The Knee

Whatever floats your boat.
Click to expand...

I don't have a boat. I do however live in a country where 15 percent of the workforce is civil servants, government spending comprises 40 percent of the GDP, 50 percent of the population receives government benefits and 10 million people are under some form of correctional control and where the government regulates everything from education to and defecation. Keep worrying about the Russians though, they're the real danger to your freedoms.
Click to expand...

Glad to see your concern for correctional control. What alternatives would you suggest?
Click to expand...

Half of the Federal prison population and millions of parolees are drug offenders. Drug offenders also have a high rate of recidivism. The prison system for these types of "criminals" is useless. Except for big time drug traffickers, users and small time dealers arrested belong in treatment centers not prisons.
Most juveniles not convicted of serious crimes also belong in training and rehabilitation institutions.
Foreign prisoners should be made to serve prison time in their home country prisons instead of our country clubs with agreements with those countries that we would pay "their cost" of incarceration which would cost a fraction of what we pay plus saving on the future deportation costs.
That said, less than 1 per cent of the population in under correctional control but at least 10 % of the population is nuts so the population of psychiatric hospitals is severely under populated. I estimated the 10% solely on my experience with redmen dot com posters. I, of course, am totally sane and can never do any wrong.
:silly: :woohoo:
 
Mr. Uzi...#1 do not call me Daze . Hear that, pal and hear it good.
You failed to disprove my analysis because my review is based on facts: what has been happening to 'libertarianism' in the USA and the 'society' it has been building over the past 40 years. I do not lean on textbook 'definitions' sir--but on facts.
Everything I cited above has occurred and is happening.
As an aside, I've voted 'Libertarian' 2x for President and voted Republican 2x for President since the late 1970s. I am not a 'socialist' by any definition--text book or real life. I am for a 'level playing field' where if you're born poor, or blue collar you have ample opportunity to do well in life.
That used to be the case in the USA for most of our history (for a tableaux of reasons), but has not been the case since the 1980s.
The gold standard? Actually, I don't know enough on the specifics of that--whether Nixon's act alone--doomed or did not doom the country to massive inequality. I doubt it though, since the experience of most of western Europe has not tracked the massive inequality gap that has occurred here.
Pinochet and Libertarianism? My God. Starkly different, right?
Eh-eh. Not when you research who was Pinochet's key advisors in setting his policies: Milton Friedman and James Buchanan. Jose Pinera, Pinochet's Minister of Labor, put Friedman's, Buchanan's and Hayek's policies into action: labor unions banned, 'freeing' workers to negotiate with employers for wages and 'benefits', privatizing social security, pensions, health care, ending 'social insurance' of all kinds--all imposed by military decree..
My point is, that these libertarians--our version--avow 'economic' liberty which takes 'individual' liberty and distorts it into an intellectual, economic and political treatise and policy to empower the very wealthy--the plutocrats--to control our society.
They seek to repress democracy in favor of a system that enhances and perpetuates their hold on the country. They seek to end ALL protections--constitutional or economic or political' that impedes their ability to rule this country.
And economics and politics are joined at the hip,man. Where the hell do you live? Political systems govern how economic systems allocate resources and to whom.
I suggest you start reading S.M. Amadae's magisterial works, 'Prisoners of Reason: Game Theory and Neoliberal Political Economy' and 'Rationalizing Capitalist Democracy: The Cold War Origins of Rational Choice Liberalism'.
Then lighten it up with: Jane Mayer's' Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires, The Rise of The Radical Right', and Nancy MacLean's Democracy In Chains, The Deep History Of The Radical Right's Stealth Plan For America'.
Happy reading.
Click to expand...

Mr chicago ... you keep committing the most egregious of mistakes. You keep banging on about LIBERTARIANISM but you recommend books about NEO-LIBERALS and RATIONAL CHOICE LIBERALS. So for your benefit, i will clarify the difference and you can perhaps see your mistakes:

Neoliberalism is an ideology that is warm toward privatization, deregulation, and austerity programs than traditional progressivism, and is most aptly described as “benevolent” state capitalism, at least in regard to how it’s manifested in the US and Europe.

Neoliberalism is not about a particular party (despite your misconception)... but it came out of the idea called “Third Way” politics. These include people like Tony Blair, Matteo Renzi, Michael Bloomberg, or Bill Clinton. Neoliberals favor large managed trade agreements, few or no restrictions on immigration, and preferences to favored industries for the "greater good". However,and deceptfully so favor progressive taxation, social safety nets (though some may support partial privatization and reform), environmental regulations, and labor rights. They believe that the government should be heavily involved in both regulating and partnering with certain businesses.

Libertarians across the full spectrum would regard neoliberalism as the most egregious form of crony, state capitalism. They would generally consider the market interventions favored by neoliberals along with special tax breaks to be highly inappropriate. Libertarians oppose allowing the government to pick and choose winners and losers..

Is the difference clear to you now?

Happy conspiring :)
.
 
Mr Uzi: Again, you confuse textbooks with reality. LOOK UP The Cato Institute. It is a 'libertarian' think-tank totally funded by The Kochs. Its founders, Edward Crane III, Murray Rothbard, James Buchanan (all paid by Charles Koch) are 'economic' libertarians--intent on protecting and enshrining 'property' and 'wealth' at all costs--in stark violation of the principles of Adam Smith and John Locke.
I do not care what the textbook definition of 'libertarianism' is, I care about the tracts it constructs, the people who lead it, and the policies it avows.
Yeah, they espouse 'limited' government, primarily to bind democracy, to limit popular sovereignty, to repress voters rights and to end all social insurance and protections that benefit the vast majority of people and--should I dare to say--even most of the wealthy.
And btw, I had forgotten this salient fact about Pinochet's Regime. Just looked this up: James Buchanan gave a series of 5 lectures in early 1980 (and many private conversations) to Pinochet's governing elite--a cabal of the military and corporate oligarchs--on writing a constitution that suppressed popular sovereignty by enacting super majorities necessary to effect any significant changes, guaranteed the military's control over the government (in the near term) and curtailed the influence of the popular will over the government over the long term. It was (and is?) a constitution built not with 'checks and balances' (like ours was, the 'is' of ours is wavering as our 'libertarians' gain more control), but with 'locks and bolts'.
And Chile's Constitution was given the name: "The Constitution of Liberty"--the same name as F.A. Hayek's 1960 book, 'The Constitution of Liberty'. Hayek, Von Mises, Friedman, Buchanan--were all founding fathers of 'economic' libertarianism.
 
Trump Bullies the NFL Because It’s Easy

The president is disdained for low cunning, but low cunning beats no cunning.
.


By Holman W. Jenkins, Jr. / WALL STREET JOURNAL

Sept. 29, 2017

Many worry that Donald Trump’s tweets might inflame the North Korea conflict. Maybe his critics should step back with renewed admiration for the man and his subtle arts. Just notice how thoroughly his tweets have reduced the mighty NFL to impotence.

Indeed, a bystander wonders with what whimsical malice this aged man-child, blessed with superpowers, decided the league should be the newest target to be emasculated and confounded by his 140-character missiles.

Actually one doesn’t wonder: It was Roger Goodell. Mr. Trump knows weakness when he smells it.

Mr. Trump landed a smart bomb on Tuesday with his tweeted suggestion that the league should ban protests during the national anthem—thereby making it impossible for Mr. Goodell to enact such a ban and thus reverse the league’s plummet toward the abyss.

Mr. Goodell could have fairly said, It’s time to get back to football. Everyone had their say last Sunday. The Cowboys knelt before the anthem and then stood, the Steelers and Seahawks chose to stay off the field, etc.

Players have every right to express their opinions in all the venues open to them, but not here. This league cannot afford to become an obligatory weekly stage for the divisive political cause of the moment.

A different NFL commissioner, with a less embarrassing history, might have been able to play this role without appearing to truckle to the Twitter -bully of the White House. As it is, NFL players would do the league a favor by informally agreeing among themselves to end the politicization of the anthem. Let the anthem go back to being a nonevent.

Alas, Sports Illustrated this week supplied a metaphor for the league’s hopeless search for the right political correctness to make its problems go away. Its “unity” cover only provoked criticism—for the presence of Mr. Goodell, the absence of Colin Kaepernick, a dearth of females, an excess of whites.

Ditto Aaron Rodgers’s invitation to Green Bay fans on Thursday night to link arms in the stands. It fell almost as flat as an Odell Beckham Jr. end-zone antic.

Mr. Trump is disdained for low cunning, but low cunning beats no cunning. Mr. Trump said nothing at his Alabama rally or in his tweets about race or police shootings.

He said only that football players should stand for the anthem, a sentiment widely supported in polls. First Amendment rights also apply to the league and team owners. They are under no obligation to subsidize a platform for player political expression. It is not censorship. The NBA requires its players to stand respectfully for the anthem.

Mr. Trump wins this argument hands down, which is why critics resort to attacking straw men. “Yes, Trump’s True Aim Is to Inflame Racial Tensions,” insists the headline over an Al Hunt column at Bloomberg.

CNN reporter Coy Wire, himself a former NFL player, claimed on-air (emphasis added): “President Trump urged NFL owners to fire or suspend any NFL player who kneeled during the anthem in protest of racial injustice.”

In order to get the better of Donald Trump, they must put words in his mouth.

Black Americans may have reason to fear the police, but the issue is complicated. Reconcile these statements: Blacks are nearly three times as likely as whites to be killed by police, yet a white homicide victim is 2.6 times as likely as a black homicide victim to have been killed by police.

The explanation: A black person is so much more likely to be a homicide victim in the U.S.—nearly seven times as likely—that police shootings are a smaller proportion of black homicides than white homicides.


Not that the politics of race relations is a special competence of the NFL—any more than North Korea policy or health-care policy, though players have opinions on these matters too.

The most deadly omen for the league, however, the one that should strike fear in Mr. Goodell, owners and players alike, was an article by Roxanne Jones, a founding editor of ESPN magazine and former vice president of the ESPN network. She declared, “I found a reason to feel good about watching football again,” as if the salvation of the game lies in picking political fights with large chunks of its fan base.

A mystery without an answer, of course, is how this Trumpian sally actually advances any national interest that Mr. Trump was elected to advance. A president referring to fellow citizens as SOBs in a televised speech is also a new low that hopefully won’t soon be surpassed.

Still, with trepidation, the world awaits to see which power or principality the colossus of the White House Twitter account decides to confound and humiliate next. We begin to feel sorry for Kim Jong Un.

***
A version of Wednesday’s column confused Douglas Durst with his brother Robert. Apologies for the error.

Appeared in the September 30, 2017, print edition as 'Trump Bullies the NFL Because It’s Easy.'
 
Hi Mr. Uzi: I hate to take a page from your book, but 'neo-liberalism is defined as: A modern politico-economic theory favouring (must be British) free trade, privatization, minimal government intervention in business, reduced public expenditures on social sciences, etc."
Sounds to me like a timid 2nd cousin of Kochist 'libertarianism'--not views espoused (except for free trade) by Tony Blair or Bubba Clinton (whom I never liked and never voted for, btw).
 
Mr. Uzi...#1 do not call me Daze . Hear that, pal and hear it good.
You failed to disprove my analysis because my review is based on facts: what has been happening to 'libertarianism' in the USA and the 'society' it has been building over the past 40 years. I do not lean on textbook 'definitions' sir--but on facts.
Everything I cited above has occurred and is happening.
As an aside, I've voted 'Libertarian' 2x for President and voted Republican 2x for President since the late 1970s. I am not a 'socialist' by any definition--text book or real life. I am for a 'level playing field' where if you're born poor, or blue collar you have ample opportunity to do well in life.
That used to be the case in the USA for most of our history (for a tableaux of reasons), but has not been the case since the 1980s.
The gold standard? Actually, I don't know enough on the specifics of that--whether Nixon's act alone--doomed or did not doom the country to massive inequality. I doubt it though, since the experience of most of western Europe has not tracked the massive inequality gap that has occurred here.
Pinochet and Libertarianism? My God. Starkly different, right?
Eh-eh. Not when you research who was Pinochet's key advisors in setting his policies: Milton Friedman and James Buchanan. Jose Pinera, Pinochet's Minister of Labor, put Friedman's, Buchanan's and Hayek's policies into action: labor unions banned, 'freeing' workers to negotiate with employers for wages and 'benefits', privatizing social security, pensions, health care, ending 'social insurance' of all kinds--all imposed by military decree..
My point is, that these libertarians--our version--avow 'economic' liberty which takes 'individual' liberty and distorts it into an intellectual, economic and political treatise and policy to empower the very wealthy--the plutocrats--to control our society.
They seek to repress democracy in favor of a system that enhances and perpetuates their hold on the country. They seek to end ALL protections--constitutional or economic or political' that impedes their ability to rule this country.
And economics and politics are joined at the hip,man. Where the hell do you live? Political systems govern how economic systems allocate resources and to whom.
I suggest you start reading S.M. Amadae's magisterial works, 'Prisoners of Reason: Game Theory and Neoliberal Political Economy' and 'Rationalizing Capitalist Democracy: The Cold War Origins of Rational Choice Liberalism'.
Then lighten it up with: Jane Mayer's' Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires, The Rise of The Radical Right', and Nancy MacLean's Democracy In Chains, The Deep History Of The Radical Right's Stealth Plan For America'.
Happy reading.
Click to expand...

Mr chicago ... you keep committing the most egregious of mistakes. You keep banging on about LIBERTARIANISM but you recommend books about NEO-LIBERALS and RATIONAL CHOICE LIBERALS. So for your benefit, i will clarify the difference and you can perhaps see your mistakes:

Neoliberalism is an ideology that is warm toward privatization, deregulation, and austerity programs than traditional progressivism, and is most aptly described as “benevolent” state capitalism, at least in regard to how it’s manifested in the US and Europe.

Neoliberalism is not about a particular party (despite your misconception)... but it came out of the idea called “Third Way” politics. These include people like Tony Blair, Matteo Renzi, Michael Bloomberg, or Bill Clinton. Neoliberals favor large managed trade agreements, few or no restrictions on immigration, and preferences to favored industries for the "greater good". However,and deceptfully so favor progressive taxation, social safety nets (though some may support partial privatization and reform), environmental regulations, and labor rights. They believe that the government should be heavily involved in both regulating and partnering with certain businesses.

Libertarians across the full spectrum would regard neoliberalism as the most egregious form of crony, state capitalism. They would generally consider the market interventions favored by neoliberals along with special tax breaks to be highly inappropriate. Libertarians oppose allowing the government to pick and choose winners and losers..

Is the difference clear to you now?

Happy conspiring :)
.
Click to expand...

LIBERTARIANISM, NEO-LIBERALS and RATIONAL CHOICE LIBERALS.
Stop it you two!
What is going on with the "KNEE" has NOTHING to do with politics or the knuckleheads that espouse the above tags. It has to do with sex and the need to bring attention to oneself.
The knee thing started with a football player who took the knee to protest being benched for poor play at an exorbitant salary.
Until that player went to college he identified mostly with his white family and friends while being raised in an upper middle class environment. He was also never oppressed. Ergo, he brought unneeded attention to himself using the front of the BLM movement that was founded by 3 black libertine lesbians who also were looking for attention to the LGBT oppression they were experiencing. As for neo-liberals and far left or far right wing nuts, my experience with them is that they are the phoniest sht heads one can meet. Ironically almost none of them are African American.
They are actors, artists, priveliged college students, sexual deviants and social misfits. Most have no clue what poor Latino and black people experience in their neighborhoods because none would venture there, especially at night. Colin Kaepernick certainly never did before growing an Afro that went out of fashion with Angela Davis. He is blessed with the choice to now "pick his race". Even his Egyptian Arab jock chasing girlfriend now pretends to be black pissing off a lot of black women in the process.
So, while I appreciate the deep political thoughts expressed here by some, let's not forget it comes down to sex. Especially with that white, blue eyed blonde after the prom.

URL]
[/quote]

URL]
[/quote]
 
Hi Mr. Uzi: I hate to take a page from your book, but 'neo-liberalism is defined as: A modern politico-economic theory favouring (must be British) free trade, privatization, minimal government intervention in business, reduced public expenditures on social sciences, etc."
Sounds to me like a timid 2nd cousin of Kochist 'libertarianism'--not views espoused (except for free trade) by Tony Blair or Bubba Clinton (whom I never liked and never voted for, btw).
Click to expand...

Sunshine you are quoting the version that was employed in developing countries ... but soon a jedi master you will be.
 
Glad to see your concern for correctional control. What alternatives would you suggest?
Click to expand...

Like most jackbooted libertarian fascists, I believe that fewer things should be illegal. (Because only through liberty can we achieve tyranny. Diabolical, isn't it.) Fewer crimes = fewer criminals. Acts that are criminalized because the government seeks to prevent self harm should not be. Drugs, all of them, should be legal. Prostitution, legal. Gambling, legal. Suicide, legal, and in some cases mandatory. Thought crimes (eg hate offenses) and most inchoate offenses (attempt, conspiracy, solicitation) should be eliminated. Activities where the government criminalizes what you do with or on your private property should be legal to the extent that they don't create a nuisance, like turning your corn into moonshine, or building a pond without a permit, or killing coyotes that are poaching your livestock. All that stuff should be legal and where harm accrues to the community administered civilly. Many regulatory offenses are needlessly criminalized, like practicing law without a license can get you jail time, which is ridiculous, the fact is most lawyers should be in prison for practicing with a license.

Non violent criminal offenders - like embezzlers say or tax cheats - should be sentenced to community service and restitution and other squishy alternatives. Bernie Madoff should spend his days emptying bed pans in an old folks home not reading magazines in a prison cell. The mentally ill should be offered ameliorative care in a therapeutic setting conducive to their particular needs. (I know, that sounded very Hitlerian.) Addicts should be offered treatment, despite the fact that it doesn't work. Yes, these are forms of correctional control. I don't care. They're alternative to the prison industrial complex, which is an abomination.

Prison should be reserved for incorrigible violent offenders. Some first time violent offenders - like say morons who attempt to rob a bank with a BB gun - should be punished corporally, that is, flogged and released with the promise of more severe punishment should they re-offend. Violent illegals should be deported. Despite being a Nazi I'm not much for the death penalty, but it has its place in reducing the prison population provided that it's reserved for heinous actors, like say Lemuel Smith, who tore a guard's throat out with his teeth while serving a life sentence for murder. People like that need to be put down, for their own sake.
 
I do not care what the textbook definition of 'libertarianism' is
Click to expand...

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less. The question is which is to be master—that's all."
 
Ah, Mr. Uzi: the 4th paragraph of Wikipedia's 'definition' of neo-liberalism, traces the latest iteration of the 'philosophy' and links it to the likes of Pinochet, as based on the theories of Hayek, Friedman, Buchanan, and mentions 'affiliated' (my word) politicians, the likes of Reagan and Thatcher.
The defense rests.
Now let's bury this baby and talk SJU hoops--following the lead of the great '72'!
B) :lol: :whistle: :cheer: :lol: B)
 
Ah Mr. Uzi. In some parallel universe, it all might be possible.
I just want justice, fairness, and balance...but all of that is in the eye of the beholder--now ain't it?
Let's go St. John's!
 
As we know a group of owners and a group of players are meeting to discuss the protesting during the anthem issue with the owners hoping to put an end to the practice. I believe I have come up with a really good solution. Everyone stands for the anthem so as not to offend those that feel it is disrespectful to protest at this time. The players could protest by taking a knee or raising a fist or whatever as part of their end zone celebrations after touchdowns. In this way no disrespect to the flag and actually more exposure for the players protests as instead of once during the anthem before the game when probably less people are watching they get to do it numerous times when more eyes are watching.
 
Or the owners could arrange for "We Shall Overcome" or "Lift Every Voice and Sing" to also be played with whole teams standing and watch who in the crowd shows disrespect to those anthems.
 
We are so fractured as a country that it's hard to register an opinion that's not viewed as highly volatile by the other side.

I think all players should stand during the pledge of allegiance. Our nationality is what binds us as a diverse people, and as Jim Brown (one of the 1st outspoken civil rights activists among professional athletes) has said, "Work within the system to make things better, and don't disrespect our country and flag.

I'm encouraged by the players who take a knee but at the same time place their hand over their heart.

I would much rather see players who are upset enough to take a knee forming a coalition of sorts to affect real change. Without working for change, taking a knee is empty and trendy, but has no real impact.
 
Or the owners could arrange for "We Shall Overcome" or "Lift Every Voice and Sing" to also be played with whole teams standing and watch who in the crowd shows disrespect to those anthems.
Click to expand...

That doesn't sound quite inclusive enough. Maybe add "Indian Reservation," "Hava Negelah," "Kung Fu Fighting" and "Allah Long the Watchtower" for our Muslim friends. Maybe best to dispense with the games altogether and you can make a national mixed tape.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top