[cherdano]

 blackshoe, on 2017-March-19, 16:24, said:

Are you saying that Middlebury didn't happen?

Middlebury was ugly (whatever you think of Murray, a talk by him doesn't justify personal violence), but I don't understand why you equate "Protesting an invited talk by Murray" with "not expanding your horizon". I bet most of the protesters know more about Murray's arguments than you do. If they just wanted to avoid expanding their horizon, they could have just gone to the bar instead of to the talk. Meanwhile, Murray was (from what I read) invited on the initiative of students who disagreed with them, i.e. who made a conscious choice to expand their horizon and challenge their own beliefs. Yes, a minority of students tried to prevent that, but they were a minority.

On a more general note, I find this whole "Protesting against XY's college talk is an attack on free speech"-line of argument pretty, uhm, ridiculous. Any series of college choice makes choices about which viewpoints are worth presenting - there are only so many speaking slots each term. E.g. if my University decided to spend tuition dollars (sorry, pounds) on inviting a global warming sceptic who doesn't even understand basic chemistry/physics, then I'd be quite supportive of students deciding to protest that - nothing can be learned from listening for an hour to a speaker whose basic arguments are obviously wrong for anyone who has taking an introductory physical chemistry course.

Younger generations should challenge the older generations in their ways; and if they, say, think that my generation has settled into a canon of campus speakers that really needs serious re-thinking and overrepresents unworthy viewpoints at the cost of underrepresenting worthy viewpoints, then they should make their voices heard and protest! That is what free speech is about. Saying they shouldn't just shows you are part of the cranky older generation who doesn't want their own views challenged.

Tldr; - saying "Protest against XY is an attack on free speech" is an attack against free speech.

[kenberg]

I am often not up to date, so I had to google Middlebury Murray

Perhaps there are others who also have been not keeping up with this. A reference

https://www.theatlan...iolence/518667/


I guess the video that the site links to speaks for itself pretty clearly.

[mike777]

 cherdano, on 2017-March-19, 17:15, said:

Middlebury was ugly (whatever you think of Murray, a talk by him doesn't justify personal violence), but I don't understand why you equate "Protesting an invited talk by Murray" with "not expanding your horizon". I bet most of the protesters know more about Murray's arguments than you do. If they just wanted to avoid expanding their horizon, they could have just gone to the bar instead of to the talk. Meanwhile, Murray was (from what I read) invited on the initiative of students who disagreed with them, i.e. who made a conscious choice to expand their horizon and challenge their own beliefs. Yes, a minority of students tried to prevent that, but they were a minority.

On a more general note, I find this whole "Protesting against XY's college talk is an attack on free speech"-line of argument pretty, uhm, ridiculous. Any series of college choice makes choices about which viewpoints are worth presenting - there are only so many speaking slots each term. E.g. if my University decided to spend tuition dollars (sorry, pounds) on inviting a global warming sceptic who doesn't even understand basic chemistry/physics, then I'd be quite supportive of students deciding to protest that - nothing can be learned from listening for an hour to a speaker whose basic arguments are obviously wrong for anyone who has taking an introductory physical chemistry course.

Younger generations should challenge the older generations in their ways; and if they, say, think that my generation has settled into a canon of campus speakers that really needs serious re-thinking and overrepresents unworthy viewpoints at the cost of underrepresenting worthy viewpoints, then they should make their voices heard and protest! That is what free speech is about. Saying they shouldn't just shows you are part of the cranky older generation who doesn't want their own views challenged.

Tldr; - saying "Protest against XY is an attack on free speech" is an attack against free speech.

your entire post is based on nonsense....see your own post....you make a strong argument once you understand your first post
-----


with ALL OF THE ABOVE I strongly agree first generation disagrees with second.

[mike777]

 nige1, on 2017-March-17, 13:22, said:

Those unfamiliar with the US democratic process are intrigued by the seemingly unending and irresolvable argument about the injustice of legislation against electoral fraud. First questions:

• What is the proposed legislation against electoral fraud?
• Would it really reduce electoral fraud?
• Would it disenfranchise legitimate voters?
• How?
• Would it target particular groups?
• And how many would it affect?

An analogy: currently, in the UK, we allow postal votes. A boon to those who find it hard to attend a poll-station, in person. Allegedly, however, some patriarchs collect all the postal-votes from their extended families. Such block-votes could have a significant effect on election results. Hence, although stopping postal-votes could disenfranchise some citizens, it might be beneficial overall, by reducing potential abuse of the electoral process.

for the record....bored....once you put up your questions.....we ignore.


see your own footnote why people ingore

[Al_U_Card]

 Winstonm, on 2017-March-19, 12:59, said:

I think the Putin model of authoritarianism is closer to what Trump uses, but even then there are comparisons to Hitler that are valid:

What about Hitler's and Trump's appeals to nationalism?
What about Hitler's and Trump's scapegoating minority groups as the source of the countries' problems?
What about Hitler's and Trump's desires to increase their military?

The Trumpettes like to bury their heads in the sand, or perhaps some believe they will become rich oligarchs like their hero.

Trump = Hitler

meet

Obama = Antichrist

The specious argumentation would be laughable if it wasn't so pathetic. Get some perspective because it is the polarization of opinion that is limiting, nay, ruining dialogue.
You might just as well compare the various chief executive's golf swings and scores to better effect.
Really...

[jogs]

Healthcare is not a right. The ER stabilizes the patient and sends him on his way.
Yearly the US spends nearly as much money on healthcare as the entire federal budget. If the uninsured were given full healthcare the healthcare bill would be larger than the federal budget. The federal debt would increase 2 or 3 trillion dollars a year.
The Trump administration is allocating money for military veterans' healthcare. 22 vets per day were committing suicide under the Obama administration. The vets were promised healthcare. The US government can't afford to guarantee full healthcare for all. That would bankrupt America.

[Zelandakh]

 jogs, on 2017-March-20, 10:05, said:

Yearly the US spends nearly as much money on healthcare as the entire federal budget. If the uninsured were given full healthcare the healthcare bill would be larger than the federal budget. The federal debt would increase 2 or 3 trillion dollars a year.

Are you suggesting that the USA is poorer than every other developed nation in the world? Somehow the other countries do manage to offer healthcare to their citizens. Believe it or not, the rest of the world laughs at the American healthcare system and it is often joked at that one should be sure not to get sick when travelling there.

[Trinidad]

 jogs, on 2017-March-20, 10:05, said:

Healthcare is not a right. The ER stabilizes the patient and sends him on his way.

I hope you are aware that this is merely an opinion, not some universal truth. I hope that you are also aware that many people are of the opinion that healthcare should be a right in a wealthy country.

 jogs, on 2017-March-20, 10:05, said:

Yearly the US spends nearly as much money on healthcare as the entire federal budget. If the uninsured were given full healthcare the healthcare bill would be larger than the federal budget. The federal debt would increase 2 or 3 trillion dollars a year.
The Trump administration is allocating money for military veterans' healthcare. 22 vets per day were committing suicide under the Obama administration. The vets were promised healthcare. The US government can't afford to guarantee full healthcare for all. That would bankrupt America.

Details about numbers aside, you will have to face the fact that "the entire US federal budget" is an incredibly small number if you compare that to other wealthy countries (after normalization for the size of the population). I could say that my annual expenses for band-aids alone far exceed my entire sporting goods budget... well I don't spend anything on sporting goods and the US doesn't spend much on their government, federal or otherwise.

To talk a little more economy:
Yes, if the federal government provides affordable health care for everyone, goverment spending (negative buzzword warning) will obviously increase. This will have the obvious consequence that elsewhere budgets need to be cut or that taxes have to increase. (Ouch! Right wingers have a stomache ache by now. I hope they are properly covered.)
But now take a step back and look what is happening with the money. Tax payers are paying money and it is going to people who couldn't afford health care without government help. A flow of money from the rich to the poor.

As with any flow of money from rich to poor, it means that the money is taken away from: savings, trust funds, second homes on the Virgin Islands, luxury vacations, the stock market, off shore accounts, etc. and it is going to bread, home improvement, a new (or second hand) refrigerator, ... you get the picture. The general picture is that money comes off the shelves, out of piggy banks and that it starts to work in the economy by increasing consumer spending. Increasing consumer spending is one of the most powerful tools to improve a nation's economy.

Pumping money from rich to poor is a way to "wake up" sleeping capital and put it to work.

Some other countries, most notably the Scandinavian ones, are very aware of this. As a result they are wealthy, despite a lack of natural resources (other than Norway's fossile fuels) and their inhabitants are happy (this is true for the poor as well as the rich). If the USA would adopt this model, they would rule the world... not militarily, but in happiness and wealth. But, I know, socialism is a dirty word in American, so it ain't gonna happen.

So, no, full healthcare for all wouldn't bankrupt America. On the contrary, it would make America flourish economically.

Rik

[Trinidad]

 Zelandakh, on 2017-March-20, 10:35, said:

Are you suggesting that the USA is poorer than every other developed nation in the world? Somehow the other countries do manage to offer healthcare to their citizens. Believe it or not, the rest of the world laughs at the American healthcare system and it is often joked at that one should be sure not to get sick when travelling there.

That is why I take travel insurance when I am traveling to the USA... something that I don't do for traveling to other wealthy countries.

Rik

[y66]

 Al_U_Card, on 2017-March-20, 02:07, said:

The specious argumentation would be laughable if it wasn't so pathetic. Get some perspective because it is the polarization of opinion that is limiting, nay, ruining dialogue.
You might just as well compare the various chief executive's golf swings and scores to better effect. Really...

Can't argue with your assertion about the effects of polarization and the usefulness of way too many posts in this thread which are clearly not up to water cooler standards. The Hitler question is more about "Can it happen again?" and "Can it happen here?" -- it can -- than whether Trump and his pals are bona fide neo Nazis -- they aren't -- or just a bunch of con-men who are experts at using the same tools, for example, appeals to Nationalism, propaganda and race based hatred -- they are good at this. The Middlebury incident was indeed ugly. The guilty deserve to be punished and I feel sure they will be. As for suggesting that an angry mob of Middlebury students has more in common with Nazi thuggery than a presidential candidate who frequently incited mob behavior, that's too lame even for this thread.

[Cyberyeti]

 jogs, on 2017-March-20, 10:05, said:

Healthcare is not a right. The ER stabilizes the patient and sends him on his way.
Yearly the US spends nearly as much money on healthcare as the entire federal budget. If the uninsured were given full healthcare the healthcare bill would be larger than the federal budget. The federal debt would increase 2 or 3 trillion dollars a year.
The Trump administration is allocating money for military veterans' healthcare. 22 vets per day were committing suicide under the Obama administration. The vets were promised healthcare. The US government can't afford to guarantee full healthcare for all. That would bankrupt America.

Healthcare is a right in any developed civilised country, the USA is in danger of falling out of that bracket.

If healthcare was not "for profit", the bill would be waaaaaay lower, something that most of Europe understands. The problem is that the US is not starting from there and getting back is well nigh impossible.

[jogs]

The US already spends more per capita than most developed nations. There seems to be more middlemen in US bureaucracy. The US always spends for for lesser returns. This is true with education also. Trump will force other nations to pay their fair share towards the development of new drugs.

[y66]

In his review (pay walled) of Pankaj Mishra's Age of Anger: A History of the Present, Michael Ignatieff observes:

Quote

Mishra’s analysis concludes with a call for “transformative thinking,” suggesting that the root of the populist anger of the age lies in modernity itself and the resentment it ignites. The result is that his argument effectively precludes any possibility of a political response. If modernity is the problem, what is the cure? We are modernity and we have been so since Rousseau. Modernity endures because it emancipates as well as crushes, frees as well as imprisons. Above all, it is not a malign fate that can only be endured. Modernity is a reality shaped by human will, capitalist, anticapitalist, liberal, conservative, socialist, all pulling in different directions to produce the vast and fragmented reality in which we have to live.

What is missing in Mishra’s vision is any account of the influence of political will in changing the course of modernity in the years ahead. He is right when he says that we are currently living through “an extraordinary if largely imperceptible destruction of faith in the future—the fundamental optimism that makes reality seem purposeful and goal-oriented.” But you cannot reconstruct faith in the future if you give no credit to what political faith has actually achieved in the past. You would not know, reading Age of Anger, that democratic struggles for the right to strike, the right to vote, and the right to equality for countless excluded, despised, and marginalized peoples have enlarged the circle of political inclusion for millions of citizens.

A writer of Mishra’s passion and erudition might actually have engaged with what needs to be done, here and now, to make modernity fulfill its so often betrayed emancipatory promise. He calls for “transformative thinking,” but offers us only passionate fatalism and angry resignation. He does not consider what could be done: getting money under control in politics, defending the rule of law from predatory cliques, fighting for the rights of migrants and refugees, finding decent jobs for those left behind by economic change, reestablishing the norm that everyone, especially corporations and the super-rich, pay their fair share of taxes, getting nations together to slow the pace of climate change. The list is long and accomplishing any of it depends on faith in the capacity of men and women to work together to secure their objectives.

It hardly needs to be said that history does not appear to be on the side of liberal and progressive ideals. We are in the full gale of a conservative counterrevolution that could last for some time and reshape modernity in a reactionary direction. If this is the situation, Mishra’s analysis may be taken to imply that the best we can hope for is to be acute but futile observers, while the worst would be to give up political activity altogether. What is agonizing about our current situation is not that it is hopeless but that it could have been different. It is the contingency, the sheer avoidability of the current situation, that should rekindle faith that it can be changed in the future.

We’ve had an unforgettable lesson in the importance of political agency and the dire consequences of failures of political leadership. Had political leadership in the Remain camp in Britain or the Democratic Party in the United States mobilized constituencies in time and got out their vote, we would not be ruled by people with such a determination to move us in the opposite direction. In both cases, a different outcome was only narrowly defeated. Mishra’s analysis, which removes political agency from the story of modernity, makes it impossible to grasp that our present situation could have turned out very differently. We need to remember this if we are to recover the faith in ourselves that we need in order to shape the future in the direction of progressive ideals.

What is agonizing about our current situation is not that it is hopeless but that it could have been different. It is the contingency, the sheer avoidability of the current situation, that should rekindle faith that it can be changed in the future. Amen.

[blackshoe]

 cherdano, on 2017-March-19, 17:15, said:

I don't understand why you equate "Protesting an invited talk by Murray" with "not expanding your horizon".

When and where, exactly, did I do that?

[y66]

Rep. Adam Schiff’s short speech crisply lays out the evidence connecting Trump and Russia

[nige1]

 cherdano, on 2017-March-19, 17:15, said:

On a more general note, I find this whole "Protesting against XY's college talk is an attack on free speech"-line of argument pretty, uhm, ridiculous. Any series of college choice makes choices about which viewpoints are worth presenting - there are only so many speaking slots each term. E.g. if my University decided to spend tuition dollars (sorry, pounds) on inviting a global warming sceptic who doesn't even understand basic chemistry/physics, then I'd be quite supportive of students deciding to protest that - nothing can be learned from listening for an hour to a speaker whose basic arguments are obviously wrong for anyone who has taking an introductory physical chemistry course.

On this issue, I disagree with Cherdano and agree with Noam Chomsky, who argues that even Holocaust-deniers deserve a public platform. IMO:

Often, such oppression is based on faulty assumptions. In 70's Edinburgh, students prevented lectures by Hans Eysenck, claiming that he was a racist. Hardly likely, since he lost most of his family in German extermination camps. But even were he a racist, his theories still merited objective assessment.

The jury is out on Global Warming. We should treat it as Scientific theory rather than Religious belief. Of course, that's not an argument against the advisability of precautionary measures.

In the long run, it's better to expose twisted data and faulty argument to cold public scrutiny, rather than vilify their protagonists and censor their presentation. This is especially important when the view, which you're sure is mistaken, is held by half the population.

In the context of a free society, it's patronising to assume that ordinary people need protection from such propaganda. Over the past 100 years, information, argument, and open debate have reversed our views on many controversies (For example, racism, homophobia, women's rights, corporal punishment). It's a bad mistake to thwart this benign process.

As a public policy, openness and truth have a lot going for them, compared with suppression and censorship.

[Trinidad]

I agree with Nige1, on basic principles, but I fear that the idea of "open information leads to healthy discussions and good decisions by the population" is not working so well anymore.

It worked well when the individual could sit back and inform himself, listen to discussions and form an opinion. Nowadays, the population is completely saturated with information, desinformation, news, fake news, facts and alternative facts. How is Joe Average supposed to see the forest through the trees and form a decent opinion?

I am not going to advocate religion here, but in the past if one would tell a lie, one would go to hell. This made the information at least somewhat reliable, since hell didn't seem such a nice place. Nowadays, if you need to lie to sell something, it seems that you simply do that. So, who can you believe? Trump? The very dishonest media? Fox News?

These two social crises, the information overload crisis and the credibility crisis, make that Nige1's idea in practice is more difficult than it used to be.

Rik

[Al_U_Card]

 Trinidad, on 2017-March-21, 04:54, said:

I agree with Nige1, on basic principles, but I fear that the idea of "open information leads to healthy discussions and good decisions by the population" is not working so well anymore.

It worked well when the individual could sit back and inform himself, listen to discussions and form an opinion. Nowadays, the population is completely saturated with information, desinformation, news, fake news, facts and alternative facts. How is Joe Average supposed to see the forest through the trees and form a decent opinion?

I am not going to advocate religion here, but in the past if one would tell a lie, one would go to hell. This made the information at least somewhat reliable, since hell didn't seem such a nice place. Nowadays, if you need to lie to sell something, it seems that you simply do that. So, who can you believe? Trump? The very dishonest media? Fox News?

These two social crises, the information overload crisis and the credibility crisis, make that Nige1's idea in practice is more difficult than it used to be.

Rik

Interesting take about religion, especially the opiate of the masses part. The ruling elite still are pretty much above the law and operate as an oligarchy. At some point all rebellious individuals are to be subjugated (if past history is any guide) and the representatives of the people take their marching orders from those with the money, power and control.
Aside from a world-wide movement (unlikely, as we saw the end result of the arab spring, bolshevik uprising etc.) our best bet is to slide along as best we can, making the most of the opportunities that present themselves. Think globally and act locally?

[nige1]

 Trinidad, on 2017-March-21, 04:54, said:

I agree with Nige1, on basic principles, but I fear that the idea of "open information leads to healthy discussions and good decisions by the population" is not working so well anymore.
It worked well when the individual could sit back and inform himself, listen to discussions and form an opinion. Nowadays, the population is completely saturated with information, desinformation, news, fake news, facts and alternative facts. How is Joe Average supposed to see the forest through the trees and form a decent opinion?
I am not going to advocate religion here, but in the past if one would tell a lie, one would go to hell. This made the information at least somewhat reliable, since hell didn't seem such a nice place. Nowadays, if you need to lie to sell something, it seems that you simply do that. So, who can you believe? Trump? The very dishonest media? Fox News?
These two social crises, the information overload crisis and the credibility crisis, make that Nige1's idea in practice is more difficult than it used to be.
Rik

I agree with Trinidad about public tolerance of lies but I distrust his pragmatic approach to censorship.

The (dis?)information tsunami can be overpowering but is an enormous improvement on our previous mushroom culture. In the UK, after 30 or more years, the government releases (heavily redacted) historical papers. These reveal that our rulers treat us as mushrooms -- keeping us in the dark and feeding us ****.

A typical example. The government persuaded us that nuclear power was cheap and safe. "Coal-miners suffer worse exposure to radiation than nuclear-power station staff". We weren't told about nuclear melt-downs (e.g. Windscale). Or that the main purpose was to breed Plutonium from Uranium, for bombs. (Hence the potential of Thorium as a nuclear fuel was ignored). Nuclear-power still deserves serious consideration but it's better to base opinion on fact.

The internet, with Wickileaks and the like, partially redresses the balance. For example, when the West backed the Libyan rebels, we undertook to protect civilians, but the internet spilt the beans about our carpet-bombing of cities.

So far, it's only whistle-blowers, who've suffered. Perhaps, in future, our culture may change, so that psychopathic criminal politicians and administrators are also called to account.

Admittedly, separating truth from lies is as hard as it ever was. For example, westerners seem to suffer from officially-sponsored paranoia about Putin and Russia. Naturally, Russia would like to influence elections in other countries. The West often goes much further, organising coups and rebellions to depose democratic governments.

Trinidad's Joe Average has become more cynical and less naive. Although, I doubt that protection from putative propaganda ever did us any good. It's counter-productive to suppress fact and argument, that we find distasteful. It entrenches prejudice, creates martyrs, and fosters a siege mentality.

[jogs]

Ryancare repeals Obamacare, doesn't force healthy people to buy expensive individual health insurance, and relieves small businesses of the responsibility of providing health insurance to employees. Everything else in Ryancare is at best a minor improvement over Obamacare.
When will politicians learn that people want inexpensive health access, not health insurance? There needs to be a non insurer model for poor people without access in employer based health insurance or medicare. Insurers and lawyers are parasites increasing the cost of healthcare. Do not subsidize the insurers. Subsidize the poor directly. No individual health insurance for the uninsured. No malpractice lawsuits by the insured. For the poor there will never be affordable healthcare. Find ways to provide healthcare as cheaply as possible. At some point drugs should be provided a wholesale rate.
I suspect I will not like Rand Paul's plan either. Allow all uninsured to enroll into medicaid. A high deductible. All enrollees are means tested. All members of congress should be required to get their annual physical from their districts's medicaid group. Congressmen need to experience the type of healthcare coverage the poor is receiving.