In Seattle, boarding my flight to Shanghai...
Given the poor 2 choices, how do we get some more visibility for these folks?
CNN Johnson suit dismissed
Given the poor 2 choices, how do we get some more visibility for these folks?
CNN Johnson suit dismissed
35 comments:
Why should we want to? We listened to Crazy Uncle Bernie for months, why would we want more of it?
Made it back as far as Japan!!!
Compared to Trump and Hilary, the Libertarians may be the most sane people on the stage...
Now I realize you like the big government legislating morality, but I think having social liberals / economic conservatives in power would be great.
From Jerry. (shorter link)
Take a look at what Walter Williams says today about having social liberals in charge.
DS WW Abandonment of Traditional Values
Now I agree with you that fiscal liberals and welfare have contributed to the downfall of many families.
However the idea that social Liberals have caused the downfall is just silly...
By the way, I truly agree with the full title of the article.
"America’s Abandonment of Traditional Values Has Hurt the Black Community"
The causation of the change is what is in question.
Here is an interesting discussion of causation.
DB Christianity is Dying in America
Here is a counter point.
CP Christianity is Not Declining in America
Maybe we should say that the majority of Christian Churches are becoming open and accepting of others. Remember that I am a member of the ELCA...
We are pretty accepting of everyone.
Something about first stones
"However the idea that social Liberals have caused the downfall is just silly..."
Really? Of course, I wouldn't expect liberals, social or otherwise, to accept any responsibility for the consequences of their policies. After all, their intentions were good and that's all that matters, right? Even though social liberalism underlies the whole welfare system, where marriage and work are discouraged, and where an entitlement mentality replaces personal responsibility, social liberals' only response is to abort almost 50% of black babies. That's a "values" issue, too.
As for "first stones," there is a big gap between stoning someone for their "sins" and standing up for some basic behavioral standards and being "stoned" rhetorically by frothing liberals.
CATO Social Liberalism on Rise
Now remember that I see a fiscal conservative who is socially liberal as a person in between American Populism and American Libertarianism on this graphic.
I think you are thinking of fiscal liberals.
Of course, maybe you agree with alternet that one can not be a fiscal conservative social liberal...
I am having an existential crisis... Maybe I do not exist...
To rationalize that I exist, I am going to assume that the alternet folks are heathens who do not believe in religion, charity, etc.
At first I thought your non-existence was in jest, and that you had mischaracterized the Alternet folks. But I looked at it, and it's the hard-left ideology all over again. I agree that one cannot be a fiscal conservative and a social liberal, but in the exact opposite way. That is, a fiscal conservative would not have the GOVERNMENT spend a trillion dollars sustaining people in poverty, and another trillion keeping them poor by denying them education and work experience. I think you are right, that they are "heathens" who believe that government should be cheap but still finance all sorts of things that private charity, churches, and other private organizations should do. It's essentially an oxymoron.
Now if you wanted to say that you're fiscally conservative and want the federal government OUT of health care, abortion, marriage, etc., in favor of states or individual rights and control, you could then be socially liberal by favoring these things in your own state or for yourself, and leave the rest of us alone. It's a lot cheaper, a lot BETTER (in that private charity is more efficacious) and it tends to tinker but slowly with society's values, creating less friction.
No, I am pretty sure a Social Liberal could in good conscious use the Federal Government and US Constitution to protect the freedoms of individuals within the States. Kind of silly to support the individual freedoms of every US citizens and then let some backward States traipse all over them.
Though I would have preferred that LGBT marriage had been passed by scientific finding and enlightened citizens in each State understanding that they were likely unfairly trouncing on the freedoms of other adult US citizens. But I am fine that it was passed.
I would like government to have a minimal role in many things:
- abortion before ~18 weeks including the morning after pill
- marriage between 2 non-related consenting adults
- sex between 2 consenting adults, including prostitution
- gambling
- marijuana? hard drugs: continue to legislate
- business and banking regs
- reduce number of taxes, regs, complexity, etc
- physician assisted suicides
- welfare / healthcare: reduce governmental funding and encouragement of bad behaviors
- assist Americans in making some good choices less expensive.(ie more free) Long Acting Reversible Contraception, Job Training, poor people learning to save, etc.
Before I think you a liberal wacko or far-out libertarian, please clarify what you mean by "minimal." I'll agree with you if "minimal" is ZERO for most of those things, and for the /federal/ government. I could get behind a few more if you referred only to States.
And by the way, be careful of what "rights" you want government to "give" to everybody. There is no right to do that which is wrong.
Only "Whackos" use absolutes...
""minimal" is ZERO for most of those things"
"no right to do that which is wrong"
So if half the population thinks it correct and half thinks it is wrong... Is it correct or wrong?
As for the State or Feds... There is really no reason for either government to be involved in the above... When it does it is just government reaching into our bedroom, wallets, personal choices, Doctor's office, etc.
Really? Should the state be allowed to make murder or infanticide a crime? Can there be a "right" to murder a child?
OK, how close to ZERO can you get without it being /effectively/ zero or, conversely, how much above zero does (federal) government spending have to be before we call it unwise, inefficient, wasteful, unconstitutional, inappropriate, or unnecessary?
Please note that I put an age on acceptable baby killing... After that it is murder which definitely relieves the victim of their personal freedoms.
"- abortion before ~18 weeks including the morning after pill."
I think the Feds need to watch the States to ensure they honor the Freedoms we are entitled to. How much does that cost? If not Mississippi would be even more backwards than it is... I wonder if they would still believe slavery was acceptable?
Better not criticize Mississippi. They are SO far ahead of Minnesota in many ways. They have half the education gap, for instance. How about the right to vote? Do you think the Feds should ensure that? They don't. I lived in a district which was denied representation in the US House for two years.
And I point out that you still believe abortion is a proper federal construct and that there is something magic about 18 weeks. So after that point, the state government gets to control the laws on murder, but not before? Does the baby know the difference? Lots of things like that, which all the states might even agree on within reason, but that should NOT be dictated by the federal government.
Jerry,
Oh give me a break.
MN vs MS Education Rank They may have half the gap since most of the students are under educated...
Actually the magic word is "viability" which was determined by the SUPREME COURT OF THE USA... I just rounded down to 18 weeks.
Still, it's half the gap. And their overall achievement would be better if the federal government had not interfered with their system of teaching students based on their educational needs rather than by the color of their skin. On the other hand it does tend to lend support to your idea that poor black kids cannot learn, since MS has more of them.
18 weeks or 20 weeks is nonetheless arbitrary. The "magic" is that at that point, federal "law" ends and state law begins. WHY? The real question ought to be who decides the laws. According to the Constitution, most of it is states or individuals and we would be better off if we returned to that ideal.
Maybe MN should follow the MS example and close the gap by teaching them all poorly. Would that be "success"???
Please remember that I don't think poor and/or race are reasons for not learning.
I think having immature unqualified overwhelmed and/or irresponsible parent(s) is the primary reason for kids not learning... Be they white, black, brown, rich and/or poor..
And the secondary reason is tenure, education bureaucracy, steps, lanes, union priorities, etc.
So again... Would the South still have slavery, segregation, etc based on your perspective? Thankfully the Union did not wait any longer to find out...
I'm assuming you never lived in Mississippi. They were not "poorly taught," but they did suffer poverty, overwhelmingly black, and a lack of parental education. But most of those kids came to school, behaved themselves, said "sir" and "ma'am," and got a whuppin' if they acted out in school. As for the teaching staff, the best teachers were better compensated and were given to those students who most needed it, while the new teachers got the kids who already had all the other advantages. Unfortunately that produced a "racial disparity" and the federal government stepped in to forbid it. Now if you can't blame parents, or kids, or teachers for this situation, what do you do?
And to answer your silly question, no. Slavery was rapidly becoming economically non-viable around the time of the civil war and would have ended of its own dead weight given another generation or two. Unfortunately Democrats took over the South and perpetuated racism for another 100 years, while those who went to the North fared little better and in some ways worse.
Just re-read your note about social liberals (libertarian branch, no doubt) allowing gambling. I assume that's under the heading of "victimless crime" but we know that's not universally true. Here's my question: Minnesota has prevented welfare EBT cards from being used at casino ATMs. Are they abridging a freedom and exceeding their "minimal role"? How about the State lottery, is that a "minimal role" in gambling?
Not Poorly Taught? I thought failing schools was always the fault of the School?
So the South went to war to protect a failing business practice? Really?
And please remember that if the federal civil rights action was not taken, segregation would probably be the norm in MS...
No, rules come with their accepting the food stamps, welfare, etc. Just like with government incentives for farmers and the other businesses. That money comes with hooks. Their freedom is to not accept the deal.
Failing schools are the fault of the school when they choose to fail. When the federal government steps in and tells them they may NOT do what has been working, then the school is not responsible for the failure that ensues.
Actually, the South went to war to protect the right to make the choice. In a generation or two (not at the time of the war), they would have CHOSEN to abandon slavery. One wonders whether eliminating this "evil" a few decades early was worth the 500,000 lives, the attack on federalism, and the impoverishment and oppression of the South.
If it had not been for federal civil rights legislation, segregation would still be the norm EVERYWHERE. To some degree it still is, especially in the North.
I disagree on all 3 points.
May one assume those are reasoned disagreements, or are they simply truths you do not wish to acknowledge? In particular, I consider the first irrefutable. As for the third, I point out that the largest implementations of school busing for desegregation were in the North-- Kansas City and Boston, if I recall correctly. And even in Minnesota, we have "magnet schools" built mostly for desegregation purposes.
Of course they are reasoned, it is my blessing / curse to be analytical about pretty much everything.
Care to share your great reasoning with those of us who cannot intuitively, or even with mental effort, see it your way?
Some what pointless. Far right folks and far left folks are equally logic and fact resistant. Maybe in a future post.
Too nice out today.
Carpe diem, by all means.
After you've refreshed, perhaps you will agree that people start with a natural bias on most issues, based on their experience and knowledge and, frankly, on who has taken the opposite side. Then, they accumulate facts and logical arguments that support that viewpoint, and some can reproduce them in a reasonably cogent fashion. That does not make them right but what it does is to create a barrier where /greater/ facts and logic are required to persuade them otherwise. Saying "I disagree" isn't enough; it's barely a start. I'll wait.
Post a Comment