The Ideology of Exclusivity

[ralis]

Isn't this an "ideology of exclusivity"?

 

He proved my point.

[Owledge]

I find it pretty laughable to attribute "vitriol" to her, unless its regarding spendthrift policies or stuff like appeasing adversaries all carrot and no stick

Did you mean all stick and no carrot? Would be more logical, but still not totally sound, but I don't want to nitpick. I just wanted to add a sidenote about the absurdity of how politicians speak the truth they try to conceal without 'anybody' realizing:

Obama talked in regards to Iran about a carrot-on-a-stick policy. What he meant was encouraging/coercing change through incentive. But if you use a metaphor like that, you have to know what it means. It is the picture of the donkey dragging the cart, you holding a carrot on a stick in front of him. The donkey will be driven by the lure of the carrot being just in front of its nose, not by any promise to get it. And that's exactly what they do regarding to Iran and many other countries, and Obama openly admits it through using that metaphor, but on the other hand maintains the offered incentives are supposed to be real.

 

Other cases of irony of metaphor misuse that might be worth looking up in the Wikipedia:

- fighting against windmills (used like David vs. Goliath, but in fact meaning having delusions about powerful enemies that you bravely fight)

- snakeoil salesman (snakeoil having gotten a bad reputation because salesmen used it in fraudulent advertising, while snakeoil is an effective Chinese remedy against various ailments like arthritis)

 

When enough people are ignorant about meanings behind things, you can actually eventually turn their meaning into the opposite.

Edited January 31, 2011 by Hardyg

[joeblast]

haha...no, man...what happens if you sit there and keep feeding a donkey carrots? he certainly doesnt need to budge an inch from what he's presently doing. kinda like the russians didnt need to budge an inch for the start treaty, but we made a bunch of concessions. all carrot, no stick.

[ralis]

Do you spend more time here or at the huffington post? I find it pretty laughable to attribute "vitriol" to her, unless its regarding spendthrift policies or stuff like appeasing adversaries all carrot and no stick - if anything its reactionary, most certainly not causative. And even at that - look up the word vitriol in the dictionary - what's so "highly caustic" that she's said? Or is vitriol simply a cool sounding word to use that's "generally in the direction of what you want to say" even though its not really accurate in the least?

 

Its pretty hypocritical to assault her on the usage of "blood libel" yet overlook everything else that's come from the other side of the political spectrum - even if you want to limit it to only stuff aimed at her!

 

Were you joined in the chorus blaming her for Loughner before anybody opened up the book of real circumstance on the matter?

 

Thomas Hartmann's video just happened to be posted on Huffpo and I used it. Palin's "blood libel" comment is offensive and she is attempting to see herself as a victim! Many others on her map have had death threats. These problems are not separate acts and are indicative of a societal problem.

 

Her rant about the exclusive privilege of being an American is very offensive. In her mind, this country is the exclusive property of God.

 

BTW, for those unfamiliar with the term "blood libel" it is anti-semitic.

Edited February 1, 2011 by ralis

[Owledge]

Yeah ralis, while in Germany the strophe "Deutschland Deutschland über alles" (= above all) is sometimes called the forbidden anthem, saying that the USA are the greatest country in the world or no country compares to the USA is seen as 'healthy patriotism' or some other kind of euphemism. Which basically means that tendencies that Germans now shy away from because they see it to be too closely connected to the Nazi time are 'normal' in the USA. Even if you consider the influence of the reeducation campaign in Germany, seeing your country as better than all others is still very questionable.

Edited February 1, 2011 by Hardyg

[Birch]

In her mind, this country is the exclusive property of God.

 

Which one ?

[ralis]

Which one ?

 

She and others think theirs is the only one.

[Sunya]

I can't imagine her winning presidency if she runs (is she?) let alone being nominated by the Republican party. Many conservatives think McCain could've won if he had a different running mate. Terrible choice really...

 

If Republicans can find a charming person to run, they might win in 2012. People don't understand economics and will probably swing to the right in '12 if a charming conservative runs (not an old guy and a dumb soccer mom). Obama is gaining popularity but that's only because he's finally addressing what this country should do to gain economic stability again. Focusing on healthcare right away was a bad choice with our deficit, two wars, and climbing unemployment. That hit him hard, even though I think a lot of people would've supported healthcare if they weren't worried about losing their job.

[ralis]

I can't imagine her winning presidency if she runs (is she?) let alone being nominated by the Republican party. Many conservatives think McCain could've won if he had a different running mate. Terrible choice really...

 

If Republicans can find a charming person to run, they might win in 2012. People don't understand economics and will probably swing to the right in '12 if a charming conservative runs (not an old guy and a dumb soccer mom). Obama is gaining popularity but that's only because he's finally addressing what this country should do to gain economic stability again. Focusing on healthcare right away was a bad choice with our deficit, two wars, and climbing unemployment. That hit him hard, even though I think a lot of people would've supported healthcare if they weren't worried about losing their job.

 

Chomsky wrote an article last year and compared 1930's Germany to the present day U.S. As you have so aptly stated the Republicans need a charming person, Chomsky said the same thing. Only he termed it a charismatic person with no dirt.

 

If I can find that piece I will post it.

[Sunya]

Chomsky wrote an article last year and compared 1930's Germany to the present day U.S. As you have so aptly stated the Republicans need a charming person, Chomsky said the same thing. Only he termed it a charismatic person with no dirt.

 

If I can find that piece I will post it.

 

Found it, really interesting. Reading it now

 

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Noam-Chomsky-Has-Never-Se-by-Chris-Hedges-100420-466.html

[NeiChuan]

Because it makes you feel better if you believe your are right and you have god on your side.

 

Personally in alot of things I think it's wrong to ask for god to choose your side.

 

Being there's another, why make your mom/dad choose between the other kid kind've thing.

 

In some things it still is fine but to me not too often.

 

Just doesn't sit well.

[ralis]

Found it, really interesting. Reading it now

 

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Noam-Chomsky-Has-Never-Se-by-Chris-Hedges-100420-466.html

 

Thanks for finding that article! Part of what the average follower of Palin fails to comprehend is that the Nazis used the term "blood libel" during the holocaust. Her use of that term has far reaching consequences!

[NeiChuan]

Which one ?

 

I lol'd

[Mark Foote]

Thanks for finding that article! Part of what the average follower of Palin fails to comprehend is that the Nazis used the term "blood libel" during the holocaust. Her use of that term has far reaching consequences!

 

Apparently eugenics was very big in the U.S. in the 'thirties, the Nazis weren't the only ones looking to improve the race.

 

This afternoon in a bookstore I picked up "IBM and the Holocaust", very disturbing account of the history of how the Nazis were able to assemble the lists and organize the operation of the Holocaust; IBM punch-card sorting machines, customized for the purpose.

 

Now the pendulum swings backwards, the internet age produces situations like that in Egypt. Where repression is the norm, however, communication on the internet can be dangerous to one's health. The age of information, and the age of misinformation; read an article in the S.F. Chronicle not too long ago about how stroke victims can tell when someone is lying, they are 60% accurate as opposed to the usual 50%. The example the article gave to make it clear was a doctor's account of a roomful of stroke victims watching Ronald Reagan, and how the room kept bursting into laughter at inappropriate moments.

Edited February 1, 2011 by Mark Foote

[ralis]

Apparently eugenics was very big in the U.S. in the 'thirties, the Nazis weren't the only ones looking to improve the race.

 

This afternoon in a bookstore I picked up "IBM and the Holocaust", very disturbing account of the history of how the Nazis were able to assemble the lists and organize the operation of the Holocaust; IBM punch-card sorting machines, customized for the purpose.

 

Now the pendulum swings backwards, the internet age produces situations like that in Egypt. Where repression is the norm, however, communication on the internet can be dangerous to one's health. The age of information, and the age of misinformation; read an article in the S.F. Chronicle not too long ago about how stroke victims can tell when someone is lying, they are 60% accurate as opposed to the usual 50%. The example the article gave to make it clear was a doctor's account of a roomful of stroke victims watching Ronald Reagan, and how the room kept bursting into laughter at inappropriate moments.

 

I am listening to "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" by William Shirer. He was a first rate journalist unlike the corporate shills spewing propaganda on Fox News and other outlets. Germany in the 30's is very similar to what is occurring in the U.S. at present.

[joeblast]

Chomsky wrote an article last year and compared 1930's Germany to the present day U.S. As you have so aptly stated the Republicans need a charming person, Chomsky said the same thing. Only he termed it a charismatic person with no dirt.

 

If I can find that piece I will post it.

You mean "Physics can't really explain how water flows from the tap in your sink" Chomsky?

"It was america's fault, not the khmer rouge" Chomsky?

"and what's so exciting about at last visiting Venezuela is that I can see how a better world is being created" Chomsky?

 

I lol'd.

 

All one needs to do is moderately use his intellect and he finds Chomsky to be full of preconceived unalterable circular bouts of logic. Really, his own words are plenty enough to deconstruct the hell out of his one-eye-covered blather. Seriously? Who references his own book in a footnote, and then the footnote of reference in the old book is an older reference of another book he also wrote? (ooh! *raises hand* Climate scientists?) Being a real, live, gifted orator, he walks the fine line of presenting inflammatory and accusatory discourse wrapped in equinanimous temperament. Not that he doesnt ever make a decent point - he wouldnt be renowned if he didnt - but he doesnt do a very good job in asserting he's not simply another extreme leftist if you can see through the thicket of the verbiage. Decrying fascism and then turning around and praising socialism is akin to decrying coke to go pour yourself a pepsi.

 

 

 

I was sorta hoping to see some actual evidence instead of just rhetoric about Palin, but I guess an analogy is easily held up as some "offensive violent rhetoric" but then at the same time, things far worse are simply dismissed or otherwise ignored because they come from a similar ideology. Even handed, measure it all with the same stick - yeah, that's the ticket - wait, what happened to that?

 

 

 

 

 

If Obama wasnt the apple of the media's eye in 2008 with just about the full force of them doing everything in their power to paint a target on somebody's back, the outcome would have been different. (We'd probably be bitching about Hilary instead Damned coattails!)

 

 

The next presidential election will not be about electing someone who is charming, flashy and charismatic - we just did that in 2008 and discovered that its not a good idea to have a high school quarterback start in the NFL playoffs - sure, he might be able to complete a pass or two in addition to handing the ball to the running back, but when its fourth and 13 and you need something to happen or the game is lost, all you can really bet money on is a sack or a wild toss out of bounds to avoid one. More people understand after this latest pResidency debacle that substance is actually important; convictions are actually important; your history of how you've handled things in the past is important. It seems to slowly be sinking in to some people's heads that you do actually have to pay for things and that if something is given to you, then it necessarily must have been paid for by someone at some point down the line.

 

Than again, some other people are still all on about rifling through lists of "nice-to-haves" and attempting to relabel them as "rights" and not really caring about who has to pay for it all, because hey, we're some advanced civilization now, we can afford to give it all away for free. NOT.

 

In that vein, it is more important the makeup of the legislature as opposed to who's in the presidential office - if you look at how things have gone under various legislatures, the data speaks for itself. Which is why we've usually done best when one party holds the legislature and the other the presidency - they simply cant do too much!

 

The fact still remains that you cant keep handing out golden eggs if you starve the goose that lays them, keeping her in a small stuffy box like a veal calf. You also cannot poke the goose constantly in an attempt to cajole more eggs out of her, nor can you bring the goose on a worldwide tour to lay golden eggs for all. Give her the whole back yard, let her drop eggs as conditions allow - you may have to deal with a dropping or two whilst you walk about the back yard, but you get a healthy goose that lays big solid eggs

[Owledge]

read an article in the S.F. Chronicle not too long ago about how stroke victims can tell when someone is lying, they are 60% accurate as opposed to the usual 50%. The example the article gave to make it clear was a doctor's account of a roomful of stroke victims watching Ronald Reagan, and how the room kept bursting into laughter at inappropriate moments.

Well, that's an insanely inaccurate method for proving lie detection rates.

 

By the way, a great documentary about the similarities between today's USA and e.g. Nazi Germany is "Camp FEMA - American Lockdown".

[manitou]

The next presidential election will not be about electing someone who is charming, flashy and charismatic - we just did that in 2008

 

 

That's odd. I see Mr. Obama as running the country as you would fry a small fish.

[Mark Foote]

 

The fact still remains that you cant keep handing out golden eggs if you starve the goose that lays them, keeping her in a small stuffy box like a veal calf. You also cannot poke the goose constantly in an attempt to cajole more eggs out of her, nor can you bring the goose on a worldwide tour to lay golden eggs for all. Give her the whole back yard, let her drop eggs as conditions allow - you may have to deal with a dropping or two whilst you walk about the back yard, but you get a healthy goose that lays big solid eggs

 

 

Bernanke said the Great Recession (now) was actually worse than the Great Depression, and by that I suppose he meant that if we didn't have FDR's social safety nets in place, it would have literally been worse than the depression on the streets of the U.S. of A. What can I say, I think it's pretty obvious that lack of regulation (the goose gets the whole back yard) didn't work well; if it's not obvious, explain how it was that with the whole back yard, all but one of the major American banks was ready to fold (I believe Bernanke said that too).

Edited February 2, 2011 by Mark Foote

[ralis]

You mean "Physics can't really explain how water flows from the tap in your sink" Chomsky?

"It was america's fault, not the khmer rouge" Chomsky?

"and what's so exciting about at last visiting Venezuela is that I can see how a better world is being created" Chomsky?

 

 

 

Why not stop attacking Chomsky and discuss the article Sunya posted! Then you will remain on topic. After all, attacking the messenger is never rationally correct.

[Vajrahridaya]

Isn't this an "ideology of exclusivity"?

 

It's not an ideology, it's merely a fact, you are either a Buddha or not. The thing is, is that all Buddhas feel that all sentient beings can realize Buddhahood so they don't try to block anyone from reaching the group of Buddhas, and in fact try to help all beings get to Buddhahood as well. So, they don't exclude anyone from anything.

[joeblast]

Bernanke said the Great Recession (now) was actually worse than the Great Depression, and by that I suppose he meant that if we didn't have FDR's social safety nets in place, it would have literally been worse than the depression on the streets of the U.S. of A. What can I say, I think it's pretty obvious that lack of regulation (the goose gets the whole back yard) didn't work well; if it's not obvious, explain how it was that with the whole back yard, all but one of the major American banks was ready to fold (I believe Bernanke said that too).

Its easy to confuse "the regulations not having worked" with there "not being enough regulation" - why, if there's water coming through the dam, there must not be enough dam, yes? No. This is exactly the reason why the process of writing regulations should not be abused (hell, the entire process of writing LAWS) - when you outsource the writing of law and regulation to your more ideologically driven buddies who couldnt even get elected, you as a government agent have abdicated your duty.

 

First it was the laws are too complex to read in their entirety, now its they're too complex for a Congressman to even write???

 

Thus law and regulation are used as tools to incentivize businesses to do something the government wants them to do in exchange for some sort of tax incentive. (All one has to do is look at some of the green energy failures of companies obama has personally held up in front of the nation to see a few egregious examples, but look at other ways it does tax incentives - why do they believe they can more productively spend money than anyone and everyone else?)

 

What's not realized is that overregulation helps larger businesses by helping starve off competition - a smaller business will need to use a larger percentage of its resources to comply with all this BS.

 

 

 

So just like there's working hard and there's working smart, there's burdensome ineffective regulation, and there's specifically targeted, whittled back, effective regulation.

 

 

 

For example, CEO of intel got asked about why he didnt build a plant here in the USA - his reply? You'd think it would have to do with the wages - but no, the costs here are 1 billion higher than building a plant just about anywhere else (and that's per plant,) and 90% of that was due to regulation compliance. Wages are a distant second in terms of disproportionate bottom line impact.

 

 

Supply and demand...if you want to drive up the price of something, limit it. How much does it cost to get a taxi cab license in NYC these days?

 

 

All of this stupid talk of things being worse than the Great Depression - sure there's an indicator or two (amongst dozens) that are worse than the GD, but 1) things arent anywhere near as bad for the majority of the more important indicators and 2) the actual circumstances are far different. But, it was so long ago that the charlatans of today can say whatever they wish and most people simply wont have the recollection to tell them they're full of crap.

 

Attributing the emergence of the country from the GD to FDR's policies has been thoroughly well debunked time and again by this point in time. I know it was different when they taught in school that FDR's alphabet soup was the best thing since sliced bread and it was the savior of the nation - but if you notice what track Obama has taken, it has taken what should have been a V shaped recovery and turned it in to a trough. So did those policies back in the 30s - the USA was the ONLY nation where the depression was Great and capitalized. Everyone else, a year or two and done, USA, we had like ten years of crapstagnation. Thanks, FDR

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ah Ralis...keep staying away from those substantive things, you might get away from that safe ground of ideology where your beliefs are not questioned. Chomsky makes some ridiculous assertions, I post up some that are slightly more ridiculous, so now I'm simply attacking him and not saying anything within the context of this conversation!? Nice try - you cant even address the substance of what I write, go after the relatively meaningless blather in comparison where you find more solid ground - simply declaring my point of view null and void doesnt "win the conversation point for you" or whatever you were going for on that. Just like arguing about AGW with indoctrinated believers, they somehow feel that if you say something they dont agree with, it is incorrect regardless of reality and it can be simply ignored and not addressed and they'll still feel as though they've kept their high ground.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Manitou...fry a small fish? You pay your friends when you'd like a small fish fried? Or did you mean gutted, dipped in egg, and tossed on high heat? Obama is making sure that those who really pushed for his election are reimbursed every step of the way, that seems to be what he's mostly concerned with - the SEIU spent $66 million of its member's dues "to get Obama elected," straight from the horse's (CEO) mouth. You can see that evidence in just about every bit of legislation put forth from the supermajority that is thankfully gone. Its almost as if they dont think people will change the way they do business if the entire incentive equation is altered or something! That's the answer to why we havent seen much of a recovery here - the growth is despite, and not because of, what's come down the pipe in the last few years.

 

 

 

And that's what I like about spiritual practices - there isnt any spiritual welfare and if you dont put in the work you dont get a token siddhi reward just for playing or participating.

 

Its amusing how averse people are to things said plainly. Like VJ said, you are either a buddha or you are not; enlightenment is unequivocal - its not something you can fake, its not something that can be handed to you, but only achieved through your own hard work.

[Mark Foote]

 

Its amusing how averse people are to things said plainly. Like VJ said, you are either a buddha or you are not; enlightenment is unequivocal - its not something you can fake, its not something that can be handed to you, but only achieved through your own hard work.

 

 

I think it was the first patriarch of Zen in China who said that the first principle is in everyone. The more I feel that my hard work has allowed me to achieve something, the more I see that everyone else in the world is already manifesting the same thing, effortlessly.

 

As to the recession:

 

When the Tao is lost, there is goodness.

When goodness is lost, there is morality.

When morality is lost, there is ritual.

Ritual is the husk of true faith,

the beginning of chaos.

 

what's a mother to do!

[ralis]

It's not an ideology, it's merely a fact, you are either a Buddha or not. The thing is, is that all Buddhas feel that all sentient beings can realize Buddhahood so they don't try to block anyone from reaching the group of Buddhas, and in fact try to help all beings get to Buddhahood as well. So, they don't exclude anyone from anything.

 

It is an ideology and not a fact! This idea you believe in is about believing you are something special and exclusive. The mistaken belief that all beings are potential Buddha's is bogus.

[joeblast]

It is an ideology and not a fact! This idea you believe in is about believing you are something special and exclusive. The mistaken belief that all beings are potential Buddha's is bogus.

So you are necessarily stating that enlightenment is an equivocation, then contradicting yourself by saying that the belief that we all have the potential for enlightenment/buddahood is false - so in that case if you logically follow that established path, then some are indeed special over others, but wait, isnt that an ideology and not how things actually are?

 

I love it how you counter someone else's words by saying they arent fact, they're belief, and then you back it up with your belief as evidence I know the statement was probably coherent to you in your own particular idiom, but we're not privy to that and you simply sound contradictory and argumentative.