When Liberalism No Longer Works For You.

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
If you like this story, digg it!
This recent article from David Mamet might appeal to the logical side of your brain, assuming that you have a logical side of your brain.

This recent article from David Mamet might appeal to the logical side of your brain, assuming that you have a logical side of your brain.

John Maynard Keynes was twitted with changing his mind. He replied, "When the facts change, I change my opinion. What do you do, sir?"

My favorite example of a change of mind was Norman Mailer at The Village Voice.

Norman took on the role of drama critic, weighing in on the New York premiere of Waiting for Godot.

Twentieth century's greatest play. Without bothering to go, Mailer called it a piece of garbage.
When he did get around to seeing it, he realized his mistake. He was no longer a Voice columnist, however, so he bought a page in the paper and wrote a retraction, praising the play as the masterpiece it is.
Every playwright's dream.

I took the liberal view for many decades, but I believe I have changed my mind.

As a child of the '60s, I accepted as an article of faith that government is corrupt, that business is exploitative, and that people are generally good at heart.

These cherished precepts had, over the years, become ingrained as increasingly impracticable prejudices. Why do I say impracticable? Because although I still held these beliefs, I no longer applied them in my life. How do I know? My wife informed me. We were riding along and listening to NPR. I felt my facial muscles tightening, and the words beginning to form in my mind: Shut the fuck up. "?" she prompted. And her terse, elegant summation, as always, awakened me to a deeper truth: I had been listening to NPR and reading various organs of national opinion for years, wonder and rage contending for pride of place. Further: I found I had been—rather charmingly, I thought—referring to myself for years as "a brain-dead liberal," and to NPR as "National Palestinian Radio."

I found not only that I didn't trust the current government (that, to me, was no surprise), but that an impartial review revealed that the faults of this president—whom I, a good liberal, considered a monster—were little different from those of a president whom I revered.

Bush got us into Iraq, JFK into Vietnam. Bush stole the election in Florida; Kennedy stole his in Chicago. Bush outed a CIA agent; Kennedy left hundreds of them to die in the surf at the Bay of Pigs. Bush lied about his military service; Kennedy accepted a Pulitzer Prize for a book written by Ted Sorenson. Bush was in bed with the Saudis, Kennedy with the Mafia. Oh.

And I began to question my hatred for "the Corporations"—th e hatred of which, I found, was but the flip side of my hunger for those goods and services they provide and without which we could not live.

And I began to question my distrust of the "Bad, Bad Military" of my youth, which, I saw, was then and is now made up of those men and women who actually risk their lives to protect the rest of us from a very hostile world. Is the military always right? No. Neither is government, nor are the corporations—they are just different signposts for the particular amalgamation of our country into separate working groups, if you will.

Are these groups infallible, free from the possibility of mismanagement, corruption, or crime? No, and neither are you or I. So, taking the tragic view, the question was not "Is everything perfect?" but "How could it be better, at what cost, and according to whose definition?" Put into which form, things appeared to me to be unfolding pretty well.

Do I speak as a member of the "privileged class"? If you will—but classes in the United States are mobile, not static, which is the Marxist view. That is: Immigrants came and continue to come here penniless and can (and do) become rich; the nerd makes a trillion dollars; the single mother, penniless and ignorant of English, sends her two sons to college (my grandmother). On the other hand, the rich and the children of the rich can go belly-up; the hegemony of the railroads is appropriated by the airlines, that of the networks by the Internet; and the individual may and probably will change status more than once within his lifetime.

Strand unacquainted bus travelers in the middle of the night, and what do you get? A lot of bad drama, and a shake-and-bake Mayflower Compact. Each, instantly, adds what he or she can to the solution. Why? Each wants, and in fact needs, to contribute—to throw into the pot what gifts each has in order to achieve the overall goal, as well as status in the new-formed community. And so they work it out.

Prior to the midterm elections, my rabbi was taking a lot of flack. The congregation is exclusively liberal, he is a self-described independent (read "conservative"), and he was driving the flock wild. Why? Because a) he never discussed politics; and b) he taught that the quality of political discourse must be addressed first—that Jewish law teaches that it is incumbent upon each person to hear the other fellow out.

