalism, Islam in general, and the wars and whether or not they are Holy Wars.

Without writing a book about it which I, happily could, the one thing that mattered most, that really has deep implications, is the view that, on the one hand, we, per our Constitution, should have absolute fealty to it and have no objections to the location of the mosque whatsoever in terms of opposing it.

On the other hand, is the cavalier position that most Muslims see Islam and extremism the same way most Christians see Christianity and it's extremism; that most of us are smart, reasonable people that just wanna get along and don't take all this religious stuff literally or all that seriously.

Clearly, there is the religious freedom to practice ones faith as they choose...in this country. However, that does not address the issue of what you can do, when and where and the counter argument of civility; just because you can, should you?

I found and pointed out the inconsistency of, on the one hand, arguing that we should take our founding documents very seriously and very literally, at least as regards religious freedom, and, on the other hand, the convinced opinion that they, Muslims, won't. That our sensibilities and bias' should and do take a back seat to our rules and laws vs. those of Islam will be interpreted literally and moderately.

These is a core weakness and danger, that I see, of progressive ideology; we should be literal and they won't be. Whoopie and Bahar motivated me to pursue this argument further. They are towering examples of this mind set in action. They are free to speak. They would not be in a Muslim nation. Not to a man. Not like that.
So much for yet another flimsy, and dangerous, progressive construct.

In the Muslim world those two would have either been stoned or had their heads cut off.

 

[Larry Gude]

In the Muslim world those two would have either been stoned or had their heads cut off.

Point being, they would not have dared if they lived in the Muslim world.

The US, with all our flaws, gives this freedom to them, protects it. Progressivism is, typically, like a dependent teenager; it consumes what others have provided. It wants to crap its own diapers while expecting someone else to provide the diapers and clean up.

 

[glhs837]

Ha, that assumes they would have made to adulthood. Back in the Cold War, you could excuse someone who really didnt comprehend what daily life was like for citizens of the Soviet Bloc, finding that out required one to actually make an effort to gain the knowledge. But now, no effort at all is required to earn how fundamentalist Islam, note I did NOT say radical, just fundamentalist, treats females. Attempt to learn? Thats an acid attack to the face. Expect to be secure against maiming? Ha, no, we will mutilate you at will. For anyone, liberal or conservative, acting as if these things are not out there requires a conscious act of willing ignorance.

 

[Vince]

I am interested in what these young people had to say. Were they of a liberal mindset or a more conservative way? Were they tolerant of Muslims and their ways?

 

[Larry Gude]

I am interested in what these young people had to say. Were they of a liberal mindset or a more conservative way? Were they tolerant of Muslims and their ways?

Interesting mix. One, flat out said she likes communism, from each by their means, to each by their needs. She sees the hard work she does in waiting tables as having equal value to the hard work someone else does in higher paying fields of equal value in terms of effort being equal. To which, I threw the 800 pound monkey wrench into; "As determined by who?"

Another person would be described as liberal for the most part except he actually was supportive of the wars insofar as liberating and helping Iraq and A'stan throw off the shackles of those nations. To which I got out another 800 pound monkey wrench of how to lead the horse to water AND get it to drink.

Two others were about as hard core capitalist as it gets. Wanna eat? Earn it.

Good stuff.

As to the Muslim tolerance, as I say, for some, there was this faith that most Muslims see their faith as most Christians see ours; not literal. One of them pointed out the similarities between Islam and Christianity, that they are so very similar. I had yet another wrench and pointed out that Christians believe Christ to be divine, the son of God, not a man, and that Mohamed is seen to very much be a man who had divinity bequeathed divinity from Allah, from God. This was greeted with a 'huh, good point...'

 

[SamSpade]

Interesting mix. One, flat out said she likes communism, from each by their means, to each by their needs. She sees the hard work she does in waiting tables as having equal value to the hard work someone else does in higher paying fields of equal value in terms of effort being equal. To which, I threw the 800 pound monkey wrench into; "As determined by who?"

I have a niece who still believes a waitress should get a tip even if she does a poor job, because her wage is so small.

I never, ever, EVER meet anyone who believes we should all share everything equally that doesn't also think they'd hugely make out on such a deal. I never ever EVER meet anyone who believes the government should provide this or that service who doesn't basically get a lot more back than they would pay INTO it.

I don't think they ever work it very far out. A good way to look at it is to take an AVERAGE (not median) annual salary for an American - lop off about 10% for waste - and tell them that's their new salary. Fact is, nations which have implemented "from each" always end up distributing misery.

