What i'm reading this very second...

Aug. 27 Locke, Second Treatise, sections 132-168, 199, 201-204, 221-229 and 240-243

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/locke/locke2/2nd-contents.html

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

response on taxes and economy...

Anonymous said...
Jim

You say look at what made our economy the greatest in the world. If you don't believe in the FairTax fine. Now look at what is ruining our economy in relation to the tax laws of other nations. We are becoming more and more uncompetitive.

Exactly! This is the consequence of our move away from Keynesian economics towards the back of a napkin supply side economics. The Laffer curve is laughable! But the impacts of cutting taxes at the expense of our infrastructure and making the middle class.. and future generations pay for it has hurt us dramatically.

I'll quote myself...

The impacts of the Bush tax cuts have been huge. And it has hurt our business competitiveness around the globe. That is reason--as the book, "the politics of Bad Ideas" points out--that the World Economic Forum the deterioration of the US public finances has begun to damage US competitiveness. This is a business research institute in Switzerland. The US experienced the most dramatic drop in rankings of ALL nations.

Also there is a myth that American businesses are being strangled by taxation at the expense of competitiveness. I'll outsource to Economist Mark Thoma at U. Oregon "The Greek Menace" who brings together some stuff around the web... I'll quote the larger point--aside from conservatives once again manipulating with hyperbole rather than data...

Economist Dean Baker:

Washington Post Misleads Readers to Push for Lower Corporate Tax Rates

Today, the preferred policy is further reductions in corporate income taxes. To advance this agenda the Post tells readers that, "U.S. companies operating abroad already labor under a bigger tax burden than most foreign competitors."

That's not what the OECD says. Data from the OECD show that in the average member country corporate taxes are equal to about 3.5 percent of GDP. In the United States, corporate taxes have generally been between and 1.5 percent and 2.5 percent of GDP over the last two decades, according to the Congressional Budget Office (Table F-4).

But more broadly this decline comes from the conservative revolution. The Regan myth--keep in mind he raised taxes twice to try to correct the harm done from his tax cut at the beginning of his term--of taxes cuts creating economic growth was considered flawed by many economist in theory... and now we have the data to back it up. But the propaganda has remained useful. Our society has become less equitable with the reductions in the top economic bracket. Disparities of wealth over the long term have a huge impact in undermining the market system. We haven't seen such disparities of wealth since the 20's. And we have Regan and the pathology of tax cuts.


--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

Moral Foundations Theory

Moral Foundations Theory

Moral Foundations Theory was created to understand why morality varies so much across cultures yet still shows so many similarities and recurrent themes. In brief, the theory proposes that five innate and universally available psychological systems are the foundations of “intuitive ethics.” Each culture then constructs virtues, narratives, and institutions on top of these foundations, thereby creating the unique moralities we see around the world, and conflicting within nations too. The foundations are:

1) Harm/care, related to our long evolution as mammals with attachment systems and an ability to feel (and dislike) the pain of others. This foundation underlies virtues of kindness, gentleness, and nurturance.
2) Fairness/reciprocity, related to the evolutionary process of reciprocal altruism. This foundation generates ideas of justice, rights, and autonomy.
3) Ingroup/loyalty, related to our long history as tribal creatures able to form shifting coalitions. This foundation underlies virtues of patriotism and self-sacrifice for the group. It is active anytime people feel that it's "one for all, and all for one."
4) Authority/respect, shaped by our long primate history of hierarchical social interactions. This foundaiton underlies virtues of leadership and followership, including deference to legitimate authority and respect for traditions.
5) Purity/sanctity, shaped by the psychology of disgust and contamination. This foundation underlies religious notions of striving to live in an elevated, less carnal, more noble way. It underlies the widespread idea that the body is a temple which can be desecrated by immoral activities and contaminants (an idea not unique to religious traditions).

Much of our present research involves applying the theory to political "cultures" such as those of liberals and conservatives. The current American culture war, we have found, can be seen as arising from the fact that liberals try to create a morality relying almost exclusively on the Harm/Care and Fairness/Reciprocity foundations; conservatives, especially religious conservatives, use all five foundations, including Ingroup/Loyalty, Authority/Respect, and Purity/Sanctity. You can find out your own moral foundations profile at www.YourMorals.org.

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

liberal/conservative

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

Politics...

Everybody wants to participate in t-shirt politics and half-time trivia talking points.

Politics isn't supposed to be entertaining, politics isn't supposed to be entertainment.

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

Before Stiglitz... before Keynes, before Adam Smith...

You can find an acknowledgement of how an economy works... and how destructive Conservative's economic policy of "every man for themselves" is...

“If the Kingdom is divided against itself that kingdom cannot stand.” Mark 3:24

This speaks to how important it is to address disparities of wealth within the economy. Economists have a pretty strong grasp now of how disparities of wealth harm an economy over the long run... but this shows that it has been understood for ages.

Conservatives don't even blush when one points out disparities of wealth. They don't see it as a problem--since they hold the incoherent view that an economy is not a collective effort but individuals out on their own with boot-straps pulled up to their knees...


--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

Fall of the Roman Republic

I've been pulling together some thoughts for my political theory class...that is an expansion of my question/contention that the Republic as it currently stands is gone... with the Bush era we are purely under the facade of Democracy... might the Republic return? Might it be gone for good? I lean towards the first but that might be idealistic nievity... and might not idealistic nievity be a requirement of all republicans?

Anyhow I had to look into the history of the fall of the Roman Republic and came across something I wanted to share/keep...

Fall of the Roman Republic

In this chapter, the lives and impact of Caesar, Octavian, Antonius (Antony) and even Cleopatra, along with the continuing stories of men like Pompey, Crassus and Cicero will be examined. The Fall of the Republic was more than a single man or event. It was a culmination of several individual actions or achievements, coupled with social conditions that weighed heavily on Roman society. Additionally, massive and rapid expansion from Rome's foundation as a fledgling city 700 years earlier until the mid 1st century BC, created monumental holes in the political and governing ability of the Senate. Periods of stability were mixed in with those of near collapse while powerful generals or inciters of the Roman mob jockeyed for position.

Beginning with the Punic Wars and Roman conquest outside of Italy, followed by massive importation of slaves, the face of Roman life was changing far more rapidly than the governing body could deal with. Political infighting was and always would be a common trait in any system, but even the greatest of Romans like Scipio Africanus, fell victim to the whims of politicians. The social instability that resulted from inequities in the class system gave way to rise of demagogues like the brothers Gracchi. The use of the citizen assemblies for popular agendas tore at the very fabric of Senatorial power.

Men like Marius and Sulla, with their own personal agendas and rivalries wreaked havoc in an already weakened structure. Partisan politics of the conservative Optimate Senators trying to keep power with the elite class, while the tactics of the Populares, who looked to the lower classes for support, divided the people and classes into what seemed like warring factions. For nearly 100 years, the climate was unpredictable at best, and brutally bloody at worst.

By the time of the rise of Gaius Julius Caesar, the stage was set for a single man to assume power and stabilize the Empire. Caesar was neither the only man responsible for the fall, nor the one man who could stop it, but his role in the final demise is undeniable. He neither started the fall nor finished it, but continued a cycle of events that made its collapse irreversible. Contemporaries of the brilliant general and politician hold as much blame as the great man himself, however. How different events may have been without the plays for power and a bit of humility among the Senate.

Regardless, despite Caesar's short reign and policies of reform and stability, the strength of his character and personality held the Republic together only as long as he lived. His assassination and the continuing Civil Wars that resulted, would be required to bring necessary power to a single ruler of a single great nation: The Roman Empire. The eventual rise and adoption of Caesar's heir, Octavian, to the exalted post of Augustus spelled the real end of the Republic. He, unlike his predecessors, rose at a time when the will for the Republican system had nearly died.

While tradition and some semblance of power would remain, the foundation of government under a single figure was a requirement to continue the advancement of the Empire. It was Augustus who proved to be the one man great and powerful enough to control the Senate, the mob and the Legions. Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus Augustus rose above all the great Romans before him to outlast political opponents, reform a corrupt government and stabilize a system in disarray. The Fall of the Republic was inevitable, but fortunately for Rome, the right man at the right time was there to step in as the first Roman Emperor.

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

response to Bellum omnium contra omnes

to the question of changing ones mind, political expediency, and other question we like to talk about politically...

In response to the statement "I vote for the best person," my understanding of such a comment is it refers to the individual (political)actions of the candidate in question. This is (possibly/hopefully) not based on quotes and political spin alone. My interpretation of "the best person for the job" refers to a belief justified by quantifiable data from established agencies recognized as being unbiased and nonpartisan. Such sources vary in methodology as far as the gathering of sources. Such examples of reputable sources of information are www.factcheck.org, www.vote-smart.org, www.ontheissues.com, www.politifact.com, www.thehill.com, etc.

Politics is coalitions... a vote for John McCain empowers a guy like Lynn Westmoreland to promote a destructive economic agenda...

Assumption is the candidates are both at least competent for the job... one may be more qualified... but coalitions is the name of the game with politics...

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

response to Bellum omnium contra omnes comment...

On my political and rhetorical approach...

Stating people possess the scenario between conservative or liberal cognition seems like an "either-or" fallacy. I will need to read the study further to be certain. I too believe in checks and balances in the form of policy. There is no evidence one form of political rhetoric is more harmful to our republic than another, at the least there is no harm when there is balance between the ideologies. The combination of conservative and liberal values (independence versus social welfare) can work together in the government system. Evidence for my claim can be found here.

"The combination of conservative and liberal values (independence versus social welfare) can work together in the government system."

To protect and empower... you can't do any of that with conservative policy goals... so I would disagree. Every man for themselves pull yourself up by your boot-straps... individualist ethics is destructive economically and socially. See Adam Smith... Stiglitz... modern economics as a whole on the importance of infrastructure investment which the private sector never does...

So i'd totally disagree on that one. Oh and I'd love to see the impacts on people from the welfare reform now that the growth of the Clinton era are now gone.

Science can't create either/or fallacies. The world is either flat or its not...

if the empirical data doesn't hold then that would be the legitimate challenge. Not likely though... we're getting better and better at cognitive science and neuroscience... and free will as we conceive of it... and all of that nonsense entailed in it will soon fade (okay not likely... but a boy can dream.)

the age of reason is quite dead...

Thats the biggest problems with philosophy in general... it sticks to theory and all these "ideas" that are reasoned out...

My philosophy professor at UC Davis... a guy name Cummins had a great cartoon it had an armchair with a red cross over it... like no smoking. It was "no arm-chair philosophy".

To see logical knock-out blows to metaphysics as an accurate description of the world and all that is there-entailed see Logic, Truth, and language by A.J. Ayer.

Metaphysics is useful for subjective truth and the way individual brains understanding the paradoxes and complexities of the world, as well as human interaction. But science is the method for accurate descriptions of the world that can be verifiable and therefore the only rational public discourse that one can use in areas such as politics.

Its fine for interpersonal relations and religion and such... but those are subjective at their core... (think of the bond between two friends... or the subjectivity of what one person means by god... as compared to another... see the quote by Dennett at the top of the page)

Bellum omnium contra omnes... kudos to you for using a blog the way its supposed to be used... to debate and create a dialogue... I'm learning a lot from you and improving my ability to explain and understand my own positions. Thanks!

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

On my political and rhetorical approach...

Bellum omnium contra omnes made a very accurate point on the comments page...

You use my quotes as a pseudo representation of the Republican Party (although I'm more of a moderate-Independent, Libertarian).

There is something to that... and here is why I do it--Cognitive Scientist George Lakoff and others are finding that the Brain uses frames, metaphors, and linguistic constructs in certain ways... these are biological.

Lakoff argues that there are--broadly--two frames. He calls them conservative and progressive. He isn't arguing about political philosophy and more so about how peoples brains respond and or react because of things they see, hear, and think... and they have found that everyone has these. He argues there is no such thing as the center... (i.e. "centrists" "independents") because those are just people who use progressive frames in some circumstances and conservative frames in others.

There are two important points to that...

first conservatives use certain language and phrases... these are the tricks of the trade to make people more inclined to support their policies (i.e. words and phrases that are more inclined to cause certain patterns in the brain to fire rather than others).

So I'm learning more and more to pick up on it and point it out to others. Lots of people get offended because they don't think they are conservatives and/or don't like the fact that conservatives undermine our civil liberties, torture at will, and refuse the founding fathers principles of checks and balances and think that their language usage is not a form of acceptance of that. WHich I agree they don't think its a form of acceptance... but it is.

Basically when people use conservative frames they are doing the bidding of the Dick Cheney's and Heritage Foundation's of the world. Its a meme thats spreads for free without any conservative dollars being put to use. Most of McCain's attack adds... you know the Obama next to a white woman ads have been shown very little and have spread across the universe for free in the media and online. People talk to their friends and family with those frames... and poof...

One is inadvertently spreading the conservative frames when you use their words and ways of approaching questions, which increases conservatives ability to impact policy. The more people hear it and think it the more inclined their brains our to use conservative frames and think in terms of conservative frames.

These frames undermine our economy, our solidarity within society, and our communities at large. These frames keep people apathetic, helpless, and frightened to the point of seeing their neighbor and/or those who need our protection as threats to their well being.

I work hard to re frame things in terms of empowerment and protection. They work hard to make people feel that its every man for themselves. Having come up in a Methodist household I stay true to my belief that it is that which we do to the least of these... ironically my passion for the market system has caused me to be even more passionate and committed to those values know that I know my morals and the market system work on the same principles.

So I'm not spoofing quotes... I'm accurately pointing out from the work of Lakoff that you are doing the bidding of authoritarians, statists, and perpetrators of human rights violations... I sincerely doubt that is your intention. But your intention, your will, isn't the question. You can't control that which you have no control over.
--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

to the question of changing ones mind, political expediency, and other question we like to talk about politically...

McCain's performance was less consistent than Obama's. This fact cannot be disputed in the critical, unbiased mind. I wonder at the primary cause for McCain's change in performance from "maverick critic of the Bush administration" to supporting Bush-policy 95%. Is this action a simple change of mind, an indication of political ambition, or a combination of the two scenarios? My inquiry is of a strictly personal nature, and not of true political concern; as it relates to neither your motivation for this post nor my final decision come this November. What are your thoughts to my question?

I avoid mind-reading... (thats a response that I stole from economist dean baker and philosopher David Pacini). Baker criticizes news articles when they discuss politics from the question of personal beliefs and personal political philosophy.

These are things these leaders and decision makers may or may not hold but there is no way to verify. How can we trust a journalist who is only seeing certain aspects of candidates and elected officials? Plus they only interact in certain way and politicos are aware they are interacting with a reporter--there is no such thing as off the record.

I flip the question around as something that might be interesting in an abstract way. But I tend to focus those kinds of discussions to philosophers, artists, and other cultural animals. Politics should be serious discussions since it is serious life or death issues at stake. I don't like the cult of personality that the media and voters fixate on.

I always respond by pointing to this negative tendency within out political culture.

They can't read minds can they? No, they can report on the facts, the policies, the positions, contributors, x...y...z...

We can't read minds can we? Its not meant to be condescending to the question since I do think its interesting. But I'm up to my ears in serious politics and most of my interactions with voters have to do with petty issues that are of no importance. Its a very sad state of affairs... and it explains how we've ended up with the corruption and apathy that we now have. We reap what we sow... no?

they can't read minds. I think this is part of my issue with individualizing candidates. I don't comprehend at all the "I vote for the best person." "I like him as a person"

This individualization and personification... has nothing to do with political policy or leadership. Conservatives are often passionate--Liberals can do so as well--about personal politics.

Hell I know the name of Clinton's cat--socks...

why in the world do I need to know that...

we want people discussing political differences. When the news media and political junkies talk about someones political philosophy as the instigator or certain decisions we confuse what we are talking about... as well as what we are capable of knowing.

I'd be intrigued to have philosophical discussions with these people. But that's neither here nor there when it comes to leadership and policy decisions.

I get--whats a good word--frustrated when we talk about candidates doing things for philosophical or political expediency. Talk about the context of verifiable facts; people will infer what they will. But its like the race question... Obama has no need to respond to it. He's a sucker cause he keeps responding which is what McCain wants.

I don't think this speaks to the voters as people who only care about petty stuff. I just think they know there is no point in caring about the important stuff... its driven into them by the media, the two major political parties--who need each other to play the devil, and core gropus who enjoy the status quo while they bemoan the apathy and corruption. When one profits and enjoys the perks of the status quo... one will do and say anything to make it stay the way it is.

The only solution... organize, participate, and never give in...

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

Lakoff on Conservative thought...

as reading Lakoff's new book "The Political Mind: why you can't understand 21st-Century American Politics with an 18th-century brain. I highly recommend it!

pg. 60

Conservative thought has a very different moral basis than progressive thought. It begins with the notion that morality is obedience to an authority--assumed to be a legitimate authority who is inherently good, knows right from wrong, functions to protect us from evil in the world, and has both the right and duty to use force to command obedience and fight evil. He is "the Decider." Obedience to legitimate authority requires both personal responsibility and discipline, which are prime conservative virtues. Obedience is enforced through punishment. In large institutions, there will be a hierarchy of authority, used, among others things, to maintain order. Loyalty is required to maintain the hierarchy. Freedom is seen as functioning within such an order. As long as you follow the rules laid down for you, you are free to act within that order...

For conservatives, the market is seen metaphorically as an institution personified as a legitimate authority who makes rational decisions ("Let the market decide"), as imposing market discipline, and as regarding discipline and punishing the lack of it. Prosperity is seen as a mark of discipline, which is in turn seen as moral, since discipline is required to obey moral laws and whatever is required by those in authority. By the logic of this system of thought, if you are not prosperous, you are not disciplined, and therefore cannot be moral, and so deserve your poverty. It follows that if people are given thing they have not earned, they become dependent and lose their discipline and with it their capacity to obey moral laws and legitimate authority.

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

fundamentals of politcs

I'm realizing more and more the approach and structure I use/apply to political issues. First I have stolen or creatively appropriated the thought of many... most specifically Dean Baker, Noam Chomsky, George Lakoff, and David Pacini.

I believe that everything is restricted to biological nature of the human animal--which due to being a social animal--is hugely complex and we can't really claim that we have a strong understanding of this biological construct. Although I would make the case that we are very quickly growing more and more confident in many of these biological structures.

I believe that empirical facts/arguments are secondary to ones construct of the world and the frames that one uses to discuss things in the world. Data tends to follow... hence conservatives from my experience are on the wrong end of the way the world actually works...

For the most part I don't believe in "philosophical disagreement." Most people agree to wanting a strong economy, agree to feeding the homeless, good schools... they disagree on the approaches. this is not a Philosophical disagreement... but it is the catch-all phrase which means... I don't care to have to do the leg work in this conversation.

Quite often a moderate Republican is better than a conservative Democrat.

The word Christian, Muslim, Jew... these are political terms. Not only that they are ONLY political terms...
--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

My election year manifesto?

I'm in an interesting discussion on comments page and wanted to pull it up for others who might have missed the post: Why would John McCain change his policy position on offshore drilling? Hope I articulate my response in a productive and helpful manner...

I hope you don't. Otherwise, I would be disappointed in you as a leader.

Here is the problem with trying to disconnect... as with all government policies I am interconnected in a way that makes it hard for me not to pick the lesser of two evils and work as hard as I can to stop the worst of the two...

* As a high school dropout the effects of our defunding of schools has been pretty substantial (in fact I am taking diagnostics for ADHD--would have been helpful way before the age of 28).

*As someone who spent the ages of 14-26 with untreated/under treated bi-polar, someone who very nearly died from it, I can talk about the effects of a defunded system where protection of shareholder profits for pharmaceutical companies, protection of insurance companies over the needs of patients, protection of Doctors from open market competition... throwing people on the streets or in jails. I watched people wither away and die. Ever slept on a bench... I have... ever blacked out and only have vague memories if any at all... I have. Ever looked a homeless person in the streets and saw them talking to themselves and you know in your gut you are amazingly blessed to have found a way back out of the hell of being locked in your head... I have

* My best friend died from Heroin addiction... the tough on drugs tough on crime pathology that has nothing to do with crime prevention or rehabilitation... and everything to do with scared people (due to the conservative economic policies) who will latch onto and lash out at anything and everything that is a threat.

* I hung around people who sold drugs... when they should have been in business school. Runaways, high school dropouts, alcohol and drug abuse... yeah I've seen the shit people live in and around

* As someone who lost their health insurance (crappy economy... crappy job prospects add on no high school degree) in a country that ranks 37th in the world for health care according to the World Health organization... who then has to face over $30,000 in medical costs... and was only saved by the grace of family who was able to some how pull enough money together to get me the treatment I required. As someone who's medical bills fluctuate between 800-2000 dollars in a month because I lack health insurance.

* as someone who is sitting on thousands of dollars in student loans

* as someone who has worked for nonunion workforce.. who has had to fight with all the other part-time employees to get enough hours to get part-time health insurance... who then worked his way up 4 promotions to a supervisor level only to lose it all because it was a choice of going back to school or keeping my job... two and a half years of giving 100%, giving my sweat and tears and they couldn't even find me 24 hours a week to keep my part time health insurance. Pushing carts, running a register... anything...

* as someone who has been a human rights organizer and activist since 2002.

* as someone who gets up at 1:30 in the morning to go load trucks so that he can get off of around 8:30am so that he can go to school and finish his undergraduate degree.

I do get a little passionate...I have my own pathologies I must try to overcome.

I'm happy to go down every single policy position... i'm happy to dig deep into policy discussion... I'm happy to adjust when I'm wrong... I'm happy to point out every single thing I find wrong with the Democrats (a list so long I could never finish writing it)

Yes democrats are the lesser of two evils (although evil is a perjorative term... I agree with some Republicans like Chuck Hegal more than many conservative southern democrats)...

yes there is hypocrisy... yes there is corruption. SHow me any point in history... any government... where this wasn't so. Thats why a Republic is a damn good choice for a governing process... free speech, free travel, free exchange in the marketplace... with the understood protection from destructive individuals who would raid the commons.

There is a difference. You get two choices and lucky for me I can spend all day going through the policy difference (okay not really 1:30am comes oh so quickly..)

I'm passionate in my belief that we make things about policy and not people. I hold others to that... and hold others to the task of point it out when I fall short of that.

But there is a difference--and this year an unbelievably substantial one so if John McCain sneezes the wrong policy I'm going to hit and hit fucking hard. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

It'd be a pleasure to have dialogue(and I appreciate your time and effort so far) since here in the south most people who want to talk politics don't want to talk policy... don't want to do the leg work. They want to talk about online urban legends... they want to talk policy with no bearing on the real world...

so yes i'm passionate but I try to be equitable and conscientious in my efforts to change every single mind between now and when every single person has a basic quality of life deserving of all human beings.

"To the least of these..." to some it was something you just say on Sundays... not me.

Obamania has not struck me yet. It reminds me of the Body Snatchers movie starring Donald Sutherland. If I sleep I will be taken over by the left and wake up with an Obama t-shirt and button.

Politics as a personality competition... as a cult of personality really... is politics as pathology. It is about policy...

But while on the subject... I think its awesome that Obama has inspired people to participate in the process. I was knocking on a door locally with our canvass effort. And this mid-twenties African American woman answered the door. She was so excited that someone with the Obama campaign was at her door... she called to her family watching tv and said "hey [ name ] the Obama campaign is out registering voters... you were talking about registering this morning... and the two others ran to the door with big smiles. The young woman was the mom and ended up assisting him to fill out some info because "he doesn't write very well."

That was an amazing feeling... that young man needs a government that is going to empower him and not leave him behind. These McCain tactics trying to attack obama for bringing in new voters says something about McCain and the supporters throwing about that as a talking point... it leaves the general public talking about Paris Hilton and Obamania... rather than the issues.

So its good you haven't fallen for Obamamania... thats the last thing I'd want of a voter. ANd its unfortunate that its the big issue/agenda in the current discussions...

Before I support anyone I need reasons.

came to the right place

I read the data on both McCain and Obama. I cannot discern which is the greater evil. McCain's war stance, or Obama's tendency towards socialism.

Issue by Issue McCain is by far the worst of the two on policy. Obama is no shining star... but you work with the world you got not the one you want.

And I don't know what you mean by socialism... you'll have to define that one for me. IF you mean an equitable economy that protects and empowers all people and makes sure that no one gets left behind, civil rights, civil liberties, a strong market system... then i'm a socialist... but thats a hobgoblin term... there are so many meanings that I come to find nearly 95% of the people I speak with are socialist by the definition just postulated... so define socialism and I'll get back with you on if he leans towards it or not.

Yet behind closed doors I am unconvinced he has changed much. After all, it is well known he and Senator Clinton are good friends.

I don't care what anyone does behind closed doors or in private... The libertarian in me... its not in my nature.

I care what he does in public as an elected official. I care about his votes... I care about his public comments and leadership... he ability to communicate and bring this country together for a united vision... these are things I care about... it doesn't matter to me any which way what he does in private or what he thinks and believes.

I"m not a mind reader and no talking head, or reporter is either... I'm not too worried about McCain's private life. I'm worried about the decisions he'd make in public that impact people lives all over the globe.

Do you really believe in Obama's rhetoric with regard to change? Is it possible to induce change within the very system our current leaders occupy?

I believe that he can inspire people to participate in the process... that he can bring this country back to the center... and away from the divisiveness we've had that has only gotten worse since Bush II got in office.

But the divisiveness has been a part of the conservative revolution... read John Dean's broken Government which gets more into the details of how the conservatives have tried to decrease the ability for compromise and collegiality.

Is reform possible... of coarse... society in the broad sense has become more equitable... quality of life has improved. Far greater struggles have been overcome throughout human history. Sure I believe in reform.

Will there be constructive change behind the scenes of big government? I am not so sure.

I don't know what you mean by Big Government. In a highly complex industrial society.. the government is going to be bigger than in agrarian colony in 1770's. Plus the market system depends on pretty substantial infrastructure and modest regulation for it to function and sustain itself (a recognition that Republicans lost after the conservative take-over of their party). So i'm not sure what you mean by big government...

I'm surrounded every day with underfunded and ignored infrastructure... market failures... its hard to make the case that the "small government types" are making things better. I'll make the case its getting worse with the "small government" folks in charge.

McCain will not be more of the same as many assert, except for his foreign policy.

economics, protecting women and families... others as well...

He is more prone to supporting an unjust war, despite the Iraqi Prime Minister wanting us out.

What about the Iraqi population whom have wanted the US out for almost three years now if memory serves me correct. Like substantially... not 51%... Middle east public opinion as well. Both of those items are important since these numbers on the Arab street help increase terrorist recruitment, empower terrorists networks, flame the conflict over Palestine, hinder the ability of our markets and human rights to get through and erode the fundamentalism we need to moderate. We're going to win with Ipods and coke-a-cola. Thinking you can bomb them back into the stone age... or occupy their country... lacks any historical narratives I've seen or heard. Feel free to make the case on that one... but I haven't found anything substantial from others...

With the exception of the war, McCain is at odds within the Republican Party. Hell, we both know he got the nomination purely on seniority.

He got the nomination because Romney is Mormon... which ironically speaks to the bigotries of the fundamentalists hurting their own cause. Romney would have won... moderate Republican... health care reform as Governor...

However, I am more of mind with our forefathers. I prefer neutrality.

industrial society in a technologically driven area with weapons that can wipe out the world is a little different than backwater agrarian colony that our founding fathers lived in. No disrespect to my peeps... they did some great things that I applaud... but couldn't disagree more.

There are currently 737 US military bases. This seems a tad much for a strong national defense.

I concur...

Then again, I prefer limited government, despite the impossibility of such a measure given the magnitude of the people's expectations.

I'd rather live in a Republic than ant other form of government... so I'd disagree on the idea that the filthy masses are asking too much when they want decent schools, decent jobs, and a quality of life that can provide enjoyment... rather than watching the rich reap all of the benefits of our economy. Plus the markets demand more government to sustain itself... too much would be bad agreed. But don't worry we're no where near the point of destructiveness... granted the government shouldn't stick its nose in everything... but thats the problem with the "small government" policy people... they are talking about something different and using hyperbole to make people think in much broader terms than is justifiable... without major clarification on the terms... your Obama socialist comment comes to mind (since I hear it quite often... and am perplexed by it honestly)

My basic values prevent me from openly supporting either McCain or Obama. Perhaps you can provide some hard data to change my mind. I'm looking forward to it!

Everyone has to make their own decisions for themselves... I'd love to work the data... it lets me learn it better--which is never a bad thing. My values say the purpose of government is to protect and empower its citizens. The everyman for themselves mentality of the Republicans has undermined our economy... made neighbors distrustful of one another... increased cynicism and apathy...

My values tell me to get up and work my ass off to help improve the world. But as I tell Democrats locally. If you think winning in November is hard... wait till the day after when you have to work to get affordable health care and quality schools. There is no magic bullet... there is no mystery that only certain politicians have the key to. It takes hard dedicated work... commitment by average people to sacrifice some of their time to build a community and hold their elected officials accountable. But yes stopping McCain would be a step in the right direction. But as Ice Cube said... "life ain't a track meet... its a marathon..."

Changing the world is not going to happen overnight. But you run a marathon one step at a time. So Obama is a step in the right direction...

Hope you stick around this year... I try to keep my passion in check... call me on my invective... also I tend to speak in hyperbolye especially on the fly and the thing about words online is it can sometime comes out more insulting than humorus...

I'll call you on yours. It should be a productive election year...

There are differences... it does matter

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

quote from Integrative Economic Ethics by Peter Ulrich

"As long as our dealings with other people are restricted to those who essentially share our moral views because they have grown up in the same historical and cultural context and have been 'brought up' in the same or a similar fashion, we will normally understand each other's moral feelings and judgements perfectly well and have little reason to question the validity of our moral principles. But when people with very different moral conceptions encounter each other--and this will be more and more the normal case in an increasingly multicultural world--moral conflicts can easily arise as soon as the achievement of understanding on the principles of social coexistence or the correct way of living are at issue. Under these circumstances, whose moral concepts should be regarded as valid and who should be judged 'right' in the case of interpersonal conflict?

In search for solutions to interpersonal conflicts we are always, in the final analysis, face with the choice between the simple exercise of power and recourse to good reasons. In the first case the parties to the conflict do not see themselves as participants in a moral community or their conflict as a moral conflict between claims to validity which are capable of clarification. Instead the problem is reduced to the question of 'might is right' and leads to ruthless (social Darwinist) state of war 'of every man against every man'. Only when the parties to a conflict regard themselves in principle as members of the same moral universe of all human beings will they be in any way motivated to reach an agreement on a peaceful and just solution and so to abandon the power principle in favour of the moral principle in the solution of conflicts. In this second case the mere tolerance of the given power structure is replaced by the common will to find a (rational) justification for the moral rights of those concerned, in whose light we can answer for our actions to the others and to our own conscience." --p20-21 Integrative Economic Ethics

Makes me think of one of the core flaws of the axis of evil/war on terrorism frame...

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

Political Talking Points

The conniving politician:

To the cynical politicians are corrupt and evil statement I always ask...

Why attack politicians? We live in a Republic. These politicians represent constituents. If they didn’t they would get kicked out. Money is a pretty big constituent right now–which is why I support election/campaign reform. But you also have elite opinion and the general opinion of the public at large. So politicians are evil only in the sense that the interests of their constituents are evil. Why abstract away from that... and just blame the guilty parties. Ad hominem attacks on politicians makes people more cynical about government–there by less likely to participate, there by the likelihood for corruption grows larger. The only true critique of corruption in government is your own participation in the political process.

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

blog comment on free market grandstanding....

I made here

I next to never see a "capitalist" support the free market.

They love their patent protections that keep the costs high for consumers. They love restrictions on the free flow of labor--which would for example help bring the cost of going to your local doctor down if we let foriegn doctors in the country since they'd be willing to work for a cheaper wage.

Take John McCain who claims "a free market" approach. Thats nonsense. He just wants a market approach that is full of protectionisms and subsidies that protect certain people in the market. It has nothing to do with "free market" theory. He either doesn't know much about the theory or doesn't mind using propagandha to buy votes on the cheap.

More market sure... but less "free market" grandstanding from those who really don't want a free market at all.

Go read the post... the blogger has some good points in his post...

Can we justifiably say...

Read this...

I remain very grateful to my Catholic upbringing and education for giving me relative immunity to nationalism. In the 1950s, the nuns who taught me from age five to twelve were virtually all Irish or Irish-American with sentimental attachment to certain elements of Celtic folklore, but they made sure to inculcate into us that the only serious human society was the Church which was an explicitly international organization. The mass, in the international language, Latin, was the same everywhere; the religious orders were international. This absence of national limitation was something very much to be cherished. “Catholica” in the phrase “[credo in] unam, sanctam, catholicam, et apostolicam ecclesiam” should, we were told, be written with a lower-case, not an upper-case, initial because it was not in the first instance part of the proper name of the church, but an adjective meaning “universal,” and this universality was one of the most important “marks of the true Church.”

Then tell me this... can we not say--or at least question--that those who profess Nationalism fail to have heeded Paul's call of universalism? Is it not un-christian to pit one klan over another? If you believe in a historicist approach to Christianity I guess not--you are the chosen people. If you believe in the ethics of jesus and that Christianity is an action not some political propaganda to spew about I might speculate that you must.

Peter Singer on Hegel and Marx

motley collection of half-truths

"As vast experimental literature shows, our intuitive theories are often a motley collection of half-truths that get us through the average day rather than true redescriptions of the world." --Gary Marcus