One thing that I've been meaning to point out since yesterday is that a recent study showed the vast majority of Americans, regardless of income and regional cost of living, consider themselves "middle class." It's kind of funny when you think about the psychology involved.

I don't have much to contribute to the central discussion, but I always thought this was an interesting psychological tidbit. I took a high school psych class that asked every student to look around the room and rate themselves based on physical attractiveness, athletic ability, and intelligence as above average, average, or below average (for the room). The looks and sports categories reasonably reflected reality - close to equal numbers of above and below average, with the expected slight skew toward above. However, NO ONE thought themselves below average in intelligence. Everyone looked around the room and thought, "I'm no genius, but I'm smarter than that guy." I've heard something similar about driving ability. So what are the things that otherwise reasonable people delude themselves about? So far I've got intelligence, driving ability, and economic status. Anybody got any others?

You miss the point. Social capital is knowing how the system works to be able to use the system to your advantage. Without social capital your odds of succeeding are much lower than if you had it.

If somebody doesn't have the social capital to at least figure out that a job as a janitor is a better starting point than laying on the sidewalk, I don't know what we do with that person. I just hope they don't reproduce.

So far I've got intelligence, driving ability, and economic status. Anybody got any others?

Some ex-girlfriends tell me that physical endowment would fall into this category.

This is not "jealousy". It's sound realism: the wealthy want to keep their money and will do what they can to protect it (i.e. squeezing the poor out of politics, for instance); the poor want more (rightly so, from the wealthy perspective, right?), and will do what they can to get it.

But this goes back to what I said about viewing the world as a zero-sum game. You appear to assume that if the poor are to succeed, it's only by taking from the rich; you therefore further appear to assume that the wealthy "protecting" what they have is incompatible with the poor wanting more.

But while government is a zero-sum game, the economy is not.

Finally, you add to this the convergence of money and power, and the poor are #####. No access to wealth or power save the lottery.

I suppose if I believed that, I might agree with you. I don't. I don't think that wealth is built on keeping the poor down; I think widespread, sustained wealth is incompatible with that.

IOW, their "access to wealth" is the same as the currently wealthy people's access to wealth was before they became wealthy.

Unless, of course, government intervenes. (Keep in mind that libertarians oppose big government not just because it robs from the rich to give to the poor, but because it is used by the powerful to protect themselves. For instance, much of what passes for consumer protection in the modern regulatory state is really there to erect barriers to entry to keep new competitors out of the marketplace.)

My new statement is that it is impossible to succeed on your own merits in a society where being born into privelege is a huge advantage.

In which case I forced to disagree with you.

Well, then I have no idea what point you were trying to make with this statement:

"How can you argue in one post that anyone should be able to succeed on their own merits and then in another concede that being born into privelege is a huge advantage?"

So far I've got intelligence, driving ability, and economic status. Anybody got any others?

I'm a very good driver.

Father lets me drive in the driveway.

If somebody doesn't have the social capital to at least figure out that a job as a janitor is a better starting point than laying on the sidewalk, I don't know what we do with that person. I just hope they don't reproduce.

Social capital is knowing how to send a letter for a job that gets you an interview, and then know how to interview well enough to get the janitor job.

If somebody doesn't have the social capital to at least figure out that a job as a janitor is a better starting point than laying on the sidewalk, I don't know what we do with that person.

One summer I had a job as a janitor. I was the youngest person on the crew. A lot of crew was close to retirement age, and they'd spent their lives as janitors. I got to know them after a while. A fair number of them were probably bordeline retarded, but some of them struck me as merely uneducated. Because, by random chance, they had been born in an area where a decent education wasn't available to them, they never moved out of the janitorial closet. Just as the kids I went to school with ended up in the boardrooms and seats of government.

Because, by random chance, they had been born in an area where a decent education wasn't available to them, they never moved out of the janitorial closet. Just as the kids I went to school with ended up in the boardrooms and seats of government.

As a libertarian, I still feel that K-12 education is something that should probably be government-funded. I think a basic education is in the best interest of society.

Well, then I have no idea what point you were trying to make with this statement

Because -- although you've wandered away from it now -- your initial stated position was that everyone has the same opportunities in life, but then you said that some people have more opportunities, but never addressed the fact that you were contradicting yourself.

As a libertarian, I still feel that K-12 education is something that should probably be government-funded.

Can we get a big L statment on this, David?

Late to the game, but census and wealth figures show that there is tremendous mobility among levels of wealth in the U.S. economy. If my memory serves me, it is more prevelant to move up or down a quartile, but that the key word in the whole economy is dynanamics. I believe the key factor in wealth creation (no surprise here) is education; control for all factors, and that is the big factor. If I recall the studies, education (I believe it is tied to education, and not wealth) is tied to two parent families involved at least in the 0-18 years. Give me an immigrant family that has 2 parents and that sends their kid to every educational opportunity available, and that will be moving up in the economic ladder, maybe even fairly dramatically.

It is absolutely incorrect to say if you are poor you have no chance (or a lottery ticket chance).

Now it is funny, that politics and media seem to have those name and born to the ring attributes, but it was in part campaign finance reform that brought that about. You can either have a lot of money, raise a lot of money, or be a Kennedy, and then you can be a winner in politics. Makes me want to puke how we fawn over the next generation of that group.

I think the anecdotal point can be summed up in an analogy:

Many folks get cancer, some of them go into spontaneous remission. Should we as a society discontinue research for cancer treatments, since (as can be proven anecdotally) some people survive without them?

Not a perfect analogy, but...

So far I've got intelligence, driving ability, and economic status. Anybody got any others?

Ability to manage a major league baseball team.

<U>As a libertarian, I still feel that K-12 education is something that should probably be government-funded.</U>

Can we get a big L statment on this, David?

Philosophically, no. I am a big supporter of education, and think it important, if not crucial, to success. That doesn't mean I think government involvement is optimal. But I'm a conservative libertarian, not a revolutionary libertarian, so I put "eliminating government schools" somewhere at the very bottom of my priority list, far below anything I would see in my lifetime even if libertarians magically got into power. For now, I'll stick with supporting the abolishment of federal involvement with education, and I'll support vouchers to break the government near-monopoly on education. We can keep taxpayer-funded K-12 education for the foreseeable future.

------------------

One thing that I've been meaning to point out since yesterday is that a recent study showed the vast majority of Americans, regardless of income and regional cost of living, consider themselves "middle class." It's kind of funny when you think about the psychology involved.

Speaking of American psychology on the subject of wealth, studies show that Americans, far more than people in other advanced countries, believe that the individual is primarily responsible for his own success (I don't mean in a moral sense; I mean in a predictive sense. That is, individual choices, rather than outside circumstances, determine one's success in life.) The liberalism (in a classic sense) of the country's economy is well correlated with the popularity of that belief.

(Insert left-wing rant here from some people about how the corporate media promotes this outrageous, obviously-can't-be-true-because-Marx-said-this-was-just-false-consciousness myth.)

You can either have a lot of money, raise a lot of money, or be a Kennedy, and then you can be a winner in politics. Makes me want to puke how we fawn over the next generation of that group.

Replace "Kennedy" with "Bush", and I agree with that sentence whole-heartedly.

So far I've got intelligence, driving ability, and economic status. Anybody got any others?

Ability to manage a major league baseball team.

Ability to understand statistics.

Peng-I would agree that Bush has the same luck of the name as Kennedy, when it comes to politics. The difference is that there are a lot more Kennedy's to fawn over then there are Bush off-spring, and then you get into the Shriver line. But don't get me started.

The difference is that there are a lot more Kennedy's to fawn over then there are Bush off-spring, and then you get into the Shriver line.

Yes, but the Kennedy political spawn tend to have lifespan of a fruit fly. The Bushes are more like barnacles.

Brief points while working far too late...

1. I don't conceed that government is a zero-sum game.

2. I'd like to shorten "And I think being comfortable is all that most people really want."
to "And I think that most people really want is more."

3. My understanding, bfan, is that the key figure in wealth creation is initial wealth (not that education doesn't hurt).

4. David said:
"Speaking of American psychology on the subject of wealth, studies show that Americans, far more than people in other advanced countries, believe that the individual is primarily responsible for his own success (I don't mean in a moral sense; I mean in a predictive sense. That is, individual choices, rather than outside circumstances, determine one's success in life.) The liberalism (in a classic sense) of the country's economy is well correlated with the popularity of that belief."
I'm not sure why people of any belief structure would criticize that Americans believe that to be so more than do people from other nations, though some would criticize the belief itself, I suppose.
Not to be obvious, but we are all ultimately responsible for our actions (or inactions) and can define success accordingly. But there's no question that our limits and expectations are in part formed by our environment.

5. I see no reason why we have to like either family, bfan. :)

6. A variant for your "above average" list: political moderation. Most people believe themselves to be moderate politically (though maybe not on this board), just as they believe themselves to be middle class. I think this is, in part, because it's nearly impossible for a political party's belief structure to neatly fit one's own beliefs - so they think they're toward the middle.

Sorry, "your" refers to cheng in 501.

And I think that most people really want is more

I don't want much, all I want is everything.

"I don't know how to reconcile the concept of obligations as you describe it above with the strident protectionism of so many so-called liberals.

I know. I just cancelled my membership in the Washington Alliance of Technology Workers, Communications Workers of America, Local 37083, AFL-CIO over exactly that issue. "

Damn, penguinmobile, now who's abandoning whom?

Let me try to reconcile protectionism and Liberal social policy.

1) Don't liberals still believe in national boundaries? Dont they still also believe that there is a distinction between what benefits a US citizen may claim and what benefits citizens of other countries may expect from the US government?

2)"Taking" from, as in taxing, the rich who can afford it -- isn't this different from transferring wealth from a union worker who can't afford the loss, who bleeds more than a zillionaire. By donating their jobs to Indian techies, it's not a case of transfering wealth from rich to poor but from middleclass/poor to poorer. Is this not also a distinction?

Now for a more antiglobalist approach, which brings back conservative Clinton and the push for NAFTA which was again a time where the Democrats failed to consult the left and gave them yet another kick to the teeth:

3)Shouldn't there be an argument at least among the ostensible left over the merits or demerits of globalism before Democrats like you just assume to by into it hook line and sinker?

4)I believe that your humanitarian concerns are real, but I ask that you examine the cost to your own society as well as the world's long term condition. I view the homogenising force of globalism in the same way that I consider the old forces of missionary christianity and european imperialism, upon which globalism is modeled: if it has its way, just as the subjects of yore were all made to swear allegiance to the queen and put on decent modest clothing (for God's sake) so too will the force of globalism render the world to the end that everyone will drink coke or pepsi (read Jihad vs. McWorld for the interesting story of Coke in Southeast Asia; it's aim: that the custom of drinking tea must be destroyed at all costs), watch MTV or FOX, eat McDonalds', use a cell phone, and so on. If anyone has *any* customs or cultural accoutrements which conflict with Western consumer "culture", they will be assimilated or die.

Speaking of India, though it's nice that techies can be rewarded, globalism has its grim effects there, too, and in spades. Indian farmers, who have traditionally consisted the mass of the population, used to get by with a few acres of production. If they didn't, they were subsidised. Yet this won't do for the grim efficiency experts of global capital, free markets/dogma and all. Hence the pressure against protectionism is massive, hence the farmers are and will be displaced to ..where? Do the ghettos of Bangalore and Calcutta really need another kajillion people among the huddled masses? The cold sub-darwinists assert that this is "natural" and "acceptable" because they believe that their invented rule of the sanctity of free markets must be obeyed, damn all the human costs, which in turn is so redolent of their first failure, of forbidding the massive gift of food to assuage the Irish famine because it was against the "rule" to let someone have ..well, a FREE LUNCH.

I can;t believe you'd be for this sort of crap if you'd but consider the consequences.

Jeb Bush in 2008?

Neil Bush for secretary of the treasury.

Jenna and Barbara as co-directors of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. (OK - mostly Alcohol)

Plus there's another George in their, one of Jeb's kids?

The garden of America needs some weeding.

I don't want much, all I want is everything.

All we ever wanted was everything
All we ever got was cold
Get up, eat jelly
Sandwich bars, and barbed wire
Squash every week into a day

The sound of drums is calling
The sound of the drum has called
Flash of youth shoot out of darkness
Factorytown

Oh to be the cream

Funny you should say that because the most-revered RFK's first big job was as the US Attorney General for his big brother. Can you imagine anyone getting away with that, today? What if Clinton had picked Roger as his secretary of state? JFK/RFK was an astonishing bit of nepotism that just doesn't get much of a mention in political discourse.

As a libertarian, I still feel that K-12 education is something that should probably be government-funded.

Can we get a big L statment on this, David?

I suppose I should have said "Even as a Libertarian..." or "Despite being a Libertarian..."

Penguin, I go for Southside Johnny and you go all Bauhas on me. Figures.

Well RETARDO, the way I look at it is that globalization is pretty much the perfect distraction for the left. It's happening, it's been happening since the Phoenicians, and it's gonna keep happening. There are lots of everyday people in South East Asian who quite fairly wonder why American liberals are trying to keep them from getting better jobs.

Meanwhile, the jobs that are getting exported are just high-tech sweatshop gigs. Although I really think of myself as media guy, I've been in IT for quite a while, and it's no great shakes. These are some of the most dehumanizing jobs in the country, and as the industry matures and the skills become more widely available, the wage pressure is going to go ever downwards.

It would be better for domestic IT workers to have access to sources of funding for the next generation of startups that will need skilled people here. Let Microsoft slowly wander offshore -- it's time for the mammals to come out of the underbrush. Fund them with union dues, and make them union shops from the day they incorporate. That's effecting real change.

What if Clinton had picked Roger as his secretary of state?

What if Elenor Roosevelt could fly?

Because -- although you've wandered away from it now -- your initial stated position was that everyone has the same opportunities in life, but then you said that some people have more opportunities, but never addressed the fact that you were contradicting yourself.

I never said that. (I looked back and couldn't find it - please correct me if I'm wrong.)

I said that "anybody can be successfull". That's a far cry from "everyone has the same opportunities".

She could fly; I saw it on Saturday Night Live, and read it on the internet.

"JFK/RFK was an astonishing bit of nepotism that just doesn't get much of a mention in political discourse."
It doesn't? Not that Roger = RFK...

'I suppose I should have said "Even as a Libertarian..." or "Despite being a Libertarian..."'
Not to speak for penguinmobile, but I'm pretty sure that wasn't a knock on you, Richie - Nieporent v. RETARDO predates us all.

"I don't want much, all I want is everything."
I just want your half.

Funny you should say that because the most-revered RFK's first big job was as the US Attorney General for his big brother. Can you imagine anyone getting away with that, today? What if Clinton had picked Roger as his secretary of state?

You have a good point, but your Roger Clinton comparison is just downright stupid (no offense). Roger Clinton is a convicted drug dealer; Bobby Kennedy was an extraordinarily intelligent and capable lawyer. He was by far the best Kennedy, in my opinion. He certainly got his job due to nepotism, no doubt about it, but his was more the Mike Piazza-type nepotism than the Marc Sullivan type. It worked out just fine.

A better comparison would actually be: What if Clinton had nominated Hillary as his attorney general?

Can she fly?

"Well RETARDO, the way I look at it is that globalization is pretty much the perfect distraction for the left. It's happening, it's been happening since the Phoenicians, and it's gonna keep happening. There are lots of everyday people in South East Asian who quite fairly wonder why American liberals are trying to keep them from getting better jobs. "

While at the same time rightly cursing American culture, no doubt. We can't help their contradiction except by insuring that they have the option to take up these things if they wish and if they take up our democratic fail-safes and enviromental laws along with it. Globalism preaches a nice schtick: Export America! But they in reality only wish to export our depraved model of capitlism and none of our jurisprudence. This isnt accidental, or merely structural, it's collectively conscious.

Yeah, since Phoenicia, in a certain way. But the stakes in lives and the amount of change has never been higher. "You gotta draw a line in the sand, Dude. Across this..."

Maybe your union and your profession are the exception, maybe not, but have you no solidarity (which used to be a hallmark of all labour unions) with those infinite others who have lost their jobs due to outsourcing to China? Even Mexican and Central America sweatshops are being closed in droves in favour of the slave or near-slave labour of China.

China alone, penguinmobile, makes the latest round of globalism massively different. Whatever the current Son of Heaven, China's been isolationist and xenophobic for 5000 years until now.

I'm ashamed to say that I used to be for the Nixonian/Clintonian economic carrot and stick plan to liberate China. No more. What I now realise is that the "Libertarian"/Globalist dream countries have always been capitalised autocracies. Bear in mind the dynamic I described in the first paragraph and then consider the School of Chicago's love for Chile, Singapore, and Indonesia: objects of economic "shock treatment" which the devotees of Uncle Miltie always promised would bring forth a flowering of democracy and civil liberties, but never did (and often, they didn't even bring about economic improvement).

Now consider China, whose prisoners make the clothing poor Americans buy, and whose profits are mostly sent to the boardrooms of corporate America. Globalists couldn't wish for a bigger cherry to pop than China. They've recently legalised private property, to the delight of "Libertarians" everywhere for this is their holy grail (and despite lip service to the contrary, the only ####### thing they truly care about). But in China you still get run over by a tank if you protest the government, and the economic pressures exerted by the globalists will only perpetuate this sad fact which the actions of recent Globalists demonstrate all too well: A democracy that is "too free" (free to change social inequity and free to legislate environmental standards) is dangerous to global capital and therefore must be guarded against at all costs.

As a liberal and a Democrat, doesn't one have the moral and political obligation to fight this trend whenevr and wherever possible? I think there's a moral crime in shrugging at it that is distinct from recent events that we were ordered *not* to shrug over: America is directly responsible for encouraging the chinese dictatorship to keep on keeping on, and no, this doesn't mean that it's morally incumbent upon us to invade China and change its government, but it's damn certain that we should constinue to be complicit in abetting its actions.

Well, about half the people in this country would tell you she has a broomstick. So yeah, she probably can. :)

Bobby Kennedy was an extraordinarily intelligent and capable lawyer.

And utterly fearless. He took on both J. Edgar Hoover and the Mob without batting an eye; no one had ever before had the audacity to do either, let alone both simultaneously.

It isn't clear, had he lived, whether he would have become President or been an effective one if he had. He didn't have much in the way of political skill. But he was certainly the most brave and principled AG of his time or probably any other. To belittle him because of nepotism is silly.

Last sentence. should=shouldn't. Sorry.

Ahh, come from behind victory for the Cards over the spawn of Satan Cubbies who should all go to hell and die.

A short day at work.

A nice call from the gf.

Kicking the crap out of ######## "Libertarian" arguments on the net.

A full belly and a new pack of cigs.

I feel good. Oh and congrats to all the new daddies.

Yeah, since Phoenicia, in a certain way. But the stakes in lives and the amount of change has never been higher.

Oh come on, Retardo. This is purple prose even for you.

You think the "stakes in lives and the amount of change" generated by globalism is greater today than it was for Native Americans in the 1500-1900 period? Or millions of West Africans of the same era?

The whole "nepotism" argument as it relates to Bobby Kennedy as Attorney General makes no sense. The position of Attorney General was not some kind of open-audition, EEO position for anyone in the Country. Historically, it often went to a very close confidante of the President who was also a (hopefully talented) lawyer, and not uncommonly deeply involved in the campaign. Thus Bobby, who was his brother's closest confidante and high up in the campaign got the call, just as John Mitchell did for Nixon. What they did with it afterwards is a different story. After that, it is up to the Senate to decide if the guy is so incompetent or corrupt that they will not confirm.

In the last 20-30 years, there has been a kind of change. With the passage of tons of federal legislation, especially civil rights legislation, and the enormous growth in the DOJ, there is more concern over picking somebody with sufficient experience and gravitas for the position who will protect the correct bundle of rights and can manage that bureaucracy. A lot of that is still just window dressing. But back in the 60's and earlier, that was not seen as being as important as being willing and able to advise the President and carry out his policies.

He certainly got his job due to nepotism, no doubt about it, but his was more the Mike Piazza-type nepotism than the Marc Sullivan type. It worked out just fine.

I guess that's debatable. Both getting murdered within 8 years is not the most optimal outcome.

America is directly responsible for encouraging the chinese dictatorship to keep on keeping on

So if we had not encouraged them, they would have turned into democrats? Come one.

The Rulers of China will do exactly what the Rulers of China will always do, which is exactly as they please without the slightest regard for what anyone else, and especially anyone in the West, thinks of them, subject only to the direct application of force (i.e., gunboats), which is pretty much out of the question these days.

That is true. I meant, as far as the office of Attorney General was concerned, it worked out just fine.

Another thing - by almost all accounts, Bobby Kennedy was the adviser most responsible for helping his brother successfully navigate through the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Maybe your union and your profession are the exception, maybe not, but have you no solidarity (which used to be a hallmark of all labour unions) with those infinite others who have lost their jobs due to outsourcing to China?

I leave unquestioning solidarity to the dues-paying members of the Christian Coalition. If it's legitimate for the progressive in the Democratic tent to question the tactics of the centrists, why is it not legitimate for me to question the tactics of the Unionists? They were taking my dues and shipping them right to lobbyists who were pushing legislation that I don't exactly believe in. So I quit giving them dues and offered my suggstion as to what would be a more effective approach for unions to take.

You know why the unions will never take that approach? Because Dave Beck compromised their integrity and turned them into employment agencies working with business. They'll never fund competing businesses as I suggest because they don't want to bite the real hand that feeds them -- and that hand ain't the membership.

And I have yet to meet many foreigners who curse American culture. Studies seem to show most people hold some admiration for it, and are happy to adopt what they see as positive aspects of it.

And I believe in the long run, Chinese feudalism will be affected by industrial capitalism the same way feudalism in Europe has been.

That's enough for now...

The Rulers of China will do exactly what the Rulers of China will always do, which is exactly as they please without the slightest regard for what anyone else, and especially anyone in the West, thinks of them, subject only to the direct application of force (i.e., gunboats), which is pretty much out of the question these days.

Funny what happens if you rewrite that statement and replace "China" with "The United States." :)

Nieporent v. RETARDO predates us all.

I can't tell what RETARDO is arguing for.

That is true. I meant, as far as the office of Attorney General was concerned, it worked out just fine.

Another thing - by almost all accounts, Bobby Kennedy was the adviser most responsible for helping his brother successfully navigate through the Cuban Missile Crisis.

I was, of course, being sarcastic by my comment.

Now I see RETARDO said something about \"######## Libertarians" so I think I'm beginning to grasp his viewpoint.

I can't tell what RETARDO is arguing for.

That statement speaks volumes, Richie.

I know, Richie, I know. (in re #49.)

Funny what happens if you rewrite that statement and replace "China" with "The United States." :)

I think if you do that, you have an accurate description of the current state of affairs. There was a time, however, when those in power did give a damn what others thought of us. And for good reason.

"So if we had not encouraged them, they would have turned into democrats? Come one.

No, Srul, I'm not saying anything that naive. But I am saying that globalist "encouragement" has only strengthened their grip on the country.

"Oh come on, Retardo. This is purple prose even for you.

You think the "stakes in lives and the amount of change" generated by globalism is greater today than it was for Native Americans in the 1500-1900 period? Or millions of West Africans of the same era? "

I thought about that Steve, before I posted, and I agree that it's arguable but for now I'm going with the worsened fate of the vast majority of, what, 3 to 4 billion Chinese and Indians?

But since you bring it up the Globalists of that day ignored the human costs of the "discovery" or America and the enslavement of imported labour in rather the same cold darwinist way: it's tough but for their own good, though ironically it wasnt argued on economic grounds (though that happened too: Natives were largely commies, you know, and even the enlightened Jefferson years later thought their non-exploitative ways of land and property management were lazy and "inefficient") so much as on Christian ones, even though Priests like De Las Casas devoted their lives to exposing the "explorers"' and colonists' ways as intentionally AND structurally murderous.

I think the analogy is a good one. Those who were enlightened to the facts of the conquest but still shrugged are complicit in the "inevitable" crime where people like De Las Casas are most certainly *not*. I know where my allegiance would have lain, which is also why I can't shrug at the modern globalist equivalent.

But I will agree with you this much: the lives per capita and the total amount of cultures forever lost were much more in that time.

Another analogy and a question: evolution tends to maximum when biological diversity is at maximum per each species. Therefore, applied to our species, is the maximum amount of biological diversity a good thing? Different skin tones, blood types, heights and builds, and so on? Does this not guard against environmental disaster and pandemics? Yes?

Then likewise, does not cultural diversity insure against economic and ecological disaster? I know grim globalists do not blink an eye at the prospect of rendering hunter gatherers or tribalist peoples' cultures completely extinct: in favour of McDonalds' and a parking lot. They no more blink at this than did the blackbirders and missionaries who transformed the Pacific Islands from a nudistic and leisured natural paradise into a ######## of prudish, diseased, and exploited plantation labourers who most tragically accepted their misery in Christianity and the Protestant work ethic, toiling for pineapple and cocoanut kings.

Once these cultures are gone they are gone forever. Globalism's aim is to make for one worldwide monoculture. Is this what we want? What if western crapitalism isnt the best economic and cultural system of all time? What if the next depression is worse than, in severity and in length, the one of the 30s? But mostly I'm thinking of the things I can't think of. Aside cultural diversity for its own sake, or for the sake of history or even aesthetics or joy in the juxtaposition of cultural incongueity vs. the universality of the "human condition", aren't there other dangers of making the world so homogenous?If globalism ahs its way, and \"#### happens", as it always does, it'll be too late to bring back the Yanomamo or !Kung. Too bad huh? They can take solace that their decendants, then, will always be able to work at the Caracas or Brazzaville Wal-Mart for minimum wage.

They no more blink at this than did the blackbirders and missionaries who transformed the Pacific Islands from a nudistic and leisured natural paradise into a ######## of prudish, diseased, and exploited plantation labourers who most tragically accepted their misery in Christianity and the Protestant work ethic, toiling for pineapple and cocoanut kings.

I challenge anybody with actual knowledge of pre-contact Polynesian cultures to describe them as "nudistic and leisured natural paradises".

'jfb

I challenge anybody with actual knowledge of pre-contact Polynesian cultures to describe them as "nudistic and leisured natural paradises".

Well, there were a few of them that weren't waging war either internally or externally, but they were mostly the ones barely scraping by at subsistence level with a population of a couple hundred on an atoll that was only a couple of feet above sea level.

On the bigger islands, there was a lot of civil war, and after those led to political consilidation, several islands proceeded to wage war on their nearest neighbors, up to 500 miles away.

Of course, all this came in the wake of the mass extinctions of native fauna wrought by the polynesians as they colonized island after island.

And that's just what I've picked up from the introduction of Guns, Germs, and Steel, as well as my long lost copy of Thor Heyerdahl's Aku-Aku. I imagine it gets much worse if you read books that really deal with the subject.

Oh, and do a little search on something like "Picairn pedophilia" to learn more about the Polynesian sexual paradise.

Although if you're going to do that Internet search, spell Pitcairn right.

(Hey, at least I'm useful for something.)

Just before my car was stolen, I was listening to "Day to Day" on NPR. They were presenting the first of a three part series on maquilladoras in Mexico. To bolster his case, the reporter had some guy who's written some books about Mexican emmigration. He said something like "The devastation is just horrible. You have vast stretches of Mexico where people had spent generations as subsistence farmers that are no completely depopulated. Everyone moved to apartments in Chicago. It's tragic."

At no point did he present any justification for his belief that it is more tragic for Mexicans to live in apartments in Chicago than it is for them to live on subsistence farms in Mexico. Nor did the reporter ask him to. Apparently, we all are supposed to know in heart of hearts that scratching out a bare living in the Sonoran desert is the way that real human beings are meant to live, and when they give up that lifestyle they are giving up their humanity.

It was typical of the absolute worst unthinking liberal B.S. that I've ever heard. Utterly embarrassing to listen to, much less be associated with in people's minds.

Of course, I'm not saying that these people weren't better off on their farms, but the fact that it never even occurted to anyone that some evidence should be given to support the assertion was astounding.

(Hey, at least I'm useful for something.)

You may be immoral, but at least you can spell-check. I actually should try that search, but I imagine it will pull up the right stuff...

"Actual knowledge". Snarky. :)

Well, yes, the polynesians I think you speak of, specifically the Hawaiians, they did become cheifdom societies which are notoriously warlike. But this was massively exacerbated in the period after contact but before colonisation, IIRC, during the times that traders created an demand for sandalwood, for instance, which in turn made for a "Chinese" effect, strengthening every bad trait of petty cheifdom despotism and minimising every good trait of it, which is admittedly little.

Still, extant testimony from the whalers and first visitors (Omoo and Typee, anyone? Henry Adams?) gives credence to the leisured lifestyle and pagan carnality they found in places like Tahiti. I don;t doubt that this is all still misunderstood; after all when a personage like Jared Diamond can plantively assert to captive Microsoft technophiles that the Pacific people were degenerate because they had lost their ability to make pottery (Answer, Mr Diamond, is that when you go from a drier climate with abundant clay to a wet climate with little or no clay and natural container vessels like cocoanuts and gourds you don't need fukkin clay pots) then there's obviously still room for assorted Western bias and cultural bigotry. Thanks for playing, though.

BTW, this book is nice.

when a personage like Jared Diamond can plantively assert to captive Microsoft technophiles that the Pacific people were degenerate because they had lost their ability to make pottery

What in God's name are you talking about? That sounds like the exact opposite of Diamond's assertions about the role technology in human societies.

Oh, and while I haven't read Typee I can't see how you can cite it as any sort of credible sociologically astute account of the cultures Melville encountered. The guy was a fabulist with strong transcendentalist connections. He was as enamored of promoting the Noble Savage myth as any Frenchie.

"It was typical of the absolute worst unthinking liberal B.S. that I've ever heard."

Well, yes, but this is also the typical snarl of those who are either ignorant of, or readily eschew, the first best guideline of anthropology, the utility and sensibility of which should be familiar: first do no harm.

What would you do, penguinmobile, put everyone in the world into a sardine can apartment in Chicago? This doesn't qualify for humanitarianism in my book.

Obviously the ideal is that the person has the CHOICE to leave the farm. But globalism lacks the humanity to leave the farming option intact -- it's "inefficient", and so "liberal" consciences can be soothed of whatever few vexations they have by the argument that "well, at least a career at Wal-Mart is better than THAT".

BTW, the Diamond comment above wasn't in reference to you but to a netcast Diamond gave to the goons at Redmond. Aside the whoring factor involved, Diamond is suspicious on other levels. It's nice that he's copped Flannery's argument of native enviromental destruction in australia and applied it and popularised it vis-a-vis Easter Island. It's a good lesson and I believe one that's true historically. But still, the pottery comment was just retarded and hints at so many unsavoury things.

The pottery thing IIRC was on the Edge site (either that or he slipped it in an essay in the New York Review); I'll see if I can find it.

Ah, I see. So Melville was a liar or, at the least, blind because he didn't see with his own eyes what Diamond's ..well, jewel-like sociological eyeballs can take in 200 years after the fact. (FWIW I haven't read Typee either but have read excerpts in a Hawaiian history book that is in memphis now and I can't remember the name of -- I think it was "To Steal A Kingdom")

Bluntly, I distrust Diamond's pop anthropology even though some of it, I thought, was clever if derivative -- not only because of who he's selling it to but how he's trying to sell it. Guns Germs and Steel lays on my bookpile in memphis unread, but everything I've read by Diamond on the net raises the caution flag.

I put as much stock in Melville's anthropology as I do in his biology.

Well, yes, the polynesians I think you speak of, specifically the Hawaiians, they did become cheifdom societies which are notoriously warlike.

They were warlike chiefdom societies when the first Hawai'ians arrived from the Societies. Access to Western shipbuilding certainly enabled Kamehameha to consolidate his political power, but Hawai'ians had been living in a brutal, arbitrary aristocracy for a thousand years by the time they killed (and ate) Cook.

And then, taking our leave from Polynesia, what about Easter Island? New Zealand? New Guinea? None of which can possibly be described as a "nudistic and leisured natural paradise".

I also can't let this go:

Then likewise, does not cultural diversity insure against economic and ecological disaster?

No. Or at least, you can't make that argument by analogy with evolutionary biology, no matter how badly Dawkins might want to. Where's the evidence of this?

I have great sympathy for some of your positions, RETARDO, but sloppy analogies and mistaken facts don't help anybody's argument.

'jfb

Well now that you admit you haven't read Diamond's book, I understand how you can completely and totally fail to know what it says. And yeah, it's pop anthropology, but that doesn't mean it's bad anthropology.

In discussing colonization by Polynesians, he uses the historical and archeological record to show that they left the mainland with an assortment of crops, food animals, and technologies. He then proceeds to discuss most of the major islands and which crops, food animals, and technologies were kept on which islands, and which were discarded. The forces driving the keeping or discarding were mostly environmental, although in some cases they appear to have been social.

Within the framwork of this argument, there is no way that he could have referred to any polynesian society discarding the technology to make clay pots as anything other than a situational response. Your idea that he was somehow denigrating those who discarded pottery is a bizarre one. Hell, if you live in a land of coconut palms, only an idiot would waste time making clay cups...

Just before my car was stolen

I truly hope better days are ahead for you pmobile. Your story seems to become more and more tragic.

"If it's legitimate for the progressive in the Democratic tent to question the tactics of the centrists, why is it not legitimate for me to question the tactics of the Unionists?"

Didnt we go over this a few pages back? It's not a double standard.

"You know why the unions will never take that approach? Because Dave Beck compromised their integrity and turned them into employment agencies working with business."

Okay then. But doesn't the easy acquiesence to business farming your jobs out overseas also constitute a sell-out just as egregious, if not more, than the unions'?

"And I have yet to meet many foreigners who curse American culture."

Movies? Music? I agree, they love it. But when they speak of the whole clusterfukk, I have yet to hear one endorse it.

"And I believe in the long run, Chinese feudalism will be affected by industrial capitalism the same way feudalism in Europe has been. "

Yes, that's the globalist argument. Meanwhile, keep that slave labour goin', and keeps shippin in new workers from the prisons to replace the many many others who've been killed on the job. The aftereffects of this lovely meat grinder, are, after all, worth it: every Chinese will own a car (talk about environmental holocaust) and get to enjoy McDonalds' as long as they don't question authority (a Coke and a smile and shut the #### up). Sounds like paradise.

***

"They were warlike chiefdom societies when the first Hawai'ians arrived from the Societies. "

Right but this is an accident of geography because the time of development of cheifdoms coincided with the fact that Hawaii was settled last. Shall I concede that Hawaii is a poor example? Shall you in turn concede that toiling for the sugar plantations wasn;t much better than toiling for Kamehameha? The book I linked to is really good. and no, I would have never included the Maori in my ananogy nor would I have included the duckbilled playpus of Easter Island whose environmental disaster made for a decrepit society by even the time of the Dutch visit.

Shall i use Native american societies then? I know much much more about them. Did the fact that the Iroquois practiced the most gruesome forms of torture in human history make it deserving that the english and americans destroyed their culture? Does the fact that the protien-deprived Aztecs practiced human sacrifice and cannibalism make it all right that Cortez and his heirs destroyed their culture forever? Was Cortez's "gift" of chattel slavery, christianity, and random butchery so much better than Moctezuma's autocracy as it make the holocaust of disease and displacement and murder "worth it" or even a wash?

"No. Or at least, you can't make that argument by analogy with evolutionary biology, no matter how badly Dawkins might want to. Where's the evidence of this? "

But why can't I? Isn't the point that homogeny is dangerous in a changing world speak for itself?

I welcome help or critiqes on my analogies provided they aren't of the sort that believes a Chinese worker's lot has improved just because he can now eat at McDonalds' and has the pleasure of being forced to manufacture a tee shirt for americans who shop at Wal-Mart. I'd also appreciate if one wouldn't argue (not saying that you have) from the viewpoint that all those among primitive societies are miserable and cant wait to rid themselves of their culture to embrace American consumerism: every study I've ever seen shows that hunter-gatherers are the happiest people on earth until, you know, they're shot or herded into a factory or mine.

Penguin. I read his crap on edge and on NYR and I did read bits of GGS; I'm pretty sure I read the whole intro too, which come to think of it is all you've apparently read as well.

Why I saw and remembered the quote on the pottery is because I was so aghast he'd say something that stupid.

I truly hope better days are ahead for you pmobile. Your story seems to become more and more tragic.

Yes. I think P-mob would be better off on an inefficient subsistance farm in Mexico. Or a cramped apartment in Chicago. Or making unnecessary pottery cups in Polynesia.

"I truly hope better days are ahead for you pmobile. Your story seems to become more and more tragic.
"

Me too. I sometimes forget my manners when I argue with those who deserve civility. I apologise.

Steve:

Oh come on, Retardo. This is purple prose even for you.
You think the "stakes in lives and the amount of change" generated by globalism is greater today than it was for Native Americans in the 1500-1900 period? Or millions of West Africans of the same era?

In <U>Politics and the English Language</u>, Orwell wrote Many political words are similarly abused. The word fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies "something not desirable." Since you ask that question, you must have some idea what he means by "globalism" -- other than "something not desirable." Could you fill us (or at least me) in? It appears to subsume every political and economic system in the history of the world -- all of which he hates -- other than communism, of course.

(He appears to use it interchangeably with globalization, although from his usage of the former term, it has precisely as much in common with the latter as the Harlem Globetrotters do: a syllable.)

Looks like this thread is dead... too bad. What's the record for most posts since the move from old primer?

Looks like this thread is dead... too bad. What's the record for most posts since the move from old primer?

And I don't think there was a single reference in this thread about it approaching PETCO. What's the record for latest in a thread that that happens?

Does my post count as it happening?

But in Europe at least you get proportional representation in voting, which you don't get here. Something like that would solve a lot of problems with apathy toward voting and feeling your vote matters

Topics post.

In Eurpoe you get proportional representation in voting? Isn't that becuase your third party wins a particular area or jurisdiction, and thus wins a seat outright?

In Politics and the English Language, Orwell wrote Many political words are similarly abused. The word fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies "something not desirable."

All too true, but equally true about "liberalism" as used by the minions of the RNC, "racism" as used by many on the Left, etc., etc. Disinformation and misuse of words is an equal opportunity sport.

All too true, but equally true about "liberalism" as used by the minions of the RNC, "racism" as used by many on the Left, etc., etc. Disinformation and misuse of words is an equal opportunity sport.

The GOP's greatest political victory during the Reagan years was to turn "liberal" into a dirty word. Given the mainstream media's unwillingness to challenge the redefinition of words by the major parties, it's no wonder that the Daily Show could win the Television Critics Association award for news and information.

it's no wonder that the Daily Show could win the Television Critics Association award for news and information.

Its the only one that actually admits its the "fake news".

Penguinmobile. I've been looking for the Diamond quote since I got off work today. I found something like it but I remember it being said more strongly when I first read it, wherever it was, back in February. I concede I it's possible that I remember it wrong, but i don't think so just because it stuck in my head as so remarkable. Anyway, that's the hazards I run into because I only argue from memory unlike ####### frauds several posts above who imply their Orwell quotes come from their own wide reading rather than the more likely scenario of a quick google search. I know it was Februrary when I read it because that's when I was on the East Coast and read it on computer there. I also remember that Diamond had an essay on the NYR website at the same time, which is now in archives that are premium.

Anyway, here it is, and it's still extremely disingenuous considering the context:

[a href=http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/diamond_rich/rich_p4.html]Diamond[/a]

"That result applies not just to Tasmania and Flinders, but to other very isolated human societies. There are other examples. The Torres Strait islanders between Australia and New Guinea abandoned canoes. Most Polynesian societies lost bows and arrows, and lost pottery. The Polar Eskimos lost the kayak, Dorset Eskimos lost dogs and bow drills, and Japan lost guns."

He's bemoaning the loss of material culture here, but doesn't acknolwedge (necessity is the mother of invention) that these "depleted" or "degenerated" cultures may not have *needed* the technologies they lost. Again, the Polynesians didnt *need* fukkin pottery.

He likes to harp on the now extinct Tasmanians: the lost, in isloation, the ability to make fire, bone tools, and clothing. They didn't fish. Yet they survived, and as far as I know, in comparable proportion, pop. to land area (climate adjusted), to the Abos on the mainland. Also, have you ever seen pictures of the Tasmanians? I have, and while it's not many, every one I've seen shows that the Tasmanians were just as physically robust as Abos, which goes against the degradation argument he uses. Surely if they had *needed* the lost technologies badly enough, they would have either died out or at the very least exhibited a paucity of numbers as well as marked nutricional deficiencies? Plainly, they were able to eat and stay warm enough. Maybe they physically adapted?

Later he mourns that Japan lost firearms because of the oligarchical samurai. Since willful isolation is naughty, I'm led to believe that Diamond rather enjoys the fact that Cmd. Perry forcibly opened Japan to the West. The breach occured in 1840 and just about 60 years later, the Japanese sunk Admiral Kolchak's fleet, and practiced a colonial policy in the pacific (using the nice new firearm technology) every bit as despotic and murderous as the europeans. I should think that hoinesty would require this mention of "unintended consequence" when making an anti-isolation/pro-technology argument.

On the other hand, he can argue this:

"Twenty years ago, a few idiots in control of the world's most populous nation were able to shut down the educational system for one billion people at the time of the Great Cultural Revolution, whereas it's impossible for a few idiots to shut down the educational system of all of Europe. "

Which is admirable. Fragmentation, or de-centralisation, or whatever you want to call it, in cultural, economic, political spheres, is synonymous with the diversity argument I advocate.

It's also nice that he underlines how ineffiecient the German beer industry is -- yet he also states how good German beer is. Of course Globalists hate the German beer industry on grounds of manufactured "economic principle": it's protectionist, inefficient, a closed market. Yet the Germans *like* it that way. The epitome of Globalism is that it is opposed, violently if necessary (and then only if possible; Germany "behaves" on most other issues; though Anhueser Busch would finance an armed, United Fruit Company style, invasion of Germany if they could the fact is that too many other industries would object to such chaos surrounding their investments) democratic economic self-determination.

***

Diamond bothers me. While it's nice that the gist of his main argument in GGS is anti-racism, anyone who knows anything about anth knows that racial arguments have been put to bed years ago. I suppose since he's "pop", he's nice to use against the Bell Curve crowd who are well-represented in Conservative American ranks, but those ####### aren't worth arguing with anyway. Also, should glorified common sense (the geography is destiny argument) really be so lauded? OTOH I never got the ecology is destiny argument on my own : I learned that by reading Harris, yet I seem to remember (you have the book on you, tell me if I'm wrong) looking through the GGS index and finding no entry for Marvin Harris, which is I think is petty of Diamond.

I always enjoy reading RETARDO's posts - it brings me back to my sociology courses, and the history classes taught by the Marxist department chair.

I mean it - it was the side of academia that I think I'll miss.

He's bemoaning the loss of material culture here, but doesn't acknolwedge (necessity is the mother of invention) that these "depleted" or "degenerated" cultures may not have *needed* the technologies they lost. Again, the Polynesians didnt *need* fukkin pottery.

RETARDO, you're talking out your ass. He's talking about the loss of these technologies, but he's not making a value judgement on them in any way. All he's saying is that they had them when they arrived and then discarded them, usually for perfectly logical situational reasons.

Later he mourns that Japan lost firearms because of the oligarchical samurai.

He doesn't mourn it. He refers to it as an interesting historical fact worth looking at.

You're being a complete ####### and hardly deserve a response to your post. Instead of looking for affront where it doesn't exist, why not attack something worth attacking?

I was a Sociology major back in the day. Marvin Harris' Cows, Pigs, Wars, and Witches[/i} was one of my faves.

But perhaps the book that most impressed and influenced my thinking was The Domination of Nature by William Leiss. Anyone familiar with that one?