Books you want the next President to take to the White House

Bill Moyer's Journal is a great show by a progressive who is willing to really investigate. The blog for the show had a great idea. He asked people to send in which books they would most like to see the next President, whoever it may be, take to the White House when he/she moves in. You can see the post here: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/index-flash.html. Gave me some good ideas for books. I had already read the one the most people nominated and which if you haven't read I recommend you RUN to get: Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine. I've just read a book that I'd rate as number 2 on my list for the next President. It is Free Lunch, by David Cay Johnston. If you want to see my review you can look at my library, I'm reannon.

What other books would people like to see the next President read?

Mary

I don't give a damn what he* takes (or reads). I give a damn what he does!

*"He" because I'm hoping it will be Barack.

That is a great question. I don't know off the top of my head so I will have to go peruse my library and see what there I could recommend.

BTW, I also care what he/she does; however, every individual needs some way to recharge batteries and intellectual context. Reading is a good way, wouldn't you agree?

I've always wanted presidents to have read On the Beach. War is very, very serious and should not be entered into lightly.

Too late for this administration. Sigh.

On the Beach, yeah, or Level 7 by Mordecai Roshwald.

I'm disappointed that Ayn Rand scored so highly on that list. Too many people read her stuff thinking that she speaks for libertarian free market ideas. Maybe I'd suggest the president read Economics for Real People or The Market for Liberty.

While looking for an author of a certain book for this thread, I noticed that the Amazon reviews for the book My Pet Goat that Bush read on September 11 are all jokes about the president.

Anything written by Tom Paine.

Howard Zinn, A people's history of the United States.

Books by Peter Linebaugh -- The Many-Headed Hydra: The Hidden History of the Revolutionary Atlantic and The Magna Carta Manifesto.

Like lilithcat, I'm hoping Barack wins. He's a constitutional law professor (oops, I mean instructor), so these should be up his alley.

Red Mars would be the perfect book for a president to read because than Barack could learn all about what is likely to happen when we overpopulate and the world heats up. It also has so many great ideas about sustainability and government and democracy. For me, overpopulation and education are the biggest issues, if we could fix those then everything else could fall into place.

I suggest the following:
The Bible
The Federalist
The Lincoln/Douglas Debates
Das Kapital
The Wealth of Nations
The Brothers Karamazov

These are just a few of the books I expect would be useful to the next president.

I do have apreference in this race and it ain't John McCain, but it sure would be nice to elect someone who knows how to read for a change.

#11: "The Bible"

Hmmm... that can go both ways. Maybe the next president will practice the golden rule or maybe he'll execute his predecessor's heirs like King David did. Jenna and Barbara had better run for their lives just in case.

How about the Jefferson Bible? Thomas Jefferson went through the four gospels and cut out everything he considered superstitious or backward, retaining only the moral and philosophical aspects.

Has anyone done this for the bible as a whole? If not, somebody should; we'd end up with something much shorter but a whole lot more valuable.

This being "Ten Commandments Weekend" I thought I should take a look and see how I am doing. I have pretty much followed the last 6 of the 10 Commandments, although I may have coveted my neighbors slaves. Besides those last six of the ten, I'm not sure that there is much in the Old Testament that could be clipped for guidance. Oh yes, there is a bunch of good stuff in Ecclesiastes and some pretty good Proverbs. The Skeptics Annotated Bible has a collection of the 'good' stuff in the Bible . It's a short list compared to their sex and violence references....

I found a nice post about the Lieberman/Brownback resolution SR 483 which sets aside this as 'Ten Commandments Weekend': Talk to Action contains some quotes by Jefferson and Adams about religion, morality and government.

It is so disheartening to see people put down the most important parts of the Bible, dismissing it as superstition, etc. I can't express strongly enough the need for everyone to understand the Prophets, most especially POTUS. These are about the fall of one of the most powerful nations in the Mideast 3000 years ago. They suffered the same problems we have now: Corrupt government, corrupt religious practices, including idolatry (think $$$$$ in our case), cheating at business, moral turpentine, legislation designed to deny others their place in the world, desire for empire.

Read Jeremiah for the most complete look at what was going on and where Jeremiah told them their practices would take them.

I find most people who dismiss the Bible as so much bushwa are not very familiar with it and tend to reject it based on their experience with the corrupt conservative religious establishment rather than any real familiarity with the document itself. The Bible contains more real wisdom, religious and non-religious, than any fifty books of comparable size. All I ask is you read closely the prophet Jeremiah. It's not a fairytale, it's a cautionary tale about what happens when justice is left in the dust.

Of course, it does support the view of the Rev. Wright, so if you think the US is the gift of God to the world, you may be so heavily blinkered that you won't see what is in front of you face. If you fit this category, hold on, it's going to be some ride.

You have to be really careful about using the text of the Bible as any sort of guide to living. You may interpret Jeremiah as a warning that one should fight against corruption but I think that it is really a warning of what will happen if you go against the Word of God. This is the interpretation espoused by The Jeremiah Project which blames 9/11 and Katrina on a turning away from God. Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and Rev Hagee have made similar claims. This is very scary for anyone who doesn't believe that the Bible and God is the ultimate authority. If you are a gay, a Muslim, or (gasp) an atheist, then 'heaven help you.' And, according to Jeremiah, heaven won't help you.

I think there are much better things that our new President could read. For instance, maybe s/he should read something like The Philosophy of the Enlightenment by Ernst Cassirer as a reminder of what was behind the thinking of the Founders.

The new president should have lots of short, funny stuff available for free moments but mostly, I think that plenty of time should be allowed for reading the PDB's , the NIE's, etc.

I love the idea of 'moral turpentine'.

Sigrid, you've made my point about lack of familiarity with the Bible. What do you think God's purpose is in giving us laws and rules? To make life hard? To divide the good from the bad? To say I'm God and you're not? (The answer to this one by the way is yes). God gives us those things to guide us to a just society. Not to allow others to rule over us through fear.

Societies built on idolatry (again, I stress $$$), power and influence rather than justice, peace, respect, honor, and compassion fall, very hard, usually quite often from their own internal rot, which is the result of corrosive influences on the polity, and corruption in government and society.

Read Jeremiah again and follow what laws/rules the powers that were, violated. Consider how BushCo has structured this country and in what ways it looks like Israel of Jeremiah's day.

I didn't know if throwing moral turpentine in there would undercut my argument or not. I'll tell you what tho': it does a better job than immoral turpentine.

I wasn't trying to be nasty. I really do love the idea of moral turpentine and agree that it certainly is better than immoral turpentine! I think you would agree that we need some moral turpentine to clean up Washington.

What I think is God's purpose is irrelevant since I don't believe in God.

I'm dropping this religious part of the thread for a while because I have some reading to do....it has been a while since I read Jeremiah.

Meanwhile, does anybody have any more secular book suggestions for Barak McClinton ?

Dune.

The President needs to know how power works :)

How about The Sorrows of Empire by Chalmers Johnson? Or how about The End of Poverty by Jeffrey Sachs? Or maybe Renewable Energy Policy by Paul Komor?

Bush does read. He always chooses books that have nothing to do with the policy decisions he is supposed to make, and certainly nothing that would challenge his current beliefs. I'd like to see a President that understands the facts of the moment.

"Facts, sir, can be stupid things." - Ronald Reagan. It is in this belief that George W. and indeed all of BushCo have decided to outdo Ronald Reagan. Reagan just said it. BushCo believes it.

I will just be glad to have a president who reads.

Whaddya mean, nrtmn? Don't you remember a couple of years ago when Bush said he had just read and enjoyed Camus' The Stranger?

Granted, he may have been joking, given the irony of his reading a book in which a guy kills an Arab for no good reason.

He doesn't kill him for no good reason. He does it because he can, For people like BushCo that's a perfectly good reason to do anything.

BushCo wants to the world not to forget soon that they exist and can not only act in the world but shape the world to their own ends.

Msg 22, amen, brother or sister. Let's say reads relevant books.

I'll second sigridsmith's recommendation of Zinn's People's History, which could help balance, or complement, the view from the top. Perhaps Voices and Terkel's Working in a similar vein. I'll also add Michael Harrington's The Other America, which unfortunately remains all too relevant today.

Presuming the next president is on *our*side, s/he could benefit from a close study of Thomas Frank's argument, in What's the Matter with Kansas?, that conservatives have been able to advance their legislative and economic agendas largely by creating a false social and cultural dichotomy between "the heartland" and "the liberal elite."

The Assault on Reason by Al Gore not for the bits against BushCo directly, but for the bits about how TV and government propaganda have replaced meaningful public discourse on issues in this country. Part of what needs to change is what information and how information flows to people to help them make political and other life-affecting decisions.

The Koran because unless and until we understand the religion with the second largest number of adherents in the world, we will continue to demonize 1.5 billion people and set up World War III faster than is already happening.

I think judging Islam on “terrorists” is like judging Christianity on The Inquisition.

Silent Spring by Rachel Carson. It had a profound impact on JFK. I think it should be required reading for everyone. We should have respect for all things and creatures on this earth because, as Rachel Carson said, "we all live in the same environment." When one creature is threatened, we are all threatened.

I greatly enjoyed the discussion on the interpretation of the prophets in The Bible and as always, find geneg's postings thought-provoking and enlightening. My only quibble is petty and unworthy of the discussion, but I used to teach English and it is hard to get that red-pencil-marking compulsion out of my brain. I think that turpentine--as when used in "moral turpentine"--is a chemical used in painting. I believe that the word you all were thinking of was turpitude, which means corruption or depravity. And finally, I do think it is important to have a president who reads, and hopefully, one who reads from a crossover of views. One who reads very narrowly or nothing at all is sort of scary to me.

A book about the folks that run the National Prayer Breakfast that brings all of the Washington powerful together: The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power, by Jeff Sharlet, reviewed in Alternet here in an article entitled "Worse Than Fascists: Christian Political Group 'The Family' Openly Reveres Hitler".

This is a cautionary tale for anybody that might think that the Prayer Breakfast is harmless and a good way to prove that they are prayerful, good people.

The Man in the High Castle, Philip K. Dick, to remind him of where we could be with just a few strokes of his pen and, hopefully, to ward this off.

Jeffrey Sachs' latest, Common Wealth, would be a very good choice. Sachs has a lot of policy ideas, and I agree with most of them. The book describes how the wealth of the whole world can grow as various nations emerge from poverty and as population levels are stabilized, with recommendations on global warming, fighting endemic disease, protection of various endangered species, ways of dealing with water scarcity, agriculture improvements, etc.

Some interesting suggestions from progressive women can be found here:

http://www.centerfornewwords.org/about_us/presidentread.php

I ditto the recommendation of Cynthia Enloe's books as well as The Divine Right of Capital by Marjorie Kelly.

Tom Paine was a propagandist. By definition, propagandists are dishonest.

The Bible? Haven't we had more than enough of that junk used as self-justification for arrogance -- whereas Christ counseled humility?

Hopefully Obama, being a constitutional law scholar, would have a better grasp of the issues than to fail to look beyond the partisan propaganda that is The Federalist. Perhaps even to reading the entire Constitution and noting therein the limits and constraints placed upon STATES.

Anything by Mark Twain should be sufficient to give a president a handle on the meaning of "perspective".

I've always preferred "moral turpitude," but everyone to her or his tastes. I suppose "moral turpentine" is immediately bitter, whereas "moral turpitude" leaves open the possibility of dodging the bitter consequences of it.

"geneg" --

"What do you think God's purpose is in giving us laws and rules?"

PROVE there's a "God". You can't? But we already knew that.

Have you read the Constitution? Did you note the names at the end of it? Those names are of the authors of it; "God" is not one of them.

Our Constitution is the SUPREME law of the land -- there is NONE higher. And it is MAN-MADE.

The correct term is not 'turpentine". It is "turpitude". And one doesn't need a "God" to define the correct meaning of it.

Ok, JNagarya, Since you're not a name I recognize, you probably don't know mine. Before you jump dead in someone's stuff, you might take some time getting to know them.

Of all the BS you've listed in #38, I'll just ask you to do one thing for me: prove God does NOT exist.

Ok, JNagarya, Since you're not a name I recognize, you probably don't know mine.
_____

Is any of that relevant? No.
_____

Before you jump dead in someone's stuff, you might take some time getting to know them.
_____

I didn't know you owned all that. And still don't know that you do.

And here is why it isn't relevant: issues are relevant, personalities are not. Why is it that those who profess to be "religious" -- Christian -- are the first to get into personalities as first step toward launching personal attack?

Why is it, that is, that only non-Christians are to obey the rules that Christians are required to obey? Humility, anyone? Turn the other cheek, anyone?
_____

Of all the BS you've listed in #38,
_____

You'll be moving beyond name-calling to PROOFS when?

There is nothing in #38 that is BS -- at least you don't show that anything is.
_____

I'll just ask you to do one thing for me: prove God does NOT exist.
_____

One cannot prove a negative.

These are issues of reason -- not unfounded supremacism based upon emotionalism and foot-stomping insistance.

I'll PROVE one of my points as indication of how one PROVES, as distinct from mere BELIEVING, mere unfounded assertion:

US Con. Art. VI., S. 2., This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; . . . . (Emphasis mine.)

I submit that the Constitution is not "BS"; the Constitution itself, as shown, stipulates that it is the SUPREME law of the land -- than which no law is higher.

Do I need to substantiate that it is "moral turpitude," not "turpentine," or will you be taking responsibility to do that for yourself?

I think the new president should read Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse 5, hopefully brining about a realisation of the abhorrent nature of war. I will also be the third to recommend Zinn's People's History of the United States. It would be an excellent idea to read Thomas Paine, and I believe if you were to disregard authors based on their status as "propagandists" then you would be left with very little to read. They should also read Greg Palast's Best Democracy Money Can Buy and Armed Madhouse. Finally Noam Chomsky's and Edward Herman's Political Economy of Human Rights Vol. 1 and 2 and Manufacturing Consent by the same.

I agree with JNagarya in relation to the idea that atheists can be asked to justify their position by disproving the existence of God. God is a faith issue and if you can compartmentalise your own mind to the extent that you still have faith in a supernatural deity then you should really keep it to yourself and not allow it interfere with the politics that will affect those that do not believe. If faith is kept personal then I am all for it. For those who chose to deny the overwhelming evidence for evolution by natural selection (which obviously contravenes the idea of God) you should keep the antiquated morals and false scientific claims of the Bible firmly within your mind and out of political discourse.

Yann Martel is maintaining a list he wants the Canadian prime minister to read: http://www.whatisstephenharperreading.ca/

The beauty of the list is Yann's explanation why the book should be read. Wonderful reading material.

A bit extreme but I would be delighted if the President would read Ken Wilbur's A Brief History of Everything. In it, he makes an excellent case for science and religion being very able to talk to each other about reality. Or if he is more attracted to narrative than to philosophy he could also read Wilbur's Grace and Grit (touchstone is incorrect) which illustrates beautifully how one can maintain spiritual integrity through the most difficult of times.

edit to comment on touchstone )-8|

41> "For those who chose to deny the overwhelming evidence for evolution by natural selection (which obviously contravenes the idea of God) you should keep the antiquated morals and false scientific claims of the Bible firmly within your mind and out of political discourse."

I'm sorry. I believe in God, have faith in the Bible as the inspired word of God and don't see how evolution "contravenes the idea of God."

Until you, fourseasons and JNugatory, have actually read and put some thought into understanding the Bible, you need to understand your own ignorance on issues of religion and politics and not criticize those of us who actually KNOW what we're talking about.

ETA: It takes every bit as much faith to deny the existence of God as it does to believe in His existence. You need to come to terms with that before you make wholesale judgments about the faith of others.

In terms of politics and religion: a religion that isn't strong enough to inform your politics is a pretty piss poor religion.

My politics flows from my religion. I am allowed to mix my religious beliefs with my politics by, among other things, the first amendment of the constitution.

Yann Martel has a pretty good list of books he's mailing to Stephen Harper:

http://www.whatisstephenharperreading.ca/

...don't see how evolution "contravenes the idea of God."

You missed the key phrase -- evolution by natural selection, that it, not involving God, Wotan, or any other supernatural mumbo jumbo.

It takes every bit as much faith to deny the existence of God as it does to believe in His existence...

Bullshit. All it takes is a lack of faith.

Obama should read The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism, and probably also The Sorrows of Empire. If he really thinks he can win the war in Afghanistan by adding troops, we are in for deep trouble.

Obama should read The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism, and probably also The Sorrows of Empire. If he really thinks he can win the war in Afghanistan by adding troops, we are in for deep trouble.

Okay, I don't see how evolution by natural selection contravenes the existence of God.

You keep believing your disbelief in God is not an act of faith.

Well, my disbelief in God is not a matter of faith; I simply realised that the evidence on the God question is the same as the evidence for the werewolf question or the vampire question. Natural Selection contravenes the idea of God insofar as it puts in the place of totally irrational faith in an intelligent creator a system which can be subjected to all the rigor of scientific investigation. Having been subject to these scientific processes over the past 150 years or so evolution has proven itself consistently to be the explanation of the origins and development of life as it exists all around us. It all really depends on whether you happen to be a person who is interested in truth or a person who presumably finds comfort in the belief that there is a supernatural deity. I obviously fall within the former bracket.

Insofar as your belief that your faith should inform your politics I assume given your faith in the text of the Bible, the origins of which I might add are highly dubious, then you are a person who is inclined towards mass slaughter and genocide on a massive scale. That is if you are true to the Bible perhaps the most genocidal of all religious texts. Christ as a philosopher makes some genuinely worthwhile points; if only Christians would listen to them. If you ask me there was only one true Christian and he died on the cross. You should take a look at Jeffersonian ideals on how religion should affect the State.

If you were to take the Bible literally as a moral code then there is justification for the mass slaughter of anyone who does not adhere to the same code. Also homosexuals and women who commit adultery. Women's Rights would be set back further than if Sarah Palin was actually to become VP.

The world is a beautiful place. Do not let it slip by you without wonder at virtually everything you encounter on a day to day basis. If you ever come around to evolution and its beautifully intricate and sometimes haphazard processes then you may some day know the wonder of which I write.

I think that Barack will be able to run the country well. I hope he also has time to be the family man he so clearly has been and wants to be. I also think that he can choose his own reads.

I do hope that he keeps some humorous books and light, fun books on his TBR stack. He read all the HP books with his girls.

As for a Deity~ that is for each of us to decide for ourselves and not try to change the beliefs of others. A discussion is great, name calling is not.
Thank the Goddess some of us can discuss things calmly.

:)

Let me chime in on the idea that folks in LibraryThing are capable and admirable for being able to chase ideas around the virtual room without becoming childish and frustrated. Name calling is a child's weapon when reason and calm discourse has failed.

Sorry cannot see any name calling in the discussion; could somebody highlight it for me please?

I agree that it is great to have the opportunity for an intelligent discussion. I am however not very friendly towards the notion of a religious perspective being influential in any political sphere.

I have always believed in God and natural selection. I don't believe in the 6 literal day mumbo jumbo, so believe that God put natural laws into effect. Hence evolution AND the divine spark.

That's my belief. Doesn't have to be yours. Probably isn't. That's okay with me.

I recently listened to A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking and was happy to hear him discuss God and quarks and relativity as part of a unified whole theory.

I am sure Hawking used God as a euphemism for what we don't understand. I do not think Hawking would use that word in its intended sense. Einstein also referred to God in a similar fashion. I believe both Hawking and Einstein can go down in history as atheists.

I used to believe similar things as you KarenMarie but always felt as if I was fence sitting. Anyway I had and still have absolutely no inclination towards belief in anything supernatural; from either my own experiences or even in research. I therefore discarded the idea that God put the universe in motion, though I held it in futile hope until I was about 17 or 18.

A further little interesting (or maybe not) tidbit about the Creationist belief that the world is no older than 6000 years: The figure of 6000 years old comes from an Archbishop born in my own city Dublin *shame* :) Anyway his method, around 400 years ago was to add all the known ages of people in the Bible; that is where th figure comes from. Chronologies in the 17th century were an important part of Biblical scholarship, however they grew less and less important as the 'Age of Science' took root. Nonetheless the figures calculated were retained by many even into this century; as we are all too aware since there has been a believer (or at least an exploiter) of this nonsense in the White House for the last 8 years.

As I have said before and will probably say many more times if past experience proves anything at all: Our knowledge of God is about the same as the knowledge a bacterium possesses of the human being in whose gut it resides. Creationism is an attempt to limit God, to put Him in a box that we humans can show around and pull out when we need something, a djinn in a bottle. Such a concept of God is blasphemous.

The Bible is the inspired not dictated word of God. It contains much valuable wisdom, almost none of which is understood or adhered to by many of those who profess to follow it most.

Before you continue to criticize me for my religious beliefs you should read the Bible, particularly the Prophets and the Gospels and understand what the prophets said before assuming I hold a particular view. Read Jeremiah, Hosea, Amos and Micah before condemning Christianity out of hand.

Just an example for all you commie, pinko, fellow travelers out there who think this is original with Marx: From the 2nd chapter of the Acts of the Apostles,

"All who believed were together and had all things in common; they would sell their property and possessions and divide them among all according to each one's need."

geneg, I am frequently interested in your point of view and the interesting things you post; however, I am also quite tired of name calling. In fun, or not, I am tired of it. Just saying....

Maggie, my sensitivity meter must be running on empty. where did I resort to name calling?

I don't think strong opinions, especially those aimed at ignorance is name calling.

Please, fill me in so I will know what you are upset about.

The saying that "Jesus was a socialist" is a common one in many radical circles. It's long been popular with the Industrial Workers of the World, an anticapitalist (largely, though far from exclusively, anarcho-syndicalist) labor union, and you can see other examples in the the Catholic Worker, religious socialists such as Norman Thomas and Martin Luther King Jr., and the Socialist Party's Faith and Socialism Commission. For that matter, the Socialist Party's current presidential candidate, Brian Moore was a Franciscan monk in his twenties and remains a practicing Catholic. None of this has any bearing on anything supernatural. I doubt there's any wisdom in the Bible that cannot be gained from a large number of other, better, sources.

geneg: As I have said before and will probably say many more times if past experience proves anything at all: Our knowledge of God is about the same as the knowledge a bacterium possesses of the human being in whose gut it resides.

For me personally this perspective is wholly unsatisfactory as an explanation for anything; in fact it succeeds in proving precisely nothing. When you say that this view is derived from "past experience" I presume you speak only of your own past experiences? As I have aforementioned I am the sort of person who is interested in the truth, and have never found a morsel of it in any religious text.

geneg: The Bible is the inspired not dictated word of God. It contains much valuable wisdom, almost none of which is understood or adhered to by many of those who profess to follow it most.

Perhaps you can elaborate for me what that first sentence means? Inspired how? Couldn't agree more on the second count, though I would add that valuable wisdom can be gleaned from many religious texts derived from an array of cultures. I would further add that with the occasional good notion of economic and social equality in texts such as the Bible these tend to be found amid a healthy smattering of murders, revenge slayings, rapes, mass killings and more murders.

Before you continue to criticize me for my religious beliefs you should read the Bible, particularly the Prophets and the Gospels and understand what the prophets said before assuming I hold a particular view. Read Jeremiah, Hosea, Amos and Micah before condemning Christianity out of hand.

I think I would prefer to derive my morality from what I consider to be an enlightened view rather than ancient mysticism. I always find it is best when I reach a moral conclusion based on careful consideration of factual information (as I perceive it). The assumption that you would be in favour of the things advocated in the Bible is naturally facetious; the real implication is that there can be little correlation between your decency as a human being and your notion of strict adherence to Biblical text. That is of course unless you simply pick and choose what to take literally in the Bible as many do. I may one day read the Prophets you mention; I seriously doubt if it will be in search of any sort of religious or moral epiphany. I do not profess to have read the whole Bible but my perception of it as a highly dubious historical text will forever influence my conclusions. That is unless I am shown something which can alter that perception. Naturally it would have to be something rather special.

"All who believed were together and had all things in common; they would sell their property and possessions and divide them among all according to each one's need."

Was under no illusion as to the origins of that one. I think we can agree that there are some morals that can be gleaned and applied to everyday living in the Bible. As far as I am concerned this should never be brought into politics as some sort of moral thermometer of what is an acceptable way for human beings to behave. I believe there is an innate morality within man from which moral uprightness is far more likely to be derived.

Sorry for the essay.

geneg - you typed: "Just an example for all you commie, pinko, fellow travelers out there who think this is original with Marx: From the 2nd chapter of the Acts of the Apostles," and I guess I consider "commie", "pinko" and "fellow travelers" to be names. I can remember enough history to remember people losing their friends and jobs because someone accused them of being a "pinko" or "commie".

I don't think it is hard to recognize that kind of name calling.

I apologize for that Maggie, this is not the group I thought it was at the time I posted the message, I thought it was the "Marxism & Socialism" group where one would expect to find lots of commie, pinko fellow travelers. Mea Culpa!

On a slight tangent from the original subject of this thread, here is a brief essay from Sunday's New York Times Book Review on the books (and poems) McCain and Obama describe as the most important to them: "How to Read Like a President". I imagine many of you have already seen it, but figured I'd post a link just in case somebody had missed it and would be interested.

#41--

It would be an excellent idea to read Thomas Paine, and I believe if you were to disregard authors based on their status as "propagandists" then you would be left with very little to read.
_____

The problem there is failure to place Paine in context, and giving him a relevance he does not have.

Paine was useful during the phase of the efforts to become independent of England when stirring up the "rabble" was necessary. And he did that in the usual way: making them angry.

That was the force which would support and fight for independence.

After those phases, after independence was won, Paine was no longer relevant, when the "cause" largely became concern with governance, and stablity of gov't and laws. It became necessary, simply put, to put away the guns, and the myth of anti-governmentalism which was not actually a thread of and during the "revolution".

#44--

41> "For those who chose to deny the overwhelming evidence for evolution by natural selection (which obviously contravenes the idea of God) you should keep the antiquated morals and false scientific claims of the Bible firmly within your mind and out of political discourse."

I'm sorry. I believe in God, have faith in the Bible as the inspired word of God and don't see how evolution "contravenes the idea of God."
_____

See the word "believe"? You are aware, of course, that believing a belief is not a guarantee that the belief is not erroneous, correct?
_____

Until you, fourseasons and JNugatory,
_____

The spelling is JNagarya, childish name-caller. "Turn the other cheek" (Jesus Christ) anyone?

"Love thy neighbor as thyself" (Jesus Christ) -- except that doing so is Christian.
_____

have actually read and put some thought into understanding the Bible,
_____

You don't know who here has and hasn't read the "bible" -- and to assert the idea that you do despite the fact that you do not is to assert an obvious falsehood.

Hint: instead of judging others -- "Judge not lest ye be judged" -- Jesus Christ -- as excuse to push your hypocrite's gibberish, learn to think critically, and to critically evaluate your own thinking.
_____

you need to understand your own ignorance on issues of religion and politics and not criticize those of us who actually KNOW what we're talking about.
_____

You need to either stop the name-calling, or stop claiming to be a Christian.

The fact is that you "know" what you believe; but you haven't the first clue whether it is true. And having the first insight into the incoherence of not only your belief, as you assert it, but also your conduct, which is directly contrary to your "religious" claims.
_____

ETA: It takes every bit as much faith to deny the existence of God as it does to believe in His existence.
_____

Faith is not a belief; it is that which animates the belief, the doctrine.

Some of us, name-caller, know a great deal more on these issues than you realize. But -- you "know better" without having to learn whether you do in fact know better.
_____

You need to come to terms with that before you make wholesale judgments about the faith of others.
_____

YOU need to stop the hypocrisy of claiming, on one hand, to be a Christian, and on the other, IGNORING the rules which Christians are REQUIRED to OBEY.

Your entire screed has been a supremacist's judgment about the "faith" of others without regard for the Christian prohibition against judging others.
_____

In terms of politics and religion: a religion that isn't strong enough to inform your politics is a pretty piss poor religion.
_____

The psychologically mature don't confuse emotion for reason, or mix the two injudiciously. According to the Founders/Framers one isn't REQUIRED to have "religion," but one is required to participate in the political process.

That is why the Founders/Framers SEPARATED the two: you have the right to believe whatever "religion" you want; and everyone else has the right to reject your notion of "religion" in favor of one they prefer -- or in favor of NONE.
_____

My politics flows from my religion.
_____

That's your mistake. Ours is "A system of laws, and not of religion." -- John Adams.
_____

I am allowed to mix my religious beliefs with my politics by, among other things, the first amendment of the constitution.
_____

You are allowed to exercise your notion of "religion" only because it is separated from gov't. The politics of all is conducted in gov't and other public buildings. "Religion" is conducted in buildings other than those.

The bottom line is that you are dead wrong about the First Amendment, and the intents of the Founders/Framers. It does not give you any right to harass others, and shove your crap, uninvited, into everyone else's faces.

*


Loading...
Click to flag this message as abuse

What is abuse? (1) personal attacks, (2) commercial solicitation, (3) spam. See terms of use.
Group: Progressive & Liberal! Star this topic ignore
Topic: Books you want the next President to take to the White House 63 / 65 read (jump to first unread)
read Apr 17, 2008, 4:47pm (top)Message 1: reannon
Bill Moyer's Journal is a great show by a progressive who is willing to really investigate. The blog for the show had a great idea. He asked people to send in which books they would most like to see the next President, whoever it may be, take to the White House when he/she moves in. You can see the post here: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/index-.... Gave me some good ideas for books. I had already read the one the most people nominated and which if you haven't read I recommend you RUN to get: Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine. I've just read a book that I'd rate as number 2 on my list for the next President. It is Free Lunch, by David Cay Johnston. If you want to see my review you can look at my library, I'm reannon.

What other books would people like to see the next President read?

Mary
flag abuse Post a message
test
read Apr 17, 2008, 7:26pm (top)Message 2: lilithcat
I don't give a damn what he* takes (or reads). I give a damn what he does!

*"He" because I'm hoping it will be Barack.
flag abuse Post a message
test
read Apr 17, 2008, 9:46pm (top)Message 3: maggie1944
That is a great question. I don't know off the top of my head so I will have to go peruse my library and see what there I could recommend.

BTW, I also care what he/she does; however, every individual needs some way to recharge batteries and intellectual context. Reading is a good way, wouldn't you agree?
flag abuse Post a message
test
read Apr 18, 2008, 4:56pm (top)Message 4: jfetting
I've always wanted presidents to have read On the Beach. War is very, very serious and should not be entered into lightly.

Too late for this administration. Sigh.
flag abuse Post a message
test
read Apr 18, 2008, 5:15pm (top)Message 5: weener
On the Beach, yeah, or Level 7 by Mordecai Roshwald.
flag abuse Post a message
test
read Apr 20, 2008, 2:08am (top)Message 6: Lunar
I'm disappointed that Ayn Rand scored so highly on that list. Too many people read her stuff thinking that she speaks for libertarian free market ideas. Maybe I'd suggest the president read Economics for Real People or The Market for Liberty.
flag abuse Post a message
test
read Apr 20, 2008, 2:29pm (top)Message 7: weener
While looking for an author of a certain book for this thread, I noticed that the Amazon reviews for the book My Pet Goat that Bush read on September 11 are all jokes about the president.
flag abuse Post a message
test
read Apr 20, 2008, 4:14pm (top)Message 8: sigridsmith
Anything written by Tom Paine.

Howard Zinn, A people's history of the United States.

Message edited by its author, Apr 20, 2008, 4:20pm.
flag abuse Post a message
test
read Apr 23, 2008, 9:21am (top)Message 9: tom1066
Books by Peter Linebaugh -- The Many-Headed Hydra: The Hidden History of the Revolutionary Atlantic and The Magna Carta Manifesto.

Like lilithcat, I'm hoping Barack wins. He's a constitutional law professor (oops, I mean instructor), so these should be up his alley.
flag abuse Post a message
test
read Apr 23, 2008, 12:32pm (top)Message 10: fikustree
Red Mars would be the perfect book for a president to read because than Barack could learn all about what is likely to happen when we overpopulate and the world heats up. It also has so many great ideas about sustainability and government and democracy. For me, overpopulation and education are the biggest issues, if we could fix those then everything else could fall into place.
flag abuse Post a message
test
read Apr 24, 2008, 6:23pm (top)Message 11: geneg
I suggest the following:
The Bible
The Federalist
The Lincoln/Douglas Debates
Das Kapital
The Wealth of Nations
The Brothers Karamazov

These are just a few of the books I expect would be useful to the next president.

I do have apreference in this race and it ain't John McCain, but it sure would be nice to elect someone who knows how to read for a change.
flag abuse Post a message
test
read Apr 24, 2008, 9:34pm (top)Message 12: Lunar
#11: "The Bible"

Hmmm... that can go both ways. Maybe the next president will practice the golden rule or maybe he'll execute his predecessor's heirs like King David did. Jenna and Barbara had better run for their lives just in case.
flag abuse Post a message
test
read Apr 24, 2008, 11:14pm (top)Message 13: daschaich
How about the Jefferson Bible? Thomas Jefferson went through the four gospels and cut out everything he considered superstitious or backward, retaining only the moral and philosophical aspects.

Has anyone done this for the bible as a whole? If not, somebody should; we'd end up with something much shorter but a whole lot more valuable.
flag abuse Post a message
test
read Apr 25, 2008, 10:16am (top)Message 14: sigridsmith
This being "Ten Commandments Weekend" I thought I should take a look and see how I am doing. I have pretty much followed the last 6 of the 10 Commandments, although I may have coveted my neighbors slaves. Besides those last six of the ten, I'm not sure that there is much in the Old Testament that could be clipped for guidance. Oh yes, there is a bunch of good stuff in Ecclesiastes and some pretty good Proverbs. The Skeptics Annotated Bible has a collection of the 'good' stuff in the Bible . It's a short list compared to their sex and violence references....

I found a nice post about the Lieberman/Brownback resolution SR 483 which sets aside this as 'Ten Commandments Weekend': Talk to Action contains some quotes by Jefferson and Adams about religion, morality and government.

Message edited by its author, Apr 25, 2008, 10:46am.
flag abuse Post a message
test
read Apr 25, 2008, 10:53am (top)Message 15: geneg
It is so disheartening to see people put down the most important parts of the Bible, dismissing it as superstition, etc. I can't express strongly enough the need for everyone to understand the Prophets, most especially POTUS. These are about the fall of one of the most powerful nations in the Mideast 3000 years ago. They suffered the same problems we have now: Corrupt government, corrupt religious practices, including idolatry (think $$$$$ in our case), cheating at business, moral turpentine, legislation designed to deny others their place in the world, desire for empire.

Read Jeremiah for the most complete look at what was going on and where Jeremiah told them their practices would take them.

I find most people who dismiss the Bible as so much bushwa are not very familiar with it and tend to reject it based on their experience with the corrupt conservative religious establishment rather than any real familiarity with the document itself. The Bible contains more real wisdom, religious and non-religious, than any fifty books of comparable size. All I ask is you read closely the prophet Jeremiah. It's not a fairytale, it's a cautionary tale about what happens when justice is left in the dust.

Of course, it does support the view of the Rev. Wright, so if you think the US is the gift of God to the world, you may be so heavily blinkered that you won't see what is in front of you face. If you fit this category, hold on, it's going to be some ride.
flag abuse Post a message
test
read Apr 25, 2008, 12:45pm (top)Message 16: sigridsmith
You have to be really careful about using the text of the Bible as any sort of guide to living. You may interpret Jeremiah as a warning that one should fight against corruption but I think that it is really a warning of what will happen if you go against the Word of God. This is the interpretation espoused by The Jeremiah Project which blames 9/11 and Katrina on a turning away from God. Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and Rev Hagee have made similar claims. This is very scary for anyone who doesn't believe that the Bible and God is the ultimate authority. If you are a gay, a Muslim, or (gasp) an atheist, then 'heaven help you.' And, according to Jeremiah, heaven won't help you.

I think there are much better things that our new President could read. For instance, maybe s/he should read something like The Philosophy of the Enlightenment by Ernst Cassirer as a reminder of what was behind the thinking of the Founders.

The new president should have lots of short, funny stuff available for free moments but mostly, I think that plenty of time should be allowed for reading the PDB's , the NIE's, etc.

I love the idea of 'moral turpentine'.

Message edited by its author, Apr 25, 2008, 1:13pm.
flag abuse Post a message
test
read Apr 25, 2008, 3:02pm (top)Message 17: geneg
Sigrid, you've made my point about lack of familiarity with the Bible. What do you think God's purpose is in giving us laws and rules? To make life hard? To divide the good from the bad? To say I'm God and you're not? (The answer to this one by the way is yes). God gives us those things to guide us to a just society. Not to allow others to rule over us through fear.

Societies built on idolatry (again, I stress $$$), power and influence rather than justice, peace, respect, honor, and compassion fall, very hard, usually quite often from their own internal rot, which is the result of corrosive influences on the polity, and corruption in government and society.

Read Jeremiah again and follow what laws/rules the powers that were, violated. Consider how BushCo has structured this country and in what ways it looks like Israel of Jeremiah's day.

I didn't know if throwing moral turpentine in there would undercut my argument or not. I'll tell you what tho': it does a better job than immoral turpentine.
flag abuse Post a message
test
read Apr 25, 2008, 4:27pm (top)Message 18: sigridsmith
I wasn't trying to be nasty. I really do love the idea of moral turpentine and agree that it certainly is better than immoral turpentine! I think you would agree that we need some moral turpentine to clean up Washington.

What I think is God's purpose is irrelevant since I don't believe in God.

I'm dropping this religious part of the thread for a while because I have some reading to do....it has been a while since I read Jeremiah.

Meanwhile, does anybody have any more secular book suggestions for Barak McClinton ?
flag abuse Post a message
test
read Apr 25, 2008, 7:45pm (top)Message 19: Amtep
Dune.

The President needs to know how power works :)
flag abuse Post a message
test
read May 3, 2008, 2:09am (top)Message 20: jmcgarve
How about The Sorrows of Empire by Chalmers Johnson? Or how about The End of Poverty by Jeffrey Sachs? Or maybe Renewable Energy Policy by Paul Komor?

Bush does read. He always chooses books that have nothing to do with the policy decisions he is supposed to make, and certainly nothing that would challenge his current beliefs. I'd like to see a President that understands the facts of the moment.
flag abuse Post a message
test
read May 3, 2008, 3:36pm (top)Message 21: geneg
"Facts, sir, can be stupid things." - Ronald Reagan. It is in this belief that George W. and indeed all of BushCo have decided to outdo Ronald Reagan. Reagan just said it. BushCo believes it.
flag abuse Post a message
test
read May 5, 2008, 10:55pm (top)Message 22: nrtmn
I will just be glad to have a president who reads.
flag abuse Post a message
test
read May 6, 2008, 9:10am (top)Message 23: tom1066
Whaddya mean, nrtmn? Don't you remember a couple of years ago when Bush said he had just read and enjoyed Camus' The Stranger?

Granted, he may have been joking, given the irony of his reading a book in which a guy kills an Arab for no good reason.
flag abuse Post a message
test
read May 6, 2008, 9:37am (top)Message 24: geneg
He doesn't kill him for no good reason. He does it because he can, For people like BushCo that's a perfectly good reason to do anything.

BushCo wants to the world not to forget soon that they exist and can not only act in the world but shape the world to their own ends.
flag abuse Post a message
test
read May 6, 2008, 2:17pm (top)Message 25: maggie1944
Msg 22, amen, brother or sister. Let's say reads relevant books.
flag abuse Post a message
test
read May 7, 2008, 10:40pm (top)Message 26: daschaich
I'll second sigridsmith's recommendation of Zinn's People's History, which could help balance, or complement, the view from the top. Perhaps Voices and Terkel's Working in a similar vein. I'll also add Michael Harrington's The Other America, which unfortunately remains all too relevant today.
flag abuse Post a message
test
read May 13, 2008, 12:53pm (top)Message 27: melmore
Presuming the next president is on *our*side, s/he could benefit from a close study of Thomas Frank's argument, in What's the Matter with Kansas?, that conservatives have been able to advance their legislative and economic agendas largely by creating a false social and cultural dichotomy between "the heartland" and "the liberal elite."
flag abuse Post a message
test
read May 15, 2008, 8:28am (top)Message 28: karenmarie
The Assault on Reason by Al Gore not for the bits against BushCo directly, but for the bits about how TV and government propaganda have replaced meaningful public discourse on issues in this country. Part of what needs to change is what information and how information flows to people to help them make political and other life-affecting decisions.

The Koran because unless and until we understand the religion with the second largest number of adherents in the world, we will continue to demonize 1.5 billion people and set up World War III faster than is already happening.

I think judging Islam on “terrorists” is like judging Christianity on The Inquisition.
flag abuse Post a message
test
read May 19, 2008, 10:40pm (top)Message 29: LeHack
Silent Spring by Rachel Carson. It had a profound impact on JFK. I think it should be required reading for everyone. We should have respect for all things and creatures on this earth because, as Rachel Carson said, "we all live in the same environment." When one creature is threatened, we are all threatened.
flag abuse Post a message
test
read May 25, 2008, 12:01pm (top)Message 30: MissTrudy
I greatly enjoyed the discussion on the interpretation of the prophets in The Bible and as always, find geneg's postings thought-provoking and enlightening. My only quibble is petty and unworthy of the discussion, but I used to teach English and it is hard to get that red-pencil-marking compulsion out of my brain. I think that turpentine--as when used in "moral turpentine"--is a chemical used in painting. I believe that the word you all were thinking of was turpitude, which means corruption or depravity. And finally, I do think it is important to have a president who reads, and hopefully, one who reads from a crossover of views. One who reads very narrowly or nothing at all is sort of scary to me.
flag abuse Post a message
test
read Jun 12, 2008, 9:10am (top)Message 31: sigridsmith
A book about the folks that run the National Prayer Breakfast that brings all of the Washington powerful together: The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power, by Jeff Sharlet, reviewed in Alternet here in an article entitled "Worse Than Fascists: Christian Political Group 'The Family' Openly Reveres Hitler".

This is a cautionary tale for anybody that might think that the Prayer Breakfast is harmless and a good way to prove that they are prayerful, good people.

Message edited by its author, Jun 12, 2008, 9:16am.
flag abuse Post a message
test
read Jun 12, 2008, 9:18am (top)Message 32: tcw
The Man in the High Castle, Philip K. Dick, to remind him of where we could be with just a few strokes of his pen and, hopefully, to ward this off.

Message edited by its author, Jun 12, 2008, 9:20am.
flag abuse Post a message
test
read Jun 25, 2008, 11:16pm (top)Message 33: jmcgarve
Jeffrey Sachs' latest, Common Wealth, would be a very good choice. Sachs has a lot of policy ideas, and I agree with most of them. The book describes how the wealth of the whole world can grow as various nations emerge from poverty and as population levels are stabilized, with recommendations on global warming, fighting endemic disease, protection of various endangered species, ways of dealing with water scarcity, agriculture improvements, etc.
flag abuse Post a message
test
read Sep 11, 2008, 7:09pm (top)Message 34: sisaruus
Some interesting suggestions from progressive women can be found here:

http://www.centerfornewwords.org/about_u...

I ditto the recommendation of Cynthia Enloe's books as well as The Divine Right of Capital by Marjorie Kelly.
flag abuse Post a message
test
read Oct 24, 2008, 7:19am (top)Message 35: JNagarya
Tom Paine was a propagandist. By definition, propagandists are dishonest.
flag abuse Post a message
test
read Oct 24, 2008, 7:24am (top)Message 36: JNagarya
The Bible? Haven't we had more than enough of that junk used as self-justification for arrogance -- whereas Christ counseled humility?

Hopefully Obama, being a constitutional law scholar, would have a better grasp of the issues than to fail to look beyond the partisan propaganda that is The Federalist. Perhaps even to reading the entire Constitution and noting therein the limits and constraints placed upon STATES.

Anything by Mark Twain should be sufficient to give a president a handle on the meaning of "perspective".
flag abuse Post a message
test
read Oct 24, 2008, 7:29am (top)Message 37: JNagarya
I've always preferred "moral turpitude," but everyone to her or his tastes. I suppose "moral turpentine" is immediately bitter, whereas "moral turpitude" leaves open the possibility of dodging the bitter consequences of it.
flag abuse Post a message
test
read Oct 24, 2008, 7:32am (top)Message 38: JNagarya
"geneg" --

"What do you think God's purpose is in giving us laws and rules?"

PROVE there's a "God". You can't? But we already knew that.

Have you read the Constitution? Did you note the names at the end of it? Those names are of the authors of it; "God" is not one of them.

Our Constitution is the SUPREME law of the land -- there is NONE higher. And it is MAN-MADE.

The correct term is not 'turpentine". It is "turpitude". And one doesn't need a "God" to define the correct meaning of it.

Message edited by its author, Oct 24, 2008, 7:34am.
flag abuse Post a message
test
read Oct 24, 2008, 7:43am (top)Message 39: geneg
Ok, JNagarya, Since you're not a name I recognize, you probably don't know mine. Before you jump dead in someone's stuff, you might take some time getting to know them.

Of all the BS you've listed in #38, I'll just ask you to do one thing for me: prove God does NOT exist.
flag abuse Post a message
test
read Oct 25, 2008, 10:23pm (top)Message 40: JNagarya
Ok, JNagarya, Since you're not a name I recognize, you probably don't know mine.
_____

Is any of that relevant? No.
_____

Before you jump dead in someone's stuff, you might take some time getting to know them.
_____

I didn't know you owned all that. And still don't know that you do.

And here is why it isn't relevant: issues are relevant, personalities are not. Why is it that those who profess to be "religious" -- Christian -- are the first to get into personalities as first step toward launching personal attack?

Why is it, that is, that only non-Christians are to obey the rules that Christians are required to obey? Humility, anyone? Turn the other cheek, anyone?
_____

Of all the BS you've listed in #38,
_____

You'll be moving beyond name-calling to PROOFS when?

There is nothing in #38 that is BS -- at least you don't show that anything is.
_____

I'll just ask you to do one thing for me: prove God does NOT exist.
_____

One cannot prove a negative.

These are issues of reason -- not unfounded supremacism based upon emotionalism and foot-stomping insistance.

I'll PROVE one of my points as indication of how one PROVES, as distinct from mere BELIEVING, mere unfounded assertion:

US Con. Art. VI., S. 2., This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; . . . . (Emphasis mine.)

I submit that the Constitution is not "BS"; the Constitution itself, as shown, stipulates that it is the SUPREME law of the land -- than which no law is higher.

Do I need to substantiate that it is "moral turpitude," not "turpentine," or will you be taking responsibility to do that for yourself?

Message edited by its author, Oct 25, 2008, 10:24pm.
flag abuse Post a message
test
read Oct 28, 2008, 9:56am (top)Message 41: FourSeasons

edit delete
I think the new president should read Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse 5, hopefully brining about a realisation of the abhorrent nature of war. I will also be the third to recommend Zinn's People's History of the United States. It would be an excellent idea to read Thomas Paine, and I believe if you were to disregard authors based on their status as "propagandists" then you would be left with very little to read. They should also read Greg Palast's Best Democracy Money Can Buy and Armed Madhouse. Finally Noam Chomsky's and Edward Herman's Political Economy of Human Rights Vol. 1 and 2 and Manufacturing Consent by the same.

I agree with JNagarya in relation to the idea that atheists can be asked to justify their position by disproving the existence of God. God is a faith issue and if you can compartmentalise your own mind to the extent that you still have faith in a supernatural deity then you should really keep it to yourself and not allow it interfere with the politics that will affect those that do not believe. If faith is kept personal then I am all for it. For those who chose to deny the overwhelming evidence for evolution by natural selection (which obviously contravenes the idea of God) you should keep the antiquated morals and false scientific claims of the Bible firmly within your mind and out of political discourse.
flag abuse Post a message
test
read Oct 28, 2008, 11:16am (top)Message 42: Papiervisje
Yann Martel is maintaining a list he wants the Canadian prime minister to read: http://www.whatisstephenharperreading.ca...

The beauty of the list is Yann's explanation why the book should be read. Wonderful reading material.
flag abuse Post a message
test
read Oct 28, 2008, 11:43am (top)Message 43: maggie1944
A bit extreme but I would be delighted if the President would read Ken Wilbur's A Brief History of Everything. In it, he makes an excellent case for science and religion being very able to talk to each other about reality. Or if he is more attracted to narrative than to philosophy he could also read Wilbur's Grace and Grit (touchstone is incorrect) which illustrates beautifully how one can maintain spiritual integrity through the most difficult of times.

edit to comment on touchstone )-8|

Message edited by its author, Oct 28, 2008, 11:45am.
flag abuse Post a message
test
read Oct 28, 2008, 2:10pm (top)Message 44: geneg
41> "For those who chose to deny the overwhelming evidence for evolution by natural selection (which obviously contravenes the idea of God) you should keep the antiquated morals and false scientific claims of the Bible firmly within your mind and out of political discourse."

I'm sorry. I believe in God, have faith in the Bible as the inspired word of God and don't see how evolution "contravenes the idea of God."

Until you, fourseasons and JNugatory, have actually read and put some thought into understanding the Bible, you need to understand your own ignorance on issues of religion and politics and not criticize those of us who actually KNOW what we're talking about.

ETA: It takes every bit as much faith to deny the existence of God as it does to believe in His existence. You need to come to terms with that before you make wholesale judgments about the faith of others.

In terms of politics and religion: a religion that isn't strong enough to inform your politics is a pretty piss poor religion.

My politics flows from my religion. I am allowed to mix my religious beliefs with my politics by, among other things, the first amendment of the constitution.

Message edited by its author, Oct 28, 2008, 2:16pm.
flag abuse Post a message
test
read Oct 28, 2008, 2:15pm (top)Message 45: bookchronicle
Yann Martel has a pretty good list of books he's mailing to Stephen Harper:

http://www.whatisstephenharperreading.ca...
flag abuse Post a message
test
read Oct 28, 2008, 9:37pm (top)Message 46: daschaich
...don't see how evolution "contravenes the idea of God."

You missed the key phrase -- evolution by natural selection, that it, not involving God, Wotan, or any other supernatural mumbo jumbo.

It takes every bit as much faith to deny the existence of God as it does to believe in His existence...

Bullshit. All it takes is a lack of faith.

Message edited by its author, Oct 28, 2008, 9:52pm.
flag abuse Post a message
test
read Oct 28, 2008, 10:07pm (top)Message 47: jmcgarve
Obama should read The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism, and probably also The Sorrows of Empire. If he really thinks he can win the war in Afghanistan by adding troops, we are in for deep trouble.
flag abuse Post a message
test
read Oct 28, 2008, 10:07pm (top)Message 48: jmcgarve
Obama should read The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism, and probably also The Sorrows of Empire. If he really thinks he can win the war in Afghanistan by adding troops, we are in for deep trouble.
flag abuse Post a message
test
read Oct 29, 2008, 1:53pm (top)Message 49: geneg
Okay, I don't see how evolution by natural selection contravenes the existence of God.

You keep believing your disbelief in God is not an act of faith.
flag abuse Post a message
test
read Oct 29, 2008, 7:39pm (top)Message 50: FourSeasons

edit delete
Well, my disbelief in God is not a matter of faith; I simply realised that the evidence on the God question is the same as the evidence for the werewolf question or the vampire question. Natural Selection contravenes the idea of God insofar as it puts in the place of totally irrational faith in an intelligent creator a system which can be subjected to all the rigor of scientific investigation. Having been subject to these scientific processes over the past 150 years or so evolution has proven itself consistently to be the explanation of the origins and development of life as it exists all around us. It all really depends on whether you happen to be a person who is interested in truth or a person who presumably finds comfort in the belief that there is a supernatural deity. I obviously fall within the former bracket.

Insofar as your belief that your faith should inform your politics I assume given your faith in the text of the Bible, the origins of which I might add are highly dubious, then you are a person who is inclined towards mass slaughter and genocide on a massive scale. That is if you are true to the Bible perhaps the most genocidal of all religious texts. Christ as a philosopher makes some genuinely worthwhile points; if only Christians would listen to them. If you ask me there was only one true Christian and he died on the cross. You should take a look at Jeffersonian ideals on how religion should affect the State.

If you were to take the Bible literally as a moral code then there is justification for the mass slaughter of anyone who does not adhere to the same code. Also homosexuals and women who commit adultery. Women's Rights would be set back further than if Sarah Palin was actually to become VP.

The world is a beautiful place. Do not let it slip by you without wonder at virtually everything you encounter on a day to day basis. If you ever come around to evolution and its beautifully intricate and sometimes haphazard processes then you may some day know the wonder of which I write.
flag abuse Post a message
test
read Oct 29, 2008, 8:21pm (top)Message 51: mckait
I think that Barack will be able to run the country well. I hope he also has time to be the family man he so clearly has been and wants to be. I also think that he can choose his own reads.

I do hope that he keeps some humorous books and light, fun books on his TBR stack. He read all the HP books with his girls.

As for a Deity~ that is for each of us to decide for ourselves and not try to change the beliefs of others. A discussion is great, name calling is not.
Thank the Goddess some of us can discuss things calmly.

:)
flag abuse Post a message
test
read Oct 29, 2008, 8:26pm (top)Message 52: maggie1944
Let me chime in on the idea that folks in LibraryThing are capable and admirable for being able to chase ideas around the virtual room without becoming childish and frustrated. Name calling is a child's weapon when reason and calm discourse has failed.
flag abuse Post a message
test
read Oct 29, 2008, 9:00pm (top)Message 53: FourSeasons

edit delete
Sorry cannot see any name calling in the discussion; could somebody highlight it for me please?

I agree that it is great to have the opportunity for an intelligent discussion. I am however not very friendly towards the notion of a religious perspective being influential in any political sphere.
flag abuse Post a message
test
read Oct 31, 2008, 9:36am (top)Message 54: karenmarie
I have always believed in God and natural selection. I don't believe in the 6 literal day mumbo jumbo, so believe that God put natural laws into effect. Hence evolution AND the divine spark.

That's my belief. Doesn't have to be yours. Probably isn't. That's okay with me.

I recently listened to A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking and was happy to hear him discuss God and quarks and relativity as part of a unified whole theory.
flag abuse Post a message
test
read Oct 31, 2008, 10:55am (top)Message 55: FourSeasons

edit delete
I am sure Hawking used God as a euphemism for what we don't understand. I do not think Hawking would use that word in its intended sense. Einstein also referred to God in a similar fashion. I believe both Hawking and Einstein can go down in history as atheists.

I used to believe similar things as you KarenMarie but always felt as if I was fence sitting. Anyway I had and still have absolutely no inclination towards belief in anything supernatural; from either my own experiences or even in research. I therefore discarded the idea that God put the universe in motion, though I held it in futile hope until I was about 17 or 18.

A further little interesting (or maybe not) tidbit about the Creationist belief that the world is no older than 6000 years: The figure of 6000 years old comes from an Archbishop born in my own city Dublin *shame* :) Anyway his method, around 400 years ago was to add all the known ages of people in the Bible; that is where th figure comes from. Chronologies in the 17th century were an important part of Biblical scholarship, however they grew less and less important as the 'Age of Science' took root. Nonetheless the figures calculated were retained by many even into this century; as we are all too aware since there has been a believer (or at least an exploiter) of this nonsense in the White House for the last 8 years.
flag abuse Post a message
test
read Oct 31, 2008, 12:40pm (top)Message 56: geneg
As I have said before and will probably say many more times if past experience proves anything at all: Our knowledge of God is about the same as the knowledge a bacterium possesses of the human being in whose gut it resides. Creationism is an attempt to limit God, to put Him in a box that we humans can show around and pull out when we need something, a djinn in a bottle. Such a concept of God is blasphemous.

The Bible is the inspired not dictated word of God. It contains much valuable wisdom, almost none of which is understood or adhered to by many of those who profess to follow it most.

Before you continue to criticize me for my religious beliefs you should read the Bible, particularly the Prophets and the Gospels and understand what the prophets said before assuming I hold a particular view. Read Jeremiah, Hosea, Amos and Micah before condemning Christianity out of hand.

Just an example for all you commie, pinko, fellow travelers out there who think this is original with Marx: From the 2nd chapter of the Acts of the Apostles,

"All who believed were together and had all things in common; they would sell their property and possessions and divide them among all according to each one's need."

Message edited by its author, Oct 31, 2008, 12:41pm.
flag abuse Post a message
test
read Oct 31, 2008, 1:50pm (top)Message 57: maggie1944
geneg, I am frequently interested in your point of view and the interesting things you post; however, I am also quite tired of name calling. In fun, or not, I am tired of it. Just saying....
flag abuse Post a message
test
read Oct 31, 2008, 2:28pm (top)Message 58: geneg
Maggie, my sensitivity meter must be running on empty. where did I resort to name calling?

I don't think strong opinions, especially those aimed at ignorance is name calling.

Please, fill me in so I will know what you are upset about.
flag abuse Post a message
test
read Oct 31, 2008, 7:47pm (top)Message 59: daschaich
The saying that "Jesus was a socialist" is a common one in many radical circles. It's long been popular with the Industrial Workers of the World, an anticapitalist (largely, though far from exclusively, anarcho-syndicalist) labor union, and you can see other examples in the the Catholic Worker, religious socialists such as Norman Thomas and Martin Luther King Jr., and the Socialist Party's Faith and Socialism Commission. For that matter, the Socialist Party's current presidential candidate, Brian Moore was a Franciscan monk in his twenties and remains a practicing Catholic. None of this has any bearing on anything supernatural. I doubt there's any wisdom in the Bible that cannot be gained from a large number of other, better, sources.

Message edited by its author, Oct 31, 2008, 7:47pm.
flag abuse Post a message
test
read Oct 31, 2008, 8:07pm (top)Message 60: FourSeasons

edit delete
geneg: As I have said before and will probably say many more times if past experience proves anything at all: Our knowledge of God is about the same as the knowledge a bacterium possesses of the human being in whose gut it resides.

For me personally this perspective is wholly unsatisfactory as an explanation for anything; in fact it succeeds in proving precisely nothing. When you say that this view is derived from "past experience" I presume you speak only of your own past experiences? As I have aforementioned I am the sort of person who is interested in the truth, and have never found a morsel of it in any religious text.

geneg: The Bible is the inspired not dictated word of God. It contains much valuable wisdom, almost none of which is understood or adhered to by many of those who profess to follow it most.

Perhaps you can elaborate for me what that first sentence means? Inspired how? Couldn't agree more on the second count, though I would add that valuable wisdom can be gleaned from many religious texts derived from an array of cultures. I would further add that with the occasional good notion of economic and social equality in texts such as the Bible these tend to be found amid a healthy smattering of murders, revenge slayings, rapes, mass killings and more murders.

Before you continue to criticize me for my religious beliefs you should read the Bible, particularly the Prophets and the Gospels and understand what the prophets said before assuming I hold a particular view. Read Jeremiah, Hosea, Amos and Micah before condemning Christianity out of hand.

I think I would prefer to derive my morality from what I consider to be an enlightened view rather than ancient mysticism. I always find it is best when I reach a moral conclusion based on careful consideration of factual information (as I perceive it). The assumption that you would be in favour of the things advocated in the Bible is naturally facetious; the real implication is that there can be little correlation between your decency as a human being and your notion of strict adherence to Biblical text. That is of course unless you simply pick and choose what to take literally in the Bible as many do. I may one day read the Prophets you mention; I seriously doubt if it will be in search of any sort of religious or moral epiphany. I do not profess to have read the whole Bible but my perception of it as a highly dubious historical text will forever influence my conclusions. That is unless I am shown something which can alter that perception. Naturally it would have to be something rather special.

"All who believed were together and had all things in common; they would sell their property and possessions and divide them among all according to each one's need."

Was under no illusion as to the origins of that one. I think we can agree that there are some morals that can be gleaned and applied to everyday living in the Bible. As far as I am concerned this should never be brought into politics as some sort of moral thermometer of what is an acceptable way for human beings to behave. I believe there is an innate morality within man from which moral uprightness is far more likely to be derived.

Sorry for the essay.
flag abuse Post a message
test
read Oct 31, 2008, 8:34pm (top)Message 61: maggie1944
geneg - you typed: "Just an example for all you commie, pinko, fellow travelers out there who think this is original with Marx: From the 2nd chapter of the Acts of the Apostles," and I guess I consider "commie", "pinko" and "fellow travelers" to be names. I can remember enough history to remember people losing their friends and jobs because someone accused them of being a "pinko" or "commie".

I don't think it is hard to recognize that kind of name calling.
flag abuse Post a message
test
read Nov 1, 2008, 11:01am (top)Message 62: geneg
I apologize for that Maggie, this is not the group I thought it was at the time I posted the message, I thought it was the "Marxism & Socialism" group where one would expect to find lots of commie, pinko fellow travelers. Mea Culpa!
flag abuse Post a message
test
read Nov 4, 2008, 10:30pm (top)Message 63: daschaich
On a slight tangent from the original subject of this thread, here is a brief essay from Sunday's New York Times Book Review on the books (and poems) McCain and Obama describe as the most important to them: "How to Read Like a President". I imagine many of you have already seen it, but figured I'd post a link just in case somebody had missed it and would be interested.
flag abuse Post a message
test
unread Today, 11:43pm (top)Message 64: JNagarya
#41--

It would be an excellent idea to read Thomas Paine, and I believe if you were to disregard authors based on their status as "propagandists" then you would be left with very little to read.
_____

The problem ther is failure to place Paine in context, and giving him a relevance he does not have.

Paine was useful during the phase of the efforts to become independent of England when stirring up the "rabble" was necessary. And he did that in the usual way: making them angry.

That was the force which would support and fight for independence.

After those phases, after independence was won, Paine was no longer relevant, when the "cause" largely became concern with governance, and stablity of gov't and laws. It became necessary, simply put, to put away the guns, and the myth of anti-governmentalism which was not actually a thread of and during the "revolution".

I think your statements here are more true of Paine's age than our own. Paine was indeed seen as irrelevant after the revolution. His radicalism, which was of tremendous use in whipping up the "rabble" at what appeared to be a terminal phase of the revolution for the US was discarded as soon as the revolution was over. Paine was for a short while part of the government but having realised that many of the protagonists were merely interested in securing their own positions of wealth and dominance left for England.

Paine for me is just as relevant today. Taking the Rights of Man for example, while very specific to the age and while making constant reference to the specific events that inspired it i.e. the French Revolution and Edmund Burke's efforts at intellectually savaging the sans culottes and the revolution as a whole. Nonetheless many of the Paine's remarks on the fundamental rights of man are just as relevant today even if the context and the events that occurred are not as powerfully so.

JNagarya, you are right, JNugatory was uncalled for name calling. Sometimes I can't help myself and I get carried away. It came from the same place as "moral turpentine", just fun with words. I apologize for the personal name calling and will try not to engage in it again. If I do, please, call me out on it. However, I do reserve the right to apply snarky names to hypothetical groups such as commie, pinko, liberal, fellow traveler, simps. These names are seldom applied with any seriousness and hearken back to some of the bugaboos of my youth. During the McCarthy era we were supposedly overrun with people of that ilk. Well, obviously, we weren't. To me with my warped sense of humor, referring to someone by that sort of name is a way to put the dragons of the fifties in their place and to remind people that that sort of name calling is just a form of propaganda. Some get it, some don't, I don't think most care, or they write it off as Gene being Gene. They are not meant with any animosity. Sometimes it's a way to lighten things up when they get too serious.

I am glad that you are familiar with, and have studied the Bible. That's all anyone can ask of anyone else.

I'm ready to call a truce to this silliness and I will keep in mind that although my positions are often informed by my beliefs, I must structure my comments from the wisdom contained in the Bible, rather than the words themselves and will not refer to biblical wisdom as such, just present it as my point of view. Can you give me that?

What say? Peace?

BTW, we have considerable fun at Pro & Con which stands for Progressives and Conservatives. Come check us out.

#66--

In the thread you post a poster spoke of the overlisting of Rand, and the number of those who recommend her. The problem is that they reduce "freedom" to "economics" -- to MONEY.

Peggy Lee sang a song (written by Paul McCartney): "Is that All There Is?"

Otherwise:

"The problem there is failure to place Paine in context, and giving him a relevance he does not have.

"Paine was useful during the phase of the efforts to become independent of England when stirring up the "rabble" was necessary. And he did that in the usual way: making them angry.

"That was the force which would support and fight for independence.

"After those phases, after independence was won, Paine was no longer relevant, when the "cause" largely became concern with governance, and stablity of gov't and laws. It became necessary, simply put, to put away the guns, and the myth of anti-governmentalism which was not actually a thread of and during the "revolution"."
_____

I think your statements here are more true of Paine's age than our own.
_____

They are at least as true today: there is a significant anti-gum'mint irrationality -- especially on the Right, but borrowed by some on the Left. It is a delusion based upon ignorance of the actual realities of the Founding era. For one, there was no shortage of gov't -- the Founders/Framers were not against gov't. They were not at war with gov't. They did not "overthrow" gov't. In his Common Sense, Paine oversimplified -- in part because out of his depths on such issues as gov't and governance.

First: the colonies/states, at the suggestion of the Continental Congress, adopted constitutions during 1776-77, and 1780. Note those years: 1776-77, 1780. The latter, of MA-Bay, was the basic model for the US Constitution.

They didn't make constitutions, by means of which they designed and on which built gov'ts because they opposed gov't.

Second: the Founders/Framers were not opposed to gov't and therefor "for" "revolution" (it wasn't "revolution"; it was "War for Independence" from Britain, not the "overthrow" of Britain or its gov't).

The Second Amendment is not the only reference to "Militia" in the US Constitution, nor does it alter the "Militia Clauses" at Art. I., S. 8., C. 15 and 16, the first of which stipulates the lawful purposes of the "Militia," one of which is to suppress insurrections, and which do not include "defending against" gov't.
_____

Paine was indeed seen as irrelevant after the revolution. His radicalism, which was of tremendous use in whipping up the "rabble" at what appeared to be a terminal phase of the revolution for the US was discarded as soon as the revolution was over.
_____

He too was discarded.
_____

Paine was for a short while part of the government but having realised that many of the protagonists were merely interested in securing their own positions of wealth and dominance left for England.
_____

Or was it that he wanted to spread the "revolution" to Europe?
_____

Paine for me is just as relevant today.
_____

Not as an opponent of rule of law/gov't.
_____

Taking the Rights of Man for example, while very specific to the age and while making constant reference to the specific events that inspired it i.e. the French Revolution and Edmund Burke's efforts at intellectually savaging the sans culottes and the revolution as a whole. Nonetheless many of the Paine's remarks on the fundamental rights of man are just as relevant today even if the context and the events that occurred are not as powerfully so.
_____

As is the French "Declaration of Rights," written by Jefferson. But, again, the Founders did not set out to overthrow the rule of law, or gov't, and in both word and action defended the necessity for and advanced the reality of gov't. That is where Paine became irrelevant.

#67 --

JNagarya, you are right, JNugatory was uncalled for name calling.
_____

And behind that is anti-Christian judgmentalism.
_____

Sometimes I can't help myself and I get carried away.
_____

Actually, you can "help yourself" -- control yourself; you simply choose not to do so based upon an anti-Christian supremacism, then deny you make such choice.
_____

It came from the same place as "moral turpentine", just fun with words.
_____

". . . fun with words"? At whose expense?
_____

I apologize for the personal name calling and will try not to engage in it again. If I do, please, call me out on it.
_____

How about controlling yourself? Odd your supremacism so contrary to the fact that most -- unlike you -- have no such willingness to "lose" self-control, and then misrepresent that decision as instead being some sort of defect.
_____

However, I do reserve the right to apply snarky names to hypothetical groups such as commie, pinko, liberal, fellow traveler, simps. These names are seldom applied with any seriousness and hearken back to some of the bugaboos of my youth.
_____

You researve the right to, on one hand, claim to be a Chrsitian, and on the other, to name-call.

Those "snarky" names are applied with seriousness by far-right lunatic fringe America-haters. Obama has been called "Marxist," and "socialist" by quite-serious McCain supporters. Pretending otherwise -- "Oh, that intentional slinging of words viewed as DIRTY by the SLINGERS of them is only 'fun with words' or 'kidding'" -- is simply dishonest.
_____

During the McCarthy era we were supposedly overrun with people of that ilk. Well, obviously, we weren't.
_____

"Well, obviously," nonetheless, people were destroyed by that hate-speech. And we've seen a reinvocation of that vocabulary against Obama. Not because he's an American and good man -- and by the evidence brilliant -- which he is; but because he's not a Republican. Not a McCarthyite. McCarthy was a Republican.

Nor is he a "baby killer" any more than there are actually "abortion clinics" -- the latter a "Christian" LIE which has got innocent people killed.
_____

To me with my warped sense of humor, referring to someone by that sort of name is a way to put the dragons of the fifties in their place and to remind people that that sort of name calling is just a form of propaganda.
_____

I won't join you in that false excuse. Obama has been called Marxist, and socialist, and even Communist, with the same fiercely ignorant hatred and seriousness. It isn't funny to use names against others which are hateful.
_____

Some get it, some don't, I don't think most care, or they write it off as Gene being Gene. They are not meant with any animosity. Sometimes it's a way to lighten things up when they get too serious.
_____

I never use the word "nigger" as a way to "lighten things up". Why? Might it be that I'm both aware of and respectul of the fact that I'm not the only person in the room?
_____

I am glad that you are familiar with, and have studied the Bible. That's all anyone can ask of anyone else.
_____

It's more than anyone should ask -- and more than anyone should expect. Islam is Christianity + 1, and has a greater number of adherents than Christianity. Does that mean you are required to read the Quran?

And there are even more adherents to Buddhism. You'll be reading Buddhism when?
_____

I'm ready to call a truce to this silliness and I will keep in mind that although my positions are often informed by my beliefs, I must structure my comments from the wisdom contained in the Bible, rather than the words themselves and will not refer to biblical wisdom as such, just present it as my point of view. Can you give me that?
_____

How about dropping the ideological blinders and being normal -- instead of exclusive, groundlessly supremacist, and groundlessly condescending?
_____

What say? Peace?
_____

I'm a pacifist. I'm not a masochist.
_____

BTW, we have considerable fun at Pro & Con which stands for Progressives and Conservatives. Come check us out.
_____

I've been there. The refusal to distinguish between fact and opinion, truth and falsehood, and even the defense of lying for advantage -- that's the current notion of "Conservative" -- isn't to be tolerated. The correct term is actually "reactionary," and worse. Teddy Roosevelt was a "Conservative" -- which meant "to conserve," not "trash everyone in the room who holds a different point of view, then burn the room down".

I've been there and seen that; and noted that there is one individual there who believes that moral bankruptcy is acceptable; and he cannot be banned for abusing others, whereas those others can be banned for defending truth and themselves against his abusiveness. So I don't go there because I avoid bullies who are connected to management, and therefore free to be unconstrainedly hateful. Even while lying that that is "Conservative".

Last but not least: I don't invoke "religion" as cover for everything that's its opposite -- and tie that poison to the poison that is said maldefinition of "Conservative".

As for your knowing the "bible" better than everyone else (at least those who aren't "Conservative" and in lock-step agreement with you as to its "inspired"-by-whom? "meaning") -- knowing it all being the more accurate description of your emotional "conviction": you don't know all that it is relevant to know about our "system of laws, and not of men" (John Adams) so long as you leave out L-A-W. And on that I've got you, and the "Conservative" false Americanism, nailed and refuted. From the first constitution of the state of Georgia* --

. . . .

Art. LVI. All persons whatever shall have the free exercise of their religion; provided it be not repugnant to the peace and safety of the State; and shall not, unless by consent, support any teacher or teachers except those of their own profession.
. . . .
Art. LXII. No clergyman of any denomination shall be allowed a seat in the legislature.
. . . .

*"This constitution was framed by a convention which assembled at Savannah October I, 1776, in accordance with the recommendation of the Continental Congress that the people of the Colonies should form independent State governments. It was unanimously agreed to Februrary 5, 1777". The Federal and State Constitutons, Colonial Charters, and Other Organic Laws of the United States. Part I. (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1878), Compiled by Benjamin Perley Poore, at 383.

I appreciate the conciliatory tone geneg :) I feel it is time that humans were allowed feel responsible enough to use words in whatever damn way they please. The use of the word nigger is an acrimonious and unhelpful parallel in terms of what is actually being said here. The fact that words can still carry such emotional potency to me is sad.

I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it. Anyone remember this one? :) As long as it is kept out of somebody's living space then people should be allowed say what they feel.

I'm sorry you feel that way J.

#70 --

I appreciate the conciliatory tone geneg :)
_____

Except that it isn't concilliatory. It is sneaky and deceptibe. On one hand he apologizes for name-calling; and at the same time, on the other, expressly "reserves the right" to name-call.

Because one is able, and "free," to name-calll there is therefore ipso facto a "right" to name-call?
_____

I feel it is time that humans were allowed feel responsible enough to use words in whatever damn way they please."
_____

Without regard for the consequences? We'll see if you're consistency and reasoned in that view. First, though, I'll note the fact that every right is inextricably entwined with a responsibility. That includes the right of "free" speech. Thus there are laws which prohibit, as example, defamation. And one is not allowed to shout "theater" in a crowded fire.
_____

The use of the word nigger is an acrimonious and unhelpful parallel in terms of what is actually being said here.
_____

Doesn't it depend on who is beling called what? And perhaps even by whom? What happened to "responsibility" in all matters of speech, without reference solely to one's own "freedom" without regard to consequences?

Recently and currently the terms "terrorist" and "Marxist" and "socialist" and even "Communist" have been used ACCRIMONIOUSLY againset Barack Obama. As has the term "nigger". Are there degrees of hate in terms of acceptability now?
_____

The fact that words can still carry such emotional potency to me is sad.
_____

The fact that words "can" do so misses much that is qualitative, and in the nature, of language. A central purpose in the careful use of language is precisely the careful use of its emotional potency - not in effort to nullify it, but rather to enhance and "precise" it.
_____

I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
_____

I will never defend a "right to lie" -- especially as means to ends. That includes the hate-speech slung at Obama by many who bookend such with claims to be Christian -- which claims, in view of the conduct, cannot be other than false.
_____

Anyone remember this one? :) As long as it is kept out of somebody's living space then people should be allowed say what they feel.
_____

So no one is allowed to say what they feel -- which avoids the issue of thought -- if it is within somebody's living space? Does that include the living space of the somebody who is doing the saying?

#71 --

And in which way do I "feel" for which you feel "sorry"?

And in which way do I think for which you feel "sorry"?

Well yes many people negate thought when they speak, it is not difficult to refute the "ideas" spouted by such people. Free speech for me means you are in for a penny you are in for a pound. There are two positions you can take on free speech as far as I am concerned. 1- You are in favour of the right to say things that you agree with or perceive as true. 2- You are in favour of people saying whatever they want and if you happen to believe it is false then trying to assert such through discourse. Personally I feel the latter is the only consistent course.

It is true there was a foolish minority within the US calling Obama a nigger or a communist or whatever the hell else and look he is president now. They had the right to voice their idiotic hate speech and people's rational faculties made the effect of such speech diminutive.

J you called yourself an optimist and a humanist yet everywhere we discuss I feel as if your points and ideas are efforts to protect people from themselves as only a minority are clever or concerned enough top get involved. Surely you wont consider that a fair assessment but I am enjoying our little rally here anyway :)

#74--

Well yes many people negate thought when they speak, it is not difficult to refute the "ideas" spouted by such people.
_____

It isn't so direct or even effortful as "negating" thought; it is an avoidance of thought. It may be largely gender -- females tend to talk about what one "feels" when one is clearly discussing not feelings but thoughts and ideas. But in either instance it is an avoidance. Listen closely in conversations, especially with bureaucrazies, and you'll encounter it often: you assert,

"I think (fill in the blank)."

If the other person is uncomfortable with the issue, or wants to change the subject, they're response will be along the lines of,

"I'm sorry you feel that way."

It entirely changes the subject away from thought to feeling -- and away from the issue itself.
_____

Free speech for me means you are in for a penny you are in for a pound. There are two positions you can take on free speech as far as I am concerned. 1- You are in favour of the right to say things that you agree with or perceive as true. 2- You are in favour of people saying whatever they want and if you happen to believe it is false then trying to assert such through discourse. Personally I feel the latter is the only consistent course.
_____

Fine -- with the exception that I don't accept lying as a valid means to any end. Lying to "win" is only "winning" an illusion of "winning": if the "win" is not truthful, then it isn't a truthful win.
_____

It is true there was a foolish minority within the US calling Obama a nigger or a communist or whatever the hell else and look he is president now. They had the right to voice their idiotic hate speech and people's rational faculties made the effect of such speech diminutive.
_____

No, they did not -- either morally or ethically or religiously -- have the right to LIE based upon whatever the form of FALSEHOOD they based their LYING -- whether ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation of fact. That is shown by the fact there have been harmful consequences flowing from that LYING, including physical assaults on those to whom those terms "might" apply.

Because of the lie that "Muslim" = "terrorist" -- without exception -- someone threw a gas into a window of a mosque in Ohio. The window happened to be in the room in which children and infants were sleeping.

Lies have consequences -- exactly as the tellers of them intend.

Nor have they who claim to be morally superior, religious, and the like, the "right" to LIE -- contrary to their fundamental moral/ethical/"religious" claims -- including in the form of hate-speech. I'm fed up with those who out of one side of their mouth can't shut up about how they are "Christian," and out of the other constantly spew hate-speech and lies against others -- often those others being nothing more than figments of such "Christian"'s own invention. Own bigotries.

Those fulminations also have consequences -- usually, as intended, for those against spewed.
_____

J you called yourself an optimist and a humanist yet everywhere we discuss I feel as if your points and ideas are efforts to protect people from themselves as only a minority are clever or concerned enough top get involved.
_____

You said you're young. I'm not young. I've discussed the various theories of anarcho-(fill-in-the-blank) in real-time, in actual contexts, and learned in real-time, in those contexts, that they do not work because there is always at least one person in the context who talks a good game but is an opportunist who will act in bad faith, against all the theory, for his own ends. And he will "combine" ("affinity group") with others persuadable to put their interests first into outnumbering and bullying those who stand on principle against their aim.

The idea isn't to protect others from themselves; it is to challenge them to sufficiently inform themselves so they can protect themselves.

And also to protect myself against the consequences of others stupidities. We -- which includes I -- have suffered 8 destructive years of the Bushit criminal enterprise because, at the outset, the majority didn't -- and likely still does not -- know the Constitutional requirements on resolving election disputes such as that in 2000: the authority to resolve such belongs, as expressly stuipulated in the Constitution, solely to CONGRESS.

And a portion of that majority didn't care because their guy "won". And the media didn't deal with it responsibly, in keeping with the Constitutional requirement, either because they preferred the outcome to the Constitution, or didn't know or care. Thus, ultimately, it was the media which settled the election, when instead it should have been going after the SC for accepting Bush's fake "case" to begin with.

I, too, have suffered those destructive consequences, even though I knew from before 12/12/2000 that the SC subverted the Constitution by usurping the authority, exclusive to Congress, to resolve that election dispute. And I never ceased speaking out against that subversion, even in the face of the mindless insistence that we all "move on," rather than look at the facts and details, from those who got the outcome they wanted -- while to the contrary claiming to be "patriots".

Where has the silence on the law and facts -- whether because of ignorance or preference -- got us? Who has it protected "from themselves"?
_____

Surely you wont consider that a fair assessment but I am enjoying our little rally here anyway :)
_____

I'm a conscientious adult: I don't do "idle" conversation about serious issues. And I don't tolerate the mere "idle" self-serving dissemination of propaganda and gibberish.

It isn't so direct or even effortful as "negating" thought; it is an avoidance of thought. It may be largely gender -- females tend to talk about what one "feels" when one is clearly discussing not feelings but thoughts and ideas. But in either instance it is an avoidance. Listen closely in conversations, especially with bureaucrazies, and you'll encounter it often: you assert,

"I think (fill in the blank)."

If the other person is uncomfortable with the issue, or wants to change the subject, they're response will be along the lines of,

"I'm sorry you feel that way."

It entirely changes the subject away from thought to feeling -- and away from the issue itself.

Negating thought, avoiding thought I fail to see any substantial distinction. If anybody avoids thought in an assertion or a poorly formed opinion, as I perceive it I find it is not difficult to refute them. I would not dream of depriving said hypothetical person of the right to express this opinion. There are facts that I feel contribute to an overall picture of the development of human society in what I perceive to be two diametrically opposed forces of private and public interest. I believe this is repeated consistently throughout human evolution. On the issue of semantics I feel in their most dangerous form words are used by institutions particularly the media. While I feel the illusion of objectivity we are handed by the media is false I would not advocate that this institution be dissolved, not on those grounds at least. I would however be an advocate of the idea that given the unfair advantages of wealth wielded by the media is a fundamentally corrupting force. That is when I believe words are dangerous particularly in terms of suppression of news that actually impacts those to whom it is reported i.e. the public. Again education and a degree of economic equality for point and counterpoint is preferable to suppression or deprivation of the right to free expression. I also think that the gender distinction is false. Whatever the words used by the different sexes I have had equally meaningful and meaningless conversations with both males and females.

No, they did not -- either morally or ethically or religiously -- have the right to LIE based upon whatever the form of FALSEHOOD they based their LYING -- whether ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation of fact. That is shown by the fact there have been harmful consequences flowing from that LYING, including physical assaults on those to whom those terms "might" apply.

Because of the lie that "Muslim" = "terrorist" -- without exception -- someone threw a gas into a window of a mosque in Ohio. The window happened to be in the room in which children and infants were sleeping.

Lies have consequences -- exactly as the tellers of them intend.

Nor have they who claim to be morally superior, religious, and the like, the "right" to LIE -- contrary to their fundamental moral/ethical/"religious" claims -- including in the form of hate-speech. I'm fed up with those who out of one side of their mouth can't shut up about how they are "Christian," and out of the other constantly spew hate-speech and lies against others -- often those others being nothing more than figments of such "Christian"'s own invention. Own bigotries.

Those fulminations also have consequences -- usually, as intended, for those against spewed.

I agree but again I advocate education and rational discourse over repression or deprivation of rights. The examples you cite here again tend to be institutional. To pay such a high level of attention to the occasional crazy who spews abhorrent hate talk without trying to relate the facts merely adds an element of martyrdom. The more things are repressed the greater the interest will be had in them. I agree that the religious element can be especially dangerous as rational conversation tends to be water off a duck's back for the faithful. Pointing out inconsistencies in belief invariably leads to an aggressive and alienating response. This is an unfortunate consequence of faith but I do not feel an insurmountable one or one that will be reversed by repression.

You said you're young. I'm not young. I've discussed the various theories of anarcho-(fill-in-the-blank) in real-time, in actual contexts, and learned in real-time, in those contexts, that they do not work because there is always at least one person in the context who talks a good game but is an opportunist who will act in bad faith, against all the theory, for his own ends. And he will "combine" ("affinity group") with others persuadable to put their interests first into outnumbering and bullying those who stand on principle against their aim.

The idea isn't to protect others from themselves; it is to challenge them to sufficiently inform themselves so they can protect themselves.

Age is irrelevant and I would appreciate a loss of the ageist tone, I was merely pointing out that I like to keep my opinion fluid and not believe I have all the answers. With sufficient evidence I can change my mind and I am simply not claiming to have seen all the evidence that may reaffirm or refute my beliefs. I am sorry that the selfish individual destroyed your faith in the potential for man's attainment of his ultimate desire for liberty. I have no doubt hat such individuals would find their ultimate punishment to be ostracisation from his community and reduction of those things that human beings will find to be truly rewarding, self-sacrifice and civic spirit.

The idea isn't to protect others from themselves; it is to challenge them to sufficiently inform themselves so they can protect themselves.

And also to protect myself against the consequences of others stupidities. We -- which includes I -- have suffered 8 destructive years of the Bushit criminal enterprise because, at the outset, the majority didn't -- and likely still does not -- know the Constitutional requirements on resolving election disputes such as that in 2000: the authority to resolve such belongs, as expressly stuipulated in the Constitution, solely to CONGRESS.

And a portion of that majority didn't care because their guy "won". And the media didn't deal with it responsibly, in keeping with the Constitutional requirement, either because they preferred the outcome to the Constitution, or didn't know or care. Thus, ultimately, it was the media which settled the election, when instead it should have been going after the SC for accepting Bush's fake "case" to begin with.

I, too, have suffered those destructive consequences, even though I knew from before 12/12/2000 that the SC subverted the Constitution by usurping the authority, exclusive to Congress, to resolve that election dispute. And I never ceased speaking out against that subversion, even in the face of the mindless insistence that we all "move on," rather than look at the facts and details, from those who got the outcome they wanted -- while to the contrary claiming to be "patriots".

Where has the silence on the law and facts -- whether because of ignorance or preference -- got us? Who has it protected "from themselves"?

I delight in the fact that there are still people fighting to make the tragedy of the 2000 US election known. The purge of voters in Florida and the wholly undemocratic way in which Bush and Co. seized the Presidency is one of the great failures on the part of large government in the modern age. Perhaps the most culpable outside of the actual political protagonists were the media who followed with virtually no dissent the official lines of enquiry. When Greg Palast revealed what had happened in Florida and brought it to CBS it became apparent that just what you point out above came to pass. Those who I have talked with about this were either unaware of what had happened or had no idea as to how so long after the fact the reality could be changed. I don't believe what happened in 2000 can be considered representative of how people view their role in a democracy. For those who retain faith in that process I am sure there was nothing but horror for those who found out how the 2000 election was "won". For those who I now believe form a silent majority who have lost faith in the results of a stage managed election changing their lives for the better it was little surprise I am sure. People are beginning to realise that everywhere from the propaganda system to popular culture people are merely advised to consume and ratify decisions that have already been made.

I'm a conscientious adult: I don't do "idle" conversation about serious issues. And I don't tolerate the mere "idle" self-serving dissemination of propaganda and gibberish.

I resent all of the implications of these remarks. I do not know why you would conclude that our conversation is idle from what we have been discussing. Should I not have admitted that I was enjoying this discussion. Is it intolerable for you that I might enjoy discussing serious issues? I further fail to see how my "propaganda" is self-serving. I can't respond to the gibberish remark for as you know the one who slings mud always "wins". As for the propaganda remark itself I suggest that you examine how propaganda actually works before accusing me of its use. The propaganda you speak of is merely my opinion, I have neither the resources nor the time to wield a genuine control over the dissemination of propaganda. I can only speak my mind.

Uhhhhhhhhhhh.........

- Papiervisje: Uhhhhhhhhhhh.........

If that is an expression of exasperation at the incomprehensible record of this conversation I apologise for the lack of quotation on my part. You could probably piece it together if you were that interested :)

#76 --

It isn't so direct or even effortful as "negating" thought; it is an avoidance of thought. It may be largely gender -- females tend to talk about what one "feels" when one is clearly discussing not feelings but thoughts and ideas. But in either instance it is an avoidance. Listen closely in conversations, especially with bureaucrazies, and you'll encounter it often: you assert,

"I think (fill in the blank)."

If the other person is uncomfortable with the issue, or wants to change the subject, they're response will be along the lines of,

"I'm sorry you feel that way."

It entirely changes the subject away from thought to feeling -- and away from the issue itself.

Negating thought, avoiding thought I fail to see any substantial distinction. If anybody avoids thought in an assertion or a poorly formed opinion, as I perceive it I find it is not difficult to refute them. I would not dream of depriving said hypothetical person of the right to express this opinion.
_____

You miss -- or avoid -- the point.

A LIE is NOT an "opinion". It is a FALSEHOOD. An OPINION is ARGUABLY TRUE.

What you do is worse than emphasizing "freedom" at the expense of all else: you join the far-right lunatic fringe attack on reason and truth by reducing everything to "opinion," which results in putting a truth and a falsehood on equal footing, and asserting that both are "opinion" therefore of equal VALIDITY. VALID = TRUE. A LIE is not VALID.

Your view is neither new nor original: all that matters is freedom, and constraints of any kind are "anti-freedom". The Founders/Framers netierh believed nor said that; they were for ORDERED liberty. Which means? It means YOUR freeom is LIMITED by MY having freedom ALSO. Don't respect that? then we enact laws to keep you in line. Refuse to be kept in line by the reasoned -- the rule of law? Then we have jail to put you in.

Yeah, I know: you miss reality by insisting all probelms would be cured if "state power" were eliminated. Lost in the clouds you don't pay attention to what is going on under your mnose.

You oppose regulation -- rule of law -- which is generated and enforced by "state power". The recent "Wall St. meltdown" and the consequences of that were, by contrast, the result of NON-REGULATION -- the absence of both regulation and state-enforcement of that non-existent regulation.

Those regulations had existed, but were repealed by the anarchists -- the Ayn Rand loons who claim instead to be "Libertarian". Thus the "meltdown" had no relation to "state power" -- except for its ABSENCE. It was exactly NOT the fault of "state power" -- or even of the constraints against "freedom" extremists such as you insist will cure all problems.

And you remain asleep: the person who was the architect of the DE-regulation that resulted in the "meltdown" held the view that the financial industry -- the locus of the irrationality that is GREED -- could and would regulate itself. Being IRRATIONAL, and by defninition EXCESSIVE, GREED WILL NOT and CANNOT "regulate" itself. We learned that, at latest instance before this instance, with the 1929 stock market crash.

What happened in this instance? The architects of the "Greed will regulate itself" DElusion REPEALED the regulations implemented AFTER the 1929 stock market crash to PREVENT it happening again. The irrational, delusional pro-greed de-regulators simply said that which was predictable would not happened, and repealed the prevention of it happening.

And the chief architect of that? Alan Greenspan. He held your view. He ultimately had to admit -- this is so stupid a child knows better -- that he was WRONG in his belief that the greed would regulate itself.

You CONTINUE to push the view HE admitted was -- always -- erroneous.
_____

There are facts that I feel contribute to an overall picture of the development of human society in what I perceive to be two diametrically opposed forces of private and public interest. I believe this is repeated consistently throughout human evolution. On the issue of semantics I feel in their most dangerous form words are used by institutions particularly the media.
_____

What we've hafd more than enough of is private individuals and interests controlling the definition of "public interest". That is why we have an elected, representative GOV'T to do with issues of public interest -- because man learned long ago, and again and again, that private interest tends not to give a damn about the public interest. Thus the "Wall St. meltdown". And what was the pro-pirivate interest "fix" for that? To use PUBLIC funds -- at the behest of the PRIVATE interests that screwed up -- to bail out the very PRIVATE interests that screwed up. Those private interests they screwed and injured? Tough: can't have gov't intervening in bbehalf of private interests -- unless those private interests have sfufficient funds of their own to bail themselves out.
_____

While I feel the illusion of objectivity we are handed by the media is false I would not advocate that this institution be dissolved, not on those grounds at least.
_____

The "illusion of objectivity" is not an illusion. One can be objective. It is wholly anti-intellectual -- stupid, actually -- to reduce everything to one dimension: the subjective. The problem with the media is not the practice of objectivity; it is the false equivalencies based upon self-serving ideological distortions. Go to university; get an education; you'll learn that, yes, there is bias, and everyone is biased, BUT ALSO there are ways to set aside bias, or compensating for it, in service to objectivity.
_____

I would however be an advocate of the idea that given the unfair advantages of wealth wielded by the media is a fundamentally corrupting force.
_____

That was why the "Fairness Doctrine" was established at the outset of the broadcast media: to ensure one got all points of view, instead of only the view approved by a monopoly-owned media. Your view is extremely short-term, and is exactly that the wealthy monopoly-media want you to hold and express: the assumption that obvjectivity does not and connot exist, therefore even lying is acceptable, and even lying can legitimately be called "news" when it in fact is not except as topic.
_____

That is when I believe words are dangerous particularly in terms of suppression of news that actually impacts those to whom it is reported i.e. the public.
_____

You don't understand what is happening. What has impact is what is "reported" -- more accurately, expressed -- through media organs that do not exist to report news, though they LIE that they provide that -- I mean FOX, as specific example. How many times must O'Reilly (as example) be PROVEN to be a liar -- yes, that can be done because there IS objectivity and FACT -- before he is no longer accepted as a source for TRUTH? For actual NEWS?
_____

Again education and a degree of economic equality for point and counterpoint is preferable to suppression or deprivation of the right to free expression.
_____

Great. That's what the "Fairness Doctrine" was for and about. The wealthy and powerful far-right lunatic fringe wanted to eliminate that, and it succeeded in doing so by pushing the LIE that there is no such thing as "objective" -- except, of course, themselves. So what do we have from them? Lie presented as not merely opinion -- as potentially legitimate -- but also as NEWS -- i.e., as FACT.
_____

I also think that the gender distinction is false. Whatever the words used by the different sexes I have had equally meaningful and meaningless conversations with both males and females.
_____

You aren't listening, and you didn't read what I posted. Women do tend to speak, as a matter of routine and habit, in terms of "feelings".. How often have you heard it phrased as, "I'm sorry you THINK that?" (The opening "I'm sorry" tends to be the first step in ignoring/avoiding what one actually said -- and getting away with doing that. If that which is being avoided is thought and fact, then it is an avodiance of two degrees: first lulling you away from vigilance, second away from thought and fact into feeling.)
_____

No, they did not -- either morally or ethically or religiously -- have the right to LIE based upon whatever the form of FALSEHOOD they based their LYING -- whether ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation of fact. That is shown by the fact there have been harmful consequences flowing from that LYING, including physical assaults on those to whom those terms "might" apply.

Because of the lie that "Muslim" = "terrorist" -- without exception -- someone threw a gas into a window of a mosque in Ohio. The window happened to be in the room in which children and infants were sleeping.

Lies have consequences -- exactly as the tellers of them intend.

Nor have they who claim to be morally superior, religious, and the like, the "right" to LIE -- contrary to their fundamental moral/ethical/"religious" claims -- including in the form of hate-speech. I'm fed up with those who out of one side of their mouth can't shut up about how they are "Christian," and out of the other constantly spew hate-speech and lies against others -- often those others being nothing more than figments of such "Christian"'s own invention. Own bigotries.

Those fulminations also have consequences -- usually, as intended, for those against spewed.
_____

I agree but again I advocate education and rational discourse over repression or deprivation of rights.
_____

You have it upside down and ass-backward. There are laws against libel because education and "rational discourse" have been PROVEN to be INSUFFICIENT. PERJURY is PROHIBITED not as a "repression" or "deprivation" of "rights" because PERJURY is NOT a RIGHT. There are acts which have been recognized by societies, for thousands of years, as anti-social and worse -- criminal. DESTRUCTIVE of society -- gov't and other organizations NOTWITHSTANDING. There are those who REFUSE to CEASE the use of such socially destructive means as ADVANTAGE over others; so the SOCIETY prohibits -- and punishes -- those destructive acts.

If the INFORMAL prohibitions aren't sufficient, then the SOCIETY establishes the means to EFFECTIVELY prohibit and punish those means. First by written rule of law, with enforcements of it. Second, by buildings called "jail" and "prison" force those who CONTINUE to HARM SOCIETY.

Before you decide the solution to imperfect law is the elimination of law in the STUPID name of "freedom" -- a significant percentage of which is HARMFUL LAWLESSNESS -- learn the purposes and functions of SOCIAL rule-making, from the basics of family civility up to and including criminal sanctions enforced by the state.

Until then you'll have your head not only up the clouds.
_____

The examples you cite here again tend to be institutional.
_____

The examples I give tend to be ANTI-institutional. ANTI-gov't. ANTI-rule of law.
_____

To pay such a high level of attention to the occasional crazy who spews abhorrent hate talk without trying to relate the facts merely adds an element of martyrdom.
_____

The "occasional crazy" is not "occasional". And though the hate-speech is abhorrent, it is also INSTITUTIONAL: listen to hate-radio. Watch/listen to FOX.
_____

The more things are repressed the greater the interest will be had in them.
_____

Only to simpleton's. The "repression" of murder does NOT increase the "interest" in murder and committing murder.
_____

I agree that the religious element can be especially dangerous as rational conversation tends to be water off a duck's back for the faithful.
_____

"Faith" is not irrational. Water is off the back of the irrational.
_____

Pointing out inconsistencies in belief invariably leads to an aggressive and alienating response. This is an unfortunate consequence of faith but I do not feel an insurmountable one or one that will be reversed by repression.
_____

"Faith" is not irrational, or is at least reasoned and consistent. Irrationality is called "faith" by those who don't know the difference. In fact, matters have devolved to the point at which "religion" is lied about as being "fath-based," and "religion" as in "scripture" is smuttified into being called "faith". It's a mishmash, beginning in LYING for advantage, which ends up being incoherent, convoluted nonsense. But that's as intended because the goal is to control others without those others daring to ask questions. Thus the blind "soldiers for Christ" who arm themselves and are quite willing to kill in the name of -- and wholly contrary to the word of -- Christ.

It isn't about "religion" -- not even for the individual here who, out of one side of his mouth said he'd cease name-calling, while at the same time, out of the other side of his mouth, reserved the "right" to continue to name-call. It's about power, and hiding that raw ambition -- pursued without regard for means -- behind a LIE called "religion," and demanding that one's "religion" MUST be respected, and NEVER QUESTIONED. Right: don't question the LIE else it be seen for what it is; LIE.
_____

You said you're young. I'm not young. I've discussed the various theories of anarcho-(fill-in-the-blank) in real-time, in actual contexts, and learned in real-time, in those contexts, that they do not work because there is always at least one person in the context who talks a good game but is an opportunist who will act in bad faith, against all the theory, for his own ends. And he will "combine" ("affinity group") with others persuadable to put their interests first into outnumbering and bullying those who stand on principle against their aim.

The idea isn't to protect others from themselves; it is to challenge them to sufficiently inform themselves so they can protect themselves.
_____

Age is irrelevant
_____

Is it? Is long-term experience also irrelevant? Can one get the latter without the first?
_____

and I would appreciate a loss of the ageist tone,
_____

I'd be the last on the planet to assert the cliche that "Age is wisdom". I would also point to the fact, though, that wisdom doesn't tend to exist among those who lack sufficient EVALUATED experience, and EDUCATION, to be able to criticially evaluate and se beyond their own pet ideas.
_____

I was merely pointing out that I like to keep my opinion fluid and not believe I have all the answers.
_____

In time one comes to conclusions which, while remaining subject to critical evaluation, tend not to change. I gave a fundamental example:

1. Humans are imperfect.

2. Being imperfect, everything human's make is imperfect.

3. Those things include imaginings, and laws.

4. Because law is imperfect, it doesn't prevent all occurrences of everything prohibited by it.

5. Because law isn't always successful in its intents is not excuse to repeal the rule of law.

6. Society is a skein of laws, institutionalized as gov't, for stability, continuity, and enforcement. Law is reasoning, exceedingly refined over many generations.

7. It is near impossible that you or I can, in one lifetime, supercede that accumulated wisdom.

Bottom line: learn the difference between "freedom" and "ordered libertry," because "freedom" is NOT ABSENCE of constraint. Law serves several functions, backed by gov't, one of which is PROTECTION of your "freedom".
_____

With sufficient evidence I can change my mind and I am simply not claiming to have seen all the evidence that may reaffirm or refute my beliefs.
_____

I can change my mind given sufficient evidence AND REASON. As for seeing "all the evidence"? It is somewhat disappointing to learn that there aren't actually many different human endeavors, and that there is nothing new under the sun. Ayn Rand, Alan Greenspan, and the Reagan-nuts had a "new" economic theory which turned out not to be at all new: it was an old and repeatedly-discredited pig wearing a different color of lipstick.
_____

I am sorry that the selfish individual destroyed your faith in the potential for man's attainment of his ultimate desire for liberty.
_____

You sijmply don't know what you're talking about. It wasn't a single individual in only one circumstance. Thankfully I got over your addiction to repeatedly-disproven abstractions before falling for Reagan and Greenspan's edition of the snake-oil.
_____

I have no doubt hat such individuals would find their ultimate punishment to be ostracisation from his community and reduction of those things that human beings will find to be truly rewarding, self-sacrifice and civic spirit.
_____

Doesn't happen without elections. Or courts and prisons.
_____

The idea isn't to protect others from themselves; it is to challenge them to sufficiently inform themselves so they can protect themselves.

And also to protect myself against the consequences of others stupidities. We -- which includes I -- have suffered 8 destructive years of the Bushit criminal enterprise because, at the outset, the majority didn't -- and likely still does not -- know the Constitutional requirements on resolving election disputes such as that in 2000: the authority to resolve such belongs, as expressly stuipulated in the Constitution, solely to CONGRESS.

And a portion of that majority didn't care because their guy "won". And the media didn't deal with it responsibly, in keeping with the Constitutional requirement, either because they preferred the outcome to the Constitution, or didn't know or care. Thus, ultimately, it was the media which settled the election, when instead it should have been going after the SC for accepting Bush's fake "case" to begin with.

I, too, have suffered those destructive consequences, even though I knew from before 12/12/2000 that the SC subverted the Constitution by usurping the authority, exclusive to Congress, to resolve that election dispute. And I never ceased speaking out against that subversion, even in the face of the mindless insistence that we all "move on," rather than look at the facts and details, from those who got the outcome they wanted -- while to the contrary claiming to be "patriots".

Where has the silence on the law and facts -- whether because of ignorance or preference -- got us? Who has it protected "from themselves"?
_____

I delight in the fact that there are still people fighting to make the tragedy of the 2000 US election known. The purge of voters in Florida and the wholly undemocratic way in which Bush and Co. seized the Presidency is one of the great failures on the part of large government in the modern age.
_____

Go back and read what I said. The failure was not of law or gov't -- except in terms of ENFORCEMENT. And that failure was only because the PRIVATELY-OWNED MEDIA FAILED to either KNOW the LAW AND ITS CONSTITUTIONAL ROLE, or PREFERRED the outcome so DID NOTHING EXCEPT RATIFY the result.
_____

Perhaps the most culpable outside of the actual political protagonists were the media who followed with virtually no dissent the official lines of enquiry.
_____

The PURPOSE of the media is to be a CHECK AGAINST gov't -- not a supporter of it. Its purpose is to keep gov't HONEST. It didn't even keep ITSELF honest. It was not the fault of Constitution and laws, or of gov't; it was ENTIRELY the fault of media not doing that it is REQUIRED to do, and which it once BOASTED it does: be a CHECK AGAINST gov't.
_____

When Greg Palast revealed what had happened in Florida and brought it to CBS it became apparent that just what you point out above came to pass. Those who I have talked with about this were either unaware of what had happened or had no idea as to how so long after the fact the reality could be changed. I don't believe what happened in 2000 can be considered representative of how people view their role in a democracy. For those who retain faith in that process I am sure there was nothing but horror for those who found out how the 2000 election was "won".
_____

I was online reading Florida elections law leading up to 12/12/2000. I didn't need Palast to tell me later on what "happened".
_____

For those who I now believe form a silent majority who have lost faith in the results of a stage managed election changing their lives for the better it was little surprise I am sure. People are beginning to realise that everywhere from the propaganda system to popular culture people are merely advised to consume and ratify decisions that have already been made.
_____

False belief. Constpirabunk. Obama's election was not "already decided" before the election.
_____

I'm a conscientious adult: I don't do "idle" conversation about serious issues. And I don't tolerate the mere "idle" self-serving dissemination of propaganda and gibberish.

I resent all of the implications of these remarks.
_____

Good maybe it'll provoke youu to THINK instead of being a sucker for alternatives which are false, and mere acceptance of helplessness as the norm. Get an education in the foundations -- the Constitution and laws -- instead of the crap being fed you by anti-Americans on both Right and Left. You don't even know how the system is intended to work, and yet you throw it out in the arrogant belief you have the "solution".
_____

I do not know why you would conclude that our conversation is idle from what we have been discussing. Should I not have admitted that I was enjoying this discussion. Is it intolerable for you that I might enjoy discussing serious issues? I further fail to see how my "propaganda" is self-serving. I can't respond to the gibberish remark for as you know the one who slings mud always "wins". As for the propaganda remark itself I suggest that you examine how propaganda actually works before accusing me of its use. The propaganda you speak of is merely my opinion, I have neither the resources nor the time to wield a genuine control over the dissemination of propaganda. I can only speak my mind.
_____

It is idle because it is beside the point. Read the Constitution, and dump your anti-gov't horseshit.

Sorry J I will answer soon. Personal stuff, you know yourself :)

J:- You miss -- or avoid -- the point.

A LIE is NOT an "opinion". It is a FALSEHOOD. An OPINION is ARGUABLY TRUE.

What you do is worse than emphasizing "freedom" at the expense of all else: you join the far-right lunatic fringe attack on reason and truth by reducing everything to "opinion," which results in putting a truth and a falsehood on equal footing, and asserting that both are "opinion" therefore of equal VALIDITY. VALID = TRUE. A LIE is not VALID.
--------------------------
Well I believe that it is precisely for those ideas that we find most abhorrent that free speech should be extended. I find it is the only consistent path. Holocaust deniers are a good example. It is simply that I believe that an idea is not validated merely through expression. Lies are propagated all the time and it is discussion not prohibition that puts them straight.
---------------------------
J:- Your view is neither new nor original: all that matters is freedom, and constraints of any kind are "anti-freedom". The Founders/Framers netierh believed nor said that; they were for ORDERED liberty. Which means? It means YOUR freeom is LIMITED by MY having freedom ALSO. Don't respect that? then we enact laws to keep you in line. Refuse to be kept in line by the reasoned -- the rule of law? Then we have jail to put you in.
---------------------------
Well yes I fail to see the point here as it is obvious to a housecat that constraint limits freedom. If you are constrained your freedom is limited that is just obvious. The law is not the only way this is manifest in contemporary society, one example from many. It is simple you believe they are necessary, I do not. I hope that addresses that point as I was not quite sure what you were trying to say.
---------------------------

J:- Yeah, I know: you miss reality by insisting all probelms would be cured if "state power" were eliminated. Lost in the clouds you don't pay attention to what is going on under your mnose.

You oppose regulation -- rule of law -- which is generated and enforced by "state power". The recent "Wall St. meltdown" and the consequences of that were, by contrast, the result of NON-REGULATION -- the absence of both regulation and state-enforcement of that non-existent regulation.

Those regulations had existed, but were repealed by the anarchists -- the Ayn Rand loons who claim instead to be "Libertarian". Thus the "meltdown" had no relation to "state power" -- except for its ABSENCE. It was exactly NOT the fault of "state power" -- or even of the constraints against "freedom" extremists such as you insist will cure all problems.
------------------
Enlighten me J, what is going on under my nose?

Well you must be careful not to mix me up with anarcho-capitalists. I agree that the Ayn Rand loons are precisely that. Libertarian also means something quite different in the European tradition.
------------------
J:- And you remain asleep: the person who was the architect of the DE-regulation that resulted in the "meltdown" held the view that the financial industry -- the locus of the irrationality that is GREED -- could and would regulate itself. Being IRRATIONAL, and by defninition EXCESSIVE, GREED WILL NOT and CANNOT "regulate" itself. We learned that, at latest instance before this instance, with the 1929 stock market crash.

What happened in this instance? The architects of the "Greed will regulate itself" DElusion REPEALED the regulations implemented AFTER the 1929 stock market crash to PREVENT it happening again. The irrational, delusional pro-greed de-regulators simply said that which was predictable would not happened, and repealed the prevention of it happening.

And the chief architect of that? Alan Greenspan. He held your view. He ultimately had to admit -- this is so stupid a child knows better -- that he was WRONG in his belief that the greed would regulate itself.

You CONTINUE to push the view HE admitted was -- always -- erroneous.
------------------
I agree with all except me being asleep. I cannot recall once advocating unregulated capitalism. I believe this would set up private forms of tyranny far worse than the ones we have now, as they would be even less answerable to the public. Myself and Lunar were just discussing this on the other page. I am not an advocate if unchecked greed and I fail to see how I am in agreement with Alan Greenspan.
------------------
J:- What we've hafd more than enough of is private individuals and interests controlling the definition of "public interest". That is why we have an elected, representative GOV'T to do with issues of public interest -- because man learned long ago, and again and again, that private interest tends not to give a damn about the public interest. Thus the "Wall St. meltdown". And what was the pro-pirivate interest "fix" for that? To use PUBLIC funds -- at the behest of the PRIVATE interests that screwed up -- to bail out the very PRIVATE interests that screwed up. Those private interests they screwed and injured? Tough: can't have gov't intervening in bbehalf of private interests -- unless those private interests have sfufficient funds of their own to bail themselves out.
------------------
I would love to believe all of that the government is representative of us. I do not want to generalise as government is a complex thing. It is however apparent to any body with the slightest grasp of the way western "democracies" function (regardless of their intended function) that people are never represented. This is patently obvious when one examines the gap between public policy and public attitudes. A thorough examination of how the PR industry and propaganda work is again all I can advocate. Edwards Bernays' (the father of Public Relations) book Propaganda is worth a look as one of the first frameworks for how the current situation was reached. The concepts were understood since the enlightenment and even back to the English Civil War though they only become manifest in a form recognisable to the contemporary mind since the late 1910s. Adam Curtis' documentary "The Century of the Self" is also enlightening as well as very entertaining. Also worth a look is "The Power of Nightmares" and "The Trap" by the same. Walter Lippman's "Public Opinion" is another necessary read. Noam Chomsky's "Necessary Illusions" and/or "Propaganda and the Public Mind" are two more essential reads for me in understanding the way contemporary democracies function.
-------------------
J:- The "illusion of objectivity" is not an illusion. One can be objective. It is wholly anti-intellectual -- stupid, actually -- to reduce everything to one dimension: the subjective. The problem with the media is not the practice of objectivity; it is the false equivalencies based upon self-serving ideological distortions. Go to university; get an education; you'll learn that, yes, there is bias, and everyone is biased, BUT ALSO there are ways to set aside bias, or compensating for it, in service to objectivity.
------------------
I was referring here to the media as an institution. I do however feel that biases in assessments made in science and the arts are inherently subjective. They can be accounted for to some extent. One can try and be objective and might succeed to a large extent however these "false equivalencies" you speak of that are bnases upon "self-serving ideological distortions" are what make institutions like the media biased; they are the cause not a replacement.
-------------------
J:- That was why the "Fairness Doctrine" was established at the outset of the broadcast media: to ensure one got all points of view, instead of only the view approved by a monopoly-owned media. Your view is extremely short-term, and is exactly that the wealthy monopoly-media want you to hold and express: the assumption that obvjectivity does not and connot exist, therefore even lying is acceptable, and even lying can legitimately be called "news" when it in fact is not except as topic.
--------------------
The Fairness Doctrine no longer exists. It is clear to anybody with the figures at hand that the media is a monopolisitic institution. This was furthered mainly by the Communications Acts passed under the Reagan administration that seem to give government support to that trend. As far as objectivity not existing all I can say is that generally from most situations that are deemed to be "newsworthy" there are facts to be discerned. Facts that will inevitably be coloured by the internal values of individuals and the institutional values of organisms such as the media.
--------------------
J:-You don't understand what is happening. What has impact is what is "reported" -- more accurately, expressed -- through media organs that do not exist to report news, though they LIE that they provide that -- I mean FOX, as specific example. How many times must O'Reilly (as example) be PROVEN to be a liar -- yes, that can be done because there IS objectivity and FACT -- before he is no longer accepted as a source for TRUTH? For actual NEWS?
---------------------
Well how many of these institutions that lie about providing news are there? Probably looking at the implications of Bill O ' Reilly's lies rather than the fact that he does it would be more useful. We all know he lies so know let's ask why he lies. There was an interesting case where a son of a victim of the WTC attacks tried to sue him for defamation though it was found that an interesting quirk in the law was the fact that they had to prove that O' Reilly lied Knowingly. As it turns out O' Reilly's lies are so frequent and pathological that the case became near impossible to win.
---------------------
J:- Great. That's what the "Fairness Doctrine" was for and about. The wealthy and powerful far-right lunatic fringe wanted to eliminate that, and it succeeded in doing so by pushing the LIE that there is no such thing as "objective" -- except, of course, themselves. So what do we have from them? Lie presented as not merely opinion -- as potentially legitimate -- but also as NEWS -- i.e., as FACT.
---------------------
Yes it is a shame it does not exist. To attribute ownership and monopolisation of media to a far-right lunatic fringe is wholly untenable. I don't believe the lie was ever pushed that objectivity does not exist particularly not by the media. This was essentially an academic observation and one that did not enter the consciousness of most people. Sure even FOX still repeat their mantra of "Fair and Balanced".
---------------------
J:-You aren't listening, and you didn't read what I posted. Women do tend to speak, as a matter of routine and habit, in terms of "feelings".. How often have you heard it phrased as, "I'm sorry you THINK that?" (The opening "I'm sorry" tends to be the first step in ignoring/avoiding what one actually said -- and getting away with doing that. If that which is being avoided is thought and fact, then it is an avodiance of two degrees: first lulling you away from vigilance, second away from thought and fact into feeling.)
--------------------
Yes J, I am aware of such tactics. They tend not to work as long as you point them out. People are still fully entitled to cop out of discussions in that way, exasperating as it may be. If people say they feel a certain way then present them with some facts that can only make them feel differently, if you feel the discussion warrants it. If facts fail to make an impact then it is clear you have a lost cause. Nonetheless this does not eradicate the desire and the enjoyment of engaging with all manner of opinions from all walks of life.
--------------------
J:- No, they did not -- either morally or ethically or religiously -- have the right to LIE based upon whatever the form of FALSEHOOD they based their LYING -- whether ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation of fact. That is shown by the fact there have been harmful consequences flowing from that LYING, including physical assaults on those to whom those terms "might" apply.

Because of the lie that "Muslim" = "terrorist" -- without exception -- someone threw a gas into a window of a mosque in Ohio. The window happened to be in the room in which children and infants were sleeping.

Lies have consequences -- exactly as the tellers of them intend.

Nor have they who claim to be morally superior, religious, and the like, the "right" to LIE -- contrary to their fundamental moral/ethical/"religious" claims -- including in the form of hate-speech. I'm fed up with those who out of one side of their mouth can't shut up about how they are "Christian," and out of the other constantly spew hate-speech and lies against others -- often those others being nothing more than figments of such "Christian"'s own invention. Own bigotries.

Those fulminations also have consequences -- usually, as intended, for those against spewed.
--------------------
I believe the right to lie is essential in allowing people to rationally defend their position. The hate-speech is thankfully coming from fewer and fewer sources these days. People should not be made repress or fear ignorance but to engage it and disarm it. I am all too aware of the consequences of hate speech growing up in quite a nationalist, anti-British atmosphere. I was able to put aside childish notions such as these through rational examination of fact and plain old thinking. I am fully aware of their ugly consequences, but if I can put them aside in the manner I did anybody can.
---------------------
J:- You have it upside down and ass-backward. There are laws against libel because education and "rational discourse" have been PROVEN to be INSUFFICIENT. PERJURY is PROHIBITED not as a "repression" or "deprivation" of "rights" because PERJURY is NOT a RIGHT. There are acts which have been recognized by societies, for thousands of years, as anti-social and worse -- criminal. DESTRUCTIVE of society -- gov't and other organizations NOTWITHSTANDING. There are those who REFUSE to CEASE the use of such socially destructive means as ADVANTAGE over others; so the SOCIETY prohibits -- and punishes -- those destructive acts.
---------------------
I think we should try education and rational discourse before we knock them. Perjury is something that would apply specifically to individual cases in a court of law. I tend to find that this would be committed only in the interest of institutional or individual protection is specific legal cases. Resolution to such conflicts could easily exist in many forms outside the law, possibly administered by local forces and concerned parties.
---------------------
J:- If the INFORMAL prohibitions aren't sufficient, then the SOCIETY establishes the means to EFFECTIVELY prohibit and punish those means. First by written rule of law, with enforcements of it. Second, by buildings called "jail" and "prison" force those who CONTINUE to HARM SOCIETY.

Before you decide the solution to imperfect law is the elimination of law in the STUPID name of "freedom" -- a significant percentage of which is HARMFUL LAWLESSNESS -- learn the purposes and functions of SOCIAL rule-making, from the basics of family civility up to and including criminal sanctions enforced by the state.

Until then you'll have your head not only up the clouds.
---------------------
Just because things do not fall under the remit of a specific law text does not make it informal. It is pretty clear to anyone again with a basic grasp of the figures on recidivism and rehabilitation that prison does not work. Do you believe family civility or human civility require legal argument to function properly? It is pretty clear to me what the nature of criminal sanctions imposed by the state is. Again this is exceptionally relative to individual circumstance but it appears to me that one is tried and punished at birth because of the places and circumstances into which they are brought. I am not saying such trends are unbreakable but they are the consequence of rampant inequality and the State's perpetuation of it. If imperfect laws are to be repealed lawyers have a a lot of work to do- or rather people do. As regards the last sentence, very clever. I will however say that you are the most pessimistic optimist I have ever met.
---------------------
J:- The examples I give tend to be ANTI-institutional. ANTI-gov't. ANTI-rule of law.

I cannot remember or find what this relates to? :)
---------------------
The "occasional crazy" is not "occasional". And though the hate-speech is abhorrent, it is also INSTITUTIONAL: listen to hate-radio. Watch/listen to FOX.

What is hate-radio? Can you give me an example of hate-speech on Fox? Again it is not difficult through conversation to dispel the notions spouted by a few mistrusted hacks who in my opinion are still merely the occasional crazy.
---------------------
Only to simpleton's. The "repression" of murder does NOT increase the "interest" in murder and committing murder.

Murder is an act not an idea, I though we were talking about the expression of ideas. I was stating that murders committed as a result of an abhorrent ideal could probably be dispelled by simple rational thought and not repression. It is interesting the way you used this murder argument for the repression of free speech yet rejected it or did not address it when I brought it up in relation to the validity of legislation.
---------------------
J:- "Faith" is not irrational. Water is off the back of the irrational.

Faith tends to be religious belief, at least we appear to have spoken of it most frequently in this context. While a person's standpoint along the basis of religious texts may be considered, in terms of the text itself it is irrational insofar as it allows erroneous and unfounded writings to impact the conclusions drawn about morality and life in general. That is what I meant by faith being irrational as it does not allow incursion into the mind by a fact that might impact upon that faith. Either that or it requires compartmentalisation, which again is a tool of irrational thought. Don't understand the second sentence.
---------------------
You said you're young. I'm not young. I've discussed the various theories of anarcho-(fill-in-the-blank) in real-time, in actual contexts, and learned in real-time, in those contexts, that they do not work because there is always at least one person in the context who talks a good game but is an opportunist who will act in bad faith, against all the theory, for his own ends. And he will "combine" ("affinity group") with others persuadable to put their interests first into outnumbering and bullying those who stand on principle against their aim.

The idea isn't to protect others from themselves; it is to challenge them to sufficiently inform themselves so they can protect themselves.
---------------------
You have discussed them in real time, can you explain how? I am finding it difficult to take on board the rigour with which you assert this as examples of this working can be cited historically. In fact right now people are organising beyond the systemic constraints of economy and regulation of every moment of their lives. Moving on to something better, I hope one day we can follow.

With regard to the last sentence; I do not believe I ever asserted the first part. After the semi-colon we are in agreement. Though I fail to see how you can hope to achieve this by repressing people's right to freely express themselves. Should we all just learn to repeat conventional doctrines that stand up to little logical examination?
----------------------
Is it? Is long-term experience also irrelevant? Can one get the latter without the first?

Long term experience of what? Yes age is irrelevant.
----------------------

I'd be the last on the planet to assert the cliche that "Age is wisdom". I would also point to the fact, though, that wisdom doesn't tend to exist among those who lack sufficient EVALUATED experience, and EDUCATION, to be able to criticially evaluate and se beyond their own pet ideas.

These are in fact not my pet ideas. I have an education and I have exposed myself to numerous ideas of how the world works and how it ought to work. For now I have settled on one that reflects my own observations. The ideas however have been usurped from hundreds who have gone before. I am more a traveller through a distinctive and in my opinion fruitful line of enquiry into how human beings can achieve a situation where they are no longer be submissive to authority and hierarchy. You are not belittling me with these remarks only dozens of the most prominent intellectuals since the enlightenment.
----------------------
J:- In time one comes to conclusions which, while remaining subject to critical evaluation, tend not to change. I gave a fundamental example:

1. Humans are imperfect.

2. Being imperfect, everything human's make is imperfect.

3. Those things include imaginings, and laws.

4. Because law is imperfect, it doesn't prevent all occurrences of everything prohibited by it.

5. Because law isn't always successful in its intents is not excuse to repeal the rule of law.

6. Society is a skein of laws, institutionalized as gov't, for stability, continuity, and enforcement. Law is reasoning, exceedingly refined over many generations.

7. It is near impossible that you or I can, in one lifetime, supercede that accumulated wisdom.

Bottom line: learn the difference between "freedom" and "ordered libertry," because "freedom" is NOT ABSENCE of constraint. Law serves several functions, backed by gov't, one of which is PROTECTION of your "freedom".
----------------------
This old chestnut again. Firstly I do not equate the law with wisdom. Secondly my whole position is simply based on the notion that up until now a vast majority of people have found no voice with which to express their feelings about society and its direction, neither through government or the law. Thirdly I believe people are capable of, through vastly more democratic forms than exist now, of deciding their own fate as well as the nature of laws and economy. I guess in that sense I am not anti-law I am just pro-people. So long as the law can be usurped to provide comfort to a very narrow spectrum of society while simultaneously keeping others in bondage there will never be a society that can be equated with an enlightenment idea of freedom, which seems more appropriate to maintain human dignity.
----------------------
J:- You sijmply don't know what you're talking about. It wasn't a single individual in only one circumstance. Thankfully I got over your addiction to repeatedly-disproven abstractions before falling for Reagan and Greenspan's edition of the snake-oil.
----------------------
You were the one who implied you had been part of some sort of anarchist experiment. I will thank you also to stop equating my values with those of Reagan or Greenspan. I am not a capitalist and happen to think that Ronald Regan is one of the single most corrupt and morally distorted people of the post-World War 2 period.
----------------------
J:-Doesn't happen without elections. Or courts and prisons.
----------------------
Has done before and hopefully will again. If courts exist then they will also have to attain vastly more democratic principles. Too often in the past courts have been influenced by big business; the reason why America has one of the worst train systems in the world. It is my hope that there will certainly be no morr prisons at least not in any modern understanding of the institution.
----------------------
J:- The PURPOSE of the media is to be a CHECK AGAINST gov't -- not a supporter of it. Its purpose is to keep gov't HONEST. It didn't even keep ITSELF honest. It was not the fault of Constitution and laws, or of gov't; it was ENTIRELY the fault of media not doing that it is REQUIRED to do, and which it once BOASTED it does: be a CHECK AGAINST gov't.
----------------------
The media simply does not operate in this way. Media subservience to government propaganda is what is most obvious from examination of how the private media function. That is probably the most widely supported and documented fact in that area of the social sciences. Whatever the initial function of a mass media (I happen to disagree it ever provided the function you bestow upon it) it does not operate that way now.
----------------------
I was online reading Florida elections law leading up to 12/12/2000. I didn't need Palast to tell me later on what "happened".
----------------------
I was 14 at the time and did need Palast to tell me what happened after. So was there appoint to that or is it just another one of your resorts to; "I have the inside line on how democracy functions" or at least "how it is supposed to function". Or should I merely bow to your superior grasp of the US Constitution, the scrap of paper that the government which purports to uphold its tenets, daily shits all over them.
----------------------
False belief. Constpirabunk. Obama's election was not "already decided" before the election.
----------------------
Did I suggest that? I said the election was stage managed which in now way implies the result was decided beforehand. For someone who has been thinking "critically" for the last 50 thousand hundred decades you sure know how to jump the gun. By the way you should be wary of the term conspiracy theory, while genuine conspiracies are rarely found the term itself is often used to obfuscate the findings of the most basic institutional analysis.
----------------------
J:- Good maybe it'll provoke youu to THINK instead of being a sucker for alternatives which are false, and mere acceptance of helplessness as the norm. Get an education in the foundations -- the Constitution and laws -- instead of the crap being fed you by anti-Americans on both Right and Left. You don't even know how the system is intended to work, and yet you throw it out in the arrogant belief you have the "solution".
----------------------
I am aware of how democracy is intended to work. I am also painfully aware of how it is functioning at the moment. A more apt term would be polyarchy or plutocracy rather than the total misnomer of labelling our current situation democracy. I do not believe I have a solution for anything. I have an idea of what I perceive along with many others to be a reasonable and appropriate form of human organisation that neither forces individuals into bondage nor imposes upon them tract after tract of material that alights how one can live morally and justly. Often these laws are perverse and where they are not they frequently pertain to conclusions human beings have reached independently and do not need imposed by a coercive state.
---------------------
J:- It is idle because it is beside the point. Read the Constitution, and dump your anti-gov't horseshit.

Continue slinging mud J and I will continue to ignore it. Have read your Constitution, was a nice idea at one point shame it never fully came into force.

Even if one does believe in God, I agree with Four Seasons that religion should be separate from matters of state. Then again, "the state" by being such is kind of against God by nature if you ask me. I would want the next president (and everyone in the world) to read two books: WAR TALK by Arundhati Roy,
and PERPETUAL WAR FOR PERPETUAL PEACE by Gore Vidal. I may send him a copy of War Talk; he is filling his cabinet w/ some very pro-war people.

Mary;
I would agree with your 2 choices and would add Blowback by Chalmers Johnson. It would be nice if he used that books philosophy as our foreign policy guidelines.
Phoenix51

Just before joining this site, I just finished this book titled "Two Cents per Mile: Will President Obama Make it Happen with the Stroke of a Pen?" by Nevres Cefo- It's about electric cars, and how electric car technologies have been supressed by oil and car industries. Basically, Chevron is sitting on the patents for powerful and safe electric batteries (and they also sued toyota for making an electric version of the RAV4 with the battery). Electric cars cut oil companies out of the equation, so they want to move towards a hydrogen economy where they can still sell things. The book encourages people to put pressure on Obama to enact eminent domain or compulsory licensing over the technology... I think everyone should read that book and be informed about the topic- especially Obama who has the power to do something about it.

Can we ban horizontal lines?

Since I am not a Liberal, I would like to recommend 'The Dream and the Nightmare' (1993) which tells the truth about the tragic consequences of the well meaning social programs begun in the 1960's. This is the story that no Liberal wants to hear, lest disillusionment set in. After all, we have to say we are doing 'Something'.
Another is the ugly truth about America's underclass; 'The Bell Curve' (1994). Both of these refute leftist myths with facts and thus must be shouted down because to accept them as truth would be 'Racist' and of course we are all, liberals anyway, terrified of being labeled with that appellation.
And let's not forget 'TREASON, Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism (2003) by that attack-dog of the Right Wing; Ann Coulter. Thank God someone has the nerve to speak the truth about the Emperor's New Clothes.

You had me until The Bell Curve, JT. That book is piss poor.

I would suggest Hot, Flat and Crowded.

"Christian" name-calling --

". . . JNugatory,"

"have actually read and put some thought into understanding the Bible, you need to understand your own ignorance on issues of religion and politics and not criticize those of us who actually KNOW what we're talking about."

One can find anything one wants in the "bible" -- even the mmutually negating. As example, the "bible" was used both the defend and condemn slavery.

"It takes every bit as much faith to deny the existence of God as it does to believe in His existence".

Actually it doesn't, as "faith" is based upon a total lack of evidence, whereas relying instead on that for which there is objective evidence doesn't require faith.

"The saying that "Jesus was a socialist" is a common one in many radical circles."

"Radical"?

So, Christ wasn't a socialist. He was -- what? A fascist? A Communist? A capitalist?