Free Capitalist

I've been interested in exactly the same question, so I've been reading a few Republican news sources/blogs, and they asking themselves exactly this question, and are blaming themselves for the the Democratic takeover of Congress. "Return to our Conservative principles" is the ideological slogan of this election season, which they inevitably interpret as stronger social stances, a small government and much privatization.

What the?

Some reference to that might stem from Adams' own life, which was not getting happier as he grew in age, and in some ways lacked the fiery idealism of the Revolution. He thought the Americans were slowly losing grip on the very principles the country was founded on, and was deeply distressed that Europe violently started going against the Enlightenment right around the year 1800. But even if that's so you could argue that the show must keep a positive spin and present his struggle with something benevolent to offset it. Perhaps this desire by Hanks to stick closely to Adams' life without any frills is a slight case of Naturalism.

Just as a final comment on the whole inner-city education thing, what I said about the necessity of projecting violence is right, piz. And I say this from the other side of the spectrum, i.e. how your students view you: if you bear yourself in a way that covertly projects the capacity for physical violence, the students will listen to you a lot more than they will to all the other teachers around them. We're nursing a crop of brutes in our very heart, here in the good ol' US.

Freedom shall reign, in America! Great show. I didn't see the last few episodes so I hope they were as excellent as all the starting one. I love the little touches which history-buff Tom Hanks added into the show: the disembodied snake standard carried with ominous ferocity, and Latin quotations which Abigail Adams was teaching to her children while John supervised.

I don't know what news sources you've been reading, but what I've seen shows republicans hugely disappointed in the Bush's government spending, and every single incumbent Republican politician both swears to "traditional" laissez-faire principles, and fears the title "neo-con" more then death.

Which is perfect because now I know, and I'm sure everyone else in this thread.

Betsy, since you're an LGF hatchling you know how much of a point it's been for the LGF guy that Palin has completely kept away from imposing her views on anybody.

Exactly piz. Exactly. You teach in this terrible system, and I was taught in it. Students regularly shouted down and insulted their teachers, there was absolutely no respect for any students and for the teacher least of all, unless he exhibited the capacity for physical violence, and I can say that I learned absolutely nothing having spent my entire adolescence in it. The inner city is the most disgusting place to be in America. Some places on the West Coast in LA are inaccessible to cops, armed camps with their own laws and executions, fenced in by brutish violence and multiculturalism.

Let me close this little aside between us by saying that I don't hold up Tennessee as a model for anything, while Texas has the virtuous gun-toting population and a billion-dollar economy second only to California. Ask any tech person, Austin, TX is the next most lucrative computer field after Silicon Valley, and in some ways more lucrative. Your dichotomy of North Eastern cities as feeding the rest of the country doesn't hold. North Eastern demographics are shrinking catastrophically and NYC has 0 growth, while that same Austin was at 8% tech growth and at 22% population growth. During the 19th century it was a place where people clung to slavery. This is the 21st century, and their great-grandsons are the last bastions of patriotism (while the old greats like NYC are slowly dying out, and Detroit has already become dead).

But what do his frequent and explicit condemnations of egoism actually result in? That's what I'd like to know. Where's the proof in the pudding? Let me offer you a contrast by suggesting Hillary, who dosn't say a pipsqueak about altruism but suggests a nationalized health service, and Obama who hasn't a whisper on altruism and the most socialistic voting record in the race. McCain might say stuff like: "I believe in duty, so let me privatize 90% of government and encourage people's duty to improve their country privately", etc. Words don't have an intrinsic meaning. I go for the proof in the pudding to see what the candidates actually believe in.

The principle of America is not some disembodied "toughing it out". The principle of America, or at least how the Founding Fathers embodied it, was virtue and republicanism, to which 'toughing it out' is only an optional ancillary selectively applicable to small portions of the country. What makes the 19th century melting pot so admirable is not how New York streets were filled with Irish gangs and hoodlums, but with what strength and ferocity mainstream America imposed, indeed forced, American values down these throats. These American values cannot come from the melting pot, because the pot is where those values come under constant danger, and are imposed on the new-coming population in a semi-hostile environment. The origin and birthplace of these values then must be somewhere else, somewhere safe where these values are cherished and nourished from birth. That's why Jefferson knew that the small-town is where his virtuous Americans were to be born, and why people are crying out that they are a nation of Massillas, rather than a nation of Chicagos.

I'm a bit perplexed about this outcry about the role of altruism in McCain's philosophy. What kind of altruism is it? Is he planning to raise taxes to 95% in order to practice his altruism and force alms out of the wealthy? Or, is he implementing this altruism by trying to build a national health service and grant 'rights' to healthcare? The only way this gets expressed is in timid endorsements of voluntary Peace Corps and a few tear-jerking invocations of 'service', always voluntary, packaged together with lower taxes and a dwindled government. Where is the actual foundation for why we must recognize McCain's altruistic evil? Does McCain prefer the draft? Sure, but that's because he's a soldier and many soldiers actually prefer the notion of draft, as expression of patriotic duty. But surely he's never tried to impose it on anybody, the public outcry would be tremendous against it, and a democratic Congress would hardly be a party to it. So I simply don't understand these phantom dangers of McCain's altruism which must be stopped at all costs.

Look, Politico began this season as a fairly balanced reporter of interesting information, but they are quickly tumbling down the Leftist path well-worn by MSNBC, and aren't even noticing it. The facts are, the inner city is a deep mess and a travesty for American values, while the small town is exactly the place where American values are left in such strong force. Politico likes to continually drop context and compare the incommensurables; and if they are pointed out the facts they indignantly stub their toe at political incorrectness.

KPO'M, do you realize how long a list you could write about just about anybody? Don't you think that nothing less than a book would do for McCain? What about Obama's cemetary of skeletons? The article author you mentioned piles on Palin's dislike of a city librarian, while Obama has one of the most left-wing voting records in the whole country? Is this all that's wrong with her? She disliked a school librarian and fired a police chief? When you put that letter in context, it sounds almost like wishful thinking, though when looked abstractly by itself it does make her look iffy, sure. I draw your attention to some of the comments which seem to have mentioned off-handedly -- sure she raised the city's spending, but when financial windfall came from today's oil prices, she wanted to spread that money to everybody in the city. This is a creationist lady who has made absolutely no issue of creationism in all of her years in office; a pro-life lady who has had that play only in her own life and not in anybody else's. Isn't this almost too good to be true? I keep expecting that we find some real faults in this lady because she can't be as good as it for now appears.

Community Organizers Fight Back The world has a sense of humor.

There's a good Palin quote for that: being a mayor of a small town is a bit like being a community organizer -- except that you actually have responsibilities. As for the church-going in the inner city, I don't know what city you live in. Maybe it's in Chicago, and maybe it's the South side, right next to Rev. Wright's church. What I have a lot of experience with is New York City and with the fountainheads from which "urban culture" springs into mainstream America (and thence into the world). I have driven through their neighborhoods, lived in them etc: they are not church-goers. The black folk who are church-going are not these urban gangsters as I've appropriately called them. They are instead middle class Americans who hate the poor urban culture, and who join the church to try and escape from its nihilism into normalcy and decent values.

Right, that's why urban gangsters are pious church-goers, and why 50 Cent is a religious icon.

Whoops, a misprint Yeah it is really surprising to see staunch democracts, I mean people who might've frothed at the mouth at G.H.W. Bush, now finding the McCain/Palin ticket not only tolerable but even exciting. And it deals with more than that she's a woman, because they find this to be a pro-American camp while finding Obama's camp suspicious and corrupt. Who would've thought!

There's an extremely post by a Hillary supporter there about McCain's VP pick Palin: http://www.hillaryclintonforum.net/discuss...5312#post325312 There have been forces unleashed by this election that I don't think anybody could've expected.

The jury is out on just how her religion plays out in public life. On the one hand she's anti-abortion, on the other hand she vetoed a State bill which would limit legal rights of gay couples. I guess in the larger scheme of things whom I'm impressed by is McCain: this guy is a tough cookie, and while Obama is softening up and cooling off, McCain seems just getting warmed up.

Wow that's a sad picture indeed. And what worries me the most is that short little comment in the article, that thus goes one of the last basic physics laboratories in the world. Who will pick up the slack? It's disconcerting.

Right, in that particular situation it would've been, but in general, it is quite possible to save a dear one's pain, and deny oneself joy with another dear person. I'm not dropping any context, and nothing you particularly said is being disputed here, but I'm just making a clarification that there is no dichotomy between one person's pain, pity for them, and your happiness. One's happiness could quite well be served by relieving that pain; and to always go for the benefits to one's literal self would be an improper, popularly derided, kind of selfishness.

Also what's wrong with making a "sacrifice" (poor choice of words) out of pity for Rearden? Pity is not a moral crime.