The Journal posed an interesting question in their December 20th editorial, "9/11 changes debate on electronic spying". Unfortunately by taking the President's answers they have dropped out of the debate, presuming there ever was one. The point is not whether eavesdropping would have prevented anything.
If going to war was necessary because existing policies were not working, the President should at least be required to prove not only that wiretaps prevent something but that he could not have used them under the law, both before September 11th, and after congress granted broader authority. Until congress finishes the promised and forgotten investigation into the use of pre-war intelligence, we should be very concerned whether any is being used to protect our constitution.
I don’t know if enough in congress have learned any lessons, but certainly not this editorial board. They concluded, "Once we may have joined in that debate. But that was before Sept. 11, when we were awakened to a reality we didn't see coming. If electronic spying could have stopped Mohammed Atta and his cohorts ... you should be able to finish that sentence yourself."
If it is that simple, what is the next thing we won’t see coming and what will prevent another wake-up? How much power is needed to prevent power from being grabbed, either by leaders or followers? Maybe in the Journals dreams it will all work out, but they certainly can‘t be depended upon to burst any bubbles either as a member of the fourth estate or by knowing a debate if there was one. The problem is that those who could finish the answer to the one question miss the irony in having one point of view.
[The Journal probably thinks their readers don't know that the media is the Fourth Estate, and that is just fine with the paper as they are not doing their job anyway.]
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query journal. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query journal. Sort by date Show all posts
Monday, January 30, 2006
Friday, April 02, 2004
A CONUNDRUM INSIDE A PREEMPTIVE COMMISSION.
This began as a contribution to MoveOn.org’s The O'Franken Factor Misleading Quote Contest. But it may be a most revealing quote.
Scott McClellan: King County Journal
“We are providing the commission with access to all the information they need to do their job.”
Heading: Bush keeps Clinton files from 9/11 commission.
Not an audio, but from the NY Times in my local paper. There is a third feature of this besides, both stupid and false, it is also a truth about what exemplifies a truth as preemptively determined.
Since rules are usually thrown out the window by the administration, I hope this makes it under the wire. See, I saw this in my April 2nd, King County Journal (Bellevue, Wa) which makes the quote if found in audio outside the rules of this contest.
I guess it is a stretch also that this "stand on it's own". Is there a contest for irony?
This began as a contribution to MoveOn.org’s The O'Franken Factor Misleading Quote Contest. But it may be a most revealing quote.
Scott McClellan: King County Journal
“We are providing the commission with access to all the information they need to do their job.”
Heading: Bush keeps Clinton files from 9/11 commission.
Not an audio, but from the NY Times in my local paper. There is a third feature of this besides, both stupid and false, it is also a truth about what exemplifies a truth as preemptively determined.
Since rules are usually thrown out the window by the administration, I hope this makes it under the wire. See, I saw this in my April 2nd, King County Journal (Bellevue, Wa) which makes the quote if found in audio outside the rules of this contest.
I guess it is a stretch also that this "stand on it's own". Is there a contest for irony?
Tuesday, October 28, 2003
My Context
[The Journal word count was 250 words and the New York Times wants no more than 150, limiting me to the style I chose rather than to actually try to put in context what Safire failed to do.]
For the Safire piece go to:
Dean's Urban Legend
For the context straightened out go to:
Safire-Works
[update 1-29-09 links and heading]
New York Times
King County Journal
For the Safire piece go to:
Dean's Urban Legend
For the context straightened out go to:
Safire-Works
[update 1-29-09 links and heading]
New York Times
King County Journal
Sunday, October 02, 2011
Retro-Gate
Iran-Contra, WMD, October No-Surprise.
Not to preemptively prophet[!]
Not to bring back the draft,
but here are some posts held in draft.
Update: Muffin Gate: Miff In Gate
Pulled from draft today!
[Oops, a bit redundant]
Great Ledership
It's Mad[!]
[!] = sarcasm / spelling as intended = [sp!]
Close enough for journal work?
[10-3-11 Just to be clear, I believe in nuance and the law, but as different fields. What I can't say is that I am clearly satire, but the field might be mis-ledership***. But not to coin a new field, here are some other* perspectives, not to say they are the same field. (two video, two scroll overs)
*after the break: Stewart on NRA / teaching** to the test? NOT!]
** speaking of headings*** or retro
*** footnote to clarify later:
moral economics(INET/Robert Reich)& even later
BTW: sub-heading(Just to be clear...) I did not mean to wind-up a G'Ribble, but you can't judge a target by its aim, fear-mongers need a boogie-man. Aims are directions not bulls-eyes.
Definition: G'Ribble- grand ribbing and riddle
[*4] Ratigan and Perugia: processes
Not to preemptively prophet[!]
Not to bring back the draft,
but here are some posts held in draft.
Update: Muffin Gate: Miff In Gate
Pulled from draft today!
[Oops, a bit redundant]
Great Ledership
It's Mad[!]
[!] = sarcasm / spelling as intended = [sp!]
Close enough for journal work?
[10-3-11 Just to be clear, I believe in nuance and the law, but as different fields. What I can't say is that I am clearly satire, but the field might be mis-ledership***. But not to coin a new field, here are some other* perspectives, not to say they are the same field. (two video, two scroll overs)
*after the break: Stewart on NRA / teaching** to the test? NOT!]
** speaking of headings*** or retro
*** footnote to clarify later:
moral economics(INET/Robert Reich)& even later
BTW: sub-heading(Just to be clear...) I did not mean to wind-up a G'Ribble, but you can't judge a target by its aim, fear-mongers need a boogie-man. Aims are directions not bulls-eyes.
Definition: G'Ribble- grand ribbing and riddle
[*4] Ratigan and Perugia: processes
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Mission Accomplished
(AP photo see link)
A case of colors.
The Wall Street Journal is not necessarily the first source for Obama flag waving, but the lede is this: Obama Lauds Troops as Iraq War Winds Up. But under my ledership*, I must note that "Mr. Obama was careful not to declare victory." But Colonel Wilkerson and Rachel Maddow rally** my reasons for the lede here. "Hooah!"
* yes "ledership"(sic)
[link is leadership]
** link yet to be embedded (here)
[Speaking of battles and drafts, yet to be. (Ground Troops***)]
*** i.e. foot noted
[PEA CE OUT]
12-15-11 [*] "Hooha!" Not Exactly,
but close enough[!] (for gov'meant work)
[Nor black and white, but here are four perspectives. This is a deeply embedded line. It is about working together and leadership, not without ledership. The gist of it is in regards to the process of crafting good documents(let alone with imperfect people). As in what the heck is Obama doing, let alone Ron Wyden, or Rand Paul.(or Keynes/Hayek) The most important ingredient in these threads is the people, their understanding, and elections that matter. Issues bring the people to the table, and the ballot box.]
[No Horsing around.]
[*]Well maybe a little horsing around. But with respect to follow-up to Awkward Segue, and "four perspectives"(text today) I note that Norman Goldman addresses the NDAA, and was looking forward to Randy Rhodes giving her perspective, but David Sirota was sitting in.]
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Ground Zero
Just returned from an East Coast journey, the complete itinerary and journal is not available, but we managed to take in many historic sites, from Boston Harbor, and Ground Zero to Stony Hill Inn.
It was our own little Tea Party of sorts, but we must note in passing, the anniversaries of Katrina and the memorable Martin Luther King Jr. Speech.
[8-27-10 Our first view of Ground Zero]
Monday, September 28, 2009
Lost Leader of the Write.
William Safire, R.I.P.
In honor of the departed and a loyal opposition, I lead with the write source and then what's left. He will be missed more than words can say. More than some can catch up on. Nonetheless it was about the culture of words.
Previous mistributes: My letter to the editor of the now defunct, King County Journal, his replacement Will I ams, and a reprise.*]
May he truly Rest in Peace.
*missing reference
In honor of the departed and a loyal opposition, I lead with the write source and then what's left. He will be missed more than words can say. More than some can catch up on. Nonetheless it was about the culture of words.
Previous mistributes: My letter to the editor of the now defunct, King County Journal, his replacement Will I ams, and a reprise.*]
May he truly Rest in Peace.
*missing reference
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Patriotism is Progressive
Not just a cliche!
See the movie, check out the principles, and the book.
[Looking back, looking forward, and in between?(updated) Key reads are convoluted, amidst those nfry and those I have or will review. Labels will hint at some progress. In this particular, the bold forward (above) is a programming note for the Bill Moyers Journal, airing TOMORROW!]
[Heck, here it is: Middle East Policy, and while I am at it(nfry) Energy and Labor! (Speaking of hard work, see above first link.)
See the movie, check out the principles, and the book.
[Looking back, looking forward, and in between?(updated) Key reads are convoluted, amidst those nfry and those I have or will review. Labels will hint at some progress. In this particular, the bold forward (above) is a programming note for the Bill Moyers Journal, airing TOMORROW!]
[Heck, here it is: Middle East Policy, and while I am at it(nfry) Energy and Labor! (Speaking of hard work, see above first link.)
Thursday, January 16, 2014
escapement?
While thinking about the type of people who can take a watch apart and put it back together again, I thought... I've never done that. But in thinking about the mechanics of it, I may have recalled
something in regards to the nature of pendulums, springs and gears. The term "escapement" came up in regard to clocks on the History Channel. That aside I may not get around to taking a clock apart, let alone following up* on the particulars of what I will now put together, but it feels** similar.
How Many Ways Can Maureen Dowd Embarrass Journalism? by Charles Pierce Esquire**
Tea Party hatches quiet-but-insane plot against democracy: Meet the “12 Percent Solution” by Paul Rosenberg ***
P versus NP problem wikipedia with credit to Elementary
The Secular Coalition and Religious Freedom Day.
* 1-17-13 added 2 inserts based on heading alone, and added labels
** (indicating read) Journal** about Journalism and Humor (Manichean Duelity) (Hegel tine Identity?)
*** only begun tofight(I mean read)(OW)^
Note: there are 3(**) but only one Mani[!] (buh dump ump)(ow)
^ 1-19-14: Before I go further. (bdu)
to reads: Personally I do not think Edward Snowden is a whistle-blower, nor is the debate over. Nor is the last read yet connected to the second to last, but maybe to the further and the branching problem.
something in regards to the nature of pendulums, springs and gears. The term "escapement" came up in regard to clocks on the History Channel. That aside I may not get around to taking a clock apart, let alone following up* on the particulars of what I will now put together, but it feels** similar.
How Many Ways Can Maureen Dowd Embarrass Journalism? by Charles Pierce Esquire**
Tea Party hatches quiet-but-insane plot against democracy: Meet the “12 Percent Solution” by Paul Rosenberg ***
P versus NP problem wikipedia with credit to Elementary
The Secular Coalition and Religious Freedom Day.
* 1-17-13 added 2 inserts based on heading alone, and added labels
** (indicating read) Journal** about Journalism and Humor (Manichean Duelity) (Hegel tine Identity?)
*** only begun to
Note: there are 3(**) but only one Mani[!] (buh dump ump)(ow)
to reads: Personally I do not think Edward Snowden is a whistle-blower, nor is the debate over. Nor is the last read yet connected to the second to last, but maybe to the further and the branching problem.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Reaganomics and Joe the Plumber
What is the differences between Reaganomics and Joe the Plumber?
The former is about the affluent, and the latter the effluent.
I think Joe called himself a flash in the pan, well it may be in the kitchen where trickledown has sizzled away.
These are the worst mixed metaphors that really should make us steam.
I won't even plug the links to this @rap, but snake them in here,
and this is no $#!+
Greenspan: "Shocked Disbelief" Robert Borosage
Alan Shrugged? 3 point Oh.*
Bill Moyer's Journal: JK Galbraith and Playing for Change
Aren't we all.**
* bottoms up ecomomists
** a double entendre with a lighter note
The former is about the affluent, and the latter the effluent.
I think Joe called himself a flash in the pan, well it may be in the kitchen where trickledown has sizzled away.
These are the worst mixed metaphors that really should make us steam.
I won't even plug the links to this @rap, but snake them in here,
and this is no $#!+
Greenspan: "Shocked Disbelief" Robert Borosage
Alan Shrugged? 3 point Oh.*
Bill Moyer's Journal: JK Galbraith and Playing for Change
Aren't we all.**
* bottoms up ecomomists
** a double entendre with a lighter note
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Daily Sarcasm (I mean, Intel)
McCain suspends politics,
McCain/Bush Gimmick
Comment: Sarcasm aside the markets were stable yesterday, and given the credibility of the president, his scare tactics may just calm the market. Or could it be, when things get tough, the tough get going. Obama and congress (Democrats anyway) have kept their cool and continued their work, while Republicans may be in faux retreat. Meaning the "Paulson Plunder", 3-1/2 pages, which are no longer on the table, has evolved into something more sensible unless it can not make it into new words on paper that actually have teeth.
It is noted that "It was the first time in Mr. Bush’s presidency that he delivered a prime-time speech devoted exclusively to the economy." While I was thinking something similar, but mostly that this was the so-called MBA president, who is finally learning something.
Stay tuned... but I think I will suspend something.
Meanwhile: more whining, and I wonder what McCain will say about Letterman and CBS.
Other's comments: gawker? And to contrast the journalism of the New York Times. I suspect this is really why Palin was picked to create a media conspiracy. Almost hinted at here, as "anti-media manipulation", well this week was the test of "real dignity and cool". This last being my unspinning of spinmeister or mistress* Peggy Noonan of the Wall Street Journal on Friday. (Noonan: Reagan speech-writer and Special Assistant, and free market think tank trustee.
* Is madame maybe more accurate? But they are probably against being PC.
McCain/Bush Gimmick
Comment: Sarcasm aside the markets were stable yesterday, and given the credibility of the president, his scare tactics may just calm the market. Or could it be, when things get tough, the tough get going. Obama and congress (Democrats anyway) have kept their cool and continued their work, while Republicans may be in faux retreat. Meaning the "Paulson Plunder", 3-1/2 pages, which are no longer on the table, has evolved into something more sensible unless it can not make it into new words on paper that actually have teeth.
It is noted that "It was the first time in Mr. Bush’s presidency that he delivered a prime-time speech devoted exclusively to the economy." While I was thinking something similar, but mostly that this was the so-called MBA president, who is finally learning something.
Stay tuned... but I think I will suspend something.
Meanwhile: more whining, and I wonder what McCain will say about Letterman and CBS.
Other's comments: gawker? And to contrast the journalism of the New York Times. I suspect this is really why Palin was picked to create a media conspiracy. Almost hinted at here, as "anti-media manipulation", well this week was the test of "real dignity and cool". This last being my unspinning of spinmeister or mistress* Peggy Noonan of the Wall Street Journal on Friday. (Noonan: Reagan speech-writer and Special Assistant, and free market think tank trustee.
* Is madame maybe more accurate? But they are probably against being PC.
Friday, January 23, 2009
New York Pick
New* Media Link
Paterson picks Gillibrand. I think it was obviously a very calculated pick and leaves it wide open for competition.
* New to me(The National Journal is not) but if you want to sort the other side**, it is a lot of hard work (below link).
** in my view there really is no other side, there is only spin or unspin if you only have polarity
[update to link below]
Paterson picks Gillibrand. I think it was obviously a very calculated pick and leaves it wide open for competition.
* New to me(The National Journal is not) but if you want to sort the other side**, it is a lot of hard work (below link).
** in my view there really is no other side, there is only spin or unspin if you only have polarity
[update to link below]
Thursday, September 27, 2012
Dancing &Co
Dancing and Bernstein*** and Simon Says.
Is Roger Simon concidering a genre change?
Or has he always been so sharp?
Unlike?(Wall Street Joe?)[Or is it Mourning Joe?]
9-28-12 Follow-up : Sharp Unlike.
Roger Simon's parody of a mockery on the campaign trail **. (Or cam pain?*)
Wall Street Journal agrees it is the stupid congress.
*Tommy Christopher digs deeper. 'zzzzzzzz'
(Iron knee of sat ire read it completely.)
** (b.s. ). satire mockery
*** can Ohioans do math or what [!] ?
(I know percentage does not equal vote but I am employing mythmatic. Chances of Romney win in Ohio below 4%. Yet to compare maps or 538.)
[Bottomline: It is not the prophets or Simon says corporate capitalizers, but it may be the Peter Paul and Mary principle. No, just the Peter principle and robbing Paul to pay Peter. A bird in the hand is worth not having two bushes or an etch-a-sketch Bush is more dangerous when they think they will do one^ better.]
^ not to (fn) butt...
Is Roger Simon concidering a genre change?
Or has he always been so sharp?
Unlike?(Wall Street Joe?)[Or is it Mourning Joe?]
9-28-12 Follow-up : Sharp Unlike.
Roger Simon's parody of a mockery on the campaign trail **. (Or cam pain?*)
Wall Street Journal agrees it is the stupid congress.
*Tommy Christopher digs deeper. 'zzzzzzzz'
(Iron knee of sat ire read it completely.)
** (b.s. ). satire mockery
*** can Ohioans do math or what [!] ?
(I know percentage does not equal vote but I am employing mythmatic. Chances of Romney win in Ohio below 4%. Yet to compare maps or 538.)
[Bottomline: It is not the prophets or Simon says corporate capitalizers, but it may be the Peter Paul and Mary principle. No, just the Peter principle and robbing Paul to pay Peter. A bird in the hand is worth not having two bushes or an etch-a-sketch Bush is more dangerous when they think they will do one^ better.]
^ not to (fn) butt...
Thursday, March 03, 2011
The one thing?
[Right Columns Being Updated]
Well...
it was a chart that demonstrates the effects on GNP for various stimulative choices.
Translation:
Tax Cuts Bad
Federal Spending Good.
This of course is overly simplified, and relative to the position on the (Laffer) bell curve for tax rates.
Permanent tax cuts do not get even get half their money's worth of stimulative effect, while all categories under federal spending get well more than their buck's bang.
Speaking of "Killing two birds with one stone"...
Rachel Maddow [*] addresses the issue of Wisconsin and why Democrats exist(economic populism).
(Wall Street Journal/NBC Poll)
[Navigation aid: see bold link(s)]
[UPDATE 1-22-11 Keith and Rachel, D-part meant of Corrections and Stephanie Miller]
[Bottom Line? Democrats can stand strong and the American people will support them, and standing with the unions of Wisconsin and collective bargaining will be what the average American supports, the lopsided money and media to the contrary.]
[Potential follow-up: No to Violence, No to Prank News: But seriously.]
[*] my apologies the bold Rachel Maddow link has been corrected
[further Huckabee, Ed Schultz, Norman Goldman**, and Reverse Re-Verses.]
** must add show link for Norman
Well...
it was a chart that demonstrates the effects on GNP for various stimulative choices.
Translation:
Tax Cuts Bad
Federal Spending Good.
This of course is overly simplified, and relative to the position on the (Laffer) bell curve for tax rates.
Permanent tax cuts do not get even get half their money's worth of stimulative effect, while all categories under federal spending get well more than their buck's bang.
Speaking of "Killing two birds with one stone"...
Rachel Maddow [*] addresses the issue of Wisconsin and why Democrats exist(economic populism).
(Wall Street Journal/NBC Poll)
[Navigation aid: see bold link(s)]
[UPDATE 1-22-11 Keith and Rachel, D-part meant of Corrections and Stephanie Miller]
[Bottom Line? Democrats can stand strong and the American people will support them, and standing with the unions of Wisconsin and collective bargaining will be what the average American supports, the lopsided money and media to the contrary.]
[Potential follow-up: No to Violence, No to Prank News: But seriously.]
[*] my apologies the bold Rachel Maddow link has been corrected
[further Huckabee, Ed Schultz, Norman Goldman**, and Reverse Re-Verses.]
** must add show link for Norman
Thursday, February 20, 2014
Rat Races Van Mices?
Re: Barberization^ ?
Dequilting Platonics ... ? or DecomPart Meantalizing* Plato? (Related reading problematics**).
* two unread reviews of a "have read".
** un-quilted
reboot:quil un-**ted (Not to disparage Sandel ...Slash Segue... but to weave or needle the*** dilemma.)
*** HayesTact (Bonus Straw ? ) O - W
^ Credit: streamica for the following side-bar there.
The Man versus The State (Forward) by Herbert Spencer
views: 1640
@LibertyInOurTime 1485 days ago
links to more online books and essays by Herbert Spencer: The Right to Ignore the Statehttp://mises.org/daily/2624The Reality of Political Momentumhttp://mises.org/daily/4772Education: Intellectual, Moral, and Physicalhttp://mises.org/resources/4968From Freedom to Bondagehttp://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=313 The Principles of Ethics, Volume 1http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=333The Principles of Ethics, Volume 2http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=334Political Institutions, being Part V of the Principles of Sociologyhttp://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1336Justice: Being Part IV of the Principles of Ethicshttp://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1100Essays: Scientific, Political and Speculative, Vol. 1http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=335Essays: Scientific, Political and Speculative, Vol. 2http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=336Essays: Scientific, Political, and Speculative, Vol. 3http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=337Essays on Education and Kindred Subjectshttp://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2249The Study of Sociologyhttp://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1335Social Staticshttp://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=273The Principles of Psychologyhttp://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1394The Data of Ethicshttp://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=331First Principleshttp://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1390Links to essays about Herbert Spencer and his works: Herbert Spencer: Libertarian Prophet by Roderick T. Longhttp://praxeology.net/herbertspencerlibertarianprophet.pdfHerbert Spencer: The Defamation Continues by Roderick T. Longhttp://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/long3.htmlHerbert Spencer: Social Darwinist or Libertarian Prophet? by Peter Richardshttp://mises.org/daily/4779From Spencer's 1884 to Orwell's 1984 by Henry Hazlitthttp://mises.org/daily/2680The Development of Herbert Spencer's Concept of Evolution by Robert M. Younghttp://www.human-nature.com/rmyoung/papers/spencer.html
FYI: I have a collection of Herber Spencer's Books, having only read First Principles.
Update: 2-22-14 Images C-Labels /T
GPS- general practice syndrome?
Dequilting Platonics ... ? or DecomPart Meantalizing* Plato? (Related reading problematics**).
* two unread reviews of a "have read".
** un-quilted
reboot:quil un-**ted (Not to disparage Sandel ...Slash Segue... but to weave or needle the*** dilemma.)
*** HayesTact (Bonus Straw ? ) O - W
^ Credit: streamica for the following side-bar there.
The Man versus The State (Forward) by Herbert Spencer
views: 1640
@LibertyInOurTime 1485 days ago
Audio presentation of Herbert Spencer's classic 1884 book 'The Man versus The State.' Read and produced by Jock Coats and made available online by the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Herbert Spencer lived long enough to witness both the hey-day of classical liberal reform in the mid-nineteenth century—the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846 which ushered in a period of virtual free trade in Britain—and the gradual decline of classical liberalism towards the end of the nineteenth century. It is the latter which helps explain the grumpiness expressed in his later writings such as the collection of essays entitled Facts and Comments (1902). Spencer was born in Derby, England in 1820 to a strict, non-conformist family, and died in 1903. As a young man, Spencer worked for the leading free trade journal of the day, The Economist, from 1848-1853 during which time his first significant book appeared—Social Statics (1850). Here he worked with James Wilson, one of the most consistent advocates of laissez-faire in Britain, Nassau Senior, one of the leading members of the classical school of political economy, and Thomas Hodgskin, a radical individualist author. Much of the rest of his life was spent working on an all-encompassing theory of human development based upon the ideas of individualism, utilitarian moral theory, social and biological evolution, limited government, and laissez-faire economics. In his later writings, most notably The Principles of Sociology (1876-1896), he drew a sharp distinction between the peaceful productivity of free market societies ("the industrial type of society") and the social conflict, political privilege, and proclivity to war and empire inherent in societies with "over-legislation" ("the militant type of society"). In The Man Versus The State (1884) Spencer argued that the politics of vested interests and the increasing demand for economic regulation would lead to a new form of "slavery" and a "rebarbarization" of society. The rise of pro-interventionist "New Liberalism" in the 1880s and 1890s and the outbreak of the Boer War in 1899 confirmed his worst fears. (Source: Liberty Fund, Inc.) Read 'The Man versus The State' online: http://www.econlib.org/library/LFBooks/Spencer/spnMvS.htmlLinks
links to more online books and essays by Herbert Spencer: The Right to Ignore the Statehttp://mises.org/daily/2624The Reality of Political Momentumhttp://mises.org/daily/4772Education: Intellectual, Moral, and Physicalhttp://mises.org/resources/4968From Freedom to Bondagehttp://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=313 The Principles of Ethics, Volume 1http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=333The Principles of Ethics, Volume 2http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=334Political Institutions, being Part V of the Principles of Sociologyhttp://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1336Justice: Being Part IV of the Principles of Ethicshttp://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1100Essays: Scientific, Political and Speculative, Vol. 1http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=335Essays: Scientific, Political and Speculative, Vol. 2http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=336Essays: Scientific, Political, and Speculative, Vol. 3http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=337Essays on Education and Kindred Subjectshttp://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2249The Study of Sociologyhttp://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1335Social Staticshttp://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=273The Principles of Psychologyhttp://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1394The Data of Ethicshttp://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=331First Principleshttp://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1390Links to essays about Herbert Spencer and his works: Herbert Spencer: Libertarian Prophet by Roderick T. Longhttp://praxeology.net/herbertspencerlibertarianprophet.pdfHerbert Spencer: The Defamation Continues by Roderick T. Longhttp://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/long3.htmlHerbert Spencer: Social Darwinist or Libertarian Prophet? by Peter Richardshttp://mises.org/daily/4779From Spencer's 1884 to Orwell's 1984 by Henry Hazlitthttp://mises.org/daily/2680The Development of Herbert Spencer's Concept of Evolution by Robert M. Younghttp://www.human-nature.com/rmyoung/papers/spencer.html
FYI: I have a collection of Herber Spencer's Books, having only read First Principles.
Update: 2-22-14 Images C-Labels /T
GPS- general practice syndrome?
Monday, April 13, 2009
Speaking of on the wall
Or Off it.
I drop two links here for pre-reference:
Everyone Should Pay Income Taxes:
It's bad for our democracy to exempt half the country. by Ari Fleischer / Wall Street Journal Or as The Week put it "Then more people would want less government spending."
And Tea Parties Forever by Paul Krugman / New York Times
Or Just Verses Not? OK they are both spin and I think I have spun it only slightly if at all hear here re: the weak.
My last crack might be off kilter but I am implying I know the spin on these verses and might support the latter over the former. It would only be fair not necessarily balanced to read them.
[OK, I am dizzy only glancing at the first few Ari paragraphs, (which I had previously not seen) as they were just about the spin and the flip-flop, so bingo and kudos to me. And a closer look at Krugman's Tea Parties Forever nails the MoveOn advice.]
[Some are fond of saying that you cannot tax corporations since costs will be passed bown, well deductions are also passed up, so I think that the balance has been (only) slightly struck. Nonetheless some points may be drawn from both pieces but not without more striking out into how work only trickles up and maybe money should not be treated as capital let alone a product or the point.]
[Not to mention the Triplex of Hitchens, Hartmann and Hedges or the rational middle? It is more likely the tri-pod of progress, or heart, hedge and hitch.]
[Update: 12-16-11 As The Week put it, link corrected. And Triplex amended.]
I drop two links here for pre-reference:
Everyone Should Pay Income Taxes:
It's bad for our democracy to exempt half the country. by Ari Fleischer / Wall Street Journal Or as The Week put it "Then more people would want less government spending."
And Tea Parties Forever by Paul Krugman / New York Times
Or Just Verses Not? OK they are both spin and I think I have spun it only slightly if at all hear here re: the weak.
My last crack might be off kilter but I am implying I know the spin on these verses and might support the latter over the former. It would only be fair not necessarily balanced to read them.
[OK, I am dizzy only glancing at the first few Ari paragraphs, (which I had previously not seen) as they were just about the spin and the flip-flop, so bingo and kudos to me. And a closer look at Krugman's Tea Parties Forever nails the MoveOn advice.]
[Some are fond of saying that you cannot tax corporations since costs will be passed bown, well deductions are also passed up, so I think that the balance has been (only) slightly struck. Nonetheless some points may be drawn from both pieces but not without more striking out into how work only trickles up and maybe money should not be treated as capital let alone a product or the point.]
[Not to mention the Triplex of Hitchens, Hartmann and Hedges or the rational middle? It is more likely the tri-pod of progress, or heart, hedge and hitch.]
[Update: 12-16-11 As The Week put it, link corrected. And Triplex amended.]
Wednesday, March 09, 2011
The Curve or Nuance Thing
In this I am referring first to the Laffer Curve, which is propably not exactly a Bell Curve..
Now to un-nuance something or other.** The Laffer Curve has generally been used to argue that reducing taxes will increase government revenue. That is also called Supply Side economics. Reduced taxes(for the rich and corporations) will create jobs that will produce things and the economy will grow. Supply money, or not take it away, and it will supply jobs that will supply products and people will buy more. A better economy means better revenue. If people cannot see a few leaks in this theory, it is not just what I may have left out.
Not just the Demand Side, but also the debt side, the outsourcing, and the Wall Street or commodities side are left out. If money is being left in businesses and jobs, it is not being taxed as income. If it has a lower tax rate it will come out as income that will be spent, but there are fewer people in the top tax brackets to benefit the economy than there are in the lower tax brackets who would benefit the economy by having enough money to pay for their needs let alone their demands. Their decrease in taxes, or other income benefits,* would increase demand for products which would produce demand for jobs, which would increase their ability to benefit the economy. Now of course there are dangers to an either/or supply or demand(or any general) approach to the analysis. Then there are the debt, outsourcing, and Wall Street factors. Taxes are aslo a part of how these issues(debt, trade, and investment) effect the economy as generally explained here,(as well as in a more complex equation of the economy) as well as how changes in tax code may help the economy.
This has generally been more about how reduced taxes can help the economy. But there is the correction to the myth that all reducing of taxes increase the revenue. When that is more properly on the curve or in the equation, increased revenue will come from a general rise in the economy, as well as the proper taxation rate which will benefit the debt picture, which will be good for the economy. Now, too much emphasis on the burden of debt, trade and investment risks, must also find itself on the curve or dynamic equation of the big picture as well.
* two charts
** two curves in first paragraph: Ezra Klein and Eugene Robinson
*** yet to fully read, but a note on foreign aid as something to cut with only 1% of the budget. It just might fit into the above understanding of proper balance and investment not that it all is, but a cut in foreign aid may mean an increase or leak in another part of the picture above.
[I hope the above is easy to understand, but then there is the crack pot calling the kettle "stupid". i.e. Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg disagreeing with what Alan Simpson and Charles Krauthammer think.]
[Also Straw Man D'baits Red Herring. Thomas Sowell is right, there is no trickle down. That is because the money needs to be spent at the bottom, but where does the money come from? From the demand and the production of the worker.]
[3-11-11: two links (an update) from State of Thought blog]
Now to un-nuance something or other.** The Laffer Curve has generally been used to argue that reducing taxes will increase government revenue. That is also called Supply Side economics. Reduced taxes(for the rich and corporations) will create jobs that will produce things and the economy will grow. Supply money, or not take it away, and it will supply jobs that will supply products and people will buy more. A better economy means better revenue. If people cannot see a few leaks in this theory, it is not just what I may have left out.
Not just the Demand Side, but also the debt side, the outsourcing, and the Wall Street or commodities side are left out. If money is being left in businesses and jobs, it is not being taxed as income. If it has a lower tax rate it will come out as income that will be spent, but there are fewer people in the top tax brackets to benefit the economy than there are in the lower tax brackets who would benefit the economy by having enough money to pay for their needs let alone their demands. Their decrease in taxes, or other income benefits,* would increase demand for products which would produce demand for jobs, which would increase their ability to benefit the economy. Now of course there are dangers to an either/or supply or demand(or any general) approach to the analysis. Then there are the debt, outsourcing, and Wall Street factors. Taxes are aslo a part of how these issues(debt, trade, and investment) effect the economy as generally explained here,(as well as in a more complex equation of the economy) as well as how changes in tax code may help the economy.
This has generally been more about how reduced taxes can help the economy. But there is the correction to the myth that all reducing of taxes increase the revenue. When that is more properly on the curve or in the equation, increased revenue will come from a general rise in the economy, as well as the proper taxation rate which will benefit the debt picture, which will be good for the economy. Now, too much emphasis on the burden of debt, trade and investment risks, must also find itself on the curve or dynamic equation of the big picture as well.
* two charts
** two curves in first paragraph: Ezra Klein and Eugene Robinson
*** yet to fully read, but a note on foreign aid as something to cut with only 1% of the budget. It just might fit into the above understanding of proper balance and investment not that it all is, but a cut in foreign aid may mean an increase or leak in another part of the picture above.
[I hope the above is easy to understand, but then there is the crack pot calling the kettle "stupid". i.e. Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg disagreeing with what Alan Simpson and Charles Krauthammer think.]
[Also Straw Man D'baits Red Herring. Thomas Sowell is right, there is no trickle down. That is because the money needs to be spent at the bottom, but where does the money come from? From the demand and the production of the worker.]
[3-11-11: two links (an update) from State of Thought blog]
Tuesday, December 17, 2013
Bury the lede?
Or bury the hatchet?(1)
To be cautious, I am speaking of journalism and myth. To be clear, I have not finished viewing the latter, but the former is certainly an example of Popperism and both contain quilting.**
FYI wars?
(1) YouTubes: [Social Darwinism 1] counterexample? [Bill Gates...Alex Jones]
c. Too Random... / A Tale of Two Manicheans.
d. The Hegel Myth and Its Method
e.^ Proxymoron?
/ Social
Darwinism? / Social
Darwinism 2.0[!] / Catch-44
/ Pink
Floyd / (FP) / Di-Spencer
With... / (FP) / Battle
of Amendments? / Now
the Un-Voodoo Math / Un-Social Darwinism. / The
Daily Counter Balance / Where
everyone needs to read... / "a
royal huff" / Mocumentary: Expelled (Exposed?)
[Label check*, with all the irony of the History Channel.]
* Social Darwinism label as of this date: Bury the lede? / Kant we get along... / 2 Reid's later? / Di-Spencer With...
^ the un-quilting of Social Darwinism
un-related?
** quilting: Ctrl F "quilt"
[Re:genre?] HA !
To be cautious, I am speaking of journalism and myth. To be clear, I have not finished viewing the latter, but the former is certainly an example of Popperism and both contain quilting.**
 |
| Facebook Being Liberal |
FYI wars?
(1) YouTubes: [Social Darwinism 1] counterexample? [Bill Gates...Alex Jones]
c. Too Random... / A Tale of Two Manicheans.
d. The Hegel Myth and Its Method
e.
[Label check*, with all the irony of the History Channel.]
* Social Darwinism label as of this date: Bury the lede? / Kant we get along... / 2 Reid's later? / Di-Spencer With...
un-related?
** quilting: Ctrl F "quilt"
[Re:genre?] HA !
Thursday, September 19, 2002
Flash Back
[Previous and old post is being updated and inserted* here on 11-8-10]
*insert here requires anachronism[See first link for original, second & bottom for contemporaneous frame of job.
[Prologue is past: edited (under construction) below]
* * * * *
[Violating my own scheme of things[11-8-10* under review and update] on this web log, it is necessary to jump to current issues. This was addressed to a particular individual, but is now addressed to those who can do something about it.]
No Fast Track for War-
News flash or Administration Rhetoric? Material Support for Terrorism must be considered as serious as Terrorism itself [?]. From terrorism to regime change, where are we going?
Sometimes statements are rhetorical when they can simply be ended with a question mark or are answers of the following nature. [...because we say it is.] See Mike Moran’s piece on MSNBC, "Say it ain’t so"** from Sept. 9th.
Please investigate the actions of the administration and all those of which previously contributed to the Taliban, Iraq and Iran’s power, or any other dictatorial regimes.
Why did we not invest more in the intelligence chatter that could have prevented September 11th?
More investigations and questions are needed. See Maureen Dowd’s "Cowboy in the Oval Office must be contained." in Sept 19th, Eastside Journal or elsewhere, NY Times.
If congress does not have the guts to stand up to the president and spell out conditions for any action, few people will have the stomach for politics. Without voices of reason to choose from, where will they turn? They will either resign themselves to having no voice or to taking actions themselves. The former will be the greater crowd but as we saw, from the Seattle WTO anarchists and the NY WTC terrorists, the latter can do more damage.
If most of the need for action is based on the intent of the other regime, we must clarify our own intent.
If George F. Will can impugn the intent of Democrats and the UN as "wishful thinking’, we must ask where their thinking and actions will end? [See his Seattle PI, Sept. 19th, "A for prestige, F for performance".]
Fast Track will be disastrous, if it is the wrong track. No action is better and further questions and answers are definitely needed if the action is to open a Pandora’s box. And that is what it will be if you follow the rhetoric and even if you have real questions and answers.
For Wonk reading: See "Looking the World in the Eye" by Robert D. Kaplan in the Atlantic Monthly, December 2001. He reviews the work of Samuel Huntington, (Albert J. Weatherhead III University Professor at Harvard), who spelled out the situation we face.
"Real conservatism cannot aspire to lofty principles, because its task is to defend what already exists. The conservative dilemma is that conservatism's legitimacy can come only from being proved right by events, whereas liberals, whenever they are proved wrong, have universal principles to fall back on. Samuel Huntington has always held liberal ideals. But he knows that such ideals cannot survive without power, and that power requires careful upkeep." pg. 82 [Italics mine, but uncertain of original location.]
That's our job in a democracy. The administration may know where they are going with this, but it is important they know they are not the only ones in the drivers seat.
[* 11-8-10 update bottom link added and edited revision posting here]
** temp link
*insert here requires anachronism[See first link for original, second & bottom for contemporaneous frame of job.
[Prologue is past: edited (under construction) below]
* * * * *
[Violating my own scheme of things[11-8-10* under review and update] on this web log, it is necessary to jump to current issues. This was addressed to a particular individual, but is now addressed to those who can do something about it.]
No Fast Track for War-
News flash or Administration Rhetoric? Material Support for Terrorism must be considered as serious as Terrorism itself [?]. From terrorism to regime change, where are we going?
Sometimes statements are rhetorical when they can simply be ended with a question mark or are answers of the following nature. [...because we say it is.] See Mike Moran’s piece on MSNBC, "Say it ain’t so"** from Sept. 9th.
Please investigate the actions of the administration and all those of which previously contributed to the Taliban, Iraq and Iran’s power, or any other dictatorial regimes.
Why did we not invest more in the intelligence chatter that could have prevented September 11th?
More investigations and questions are needed. See Maureen Dowd’s "Cowboy in the Oval Office must be contained." in Sept 19th, Eastside Journal or elsewhere, NY Times.
If congress does not have the guts to stand up to the president and spell out conditions for any action, few people will have the stomach for politics. Without voices of reason to choose from, where will they turn? They will either resign themselves to having no voice or to taking actions themselves. The former will be the greater crowd but as we saw, from the Seattle WTO anarchists and the NY WTC terrorists, the latter can do more damage.
If most of the need for action is based on the intent of the other regime, we must clarify our own intent.
If George F. Will can impugn the intent of Democrats and the UN as "wishful thinking’, we must ask where their thinking and actions will end? [See his Seattle PI, Sept. 19th, "A for prestige, F for performance".]
Fast Track will be disastrous, if it is the wrong track. No action is better and further questions and answers are definitely needed if the action is to open a Pandora’s box. And that is what it will be if you follow the rhetoric and even if you have real questions and answers.
For Wonk reading: See "Looking the World in the Eye" by Robert D. Kaplan in the Atlantic Monthly, December 2001. He reviews the work of Samuel Huntington, (Albert J. Weatherhead III University Professor at Harvard), who spelled out the situation we face.
"Real conservatism cannot aspire to lofty principles, because its task is to defend what already exists. The conservative dilemma is that conservatism's legitimacy can come only from being proved right by events, whereas liberals, whenever they are proved wrong, have universal principles to fall back on. Samuel Huntington has always held liberal ideals. But he knows that such ideals cannot survive without power, and that power requires careful upkeep." pg. 82 [Italics mine, but uncertain of original location.]
That's our job in a democracy. The administration may know where they are going with this, but it is important they know they are not the only ones in the drivers seat.
[* 11-8-10 update bottom link added and edited revision posting here]
** temp link
Thursday, August 24, 2006
The links that connect
The Mythical End to the Politics of Fear
By Norman Solomon t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Six Questions for Michael Scheuer on National Security
By Ken Silverstein Harper's Magazine
...the logic to the lack of intelligence or is it intention? * It could be diplomacy, but one reason I have less and less to say is that I have said it all before. Usually as to the point as the last post, but others covering the points that are just being hit.
Maybe I heard something like this:
In late November 2002, appearing on the "Washington Journal" program, retired US Army general William Odom told C-SPAN viewers: "Terrorism is not an enemy. It cannot be defeated. It's a tactic. It's about as sensible to say we declare war on night attacks and expect we're going to win that war." [See Solomon]
Or maybe I concluded that earlier. [See War On(or) Terrorism ]
Or maybe what I failed to say:
This may be a country bumpkin approach, but the truth is the best place to start. We need to acknowledge that we are at war, not because of who we are, but because of what we do. We are confronting a jihad that is inspired by the tangible and visible impact of our policies. People are willing to die for that, and we're not going to win by killing them off one by one. [See question 7 of 6 above]
* It being the adminsitration's intentions in all this, but as intelligence goes (or diplomacy for that matter), our so-called enemies can at least know what they know and know that we aren't saying it. Not to mention possibly what our so-called allies may know or not be saying.
By Norman Solomon t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Six Questions for Michael Scheuer on National Security
By Ken Silverstein Harper's Magazine
...the logic to the lack of intelligence or is it intention? * It could be diplomacy, but one reason I have less and less to say is that I have said it all before. Usually as to the point as the last post, but others covering the points that are just being hit.
Maybe I heard something like this:
In late November 2002, appearing on the "Washington Journal" program, retired US Army general William Odom told C-SPAN viewers: "Terrorism is not an enemy. It cannot be defeated. It's a tactic. It's about as sensible to say we declare war on night attacks and expect we're going to win that war." [See Solomon]
Or maybe I concluded that earlier. [See War On(or) Terrorism ]
Or maybe what I failed to say:
This may be a country bumpkin approach, but the truth is the best place to start. We need to acknowledge that we are at war, not because of who we are, but because of what we do. We are confronting a jihad that is inspired by the tangible and visible impact of our policies. People are willing to die for that, and we're not going to win by killing them off one by one. [See question 7 of 6 above]
* It being the adminsitration's intentions in all this, but as intelligence goes (or diplomacy for that matter), our so-called enemies can at least know what they know and know that we aren't saying it. Not to mention possibly what our so-called allies may know or not be saying.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)