Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Wednesday, March 05, 2014

OTP - March 2014: Russia denies calling shots in Ukraine’s Crimea standoff

Only Babe Ruth calls shots!

At a press conference for Kremlin-controlled media on Tuesday, Putin reiterated his position that Moscow has the right to use “all means” necessary to protect ethnic Russians and vital military assets in Ukraine, first among them the Black Sea fleet in the Crimean port of Sevastopol.

 

Bitter Mouse Posted: March 05, 2014 at 08:54 AM | 3254 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: lies, politics, war

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 18 of 33 pages ‹ First  < 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 >  Last ›
   1701. The Yankee Clapper Posted: March 17, 2014 at 02:23 PM (#4672902)
Flip.
   1702. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 17, 2014 at 02:24 PM (#4672903)
Claiming that Capitalism is a system of morality is an Objectivist mantra of sorts,

I don't know that it's a system of morality, but it touches on freedom and liberty -- concepts with clear moral weight. As a matter of first principle, economic arrangements entered into freely are preferable to coerced arrangements.
   1703. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 17, 2014 at 02:26 PM (#4672906)
Doesn't that pretty much define corruption? Well, that and Popes and bishops having mistresses and promoting their illegitimate children into the church hierarchy.

Well, the Protestant Princes and Bishops were no less corrupt after the Reformation, they just kept the proceeds of the corruption closer to home. The Church was far more corrupt in the 900's and no one launched a Reformation.

The prime movers behind the Reformation (the north German princes) didn't care about Church corruption per se. They wanted to stop paying Church and Imperial taxes, and wanted to seize Church lands.
   1704. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: March 17, 2014 at 02:28 PM (#4672908)
They wanted to stop paying Church and Imperial taxes, and wanted to seize Church lands.


You say that like it's a bad thing.
   1705. The Yankee Clapper Posted: March 17, 2014 at 02:30 PM (#4672910)
Republicans Seize Edge In Fight For Senate Majority:
The Senate playing field has shifted in Republicans' favor over the last several weeks thanks to recruiting successes in Colorado and New Hampshire, as well as a national political environment that looks increasingly treacherous for Democrats. . . Even Democrats have begun to acknowledge the problems in the fight for the Senate -- albeit privately. "There is no doubt that the Senate outlook has deteriorated significantly in the past six weeks," admitted a prominent Democratic strategist. "Between the map and the [Affordable Care Act's] unpopularity in the states on the map, it has gone from being a jump ball to advantage Republicans."

Viewed broadly, there are now 11 Democratic-held seats in varying levels of peril -- and 12 if you consider the Virginia seat held by Sen. Mark Warner. (Republicans argue Democratic-held seats in Oregon and Minnesota belong on that list as well.) That is a significant expansion of the playing field from even a few months ago -- thanks largely to decisions by Rep. Cory Gardner and former U.S. Sen. Scott Brown to run in Colorado and New Hampshire, respectively. In each case, races that were not considered competitive immediately became so thanks to Republican recruits.

Seems like I read the same thing here.
   1706. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 17, 2014 at 02:32 PM (#4672911)
You say that like it's a bad thing.

Depends who you are. If you're the German Princes it's great.

Didn't work out as well for their people. Witness the German Peasants' War, which was brutally suppressed by the proto-Protestant Princes, with Martin Luther's blessing. Which was followed by another century plus of warfare which devastated Germany and killed 1/3 to 1/2 of the population.
   1707. The Good Face Posted: March 17, 2014 at 02:32 PM (#4672912)
You don't like when I take your positions, extrapolate them three light years beyond what you've actually written and then attribute the extrapolation back to you, but have no problem doing the same to me?


I used your own words Sam. You're the guy who equated communist genocides with the plight of modern day American workers. There's no extrapolation or exaggeration; you said it and you didn't back down or attempt to explain it. So now you get to own it. See how this works?
   1708. Greg K Posted: March 17, 2014 at 02:33 PM (#4672913)
The prime movers behind the Reformation (the north German princes) didn't care about Church corruption per se. They wanted to stop paying Church and Imperial taxes, and wanted to seize Church lands.

I think they (like Henry VIII) were political and economic opportunists with a little pinch of genuine theological anxiety thrown in. But they were able to achieve what they did because popular anti-clericalism was a very real phenomenon that was there to be exploited.

Like most things in history you can spend a lot of time looking for good guys and bad guys, but I'm not sure how productive an exercise it is.
   1709. Mefisto Posted: March 17, 2014 at 02:34 PM (#4672915)
The Church was far more corrupt in the 900's and no one launched a Reformation.


Well, it kinda did, but only with a lag time of 100 years.
   1710. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 17, 2014 at 02:35 PM (#4672917)
I think they (like Henry VIII) were political and economic opportunists with a little pinch of genuine theological anxiety thrown in. But they were able to achieve what they did because popular anti-clericalism was a very real phenomenon that was there to be exploited.

Sure, but there were plenty of real reformers about, Erasmus first among them.
   1711. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: March 17, 2014 at 02:38 PM (#4672918)
Depends who you are. If you're the German Princes it's great.


Do you think it's a good thing for the church to have so much wealth and power like it did 500-600 years ago? Prior to Henry VIII, it's estimated that the church controlled 1/3 to 1/2 of all of England's wealth. The church controlled all of central Italy as its own feudal fiefdom.
   1712. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 17, 2014 at 02:42 PM (#4672922)
Well, it kinda did, but only with a lag time of 100 years.

Well, there have been period internal reforms within the Church. I mean that's why St. Francis and St. Dominic and St. Benedict are so famous. There have always been waves of corruption in the Church, followed by waves of reform. One could argue that the Papacies of John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis represent the latest of these reform movements, following widespread confusion and corruption in the 60's-80's.

My point was none of the previous reforms turned into a major revolution/Europe wide war. The reason the Protestant Reformation did so, was because of the political interests of the German Princes.
   1713. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 17, 2014 at 02:44 PM (#4672923)
Do you think it's a good thing for the church to have so much wealth and power like it did 500-600 years ago? Prior to Henry VIII, it's estimated that the church controlled 1/3 to 1/2 of all of England's wealth. The church controlled all of central Italy as its own feudal fiefdom.

I'd say it depends on the alternative. I don't think the transition of that wealth to various crony nobles was a net positive for society.
   1714. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 17, 2014 at 02:45 PM (#4672924)
You're the guy who equated communist genocides with the plight of modern day American workers.


No I didn't. I pointed out that the horded wealth of modern capitalism is built on a graveyard of human misery. The rest was supplied by you.
   1715. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 17, 2014 at 02:47 PM (#4672926)
The prime movers behind the Reformation (the north German princes) didn't care about Church corruption per se. They wanted to stop paying Church and Imperial taxes, and wanted to seize Church lands.


How exactly was corruption not tied to Church and Imperial taxes? It's not like the Medieval Church was something more than another feudal kingdom with funny robes.
   1716. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 17, 2014 at 02:48 PM (#4672927)
I pointed out that the horded wealth of modern capitalism is built on a graveyard of human misery.


I don't think this is unique to capitalism. I think a huge majority of all hoarded wealth is built on human misery.
   1717. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 17, 2014 at 02:48 PM (#4672928)
No I didn't. I pointed out that the horded wealth of modern capitalism is built on a graveyard of human misery. The rest was supplied by you.

You drew an implicit equivalence.

In any case, workers were even more miserable in pre-capitalistic society, and were/are certainly more miserable in command and control economies.
   1718. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: March 17, 2014 at 02:48 PM (#4672929)
Essentially, every western European nation expropriated Church lands sooner or later. The later it happened, the slower the industrial and economic development of the country in question. Great Britain and northern Europe first, France and Austria second, Spain not until 1835.
   1719. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: March 17, 2014 at 02:50 PM (#4672930)
I don't think the transition of that wealth to various crony nobles was a net positive for society.


I don't see a whole lot of difference between secular princes hoarding the wealth and divvying it up amongst their cronies and family, and ecclesiastical princes hoarding the wealth and divvying it up amongst their cronies and families. They are 2 heads of the same coin.
   1720. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 17, 2014 at 02:51 PM (#4672931)
How exactly was corruption not tied to Church and Imperial taxes? It's not like the Medieval Church was something more than another feudal kingdom with funny robes.

The corruption was the same regardless of who took the taxes. The Reformation didn't reduce the tax burden on the people (if anything it increased it to support the wars) it just shifted the proceeds to the barons and princes.

I'd argue that even though there was a lot of corruption, the Church did more for the people through poor relief, hospitals, and elementary education, than the barons and princes ever did.
   1721. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 17, 2014 at 02:52 PM (#4672933)
You drew an implicit equivalence.


I pointed out the graveyard that the worshipers of capitalism like to ignore. The fact that they are marketing savvy enough not to build mounds out of the skulls doesn't make the exploited people any less exploited. (And TGF is the one that brought historical equivalency in, much less the working poor of 2014.)
   1722. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 17, 2014 at 02:54 PM (#4672935)
In any case, workers were even more miserable in pre-capitalistic society


Except those lucky enough to be the serfs and slaves of the Church, natch. Those guys were totally better off previously.
   1723. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 17, 2014 at 02:54 PM (#4672936)
Essentially, every western European nation expropriated Church lands sooner or later. The later it happened, the slower the industrial and economic development of the country in question. Great Britain and northern Europe first, France and Austria second, Spain not until 1835.

Correlation does not equal Causation. Spain was a poor backwater in the 16th century too. The wealth of the Habsburgs came from Flanders, Northern Italy, and the New World.

Iron and coal happened to be far more prevalent in the Protestant nations, which is what drove industrialization and economic progress.
   1724. Greg K Posted: March 17, 2014 at 02:55 PM (#4672938)
My point was none of the previous reforms turned into a major revolution/Europe wide war. The reason the Protestant Reformation did so, was because of the political interests of the German Princes.

I think this gives the German princes too much credit. There were other differences between 16th century Europe and previous centuries. I think social and technological change provided a more sympathetic environment for the Reformation. Not to mention the hotbed of Protestantism that was Switzerland, with its totally different political structures from Germany. The historiography goes back and forth of course, but I think you have to incorporate elements of widespread anti-clericalism, the political context of the Holy Roman Empire, and the social and economic consequences of the previous centuries of labour shortages and poor harvests that gave the peasants a bit more power, which they were loathe to give up (which I think more than anything played a crucial role in the Peasants' War).

I think we've correctly disposed of the old simplistic story of "The Church was evil and so some pure-hearted Protestants came in and secured everyone's religious liberty", but I think we should be careful not to go to the other side of "things would have been fine if not for a few greedy nobles".
   1725. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 17, 2014 at 02:56 PM (#4672939)
Except those lucky enough to be the serfs and slaves of the Church, natch. Those guys were totally better off previously.

Better off than the serfs and slaves of the nobility? Generally, yes.
   1726. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: March 17, 2014 at 02:56 PM (#4672940)
1717. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 17, 2014 at 01:48 PM (#4672928)


In any case, workers were even more miserable in pre-capitalistic society, and were/are certainly more miserable in command and control economies.

1718. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: March 17, 2014 at 01:48 PM (#4672929)
Essentially, every western European nation expropriated Church lands sooner or later. The later it happened, the slower the industrial and economic development of the country in question. Great Britain and northern Europe first, France and Austria second, Spain not until 1835.

1720. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 17, 2014 at 01:51 PM (#467293
I'd argue that even though there was a lot of corruption, the Church did more for the people through poor relief, hospitals, and elementary education, than the barons and princes ever did.



So, how do you reconcile 1717 with 1720, given 1718? The longer the church held onto its vast wealth, the worse off the people were.
   1727. The Good Face Posted: March 17, 2014 at 02:57 PM (#4672941)
No I didn't. I pointed out that the horded wealth of modern capitalism is built on a graveyard of human misery. The rest was supplied by you.


No, you didn't. I'll just repost the exchange. But it's worth noting that even taking you at your word above, you're STILL making a communist apologia.

There are numerous examples of people managing to take down the powerful elites who siphon off all the goods and benefits of society, but all too often they end with a pyramid of skulls.

As opposed to the unmemorialized litter of broken human bodies that result from the casual and on-going exploitation of workers for the benefit of those empowered elites.


But hey, what's a pyramid of skulls compared to the "broken human bodies" (who are more likely to be sitting on a sofa unemployed, eking a crappy living off the dole, but I digress) of the 2014 American working class, eh comrade?
   1728. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 17, 2014 at 02:58 PM (#4672944)
I think we've correctly disposed of the old simplistic story of "The Church was evil and so some pure-hearted Protestants came in and secured everyone's religious liberty", but I think we should be careful not to go to the other side of "things would have been fine if not for a few greedy nobles".

I'm just saying reform could have happened without a massive, century long war that completely devastated Germany.

If Erasmus had been the driving force rather than Martin Luther, I think you would have had a far more peaceful reform.
   1729. Srul Itza Posted: March 17, 2014 at 03:01 PM (#4672947)
. But only by resigning this summer can she ensure that a Democratic president will be able to choose a successor who shares her views and values.


After the GOP takes the Senate, there will be no more judicial appointments confirmed until after the 2016 election.
   1730. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: March 17, 2014 at 03:01 PM (#4672948)

Correlation does not equal Causation. Spain was a poor backwater in the 16th century too.


This is not true; The Spain of Ferdinand and Isabella was wealthy and prosperous.
   1731. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: March 17, 2014 at 03:01 PM (#4672949)
Iron and coal happened to be far more prevalent in the Protestant nations, which is what drove industrialization and economic progress.


Well, that and a people freed from the stifling conservatism of the all powerful church. Newton and Leibnitz were renowned. Galileo was tried for heresy.
   1732. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 17, 2014 at 03:02 PM (#4672950)
So, how do you reconcile 1717 with 1720, given 1718? The longer the church held onto its vast wealth, the worse off the people were.

I'd argue 1723. The industrialization of Northern Europe arose out of factors unrelated to Religion; i.e. natural resources and access to the Atlantic trade routes.

Spain and Portugal were always poor. Italy remained rich until coal and iron became critical, and they didn't have it. Flanders was always rich. Catholic Germany was as rich as Protestant Germany.

I'm also not at all sure that British mill workers were any better off than Spanish peasants.
   1733. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: March 17, 2014 at 03:03 PM (#4672952)

I'm just saying reform could have happened without a massive, century long war that completely devastated Germany.

If Erasmus had been the driving force rather than Martin Luther, I think you would have had a far more peaceful reform.


I think this glosses over the role that the Papacy and Catholic countries had in that devastating series of wars. Burning people at the stake for their beliefs isn't the sort of thing that leads to peace.
   1734. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 17, 2014 at 03:05 PM (#4672954)
But hey, what's a pyramid of skulls compared to the "broken human bodies" (who are more likely to be sitting on a sofa unemployed, eking a crappy living off the dole, but I digress) of the 2014 American working class, eh comrade?


How many skulls could we build out of dead Iraqis who got in the way of "our freedoms?" How many out of Native Americans who had the audacity to live between two points of a railroad baron's gold mine? How many skulls of West Virginias dying slow deaths on company tin? You are confusing drama for truth, which admittedly, is a thing you do. So Pol Pot was a bad man and he made a pyramid of skulls. That is irrelevant to anything we were talking about today.

I am making no apologies for anyone or any system. I'm simply kicking you self-righteous ######### in the nads when appropriate.
   1735. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 17, 2014 at 03:07 PM (#4672955)
This is not true; The Spain of Ferdinand and Isabella was wealthy and prosperous.

Not compared to France, Flanders, Northern Italy and parts of Germany. Aragon, had some wealth from its Mediterranean possessions, but Castille was very poor. The Spanish Kings only became rich from American Gold and Silver, and non-Spanish lands.
   1736. Greg K Posted: March 17, 2014 at 03:08 PM (#4672957)
Luther to 1648 was a pretty bad outcome for all involved in Europe. Much like our conversation earlier in the thread about 1914-1945 counter-factuals, it's hard to imagine a counter-factual that would make things worse, so I think there's some truth in that. As the Stephen Malkmus song goes: "change is all we need to improve".

Not all permutations of 16th century church reform necessarily have to turn out like the one we got, but I think the world Erasmus and Luther existed in was fundamentally not medieval, (and one of the great movers of the 16th and 17th centuries was that so many people did not realize they no longer lived in a medieval world). But once you get to the early modern social world I'm not sure you can have another Francis or Benedict. I'm not sure what a Erasmusian Reform would look like...I can imagine it would be less bloody than the one we got, but I don't think you're going to get one without some massive upheaval.

   1737. GregD Posted: March 17, 2014 at 03:10 PM (#4672959)
I'm just saying reform could have happened without a massive, century long war that completely devastated Germany.

If Erasmus had been the driving force rather than Martin Luther, I think you would have had a far more peaceful reform.
If only there were somebody inside the church making these points. Somebody saying, hey we shouldn't be selling indulgences to build cathedrals in Rome. Somebody trying to make this point from within the church. Maybe if it had just been a priest making these points, maybe even one who was also a professor.

It's strange to blame Luther for the Catholic church's failure to reform itself. Their response--outlaw and arrest--is pretty clear indication of where they stood on reform. It would have been nice if it didn't take schisms and wars to shake them out of their torpor, but it's unconvincing to blame everyone else for their torpor.
   1738. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 17, 2014 at 03:10 PM (#4672960)
I think this glosses over the role that the Papacy and Catholic countries had in that devastating series of wars. Burning people at the stake for their beliefs isn't the sort of thing that leads to peace.

Yeah, burning people was as much a Protestant thing as a Catholic, and it was always done by civil authorities not religious. Heresy was a civil crime in most places, as it was viewed as disloyalty to the sovereign (be he Catholic, Lutheran or Calvinist).

The anti-Protestant fight was led by the Emperor and the Duke of Bavaria, much more so than the Pope. Hell, Emperor Charles V sacked Rome in 1527.
   1739. Greg K Posted: March 17, 2014 at 03:13 PM (#4672962)
This is not true; The Spain of Ferdinand and Isabella was wealthy and prosperous.

I went at a talk last year about...I forget what it was initially about, 17th century Spanish sports I think?...but at one point the conversation turned to, "The powerful Spanish overseas Empire: what happened?" And one of the ideas put forward was that the Spanish just weren't interested at all in trade. They were just there to save souls and extract mineral wealth. As a result they just didn't create anything productive either at home or abroad. I don't really know enough about Spanish history* to know what to make of that.

*Though that's not stopping me from applying for a job to teach it next year.
   1740. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 17, 2014 at 03:15 PM (#4672963)
If only there were somebody inside the church making these points. Somebody saying, hey we shouldn't be selling indulgences to build cathedrals in Rome. Somebody trying to make this point from within the church. Maybe if it had just been a priest making these points, maybe even one who was also a professor.

It's strange to blame Luther for the Catholic church's failure to reform itself. Their response--outlaw and arrest--is pretty clear indication of where they stood on reform. It would have been nice if it didn't take schisms and wars to shake them out of their torpor, but it's unconvincing to blame everyone else for their torpor.


I'm not blaming Luther for his ideas. I'm blaming the German nobles for exploiting them, and Luther for going along with that exploitation. Pardon me if I don't view the Luther who sanctioned the slaughter of the German peasantry by his benefactors as some sort of great hero.

If the Church were near as ruthless as you suggest, Luther never would have returned from the Diet of Worms. They could have easily had him packed off to a monastery in Sicily, never to be seen again, or killed.
   1741. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 17, 2014 at 03:18 PM (#4672965)
I went at a talk last year about...I forget what it was initially about, 17th century Spanish sports I think?...but at one point the conversation turned to, "The powerful Spanish overseas Empire: what happened?" And one of the ideas put forward was that the Spanish just weren't interested at all in trade. They were just there to save souls and extract mineral wealth. As a result they just didn't create anything productive either at home or abroad. I don't really know enough about Spanish history* to know what to make of that.

*Though that's not stopping me from applying for a job to teach it next year.


That's my understanding. The Spanish nobility was interested either in amassing gold and lands, or saving souls. They didn't invest in trade, or especially industry. Most Spanish trade was carried out by Portuguese or Italian intermediaries. e.g. the merchants of Genoa handled the conversion of Spanish silver (after the initial wave of plunder, Mexico and Peru produced silver not gold) into the gold they needed to pay the troops (taking a nice cut). The silver eventually made its way through Genoese trade partners, to China, where they used silver, not gold, as the common currency.
   1742. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: March 17, 2014 at 03:20 PM (#4672966)

Not compared to France, Flanders, Northern Italy and parts of Germany. Aragon, had some wealth from its Mediterranean possessions, but Castille was very poor. The Spanish Kings only became rich from American Gold and Silver, and non-Spanish lands.


Well, we could debate about that, but it's ancilliary. If you're poor, not investing your money in unproductive assets is even more important than if you are rich.
   1743. The Good Face Posted: March 17, 2014 at 03:23 PM (#4672968)
How many skulls could we build out of dead Iraqis who got in the way of "our freedoms?" How many out of Native Americans who had the audacity to live between two points of a railroad baron's gold mine? How many skulls of West Virginias dying slow deaths on company tin? You are confusing drama for truth, which admittedly, is a thing you do. So Pol Pot was a bad man and he made a pyramid of skulls. That is irrelevant to anything we were talking about today.


Let's set aside this hysterical oration and look at what precipitated our little discussion here. You made a policy suggestion (nationalize the means of production bitches!). I corrected pointed out that this policy had a pretty lousy track record, historically speaking, and often resulted in a genocidal killfest. You, apparently having suffered some severe brain damage over the weekend, took that opportunity to diminish said genocidal killfests by claiming that they were no worse than, and possibly better than, the "ongoing exploitation of workers". That makes you a communist apologist, which is a pretty shitty thing to be. So. Now we've established a causal chain to this conversation and determined that all is, indeed, as relevant as things ever get around here.

I am making no apologies for anyone or any system. I'm simply kicking you self-righteous ######### in the nads when appropriate.


Keeeeeybooooaaaaarrrrd Waaarrriiooorrrsssss to teh rescue!

Seriously, WTF? Who are these self-righteous ########? (irony alert) People who think genocides are bad? People who point out that communism is a really good way to get a genocide going? And has it occurred to you that if "kicking self-righteous ######## in the nads" requires you to defend genocides and the systems that produce them, you might actually be part of that problem?
   1744. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 17, 2014 at 03:23 PM (#4672970)
Well, we could debate about that, but it's ancilliary. If you're poor, not investing your money in unproductive assets is even more important than if you are rich.

Why do you view monasteries as unproductive assets? The monasteries teemed with agricultural activities as well as industry. The Bendectine motto was Ora et Labora, pray and work, and the monks were nothing if not industrious.

Monks invented fish farming, agricultural techniques, and developed industries (Champagne and Ale anyone). There's no reason to think land under the management of monasteries was any less productive than land under feudal barons. They also provided a lot of charity and education services.

You'd have to make some second order argument that monasteries were less likely than nobles to squander their wealth and see their lands transferred into private hands, those people being even more productive than the monasteries. That's possible, but a bit of a stretch.
   1745. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 17, 2014 at 03:24 PM (#4672971)
You made a policy suggestion (nationalize the means of production #######!)


No I didn't.

And has it occurred to you that if "kicking self-righteous ######## in the nads" requires you to defend genocides and the systems that produce them, you might actually be part of that problem?


I have not defended genocide or the systems that produce them.
   1746. The Anthony Kennedy of BBTF (Scott) Posted: March 17, 2014 at 03:36 PM (#4672979)
So, fivethirtyeight.com is back up. Dylan Byers of Politico already has a snarky post about an error on the site, because he's a worthless twit.
   1747. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: March 17, 2014 at 03:41 PM (#4672981)
I have not defended genocide or the systems that produce them.

You don't understand, Sam. You have to preface every critique of Good Face's bedfellows by pointing out that Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot were far more efficient killers than the colonial powers and / or the sundry dictators we've propped up from all over the world. If you don't do that, then obviously you're endorsing Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot and the whole nine yards.
   1748. The Good Face Posted: March 17, 2014 at 03:49 PM (#4672986)
You made a policy suggestion (nationalize the means of production #######!)

No I didn't.


Either your posts are penned by a colony of goldfish (plausible, would explain a few things), or you might be fibbing a bit here. To the archives! (or, yanno, one page ago)

I am on record supporting pretty much any process by which to re-balance the power between workers and capital.


So, you're just going to seize 50% of the shareholders property by Gov't fiat?

This is your basic problem, Snapper. You want to take down the powered elites who are siphoning off all of the goods and benefits of our society for themselves, but you abjectly renounce any method by which someone might actually take on a deeply entrenched, empowered elite.


So you're on record as pushing for the government to seize 50% of shareholder property by fiat and that you're down with ANY process to re-balance power between workers and capital. Any. Process. What other conclusions should we draw from this?

I have not defended genocide or the systems that produce them.


When you attempt to diminish them by comparing them to "the ongoing exploitation of workers," then yeah, you actually kinda are. "Yeah sure, there's a chance all those commie genocides might have been sub-optimal, but you know what's a REAL problem? Capital exploiting workers man!"
   1749. Shredder Posted: March 17, 2014 at 03:51 PM (#4672987)
You made a policy suggestion (nationalize the means of production #######!)
Wow, this a ballsy bit of lying even coming from you. Pretty sure the Germans would probably argue that the means of production are not nationalized in that country, but whatever. Lying maybe too strong, but when you start believing your own ridiculous hyperbole...
   1750. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 17, 2014 at 03:54 PM (#4672989)
So you're on record as pushing for the government to seize 50% of shareholder property by fiat


As I told you earlier, when your drool-inducing idiocy where giving workers a seat on the boards and a say in company direction becomes "seizure of the means of production" I'll let you know. Assuming the doctors will allow you to have visitors that day, I guess.

You seem to live in a world where a man is either 100% okay with massive inequality of wealth and the exploitation of workers by capital or he's pining for the killing fields of Cambodia. It's a stupendously stupid position to take.
   1751. Mefisto Posted: March 17, 2014 at 03:57 PM (#4672991)
My point was none of the previous reforms turned into a major revolution/Europe wide war. The reason the Protestant Reformation did so, was because of the political interests of the German Princes.


Others have dealt with this from the Reformation end, so let me add that (1) a European wide war would have been nearly impossible in the conditions of 1073; (2) Gregory got lucky at Canossa; and (3) the Papacy successfully diverted European warriors to Palestine as of 1096 or so.

As for Erasmus, he had his chances and chickened out.

burning people was as much a Protestant thing as a Catholic


Not in England. Exactly 1 Catholic was burned at the stake. In fairness, lots of others were executed in some pretty unpleasant ways, but they were not burned.

   1752. Gaelan Posted: March 17, 2014 at 04:03 PM (#4672992)
The internal contradiction of capitalism is the relationship between productivity and aggregate demand. The success of 20th century capitalism (in comparison to 19th century capitalism) was the resolution of this contradiction at the national level through wide spread high wages for the labouring classes.

The success or failure of 21st century capitalism is predicated upon repeating this reconciliation at the international level. The difficulty is that it is not obvious how to do this even if you had the political will (which does not exist).
   1753. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 17, 2014 at 04:08 PM (#4672994)
You seem to live in a world where a man is either 100% okay with massive inequality of wealth and the exploitation of workers by capital or he's pining for the killing fields of Cambodia. It's a stupendously stupid position to take.

As I've probably written before, I'd have no problem nationalizing most or all of the commanding heights of production -- and history tells us it can be done sans skull stacks.
   1754. The Good Face Posted: March 17, 2014 at 04:10 PM (#4672995)
As I told you earlier, when your drool-inducing idiocy where giving workers a seat on the boards and a say in company direction becomes "seizure of the means of production" I'll let you know. Assuming the doctors will allow you to have visitors that day, I guess.


When Snapper used those exact words to describe what you were proposing, you had no problem with them. In fact you advocated for it. Because at the time you hadn't managed to make yourself look stupid by apologizing for communist genocides. Really, I don't much care if you're a loathsome commie apologist; it's the dissembling and the unwillingness to own your beliefs that I find abhorrent.

You seem to live in a world where a man is either 100% okay with massive inequality of wealth and the exploitation of workers by capital or he's pining for the killing fields of Cambodia. It's a stupendously stupid position to take.


Not at all, and I've said nothing to support that claim. I live in a world where genocide is a terrible thing and should not be equated with, or diminished by, the exploitation of workers by capital. You, by your own words, apparently don't think genocide is such a big deal. At least not when communists do it. I suppose we'd need Israelis doing bad stuff to get YOUR dander up...
   1755. The Yankee Clapper Posted: March 17, 2014 at 04:11 PM (#4672996)
So, fivethirtyeight.com is back up.

Articles on toilet seat covers? At ESPN? May need some fine-tuning.
   1756. Ron J2 Posted: March 17, 2014 at 04:18 PM (#4672999)
#1751 One of the things that the author of Wolf Hall is at pains to point out that while he was in power Thomas More was an extremely active persecutor of those holding views seen as heretical. While he didn't personally torture, he's supposed to have sat in on the torture sessions.

He also did obscene counter-Luther propaganda, but that was fairly standard at the time.
   1757. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 17, 2014 at 04:18 PM (#4673000)
You, by your own words, apparently don't think genocide is such a big deal. At least not when communists do it.


Keep ranting. Won't make you any less wrong. Work out those bad feelings, man.
   1758. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 17, 2014 at 04:21 PM (#4673004)
And for the record, I totally oppose *targeted* genocide. A good viral plague to clear off a couple billion randomly? That would probably do the body good in the long run.
   1759. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 17, 2014 at 04:22 PM (#4673005)
Not in England. Exactly 1 Catholic was burned at the stake. In fairness, lots of others were executed in some pretty unpleasant ways, but they were not burned.

Well there's a distinction without a difference. The Protestants burned plenty of witches.
   1760. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 17, 2014 at 04:25 PM (#4673006)
The success or failure of 21st century capitalism is predicated upon repeating this reconciliation at the international level. The difficulty is that it is not obvious how to do this even if you had the political will (which does not exist).

Can't be done at the international level without impoverishing unskilled and semi-skilled workers in the advanced economies. You'll get a revolution before wages catch up.

The advanced economies need to protect their own workers' wages, and let the emerging markets develop through meeting domestic demand, not through cut rate exports.

We are attempting a global convergence at way too rapid a pace.
   1761. Mefisto Posted: March 17, 2014 at 04:25 PM (#4673007)
Well there's a distinction without a difference.


I'm not at all sure that's true -- burning at the stake is about as terrible a way to die as there is. Regardless, more people were executed for being Protestants in 16th C England than for being Catholics.
   1762. Mefisto Posted: March 17, 2014 at 04:27 PM (#4673008)
He also did obscene counter-Luther propaganda, but that was fairly standard at the time.


Yeah, it'd be fun to see who used more obscenities, Luther or More.
   1763. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 17, 2014 at 04:29 PM (#4673010)
I'm not at all sure that's true -- burning at the stake is about as terrible a way to die as there is. Regardless, more people were executed for being Protestants in 16th C England than for being Catholics.

Well, Elizabeth did her best to catch up, but there just weren't that many open Catholics left. Does the 17th c. death toll not count?

I would think drawing and quartering was worse, since they made a special effort to keep the victim alive. With a burning, you probably pass out from the smoke and fumes before the flames get to you.
   1764. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: March 17, 2014 at 04:33 PM (#4673011)
Well there's a distinction without a difference. The Protestants burned plenty of witches.


Well, at least people they said were witches. Of course since "witchcraft" is as impotent and worthless as all the other superstitious mumbo-jumbo practiced by the cretins wielding the torches and tongs it's probably best to consider it just another example of internecine warfare.
   1765. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 17, 2014 at 04:34 PM (#4673012)
Yeah, it'd be fun to see who used more obscenities, Luther or More.

Funny video on Luther.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=St9-z6OAewA
   1766. Mefisto Posted: March 17, 2014 at 04:39 PM (#4673018)
Does the 17th c. death toll not count?


I never send to know for whom the bell tolls.
   1767. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: March 17, 2014 at 04:46 PM (#4673019)
If only there were somebody inside the church making these points. Somebody saying, hey we shouldn't be selling indulgences to build cathedrals in Rome. Somebody trying to make this point from within the church. Maybe if it had just been a priest making these points, maybe even one who was also a professor.


There were, and in fact when Luther started nailing his theses to the wall, the "church" actually agreed with most of them, Luther DID NOT WANT REFORM, he wanted revolution (and he got it), he was not looking to discuss or negotiate he was looking to pick a fight

I may sound like a partisan Catholic saying this, but Luther was a pure un-redeemable scumbag- his opponents were bad, but he was worse in almost every measurable way- he was like the Ayatollah to Rome's Shah.

Luther wasn't the only one (inside and outside the church) saying SOME of what he was saying- and actually early on the Church was going easier on him than it had others- largely because they knew the gig was up and some stuff, like selling indulgences couldn't really be defended any longer, trouble was Luther wasn't actually looking for any concessions, Luther (unlike most of the poor "heretics" the church had earlier burnt or racked, was not negotiating in good faith- well you could day the Church had reaped what it had sown, but that doesn't make Luther any kind of reforming hero.
   1768. zenbitz Posted: March 17, 2014 at 04:57 PM (#4673023)
Which is pretty much the end of capitalism as we know it ... meaning capitalism as we know it is over.


Marxist! (which dates the fact that capitalism was broken back to 1867, when Das Kapital was published).


I don't know that it's a system of morality, but it touches on freedom and liberty -- concepts with clear moral weight. As a matter of first principle, economic arrangements entered into freely are preferable to coerced arrangements.


You can have private property in a police state.
You can have a free market in a police state.
You can have capitalism in a police state.
In fact, you can have all these in an anarchic-biker "state". Whether or not the state (or lack there of) protects an individual's freedom is wholly irrelevant as to whether or not it can buy/sell/trade stuff.

Obviously, certain SPECIFIC types of regulations and/or lack of enforcment make such an "economy" non-functional... but "Freedoms" is not part-and-parcel of an economic framework. Just as genocide is not part-and-parcel (THEORETICALLY) from communist states.

Correlation is not causation.
   1769. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 17, 2014 at 05:17 PM (#4673031)
There were, and in fact when Luther started nailing his theses to the wall, the "church" actually agreed with most of them, Luther DID NOT WANT REFORM, he wanted revolution (and he got it), he was not looking to discuss or negotiate he was looking to pick a fight

I may sound like a partisan Catholic saying this, but Luther was a pure un-redeemable scumbag- his opponents were bad, but he was worse in almost every measurable way- he was like the Ayatollah to Rome's Shah.

Luther wasn't the only one (inside and outside the church) saying SOME of what he was saying- and actually early on the Church was going easier on him than it had others- largely because they knew the gig was up and some stuff, like selling indulgences couldn't really be defended any longer, trouble was Luther wasn't actually looking for any concessions, Luther (unlike most of the poor "heretics" the church had earlier burnt or racked, was not negotiating in good faith- well you could day the Church had reaped what it had sown, but that doesn't make Luther any kind of reforming hero.


You'll really enjoy the link in [1765].
   1770. The Yankee Clapper Posted: March 17, 2014 at 06:03 PM (#4673059)
Rachel "Bunny" Mellon, famous for helping Jackie Kennedy redesign the White House Rose Garden, and providing much of the money John Edwards used to pay off his mistress, has died at 103.
   1771. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: March 17, 2014 at 06:29 PM (#4673075)

The advanced economies need to protect their own workers' wages, and let the emerging markets develop through meeting domestic demand, not through cut rate exports.


Poor countries don't have much in the way of domestic demand. There's a reason every advanced economy* got that way through cut rate exports, not through meeting domestic demand.

*In the case of the US, you can also add the profit from taking vast tracts of undeveloped land from the Native Americans.
   1772. OCF Posted: March 17, 2014 at 06:39 PM (#4673080)
the Spanish just weren't interested at all in trade. They were just there to save souls and extract mineral wealth. As a result they just didn't create anything productive either at home or abroad.

About that "extract mineral wealth": I've heard it explained that for the most part, they expected to find "civilizations" that had already found and dug up the gold and silver, and all they had to do was knock off the local kings and claim the already-collected treasure. Which is pretty much what they did in Peru and Mexico, although they then back-tracked that to the silver mines that the Aztec and Inca were using. They weren't so keen on actual prospecting. If the California Indians weren't mining and wearing gold, then Spaniards weren't going to find it for themselves.
   1773. Publius Publicola Posted: March 17, 2014 at 06:56 PM (#4673089)
   1774. zenbitz Posted: March 17, 2014 at 07:36 PM (#4673105)
Going back to @1583... the first link is NOT full of garbage biology... I think it's an interesting, reasonable, and ultimately testable hypothesis. Haven't read the 2nd one yet.
   1775. zenbitz Posted: March 17, 2014 at 09:25 PM (#4673120)
Unsurprisingly, I disagree with the second link in @1583. Ironically, the detailed critiques of GWAS studies are, in fact, warranted. However I think the rest of the article is some combination of straw man and ordinary technophobia. Again, Ironically it shows fundamentally conservative thought (see the first article linked) from a classical American liberal point of view - "this could be used for evil or might be harmful, so I think it ought be be banned" -- see Guns, Big Gulps, Trans-fats, GMOs etc.

(To be fair, I don't think the author was proposing outlawing genetic studies -- merely saying that they should be ignored).


The appeal of biological determinism is that it offers plausible, scientific explanations for societal contradictions engendered by capitalism. If Type?II diabetes is reduced to the problem of genetics (which it surely is to some degree), then we don’t have to think about the rise of obesity and its underlying causes: the agro-business monopoly, income inequality, and class-based disparities in food quality. Combine this with the prevalence of drug-based solutions to disease pushed by the pharmaceutical industry and it is no surprise that we are left with the impression that complex social phenomena are reducible to simple scientific fact.


This is a perfect example of what is wrong with the article. Yes, I agree, if people misinterpret science or use it to justify their own pre-existing beliefs and cognitive biases this is a bad thing. This is of course, true of all forms of information and knowledge and not restricted to genetics in specific or science in general. Also - you will note the author assuming his own conclusions (agro-business and big-pharma BAD).

It is just like Snapper blaming the breakdown of the nuclear family on the sexual liberation movement of the 60s and 70s.

The way forward - the way of justice - is neither the fear mongering in this article or it's feeble dike plugging status quo solution (if it even presents a solution...). There are almost certainly genetic markers for intelligence, sexual preference, liberal/conservative thought, criminality and a host of human behavior both laudatory and condemnable.

I am equally certain that all of these genetic links -- both known now and new to be discovered -- will not actually have practical predictable outcomes ON AN INDIVIDUAL LEVEL. The number of genetic combinations and highly relevant environmental input makes any given person's personality undetermined (or at least very underdetermined) at birth, for all but the hyper-extreme cases.

Genetics has been an enormously powerful too to understand basic cellular and organismal biology - at the detailed model level (which requires much more than GWAS studies - their weakness is due to, IMO, the lack of interpretable models of the phenotypes they strive to explain).

The lesson that OUGHT to be learned from this is that people are not statistics -- That you can make informed decisions about your life knowing your genetic background, but it does NOT determine your socioeconomic status. Statistics is what Stalin thinks of people.

Now, of course this is possibly a pollyanna-ish approach to the harsh real world. But so what? If the genetic data didn't exist, people would use whatever else - be it science, morality, religion, economics to justify their cognitive biases.
   1776. The Yankee Clapper Posted: March 17, 2014 at 10:01 PM (#4673134)
Can't blame the GOP - Dems Turn On Obama Nominees
President Barack Obama is quickly discovering that getting his nominees confirmed is no simple matter, even with the Senate’s filibuster gutted and Republicans sidelined. The White House is facing its second Democratic rebellion in less than two weeks over a nomination that’s drawn quick opposition from rural Democratic senators. Obama has enough trouble with the GOP, which is nearly united in opposing Vivek Murthy’s nomination to become surgeon general, but it’s his own party that is again in position to derail another presidential pick.

Democratic Senate aides estimated on Monday that from eight to 10 Democrats may oppose Murthy’s nomination if the vote were to be held soon, mostly because of his left-leaning views on gun policy, which have attracted opposition from the National Rifle Association. An aide closely following the nomination described a vote for Murthy as carrying “very little political or policy gain but plenty of downside.”
. . .
The renewed opposition to Murthy and resounding rejection of Adegbile also expose the need to improve coordination between the White House and Capitol Hill Democrats, particularly in the critical run-up to mid-term elections. Aides privately fumed over having a vote on Adegbile’s nomination, an operation so ill-coordinated that some vulnerable Democrats ended up needlessly voting for a failed controversial nominee — easy fodder for an attack ad from their political opponents.

Seems like political malpractice to force vulnerable Democrats to cast controversial votes on nominees that don't have enough support to be confirmed.
   1777. Mefisto Posted: March 17, 2014 at 10:14 PM (#4673139)
Can't blame the GOP


Uh, yes, blaming everyone who voted nay is exactly what we can do.
   1778. GregD Posted: March 17, 2014 at 10:22 PM (#4673141)
Clearly the only sane people are the ones who think guns are a public health bonanza!
   1779. Lassus Posted: March 17, 2014 at 10:28 PM (#4673143)
Spare me, PassiveAggressive Clapper.
   1780. Publius Publicola Posted: March 17, 2014 at 10:48 PM (#4673149)
Getting back to Brown, one of the truly amazing things to see over the last 15 yrs is how blue NH has become. Both congressmen are Democrats. Prior to 2007, the last time that happened was in 1913-1915. The GOP brand in their former heartland has become soooo toxic...
   1781. JE (Jason) Posted: March 18, 2014 at 12:13 AM (#4673157)
The GOP brand in their former heartland has become soooo toxic...

Meh. NH-1 is perhaps the most competitive seat in the nation, Kevin. Shea-Porter lost the seat to Guinta in 2010, won it back in '12, and may again give it back to Guinta this November. NH-2 is also considered competitive.

A far more interesting factoid about New Hampshire is that the state sports the first all-female delegation (Shaheen, Ayotte, Shea-Porter, Kuster).
   1782. greenback calls it soccer Posted: March 18, 2014 at 01:59 AM (#4673166)
As an insurance guy, it has been fascinating to read updates on the National Flood Insurance Program while also reading about the controversy over Obamacare. The future of Obamacare won't be determined by who wins this election or that election so much as by the establishment of a political constituency (mostly lobbyists) that can bully 300+ congressmen and 55+ senators.
   1783. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 18, 2014 at 08:13 AM (#4673190)
The future of Obamacare


I still maintain that it is really hard to roll back government entitlements/benefits (whatever we are calling them), especially those that help the middle class even a little. Of course I might be underestimating how focused the GOP is, and willing to drive the car off the cliff, no matter the consequences. Hopefully it will be a while before the GOP gets control of all the levers of power, so we don't have to find out.

Not that lobbyists are not part of the reason it is hard by the way.
   1784. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: March 18, 2014 at 08:33 AM (#4673195)
New Hampshire has certainly flipped. The state's presidential vote, post-WW2:
2012: Obama by 5.6%
2008: Obama by 9.7%
2004: Kerry by 1.4%
2000: Bush by 1.3%
1996: Clinton by 10%
1992: Clinton by 1.2%
1988: Bush by 28.1%
1984: Reagan by 37.7%
1980: Reagan by 29.4%
1976: Ford by 11.3%
1972: Nixon by 30.9%
1968: Nixon by 8.2%
1964: Johnson by 27.8%
1960: Nixon by 6.8%
1956: Eisenhower by 32.3%
1952: Eisenhower by 21.8%
1948: Dewey by 5.7%

Just four Democrats have served a combined six terms as a New Hampshire Senator since 1900, counting Jeanne Shaheen's not-yet-finished term. There was also one hotly contested special election in 1974 which saw the result flip by recount, flip back by second recount, get held up and left vacant for seven months, and then be filled by the Republican challenger for a month and a half, who was then ousted under further appeal by the Democratic candidate (who served most of the remaining term, but quit early after losing the next election). What a shame there was no internet then, to dispassionately discuss the sequence of events.
   1785. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 18, 2014 at 08:40 AM (#4673199)
Seems like political malpractice to force vulnerable Democrats to cast controversial votes on nominees that don't have enough support to be confirmed.


Because Dem Senators weren't in the pockets of the NRA already.
   1786. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 18, 2014 at 08:50 AM (#4673201)
Seems like political malpractice to force vulnerable Democrats to cast controversial votes on nominees that don't have enough support to be confirmed.


There are a bunch of assumptions there. I think the biggest is the assumption that governance is all a giant political game. On some level I hope everyone realizes that governing the nation, including nominating people for positions of power, is about more than posturing and preparing for the next election.

There are actual issues at play. If you are not going to do anything that has any chance of being controversial or has the chance of being defeated then you are not doing enough. It is like crowing that ACA will spell political doom and how foolish it was to enact it, without considering the policy impact of doing it.

Passing laws, or in this case confirming someone to a position, is the point of getting elected. it is not just a stepping stone to the next election. Yes one needs to be aware of the political consequences of actions, but evaluating* EVERYTHING strictly on the political upside or downside is pathetic, depressing, and the best argument that the "society is in decline" folks could have.

Fortunately there is more to life, and that sort of analysis* has been going on forever, so it is not like this is actually a decline at all, just annoying.

* In reality of course the statement is neither evaluating nor is it analysis, it is concern trolling pure and simple, and as such not really worth the effort to rebut, except I wanted to make the point that there is more to politics than getting ready for the next election. Governing is still job #1.
   1787. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 18, 2014 at 08:54 AM (#4673204)
New Hampshire has certainly flipped.


Yeah suggesting otherwise would be like talking about how Arkansas had not really flipped. Of course both of them have. All part of the giant realignment that took place from the signing of the Civil Rights Act and continued to this day. It is a realignment that has, I think, pretty much run its course.
   1788. Shredder Posted: March 18, 2014 at 09:02 AM (#4673206)
Governing is still job #1.
Not for Republicans.
   1789. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: March 18, 2014 at 09:09 AM (#4673208)
Governing is still job #1.

Not for Republicans.


Well after they've insured that Hussein X is a one-term president, then governing will be job #1!
   1790. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: March 18, 2014 at 09:16 AM (#4673212)
How dare you! This Congress is "focused like a laser on jobs, jobs, jobs." All 535 of them.
   1791. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 18, 2014 at 09:22 AM (#4673214)
This Congress is "focused like a laser on jobs, jobs, jobs." All 535 of them.


Wherein the "jobs, jobs, jobs" is understood to mean "protecting my job and making sure I get paid handsomely by the Village influence brokers while continuing to be reelected by the rubes back home who think I'm interested in their pathetic lives" this is functionally true.
   1792. The Good Face Posted: March 18, 2014 at 09:44 AM (#4673227)
However I think the rest of the article is some combination of straw man and ordinary technophobia. Again, Ironically it shows fundamentally conservative thought (see the first article linked) from a classical American liberal point of view - "this could be used for evil or might be harmful, so I think it ought be be banned" -- see Guns, Big Gulps, Trans-fats, GMOs etc.


You're looking for the Appeal to Consequences fallacy, although I have no idea why you'd think that fallacy is fundamentally "conservative".
   1793. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 18, 2014 at 09:45 AM (#4673230)
You're looking for the Appeal to Consequences fallacy


Fallacy fallacy.
   1794. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 18, 2014 at 10:06 AM (#4673239)
   1795. JE (Jason) Posted: March 18, 2014 at 10:07 AM (#4673240)
Because Dem Senators weren't in the pockets of the NRA already.

Even in the aftermath of the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary, the NRA had a higher nationwide approval rating than the President, meaning that the nefarious lobby way better reflects the opinions of the senators' constituents.
   1796. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 18, 2014 at 10:46 AM (#4673269)
Even in the aftermath of the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary, the NRA had a higher nationwide approval rating than the President, meaning that the nefarious lobby way better reflects the opinions of the senators' constituents.


A plurality of those constituents think the President is a Muslim infiltrator about to outlaw ammunition as an end-around to his inability to get around the 2nd Amendment. The people are stupid and easily led.
   1797. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: March 18, 2014 at 10:51 AM (#4673275)
Well they won't be led to your FEMA death camps, hippie!
   1798. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: March 18, 2014 at 10:53 AM (#4673276)
They are not stupid but they have some incorrect beliefs.
   1799. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 18, 2014 at 10:59 AM (#4673281)
Getting back to Brown, one of the truly amazing things to see over the last 15 yrs is how blue NH has become. Both congressmen are Democrats. Prior to 2007, the last time that happened was in 1913-1915. The GOP brand in their former heartland has become soooo toxic...

The population of NH has changed. Southern NH has become a suburb of Boston with lots of former Bostonians moving there for the low taxes.

The NH Republicans didn't become Democrats, lots of Massachusetts Democrats moved to NH.
   1800. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 18, 2014 at 11:03 AM (#4673284)
It is just like Snapper blaming the breakdown of the nuclear family on the sexual liberation movement of the 60s and 70s.

Yes, I'm sure a massive change in sexual behavior and mores had absolutely no impact on the most fundamental sexual relationship in society. Paul VI (who I think was otherwise a pretty poor Pope) correctly predicted the impact of sexual liberation in Humanae Vitae in 1968.

You believe it's not so b/c you wish it not to be so.
Page 18 of 33 pages ‹ First  < 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
cardsfanboy
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 11-24-2014
(2 - 11:12am, Nov 24)
Last: Dag is a salt water fish in fresh water world

NewsblogOTP Politics November 2014: Mets Deny Bias in Ticket Official’s Firing
(4268 - 11:11am, Nov 24)
Last: snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster)

NewsblogStanton Losing About $141 Million of Record Deal to Taxes - Bloomberg
(3 - 11:04am, Nov 24)
Last: Charles S. will not yield to this monkey court

NewsblogBoston Red Sox in talks to acquire free agent Hanley Ramirez - ESPN Boston
(9 - 11:01am, Nov 24)
Last: Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site

NewsblogCashman in wait-and-see mode on retooling Yanks | yankees.com
(25 - 10:59am, Nov 24)
Last: You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR)

NewsblogOT:  Soccer (the Round, True Football), November 2014
(454 - 10:52am, Nov 24)
Last: Shooty Is Disappointed With His Midstream Urine

NewsblogRed Sox trying for mega-free agent double play: Panda and Hanley - CBSSports.com
(103 - 10:50am, Nov 24)
Last: Textbook Editor

NewsblogOT: NFL/NHL thread
(8651 - 10:44am, Nov 24)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogESPN Suspends Keith Law From Twitter For Defending Evolution
(107 - 10:36am, Nov 24)
Last: Famous Original Joe C

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - November 2014
(1012 - 10:32am, Nov 24)
Last: Shooty Is Disappointed With His Midstream Urine

NewsblogOT: Wrestling Thread November 2014
(61 - 9:57am, Nov 24)
Last: Conor

NewsblogSunday Notes: Arroyo’s Rehab, Clark & the MLBPA, Doc Gooden, AFL Arms, ChiSox, more
(17 - 9:30am, Nov 24)
Last: depletion

NewsblogMatthews: Cashman sleeps on the street, says all is quiet on the free-agent front
(25 - 9:18am, Nov 24)
Last: bunyon

NewsblogHanley Ramirez and the Logjam in Boston | FanGraphs Baseball
(1 - 8:05am, Nov 24)
Last: Steve Balboni's Personal Trainer

NewsblogKemp drawing interest, raising chance he's the Dodgers OF dealt - CBSSports.com
(30 - 1:16am, Nov 24)
Last: akrasian

Page rendered in 0.6872 seconds
53 querie(s) executed