Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 02, 2015, 11:57:31 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
87893 Posts in 2282 Topics by 1070 Members
Latest Member: Nexquietus
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  Political Rants & interesting thought pieces
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 28 29 [30] Print
Author Topic: Political Rants & interesting thought pieces  (Read 342091 times)
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 775


« Reply #1450 on: July 14, 2015, 03:26:28 PM »

I'm not arguing that abolishing slavery was a bad thing, and neither is Dr. Williams (who by the way, is black.)  What both of us are saying is that the rationale used by Lincoln was intellectually dishonest and simply not correct.  The individual members of a confederation have the inherent right to nullify the agreement if they feel they are being abused by the federation.  The issue of the morality of slavery is separate and distinct.
Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 34154


« Reply #1451 on: July 15, 2015, 02:25:57 PM »

Excellent posts-- but would someone please post them on the American history thread or the Constitutional law thread?
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12681


« Reply #1452 on: July 15, 2015, 07:41:01 PM »

I like Walter Williams and am aware he is black. The reasons and motivations behind the civil war are complex, however the institution of slavery was unacceptable and ending it at gunpoint was the correct thing to do.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 34154


« Reply #1453 on: July 19, 2015, 11:22:39 AM »


Why Did Europe Conquer the World?

By Philip T. Hoffman
Princeton, 272 pages, $29.95

Such abstract formulations—mainly relegated to footnotes and appendices—make an appearance because Mr. Hoffman, who teaches at the California Institute of Technology, uses economic theory to scrutinize the supremacy of the West. He notes that scholars have ascribed Europe’s success to a variety of features: geographical and ecological advantages (Jared Diamond in “Guns, Germs, and Steel,” 1997); competitive markets and military rivalries ( Paul Kennedy in “The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers,” 1987); a culture that stresses adaptability and a fierce defense of democracy ( Victor Davis Hanson in “Carnage and Culture,” 2001); a style of detached investigation and scientific inquiry ( David Landes in “The Wealth and Poverty of Nations,” 1998); and principles like private property and the rule of law ( Niall Ferguson in “Civilization: The West and the Rest,” 2011). Mr. Hoffman, finding many of their answers unsatisfactory, suggests something different: the West’s mastery of gunpowder.

This claim may seem strange. Gunpowder was discovered in China and was in wide use in the Ottoman Empire. Yet well before the Industrial Revolution, Mr. Hoffman argues, the West surpassed the war-making capacity of other societies by improving the accuracy, range and speed of its weaponry. Why? First, Mr. Hoffman says, because of political priorities. Today we expect leaders to deliver prosperity, security and peace, but in early modern Europe the belief was, as Machiavelli put it, that rulers “ought to have no object, thought, or profession but war.”

War was the main reason why taxes were levied. In the two centuries before 1750, between 40% and 80% of European government budgets went to the military. European tax rates were also significantly higher than those in other regions. In 1776, England’s per capita taxes (measured in grams of silver) were equivalent to about 180 grams, France’s to 61 grams and China’s to just 7 grams.
Advertisement

European nations also gained proficiency through experience, not least when fighting among themselves. Between 1550 and 1600, Mr. Hoffman says, the principal European powers were at war 71% of the time; from 1600 to 1650, 66% of the time. And because nearly all European battles used gunpowder technology—unlike, say, those in China, where nomadic tribes were routinely fought without such weaponry—the result was innovation and mastery: “learning by doing,” as Mr. Hoffman puts it.

If money and practice gave the West an edge, other factors played a role as well. Mr. Hoffman uses a “tournament model” of economic competition to examine the variables affecting military success and suggests that, for several centuries, European nations, fighting among themselves, steadily gained the mastery to overwhelm others. In this model, two powers vie for a prize (financial gain, land, glory). To attain it they must first raise taxes and build armies and an infrastructure. The real variations come when war breaks out. Rulers must mobilize fighters and prepare for battle; there might be different amounts of money spent but also different political costs to mobilization—say, in the political deals made or the taxes raised for war or the reactions of the populace. According to the model, the odds of winning are assumed to be proportional to the resources being mobilized: Spend more and you have a better chance of winning. The odds increase if your political costs are low—e.g., if there is little popular opposition. Both high resource use and low political costs were generally true in the West in centuries of internecine wars, which gave them distinctive advantages in world conquest.

The model is illuminating: A nation might refuse to fight, for example, if it were facing a powerful opponent, thus ceding the prize. Mr. Hoffman calls the result “peace”—but it is created by intimidation, accommodation or appeasement. War is more likely when nations are roughly equivalent than when one of them is immensely superior (the Pax Romana). The model can be made more sophisticated by incorporating the effects of innovation, which may lower costs and also increase fighting efficiency.

Through such analysis, Mr. Hoffman finds four conditions in early modern Europe that he finds nowhere else: (1) frequent wars between countries that have roughly the same size and financial power; (2) huge sums lavished on warfare along with low political costs; (3) the heavy use of gunpowder technology; and (4) few obstacles blocking innovation. Mr. Hoffman observes that European governments uniquely allowed their war technologies to be used for private expeditions. Entrepreneurial explorers as well as corporations like the Dutch East India Co. engaged in colonization, conquest and trade.

With all of this nurturing, gunpowder technology advanced rapidly. One rough measure: The relative price of pistols in England, between the mid-16th century and the early 18th, fell by a factor of six. Other countries couldn’t match the efficiency. In the 17th century, the prices of Chinese weapons were much higher than their equivalents in England. The “model makes clear,” Mr. Hoffman writes, “once and for all, the political and military conditions that distinguished Europe from the rest of the world.” And that gave them the ability to readily conquer foreign armies, none of which were remotely as deadly as the European forces.

Mr. Hoffman’s argument is both brilliant and eccentric: brilliant in the way it contributes to historical speculation, eccentric in its formalist reduction of a culture’s complexities. But look what kind of European order it conjures up: Here are a group of fierce, Spartan-like states warring with one another, battling over colonial holdings, trying to expand their terrain, perfecting their weaponry. Such a portrait actually resembles the familiar caricature of the West, in which the West is considered a military culture that achieved dominance through ruthless combat and acquisitiveness, resulting in centuries of imperialism, slavery and exploitation. And indeed, Mr. Hoffman concludes that the triumph of the West imposed overwhelmingly heavy costs on the populations of Europe and that outside of Europe “the damage done was immeasurably greater.”

The widespread acceptance of this general belief can now be seen in the West’s self-denigrating view of itself—in the confessions of guilt, gestures to make recompense, and shamefaced withdrawal from the exercise of power and self-interest. Such a perspective, though, is deeply flawed. Imperial desires, slavery and exploitation have been hallmarks of every powerful culture and are hardly unique to the West (more unique, in fact, is the West’s abolition of slavery). The presence of villainy (another universal) also explains nothing. Mr. Hoffman helps explain a certain kind of success but not a certain kind of civilization. And it’s not clear that the two can be so easily separated.

In fact, gunpowder advances may be not the cause of Western power but a reflection of it—the power of its ideas and modes of understanding. Innovation depends on a certain kind of ambition and a particular way of thinking; it doesn’t happen simply because there are few obstacles and many resources, as Mr. Hoffman’s theory suggests. Thus for millennia most nomadic tribes didn’t go beyond bow-and-arrow technologies. Building a better gun requires a grasp of physical principles and a certain flexibility of mind—being able to apply those principles in new ways. Innovation is thus in part a scientific enterprise and a product of the same impulses that shaped the Western Renaissance.

Similarly, the far-flung explorations that characterized early modern Europe were not undertaken just to attain power and riches; they reflected a desire to illuminate the unknown, to comprehend the universe and map its qualities, to discover not just novelties but fundamental principles. They involved a kind of nervy geographic universalism. This is one reason why the West might be the only culture in human history to undertake the systematic study and analysis of other cultures, discerning differences and commonalities. These impulses and their moral implications are more rare than the mastery of gunpowder—and more powerful.

—Mr. Rothstein is the Journal’s critic
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4577


« Reply #1454 on: July 19, 2015, 02:25:33 PM »

Some thoughts from the top of my head:

Gathering data and mining it with statistics and formulas and conclusions and then formulating policy from that is a perfect storm against the right.

In medicine the new coding formula with tens of thousands of codes trying to categorize every health ailment into a code that can be translated into a set of ones and zeros is making our heads spin in medicine. 

Now we see on Drudge bamster and his liberal policy makers from the Ivy's along with his fascist friends in tech doing the same with "racial" profiling.

The legal system is also a target.

This explosion of data is perfect for liberals to use in ways that they will insist is for social justice and equality.  They are the new Kings, the new Emporers, the new Queens, the new despots.

Freedom is defined as that which is permissable by THEM.

Not by our Constitution.

Data is easy to interpret in many different ways and the opportunity for nefarious misuse much greater but subtle and under the radar  that makes this very dangerous.

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 34154


« Reply #1455 on: July 24, 2015, 07:12:59 AM »

http://www.steynonline.com/7059/the-superbowl-of-superholes
Logged
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 775


« Reply #1456 on: July 24, 2015, 10:12:09 AM »

I LOVE Mark Steyn.  He tells it like it is - John McCain IS an A-hole - ask anyone who's ever worked with him...
Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 34154


« Reply #1457 on: July 28, 2015, 10:59:59 AM »

Donald Trump and the Fed-Up Crowd
July 27, 2015 8:11 am / 40 Comments / victorhanson
Watching Trump’s rise, America’s middle class “fed-up crowd” is enjoying the comeuppance of an elite that never pays for the ramifications of its own ideology.

by Victor Davis Hanson // PJ Media
Yeah, I kind of love this guy —->@unsavoryagents [1] Ha ha #LosAngeles [2] violent crime up 26% wake up! #SanctuaryCity [3] pic.twitter.com/4TtvwVWY5C [4] — RockPrincess (@Rockprincess818) July 10, 2015 [5]

Yeah, I kind of love this guy —->@unsavoryagents [1] Ha ha #LosAngeles [2] violent crime up 26% wake up! #SanctuaryCity [3] pic.twitter.com/4TtvwVWY5C [4]
— RockPrincess (@Rockprincess818) July 10, 2015 [5]
Donald Trump — a former liberal and benefactor of Democrats — is still surging. But his loud New York lingo, popular put-downs of obnoxious reporters and trashing of the D.C. establishment are symptoms, not the catalyst, of the growing popular outrage of lots of angry Americans who are fed up.The fed-up crowd likes the payback of watching blood sport in an arena where niceties just don’t apply anymore. At least for a while longer, they enjoy the smug getting their comeuppance, as an uncouth, bullheaded Trump charges about, snorting and spearing liberal pieties and more sober and judicious Republicans at random.

Perhaps they don’t see the abjectly crude Trump as any more crude that Barack Obama calmly in academic tones assuring Americans that they all could keep their doctors and health plans when he knew that was simply untrue or announcing to the nation that his own grandmother was a “typical white person” or advising supporters to “get in their face.”  They see Trump as no more vindictive that Harry Reid lying about Mitt Romney’s tax returns (and then bragging that such a lie helped defeat him), or a Sen. Barbara Boxer publicly attac­­king the single, non-parental status of then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. And they certainly don’t see Trump as uncouth as an Al Sharpton — former presidential candidate, chief advisor on matters of race to Barack Obama, and current TV news show host. Trump’s crass bombast is enjoyed by the fed-up crowd as the proper antidote to the even greater bombast of the Left, who created Trump’s latest manifestations.

The conservative base is tired of illegal immigration. Their furor peaked with the horrific killing of Kate Steinle by a seven-time convicted felon and five-time deported illegal alien.  They are baffled that one apparently exempt and privileged ethnic group can arbitrarily decide to ignore federal law. They are irate that they are lectured about their supposed racism from an open-borders movement predicated on La Raza-like ethnic chauvinism. They do not want to hear about nativism from a lobby that so often at rallies waves the flag of the country that none of the protestors seems to wish to return to, a country whose authoritarianism is romanticized as much as their host country is faulted for its magnanimity. Call this what you will, but emotion over neglecting federal law is much less worrisome than cool calculation over violating it.

The fed-up crowd expects statistics to be massaged to counter reality; in the real world nearly a million illegal aliens have committed crimes, with almost 700,000 charged with felonies and serious misdemeanors. In fantasyland, they are said to be more lawful than U.S. citizens. Most Americans would be guilty of felonies for creating false identities, or using fraudulent Social Security numbers; in matters of illegal immigration, these common crimes are not even considered crimes.

The furor over the death of Ms. Steinle reflected the mounting outrage — especially at the hypocrisy of the elites who crafted sanctuary-city legislation. Would they be so nonchalant about the law if a daughter of one of the architects of the legislation were to be gunned down by an illegal alien? Would San Franciscans object if Tulsa nullified federal gun legislation or declared open season on federally protected species? Only liberalism can take a reactionary Old Confederacy idea of federal nullification and turn it into a progressive fad.

The recent disclosures about Planned Parenthood likewise infuriated the fed-up base. Again, they were not incensed just at the callous and sick way supposed humanitarians at Planned Parenthood talked of slicing up fetal tissue and selling organs, but at the hypocrisy of it all. At a time liberals are Trotskyzing our past to damn to memory any ancient historical figure who owned slaves or practiced racism, how does Planned Parenthood’s godhead Margaret Sanger, the racist eugenicist and promoter of abortion to curb minority populations [6], get a pass?

Liberals lecture about “settled science” and adherence to logic instead of myth and folklore. But they also insist on talking of fetuses as non-human organisms, even as they concede both that fetuses in the womb possess viable — and marketable — human tissues and that developing babies at 22 weeks are now viable outside the womb.

For those who bandy about words like troglodyte, it is quite Neanderthal, in the scientific sense, to believe that a baby is not a living, viable organism until it emerges from the birth canal. For a movement that talks of caring and compassion, it is hard to write a script more cruel and callous than that of the Planned Parenthood talking heads referencing a Lamborghini or a “less crunchy” abortion technique or the macabre house of horrors of the abortionist and convicted murderer Dr. Gosnell. As for the supposed questionable ethics of catching Planned Parenthood with ruse and stealthy tape, no one seemed to object over secretly taping at a private gathering Mitt Romney’s unfortunate quip about the “47 percent,” much less did liberals object to four decades of 60 Minutes ambush-style, secret-video reporting.

The fed-up crowd is tired of racial hypocrisy. In the Trayvon Martin case, the president weighed in on the ongoing case in blatantly racist fashion by announcing the deceased might have looked like his own son, as the New York Times invented “white Hispanic” to lessen George’s Zimmerman’s ethnic fides (e.g., is Barack Obama, of similar half-minority lineage, a “white African-American”?) and as the media photo-shopped Zimmerman’s head wounds and selectively edited his taped 911 call.

Fantasy was thematic ad nauseam from the Duke lacrosse fiasco to the Michael Brown mythologies, the font of the “hands up, don’t shoot” lie that became a national slogan. But again, the hypocrisy is what irritates more — a Barack Obama siccing his administration after supposedly elite segregated neighborhoods as he sends his kids to Sidwell Friends.

The fed-up crowd expects that Paula Deen, the Duck Dynasty crowd, and Donald Sterling can become public enemies with a racist or insensitive word. But this is not so when a Harry Reid, Joe Biden, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Chris Rock, Jamie Foxx, Spike Lee, Al Sharpton, or Jesse Jackson mouths unequivocal racism. They assume that Jefferson can be rendered no more than a slave owner, but not liberal icon Woodrow Wilson who practiced 20th-century not 18th-century-style racism.

The fed-up crowd senses that if America continues its present regressive trajectory it will end up as a Greece, Detroit, or Chicago, without anywhere in America to flee to. It no doubt wants Trump to continue for a bit longer, as he struts about and shouts over why Hillary has a career when Gen. David Petraeus’s was ruined for roughly the same offenses, or cuts short an agenda-driven and biased Telemundo reporter as biased and agenda-driven. At some point the fed-ups will have vented and become fed up themselves with the circus-master Trump, who equates his own money-making with both virtue and wisdom. But we are not there yet quite yet.

To explain the inexplicable rise of Donald Trump is to calibrate the anger of a fed-up crowd that is enjoying the comeuppance of an elite that never pays for the ramifications of its own ideology. The elite media, whose trademark is fad and cant, writes off the fed-up crowd as naïve and susceptible to demagoguery as the contradictory and hypocritical Trump manipulates their anger. In fact, they probably got it backwards. Trump is a transitory vehicle of the fed-up crowd, a current expression of their distaste for both Democratic and Republican politics, but not an end in and of himself. The fed-up crowd is tired of being demagogued to death by progressives, who brag of “working across the aisle” and “bipartisanship” as they ram through agendas with executive orders, court decisions, and public ridicule. So the fed-ups want other conservative candidates to emulate Trump’s verve, energy, eagerness to speak the unspeakable, and no-holds barred Lee Atwater style — without otherwise being Trump.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4577


« Reply #1458 on: July 28, 2015, 11:54:43 AM »

" So the fed-ups want other conservative candidates to emulate Trump’s verve, energy, eagerness to speak the unspeakable, and no-holds barred Lee Atwater style — without otherwise being Trump."

VDH ***gets it***!!!

Yet CNN, Republicans and Fox troglodites are scratching their collective heads, "gee wiz I don't understand why Trump is so popular".

As I've said before no one party represents ME.

Trump speaks like he does represent me.

So he is refreshing.

I will not vote for Bush or Kasich, period.

Why bother?




Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 34154


« Reply #1459 on: August 20, 2015, 12:19:38 PM »

http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/shut-up-bigot-the-intolerance-of-tolerance/16701
Logged
Body-by-Guinness
Power User
***
Posts: 2850


« Reply #1460 on: August 27, 2015, 06:57:40 PM »

It's a bad idea, even posthumously, to give suicide murderers exactly what they want:

Quote
A suicide-homicide is an act of ultimate rage. People who do these kinds of things feel like they’re the victims. Their acts of suicide and homicide are a way to make a point. Although they don’t live to see the results, they would probably like what they see: Millions of people not only being momentarily horrified, but agreeing with the murderer’s classification of him- or herself as a victim. Whatever the President and the Pope have to say about this, rest assured that the killer — if he were alive to hear — would be happily applauding.

Michael Hurd.

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 34154


« Reply #1461 on: August 28, 2015, 03:33:22 PM »

http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/europe/item/21463-debunking-the-myth-of-socialist-success-in-scandinavia
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 34154


« Reply #1462 on: September 01, 2015, 10:01:44 AM »

Generational Economic Changes Are Bigger than Any Presidential Candidate

These are the sort of thoughts that come to mind when a bunch of conservative bloggers get together and start arguing about Donald Trump . . .

Americans came to think of the economic conditions of the postwar boom -- low unemployment, easy entry into the workplace, job stability, considerable purchasing power and lots of consumer goods, high exports, good pensions, etc. as “normal.” What no one wanted to really acknowledge was how rare our advantage of that era was: We were an intact first-world economy on a planet where almost every other country was rebuilding from being blasted to hell during World War II.

Decade by decade, the rest of the world caught up and offered economic competition, primarily in the form of cheaper labor. The debate between trade and protectionism was largely one among elites. Non-wonk Americans lamented the decline of manufacturing jobs while buying Japanese (and then Chinese, Korean, and Taiwanese) electronics, German and Japanese cars, etc. Free trade is terrific for consumers but not so great when somebody overseas can do your job for less money. From where I sit, it’s on the whole advantageous but horrible if it’s your job being “outsourced” overseas.

The public’s interest would briefly stir for NAFTA or Most Favored Nation status for China, but by and large, Americans either applauded globalization, loved its benefits but lamented its costs without ever connecting the two, or just ignored it.

For a while, Americans were told that the graduate-high-school-and-go-to-the-widget-factory-assembly-line life model was disappearing, but was being replaced with a better one: graduate-from-college-and-go-to-the-white-collar-job. In fact, it was so much better, it was worth taking on tens of thousands or even $150,000 in debt, because you would make more money over the course of your lifetime.

And then, sometime around the Great Recession, that deal changed, too. Companies realized they didn’t need that many entry-level positions (or they could shift it to unpaid labor in the form of internships). Undoubtedly, some colleges let their standards slide, and too many young people focused on basket-weaving, gender studies, or humanities majors and found themselves with a degree that didn’t translate well to the needs of the job market. A dramatic expansion of unskilled labor in the form of illegal immigration put the squeeze on another corner of the workforce; automation did even more. For many, that path to the good life seems steeper, rockier, and less clear than their parents ever faced.

Some folks at the top of the economic pyramid were or are quite comfortable with the new arrangement, offering perspectives like, “If the transformation of the world economy lifts four people in China and India out of poverty and into the middle class, and meanwhile means one American drops out of the middle class, that’s not such a bad trade,” and, “We demand a higher paycheck than the rest of the world. So if you’re going to demand 10 times the paycheck, you need to deliver 10 times the value. It sounds harsh, but maybe people in the middle class need to decide to take a pay cut.” An American company may not self-identify as all that American anymore, and certainly doesn’t feel much obligation to put a national interest ahead of the bottom line.

These are giant, sweeping problems that are best measured on generational time-frames and go well beyond one law or one president or lawmaker. This change is tied to our nation’s long, slow, painful slide from a system of public schools where kids were likely to get at least a “good enough” education to prepare them for the workforce to one where public schools range from excellent to abysmal. It’s tied to the U.S. going from a nation of 14 million immigrants in 1980 (both legal and illegal, 6.2 percent of the population) to 40 million immigrants in 2010 (12.9 percent). It’s tied to changing from a world with one primary, stable, relatively predictable antagonist (the Soviet Union) to an asymmetric, multinational, amorphous, adaptive slate of demonic foes like ISIS and al Qaeda. And it’s tied up in going from a relative monoculture influenced by Judeo-Christian values and identities to a cultural Balkanization where the counterculture became the dominant culture, then shattered itself.

Ultimately, electing a better president is one step on the road -- an important one, but only one. A lot of this comes down to what Americans expect of themselves. Do we want to compete in the global economy, and if not, are we willing to live with the consequences of closing ourselves off from the rest of the world? Are we willing to study hard to be qualified for good jobs and work hard once we get them? Are our companies willing to see themselves as national institutions instead of global ones? Are employers willing to show greater loyalty to their employees, and are their employees willing to reciprocate?

It would be spectacular if we could shake the country out of its fascination with caudillo-like figures. You would hope people would have learned from the experience of electing Barack Obama the Lightworker, the Munificent Sun God, the first man to step down into the presidency. But no, for far too many people, the lesson is not that we shouldn’t look to a president to be our savior, it’s that we chose the wrong one -- but Hillary, or Donald Trump, or Bernie Sanders will be the right savior.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 34154


« Reply #1463 on: September 01, 2015, 10:32:17 AM »

second post

http://www.artofmanliness.com/2015/08/31/shadow-work-and-the-rise-of-middle-class-serfdom/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheArtOfManliness+%28The+Art+of+Manliness%29
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 28 29 [30] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!