 

[Larry Gude]

I have a niece who still believes a waitress should get a tip even if she does a poor job, because her wage is so small.

I never, ever, EVER meet anyone who believes we should all share everything equally that doesn't also think they'd hugely make out on such a deal. I never ever EVER meet anyone who believes the government should provide this or that service who doesn't basically get a lot more back than they would pay INTO it.

I don't think they ever work it very far out. A good way to look at it is to take an AVERAGE (not median) annual salary for an American - lop off about 10% for waste - and tell them that's their new salary. Fact is, nations which have implemented "from each" always end up distributing misery.

That is core to socialism/communism; 'improvement' by lowering standards, lowering expectations. Make C's into A's. Take the margin you win a race over me by and give enough to me so we tie.

This is why the housing bubble; we lowered lending standards in order to loan money to people who, as a matter of fact, were less likely to be able to pay the loans.

Boehner, McConnell, they ain't gonna push this back. Bush warned of the coming disaster in April 2001 and then did nothing about it.

We are a socialist nation now and it's simply a matter of to what degree. :shrug:

 

[BernieP]

That is core to socialism/communism; 'improvement' by lowering standards, lowering expectations. Make C's into A's. Take the margin you win a race over me by and give enough to me so we tie.

A while back some talk show host did a man on the street interview in which his reporter asked the question that was a quote from Marx, (Karl, not Groucho). All of the young people said they agreed with that quote. The panic set in when they were told who was quoted. Only ONE out of a dozen or more actually admitted that they no problem with communist ideology. The rest simply ran from the reporter.

But we have raised at least one generation, if not more, where they believe that they are owed by society (i.e. "the government")/ They believe they should have the freedom to pursue what interests them rather then work for a living. They have no shame living off the sweat of another.

This is why the housing bubble; we lowered lending standards in order to loan money to people who, as a matter of fact, were less likely to be able to pay the loans.

Let's be politically incorrect and state exactly why this was done, it was to increase "minority" home ownership. And there were a lot of other people who over financed, some bought into the real estate sales pitch that the income tax break would offset the extra house they were buying, others tried to get into the "Flip this House" business and failed miserably.

Boehner, McConnell, they ain't gonna push this back. Bush warned of the coming disaster in April 2001 and then did nothing about it.

We are a socialist nation now and it's simply a matter of to what degree. :shrug:

But overall it was the goal of increasing the percent of Americans, particularly minorities, that drove the policy. That's why no politician can touch it, it's now an entitlement program like Social Security, Medicare and Welfare. Trying to aaply a logical and rational policy to a runaway program will only get you painted as a hater.

 

[Larry Gude]

Let's be politically incorrect and state exactly why this was done, it was to increase "minority" home ownership.

While that may be accurate, it is irrelevant. If ONLY minorities benefited from the Community Reinvestment Act then, we would have, at worst, a minor national problem that may be pretty bad in some of the big cities and surrounding areas but, on the whole, not much of an issue.

The VAST majority of people walking away from mortgages are white and decidedly not poor inner city folks. They, we, middle to upper middle class, educated whites are the ones that created this massive bubble.

This is a classic case of 'give 'em enough rope...'

We hung ourselves.

 

[Larry Gude]

But overall it was the goal of increasing the percent of Americans, particularly minorities, that drove the policy. That's why no politician can touch it, it's now an entitlement program like Social Security, Medicare and Welfare. Trying to aaply a logical and rational policy to a runaway program will only get you painted as a hater.

The goal and the reality, the 'unintended' consequences, are two different things. There is NO point in voting for a John McCain or a George Bush if they are simply cowards who will not do what needs to be done. There is a sickening preference among the right wing to be stabbed in the back by our own side rather than risk the unthinkable; the other guys winning and us being stuck having to find better candidates, candidates that just might have enough spine, and principle, to do the right thing once in awhile.

The reason why Bush warned of the coming disaster and did nothing about it is because of all the people who were making money off of it; developers, builders, home furnishers, pavers, any and every one involved in the boom including flower growers. We all benefited.

Now, I would argue that if we had had reasonable immigration policy, that alone would have forced wages higher, slowed the whole thing down some and been a whole lot healthier for the economy as a whole, sustained, slow, steady growth, rather than our love for gold rushes such as the .com and now the housing bubbles.

Tangled webs.

 

[vraiblonde]

I never, ever, EVER meet anyone who believes we should all share everything equally that doesn't also think they'd hugely make out on such a deal.

Sure you have. Hollywood celebrities do it all the time. Not that we actually see them giving all their earnings away and living on $150,000 a year, but they talk about it.

 

[chernmax]

Sure you have. Hollywood celebrities do it all the time. Not that we actually see them giving all their earnings away and living on $150,000 a year, but they talk about it.

Hollywood celebrities are mere pawns in the socialist indoctrination process, used for their star influence for the weak minded then once the 2 party system is achieved (Elitist verse Common people), they'll be herded and shot right next to the other none conformers because they'll no longer be needed.

History has documented this process already, that's why it's so important for the liberals and progressives to dominate the education system so that the history is not taught and they never see it coming. America needs to wake up and reject this B/S and call them out on it while they still can...

 

[SamSpade]

Sure you have. Hollywood celebrities do it all the time. Not that we actually see them giving all their earnings away and living on $150,000 a year, but they talk about it.

I hear ya, but I've never met one. People I know actually say these things, but every last one of them would come out ahead.

 

[hvp05]

One, flat out said she likes communism, from each by their means, to each by their needs. She sees the hard work she does in waiting tables as having equal value to the hard work someone else does in higher paying fields of equal value in terms of effort being equal. To which, I threw the 800 pound monkey wrench into; "As determined by who?"

Did she attempt to answer that?

I am curious how the effort of a waitress can be compared to the effort of a professional; how much effort is required to attain/maintain a low-level job versus a job that, by simple definition, requires years of higher education and specialization and determination.


All these progressive ideas are like houses built on popsicle sticks. As Sam said, they never seem to think things very far out - either because they don't want to face the realistic flaws or they just aren't that smart.

 

[Larry Gude]

Did she attempt to answer that?

I am curious how the effort of a waitress can be compared to the effort of a professional; how much effort is required to attain/maintain a low-level job versus a job that, by simple definition, requires years of higher education and specialization and determination.


All these progressive ideas are like houses built on popsicle sticks. As Sam said, they never seem to think things very far out - either because they don't want to face the realistic flaws or they just aren't that smart.

No. That conversation was pretty much over when I pointed that the pool of people who can wait a table is far larger than the pool that can build a rocket. She understands that difference but, her rationale is stuck, springs from knowing that she DOES work hard for her money, perhaps harder than the rocket scientist and that society OUGHT to reward that hard work. To which I said "It does, just not what you'd like it to so, who should decide what your work is worth?"

It becomes a circular argument at that point.

More interesting to me is that we also, Mr. Masters Degree and I, agreed that we want fully transparent government, any and all conversations say, Obama, has, to be on a live feed. That that would eliminate any and all spin and lying and cheating. Then, we'd see and could choose without the hidden agenda's and campaign baloney.

She disagreed with that idea and thinks there is lots we should not know, many things we're better off not knowing.

THAT got interesting.

 

[SamSpade]

No. That conversation was pretty much over when I pointed that the pool of people who can wait a table is far larger than the pool that can build a rocket. She understands that difference but, her rationale is stuck, springs from knowing that she DOES work hard for her money, perhaps harder than the rocket scientist and that society OUGHT to reward that hard work. To which I said "It does, just not what you'd like it to so, who should decide what your work is worth?"

I sometimes have this argument with my mom - who is a nursing administrator and former nurse - and relatives who are teachers, all of whom decry the fact that engineers, lawyers and doctors get paid better than they do, but believe personally that they provide a better service to mankind.

Inievitably it meanders into rock stars and sports, where people are paid millions. Vainly I try to explain that THEY make their money not for the value of their service so much as how much people are willing to pay to see it. I answer, so Lady Gaga made so many millions - would people pay the same amount to see you teach fifth grade? My most common answer is no but they should, which of course is ridiculous. I am sure there are sports stars who work hard but no one comes to see them, and rock musicians who sleep in cars and work all day, but no one listens to them. Money is what we get, usually from an agreed upon amount to do our jobs.

Economic disaster is what you get in communism when you decide that a factory worker with no skills should get paid MORE than a highly skilled surgeon who has spent decades perfecting his highly specialized craft. What happens? Surgeons decide it would be better to work in factories. If lawyers got paid waiter salaries (because it's assumed that the lawyer's compensation would drop, because no one would eat at a restaurant where the waiters got paid a LAWYER'S salary), they would stop bothering to practice law, partly because it would be impossible to continue, and partly because what would be the point?

But - like I said, these guys don't think these things out logically. Somewhere in their minds, there exists a utopian ideal that we need to strive for even if it flies in the face of simple mathematics and economics.

 

[Larry Gude]

I sometimes have this argument with my mom - who is a nursing administrator and former nurse - and relatives who are teachers, all of whom decry the fact that engineers, lawyers and doctors get paid better than they do, but believe personally that they provide a better service to mankind.

Inievitably it meanders into rock stars and sports, where people are paid millions. Vainly I try to explain that THEY make their money not for the value of their service so much as how much people are willing to pay to see it. I answer, so Lady Gaga made so many millions - would people pay the same amount to see you teach fifth grade? My most common answer is no but they should, which of course is ridiculous. I am sure there are sports stars who work hard but no one comes to see them, and rock musicians who sleep in cars and work all day, but no one listens to them. Money is what we get, usually from an agreed upon amount to do our jobs.

Economic disaster is what you get in communism when you decide that a factory worker with no skills should get paid MORE than a highly skilled surgeon who has spent decades perfecting his highly specialized craft. What happens? Surgeons decide it would be better to work in factories. If lawyers got paid waiter salaries (because it's assumed that the lawyer's compensation would drop, because no one would eat at a restaurant where the waiters got paid a LAWYER'S salary), they would stop bothering to practice law, partly because it would be impossible to continue, and partly because what would be the point?

But - like I said, these guys don't think these things out logically. Somewhere in their minds, there exists a utopian ideal that we need to strive for even if it flies in the face of simple mathematics and economics.

These two points are the bread and butter of what is wrong with us today; so many of us actually believe we should be able to tell one another what to do with our stuff; our lungs, our hearts, our property, our money. Then, we go about creating constructs to justify what is clearly wrong in a free land.

"They make too much!" "They don't actually earn it!" "They cheat!" and then, instead of addressing whether any of that is true and fixing it, they support policies that cement the power of those folks as long as there is a bone or two extracted from them thereby making themselves feel better while simultaneously making it just that much harder for anyone else to rise and excel or, frankly, to be more fairly paid for what they already feel they are under appreciated and under paid for.

Catch 22. Spiraling demise. aka 'stoooopid'.

 

[hvp05]

the pool of people who can wait a table is far larger than the pool that can build a rocket.

Good ol' supply and demand.

Economic disaster is what you get in communism when you decide that a factory worker with no skills should get paid MORE than a highly skilled surgeon who has spent decades perfecting his highly specialized craft. What happens? Surgeons decide it would be better to work in factories.

This recalls a conversation I had with a friend a while back. He was going on about a museum internship he held and how much he loved history and research. I noted that he did not talk much about his job - being a mechanical engineer - and questioned why he did not follow the museum career route. He chuckled and gave a simple answer: "I wouldn't be making nearly as much."

The great thing about a land of freedom is we have such choices. Not everyone can choose to be an engineer, or doctor, lawyer, etc. because a certain percentage of us, frankly, are not that intelligent. That begs the question, should the stupid be rewarded? How about the lazy and apathetic? If they are, why would ANYONE seek to better themselves? All impossible-to-answer questions for a progressive.

 

[SamSpade]

These two points are the bread and butter of what is wrong with us today;

It does seem to me to be one of the fundamental differences between what I see as conservatism versus liberalism.

To me, aside from the who do you trust argument - the liberal trusts government as the protector from capitalists exploiting the powerless and the conservative who distrusts government and favors keeping individuals empowered and armed - I've seen it as conservatives being stark pragmatists and liberals being wide-eyed idealists.

MOST of the time, I totally favor pragmatism over idealism, especially when the idealist wants to jeopardize everything in existence over an ideal existing only in his mind. It's generally better to stick with what works.

On the other hand, without the idealist who's willing to challenge what is presumed to work, we tend to resist what CAN work, but seems unlikely. I give you a fully integrated military as something that was once believed unachievable but is now completely ordinary. There ARE times where pragmatism fails.

One way they work hand in hand is when someone proposes a bold new idea - and is able to SHOW where it has worked. That doesn't happen too often in politics. They want to experiment with stuff that's never been tried or WORSE - try AGAIN something that has always failed, because *this* time by gum, it WILL work.

I like to use the classic David and Goliath story which is usually retold in massively abridged form. See, David wasn't just some kid with a sling and a lot of bold talk. He did have to convince the king with more than just bravery. He told the king he'd put down a bear and a lion with his sling. What's an 9 foot warrior compared to a half ton bear? David was an idealist - but he'd done it before.

It just drives me crazy though that people dream up these "this is the way it ought to be" utopias that cannot possibly exist not because all of mankind doesn't immediately turn into completely altruistic saints, but because math and economics can't support it.