And so I, like many of the liberal congregation, began, teeth grinding, to attempt to do so. And in doing so, I recognized that I held those two views of America (politics, government, corporations, the military). One was of a state where everything was magically wrong and must be immediately corrected at any cost; and the other—the world in which I actually functioned day to day—was made up of people, most of whom were reasonably trying to maximize their comfort by getting along with each other (in the workplace, the marketplace, the jury room, on the freeway, even at the school-board meeting).

And I realized that the time had come for me to avow my participation in that America in which I chose to live, and that that country was not a schoolroom teaching values, but a marketplace.

"Aha," you will say, and you are right. I began reading not only the economics of Thomas Sowell (our greatest contemporary philosopher) but Milton Friedman, Paul Johnson, and Shelby Steele, and a host of conservative writers, and found that I agreed with them: a free-market understanding of the world meshes more perfectly with my experience than that idealistic vision I called liberalism.
< Ravi Batra | Mark Penn is out >
 Display:
what liberalism even IS?

Things he thinks it is that are wrong:

1. Liberals hate government (The opposite of what liberalism is)

2. Liberals think people are generally good at heart.

3. Liberals must agree with and enjoy NPR.

4. Liberals hate the military.

5.  The country is a schoolroom to teach values.  (Which party is it that continues to run on values, be it traditional, Judeo-Christian

Other interesting idiotic conclusions

1. GWBush = JFK

2. "The individual may and probably will change status (class) more than once during his life."  (Maybe some individuals, not most)

by richardshort2001 on 04/05/2008 05:23:04 PM EST


"The individual may and probably will change status (class) more than once during his life."  (Maybe some individuals, not most)"

I think we've discovered a fundamental difference between Left and Right. Liberals frequently accuse Republicans of voting "against their own best personal interest" or whatever that goofy phrase is.

As Republicans, we are confident we can improve our lives and our financial condition through hard work. We know we have the ability to make our lives better, while government will do nothing but take our money.

We want low taxes, because we know that middle class people pay income taxes, while rich people and poor people are allowed to avoid paying income taxes. We plan on making more money this year than we did the year before.

Republicans believe in the opportunity to make a better future.

by KenTX on 04/05/2008 05:36:07 PM EST

[ Parent ]
at any particular country club throughout the nation, essentially the same families have been members for generations (many of them can trace their money back for centuries). 

Meanwhile, even Republicans show concern for children born in "Welfare homes".  If they will "Probably" change class and they have nowhere to go but up, shouldn't we be excited for them? 

In fact, you've convinced me, lets start a campaign to encourage as many poor people to have kids as possible and try to pass a law banning the richest among us from having children, since those kids are surely doomed to starve in an alley.  Those greedy rich people keep making starving kids for us taxpayers to feed!!!!

by richardshort2001 on 04/05/2008 05:52:20 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The left side of this curve is made up of Democrat voters, and they cast votes with the singular goal of forcing the government to shift wealth from the right side of the curve to the left side.

We tried a similar experiment during the period 1966-1996, and we called it the "Great Society". Unfortunately, all we accomplished was a proliferation of people on the left side of the curve.
dumbass dems

by KenTX on 04/05/2008 07:02:32 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Bush has a 28% approval rating. You support Bush. Your opinions have been rendered meaningless outside of a clinical study.

by Chinese Democracy on 04/05/2008 07:10:25 PM EST

[ Parent ]
McCain is kicking Hillary's ass and Obama's ass.

George Bush is not running for reelection.

Your opinions have been rendered meaningless outside of Ft Lauderdale, P-Town and the Castro.  

by KenTX on 04/05/2008 07:23:21 PM EST

[ Parent ]
they are both closing on McCain and Obama is within the margin of error.  All the while, they campaining against each other and not against him; a privlege he won't have forever.

by richardshort2001 on 04/05/2008 09:27:49 PM EST

[ Parent ]
So let's resort to the argument that only smart people like Paris Hilton are rich.

Oh and elementary school name calling.  Can't forget that.

by richardshort2001 on 04/05/2008 07:25:18 PM EST

[ Parent ]
If smart people are rich and dumb people are poor and individuals will "probably change status more than once durning their lives".  Does that mean that when someone hits the lottery they suddenly gained IQ?  Most people's IQ changes drastically throughout their life? (before you answer, think, IQ is intelligence relative to age.  Normal gains in life experiance and loss of mental faculties due to age does not affect the score.)

by richardshort2001 on 04/05/2008 07:29:26 PM EST

[ Parent ]
"Most people's IQ changes drastically throughout their life?"

Really? Was your IQ higher than 100 at one time? That would lend significant credence to your position.

There are proven methods for reducing the numbers of low IQ Democrats.

1. abortion

2. long prison sentences

3. welfare reform (more working and less fukking)

by KenTX on 04/05/2008 07:40:07 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Another nice attempt to avoid admitting or arguing against the fact that MOST people DO NOT leave their class they were born into.

by richardshort2001 on 04/05/2008 08:49:45 PM EST

[ Parent ]
notice the question mark at the end.

That was a question, I assume you believe that it does, I don't believe it.

But if IQ = economic class and economic class usually changes more than once, then IQ must usually change more than once, right?

by richardshort2001 on 04/05/2008 08:52:30 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Use your middle name, unless it's something like Xavier.

I can't be the first person to notice the obvious implications of the name "Richard Short".

By the way, I really know a guy named Richard Petite. You would think he would have bought a clue as well.

by KenTX on 04/05/2008 07:30:47 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Middle name is William.

Besides you think I am not use to it.

I just like to point out when someone who claims to be a conservative (and therefore a high IQ) has to resort to dick jokes to make themselves feel better after being owned.  (OK that was specific to you, but I do laugh at people who still haven't grown up enough not to laugh at someone's name.)

by richardshort2001 on 04/05/2008 08:47:44 PM EST

[ Parent ]
"after being owned"

Your rambling statements on youtube, and in this forum, are not very persuasive. That's about as polite as I can put it. 

by KenTX on 04/05/2008 09:06:49 PM EST

[ Parent ]
you still cannot make an argument to show how I am wrong as far as the flaws I pointed out in your post.

by richardshort2001 on 04/05/2008 09:10:18 PM EST

[ Parent ]
"And I began to question my hatred for "the Corporations"--the hatred of which, I found, was but the flip side of my hunger for those goods and services they provide and without which we could not live."

hahahahahaha

Yeah.  I really couldn't live without McDonald's.

How is it other countries seem to get by just fine without corporate personhood?

"Bush got us into Iraq, JFK into Vietnam. Bush stole the election in Florida; Kennedy stole his in Chicago. Bush outed a CIA agent; Kennedy left hundreds of them to die in the surf at the Bay of Pigs. Bush lied about his military service; Kennedy accepted a Pulitzer Prize for a book written by Ted Sorenson. Bush was in bed with the Saudis, Kennedy with the Mafia. Oh."

All of this is true.  However, Kennedy actually ACCOMPLISHED things, whereas Bush has accomplished nothing.  Bush has never succeeded at ANYTHING in his entirely life.  Kennedy started the process of putting us on the Moon.

"And I began to question my distrust of the "Bad, Bad Military" of my youth, which, I saw, was then and is now made up of those men and women who actually risk their lives to protect the rest of us from a very hostile world. Is the military always right? No. Neither is government, nor are the corporations--they are just different signposts for the particular amalgamation of our country into separate working groups, if you will."

Protip: This neither a liberal nor a conservative notion.

"And so I, like many of the liberal congregation, began, teeth grinding, to attempt to do so. And in doing so, I recognized that I held those two views of America (politics, government, corporations, the military). One was of a state where everything was magically wrong and must be immediately corrected at any cost; and the other--the world in which I actually functioned day to day--was made up of people, most of whom were reasonably trying to maximize their comfort by getting along with each other (in the workplace, the marketplace, the jury room, on the freeway, even at the school-board meeting)."

SPOILER ALERT: Neither is this.

So, he's a conservative.  Great.  At what point did he realize those niggers really are good for nothing, and that gays really don't deserve the right to equal partnership, and that the color of your skin determines your worth as a human being, and that dissent is the same thing as hating this great country we live in, and that if you don't believe in God, you're not a real American?

I'm just curious.

(Yes, I realize that these are not your views.  This is me inviting you to consider that perhaps you are not so "conservative" as you think you are, much as you are trying to get us to think we are not as "liberal" as we think we are.)

by jarett on 04/05/2008 07:33:31 PM EST


"This is me inviting you to consider that perhaps you are not so "conservative" as you think you are."

I am probably much less conservative than you think I am. After you join my crusades to cut taxes and kill terrorists, then you will be the conservative, and I will be the liberal.

One of these days, I will be retired with a lot of money in the bank, and you'll be working your ass of to pay outrageous taxes so I can enjoy medicare, free medicine, and big social security checks.

I'll be voting Democrat and you'll be voting Republican.

by KenTX on 04/05/2008 07:47:33 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I didn't realize you had such a man crush on Mamaet. How many times are you going to refer to this article?

by MedfordTim on 04/05/2008 08:12:15 PM EST


Do you have me confused with my twin brother, Twba?

by KenTX on 04/05/2008 08:19:57 PM EST

[ Parent ]

It would be the first time I've been wrong.

This week.

by MedfordTim on 04/05/2008 09:37:32 PM EST

[ Parent ]

You blindly accepted your liberal sacred cows, and then one day you woke up to a world with shades of grey. You found a new politics, tried it on and discarded the old like a 56 chevy. Wow that must have felt good.

Now you project your own previous brainlessness onto everybody else who is liberal. I have a suggestion, you're still brainless and still fundamentally unable to hold a serious discussion with anybody that has a different point of view. I've been trying to figure out your trollish posts (some of which I'll admit give me a chuckle once in a while) and now I understand you're just another baby boomer and damaged goods. You probably did some drugs and now you're a moralist. Fuck you.

David Kohler says of people like you that you're the worst--the political or religious convert--and he's right. You're so convinced that you're right because you tell yourself that you once understood the other point of view (you didn't) so you now hold your new ideas with an almost religious conviction and fervor. You're well read, in right wing work only, and so you feel superior.

I hear lots of ideas from both sides and think there are smart people with conservative solutions that work better than some of the solutions that come from the left. Let's hear what they are instead of pidgeon-holing people into categories and demonizing them. I don't know a single liberal who is against "free-market" solutions in principle, and its not the liberals who favor corporate subsidies and bailouts like with the airlines and wall street. What does that have to do with the marketplace??

Its fucking welfare. So take your head out of your ass and grow up. 

by hazmat on 04/05/2008 08:29:55 PM EST


I didn't write the article.

by KenTX on 04/05/2008 09:10:02 PM EST

[ Parent ]

THIS THREAD IN SUMMARY: 

Ken:  This article makes sense.

Everyone: No, it doesn't.

Ken:  So?  I didn't write it. 

 

by OneHitKill on 04/05/2008 11:39:55 PM EST

[ Parent ]

I summarize almost all Ken's threads in a similar way in my head.  Nice to see it posted.

Nonetheless I am gonna post a long response now. 

by ProfRich on 04/06/2008 12:27:13 AM EST

[ Parent ]
but you don't have an answer. you burnt out, tragic hippy. hah hah, charade you are.

by hazmat on 04/06/2008 04:54:02 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Despite the fact that almost every poster on the board has pointed out why this article is a waste of time, I am going to give Ken a few minutes since he seems to think this is some life changing revelation.

First, as other have pointed out, who gives a shit what Mamet thinks.  I liked Glengary Glenn Ross and all but I liked Die Hard and I think Bruce Willis is a total jerk off.

Second, so Mamet's liberalism was really simply JFK hero worship and when he realized FOUR AND A HALF DECADES LATER JFK was actually pretty conservative in foriegn policy and was kinda dirty he decided he wasn't a liberal.  Damn, is this guy retarded or what?  How many Democrats on Earth still have this worldview?  10? 20?

Third, and this is where Mamet shows his stripes, after saying he is done being a liberal because nine presidents ago the Dems had an imperfect Commander in Chief he has decided now he is a conservative why? Say it together: Tax Cuts!  Now isn't this really the only reason anyone is a conservative anymore? 

He manages to completely forget about civil rights, the constitution, racism, the separation of church and state, deregulation, rampant corruption, signing statements, "free speech zones", habeus corpus, abortion, gun control, torture!, a $9,000,000,000,000 deficit, AIDS, privatization of the military, the housing crisis, extraordinary rendition, domestic spying, telecom immunity, abstinence only programs, gay rights, energy policy, Pakistan, Israel, Iran, executive privilege, supreme court nominees, politicization of every federal agency, firing of federal prosecutors, the environment and a bunch of shit I have forgotten about I am sure.

Nope, for Mamet his political and moral view comes down to three things.

Stolen Elections- Even 

Pointless invasions- Even

Who will give him the most money in taxes- GOP

What an assclown.  He could have saved some space for a real editorial and just written under the headline.  "I like money."

(Continued in Part II) 

by ProfRich on 04/06/2008 01:11:07 AM EST


(This is the continuation of my rant and this is by far the more important part)

Mamet's justification for deciding all the sudden he supports the party who will charge him the least in taxes is upward mobility.  Apparently, at the young age of 61, Mr. Mamet was exposed to the great American idea of upward mobility and he was deeply influenced.  Now putting the question of where the fuck this guy has been since the writing of the Federalists papers, this myth has pervaded American pop culture since before there was an America.  Most people have dismissed this social Darwinist claptrap but evidently Ken and Mamet still believe.

Incidentally, if you want to completely unravel the core conservative ideology, this is the thread you need to pull.  And its not even that difficult. 

There is a lot of low hanging fruit on this topic so I will put aside the Bush and Paris Hilton jokes and address this from a more substantive tact.

Mamet has decided that the difference between the rich and the poor in this country is ability and hard work.  The widespread reality of upward mobility in America due to conservative policies justifies the GOPs pro-wealth policies because obviously the rich deserve to be coddled  by the rest of us.

Of course, like almost everything conservatives promote, the theory may sound persuasive but the it falls apart in the face of facts.  If we look at the relative rate of social mobility in the U.S. (as determined by the % change in income from father to son) we find the U.S. in the middle of the pack among developed countries. 

Hmmmm, clearly this is because the damn socialist Democrats and their evil government programs that chain down the people's ability to succeed or fail on their own merits.  So, clearly we should move in the direction of the countries at the top of the list, right?

Top 5? Denmark, Norway, Finland, Canada and Sweden.

Bastions of do-it-yourself, conservative, laissez faire...wait a minute.

These are the most liberal countries on the planet.  Could it be.  Do liberal policies actually lead to social mobility and conservative policies chain up our ability to improve our lives.  I don't have any fancy theories, just real world data.   

If these conservatives really give a shit about making this country a meritocracy they would make college free and the inheritance tax 100%.  Of course they do exactly the opposite. 

Be smarter than Mamet and Ken.  Don't fall for the social mobility crap.  Pay attention, conservatives talk about a meritocracy but legislate for an aristocracy. 

Before you tell me I'm wrong, bring me something more than some dumbass theory that invariably leads to "...so we have to cut taxes on the rich." 

 

 

by ProfRich on 04/06/2008 01:36:41 AM EST


“If these conservatives really give a shit about making this country a meritocracy they would make college free and the inheritance tax 100%.”

I’m on record in this forum as supporting both of these proposals, so I'll rehash my positions from previous threads. 

I respect self-made men like Bill Gates and the Google Kids, who rose from modest backgrounds to create great wealth. They should be well rewarded for creating hundreds of thousands of American jobs (directly and indirectly) and billions of dollars in shareholder equity. They do so much for America that we should reward them with huge tax incentives (corporate welfare) to encourage them to grow their businesses and create even more jobs.

But when these guys die, I think the country should get at least 50% of their amassed fortunes.

One thing this country does not need is more worthless Kennedys and Rockefellers, living off trust funds of their evil ancestors. There is nothing in this world that I hate more than a trust fund liberal who never did anything to earn his money.

I know a lot of wealthy people. Everyone of them earned it, and most of them started with nothing. These are the kind of people I admire.

This article from David Brooks
does a pretty good job of summarizing the issue of social mobility in America. Now more than ever, we have a knowledge-based economy, and as a result, education matters now more than ever before.

It’s pretty easy to demonstrate that highly intelligent couples generally produce highly intelligent offspring, while mentally retarded people generally produce mentally retarded offspring. That’s why the IQ curve is determinative for various factors such as upward mobility and financial success.
iq
Upward social mobility can be accelerated by providing educational opportunity to highly intelligent, highly motivated children from lower and medium socio-economic background. These children should be placed in private schools, and maybe even private boarding schools, where they can receive the same opportunities as the children of Al Gore, John Kerry, and Bill Clinton.

School vouchers describe financial assistance by the government to help children from low income working families to attend private schools. Pilot programs in Milwaukee and Cleveland are performing very well, and there are plans to replicate and expand the program nationwide. You might consider school vouchers like an SCHIP program to improve the education of our children.

Since 90% of public schools are financed by local government taxes, that makes schools a local government issue. As more and more communities move towards privatization, there will be an uproar in the localities that are "left behind".

by KenTX on 04/06/2008 07:22:26 AM EST

[ Parent ]

First, the Brooks article has no data or proof, just a restatement of the already debunked theory.  Nice sourcing again Ken.

Second, you're respone seems to be "Wait, I am a liberal now."
Except you are so wrapped up in the gimme my tax cut mindset you can't even proceed logically through your own argument.

You acknowledge that with massive inheritance and limited access to higher education the meritocracy is at least crippled if not an outright lie but instead of supporting the party that wants to do something about that you support the conservatives who just want the tax cuts they think the non-existent meritocracy justifies.

Essentially you are saying in a meritocracy tax cuts for the rich or just.  I acknowledge we do not have a meritocracy but instead of trying to make one lets just give the rich people their admittedly undeserved and corrupt tax cuts.  Huh?  How about we fix the system so rich people might conceivably deserve the tax breaks (in your view anyway) THEN give them the tax breaks.

Just stupid.

Instead you slobber all over guys like Reagan who turned the Cal University ssystem from FREE HIGHER EDUCATION to tuition based and Bush who wants to completely eliminate the inheritance tax but goddamnit they are strong on undeserved crooked tax cuts.  Priorities don't lie. 

by ProfRich on 04/06/2008 11:02:29 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Since I'm blogging from my BB. I'll give you an expanded response later. There is nothing new about my positions on inheritance tax and school vouchers. I've been saying the same thing in this forum for years. I am opposed to income tax because rich people can avoid. They don't earn a paycheck like you and me. Bill Gates ammassed a fortune of billions without paying taxes on it.

by KenTX on 04/06/2008 12:07:01 PM EST

[ Parent ]

I hope you don't consider the L&S department to be "higher education." Maybe selectively it is, but most of the time they teach nothing that warrents tax payer money.

 

Woman's studies?

Ethinic Studies?

Sociology?

Psychology? 

Along with a slew of other stuff that you were probably supposed to have taken in grade school and high school, but the L&S departments have you taking again for no apparent reason. Communications anyone?  

by acroso on 04/06/2008 11:20:15 PM EST

[ Parent ]
People who deride a university education are those who don't have one.

by Randomambusher on 04/07/2008 04:43:30 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I could have sworn acroso was a Rhodes scholar with a PhD in rhetoric.

by ProfRich on 04/07/2008 09:26:18 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Did I say all degree's were worthless...nope. I said most of the L&S departments along with the bureaucracy and political agendas behind them.

by acroso on 04/15/2008 12:19:26 AM EST

[ Parent ]

That's still pretty big talk coming from a guy who majored in Walking with My Feet Ten Feet Off of Beale (with a minor in Waiting for the King Down in the Jungle Room).

To Ken:  [nudge]    ....How was that?

by OneHitKill on 04/15/2008 12:55:30 AM EST

[ Parent ]
But you could have added a reference to Paul Simon's "Graceland".

by KenTX on 04/15/2008 01:01:07 AM EST

[ Parent ]

I have a sister in law that lives as a latte sipping elitist in the South Main area of town. She's some kind of professor at the medical center. Husbands a lawyer of some kind. No not at the FIRM either....

Visited her last summer. Leonard's...yummm. Had a ball.

by MRFred on 04/15/2008 09:05:50 AM EST

[ Parent ]

from the L&S department.  L&S...hummm what could that mean? It acrosoese!

Logic & Science....nope acroso never went there... 

Lingusitics &  Spelling.....nope definitely not there

Lying and Spin... he tries, but not so much 

 

by MRFred on 04/15/2008 09:15:09 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I thought I was the only one who didn't understand half of acroso's posts.

by ProfRich on 04/15/2008 09:35:38 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Letters & Science Department.

I don't know if the Department of Anatomy falls under the L&S Department at UT's Memphis Branch? 

by KenTX on 04/15/2008 03:08:01 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Wow, do you have links to those stats? Such as the % change of income father to son.

Of course, semi nationalized oil companies help the Norwegian economy but I'm not too clear on how that works. My ancestors emigrated from there but I'm not sure what my opinion is of that event. Times were much harder then.

I was able to marginally rise above the class of my parents but I think it would be much harder to do that with our current education system and our government's considerably diminished consciousness of social-justice.

by toosinbeymen on 04/06/2008 01:07:47 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Here you go.

I don't usually waste time linking stuff when arguing with Ken.  I figure if he doesn't even bother to read his own linked "proof" is he really gonna read mine? 

by ProfRich on 04/06/2008 11:19:02 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Thank you very much, ProfRich. I'm looking forward to taking a close look at it.

 

by toosinbeymen on 04/07/2008 10:38:58 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The oversimplification of this article really does not do you justice my friend.

It seems that conservatives like to paint a label on thier foes (right or not) and demigod over it in an attempt to make it true. Lately they have been calling Liberals facists (which is exactly the opposite of the meaning, sorta like calling conservatives communist but I digress)

 Liberals do not "knee jerk" hate goverment or hate the military. Liberals are not against "free market" economy (they are called communists).

We both know that Iraq was a mistake and that the tax payers of this nation will be paying for it for decades. Not to mention the shift in the balance of power it caused. That too will cost us billions as well for the forseeable future. Pointing out the mistake is not a hatred of the military, I am sure that, had a Dem been in charge, you would be pointing to the same blunders with utter contempt.

Where is your rage at Corporate welfare, Corporate bail outs and the costs of deregulation. Isn't it amazing that every time something gets deregulated it ends up costing the tax payers billions of dollars. it is almost like we forget why these rules were made in the first place (to protect the consumer and the tax payer!).

All of these things are designed to help a certain class of people and it is not you or me (although I know you make a lot more than I do).


I do not know Mamet but let me guess, he makes a lot of money? It is amazing how money can change one's views.

Fortunately most people are not really "Liberals" or "Conservatives" they are in the middle and that is exactly where we should be governed from.

by LORD FOUL on 04/06/2008 09:50:08 AM EST


Dave Koller does indeed hold some suspicion for converts, but I'm not sure that I'm so extreme that I call them the worst of the worst or anything like that. Also, I don't think KenTX is the worst of the worst. I wasn't aware that he was a convert, and if he is (I'm still confused by this, because as he points out, KenTX didn't write the article, David Mamet did) that does affect my view of him.

ProfRich did a good job ripping that stupid article apart.  But I am not so quick to dismiss the article.  I'm sure KenTX feels that generally the ACLU and the Sierra Club are good organizations, but that, sure, sometimes get things a bit wrong.  KenTX surely will agree that government social programs to help people are good ideas, even if sometimes they don't quite get it right. We can all be happy with these conclusions.

By the way, what an idiot to suggest that "liberals" have a collective antagonism to the individuals who serve in the military.  

I had more but I want to do other things now.

David

by yturks on 04/06/2008 08:12:43 PM EST

[ Parent ]

I didn't read that carefully. Normally people just link primary sources, but Ken linked and then reproduced the article in its entirety. Why who knows, but obviously he thinks we should all reaxamine our values because David Mamet (whose work I sometimes admire) wrote this thing.

But I disagree with you, I stick by my criticism of the piece. And I still don't know why I should care about some liberal somewhere expressing disenchantment with the progressive movement, because (surprise!!) one of our icons was a corporate stooge. Shall we trade articles from conservatives who've seen the light? What a waste of time. 

by hazmat on 04/06/2008 09:15:26 PM EST

[ Parent ]
...did this thread get back up to the top of the forum?

by MedfordTim on 04/06/2008 10:34:33 PM EST


The whole article reads as if a conservative wrote down all the stereotypical things a liberal might think and then wrote an article in the past tense.

by Randomambusher on 04/07/2008 04:21:33 AM EST


 Display: