Social Darwinism?

Social Darwinism?

Is that not an inconvenient term? I know it relates to "survival of the fittest", but what is social about it? Shouldn't those that don't fit, be thrown to the wolves? Pardon my spin, but if corporations are people, what are communities? I think we are suffering from labelism and spin.

Second Spin: There seems to be something "inconvenient" about this juxtaposition, which is hard to unspin. I know it stems from "survival of the fittest", but is that not the root of being social? Unsocial Darwinism would be no more convenient. But that doesn't stop some from evolving labels and name calling.

[Speaking of Creeping, not to ding Rachel Maddow, but note the Santorum, 3F. Invisible hand anyone? What would Adam Smith say about teachers, drug companies and whose job is what. Not to confuse Popping Culture with Pope Culture. ]

[In light of Righting the Ship?]

The Daily Counter Balance

From The Dylan Ratigan Show:

The Daily Rant**: Today*

Speaking of headings or ledes or 4 ehs [!]

* to be linked here(Goodfriend Tribute to Snowe^)

[Speaking of preemptive embedding, Hardball on Romney speaking in pros, "looking for a KO"^?

Churning media or fulfilling the table, Killing Organizing, or Freedom of Foundation? Let alone "life among the cannibals.^" Not to mention AP-Paul-ING^ "Politics Nation". Do we want an Obama Nation or a Bane Nor Nation?*** Not to Pun on Lioness Pauling up Watson Creek.]

** actually this was on a panel (note anachronism of rant and panel)

*** Susan Del Percio^: Interesting Republican Spokes Person(2:42) in her opening talking points or not needing to defend Ryan but whine about the panel being 4 to 1 against her, before attacking the Senate or...

[3-21-12 ^ late links^^ added: Ryan Plan 2013]

^^ Like a Rolling Stone / Wired (Dylan not Belushi)

[The Glorious Revolution is embedded in the academics of "/","not""^^". Republicans want to revisit the mid-17th Century. See ^^ cycle. Sometimes to tergiversate is better than too sate-yore-deceive. (pun on give/take/receive) (Slash Not what you can do...)(If I may quibble withRobert Reich, and Noam Chomsky, I will have to link later^^^, but the former is related byword play to the latter by George. Society plays a part in defining words, so I guess I can't blame Chomsky for using words that we want to change. This relates to the evolution of the wordholocaust and the war on evolution. It relates to groups claiming words while we also want to define them under the flag of progress. Is abortion genocide? Is war murder? The law decides, while some forsake it, and the politics that decide it.)]

^^^ I must find a Chomsky use of the word murder in the context of war. (The connectingtissueis the use of "social Darwinism" in a way that is contrary to the survival of the fittest, that nails trickle-down to the cross. )

[update: Rober Reich ponders run ]

[on balance and more.]

Note that not only do Democrats spend less they generally contribute less to the national debt, at least since the late 70's. OK, so there are only two Democrats before Obama, but look what happened to Carter for being conservative, and at least in Clinton's case he bent the curve in two terms.

P.S. (Pre-Selection: Romney/Ryan 2012)

Catching Up with US.

OR WATERLOGGED (Cause and Effect/Accountability)

Just why is bureaucracy so at fault when Bush or whoever is in charge (he apparently has to investigate that) added to it by bringing FEMA under Homeland Security?

Homeland Security, and Bush, are more at fault than FEMA, unless blame is only trickle down. (For some it is the people's fault while they serve at the will of the president.)

No wonder New Orleans is flooded. For the sake of millions of bucks passed (NOT), we need billions of buckets to bail out the trickle down.

Maybe there is some sort of "rhetorical" balance in this administration. A linguistic "Tao" of sorts, or that sorts it out. Money is passed up, and "the buck" is passed down. Now I get the schizophrenic partnership between the pillars of the Republican party that are falling upon this country. Religion and the Almighty Dollar do not need to be so close or frictional, but it appears that the dollar to them is meant to rise while the moral burden is for the masses.

Wait. Is this only rhetoric? A metaphor may be more accurate. But rhetoric like money and religion are just words that need to be given meaning by how they are connected to the living and dying. And before I waste more words, I will just say that the bureaucracy is a key in providing the connections to more than just two factors.

The blame does not go to religion, money or bureaucracy which will and must change, but the actors that need to change. The PROCESS must be a two way street of ACCOUNTABILITY between many factors, rather than just the high road and the low road of survival of the "fittest" or we will continue to revolve rather than evolve.

If there is "intelligent design" it may be that I could not make any PROGRESS with a pun about removing the R and replacing the D to improve our evolution. But it also may show the "cause and effect" which is ACCOUNTABILITY that neither party nor people can escape

Now we have come full circle: He trusts the people, not the government, and now everything is on them.

The Good Fight!

Thom Hartmann continues on the economy . Earlier,[*] on the difference in liberal and conservative views. the good versus the evil nature of man and the purpose of government, that of protecting from the latter, the latter has evolved to the point of doing no good. Man and his government, that is, in neo-con hands or that of the truly free and amoral corporation. Evolution seems to have been demonstrated here, as well as the problem of will. For if man* determines his purpose he halts progress, for the survival of the fittest stops working as well, and corporations reach the top of the food chain. Will being, the freedom to choose between good and evil, with corporations having no responsibility.

*Not to be sexist, but just the reference is to the reality. Also the point here is that some men decide and others just need to survive, and let alone their freedom to decide.

[italics bold 6-1-07 edited and noted in next post]
[*] new link inserted here
[**] the latter evolved: and the second latter was the "purpose of government", the immediately prior latter was "conservative views".

Two-wrongs don't mean a Left[!]

Too reads do not mean a dialogue. 

Mid-read(NFRY): (i.e. live footnoting)
Survival of the fittest verses(~) corporate species and arms races[!]
Battle of the Narratives? (Corporate offspring, peacocks and elk.)
(head or tails not treated equally, but...)[somewhat akin to gander or goose?]
[fundamental try-vergence]...(grain v ladder)[LOL read v regulations]
Survival of the Narratives?

4-3-16 to read:
The Atlantic: Obama Doctrine
4-4-16
Hedges/Hudson on Neo-Liberal Economics.

[related (b.s.): Spencer... demo/mice...DecomPart * Meantalizing]
*Moline's Platonics  / Darwinian Physics

Un-Social Darwinism.

When Herbert Spencer* spoke of the "survival of the fittest",

it was more about the fit than the test.

* to be fair and balanced

[Speaking of... Standing his Ground.]

[4-17-12 Post Script**: Buffet Rules,

New Gent Rants]

** link error removed

[3-10-14]