Meta: Please don't play the "read a history book" line. It's tired old paleo-conservative/ neo-libertarian rhetoric. If you don't identify as such, forgive me, that's what you sound like, and it smacks of political gnosticism - which doesn't help your cause.
Furthermore, for someone who's obviously read tons of the right history books, it seems like an awfully simplistic reading of the entire litany of world conflict - which it is. Like I said before, it's a romantic idea that doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
I've been thinking about this, and I'd like your feedback because you seem to at least have a decent understanding of global economics and the like. It seems to me like our real argument - not the "liberal" versus "conservative" dialectic which is itself a construct on top of a construct, and which takes us away from the issue at hand - is why in the world we are "broke."
I'm not going to defend "leftist" economic policies that you say drain the money out of governments and has led to this crisis (I'm not even going to get into semantics about assumptions we all make concerning the definition of the words "broke," "leftists," etc.) for two reasons 1) I simply don't know enough about the actual machinations of them, and 2) I don't, by default, support Democrat economic policy-makers - thus I feel no need to defend them. Therefore, I am more open to consider your argument - in terms of economics - than you perhaps think I would be. My problems with your arguments (besides the abovementioned) are with your paternalistic and imperialistic attitude and language, which I think ultimately cloud your judgment on these matters - though your knowledge of the particulars seems vast. My guess is that you have some sort of emotional attachment to your idea of America and/or capitalism, but that's just a guess.
All of that aside, I am very much interested in your take on the question of why we are broke, why we are in a national and global fiscal crisis. In plain language, without making recourse to the above mentioned left/right dialectic. Treat me like a student who wants to learn.
MetaCognition: "Our defense dollars at least produce certifiable results by eliminating the possibility of tyrants expanding their domains beyond their borders. The free people of the world thank us, even if you don't."
Certifiable results? Where? Which tyrants? And which free people are thanking us again?
It's okay to divorce yourself from the idea that we're doing anybody but ourselves a favor in Iraq and Afghanistan, etc. Once we do that then maybe we'll see how much of an injustice - and not just 'fiscally,' mind you - we're doing to our own citizens, taxpayers, and soldiers, not to mention the populations of the countries we're currently terrorizing or having somebody terrorize for us. It's a romantic idea, sure, but like most romantic ideas - it's a myth. A very expensive one.
Actually, peach, it is sort of a big deal. The committee that is charged with going over every single fee with a fine-tooth comb to figure out which to cut has a very big job to do and very little time to do it. I don't envy them. This is an important issue for students, especially if the accusations above that SAFETY and media are being cut in order to retain the ATHLETIC fee. That is an extremely big deal. If McGonigle was trying to keep that hush hush then he made a mistake in suspending Porte, because the top's been blown off. If it is true, then everybody with two legs needs to descend on whatever relevant committee meeting - closed doors or not - and demand accountability.
And for what it's worth, I was at the last finance meeting and listened to the report about how they were going to go through the fees and cut them. It sounds to me like an real attempt at honesty is being made (and the Kansan, for its part, reported that accurately), for which I commend them.
Brinker: GOP seeks austerity for posterity purposes
Whoa - something called NINJA that isn't awesome? LOL. I eagerly await your response. - S
February 24, 2011 at 11:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Brinker: GOP seeks austerity for posterity purposes
Meta: Please don't play the "read a history book" line. It's tired old paleo-conservative/ neo-libertarian rhetoric. If you don't identify as such, forgive me, that's what you sound like, and it smacks of political gnosticism - which doesn't help your cause.
Furthermore, for someone who's obviously read tons of the right history books, it seems like an awfully simplistic reading of the entire litany of world conflict - which it is. Like I said before, it's a romantic idea that doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
I've been thinking about this, and I'd like your feedback because you seem to at least have a decent understanding of global economics and the like. It seems to me like our real argument - not the "liberal" versus "conservative" dialectic which is itself a construct on top of a construct, and which takes us away from the issue at hand - is why in the world we are "broke."
I'm not going to defend "leftist" economic policies that you say drain the money out of governments and has led to this crisis (I'm not even going to get into semantics about assumptions we all make concerning the definition of the words "broke," "leftists," etc.) for two reasons 1) I simply don't know enough about the actual machinations of them, and 2) I don't, by default, support Democrat economic policy-makers - thus I feel no need to defend them. Therefore, I am more open to consider your argument - in terms of economics - than you perhaps think I would be. My problems with your arguments (besides the abovementioned) are with your paternalistic and imperialistic attitude and language, which I think ultimately cloud your judgment on these matters - though your knowledge of the particulars seems vast. My guess is that you have some sort of emotional attachment to your idea of America and/or capitalism, but that's just a guess.
All of that aside, I am very much interested in your take on the question of why we are broke, why we are in a national and global fiscal crisis. In plain language, without making recourse to the above mentioned left/right dialectic. Treat me like a student who wants to learn.
Thanks,
Seraphim
February 24, 2011 at 10:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Brinker: GOP seeks austerity for posterity purposes
MetaCognition: "Our defense dollars at least produce certifiable results by eliminating the possibility of tyrants expanding their domains beyond their borders. The free people of the world thank us, even if you don't."
Certifiable results? Where? Which tyrants? And which free people are thanking us again?
It's okay to divorce yourself from the idea that we're doing anybody but ourselves a favor in Iraq and Afghanistan, etc. Once we do that then maybe we'll see how much of an injustice - and not just 'fiscally,' mind you - we're doing to our own citizens, taxpayers, and soldiers, not to mention the populations of the countries we're currently terrorizing or having somebody terrorize for us. It's a romantic idea, sure, but like most romantic ideas - it's a myth. A very expensive one.
February 23, 2011 at 11:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Letter: US does care about Egypt and its people
*will*
February 10, 2011 at 8:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Letter: US does care about Egypt and its people
Arafat: your argument is devoid of any support. Provide that and maybe somebody take you seriously.
February 10, 2011 at 8:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Letter: US does care about Egypt and its people
Did you just look this up on Wikipedia?
February 10, 2011 at 12:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Behind the scenes of the snow clean-up
Thanks to all the workers out in it! We appreciate it (or should).
February 9, 2011 at 11:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Student body president suspends treasurer
Actually, peach, it is sort of a big deal. The committee that is charged with going over every single fee with a fine-tooth comb to figure out which to cut has a very big job to do and very little time to do it. I don't envy them. This is an important issue for students, especially if the accusations above that SAFETY and media are being cut in order to retain the ATHLETIC fee. That is an extremely big deal. If McGonigle was trying to keep that hush hush then he made a mistake in suspending Porte, because the top's been blown off. If it is true, then everybody with two legs needs to descend on whatever relevant committee meeting - closed doors or not - and demand accountability.
And for what it's worth, I was at the last finance meeting and listened to the report about how they were going to go through the fees and cut them. It sounds to me like an real attempt at honesty is being made (and the Kansan, for its part, reported that accurately), for which I commend them.
Let's just hope it's not smoke and mirrors.
March 4, 2009 at 1:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
I'm on a boat, heading for a Lonely Island
Jhilley's right. Kristen Whig and Bill Heder are both hilarious. Heder's Daniel Plainview is almost better than Daniel Day-Lewis's.
I'M FINISHED!
February 20, 2009 at 12:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Twin sisters to open dueling pianos bar
Worst. Idea. Ever. (I'm there.)
February 20, 2009 at 12:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )