Joss Delage

Sarah Palin selected by McCain for VP slot

257 posts in this topic

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.

The virtue of America is/was individual rights, as set out in the Declaration of Independence. I don't think republicanism is that big a deal, except to the extent that it upholds our individual rights.

Close to the sod and close to god. Jefferson was a man of many contradictions. Those same fields were also the last vestiges of slavery (the absolute worst act of collectivism ever imposed by people in this country), and today are the vestige of a massive expropriation of wealth.

Jefferson was a man of few contradictions and a man of reason. Jefferson was one of the biggest intellectual forces against slavery ever.

Slavery is not "collectivism", though it can result from it. Collectivism is the idea that the individual must submit to the group and follows naturally from altruism. Slavery existed throughout the history of mankind and all across the world. It is quite probable that all of us have ancestors who were slaves. What was unique was America's Founders recognizing that it's wrong and starting the process of ending it. This is where America stands out and why those who say slavery was America's "original sin" are dead wrong. Even if the Brits and French ended it first, they were both part of the same Enlightenment ideas that vanquished slavery.

What is odd about your point is that the very men who spearheaded the end of slavery are the men you are attacking. These are men who courageously stood up to it at a time when it was incredibly difficult to do.

I also want to make note that modern leftists are not against either slavery or racism. As an example, they promote Islamacists while rationalizing the evils of regimes under Islam by saying "They have the right to their cultures." They promote racism by claiming one can't be color blind, one must be race focused. "Diversity" is important, they say, by which they mean racial and ethnic diversity.

America is a great and moral country, which was founded on the principle of individual rights. We need men who will fight for that today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jefferson was a man of few contradictions and a man of reason. Jefferson was one of the biggest intellectual forces against slavery ever.

Except that he owned slaves. Unlike Washington, he didn't even emancipate them in his will. He was a strict constructionist while in Opposition, and a loose constructionist while in power (what in the Constitution authorized him to make the Louisiana Purchase when Congress authorized him to purchase New Orleans)? IOW, he could talk the talk but not walk the walk. Interestingly, that's one of the raps on Obama.

Anyway, slavery is altruism. Perhaps "collectivism" was a poor choice of words, but any Objectivist can grant that it certainly was one of the worst acts of altruism in history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyway, slavery is altruism. Perhaps "collectivism" was a poor choice of words, but any Objectivist can grant that it certainly was one of the worst acts of altruism in history.

Huh? :huh:

You'll have to run that by me again. Slavery was partially an anthropological problem (some scientists honestly believed Negroes were inferior) and also simply a problem of racism and not respecting individual rights. If anything racism would be collectivism, because it would be ascribing a blanket of negative traits to a group while denying the free will of individuals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jefferson was a man of few contradictions and a man of reason. Jefferson was one of the biggest intellectual forces against slavery ever.

Except that he owned slaves.

He was born into the situation. What he did was make possible a country that ended slavery and this was a priority of his, something he fought for. I know that you are living in the modern world and take for granted that it's obvious that slavery is wrong, but back in that day it took a great deal to fight for and end slavery. I mean, when you tell so many of your neighbors that it's supremely immoral thing to do, that has a tendency to rub people the wrong way if they themselves are slaver owners. It was a long entrenched institution.

Unlike Washington, he didn't even emancipate them in his will.

Virginia laws were rigged against freeing slaves.

He was a strict constructionist while in Opposition, and a loose constructionist while in power (what in the Constitution authorized him to make the Louisiana Purchase when Congress authorized him to purchase New Orleans)? IOW, he could talk the talk but not walk the walk. Interestingly, that's one of the raps on Obama.

I don't know, I'd have to think that through, but certainly what he did helped the U.S. in terms of freedom. Comparing Jefferson to Obama is just weird.

Anyway, slavery is altruism. Perhaps "collectivism" was a poor choice of words, but any Objectivist can grant that it certainly was one of the worst acts of altruism in history.

Slavery is not altruism. Slavery is bondage, or the state of being under the control of another person. Yes, slavery is wrong, but what you are not grasping is that it is not obvious it is wrong. Again, it as only in the Age of Reason and the Enlightenment when it become known that it was wrong and this was only in the West.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not sure what idyllic fantasy world you are imagining, but the reality is that the modern small farming town is held together by irrational government farm subsidies and is superficially friendly but largely intolerant. The "melting pot" that created the unique American identity worked its best in the big cities. Let me ask you this, do you agree with Palin's condescending use of the word "cosmopolitan"? It's in cosmopolitan cities like yours and mine where generations of immigrants (from the Irish and Italians in the 19th century to the Eastern European, Asian, and yes, African immigrants today) arrived here with nothing, toughed it out, and made better lives for themselves.

I'm not sure what idyllic fantasy world you are imagining. What was true during the immigration boom of the late 19th and early 20th centuries most decidedly does not hold today. As a teacher in a city school system, at least 95% of the "minority" students I see on a daily basis, and the same percentage of their parents I have encountered, are the most hateful, immoral, violent, offensive, disrespectful, dishonest, and explicitly and outspokenly racist people I have ever known.* They have no interest whatsoever in "melting" into American culture, which they openly despise.

One can only wish that they were "cosmopolitan" - whatever flaws any of them might otherwise have, at least the cosmopolitan are civilized.

_____

*Note that the "minority," i.e. black and Hispanic, students constitute at least 80% of the kids I see, so they're hardly a real minority in these schools. Also, lest this sound racially motivated, note that "majority" students are exactly the same, but a smaller percentage of them and not nearly as overtly. I don't give a damn what color they are or where they come from - none of that makes a difference in the way I deal with them. What I care about is that they hate, steal, threaten, curse, disrupt, lie, and denigrate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As a teacher in a city school system, at least 95% of the "minority" students I see on a daily basis, and the same percentage of their parents I have encountered, are the most hateful, immoral, violent, offensive, disrespectful, dishonest, and explicitly and outspokenly racist people I have ever known.* They have no interest whatsoever in "melting" into American culture, which they openly despise.

I'd have a hard time thinking of a less attractive working environment, at least within this country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As a teacher in a city school system, at least 95% of the "minority" students I see on a daily basis, and the same percentage of their parents I have encountered, are the most hateful, immoral, violent, offensive, disrespectful, dishonest, and explicitly and outspokenly racist people I have ever known.* They have no interest whatsoever in "melting" into American culture, which they openly despise.

I'd have a hard time thinking of a less attractive working environment, at least within this country.

That's why I'm trying to find another job and get out. My real field is I.T., but for various reasons I've been away from it for a few years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
*Note that the "minority," i.e. black and Hispanic, students constitute at least 80% of the kids I see, so they're hardly a real minority in these schools. Also, lest this sound racially motivated, note that "majority" students are exactly the same, but a smaller percentage of them and not nearly as overtly. I don't give a damn what color they are or where they come from - none of that makes a difference in the way I deal with them. What I care about is that they hate, steal, threaten, curse, disrupt, lie, and denigrate.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"I was quite impressed. She was real, spunky, witty, forthright, self-confident, ... and feminine.

I would underscore her femininity. And add beautiful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"I was quite impressed. She was real, spunky, witty, forthright, self-confident, ... and feminine.

I would underscore her femininity. And add beautiful.

My apologies. I have yet to understand how to quote. My remarks are in reply to Betsy Speicher's Post #111.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One can only wish that they were "cosmopolitan" - whatever flaws any of them might otherwise have, at least the cosmopolitan are civilized.

That said, Hyde Park actually is pretty cosmopolitan. It long has been one of Chicago's most racially and socio-economically integrated neighborhoods (Ayers notwithstanding). It's one of the few neighborhoods where it has long been safe for people of all races to walk around without much fear of violence or crime.

Things are slightly different now (in a good sort of way), but some of the best neighborhoods for inter-racial or upper-class African American couples to raise a family in the Chicago area are the more liberal ones (and I distinguish "liberal" from "Democratic"). Hyde Park and Beverly on the South Side, Evanston in the north shore suburbs, and Oak Park in the west suburbs are the first that come to mind, and three of them are very liberal (Beverly is a bit more traditional Chicago Democratic). Those areas tend to be more educated and diverse, have a solid sense of community, and a unique identity. That's why I'm puzzled at Palin's putdown of cosmopolitanism. Conservatives do fine in cosmopolitan neighborhoods. So do liberals and just about everyone else willing to live and let live.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's why I'm trying to find another job and get out. My real field is I.T., but for various reasons I've been away from it for a few years.

I'm glad to hear that you're getting out. You don't deserve that garbage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's like learning that a diagnosis of cancer was wrong, that you're healthy as an ox.

I can tell you right now, it's not that good.

Personally, I think Palin projects an intelligent, confident, and competent demeanor. Despite her religiosity, she may be very rational when it comes to problem-solving.

So far, that is my impression as well.

After watching her speak, I wrote to a friend, "I was quite impressed. She was real, spunky, witty, forthright, self-confident, ... and feminine. She also seemed to have a strong sense of right and wrong and struck me as a valuer."

It is tragic that some of her values are seriously wrong, but given that she seems to be such a valuer, the odds are they are innocent errors of knowledge.

I agree.

I get the impression she is a bit like Rush Limbaugh. She has a mixture of an American sense of life and religious values. The American sense of life is strong in her in that she is a real achiever, but the religious values are having a negative impact. I like a lot about her, but the down side is evident as well.

The only prominent politician who strikes me as possessing an American sense of life in any clear, strong way is Mitt Romney, and I'm not just going by his looks.

Philosophically, he is an utter pragmatist who has helped enslave the people of Massachusetts with universal health care. But, he is unapologetic about his wealth and was willing to stand up for Big Business during the debates. As an immigrant to the West, Romney strikes me as the confident "All-American."

I am not so positive about Palin. She still spoke about "being there" for parents of "special-needs" children. That sort of altruistic, emotional panhandling which is the lifeblood of the Left and which has almost decimated Western culture in Canada, is decidedly un-American.

I am, however, hopeful that, should she become President, she will somehow hold off the greater forces of evil, thereby giving Objectivism more time to prosper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We are fooling ourselves if we think that voting GOP will buy us time. The best thing that can happen for the cause of freedom and rational thought is for the GOP to disintegrate and be forced to reconstitute itself along rational lines. It happened to the Conservative party in Canada in 1993. Now a revitalized party has taken power and is delivering sustainable limited government (at least by Canadian standards). Palin represents the evangelical wing of the party, which is the very wing that gave us GW Bush, Sarbanes-Oxley, and the TSA; and the very wing that needs to be purged.

Historically, whenever free speech and/or property rights have been destroyed in a given society, it has proven very, very difficult - if not impossible - to restore them. This fact is the most powerful argument against "voting down" the conservative Right in order to make more clear the capitalist Right's contrast with the Left.

Consider the case you evoked: Canada. Canada's Conservative Party (led by Harper) is a child of the Christian Reform Party's merger with the agnostic Progressive Conservative Party. Yet, Harper's leadership is still as lacklustre as the PCP he sought to re-invigorate. Basically, all that's happened for the most part is the substitution of one powerluster for another.

Harper pledged not to impose taxes on income trusts. But, upon gaining power, he and his goon (Finance Minister) Flaherty - much to the business world's outrage - imposed them to "level the playing field" and to make sure that "everyone pays his fair share." The huge tax imposed on trusts FAR outweighs the little cuts (2%) he's made to the GST (Goods and Services Tax) and the very minor cuts to corporate income taxes.

Also, despite the worldwide knowledge of the evil of Canada's Human Rights Commissions, and of the way they went after his friend Ezra Levant, Harper has remained silent on the matter. This is a matter which establishes Canada as a dictatorship, no less. With it, Canada loses the moral authority to criticize China. What does Harper do or say? Nothing.

He then panders to the "native peoples" of Canada by apologizing for "residential schools," which were civilizing influences on savages.

In Quebec, private healthcare is gaining very limited ground, yet Harper has not even bothered to try to encourage this non-socialist possibility. Not even in a speech.

And, in the area which Canada has outshined the rest of the West, immigration, the Conservatives moved to curtail it in May. Now, Canada's immigration policy more closely resembles America's.

What I'm trying to say is that despite a commitment to the war in Afghanistan, Harper is not significantly better than the Liberals, economically or morally. He can only be seen as a bulwark against greater evils, and not much of a bulwark at that. The Canadian people are not philosophically integrated enough to know how to even evaluate their governments much less seek limited government. The notion of "limited government" in an active, burgeoning welfare state is absurd. Whatever parity the Canadian dollar has achieved with the US dollar lately is indicative of two things: increased foreign (read US and Chinese) investment in - and trade with - Canada, and the increasing government scope in the US economy. The relaxation of the foreign investment requirements in Canada is not a Conservative thing, so, even there one cannot support Harper unequivocally.

Just to show you how powerlusters of the Left and Right speak the same language, observe that Flaherty used the idea of "tax leakage" as a defense of his criminal imposition of taxes on income trusts. Taxes were not going into government coffers, the critter claimed. A few Canadians protested, but they already lost their chance in 1776. In addition, Pierre Trudeau and Tommy Douglas implemented Obama's agenda in Canada decades ago. The only relatively untouched province is Alberta (Free Alberta!), the Texas of Canada.

So, as Canada slides deeper into Fascism and as we observe the same trends in the still much freer U.S., the lesson for the States is this: Vote for whomever will hold off the slide, so that we can arm the American people enough to defend themselves from their oppressors. In this regard, the nihilistic Left is more trenchant. Their Kantian (via pragmatism) concept of Duty [regardless of cause and effect], will generally prove more damaging than the still Protestant but increasingly Kantian concept of Duty that we observe in the non-nihilistic Right. It is not a matter of loving the Right more than the Left but a matter of recognizing that both are evil and that we must do what is possible in the U.S. to buy time for Objectivism.

This hold-the-greater-political-evil-off strategy is the subject of Ayn Rand's essay on how to select a presidential candidate. I suggest you read it in order to clarify the context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few bugs in my last post. Sorry.

And, in the area which Canada had outshone the rest of the West, immigration, the Conservatives moved to curtail it in May. Now, Canada's immigration policy more closely resembles America's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, that was a really great post Mercury!

And, in the area which Canada has outshined the rest of the West, immigration, the Conservatives moved to curtail it in May. Now, Canada's immigration policy more closely resembles America's.
Has Canadian immigration really gotten that much worse lately? :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow, that was a really great post Mercury!

Thanks very much, Jordan.

And, in the area which Canada has outshined the rest of the West, immigration, the Conservatives moved to curtail it in May. Now, Canada's immigration policy more closely resembles America's.
Has Canadian immigration really gotten that much worse lately? :huh:

I'll explain myself later tonight. Here's the release covering the latest changes. It looks good at first, but the real story, in my opinion, is this:

Major Changes to Canadian Immigration Act

The major changes made

* remove the obligation of Citizenship and Immigration Canada to process all properly submitted applications.
The department will now be able to return applications (and refund the corresponding application fees) without processing them.

* give the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration the authority to set priorities through ministerial instructions. Prioritizing certain skills and occupations will allow labour market needs in Canada to be addressed more quickly. It will also limit the number of applications that are processed and keep the backlog from growing any larger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
* remove the obligation of Citizenship and Immigration Canada to process all properly submitted applications. The department will now be able to return applications (and refund the corresponding application fees) without processing them.

So basically "We reserve the right to stop doing our job at our own discretion"? :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
McCain just beat Obama in a recent poll:

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/08/mccain-leads-poll/

This is a stunning trend shift and you would think that it would be at the front page of all key media ... but you'd be wrong.

What press are you reading? It's all over the Politico and the main news sites. McCain's convention bounce appears bigger than Obama's. Whether it lasts is another story. When are the debates? Palin's interview with Gibson may prove crucial, particularly if Gibson hasn't already fed his questions to her so her handlers can prepare her for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's some facts on earmarks:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080908/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_palin

------------------

Obama hasn't asked for any earmarks this year. Last year, he asked for $311 million worth, about $25 for every Illinois resident. Alaska asked this year for earmarks totaling $198 million, about $295 for every Alaska citizen.

Palin has cut back on pork project requests, but under her administration, Alaska is still and by far the largest per-capita consumer of federal pet-project spending.

------------------

To be fair to both politicians, most "earmarks" are run-of-the-mill requests such as funding for infrastructure, or to pay for some of the unfunded mandates imposed by the federal government. That said, it does indicate how much more less-populous states tend to get in federal support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
* remove the obligation of Citizenship and Immigration Canada to process all properly submitted applications. The department will now be able to return applications (and refund the corresponding application fees) without processing them.

So basically "We reserve the right to stop doing our job at our own discretion"? :huh:

Precisely. Their immigration rules have become more arbitrary. They've moved further away from a recognition of man's right to liberty (of which immigration is one instance). Now, you immigrate strictly at the permission of some random bureaucrat, since they are able to deny applications without a need to show cause. The Permanent Residency status, which was Canada's major draw (you could apply for PR status without ever working in Canada beforehand or marrying anyone), has been severely restricted. This is already in the case in the U.S., where you cannot - to my knowledge - become a PR without living for a number of years and jumping through hoops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's some facts on earmarks:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080908/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_palin

------------------

Obama hasn't asked for any earmarks this year. Last year, he asked for $311 million worth, about $25 for every Illinois resident. Alaska asked this year for earmarks totaling $198 million, about $295 for every Alaska citizen.

Palin has cut back on pork project requests, but under her administration, Alaska is still and by far the largest per-capita consumer of federal pet-project spending.

------------------

To be fair to both politicians, most "earmarks" are run-of-the-mill requests such as funding for infrastructure, or to pay for some of the unfunded mandates imposed by the federal government. That said, it does indicate how much more less-populous states tend to get in federal support.

Among the "unfunded mandates" imposed on Alaska is the Federally mandated destruction of the economy by prohibiting private ownership for the sake of environmentalist preservationism. Less than one percent of the land in Alaska is privately owned. The Federal government blocks access to private land and mineral rights as well as disrupting transportation corridors across the state. It controls and prohibits production. ANWAR is only one example. This has been done to rural areas all over the country, primarily by liberal, urban viros who like to dream about Garden of Eden wilderness at someone else's expense, and then snipe at their rural victims. Few people in this country understand what urban populations with the dominant political power are doing to rural populations within thier own states and nationally. The state of Alaska has been so mauled by this that Alaskans tend to regard Federal funds as reparations for what has been done to them. Biased accounts of the small amount of money going to Alaska do not acknowledge, let alone address, this and it's not surprising to see them suddenly appearing in the media's frenzied attempts to undermine the threat to the progressive's Obama from Sarah Palin's popularity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[Canadian] immigration rules have become more arbitrary. They've moved further away from a recognition of man's right to liberty (of which immigration is one instance). Now, you immigrate strictly at the permission of some random bureaucrat, since they are able to deny applications without a need to show cause. The Permanent Residency status, which was Canada's major draw (you could apply for PR status without ever working in Canada beforehand or marrying anyone), has been severely restricted. This is already in the case in the U.S., where you cannot - to my knowledge - become a PR without living for a number of years and jumping through hoops.

This kind of non-objective law putting arbitrary power into the hands of unaccountable bureaucrats is a very dangerous and personally destructive trend across all kinds of government agencies in the US, and apparently Canada, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites