Reasonable regulation of business and industry is not socialism by any normal definition, unless the purpose of that regulation is to specifically to redistribute profits to establish some sort of artificial equity, or to require companies to do business in ways which are inherently unprofitable in order to produce some particular social outcome, such as regulating wages and prices or requiring certain levels of employment.

Various countries HAVE experimented with imposing socialism on businesses and have generally found the results to be disastrous. The best example of this is France's recent decision to abandon many of their socialist controls on business because of the harm they had done in making French businesses uncompetitive in the international marketplace.

Regulations for safety or to prevent fraud or exploitation of workers are all good things - even regulations against monopolies. They make sure that a business engages in legitimate and fair practices. Regulation to make businesses operate for reasons other than the profit of their owners or shareholders are always destructive.

Dave

How about regulations that prevent businesses from fraudulently gaining huge profits while bankrupting the countries, decimating the pension funds, screwing the little guy, and screwing the country?

Oh, and letting the guys who did all that walk with nice fat bonuses and golden parachutes?

How about regulations that prevent boards from paying people who do all that, even if they hired them in good faith? How about contracts that spell out that a person hired by a company cannot destroy a company and then walk away with the profits while everyone below him/her suffers?

Or is that socialism?

I did specifically mention regulations against fraud, Lisa. Most of the things you describe I would consider acts of fraud. And as I said before reasonable regulation and holding people accountable for criminal activity is not socialism.

Why so hostile? You won the election. You can turn the hate meter down a few notches.

Dave

Without offering any justification, Dave avers:

"Regulation to make businesses operate for reasons other than the profit of their owners or shareholders are always destructive."

This is quite stupid on the face of it: we prohibit businesses from polluting our air and water (as best we are able, in the face of their hostility).

We prohibit businesses from making products that kill, maim or electrocute either clients or innocent third parties.

Historically, in the USA, most businesses (of a Certain Size) were actually operated for a wider range of stakeholders than just the owners. There was a concept of The Larger Community represented in The Board Of Directors. Usually, but not always, that Larger Community was the business community. But it was quite common to find, on the Boards of prominent companies, directors from various religions, banking, universities, etc. It was felt that this broadening served useful (but monetarily intangible) purposes to the company: broadening focus, enriching contacts, etc.

The big business story of the past 30 years has been the takeover of the boardroom by operating officers of the company, usually lead by the iron rule of the CEO. Thence, the company is operated for the benefit of the CEO and his cohort officers as they loot the companies riches. Witness GM.

If US capitalism is to survive we must revive the notion of wider stakeholder representation on the BoD, else the corporations just become killer Frankenstein monsters roving the countryside destroying all in their way in the pursuit of narrow self-interest.

Eventually the angry villagers will come with flaming torches and burn everything to the ground.

Dave, there is a huge difference between hate and anger.

Rahm Israel Emanuel officially accepted his appointment by Obama as Chief of Staff on November 6 2008. The Israeli press & media were beside themselves with applause and cheers.

Rahm Emanuel is a former investment banker who made millions on Wall Street. Emanuel's sponsor is the Zionist , Bruce Wasserstein, who is now the head of Lazard Banking.

Rahm Israel Emanuel is the son of an Israeli physician who was a gun runner for the Irgun, an Israeli terrorist group that murdered Arab civilians in Palestine between 1931 and 1948. Upon his son's appointment as Obama's Chief of Staff, Dr. Benjamin Emanuel ("Auerbach" was his original surname) had some choice slanderous words for the Arabs:

In an interview with Ma'ariv: "Obviously he will influence the president to be pro-Israel," he was quoted as saying. "Why wouldn't he be? What is he, an Arab? He's not going to clean the floors of the White House."

The Ma'ariv article also
quoted Dr. Emanuel as saying that his son spends most summers visiting in Tel Aviv, and that he speaks Hebrew, but not fluently.

Emanuel, Clinton & Mossad.

I'm sure our own pet zionist will be along shortly to explain how the appointment of Rahm Emanuel fits in with his end of time theory. Where are you, Ruvy?

Hi there, Chris.

I'm just savoring how Tim325 keeps acting as if Zionists are criminals.

As for your comments, the only thing I really have to say is that Zionism is a dead horse. It's not dead because it didn't succeed but because it did. Now it's time for it to move over so that Redemption can take over and give you the royal kick in the butt you've been spoiling for.

If you have read my articles, you will see that this is a steady theme in them. That is, if you have kept a clear head reading them....

As for Rahm Emanuel, note that he doesn't speak fluent Hebrew, even though mommy and daddy worked their tails off to bring about a Hebrew-speaking country. Rahm Emanuel has bought into the American dream in both its best (he got rich) and its worst (he pushed that photo "hand-shake" between Rabin and Arafat) aspects. Like his boss, he has intervened in the affairs of the "old country" to its detriment.

I'll just let folks like Tim325 scald the NEW monkey coming to Washington and allow the peripatetic "progressives" to spread their hands in defense of the NEW monkey and his actions.

The stupid fools at Ma'ariv don't really want to talk about how Rahm Emanuel is nothing but an Oslo Criminal. But we in Israel already know - and the bad news gets around fast. Obama has his pet kike in place and already Tim325 is throwing brickbats at him for being a Zionist. How sweet.

Lesson kiddies. Jews get stuck in high places in America so that the beer-swilling idiots and Jew-haters in the States can throw rocks at them - while the goyim - like Obama - sneer and laugh in their sleeves.

Why do you keep calling Obama a monkey? It's so derogatory.

But let's get back to the topic at hand. Glenn, I'm a syndicalist socialist. I'll try and explain what that means in simple English. It means that workers get together and form syndicates that they own that do the work that needs to be done. Collective dairies in the States or in Scandinavia are good examples of successful syndicalist socialist initiatives at work. The collective dairies succeed because membership is voluntary (unlike the Soviet kolkhoz).

State socialism is not a workable alternative. Over the long run it kills productivity because it kills the chief incentive to productivity - competition. But private firms run on a socialistic basis - socialism for the poor, in other words, instead of socialism for the rich, which is what big bailouts are - slow the creation of rich and poor classes and maintain a level of equality in society which is the best thing for a society to have.

Israel walked away from its syndicalist socialist roots when the Labor party corrupted the system by allowing kibbutzim and other collective enterprises here to take out loans that they couldn't pay. When the Labor party was ousted here in 1977, the banks and other creditors called in their teds and the kibbutzim started to either have to break the law and sell off land (at huge profits) or ditch their socialist ideas. They did exactly what the United States has done, they overspent themselves because their boys were at the till.

So now, in Israel, we have the worst of capitalism - unbrideled comptetition that kills what rights workers had here - combined with the socialistic regulation left over from the days of the Labor party. So, it'hard to make a living here.

But there were two big points you left out of your essay that need to be raised. After WWII, the European countries were able to adopt various varieties of socialistic structures because they were getting a free ride on defense. The US was paying the bill for them.

Just like sending a guy to Mars or the moon, it's all a matter of where the money comes from. The US was covering the Europeans' back in defense - so the Europeans had the extra cash to set up welfare states.

Finally, there is this point. The Europeans figured out that kids cost money, and they decided that they wanted money more than they wanted kids. And now, the piper's bill is coming due. All those Moslems raping European women are tolerated in Europe because the Europeans are suffering a severe labor shortage - they didn't have enough money gobbling rug rats! So, yeah, they have a higher standard of living - if they can stand their daughters and wives being raped by the "guest workers" they've imported.....

Ahh. I hear the muezzin calling the faithful to prayer, now.

Lisa,

Why do you keep calling Obama a monkey? It's so derogatory.

Obama is not just any monkey . He is the NEW monkey - fresh with brand new bananas (like hope and change). The smelly OLD monkey - Bush (suddenly all those cartoons comparing Bush to a monkey aren't so funny any more, eh?) - is (hopefully) on his way out, so that he can write his memoirs and run some more businesses into the ground.

Who knows? Maybe you Americans will get lucky and Bush will become the CEO of Haliburton? With him at the thelm haliburton will be gone in not too long....

Get used to Obama being called a lot worse than "monkey", Lisa. When he can't deliver on the change, the hope will disappear. And then you and all the other progressives who pushed him on the world will only have a dirty monkey cage to clean. out.

The painful truth of the matter is that while I think a certain level of socialism would be great for the States if applied the right way, YOU CANNOT AFFORD IT ANYMORE. Go read my comment # 13. There is no USA to cover your backs. So you cannot afford to pay for a welfare state for those who truly need one.

You will not suddenly find the Chinese willing to hand your government money just because Obama is in the White House. You will not find the Arabs willing to give you oil - even if your government tries to stab us in the back even more than it has - just because Obama is in the White House. You can expect a lot of Americans to feel that they don't have to worry about their bills or mortgages anymore - and to be very disappointed when they discover that merely having Obama in the White House doesn't solve their problems or get the creditors off their backs. Bitterness will sweep the land. I know how that feels from personal experience.

At that point, "monkey" will not sound derogatory at all.

Ruvy are you three years old, or just completely clueless? Stop calling Obama a monkey when you know for a fact that is a known racial insult. Seriously, cut that shit out. Or do you have such a limited vocabulary?

So many morons around here it's almost unfathomable. I can't take people seriously when they act so incredibly stupid and juvenile.

Amen Dawn

Arch Conservative is having a compulsory holiday until 5 December, so his comments - and any responses to them - have been deleted.

If Ruvy's people had been mocked and caricatured due in part to their appearance he might understand what you mean. Or not.

Somewhere between Glen's article & Dave's initial comment lies the path (he so arrogantly proclaims.)

Bliffle took exceptions to Dave's comment, "Regulation to make businesses operate for reasons other than the profit of their owners or shareholders are always destructive." However, pollution, products that kill & maim, etc. can all be considered to be ultimately a bad thing for owners. Not sure if Dave agrees...it's the Milton Freedman school of economics vs. any sane & rational approach.

Most important, we have got to try to live without labels. I have no idea what a liberal or conservative is; nor do I know what a socialist is. Let's talk strategies & tactics: regulations that prevent secret financial instruments that make some rich while threatening the entire world economy; that force boards of directors to truly hold executives accountable for corporate governance; that create a level of transparency in all sectors of our society (not the bedroom, please) so that bullshit mortgages, credit card scammers, etc. are put out of business.

And regulations that force health insurance companies to do what they were initially supposed to do: spread the risk to maximize opportunity and minimize catastrophic cost. End the cherry picking of healthy, young people & pre-existing conditions.

(He blathers on and on.)

Glen's article makes lots of sense if you simply eliminate that horrible label, socialism.

Stop using labels. Start using words that having meaning.

(And Ruvy, come on, man, you know better. Calling Obama a monkey is like calling a Jew a kike--I can use that word, I'm Jewish--pick another "label.")

In Jameson Veritas

Dawn,

Obama is a Jew-hating prick and I have no respect for him at all. He is a sleazy, lying, corrupt Chicago politician who slid himself past the lot of you and has you all fooled with his hypnotic rhetoric. In this aspect, he is no different from Adolph Hitler or Nimrod (look up the reference to Nimrod, Dawn - I didn't call Obama a Nazi).

He put up the misled kid of Etze"l fighters to be his the china doll who takes the rocks of the Jew-haters in your country (see comments #6 and 10) while he sits and laughs in his sleeve. Bush was no different in his tactics, and neither was Clinton. Jews get stuck up in front while the Protestant establishment laughs in the background and rakes in the money and power.

And Obama still has not laid in front of you a real live birth certificate. What is that lying scum hiding, anyway?

And let me remind you that Bush was called "monkey" all the time. And go back to the movie "Cabaret" to see which other group was called "monkey". You can go to the Qur'an and see that same group called the relatives of monkeys and pigs. And I have made my points clear here. If I wanted to do racial insults, I would not hide with lame shit like "monkey", Dawn. I'd come straight out with the full artillery.

I don't do racial insults. Go check through the several thousand comments I've posted here in three years. You know, people in glass houses don't throw stones, etc.

Go bother somebody else with the PC crap, Dawn.

If Ruvy's people had been mocked and caricatured due in part to their appearance he might understand what you mean.

Uh huh. Tell this dumb Jew-boy more, el bicho. Google up anti-semitic artoons on google, and you'll get 250,000 places to go for them.

Try to remember I live in the ARAB WORLD, and see this shit all the time. Nobody gets PC with them and lives.

Mark,

Glen's article makes lots of sense if you simply eliminate that horrible label, socialism.

Stop using labels. Start using words that having meaning.

In this case, socialism has plenty of meaning and needs to be clearly defined. Not because you Americans have the money to adopt the concepts, but because you need to clearly understand what it is you are talking about. Horrible label, Mark? I'm a socialist, and always have been. If there was a respectable socialist party to vote for in Israel, I'd be first on line to vote for it. There isn't.

Uh Ruvy, El Bicho was clearly and obviously being ironic.

I think it is more than time for you to simmer down a little....

ruvy, it would still be a lot better for the discussion if you didn't use a racially-charged term. if you're not being racist, which i don't think you are, then don't run around calling him a monkey. it would be like talking about building a fire with "faggots" in san francisco. sure, you may mean something quite different, but it's not going to make one damn difference to your audience, you still look like a dickhead. or not, in that example.

Ruvy, I will bother who ever I damn well please when they are being willfully ignorant, which you are. I wouldn't put up with you calling Bush a monkey either. I may not like his policies or his administration, but I respect him as the leader of my country.

You are NOT an American, nor are you living in the United States. If you don't like the way things are going in your neck of the woods, complain to YOUR leaders. As for Obama and your blanket accusations and assault on his character, you are WRONG. Period.

Also, give us all a break about his birthplace. Do you really think if he weren't a citizen of the United States we wouldn't have heard about it.

Cripes, grow the hell up. Also, take that boulder sized chip off your shoulder, it makes you look increasingly paranoid and creepy.

Obama is OUR president, for OUR country, NOT YOURS. Go bark up a tree that cares.

Ruvy, you're doing the equivulent of throwing rocks at a bee hive. We're all gonna come out and sting you if you're not careful.

where is this "Holier than thou" attitude coming from?

jet: "where is this "Holier than thou" attitude coming from?"

um, the torah?

duh, jet, duh. smiley emoticon.

and ruvy, i don't see where you get obama being a "jew-hating prick," because he's proven several times that he's not. is it his name? meh.

I wouldn't put up with you calling Bush a monkey either. I may not like his policies or his administration, but I respect him as the leader of my country.

You shouldn't Dawn, he's not worthy of respect. He's the president of your country, but hardly a "leader."

Respect the office, not the man (unless it's earned).

I don't respect him at all; he lied himself into office, garnering votes (including mine) by promising things he had no intention of delivering (fiscal conservatism, e.g.).

But I agree, he shouldn't be called a monkey; he's not that high on the food chain.

Clavos,

I guess I don't hate Bush like so many people do right now. I hate the job he did and how poorly he did it, but I don't hate/dislike whatever, him. What's the point in wasting those kinds of negative emotions?

I am a very proud American and believe we should respect that title and those who have it. I wouldn't want people threatening Bush's life anymore that Obama's. We have to exhibit some rational behavior in times like these. Ruvy spouting this hatred and bile only seeks to destroy us and divert us from our efforts to rebuild this country to greatness again.


I do not believe for a second that Obama is anti-Semitic or a hater of Jews or any other group. Don't buy it, don't believe it. Not to mention the fact that Israel, while a fierce ally, isn't perfect by any means. Neither is the U.S. Those seeking perfection will always be sorely disappointed. And apparently angry.

I don't hate Bush, either, Dawn.

I used to respect him, but he eroded that away himself.

My father was the first to teach me the "respect the office, not the man" aphorism. Later on, many teachers did as well. Gradually, I began to realize the wisdom in it.

The office, as the highest in the land, should always be respected. But respect of the individual can morph into blindness, which can lead to many of the excesses we've seen in societies where the the cult of personality outweighs the common sense of the governed.

I'm not saying that things under Bush got that out of hand (although it was nip and tuck more than once), but with an approval rating in the low double digits, the people in general obviously don't have much respect for him, and that's a good thing, IMO, because it's deserved.

Dawn,

Ruvy, I will bother who ever I damn well please...

Indeed, madame. Rank has its privileges.

I wouldn't put up with you calling Bush a monkey either. I may not like his policies or his administration, but I respect him as the leader of my country.

If you wish to respect a puppet of the Saudi monarchy, that is your privilege. It is part of the freedom you still enjoy. Let's hope you conitinue to enjoy that freedom.

You are NOT an American, nor are you living in the United States. If you don't like the way things are going in your neck of the woods, complain to YOUR leaders.

Now we take you by the hand back to comment #6. Read carefully what the gentleman has to say. He throws brickbats at the Jew Obana stuck up as his "chief of staff" precisely because he is, in his words "a Zionist". His problems with Rahm Emanuel is what he would regard as Jewish control over your government. He has problems with that.

And now, I'll tell you what this Jew WHO IS NOT AN AMERICAN has problems with:

1. Your government has bought out and intimidated our leaders - Rabin, Netanyahu, Barak, Olmert, Sharon. Each one has been forced to cough up one concession or another since 1992, and each one has been gotten rid of after doing so.

a) Rabin signed the Olso Accord and was murdered - not by Yig'al 'Amir, who is taking the rap to save himself from being labelled a child pervert and stuck in jail for that - but by Yoram Rubin, who is on the payroll of Shim'on Peres, who is on the payroll of the European Union. Rabin was murdered because he wanted to back out of the Oslo Accords.

b) Netanyahu gave the Arabs Hebron - after a massacre of Arabs was arranged by the Shaba"k there, and a Jewish doctor framed for doing it. Netanyahu was gotten rid of by James Carville, a Clinton aide, who forced Ehud Barak on this country.

c) Ehud Barak gave up South Lebanon - which used to be under our control. The result of that action was the infiltration of Southern Lebanon by HizbAllah and a war against us which we lost, at the orders of Condaleezza Rice THE AMERICAN SECRETARY OF STATE. Ehud Barak was forced out of office when he was literally afraid to put down an Arab rebellion in 2000. He was forced out of office by another American sellout, Ariel Sharon, who infiltrated the Israeli right wing at the instance of Henry Kissinger in 1973, ANOTHER AMERICAN SECRETARY OF STATE.

d) Ariel Sharon surrendered the Gush Qatif settlements in Gaza and strategic villages in Northern Samaria, not far from where I live. When I heard that Yoran Rubin was back as one of the guards of the prime minister, in Sept. 2005, I told everyone that Sharon's days were numbered. Indeed they were. A massive stroke killed him, but in order to prevent the return of Netanyahu back to office, the poor man was dragged back from his eternal rest, stuck on life support and today rots like a tomato. Because Sharon was still "alive" Ehud Olmert took the spot as prime minister.

e) Ehud Olmert, an incompetent fool who could barely keep scandal from his door did his best to win American friendship. He lost the war in South Lebanon. Life isn't fair. Dawn. He did what Condaleezza Rice told him to do, and then he was judged as lacking by her boss, George Bush. Nort only that, he was scorned as an untoiuchable by Arabs at a conference a year ago in the States. He was made to enter by the servants' entrance. After swallowing this humiliation, he was ditched as useless by the attorney general Mazuz (a protogé of Shim'on Peres) who kicked up just enough scandal to make sure he could not stay in office. For all this, Olmert still runs to Washington to lick the last vomitus from George Bush, and beg for favors. Now, Tzipora Livni would like to succeed to Olmert's tattered and dsishoneored chair - another American puppet being shoved down our throats.

You see, Dawn, it is useless to complain to puppets on a string. The AMERICAN puppets in Jerusalem need to be removed by violent revolution. It has come to that.

Why?

Because of the ceaseless intervention in our internal affairs by the GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

So, as an American citizen, not to mention a Jew who worries about the welfare of his own country, I have every right to do whatever I can to end that intervention. I have every right to chararacterize Barack Hussein Obama II as the sleazy piece of shit that he is. I wanted that sleazy piece of shit in the White House precisely because he would stink and twist the knife of betrayal in the the backs of the Jewish People - and I could continually point that fact out to those who might be able to get rid of AMERICAN puppets who ruin this nation.

We do not need your interference in our affairs; we do not need your money, nor your soldiers, nor your unwanted and unneeded advice; we do not need the corrupting influence of your sick culture here.

And in three years of posting here, I have been consisitent in stating all these things.

Unfortunately, it seems impossible to escape this sick American culture anywhere on the planet. But it still stinks, and I can at least state that. And further, I can state that having once lived in the United States and still clearly remembering when it had a better, healthier culture, I can indeed regret the loss of that better culture for the mess that is what America broadcasts from its shores today.

Have a pleasant evening, madame. And give my best regards to Eric. He's a great guy and has been doing a great job with the magazine.

Clavos,

Respect the office, not the man (unless it's earned).

Indeed. Quoted for truth.

"we do not need the corrupting influence of your sick culture here"


as he participates in said sick culture, daily, while frothing at the mouth.



God, what hypocrisy.

Interesting article. Socialism has increased, but so has capitalism, free markets, and wealth held in private hands. It's not a zero sum game.

There's an analogy I like to think of when considering these things, perhaps you would find it helpful.

The economic system is like a train. Free markets and capital are the engine that drives everything forward. Social programs, regulation, welfare, and the rest are like cars attached to it.

If you have an engine revving with nothing attached it's likely to overheat and melt down (and what's the point of all that wealth anyway if it's not going to move a few cars forward). On the other hand, if you have too much cars and baggage dragging down your engine it will slow down your acceleration or in the extreme grind it to a halt entirely.

With time and technology the engines of our economy have become stronger and can now pull more cars without bogging down. Some people see this and assume adding cars arbitrarily to the train is a sign of 'progress' since that has been a general trend.

The engine and the cars, although they often pull against each other, aren't opposing factions they are a team that should be moving forward together.

The engine of the American economy has overheated. Perhaps if we'd brought a few more cars along we'd have more momentum.

Ruvy, let me set the record straight for you. Simply because I am married to Eric does not afford me any greater privileges here than anyone else. As an aside, BC wouldn't exist had I not supported Eric for a number of years before the site ever generated a dime, I am as much responsible for its existence as anyone else who has put time and effort it to it, and your implications that somehow I am above following the rules or think I am somehow more important than anyone else shows how little you know about this site, and definitely about me personally.

My mother is Jewish and I was raised Jewish for a number of years, so I am not without appreciation for your plight, nor am I ignorant of the complicated relationship the U.S. has had with Israel since its formation. Am I as erudite on Israel's policy matters as you? Certainly not, but I doubt you understand the nuances of our culture here in the U.S. as well as those of us who live here everyday.

I don't constantly spout and spew negative things about your leaders or your country, therefore I have every right to be offended when you do so about mine. It's unproductive and if your agenda is to enlighten, may I suggest you do so in a less officious and imperious manner. Weren't you ever taught that tone and inflection are as important as substance?

In any case, I refuse to absorb one single word you have to say about Barack Hussein Obama (I don't really give a fat fig if that's his middle name, because I am not anti-ANYONE as a matter of policy) until you stop being so rude, offensive and crude about him.

I voted for him, proudly and with great reverence and I have as of yet to see any evidence or proof of what you are asserting about his character.

Prove he's anti-Israel, prove he hates Jews and wants to destroy them? Put up, or shut up is what they say in my part of the world.

On one side we have Ruvy, spouting his crude slanders,

on the other side we have millions of people who have taken their measure of the man they voted for to lead this country and (like Dawn) are proud of their vote. Of the millions of those who voted for McCain/Palin, very very few would stoop to the gutter language used by Ruvy to describe the next POTUS.

Millions and millions to one. Slightly out of balance, wouldn't you say?

Ruvy, you need to spend your time on discussion boards where your opinion will make a difference in YOUR country, and thus the world.

You need to seek change in Israel.

I doubt that you've changed even one mind here on BC with your crass hatred and predictions of biblical doom. In the meantime you are presenting a very poor example of what it means to be an Israeli citizen.

You are wasting your time.

Why not make a difference in this world? why not gather and mobilize your fellow countrymen and women to change Israel? Every second you spend on Blog Critics is a second wasted. You won't change anything by posting comments here.

All in all, you come off looking like a bitter, angry, and confused madman.

Simply because I am married to Eric does not afford me any greater privileges here than anyone else....BC wouldn't exist had I not supported Eric for a number of years before the site ever generated a dime, I am as much responsible for its existence....

That is what is summed up as ownership, Dawn. I'm merely showing a healthy respect for the owner of the site and his wife, whose efforts have kept it alive and afforded me a place to publish 112 articles over three years.

Take it as what it is meant to be.

If you are still Jewish, you have a stake in this country, and you should be concerned about its continued existence. Otherwise, you needn't bother.

As for the rest, read carefully what I'vwe written above, even if you would rather not. The progressive weakening of this nation's government, its military and its institutions all can be laid directly at the policies of YOUR GOVERNMENT. The appointment of Rahm Emanuel is just another example of this continuing pattern, that "cemented" the Oslo Accords that has so weakened this nation and cost 5,000 lives.

You can read further about this in my series "In the Shadow of the Six Day War", published here at this site. I have very good reason to be very critical of America's leaders - her actions are leading to the "decountrification" of the nation I call home - and to be blunt, I resent it.

But if you wish to read further about Mr. Obama, read my analysis of his policies when he made his speech in front of AIPAC, originally pulished here, making sure you follow such links as are still live. Additionally, you can read Israeli Government Planning to Split Jerusalem and Other Downers from the Middle East which will give you some idea of the dangers we live with here - and how your government contributes to them.

I'll not have to prove that Obama is a Jew-hater. Time will do that for me, assuming he is indeed inaugurated. The question of his citizenship is to be discussed on 1 December at a court hearing in front of Supreme Court Justice Sauter. It is not a closed issue - yet. For that link, you will need to search yourself. I have the link in my e-mails somewhere, but I'm tired.

And now I wish you a pleasant evening. Even though I did get lots of sleep on the Sabbath, I still must get some sleep. It is nearly 04:00 in the morning here.

Thank you for you kind advice, Bennett. [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]. I'll spend MY time where I deem fit, thank you. And I'll answer to my Maker for its use or misuse - not to the likes of you.

Filling in for Arch while he's on vacation Ruvy?

Oy, so much for above intelligent discourse on BC politics. Name calling & allegations, hot tempers & loose lips (which, remember, sink ships.)

I for one am announcing I'm signing of this thread and will find others where personal attacks are the minimum and pompous discourse is the norm...mostly mine.

(By the way, Dawn, had no idea you and Eric were a permanent item. Congrats on all the success BC has achieved.)

Curmudgeon-At-Large
In Jameson Veritas

Hey Mark, thanks on the congrats! BC's success is a direct result of the hard work of Eric, Phillip, Lisa and the fantastic editors (too many to mention) and all the great writers here, included Ruvy, who needs to understand that how you express yourself is as important as what you are expressing.

And Eric and I have been married for ten years, and I am hoping it's permanent :)

Dawn,

Yer newlyweds...:>)

We just celebrated our 37th, plus we lived together in sin for four years until she trapped me.

ruvy -

Okay, I can understand you're angry. Whether your anger is justified or not, I cannot judge.

BUT I DO KNOW THIS. A good friend of mine - a black woman in her 60's - tells me of her oldest son who was killed as a bystander in a gang war, and her youngest son committed suicide. She remembers being a young girl asking Mormon missionaries if blacks go to heaven and being told that blacks do go to heaven - 'dog-and-cat heaven'. She raised her five children as a single mom despite the prejudice she faced - and sometimes still does face, but of course nowhere near the degree of the whites-only water fountains/restrooms/seats that she remembers so well.

ruvy, you wanna be angry and insult others, go ahead. But I've yet to hear this woman who has seen so much prejudice and heartbreak in her life insult anyone at all. My advice to you is, if she can suffer what she has and still does not speak bitter words to others, then so can I...and so can you.

yasher koach -
(and I hope this is a proper use of that phrase - if not, then please forgive me)

ruvy -

A few more things - I really, truly do not think Obama's a 'jew-hater'. I think you have given too much weight to the spite that the Obama-haters have spread...and the frivolous claim that Obama's not a citizen is but one more example of how far they're willing to go.

One must wonder if your suspicion of Obama is at least partially rooted in the less-than-cordial relationship that has existed between blacks and Jews for decades - again, please note I'm passing no judgment, but simply raising one possibility.

I will be the FIRST to agree with you that America has meddled far too much in the affairs of other countries. With few exceptions (such as particularly egregious human rights violations), our policy should be "what you do inside your borders is your own internal matter...so let's do business!"

But I think it is fair to say that despite America's overbearing manner, the two hundred or so nuclear warheads in your possession have been an effective deterrent against all-out war since 1973.

I rarely engage Ruvy any longer. He is on another plain of existence, rather like a different dimension wherein his entire universe revolves around Israel which is the center of all.

It's not so much that Ruvy is intolerant, but rather he finds anything that does not directly involve or affect Jews/Israel as irrelevant - especially any of our opinions. Why he bothers to post and comment here is "a puzzlement."

Little does he realize just how irrelevant Israel is to the majority of people in the U.S. It is not that most of us are anti-semitic, it's simply that Israel is of little concern to us in our daily lives. I know a few Jews here in Indy who give little attention to the plight of Israel. They are far too busy just living their lives.

Of course, I'm an atheist. I find the entire basis of Ruvy's life view misguided. I don't see it as irrelevant, though, in that his belief system and his culture are at loggerheads with the muslim world. Out of that struggle thousands of people have died, many in defence of a land which is no holier than any other chunk of arid dirt. That struggle has been brought to our shores and, therefore, endangers me and mine.

Ruvy's attitude toward the U.S. - his native land BTW, is so convoluted and lacking any basis of reason [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor].

I am an American, and I'm not ashamed of it, but I am also aware that unfettered nationalism is often as destructive as religious fervor. Far too many people have died in the name of country as well. We dare not admit that most wars were fought for the cause of power, and, even more importantly, for resources - whether it be oil or salt or tulip bulbs. We just can't admit that we send our young people to die for money.

Of course, Ruvy is a righteous true believer who occasionally condescends to let us know what fools and lying bastards we and pretty much everyone else in the world are. It's doubtful that anyone in the world - even in his so called "Holy Land" amongst the "chosen people" can live up to his standards. Ruvy has stored up pretty much all of his god's anger, which he spews as hatred.

B

I'll not have to prove that Obama is a Jew-hater. Time will do that for me

Indeed. He hates jews so much that he appointed one as his chief of staff - his first appointment, and the job which includes helping to vet future appointments.

Dave

Bliffle took exceptions to Dave's comment, "Regulation to make businesses operate for reasons other than the profit of their owners or shareholders are always destructive." However, pollution, products that kill & maim, etc. can all be considered to be ultimately a bad thing for owners. Not sure if Dave agrees...it's the Milton Freedman school of economics vs. any sane & rational approach.

Mark, I'm fine with the idea of reasonable regulation in the interest of the 'public welfare' as suggested in the constitution. If the purpose of the regulation is to protect the people, that's fine. If the purpose is to favor one business over another or engage in social engineering I'm not so happy with it.

Dave

Glenn,

One more time on all of this; my main interest here is to support the legitimization if socialism in your country - even if it is a luxury you cannot presently afford.

I have no problems with a man whose father is black, and who makes good, but it should be borne in mind that the influences on Obama were wide, diverse and varied. He is, more than anything else, a first generation American with a powerful loyalty to his father's Luo tribe in Kenya. Evidence of his interference in Kenya's politics on his family's behalf is to be found in my article on him linked to above. The link to that evidence in the referenced article remains live.

As a child, he grew up in Hawaii with his white mother, AND HE ABSORBED WHITE CULTURE THERE IN A MULTI-CULTURAL SOCIETY. He then went to Indonesia for a time and did study Islam. Some have alleged that he remains a Moslem at heart (I have not), but what IS clear is that he strongly identifies with Islam and built up very strong friendships among Moslems and Pakistanis, friendships which helped him immensely in his race.

He has spent twenty years in association with a Jew-hating Chicago preacher, Jeremiah Wright. Did this man influence him? Before his break with Wright, he referred to him as a mentor. As a state legislator, he had plenty of Arab support, and associated freely with those who would see this nation destroyed. As a United States senator, he cut those links somewhat, knowing the strong Jewish influence in Washington, and fearing to be linked with groups like CAIR.

I would fear such things too, if I were an American legislator who had strong Arab affiliations.

Obama's life until he got married had little to do with black American culture from what my reading showed. His formative influences were not black culturally, but white and Asian. His buddies as a young adult were Arabs and Pakistanis. Whatever strained relationships there are between blacks and Jews, he did not likely come under that influence until he entered politics in Chicago and hung around Jeremiah Wright's church.

But it is there; twenty years makes a difference in anyone's life.

Add to this the element of a very good speaker. Obama is highly intelligent, and is virtually a hypnotic speaker. He knows how to tell people what they want or need to hear and to make it sound as though it either comes from the heart or is a very well thought out answer.

Finally, add in the influence of Saul Alinsky. Saul Alinsky is my kind of ideologue. He has firm beliefs but recognizes the need to infiltrate societies and organizations from within when the ideology seems foreign to the society or the organization.

Now let's look at Rahm Emanuel. He is where this all started. I managed to lose the link to this story in my comment to Dawn above. Obama, who is basically anti-Israel, understands the corrosive and destructive influence the Oslo Acccords has had on this country. He certainly understood this when he gave his speech to AIPAC. Rahm Emmanuel, according to Arutz Sheva and other sources, "directed the Rabin-Arafat handshake" - the handshake that "cemented" this treaty with evil. Put simply, the child of real patriots who fought for this country's survival does not understand what it will take to keep this country alive. This is the man Obama chose for a chief of staff. Emanuel hangs around the country's rich elite in Tel Aviv, people who have no trouble selling Israel down the tube. They figure they have to money to get out. Why should they care about poor people in Ashkelon or S'derot? They don't. And people like me who live in Judea and Samaria are a cancer on the society they want to live in.

Obama made the appropriate choice in light of his own apparent ideas which at the very least reflect those of Zbigniew Brzinski, and involve the weakening, if not the actual destruction, of this country.

Now where is my dog in all of this?

I want to rid Israel of the American puppets who ruin this nation. The most effective way to accomplish that is to have an anti-Israel president in office who is actively supported by lots and lots of Arabs, and lots and lots of anti-Israel and anti-Jewish types, like Wright. Obama is just the fellow: a hypnotic speaker who is a good liar and who surrounds himself with those who hate this country and its people. Such a fellow is a target for me to point to. Not on Blogcritics necessarily, but in conversation after conversation with young kids in uniform who will have to do the ugly work of getting rid of these poisonous and bought out American-influenced Israeli traitors who ruin Israel.

That is why I supported Obama in this election: better a real enemy than a false friend.

But now that you have chosen him, I do not have to hide my contempt for the man.

As for the citizenship issue, that was an added bonus to prove just how much Obama does have to hide.

Nota bene: Unlike so many truly hate-filled people, I would never call for the assassination of Obama. For that, you need to go to the real haters in your society.

Ruvy, please stop whining. This remark of yours

The progressive weakening of this nation's government, its military and its institutions all can be laid directly at the policies of YOUR GOVERNMENT.

Chris,

There will be, G-d willing, a book review coming out dealing with the sovereign rights of the Jewish People that arise in international law to the entire Land of Israel. When you read it, if you bother to, then you can complain. It probably will make your blood boil....;o))

I've gotten what I asked for, and now must make the best of the opportunity the American people have been kind enough to give me.

At this point, you have nothing to complain about in my comments. I have engaged in no personal attacks on anyone writing on this site.

As for politicians, regardless of station, they are public figures, and are not immune to attack.

Ruvy, here are several statements from your previous comment that you don't substantiate, you just toss out like little confetti of prejudice and presumption:-

1. a powerful loyalty to his father's Luo tribe in Kenya

2. he strongly identifies with Islam

3. He knows how to tell people what they want or need to hear

4. Obama, who is basically anti-Israel

5. the child of real patriots who fought for this country's survival does not understand what it will take to keep this country alive

6. the weakening, if not the actual destruction, of this country

7. a hypnotic speaker who is a good liar and who surrounds himself with those who hate this country and its people

I would like to see some evidence - meaning not your hysterical fears and projections - that any of that is true.

As far as I can tell, you have placed yourself heart and mind in the service of a bankrupt theology and are desperately trying to cling to little flotsam and jetsam of "thought" rather than see the world as it actually is, lest the world, as it inevitably will, proves you for a gullible fool and your "faith" the long con that it is.

For the record, it's not true that you don't engage in personal attacks on this site, you do and routinely they get edited.

Oh, and your #47, way to go on completely ignoring my point. You do that a lot when people catch you out in your naivety. Never let reality get in the way of the dogma, huh?

He knows how to tell people what they want or need to hear

The principal skill of a successful politician; in his case, the proof of its truth lies in the fact he's now the president-elect.

Had he not done what Ruvy says, he wouldn't have been elected.

ruvy -

I really enjoy discussing matters with those from other cultures - I really do. But please listen to this advice - it's not meant to offend you, but to help you.

If you want to be taken seriously in a debate, rhetoric MUST be backed by GOOD references. Give us TRUSTWORTHY references, not fishwrappers like 'WorldNet Daily'. If you cannot back up what you say, then don't say it.

In addition to the references Chris asked for above, I want to see your references for the following:

* "a Jew-hating Chicago preacher, Jeremiah Wright." Where is your proof that Wright was 'Jew-hating'?

* "As a state legislator, he had plenty of Arab support, and associated freely with those who would see this nation destroyed." Your reference?

* "His buddies as a young adult were Arabs and Pakistanis." Your reference?

Ruvy,

I have said Obama's associations with Rev. Wright are the most troubling aspect of his background. Rev. Wright represents everything that's wrong with race relations in this country. Wright is no less obnoxious than Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton, who are anti-Jew and anti-white.

Obama should have left that church long ago, but inertia counts for a lot. If Obama is anything like the kind of Christian I consider myself, he picks and chooses what he finds useful and rejects what he finds ridiculous.

This is why I think gay people have every single right to live their lives and pursue happiness as I do, but feel certain that despots, murderers and child molesters are sent directly to hell to be tormented for all of eternity.

Obama isn't what I would consider "religious" but merely spiritual. He belonged to that church out of a sense of community, not because he bought into the nonsense Wright was spewing.

Also, this whole nonsense about his citizenship is stupid. Prove it or it's just lies.

Think about Ruvy, do you REALLY think that if there was any question about Obama not being a citizen of the U.S. it wouldn't have been exploited by his enemies ad nauseum?

As for his father and the whole Moslem thing, can we please never mention this crap again. I don't much get the impression his father or that side of his family has had much influence on him at all. Certainly not anymore than I have allowed my Appalachian, bigoted roots to influence me.

You can't help who you were born to, and you can't blame a person for exploring their roots.

Obama's exposure to a diverse background is precisely why he is who he is: a combination of us all.

I heard a very interesting discussion about Reverend Wright. First, the two speeches that were televised were exactly that two: two sermons out of hundreds.

Second, black churches are different from white churches. Spend some time in one. I have. They are much different than most white churches in terms of temperment, tone, sound, participation and sermonizing. Wright's was no different.

Third, get over this as a huge association. I had rabbis for years I didn't much like. I went to synagogue because I went to synagogue. Now I have a rabbi I really respect and I go to listen to him and I pay attention to the sermons and I really care.

For many blacks and whites church is as much a social event as it is a religious event--even if they won't admit it. They are being hypocritical in the extreme. MANY preachers say weird and bizarre things in many churches (having lived in the south I have made it my business to follow this) and I doubt that ever parishoner takes responsibility for each word uttered from his/her preacher's mouth.

So, when all these things are put together, Wright becomes a real red herring. Just another way to "prove" something about Obama, like his "having" Muslim friends, or a Muslim father, etc., that make him "different" from some people. Just another way to mark him as not like US (whatever the hell that means) and make it easy to either hate or dismiss him.

It is so damned tiresome that this is still going on.

Wright had the best line of the campaign...

Ruvy -

I looked at your references and your blog. On Obama's new Chief of Staff, your reference said something interesting about his actions during Clinton's election: "Emanuel raised the colossal sum of $72 million, much of the money coming from the Jewish community, and the success catapulted him into becoming a senior advisor to Clinton after he was elected President."

"Much of the money coming from the Jewish community" There's a real problem with that - either you're taking a reference from somebody with a REAL anti-Semitic bent (because they're wanting to blame the Jews for Clinton) OR a whole lot of Jews see things differently from you. I think you'd better check the objectivity of your reference.

And then there's this:

"Raila Odinga has, in his own words, a "close personal friendship" with Barrack Hussein Obama Junior....
When Obama went to Kenya in August of 2006, he was hosted by Raila and spoke in praise of him at rallies in Nairobi: Obama's bias for his fellow Luo was so blatant that a Kenya government spokesman denounced Obama during his visit as Raila's "stooge."

Ah, so a politician hosted a senator, and so we MUST assume that Obama truly is this guy's "close personal friend"? And because some government spokesman didn't like Obama, the senator is now a "stooge"? AND WHERE ARE YOUR REFERENCES? I looked at your link...and the reference THAT gives is "members only" for those who subscribe to 'TTP'.

Ruvy, if such information is as TRUE and TERRIBLE as you think it is, why should the information be restricted? Hm?

AND THEN THERE'S AIPAC.

Hm. If Obama was so ANTI-Israel, then WHY would Hamas say this about him (from YOUR reference)?

"Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said Obama's Jerusalem statement was "totally rejected. The whole world knows that East Jerusalem, holy Jerusalem, was occupied in 1967 and we will not accept a Palestinian state without having [East] Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state."

Abbas' aide and senior peace negotiator Saeb Erekat responded by saying that Obama "has closed all doors to peace.""

Ruvy - it's becoming clear to me that you are NOT judging objectively, but making judgments based on assumptions because EVEN YOUR OWN REFERENCES dispute your claims.

I'd really like to discuss things with you, to hear your side of the story when it comes to what the Palestinians call the "Twice-Promised Land". That's not Israel's fault, btw, but England's.

But unless you have something better from trustworthy references, I think you and I are done on this topic.

Clav, if you are talking about what I think you are, then I actually agree with you.

Will Clav and Lisa cut the coyness and tell us what Wright remark they are referring to?

PS - Although many of his remarks are [deliberately] over the top and a few genuinely offensive, on balance I think the good reverend is kind of cool...and I regret that politics necessitated Obama's dropping him.

I got into an argument with two gay friends the other night...they voted for Obama but remain skeptical of him, and think he is 'no friend of gays.' Why? Because of Wright's hyperbolic comments about AIDS. I laughed at them.

Aren't we all intelligent enough to tell the difference between rhetoric, which can be deliberately provocative, and statements of alleged fact? The Rev. Wright is all rhetoric. Treating his words otherwise is pure foolishness.

I'm late to this discussion and it has long since meandered from the original topic (as is to be expected when Ruvy chimes in!), but I'd like to toss in my $0.02 worth anyway.

Glenn makes the good point that socialism is not communism (the name of history's most powerful communist state notwithstanding). However, he has a misconception of his own.

Social democracy is not socialism either.

I completely agree with handy. Hence my earlier post.

I think,now that the election is over, people will feel pretty stupid (ie., Repubs, I hope) for making such a huge big deal over both Ayers and Wright.
But then again, maybe not. Naw..... probably not.

Doc -

Good point. I'll take that one as a lesson learned. Labels are trick things....

The remarkable thing I'm getting in my conversations with people who didn't vote for Obama is that by and large, while they'd have preferred it if he hadn't won, they're willing to give him a chance. There's an atmosphere of conciliation that was noticeable by its absence after the last two elections. I'm not sure if Obama should be given the credit for that, or McCain, or a combination of the two.

What I am sure of is that the small but very vocal minority of Republicans who kept harping on about red herrings - Wright, Ayers, ACORN, Obama's middle name, Obama's Kenyan family, Obama using more than four squares of toilet paper in the Senate restroom - are going to keep doing so. They were oblivious to how foolish they sounded during the campaign and there's no reason to suppose they're any more self-aware now.

Doc -

Frankly, I found the same kind of thing in religious forums - and it did not matter how courteous one was towards them, their response would be filled with spite and insults.

I'm sure they thought the same thing of me.

I'm not trying to link partisan politics and religion here, but I guess that's what I'm doing. The more fundamental their religious beliefs, the more likely they were to be conservative...and the more likely they were to use insults and spite in their posts. This is NOT a hard-and-fast rule of human psychology, but only a general layman's observation. My own opinion is that the greater degree of intellectual curiosity (but NOT actual intelligence), the more likely one is to be fundamentalist and/or conservative.

But that's just my opinion...and I'm sure you know what opinions are like and why they stink.

My own opinion is that the greater degree of intellectual curiosity (but NOT actual intelligence), the more likely one is to be fundamentalist and/or conservative.

Did you mean "less likely", Glenn? My own observations have led me to conclude the exact opposite.

Fundamentalism requires absolute faith - something that doesn't sit all that easily with intellectual curiosity.

glenn, it's the fanaticism, NOT the christianity which is the problem. You've noticed it among Christians because that's where you're looking for it, but the spite and anger is just as strong among the cult-like fanatics of the pro-choice movement, the ecoextremist left, the most hardcore of the gay rights movement, and any other group of any political affiliation which holds a particular belief set with an extreme and irrational fanaticism.

Dave

Man, but my brain is fried today -

Doc - good catch - you're right - the LESS intellectually curious, the LESS one is likely to challenge one's own world view.

You get my drift.

DAVE - when the eco-freaks and the gay rights crowd massacre thousands for not holding the same beliefs as they do, then I'll agree with you.

Excuse me, but I'm just being a little intellectually curious here: can't two intellectually curious people, even if they're atheists, come to two different conclusions? Isn't that what is happening to Dave Nalle and Glenn Contrarian right now?

A person with intellectual and spiritual curiosity might come to conclusions that are different from those of an atheist...and from those of other people having spiritual curiosity.

Spiritual curiosity and intellectual curiosity. Some people have one, some people have t'other, some people have both, and people, including those who "massacre thousands for not holding the same beliefs as they do," have neither.

Well, I think that's a given, Irene.

Personally I don't take it so far as to imply that you can't be both intellectually and spiritually curious. You only have to read Lewis and Eliot to know the fallaciousness of that.

It's all a matter of degrees, I know, but Glenn does have a point in that whatever else one might be, one is most definitely NOT intellectually curious if one accepts without question the literal infallibility of every word of one's holy book, when one's own eyes could easily tell one otherwise.

DAVE - when the eco-freaks and the gay rights crowd massacre thousands for not holding the same beliefs as they do, then I'll agree with you.

Um, when have Christians in modern America massacred thousands? And some (not me) would argue that pro-choicers have massacred millions. And others (me) would argue that these lefty fanatics are the ideological disciples of those who slaughtered millions in the last century and sent millions more to the gulags and killing fields.

Dave

Handy stole the word that I had on my mind while I was reading Ruvy's comments - "coy". Anyone who was born and raised in America can't claim ignorance when he calls a half-Kenyan a monkey.

Dread's right that McCain supporters will give Obama a chance. It demonstrates the exact opposite of what he and Glenn said. We crazy religious zealots are more generous to our opponents than open-minded liberals are. That's one of those ironies that you get used to. You can tell it's true because the press reports on the anti-Obama hate, and they always get the story wrong.

As to the original article, it's a reminder that every generation fights the same battles. It wasn't too long ago that the world recognized the folly of socialism, yet here we are again talking about it as a viable alternative.

It may be a matter of degrees, Dr. D, or perhaps it's a matter of semantics. Spiritual curiosity and intellectual curiosity intersect in a "why" posed confidently to a God from whom one expects an answer, from whom one has received, after patient application, answers to other intellectual obstacles that seemed absolutely faith-shattering years ago. That's why I'm a fanatic about my Holy Book.

My cold dead hands'll be clasped around it long after anything resembling a firearm will be! :)

Well before I go, Dr. D, for go I must, I have to thank you. You've never pulled any punches in any of our many discussions about faith, but I've also never picked up a "dog in the manger" vibe from you.

"the gay rights crowd" ... "these lefty fanatics are the ideological disciples of those who slaughtered millions in the last century and sent millions more to the gulags and killing fields."

Really? I've never thought the gay rights crowd was capable of that. I could be wrong...

Irene, how do you square your pretension to any kind of curiosity when you have already decided that you have the answers in your "god" and the bible? I think you're fooling yourself so effectively you can't even see it.

Baronius - you state "It wasn't too long ago that the world recognized the folly of socialism". When was that then?

when the world confused socialism with communism.

The world or just Baronius?

well, not just baronius... but not the world either...

There's Dave too, of course.

You're not going all even-handed on me are you zingzing? Not sure I could cope after the troll's mysterious conversion, not that that was even-handed, but a weird metamorphosis nevertheless.

Christopher, maybe it was Irene's open mind that led her to believe in her "god". Maybe the Bible is the end of an intellectual's journey, rather than the beginning of a moron's.

chris, just because i don't name names doesn't mean i haven't gone soft. wait. "i have gone soft." i think. wait. i haven't gone soft! fucking negatives.

ahem... there were just too many names to name.

socialism is certainly a stepping stone to communism, but it's a long, long step. and that would be like saying capitalism is a stepping stone to personal riches.

fuck the right wing! happy now?

Baronius, much as you'd like it to be, no it wasn't and no it isn't.

"socialism is certainly a stepping stone to communism". Right, if milk is a stepping stone to drug addiction.

I don't have a problem with capitalism or personal riches. Money is just a kind of energy really, no big deal. Personally, I just need more energy money!

well, used to be i couldn't live without milk, now i can't live without my smack! oh, gimme some. mmm, mmm. that's the... stu... ffff. f.

RE: #51 and #52 Dawn and Lisa

Please have a look at Reverend Wright's "chickens coming home to roost" comment in context .

The sermon is in this 10 minute video. Nothing in this sermon was captured for me by the media, inclding Huffington Post. I think you might be surprised.

Yes, Cindy, I have actually heard that sermon before, but I watched it again. So, I wasn't surprised. What do you want me to say? I think he said some powerful things, actually. Incendiary, perhaps. But with truth in them, too.

See my post #58.

At #54.

Glenn,

As you may have noticed, I've stayed away from this forum for a bit. This had nothing to do with my opinions, links or anything to do with them; it has to do with living life, which occasionally requires sawing one's derierre from the chair in front of the computer and getting about and to places that are not accessible to computers (if you don't have the $300 hand-held jobbies).

It's after 04:30 in the morning here, and I just finished an editing session, after running around from 07:00 the previous morning, chasing assorted wild geese in our fair capital. A bit of a long day, in other words.

I'm going to leave the links question for now, simply because I am a bit tired.

Les,

Some people here don't seem to understand what communism is. I'm too tired to explain it.


And to the rest:

I see Marxism as a subcategory of socialism. Marx's special understanding, if you will.

I don't read much Marx directly. Although I respect much of his work, indirectly.

The Bolsheviks took over Russia. They betrayed the Communist ideas. They called themselves "The Communist Party".

Good for them. Now no one understands Communism. Like no one understands what classical liberalism was really about.

Time for bed.

#78 -- zingzing

socialism is certainly a stepping stone to communism

Thank you zingzing. You are up on your Marx.

However the length of the step being long or short is all a matter of the degree of the socialist incline a people are set on, and then further effected by a variety of other political and economic and natural occurrences that increases its incline. Once started in builds its own incline and becomes harder to keep in check, and thus lies our discussion/debate.

However, what is not in debate is what is so butt ugly about the slip from socialism into communism, for whatever reason, once in communism, it is next to impossible to get out. The means, the tools, the resources are all in the state hands, leaving the people nothing in means to get out and a state that prevents people from organizing for even protesting.

The Berlin wall only came down a little over 20 years ago. The fact that there was a wall there to hold the people in, says it all. Just look at the two Koreas. I ask you, even given our capitalist economic nightmare right now, which of these two would you choose the live in. And note that you have a choose, the those living in the north do not.

So the real debate is why increase something that operates ever so more closely to the bottomless pit, when freedom and personal property rights are protected and capitalism can fulish and produce so much more comforts of life, and the worst pit of capitalism is greed, that can be more easily controlled then the slip from socialism to communism. I mean, why even consider risking it when the free market can bring so much to so many wihtout that risk.

Wait. Maybe I could say Marx is envisioning the "perfect" socialism. At any rate, if we had true Communism country, as per Marx...we would all be rejoicing.

Communism isn't evil. State communism, State Socialism, State Capitalism (what we have now) is.

Franco,

You are up on your ummm, what should I call it?...your propaganda (as usual).

franco: "why even consider risking it when the free market can bring so much to so many wihtout that risk."

because sometimes it doesn't bring enough to enough.

it brings just about enough, but not quite. a little socialism, like a little salt, isn't going to kill anyone, but it'll make life tastier for many.

life is good, for the most part, under capitalism. but, it's not anywhere near perfect. i think we can inject a little bit of socialism, some idea of it that we can keep firmly in check, and it will benefit the many (while pissing off a few) that need the benefits it can bring. of course, it won't make life perfect. just a little bit easier.

i don't think taking a step towards a cliff means you're going to jump off it. and socialism is a long way from said cliff. and the view is better from just a little closer.

wow. too many metaphors.

Cindy, I have to comment here: a bit of more equitable social engineering will only take America CLOSER to the point the other western democracies reached years ago.

I can only speak for Down Under, but we do love our (almost) free universal health care. It's of a very high standard, but offers a choice component. It didn't send the health insurance funds broke: they just invented more cover - gym memberships, alternative medicine, dental etc.

There's a bizarre mindset in America that says it's OK to spend billions upon billions on a military that probably doesn't need it any more given the changed nature of the conflicts its involved in, but that it's a huge drama to spend a fraction of that amount making sure Americans don't die waiting for treatment or go bankrupt getting an appendix taken out.

I'd be really bummed off if the taxes I paid every week weren't going to universal healthcare and were being snapped up instead by the military. I genuinely don't understand Americans who think that's the better use of their taxes.

All I can say is, under a genuine social democracy that delivers good disposable incomes to workers and legislates for great workplace conditions, we are indeed happy little possums down in this piece of paradise on the edge of the Pacific.

And don't anyone get the idea that we don't work or have no work ethic ... we work our tits off.

But we know - for certain - that the people who deliver the profits to industry and big business are the workers. We create their wealth.

I don't have any issues at all expecting that I should be able to share in that.

What Americans regard as socialism, we call community ... we're all in this together, let's look after each other.

Instead of: I'm all right Jack, keep your hands off my stack.

Thanks, Cindy. The full text of the "God damn America" sermon is nearby on YouTube as well.

I'm not a follower of Rev Wright, but I am an admirer - I find his words stirring and, to say the least, thought-provoking.

Before anyone makes a definitive comment about him or his rhetoric, they should watch at least one of these unedited clips.

zingzing, #89, damn close to "exactly!"

except for the last line.

and #90 STM. Sir, You make a strong point for moving down there! (carefully avoiding the word 'under').

Cindy,

Wait. Maybe I could say Marx is envisioning the "perfect" socialism. At any rate, if we had true Communism country, as per Marx...we would all be rejoicing.

Oy, such an idealist. I makes me almost wet in me eye. Marx was a reasonably good analyst - but sitting in those London libraries with the horse trolleys going by made him ignore certain realities of building societies - like road building and infrastructure. His blind Russian followers built factories - and only later considered how they would get there.... And the blind followers of the Russians - except the Jews in Israel - made all the same mistakes.

Also, much that he wrote ignored basic (or base) human nature. Socialist organizations must be voluntary to have any real chance of success. This was one of the conditions forced on early Jewish socialists trying to build a society here. Too often "dictatorships of the proletariat" forgot the proletariat in short order, remaining only dictatorships.

The kibbutzim (for example) succeeded here originally for two reasons: the first was that they either had seed support from overseas in terms of capital - BUT THEN HAD TO STICK TO A BUSINESS PLAN AND BUDGET. The second was they were voluntary.

Most of the kibbutzim later failed because their boys had a hand in the till and could extend the kibbutzim bank loan atop bank loan, continually bailing out cooperative societies that needed less and less to actually stick to a profitable business plan. When the Labor party got kicked out, the banks started calling in the loans bit by bit, slowly bankrupting institutions that had long since scrapped living on a budget or considering how they would make money.

Fiscal conservatism is a the basis for any successful socialist operation - even in Australia!

STM

Well, that is just the point, isn't it?

But here we are, offering "socialism" to the rich and leaving the middle class and the poor once again out in the cold. Spending huge amounts on the military (and private military contractors, who wasted millions and millions) and then saying health care (even for children) is too expensive. And now we are forced to cut education!!!! because the country is going down the tubes, but AIG gets another 85 billion.

And no one thinks this is stupid?

I do.

RE # 83

Lisa,

Sorry, I had not read down the column. Didn't read handy or your post after that. I was mostly thinking of Dawn's concern. I see now that is not a concern for you.

Franco: ...the free market can bring so much to so many...

There is no free market--its myth, imagination.

One thing I like about you Franco. You seem to be willing to devote time to making an argument, and because of this I assume you do your research. However, in order to make a reasonable argument, one would need to look at information on both sides of the aisle. Wouldn't you agree?

So, don't believe me. Instead, remember this guy's name: John Kenneth Galbraith. He is Milton Friedman's contemporary. He was an adviser to Franklin Roosevelt, JFK, Clinton. He saw what Friedman did not see. He warned us about what he saw. Unfortunately, he died in 2006. He would have had a lot to say about today's economy.

So, here are two very brief articles for your perusal. The first will contrast Galbraith and Friedman:

John Kenneth Galbraith understood capitalism as lived - not as theorized

The second will explain what I mean when I say we do not have free markets. But it's much, much worse, we have private industry controlling government.

He outlines how economists, economic and political scholars, perpetrate a sort of deception whether conveniently or deliberately. I'll quote two paragraphs.

Free Market Fraud - the myth of capitalism

Let's begin with capitalism, a word that has gone largely out of fashion. The approved reference now is to the market system. This shift minimizes--indeed, deletes--the role of wealth in the economic and social system. And it sheds the adverse connotation going back to Marx. Instead of the owners of capital or their attendants in control, we have the admirably impersonal role of market forces. It would be hard to think of a change in terminology more in the interest of those to whom money accords power. They have now a functional anonymity.

(snip)

Take the common outcry about corporate welfare. Here the private firm, as it is called, receives a public subsidy for its product or service. But what is called corporate welfare is a minor detail. Far more important is the full-fledged takeover by private industry of public decision-making and government spending.

STM #90 -

I agree with you 100%. That was PRECISELY my point in my original article, but you said it better than I did - it's not truly socialism as Marx (who did NOT invent the idea) envisioned it, but a sense of 'community' rather than 'I got mine'.

And Tasmania is - next to Hawaii - the most beautiful place I've seen on Earth. The climate is a lot like here in Puget Sound in Washington state...but the biggest shock was finding a sequoia tree there! I had thought they were only in northern California....

Dave #67 -

Do you think Lutherans are Christian? If so, try looking up how majority-Lutheran Germany supported Hitler and how they certainly didn't resist his attacks on the Jews.

And then there's Rwanda - before the Rwandan genocide, Rwanda was touted as the 'most Christian nation in Africa'. Of those who espoused Christianity there, at least half were Catholic.

As I'm sure you know, there's many, many more examples I could bring against both Catholic and protestant believers.

If you share the same religious beliefs as any church whose members have supported and engaged in atrocities, then you are either ignorant of the history of mainstream 'Christianity' or you believe that the Church that Jesus founded was so fallible that millions of its members would be party to genocide.

Sorry, Dave, I know that's harsh - but that's the reality of the history of mainstream 'Christianity'. As for myself, I am certainly Christian...but I doubt my beliefs are the same as yours.

Dave - one more thing - I've seen some indication, but not absolute proof, that unlike their Catholic and protestant countrymen, Rwandan Muslims did NOT participate in the genocide.

It was a few years ago on afrol.com, the African News site, and I cannot vouch for that site's integrity.

#99 Agreed.

Dave, really. "ideological disciplies," indeed. When the Catholic church JUST apologized for its complicity in World War II? Gimme a break...

Christians of all stripes have been ideological discipiples for centuries. You know that, you are just in denial. Doesn't mean ALL. Just means that there's been more than enough death and destruction in Christ's name to go around.... The Inquisistion, The Crusades...you name it.

Not to mention the Bible thumpers today who think that anyone who is a non-believer, a homosexual, etc. deserves to go to hell. Not to mention those who bomb abortion clinics and assassinate doctors who perform abortions.

Nothing Jesus, if he existed at all as Christians paint him--as a man of peace and love--would have condoned at all. He would, in fact, have been competely horrified.

Blimey, I step away for half a day...

Sorry to backtrack, but:

Baronius @ #68: Your caricature is unworthy of you. The Republicans I've spoken to are not by any means 'crazy religious zealots'. What's more, neither you nor Irene are anything of the kind, and if you read on I'll explain why.

(And as far as generosity to one's opponents goes, the respective reactions of Obama's and McCain's supporters when the other candidate was mentioned in the election night speeches says it all!)

Chris @ #71: You're not being fair to Irene. The difference between her and the type of fundamentalist Glenn and I were talking about is that Irene (and, yes, Baronius too) has recognized apparent discrepancies between what her Bible says and the way the universe actually operates, and has sought to reconcile the two. We may disagree with her conclusions, but we must acknowledge that she has made the intellectual effort.

A fundamentalist, in contrast, will read a Bible verse, observe the piece of reality which contradicts it, and reject the reality out of hand.

Ruvy #94:

Spot on. Excellent analysis.

I disagree Doc. Monotheism is either true or it isn't. Based on the evidence, I think it is false. It follows therefore that all the fruits of it are equally fake.

I see it as a cruel deception against humanity that serves only to cause friction and obscure the potential for a more real spirituality based on and in the actual universe we occupy.

You're supposed to ping me when we get into religious debates, especially when Christopher Rose is involved. I almost missed the start of this one!

The theoretical conclusions of the Communists are in no way based on ideas or principles that have been invented, or discovered, by this or that would-be universal reformer.

They merely express, in general terms, actual relations springing from an existing class struggle, from a historical movement going on under our very eyes. The abolition of existing property relations is not at all a distinctive feature of communism.

All property relations in the past have continually been subject to historical change consequent upon the change in historical conditions.

The French Revolution, for example, abolished feudal property in favour of bourgeois property.

The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few.

In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.

I don't know why everyone insists on taking so much space to say simply, the GOP hangs on desparately to Religious Zealots because they're the only (until now) dependable voting bloc they have.

Over the years, the GOP has conned the Fundamentalists into believing that if they vote their ticket, they'll support their twisted born-again agenda.

Now that they've proven otherwise, the same block is deserting them in droves.

Today Sarah Palin stated that (following in Bush's footsteps) when God shows her the political doorway with which she is to step through, she'll step forward to lead our country.

I guess she forgot that the electorate has already shown her the door!

Of course that's only my opinion.

I had thought that the rules were that basically you can say pretty much any damn thing to beat up the president. I just know that Dawn is going to be having an awfully mad four years if she's going to choose to be Deeply Offended by anybody who says anything about obama that anyone might even could choose to take as "racist." That's cool. I mean, whatever gets you off and all.

I guess that also means that I shouldn't mention how intrigued I am in the weird current context by the idealistic 70s Tom T Hall song about "The Monkey That Became President." I note that both the bigots and integrationists supported him. That's not just bipartisan, but bi-species.

And the lion shall lie down with the lamb as The One heals the planet.

Good luck with that.

Palin will be back. Don't doubt that for a moment. Her time is coming. She's too smart an