In this video Chomsky debates a former Ford and Reagan administration official. Chomsky's performance is not unlike what he displayed in his debate with Richard Perle. What really makes him impressive is simply that he knows the facts and his opponents don't. They make false assertions. He gives the facts. They look stupid.
It's a pretty easy path to debate victory I suppose, and in my estimation it's usually true. The right wing just doesn't know the facts. Winning just means that you should know the facts and offer correction. People are often impressed, and maybe I think they shouldn't be. People have said as much to me. Wow, Jon, you know so much. You're so smart. That's what they say. I tell them it's not true. I don't think I'm particularly smart. I just think I've managed to step outside of what you might call a propaganda bubble and I've discovered some historical things. People know about Watergate. Few have heard of COINTELPRO. Many have heard about the Gulf of Tonkin incident. But most of them couldn't actually tell you when the US military began attacking Vietnam. If you know this basic stuff you'll find that your friends are often impressed.
Friday, October 19, 2012
Sunday, October 14, 2012
An Update on Birth Defects in Iraq
I'd written before about how during the US assault on Fallujah open war crimes were committed by US military and photos of it were prominently displayed in the NY Times with a seemingly total lack of awareness of what was being displayed. Also how suspicions are that chemical weaponry and depleted uranium were deployed on the residents of Fallujah. An update in the incidence of birth defects is here.
Monday, October 8, 2012
Record Low Levels of Arctic Ice
A while back PBS covered the issue in the interview below.
In this article from Chomsky called Issues that Obama and Romney Avoid Chomsky talks about how prior projections had been that we might see summers without Arctic ice by the end of this century. Now it could be as early as 2020? And the response is not alarm from our politicians and world leaders. It's how do we exploit newly exploited territory for more oil and other materials. This will accelerate the problem.
As discussed in the interview, the ice caps are like the earth's air conditioners. They reflect tons of solar radiative heat. With the ice gone and water in its place more heat will be absorbed. We're in big trouble here. Things are already grim for the poor in Africa thanks to the drought from this year. Meanwhile our politicians are focused on who can talk the toughest about Iran.
In this article from Chomsky called Issues that Obama and Romney Avoid Chomsky talks about how prior projections had been that we might see summers without Arctic ice by the end of this century. Now it could be as early as 2020? And the response is not alarm from our politicians and world leaders. It's how do we exploit newly exploited territory for more oil and other materials. This will accelerate the problem.
As discussed in the interview, the ice caps are like the earth's air conditioners. They reflect tons of solar radiative heat. With the ice gone and water in its place more heat will be absorbed. We're in big trouble here. Things are already grim for the poor in Africa thanks to the drought from this year. Meanwhile our politicians are focused on who can talk the toughest about Iran.
Sunday, October 7, 2012
Muslims Actually Take Their Faith Seriously
A Christian friend of mine was criticizing Islam due to the recent violence in response to that video that depicted Mohammed unfavorably. Islam is obviously wicked, violent, backward, horrible, etc. I replied to him in a way I often do. Sure, their violence is deplorable. But why are we talking about it? If you want to do some good in the world you should talk about yourself first. Are we doing anything that contributes to this behavior in the Muslim world? Yeah, quite a lot. We prop up theocrats in the Muslim world. Our actions led to the theocratic regime that exists in Iran. We prop up the Saudi dictatorship. We essentially created Hamas and Hezbollah. We install other dictators which cause people to become more fundamentalist and extreme. We invade them, which provokes more religious extremism. Yeah, what they do is worthy of criticism, but it's not our place to offer it. That's for their fellow country men. Let's focus on what we can do to improve the situation.
I stand by that position. But I have to admit that my friend still did have a valid point. You don't see this kind of thing among Christians. You can have art that shows someone urinating on a crucifix and you don't get people storming the museum and killing people. Christians are plenty violent. But they aren't violent for their faith so much. Obviously the US military has a lot of Christians, and they perpetuate a lot of violence. They are being violent for other reasons. What is it with Muslims? I can understand getting violent to repel a foreign invader. But a movie about Mohammed? Who cares? Christians may not like movies that portray Jesus unfavorably. They may protest. But they don't kill for it. What is the deal?
I have a Muslim friend from Pakistan, so I put this question to him. What's your deal, man? That's pretty pathetic.
His reply really opened my eyes. He first said that you stand outside of a culture and you judge it from your own perspective. You have no clue and yet you judge. You're in no position to judge. But let's see if I can help you understand. Let's suppose you walked in here today and told me you were going to kill your own family. I'd be alarmed, but I wouldn't become violent towards you. Now, let's take it up a notch. Suppose you tell me you are going to kill my family. I'll panic, but I'm not going to get violent. Now, let's suppose you actually go and kill my family. I'd be crushed. But I'd call the police. None of that would provoke actual violence from me.
But if you walked in here and insulted Mohammed I'd kill you.
Seriously, that's what he told me. The regard he has for Mohammed is much greater than what he would have for his own mother. He said anyone can understand if I'm standing next to my mother and you walk in, insult her, slap her, anyone can understand how that would provoke a violent reaction. But even the regard I have for my own mother is nothing next to the regard I have for Mohammed, and I am much more outraged at insults towards him.
I said "But Christians don't react to the crucifix with urination." He said if Christians don't genuinely care about Jesus the way we care about Mohammed and also the way we care about Jesus that's not my problem.
He says he's told many Christian people that they don't really love Jesus. Not like he does. He acts like Jesus is real. If Jesus were insulted or even if Moses were insulted Muslims will become outraged. Sure, Mohammed is another level of outrage, but it's similar for Jesus and Moses. Much more of a big deal than insulting family or even harming his family.
Like I say, it's not as if Christians are unwilling to be violent. Many Christians in the military are violent all over the world. But they aren't being violent for Jesus. They are violent perhaps for their own safety. Maybe they think Americans are at risk from foreign terrorists. It's a miniscule threat, but they'll be violent for that. My friend says he's unlikely to react to a threat, but will react to defend the honor of Mohammed.
It's easy to stand back and just say that violence is wrong. But when we hear of typical violence we understand the underlying causes. If someone insults your mother to your face it's easy to say you should ignore it. But we can understand that one person in 100 may not be able to ignore it and they may react with violence. It's not right, but it happens. But when it comes to insulting Jesus it never happens. Christians, at least in the US, don't seem to have that 1 in hundred case of a person that reacts with violence. The mother is real though. We all have or had a mother. She was/is real. Do Christians really act like Jesus is real? Because Muslims are acting like Mohammed is real.
I'm not knocking acting like Jesus isn't real. I don't think he was real. But we need to at least understand where Muslims are coming from if we want to comprehend and address whatever violence they engage in. They just act like they believe what they say and Christians in the US kind of don't.
I stand by that position. But I have to admit that my friend still did have a valid point. You don't see this kind of thing among Christians. You can have art that shows someone urinating on a crucifix and you don't get people storming the museum and killing people. Christians are plenty violent. But they aren't violent for their faith so much. Obviously the US military has a lot of Christians, and they perpetuate a lot of violence. They are being violent for other reasons. What is it with Muslims? I can understand getting violent to repel a foreign invader. But a movie about Mohammed? Who cares? Christians may not like movies that portray Jesus unfavorably. They may protest. But they don't kill for it. What is the deal?
I have a Muslim friend from Pakistan, so I put this question to him. What's your deal, man? That's pretty pathetic.
His reply really opened my eyes. He first said that you stand outside of a culture and you judge it from your own perspective. You have no clue and yet you judge. You're in no position to judge. But let's see if I can help you understand. Let's suppose you walked in here today and told me you were going to kill your own family. I'd be alarmed, but I wouldn't become violent towards you. Now, let's take it up a notch. Suppose you tell me you are going to kill my family. I'll panic, but I'm not going to get violent. Now, let's suppose you actually go and kill my family. I'd be crushed. But I'd call the police. None of that would provoke actual violence from me.
But if you walked in here and insulted Mohammed I'd kill you.
Seriously, that's what he told me. The regard he has for Mohammed is much greater than what he would have for his own mother. He said anyone can understand if I'm standing next to my mother and you walk in, insult her, slap her, anyone can understand how that would provoke a violent reaction. But even the regard I have for my own mother is nothing next to the regard I have for Mohammed, and I am much more outraged at insults towards him.
I said "But Christians don't react to the crucifix with urination." He said if Christians don't genuinely care about Jesus the way we care about Mohammed and also the way we care about Jesus that's not my problem.
He says he's told many Christian people that they don't really love Jesus. Not like he does. He acts like Jesus is real. If Jesus were insulted or even if Moses were insulted Muslims will become outraged. Sure, Mohammed is another level of outrage, but it's similar for Jesus and Moses. Much more of a big deal than insulting family or even harming his family.
Like I say, it's not as if Christians are unwilling to be violent. Many Christians in the military are violent all over the world. But they aren't being violent for Jesus. They are violent perhaps for their own safety. Maybe they think Americans are at risk from foreign terrorists. It's a miniscule threat, but they'll be violent for that. My friend says he's unlikely to react to a threat, but will react to defend the honor of Mohammed.
It's easy to stand back and just say that violence is wrong. But when we hear of typical violence we understand the underlying causes. If someone insults your mother to your face it's easy to say you should ignore it. But we can understand that one person in 100 may not be able to ignore it and they may react with violence. It's not right, but it happens. But when it comes to insulting Jesus it never happens. Christians, at least in the US, don't seem to have that 1 in hundred case of a person that reacts with violence. The mother is real though. We all have or had a mother. She was/is real. Do Christians really act like Jesus is real? Because Muslims are acting like Mohammed is real.
I'm not knocking acting like Jesus isn't real. I don't think he was real. But we need to at least understand where Muslims are coming from if we want to comprehend and address whatever violence they engage in. They just act like they believe what they say and Christians in the US kind of don't.
Monday, October 1, 2012
Somewhat Reduced Posting Frequency
I've been a little MIA lately. It isn't an accident. I've dialed back my internet time just a little on purpose. The internet is great obviously. I love it. But in my case I think I've over done it just a little and I think it's preventing me from developing some things in my life that I would like to develop. I want to share a little about the thought process that led me to this conclusion and what I'm doing about it.
What's kind of funny is that I don't know if I'd have realized this without the internet. The internet is both the cause of and solution to these various problems. The same thing Homer says of alcohol.
I developed my reasoning skills a great deal thanks to the internet. Back around 1998 I got involved in an email discussion group that addressed the Catholic/Protestant debate. My logic skills were poor. My writing skills were poor. But I enjoyed the debate enough to participate despite that, and my skills developed. Armed with better reasoning skills I attempted to defend the Bible and Christianity. You know how that worked out. Learning new facts (thanks particularly to the Secular Web) and at the same time using logic to develop conclusions, I was led away from Christianity. And I'm grateful for that.
The same thing happened with Republican type politics. Corporate media has a pretty loud megaphone, and without the internet I suppose I'd have continued to be led around by the nose in a manner they preferred. My view of the world and the US role in it had been the standard, rah rah, murica is the best, etc, and now I think it's more informed. This wouldn't have happened without the internet.
So the internet is good for human development in so many ways. But of course there's a lot of other stuff on the internet. Stuff that you do that doesn't really help you develop as a person too much. In the summer of 1995 I happened to be stuck in an apartment in Ann Arbor. Single, working as an intern, and with few friends still in town I was quite bored. I had a roommate that played guitar. I was always fascinated by it. Maybe this is not true for a lot of people, but to me it seemed absolutely baffling. How could someone possibly play this device? And sing while they played it, doing both things at once? It seemed so complicated. And yet I knew that all kinds of people did it. It had to be possible. And I was bored. So I asked my roommate and another friend that knew how to play to teach me. And they did. I still play. Here I am trying to play Canon. It's beyond my abilities to do it well at the moment. I'm sure I could improve. But the key is I developed a skill that is very rewarding to me. It brings me a lot of pleasure to strum and pick various tunes. I'm proud that I was able to develop a skill that at one time seemed so complicated.
If the internet in 1995 had been what it is today I honestly don't know if I'd have ever learned to play. There's too much fun to be had. Take this subreddit as an example. Hilarious stuff. You can kill a lot of time there and fail to be motivated by boredom to develop a skill that brings real joy.
Part of what contributed to my desire to reduce my internet usage was this subreddit on minimalism. This video is maybe a good example of some of the information that informed me. It's about a guy that lives an extremely simple life. If you watch it (it's 13 minutes) you'll see that he's in an apartment that is completely bare. I'm not advocating or not advocating such a lifestyle, but I thought it was kind of liberating to recognize that in terms of material possession we don't really need a whole lot. Since we don't lack in material posessions, what do we lack? We lack skills and abilities that require time to develop. We don't have unlimited time. You can go out and buy a possession today. But you can't just pick up a guitar and start playing. That takes time. Do I really value my golf clubs, my sound system, my cool TV, all the various crap stuffed in closets around the house? Not nearly as much as I value the knowledge I've gained in debate online or the skills I've developed playing guitar (and I know these are not great skills, and even still I value them).
So the reason I'm a little less active on the internet lately is because I'm trying to develop some other skills that are important to me. There are a few things that I aspire to do. One is to learn a foreign language well enough that I could converse in that language. To me it's like the guitar. It's baffling that people have this capability, and yet I know millions of people do it. So perhaps if I applied myself I could do it too. About a month ago I was thinking about this while at the library and I saw some materials for learning Mandarin. Why not? So I grabbed it and I've started working on it.
To succeed at a foreign language you've got to commit. My commitment may not be enough at the moment, but I'm dialing back internet usage to apply myself more to language. Maybe in the future I'll try my hand at Spanish. I've made a run at it before. I made progress, but not enough to where I could have a fluid conversation with a native. But maybe I'll try again with a more intense commitment. Maybe one day I'll try my hand at piano. I've always been interested in that. If I could do it I think I'd value that skill more than I value my material possessions.
A while back I realized that I was wasting too much time with sports. I'd spend all of Saturday watching college football and all of Sunday doing the same. I could easily waste 6 hours on a Saturday and another 3 on Sunday. What do I have to show for all that sitting? Knowledge of what happened during a sporting event that just doesn't matter. Not that I don't like football. I still like watching. These guys are impressive. But my prioritization wasn't right. I reduced the time I spent watching dramatically. Instead of watching the full Lions game I'll usually just get the highlights. Or maybe not even that (I actually don't know who won yesterday, or even who the Lions played). Instead of watching football I was reading books on controversial topics that informed me as I debated online. For me the knowledge gained there was a lot more valuable than the knowledge I would have gained watching a football game.
What I learned of football I think applies somewhat to my internet usage. I'm not planning on giving it up. I'm still here debating. But maybe just a little less frequently for a while as I try to work on some other life skills that will be rewarding if I can achieve them.
What's kind of funny is that I don't know if I'd have realized this without the internet. The internet is both the cause of and solution to these various problems. The same thing Homer says of alcohol.
I developed my reasoning skills a great deal thanks to the internet. Back around 1998 I got involved in an email discussion group that addressed the Catholic/Protestant debate. My logic skills were poor. My writing skills were poor. But I enjoyed the debate enough to participate despite that, and my skills developed. Armed with better reasoning skills I attempted to defend the Bible and Christianity. You know how that worked out. Learning new facts (thanks particularly to the Secular Web) and at the same time using logic to develop conclusions, I was led away from Christianity. And I'm grateful for that.
The same thing happened with Republican type politics. Corporate media has a pretty loud megaphone, and without the internet I suppose I'd have continued to be led around by the nose in a manner they preferred. My view of the world and the US role in it had been the standard, rah rah, murica is the best, etc, and now I think it's more informed. This wouldn't have happened without the internet.
So the internet is good for human development in so many ways. But of course there's a lot of other stuff on the internet. Stuff that you do that doesn't really help you develop as a person too much. In the summer of 1995 I happened to be stuck in an apartment in Ann Arbor. Single, working as an intern, and with few friends still in town I was quite bored. I had a roommate that played guitar. I was always fascinated by it. Maybe this is not true for a lot of people, but to me it seemed absolutely baffling. How could someone possibly play this device? And sing while they played it, doing both things at once? It seemed so complicated. And yet I knew that all kinds of people did it. It had to be possible. And I was bored. So I asked my roommate and another friend that knew how to play to teach me. And they did. I still play. Here I am trying to play Canon. It's beyond my abilities to do it well at the moment. I'm sure I could improve. But the key is I developed a skill that is very rewarding to me. It brings me a lot of pleasure to strum and pick various tunes. I'm proud that I was able to develop a skill that at one time seemed so complicated.
If the internet in 1995 had been what it is today I honestly don't know if I'd have ever learned to play. There's too much fun to be had. Take this subreddit as an example. Hilarious stuff. You can kill a lot of time there and fail to be motivated by boredom to develop a skill that brings real joy.
Part of what contributed to my desire to reduce my internet usage was this subreddit on minimalism. This video is maybe a good example of some of the information that informed me. It's about a guy that lives an extremely simple life. If you watch it (it's 13 minutes) you'll see that he's in an apartment that is completely bare. I'm not advocating or not advocating such a lifestyle, but I thought it was kind of liberating to recognize that in terms of material possession we don't really need a whole lot. Since we don't lack in material posessions, what do we lack? We lack skills and abilities that require time to develop. We don't have unlimited time. You can go out and buy a possession today. But you can't just pick up a guitar and start playing. That takes time. Do I really value my golf clubs, my sound system, my cool TV, all the various crap stuffed in closets around the house? Not nearly as much as I value the knowledge I've gained in debate online or the skills I've developed playing guitar (and I know these are not great skills, and even still I value them).
So the reason I'm a little less active on the internet lately is because I'm trying to develop some other skills that are important to me. There are a few things that I aspire to do. One is to learn a foreign language well enough that I could converse in that language. To me it's like the guitar. It's baffling that people have this capability, and yet I know millions of people do it. So perhaps if I applied myself I could do it too. About a month ago I was thinking about this while at the library and I saw some materials for learning Mandarin. Why not? So I grabbed it and I've started working on it.
To succeed at a foreign language you've got to commit. My commitment may not be enough at the moment, but I'm dialing back internet usage to apply myself more to language. Maybe in the future I'll try my hand at Spanish. I've made a run at it before. I made progress, but not enough to where I could have a fluid conversation with a native. But maybe I'll try again with a more intense commitment. Maybe one day I'll try my hand at piano. I've always been interested in that. If I could do it I think I'd value that skill more than I value my material possessions.
A while back I realized that I was wasting too much time with sports. I'd spend all of Saturday watching college football and all of Sunday doing the same. I could easily waste 6 hours on a Saturday and another 3 on Sunday. What do I have to show for all that sitting? Knowledge of what happened during a sporting event that just doesn't matter. Not that I don't like football. I still like watching. These guys are impressive. But my prioritization wasn't right. I reduced the time I spent watching dramatically. Instead of watching the full Lions game I'll usually just get the highlights. Or maybe not even that (I actually don't know who won yesterday, or even who the Lions played). Instead of watching football I was reading books on controversial topics that informed me as I debated online. For me the knowledge gained there was a lot more valuable than the knowledge I would have gained watching a football game.
What I learned of football I think applies somewhat to my internet usage. I'm not planning on giving it up. I'm still here debating. But maybe just a little less frequently for a while as I try to work on some other life skills that will be rewarding if I can achieve them.
Sunday, September 23, 2012
When Capitalism Came to the Soviet Union
I had a discussion yesterday and was reminded about how awful the Soviet Union was and what a nightmare it would have been to live there. I replied as I often do. Compared to the US, the richest country in the world, a lot of places are awful. But just as life was tough in Soviet satellite states, things were pretty tough in nearby US satellites, like Guatemala, Haiti, and Brazil. For them Socialism was ended violently and Capitalism was enforced. I'd have preferred Poland to Haiti. Don't compare Poland and the US. Compare Poland and Haiti.
But there's another question worth considering. How often do you hear about the consequences of Capitalism in the former Soviet states? Not often. What happened? Well, I'm not sure. It wasn't good. I know that. But how bad was it?
It's been difficult for me to discover, but I have a couple of sources that are worth checking out. This one is called "Life After Communism: The Facts". This is an interesting and brief overview. According to this summary of a UN Development Program report 9.6 million men that would otherwise be alive had the Soviet Union not fallen are gone. That's men only. Women apparently did not die at quite as high a rate. I think men suffer more from joblessness and failure to provide then women, more readily turning to alcoholism and suicide. But one would assume many women died as well, meaning the death toll just in less than 10 years would be over 10 million. That's the same order of magnitude as died under Stalin (see here).
The progression can be visualized by going to Gapminder. Click any of the Soviet states and scroll through the fall. By default it plots life expectancy and per capita income. A lot of people are dying through this time period.
Here's another idea worth pursuing. Most people know that Mao instituted polices that killed millions of people. This is another one of those statements frequently offered by free market advocates. How do we know about this? I heard Chomsky discuss this and he made a very interesting point. The claim is based on the detailed work of a highly respected scholar. This scholar produced a report that explained what happened. That same report offers additional information. While Mao did institute polices that led directly to the death of millions of people he also instituted policies that in fact saved an equal or greater number of people from starvation.
Chomsky is not defending what Mao did but only pointing out that while you hear a lot about the death you hear nothing about the millions saved. Why is that?
Well, we know why. It's the same reason everyone knows that Stalin killed millions but few know that free market reforms in the Soviet Union also killed millions. In fact the reason I'm writing this post is because when I claimed that market reforms killed millions my critic didn't believe it and wanted evidence. Which is fine. He should want evidence. He's never heard of this stuff. And that's not surprising.
On Socialism workers enjoy the fruits of their labor and on Capitalism non-working owners get the fruits of the labor and the workers get a lesser amount. Who likes that arrangement? The non-working owners. Mitt Romney made $20 million in 2010. This is not him living off the surplus value he created in the past. He actually gets the value that is created by workers in 2010. That's what dividends are. People work for a company and make profits. They send the money to Mitt Romney. It takes a lot of work. It's not work that Mitt Romney does. The workers do it. He gets it.
So who likes that arrangement? Mitt Romney and others that are the richest people in the world. These are the same people that own the media. And they own the companies that advertise in the media. Any system that deprives them of collecting the majority of money while doing none of the work is a system they will fear. Obviously. They want to continue to get most of the money while doing none of the work.
The Soviet Union wasn't Socialist and neither was Mao's China. But they did not allow the Capitalist to make money doing nothing. So that which they did that was good is ignored. That which they did that was evil (and they did a lot of evil) is trumpeted from the rooftops.
We need to not forget that. Let's criticize Mao and Stalin. But let's also admit that yes, their non-Capitalists systems produced some successes as well. For instance the Soviet Union put a rover on Venus. That's pretty impressive. China and the Soviet Union have (had) major problems. But that doesn't mean that workers sending what they earn off to non-working owners is the only alternative.
But there's another question worth considering. How often do you hear about the consequences of Capitalism in the former Soviet states? Not often. What happened? Well, I'm not sure. It wasn't good. I know that. But how bad was it?
It's been difficult for me to discover, but I have a couple of sources that are worth checking out. This one is called "Life After Communism: The Facts". This is an interesting and brief overview. According to this summary of a UN Development Program report 9.6 million men that would otherwise be alive had the Soviet Union not fallen are gone. That's men only. Women apparently did not die at quite as high a rate. I think men suffer more from joblessness and failure to provide then women, more readily turning to alcoholism and suicide. But one would assume many women died as well, meaning the death toll just in less than 10 years would be over 10 million. That's the same order of magnitude as died under Stalin (see here).
The progression can be visualized by going to Gapminder. Click any of the Soviet states and scroll through the fall. By default it plots life expectancy and per capita income. A lot of people are dying through this time period.
Here's another idea worth pursuing. Most people know that Mao instituted polices that killed millions of people. This is another one of those statements frequently offered by free market advocates. How do we know about this? I heard Chomsky discuss this and he made a very interesting point. The claim is based on the detailed work of a highly respected scholar. This scholar produced a report that explained what happened. That same report offers additional information. While Mao did institute polices that led directly to the death of millions of people he also instituted policies that in fact saved an equal or greater number of people from starvation.
Chomsky is not defending what Mao did but only pointing out that while you hear a lot about the death you hear nothing about the millions saved. Why is that?
Well, we know why. It's the same reason everyone knows that Stalin killed millions but few know that free market reforms in the Soviet Union also killed millions. In fact the reason I'm writing this post is because when I claimed that market reforms killed millions my critic didn't believe it and wanted evidence. Which is fine. He should want evidence. He's never heard of this stuff. And that's not surprising.
On Socialism workers enjoy the fruits of their labor and on Capitalism non-working owners get the fruits of the labor and the workers get a lesser amount. Who likes that arrangement? The non-working owners. Mitt Romney made $20 million in 2010. This is not him living off the surplus value he created in the past. He actually gets the value that is created by workers in 2010. That's what dividends are. People work for a company and make profits. They send the money to Mitt Romney. It takes a lot of work. It's not work that Mitt Romney does. The workers do it. He gets it.
So who likes that arrangement? Mitt Romney and others that are the richest people in the world. These are the same people that own the media. And they own the companies that advertise in the media. Any system that deprives them of collecting the majority of money while doing none of the work is a system they will fear. Obviously. They want to continue to get most of the money while doing none of the work.
The Soviet Union wasn't Socialist and neither was Mao's China. But they did not allow the Capitalist to make money doing nothing. So that which they did that was good is ignored. That which they did that was evil (and they did a lot of evil) is trumpeted from the rooftops.
We need to not forget that. Let's criticize Mao and Stalin. But let's also admit that yes, their non-Capitalists systems produced some successes as well. For instance the Soviet Union put a rover on Venus. That's pretty impressive. China and the Soviet Union have (had) major problems. But that doesn't mean that workers sending what they earn off to non-working owners is the only alternative.
Thursday, September 20, 2012
Romney is Not the Greatest Candidate
For Romney the people that actually do the work that make his profits possible are "freeloaders". He gets enough money to actually pay some income tax. Not that he works. He just gets the money others create. He gives some of that money they created to the government via his income taxes so HE is the one bringing value, whereas the workers that don't get to keep much of the value they create, and hence don't earn enough to pay INCOME taxes are the slackers. Never mind that they actually pay a higher proportion of their income in taxes than Romney. There are other taxes besides the income tax. That's irrelevant. They are freeloaders because Romney says that there is one specific tax that they don't pay.
This is quite ironic. I mean, Romney has been running for President since like 2007. Who can just run for President for 5 years? I can't just quit my job and run for President. I have obligations. I have to go into work and accomplish some things in order to earn a salary, because I have to provide for myself and my family. I can't just sleep in every day. But Romney can. And yet he sees himself like he's the hard working one and tomato pickers and janitors are lazy. They get up in the morning, Mitt. They are on their feet. You are probably sleeping. You are the freeloader.
Stewart later covers the Fox News spin, which is also fun. I'll just provide a link here.
This is quite ironic. I mean, Romney has been running for President since like 2007. Who can just run for President for 5 years? I can't just quit my job and run for President. I have obligations. I have to go into work and accomplish some things in order to earn a salary, because I have to provide for myself and my family. I can't just sleep in every day. But Romney can. And yet he sees himself like he's the hard working one and tomato pickers and janitors are lazy. They get up in the morning, Mitt. They are on their feet. You are probably sleeping. You are the freeloader.
Stewart later covers the Fox News spin, which is also fun. I'll just provide a link here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)