An empty head is not really empty; it is stuffed with rubbish. Hence the difficulty of forcing anything into an empty head. – Eric Hoffer
I often get questions from readers asking if I’d like to school some ignoramus who has written a prohibitionist screed packed with disinformation, either in the news media or on a blog. When I first started activism four years ago, I nearly always said “yes”; it was a chance to be heard by people who didn’t yet know me, and to draw more attention to this blog. But as I explained in “Something Has To Give”, I just don’t have time for that kind of unpaid work any longer; from my point of view I can spend my afternoon writing a blog post that will be read by many thousands, or a commissioned article that may be read by tens of thousands, or a futile attempt to convert a true believer that will be read by dozens (hundreds at best) of other true believers. And I’m much too pragmatic a woman to choose the latter when the first two options are so much more sensible. Lest you think this is a recent decision on my part, allow me to quote a two-year-old column:
For any given issue there are three positions: Those who are strongly for it, those who are strongly against it, and those who don’t have a strong opinion either way. And no matter what fanatics and demagogues may tell you, the third is nearly always the largest group on any issue. When trying to sway public opinion, therefore, the wise writer or speaker targets that middle group, the “silent majority”. It’s silly to waste energy in trying to convince those who are already convinced (“preaching to the choir”), and pointless to argue with those who are dogmatically committed to the opposite view (one can’t reason a person out of a position he didn’t reason himself into). But the members of that third group, if they can be won, will decide the way the wheel turns. They are the ones who took it for granted that black and white people couldn’t live together peacefully, but now abhor racism; they’re the ones who accepted the claim that homosexuals were perverts, yet now agree with equal conviction that they shouldn’t be mistreated. And they’re the ones that in the United States believe that whores are pathetic losers, degraded victims or depraved criminals, but in most other Western nations disagree with that notion. They’re the ones the “trafficking” fetishists have drawn into their moral panic, and the ones who will drop that panic like yesterday’s fad once the majority recognize it as a lie.
The problem with debating true believers is succinctly explained in today’s epigram; Jefferson covered the same ground with, “Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.” Consider creationists, for example; they live in a society where the soundness of the scientific method is evident every single waking moment of the day, and where there is a mass of biological and geological information at their fingertips. Debunkings of every single creationist talking point are a mouse-click away, and creationists are exposed in passing to evidence supporting the great age of the Earth at least a couple of times per week. But does any of it have any effect? Not on your life, because it’s impossible to force something into a space that’s already occupied by something else. The mind of a true believer is not empty; it is so stuffed with the reality-denying rubbish of his belief system that there is no room for facts, at least in those areas occupied by his beliefs.
Anti-sex beliefs are not mere ignorance; they are religious beliefs like any other, accepted on faith and requiring the denial of all information to the contrary. There is never any profit in attempting to engage such a person on her own ground; it’s merely a waste of time and energy that could be better employed elsewhere, such as in speaking to people whose minds are not already closed. That’s what I do in my writing, both on-blog and off; it’s also what I did a few weeks ago in guest-teaching two sections of a human sexuality class at Oklahoma State University. It’s possible that some people who come to my blog, many who encounter my articles on mainstream sites and a few of the students I spoke to in person remain unconvinced or even shut their minds to my information, but the majority don’t. Even debating a prohibitionist in a public venue can be productive, as long as one is reasonably certain that a sizeable fraction of the audience are receptive to fact and reason. But when one argues with a “true believer”, either alone or surrounded by other “true believers”, one might as well be arguing with a dumpster.
(Have a question of your own? Please consult this page to see if I’ve answered it in a previous column, and if not just click here to ask me via email.)
Some peoples bias is so strong its unlikely that they will change their opinion based on any actual evidence, this is a known problem.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/denial-science-chris-mooney
Despite “Mr. Ecks” diatribe below, I had seen this article elsewhere before and thought of the same link when reading MMs post today. It is a worthwhile read and I would argue that it applies no less to the Mr Ecks of the world than those he derides. Enough with thought stopping cliches, already.
That article is such bullshit.
“Science” – IS NOT what A scientist says it is. “Science” is not what 1,000 scientists say it is and it’s not what 10,000 scientists say it is and there is no such thing as “scientific truth” through “consensus”. “Science” is not something you vote on – it’s NOT an electoral or a democratic process.
In fact – when you subscribe to the above – to “truth by consensus” you are subscribing to exactly what Maggie is writing AGAINST – you’re subscribing to a religion and your little “scientists” (the ones you believe – while dismissing others) becomes YOUR CLERGY.
Science is about FACT – and what you can prove. Theories are about trying piece together facts and connect dots – it’s not always even close to the truth.
The very same “scientists” who now crow about man-made Global Warming now were running around in the late seventies like chicken-chicken littles quacking about a new “ICE AGE” caused by CO2 emissions. They won’t even admit that, to believe they are RIGHT now – you have to conclude that they were WRONG (to the tune of 180 degrees) then.
Science is about WHAT CAN BE PROVEN. Call me a denier all you want (and really – using that term is a quite NON-scientific lazy debate tactic to smear one’s opponent) … but call me one nonetheless, I still have a problem with believing a “theory” that THEY SAID could be “modelled” – BUT CAN’T. None of the models they have forecast have been correct. Predictions of the disappearance of the Arctic Ice Pack in 2013 DID NOT come to pass (by the way, I travel to the Arctic yearly and I’m going there next month – I’ve seen quite a bit of ice there).
Additionally, there has been no warming for the last 15 to 17 years and the “models” predicted there would be.
Also – when did OBFUSCATING DATA become a part of the “Scientific Method”? East Anglia – Google it. Those scientists LIED, COVERED UP, and DESTROYED raw scientific data that didn’t agree with their “theory” on man-made global warming.
We have plenty of examples of “scientists” referring to Global Warming as “The Cause” as in … “This scientist is not friendly to OUR CAUSE” and … “This data does not support OUR CAUSE”. When did a movement – or a “cause” become a part of the scientific method?
Now you guys want to point at guys like me – and say I’m mentally ill or something because I don’t believe your lies. Well fine – you go right ahead and do that but I’m still going to point out that the EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES ON.
Let me categorize the “deniers” …
You guys consistently describe us as one-dimensional “deniers” – how fucking scientific is that? Not very – considering NOT ALL of us believe the same thing.
– Some of us BELIEVE in Global Warming … we just don’t believe it’s caused by man and it’s a part of the natural cycle of the planet.
– Some of us BELIEVE in Global Warming and believe that man is a contributing factor … we just don’t believe that the situation you’re painting is that desperate and we’ll have a solution to greenhouse emissions LONG BEFORE any damage is done.
– Some of us BELIEVE the whole thing about Global Warming – but don’t believe that we can do anything to head it off at this point. And this is, IN FACT – TRUE if you are correct. You can destroy the economies of Europe and the Americas with your little carbon taxes and what not … and you can kill our coal fired energy … BUT THAT DOESN’T DO A DAMN THING ABOUT RUSSIA, CHINA, INDIA – AND THE OTHER DEVELOPING NATIONS THAT WILL NEVER COMMIT ECONOMIC SUICIDE TO CURTAIL THEIR EMISSIONS.
– Some of us don’t believe any of the shit.
You guys won’t even acknowledge the complexity of our positions – because YOU don’t want to deal with them. I think that’s a mental illness ON YOUR PART … that you demand obedience and believe in your religion – but you don’t want to spend five seconds addressing the valid concerns.
In short – you’re unwilling to debate – YOU SHUT DOWN DEBATE. You “blacklist” any scientist who disagrees with you. You cover up data. You obfuscate and destroy data (and you WON’T EVEN CONDEMN THE PEOPLE ON YOUR SIDE WHO DO THIS). You talk about “scientific consensus” when “consensus” is NOT TRUTH and never has been. If it was – we’d be going into a Global Ice Age about now because that’s what the “consensus” was thirty years ago.
I am not a scientist – I’m an idiot. But I have STREET SMARTS, my friend – and I know how to spot a BULLSHITTER when I meet one. When a guy comes at me DEMANDING that I believe in his creed and I spot him deliberately trying to mislead me – THAT’S A BULLSHITTER.
If you guys are correct about Global Warming – well, all I can say is YOU COMPLETELY FUCKED THE SITUATION WITH YOUR DELIVERY AND APPROACH TO CONVINCING PEOPLE.
That is all.
Krulac, I think you just proved Maggie’s point. A lot of what you said up there is just incorrect, no more based in fact than there are 200,000 sex slaves in this country. I’ve been trying for years to argue with people on this subject and I keep running across the same talking points over and over. It goes around in circles.
I do disagree with one point of Maggie’s: it is possible to persuade people but it takes time and patience. I believed those points you just made above until the slow trickle of information got that garbage out of my head.
What did I say that was incorrect?
Did East Anglia not attempt to obfuscate any data that they held that didn’t support the Global Warming theory? Are you denying this?
Was I wrong when I said that NO ONE on your side will even reprimand the sham-scientists at East Anglia for their assaults on the truth?
Are you denying that scientists who hold an a different opinion about climate change are being blacklisted?
Do you deny that calling your opponents “deniers” (an attempt to smear them using the same term used for “holocaust deniers”) is not a lazy-assed argument that is merely an attempt at smearing your opponents?
Was I wrong when I stated that “consensus” is NEVER a condition of truth?
Was I wrong when I stated that even if Global Warming is an accurate theory – there’s not a damn thing globally that we can do about it?
Was I wrong when I said that the “scientific” models have been proven wrong?
Was I wrong when I stated there has been no significant warming in the last 15 years and the scientists predicted that there would be?
Was I wrong when I stated that many of the same “scientists” preaching Global Warming were preaching Global COOLING thirty years ago?
What was I wrong about?
“Was I wrong when I stated there has been no significant warming in the last 15 years and the scientists predicted that there would be?”
Possibly. The standard figures don’t show a rise…but there are suggestions that the standard figures don’t accurately reflect what’s happening at the poles. If data from there are included, there does seem to have been continued warming. Moving the goalposts? Perhaps.
I don’t want to get into this on Maggie’s blog. Your welcome to come over to my blog where we have a napalm-fest about monthly on this subject. But the short version is: 1) 9 investigations cleared East Anglia and Berkeley Earth confirmed their results; 2) most of the warming of the last 15 years is going into the oceans because of La Nina cycles; 3) very few scientists predicted global cooling. This was a fad theory of a few scientists that never denied global warming, but claimed, briefly, that other effects would be stronger; 4) consensus conshmensus. AGW theory dates back to the 1920’s and correctly predicted the overall temperature trend of the last century.
Bingo…
Aristotle said …
“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.”
I love that quote. Or as Dr Seuss said ” Say what you mean and do what you say, for those who matter dont mind and those that mind dont matter” or something pretty close to those words.
“Science is about WHAT CAN BE PROVEN”
Popper argued that science was about what was falsifiable.
Well I’m a simple man – I use simple terms. I will have to look into this … “Popper” thingie. 😀
Almost everybody, from the Union of Concerned Scientists to NBC News.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/debunking-misinformation-stolen-emails-climategate.html
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/debunking-misinformation-stolen-emails-climategate.html
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/36104206/ns/us_news-environment/
Only someone from the partisan Cato Institute denies the facts of Global Climate change, at least on the first page i Googled.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748704075604575356611173414140
The whole East Anglia situation was a computer hack..But I don’t expect you to believe that, demonstrating Maggie’s point.
No, the Cato Institute is not “partisan”; in fact, it’s exactly the opposite. Cato opposes big government schemes from BOTH wings of the American Big Government party.
Y’all can discuss this subject as heatedly as you like, but let’s not resort to misrepresentation, please.
Maggie, it is partisan since it is–theoretically–pro-libertarian.
In a country with only two officially-subsidized parties, where the Libertarian party (which no more represents all libertarians than the Democratic party represents everyone who believes in democracy) is officially excluded from public debates and denied public financing, that is a wholly specious argument.
Okay Maggie, I am not trying to start an argument. But the Cato Institute does have a consistent party line that it doesn’t drift very far from, just as People for the American Way and the Heritage Foundation do. And I agree, the exclusion of most minor parties (Ross Perot, John Anderson) is wrong, morally, although according to an attorney I know, not legally. The Independence institute here in Colorado has many of the same problems as Cato, except they sometimes show a little independence from the Coors family, who are their largest contributors, at least last time I checked.
Right now, I’ve got a Democrat in my State House District, who, if he gets past the primary next Tuesday, I think I have convinced to have as part of his platform a state bank, like North Dakota has, something that should warm your libertarian heart.
I am going to try to make it to Chopper’s next Tuesday and buy a book from you.
And NBC news doesn’t?
I’m looking forward to it! I got into town this morning, but my trip was awful; it’ll be tomorrow before I recover enough to meet anyone or do anything other than nurse my head and gut.
As Krulac said – but it’s not limited to NBC news. NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox News, the New York Times, and every other major news source are all political. Freegirard’s complaint about Cato is that it’s politics are quite different from his.
No, my real complaints about Cato are: 1) they are very secretive about where they get a large portion of their money; 2) It is named after a drunk whose inebriated eloquence caused the illegal death of 5 Romans–including a praetor, Rome’s second highest office–during the whole flap over Cataline that was raised by Cicero. See Michael Parenti’s The Assassination of Julius Caesar: A People’s History of Rome (2003) for more on this subject.
Whatever you care to say about the Cato institute, I don’t think anything funded by the Koch’s is non-partisan.
I’ve asked Cato Institute on Twitter at least twice about who all funds them. No answer yet. It’s easier to “hide in silence” as I call it.
Please don’t be absurd. If you want an organization’s funding sources you consult their website, you don’t ask on social media.
Thank you! There’s a lot of evidence for this online. There’s one account on Twitter where all they do is expose the ###*** that the Kochs have done and still do. Thank God for this account.
“Please don’t be absurd. If you want an organization’s funding sources you consult their website, you don’t ask on social media.”-An FYI: I did go there first. I also tried to find the info on other websites. Twitter is just as valuable as other ways to ask people and/or groups stuff directly. It was on Twitter where I learned how some info about their funding doesn’t add up. I hope that one day they’ll answer me as they should be open about who all funds them. That’s the highest standard any political organization can have.
Again – “consensus” is NEVER a factor in truth, my friend.
I’d disagree that Cato is in denial. They’re disputing aspect of the theory not the fundamental theory. Reason and a number of other libertarians don’t dispute the theory, just the solutions.
It is actually the same thing: “Tertium-non-datur”. If you can prove A, you can also disprove “not A” and the other way round. Science does not deal with things that are not accessible to verification like “believe”.
As a scientist, I completely agree on the nature of Science. Science is what the scientific method, if applied competently, delivers. The scientific method relies on observations (often in the form of experiments), building models on that and then verifying said models with other (!) observations. Whatever comes out is Science and the closest approximation to “truth” we know.
As there are a whole damn big lot of bad scientists, from the fractions of the lazy, the incompetent, the corrupt and big egos, the politicians, etc., science is not accessible to democratic processes. Even the peer-review process is badly broken. A lot of really bad science makes it through, just because the “right” names are on it. At the same time, really, really good science has trouble getting published.
Now the critical thing about good science is that anybody educated and bright can at the very least verify the plausibility of the claims and that other competent (!) scientists can verify it.
About the worst thing you can do, given these possibilities, is to start “believing” into some scientific statements. That debases them on the level of religion, of mindlessness and opens the door for all sorts of manipulation. As a scientist, I much, much rather have an open-minded and inquisitive skeptic than some believer. The first one is an asset, the second one is a severe liability. The trouble is that many people can spot a believer and will then often infer that the believer is wrong. This means that a scientific fact with a lot of believers gets _harder_ to sell to smart people, because they recognize the telltales of religion.
The global warming issue is a good example: There are competent, capable scientists in there. These people think that in about 100 years, this planet will get pretty uncomfortable in places and a major part of that is man-made. It is not quite clear how uncomfortable and how fast the change will be, but they have been firming up their results for something like 40 years now and they only got better. Then there are the big egos (often with small skill) and those are the “scientists” you read about in the papers and that try to influence politics. And they did indeed fuck the whole thing up to an incredible degree by trying to manipulate the public for their own benefit. It is not the job of scientists to convince the public. Scientists suck at that as this example shows exceedingly well. It is the job of scientists to do science and that will be often boring to the general public, it will often come with hard to understand results and it will often exceed what ordinary humans can easily understand.
Combine that with a lot of people in politics that have short-term goals, and you can see why long-term projections with significant uncertainty are not something the human race is capable of reacting to, especially when that would be costly in the short term.
Absolutely: “Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig.” Robert A. Heinlein
A true classic that one.Also nice: http://xkcd.com/54/
Mother Jones–socialists–ie active supporters of a death cult that has murdered approx. 150 million people in the last 100 years and ruined the lives of tens of millions more–are saying that other people have closed minds and don’t listen to “science”–presumably the same science as in “scientific” socialism. I wonder how many of the corpses of victims of socialism would have to be dug up and pushed in the faces of Mother Jones staffers before a smidgen of doubt entered their world?.
With most opinions/beliefs–they only matter in so far as their bear on freedom. If a person keeps to the Libertarian non-aggression principle (summed up brilliantly by Walter Block as “Keep your mitts off other people and their property”) I don’t care what someone believes and don’t wish to dissuade them from those beliefs. Beliefs only matter to the degree that they give excuse to those who want to violate the NAPand impose their will on others.
You describe Mother Jones as “socialist” … I would take a minor exception to that characterization and describe them as “Marxist”.
They never met one they didn’t like.
My question is simple: have either of you ever read Marx, or George Bernard Shaw for that matter. In the case of Marx, most people have only read His and Engel’s “The Communist Manifesto,” and perhaps a condensed edition of Volume 1 of “Capital.” Marx, if you actually study him, is absolutely correct in his description of the excesses of free market capitalism, especially the way the system manipulates and destroys the workers within the system. His won’t work: there are too many greed-driven psychopaths (and those who imitate their behavior) out there who put things ahead of people. “As I saw recently on a poster “People were created to be loved.Things were created to be used.The reason why the world is in chaos is because things are being loved and people are being used.”
I USED TO BE A RABID SOCIALIST – OF COURSE I HAVE READ MARX.
The only reason I wasn’t a full-fledged Communist was because I was (thankfully) aware of the application of the ideology in real life – and how horrific it turned out for those who were forced to live under its yoke. And since I learned that Socialism is nothing more than spending other people’s money – taking it from them at the point of a gun and “redistributing” it to others (many of whom aren’t successful due to their OWN FAULT) – I’ve turned from Socialism too.
I’ll take the abuses of Capitalism any day.
What’s in those books are WORDS – nothing but words.
When I use the term “Marxist” – I’m talking about the practical application of it. I’m talking about Lenin … Stalin … Mao … the Sandinistas … Castro … Chavez …
And Mother Jones has sympathized with every one of those.
“Marxist” don’t like it when you point out to them that EVERYWHERE Marxism has been tried – it has failed. The ideology has been used to slaughter millions and rob and imprison millions of others.
“Marxists” like to argue that … “Well, we haven’t really seen any REAL Marxism – just perversions of it.” Really … well, okay … I’m perfectly willing to call “Marxism” a theory then. A “theory” that a lot of evil men have seized upon and gotten a lot of fools to follow them with. If they didn’t use the whole theory – they certainly cherry-picked and used parts of it – like Castro and the Sandinistas.
Really, which books of Marx have you read?
Marx’s system was never actually used: the Soviet Union et al. were actually capitalist systems run by the state.
If you read my post – you’ll see that I’m happy to allow you to make that claim.
But it’s irrelevant.
It’s irrelevant since that political theory REMAINS a theory until it’s tested. Since you claim it hasn’t been tested – it remains a theory.
A “theory” which has been used by evil men to attract others to do and accept their evil deeds. So Marx did two things … he gave a useless theory to the world (which has never been tried honestly and probably never will be – so it’s useless) …
And he wrote a “bible” that evil men have exploited for their own ends.
That doesn’t say much for Marx and his REAL accomplishments now does it?
Might have helped if REAL THEORY-BELIEVING MARXISTS had stood up and opposed people like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, et al. But they didn’t – in fact, they did just the opposite – they applauded.
Also – I read the Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital. Don’t remember ever reading “Capital”.
All three volumes of Das Kapital…which is what I usually call it, but I never know how hip my audience is.
There should be a “?” after “Kapital.” I’m on limited time at the library.
Brother … I can safely say that I have only read FIVE books in my life in their entirety that approached 900 some-odd pages …
– Das Kapital
– Mein Kampf
– And the three volumes of “The Civil War” by Shelby Foote
I learned a LOT from Shelby Foote. Marx and Hitler? Not so much. There’s a spread of time and dead brain cells in those two I wish I had back.
Wait a sec … I also read a modern rendering of “The Mahabharata” – which was over a thousand pages, in two volumes – I’m sure.
One of my criticisms for Kampf and Kapital is how long they are. They drone on and on and I have to believe it’s by design.
Did I tell you I “played” with Mormonism when I was in High School? No I didn’t tell you – but yes I did. A Mormon “missionary” gave me a copy of “The Book of Mormon”. He said … I should read it with an open heart. If it didn’t “speak” to me – then I could call it garbage.
Well – IT SPOKE to me – or more accurately, it “spoke” to a 17 year old kid who was looking for something to believe in and be a part of. It was only after I spoke to my DAD about the book – and he pointed out the ridiculous inconsistencies of it – not to mention the PROVEN falsehoods in it – that the book STOPPED “speaking” to me. And I learned a lot from that experience. “The Book of Mormon” really isn’t a very long book at all … and that may be one of the mistakes because …
In the case of Kampf and Kapital – it’s very easy for me to see how those books can “speak” to people – and get them to believe – with the droning, programmatic and “indoctrinatingly” long way they are written. And there’s GREAT stuff in both Kampf and Kapital – STUFF THAT IS TRUE! It’s just that … the truth in those books are only used as “bait” to suck the reader into the illusion that what they are reading … IS GOSPEL!!
Can’t argue with the sucking in part on “Kapital,” but life is about sorting through the bullsh*t to find the good stuff, and creating your own philosophy, based on YOUR life experience, not someone else’s. People are lazy, and forget that way too often.
Pax.
I’ve got to admit that Das Kapital is a metric buttload. So my congratulations on having read all three volumes: it puts both of us ahead of 99% of the population. “Mein Kampf?” never could get into it for the same reason I could never get int Rand’s “The Fountainhead,” and “Atlas Shrugged:: I found it to be badly written tripe.
I was fortunate to have read Marx’s “Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts,” “The German Philosophy,” and “The Poverty of Philosophy” first, which said the same thing as “Das Kapital,” without all of the freaking economic stats.
I am now re-reading on Friedrich Nietzsche, starting with Thus Spoke Zarathustra, and Carl Jung’s four year symposium on it in Basel. My perspective is “what if Nietzsche had used the “Power of Love” as the basis for his philosophy, rather than the “Will to Power?” In other words, what if Nietzsche had been better adjusted socially?
It puts us ahead of 99% of “proclaimed” Marxists.
There are A LOT of people running around claiming to be Marxists who haven’t read Das Kapital at all – or anything else Marx ever wrote aside from the “Communist Manifesto”.
And the thing about Das Kapital – is that it makes A LOT of economic assertions that make sense to ALL BUT those who are trained in economics. So most of us who have read Marx – don’t really have the requisite knowledge to accurately question the stuff he’s writing about. Very easy to believe a falsehood when you’re clueless about what the truth actually is.
My reading of Das Kapital was mandated – not like I had a choice. It was assigned to me in a college class (I went to college for like 5 days … okay, more like three semesters). Part of the assignment was to take a critical view of it – and find things I disagreed with. I had to back these “disagreements” up with facts – they couldn’t JUST be subjective disagreements. I was dating a blonde with BIG FLOPPY BOOBS (I met her at a party while playing a drinking game called “bullshit” – in which she kept referring to me as “squirrel shit” – because “squirrel” was my designated name for the game. Every time it was her turn she’d refer to the squirrel. She always wore sundresses and thin bras – so her boobs would swing back and forth when she walked. Looked kinda sloppy – but really fertile at the same time) … SHIT – I got lost in a memory there. Anyway – she was studying economics – and she helped me with it. She was a Junior and she had read Das Kapital too, part of her economics study I guess. All I know is I got lucky because she was able to point out a lot that was wrong in the book.
Marx omitted a lot of essential economic factors from the book – just skated right over them. He didn’t address the critical factors of ownership incentive – which make efficient management and productivity possible. Look at every government on the planet and how inefficient their management is (because there is no “ownership incentive”) and you’ll see just how wrong Marx was in either omitting or marginalizing this factor.
Unfortunately, those who could have opposed Lenin had died in 1905, or were very old, like Ptor Kropotkin–who tried to warn Lenin about Stalin.
There were plenty who could have opposed Mao who were alive then and are alive now. In fact, the only “leftist” that I remember hearing “opposing” Mao was John Lennon when he sang in the song “Revolution” … “if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao – you ain’t gonna make it with anyone anyhow.”
Jane Fonda … who characterized herself as a “small-c” Communist during the Vietnam war – supported the North Vietnamese. How many people did they kill and imprison when they took control of the country? I suppose people today will claim that THAT wasn’t “real” communism. But Jane Fonda – a theory believer was certainly fooled by it.
I believe the “rabid” part.
I think you were right in the last paragraph to write Anti-sex beliefs… instead of merely anti-sex worker beliefs, because I firmly believe that despite what they may say otherwise—that sex is “good” if done the right way, between two married heterosexual people, etc.—the heart of their belief system is that sex is inherently evil. And even if we were to ignore the persecution of sex workers, their prudery is destroying new generations every day.
There’s a general election in the UK in just less than a year from now. The political situation is very similar to what Maggie describes. Those on the right or on the left aren’t going to be that much influenced by politicians; and the politicians are really aiming for the ‘floating voter’, for these voters are the ones who really decide the result. So, there will be much adjusting of policy to try to suit what the ‘experts’ think that the floating voter wants to hear.
Yeah … the “floating voter” … get him.
That was Mitt Romney’s plan. Worked out JUST DUCKY for him!
And guess what … HE DID get the “floating voters” – which we call “Independents”. He won the independents in every battle ground state save one – North Carolina. Obama still took the majority of the battle ground states.
So Romney’s plan to get independent votes didn’t work too well for him.
It could work out differently for you guys – you don’t have an electoral college. I still think the independent strategy is a losing strategy though – especially when one or the other ends of the political spectrum is FIRED UP. Right now – from across the pond – I would say the anti-establishment (what some would call the right-wingers) are the most motivated voters you guys have. Which doesn’t bode well for the Torys or Labour.
I just have to add … another big problem I think youse guys have is a lot of your folks don’t really see a difference between Labour and the Conservatives. I don’t consider the Tory’s to be “conservative” anymore. They certainly aren’t the party of Thatcher anymore.
And – whenever I see Tony Blair on Television I have to remind myself he was a LABOUR PM!! Hell you could put Blair in as the leader of the Tory’s and I’d be amazed if anyone thought that was shocking!! 😀
Well, basically those in power have banded together against the population. That is why there is so little difference between them. Happens sooner or later with all governments unless the population stays very vigilant. It is a real disappointment how easy this type of stealthy hostile takeover is in many democracies. I mean, people get actively asked about their opinion every few years and they still mess up the simple thing of showing the politicians who they work for.
Unfortunately, the places like Cato and the Heritage Foundation are simply not terribly forthcoming about funding sources UNLESS THEY HAVE TO BE.
And saying NBC toes the party line as well is a given, they are after all owned by GE.
I’ve tried to find out all of the Cato Institute’s funding sources, but I can only get about 50-55% of the original source. The rest is hidden behind a smokescreen of shell corporations and private trusts. Do you know who the MacArthur Foundation is run by? I didn’t, yet they spend millions on PBS. They are a right-wing Texas oil and cattle family, not a bunch of liberals.
Dear freegirard, I think you’ll like the info in this: http://www.thenation.com/article/167500/independent-and-principled-behind-cato-myth. I know I love it.
[…] http://maggiemcneill.wordpress.com/2014/06/18/stuffed-with-rubbish/ […]