For Capitalists, Obesity is a Sign of Marketing Success

Categories: ,

Hold the skinny jeans, we’re in the middle of a massive obesity epidemic. Every night we have to stare at stock footage of Americans waddling around in their maxed-out sweat pants on the nightly news. It’s clear; we’re fat. Our kids are fat. Our pets are fat. According to some Wall Street insiders, the trader who accidentally entered the wrong number of share orders and nearly crashed the entire market – his fingers are fat.

leonardo di vinci fat america
Cartoon by Tab – Cagle Cartoons (click to reprint)

If you combine overweight and obese, according to the Journal of the American Medical Association about 70% of us are fat. That’s nearly three out of four people in the US – a whopping majority.

But when we talk about this plague that will ensure this generation will die younger than their parents, we always wag our fingers at the “poor choices” fat people are making. It’s a way of blaming the victim, not addressing the issue and not offending business. It’s a well-worn creed spouted often and rarely thought about. And we’re still fat.

Two percent of the population and it’s a personal responsibility issue. Seventy percent and it’s a little more complicated.

Here’s the thing: if you’re a capitalist ““ think it’s the only thing that can drive our economy, spur innovation and create “all that’s good in the world” (or in the case of BP all that’s gooed in the world), if that’s what you think makes America “American” ““ then obesity is great.

If capitalism is a virtue, fat people are saintly. The obese are good consumers. They’ve clearly done what they’re supposed to do ““ consume.

Food companies have done a great job with their tenets of capitalism making their products so irresistible – we don’t resist them.

So stop blaming fat people for doing what companies have urged them to do. That’s like stalking someone for decades and then calling the cops once they agree to go out with you.

This week marks the end to the ninth season of the NBC’s The Biggest Loser, where overweight contestants battle it out to drop pounds. As a middle-of-the-pack runner, I got into the show because I enjoy watching people who are bad at sports do them on national television. Most sports broadcasts have elite athletes showing off their greatness. Who cares. Where do us average, picked-last-in-P.E. schlubs go to see ourselves represented on TV? The Biggest Loser. It takes the egalitarian nature of reality shows and then levels the playing field.

If you watch the show, as millions do, it’s basically a two-hour long infomercial for the overweight. The trainers hock sponsor’s products in staged scenes where contestants ask about healthy meals, ways to store their healthy snacks or are curious about products deemed healthy. Their gym is a sponsor; they tout their own brand of whey protein shakes and their own Wii fitness game. It’s like watching QVC with commercial breaks.

The contestants turn into shills for the companies advertising on the show. “I’m learning how to make the right choices.” In fact The Biggest Loser’s dogmatic phrase “make the right choices” is as about as commercial friendly as possible. Because it doesn’t discourage consuming, it encourages. Has The Biggest Loser thwarted our nation’s epidemic? No, but it has made a bunch of money off of it. Which is the point, right?

Obesity and the hidden costs behind it are a classic example of privatizing profit and socializing losses. The more successful the food industry is, the fatter we become and the more society has to absorb those costs. The military has reportedly turned away over 48,000 recruits since 2005 for being too fat to serve. And if they can’t pass the military’s standard of 26% body fat, they’re not likely to make it as a civilian first responder either.

Obesity is the crowning achievement of the food companies. They don’t have to pay for the health costs of an entire nation being fat. They just reap the rewards of a society that keeps on plumping up and eating more over-processed, nutritionally void catchphrases from people selling us “feeling good.”
Because like we saw with the housing crisis, unregulated big business can lead to disasters of epic proportions. Just like those epic portions on your plate that you’ll admit are a “bad choice.”

“””“

Tina Dupuy is an award-winning writer, editor and columnist for Cagle Cartoons. Follow Tina on Twitter @TinaDupuy.

Want to run Tina’s column in your publication? Contact Cari Dawson Bartley. E-mail [email protected], (800) 696-7561.


Comments

113 responses to “For Capitalists, Obesity is a Sign of Marketing Success”

  1. Murray Avatar
    Murray

    So now obesity is being turned into proof we need socialism?

  2. CaptEagleheart Avatar
    CaptEagleheart

    Socialism got us out of caves. Capitalism,…driven by out of control greed (“competitiveness”) will lead us back in. However, our legal system (popularly known as “justice” system) deems the pursuit of mo’money,…just right. And we go every four years and say,…keep it up BABY!!!

  3. geoff Avatar

    Murray: I guess it depends on how you define "socialism." Isn't the key phrase "unregulated big business can lead to disasters of epic proportions"? Does "regulation" necessarily equate with "socialim"?

  4. CaptEagleheart Avatar
    CaptEagleheart

    Case in point: The Sex in the City wardrobe cost 10 million dollars. 10 MILLION DOLLARS!!! Seriously? Pieces of fabric? Ooops, I'm sorry.,..what's that again?…Oh,…they where ''done" by famous designers. Capitalism at it's best!!!

  5. CarlE Avatar
    CarlE

    "of a society that keeps on plumping up and eating more over-processed, nutritionally void catchphrases ". This says it all. Processed foods are laced with sugar (usually high fructose corn syrup), salt, and fat (often cottonseed and palm kernal oil – highly saturated fats). They would make even the package they came in palatable.

    Heinz ketchup is cutting out 15% of its salt content. It pushes all your buttons from sweet and salty through bitter, sour, and umami. Is cutting 15% of the salt content an improvement when it still saturates all your taste buds, regardless of the lack of nutritional content?

    But, heaven forbid we push such solcialist tactics as requiring full disclosure of ingredients with bold print clearly stating the amount of sugar, salts, and fats. It's a lot easier to blame obese and overwight people for their poor choices than it is to find foods in the grocery store that don't have sugars, salts,and fats. Ever notice those foods are in the perimeter of the store, not the aisles? Now, if we could get the pesticides out of the produce and the hormones and antibiotics out or the meat dept. regular grocery stores might be worth shopping in.

  6. Cal Avatar
    Cal

    Dupuy has a hard time accepting reality. She bristles at the notion that the Obama administration has a socialist agenda. What else do you call it when it’s moving us away from free-market capitalism? What word applies to the centralization of control over business? When government runs what was private enterprise what’s the correct lable? Socialism.

    When individuals choose to eat fast food rather than healthy alternatives, they are not victims, they are consumers making conscious choices. People are not mindless robots following the signals they receive through their tinfoil hats. But by expanding the meaning of the word “victim” to include anyone who DOES in fact make bad choices (dropping out of school, doing drugs, getting pregnant, and evidently now eating in an unhealthy manner, etc.,) and blames outside forces for bad behavior, the Left further expands its sphere of influence so it can offer government-based solutions to solve the problems individuals created.

    This “victim mentality” on the Left drives me insane. Where is the emphasis on individual responsibility and personal choice? So now we’re including an inability to “just say no” to McDonalds as someone else’s fault? We’re calling those people “victims?” That’s ludicrous. Tina dodges personal responsibility be trying to redefine the issue in terms of “how many” people are affected. Because the percentage is X rather than Y it’s not personal choice, it’s a societal problem.

    And as with every other problem the Left invents, guess what the answer is? (That was a Larry King softball question just to see if you’re awake.) Government oversight and wait for it—MORE federal tax dollars! Free needles, free condoms, government-funded abortions and now we need to fund the fat police. I’ve had it with liberals and liberalism. Poor choices have consequences. We are not “victims.” We are human beings with free will. Stop encouraging bad behavior by rewarding it with “free stuff” and government programs. And step away from the Double Whopper with cheese, super-sized fries, and the Big Gulp soft drink. Now, was that so hard?

  7. CarlE Avatar
    CarlE

    By Cal's logic we should put lead back in paint, forget about the mercury in fish, and ignore the BPA in plastic bottles. And those damn environmentalist got rid of his DDT. I guess we shouldn't fret over BP destroying the fisheries in the gulf, or the fact that Cheney's Haliburton was responsible for the failure to properly cement the well, leading to the blowout. Yeah, let those corporations do what ever they want. If we had always done so we'd have not FDA, OSHA, or any of those other tedious meddlers that led to safe working conditions, safe foods, and such. We could still have kids working daylight to dusk in dimly lit textile mills and Chinese tainted milk powder for our babies.

    Too bad his momma didn't have some of the condoms and gov't abortions he rants about.

  8. geoff Avatar
    geoff

    "When individuals choose to eat fast food rather than healthy alternatives, they are not victims, they are consumers making conscious choices." Brainwashed clones buying into the lie that the "freedom to choose" between Coke & Pepsi at your local 7-11 constitutes a real choice.

    "What else do you call it when it’s moving us away from free-market capitalism? What word applies to the centralization of control over business? When government runs what was private enterprise what’s the correct lable? Socialism." Well, no, actually, it would just be common sense, given how well and how often unregulated "free market capitalism" leads to things like our recent financial disaster (something everyone but Cal, apparently, have noticed).

    It seems that people have to have licenses to drive, operate heavy machinery, fly planes, but AIG & BP & Exxon & Halliburton and Blackwater, etc., can just do what they want, leave great swathes of devastation in their wake, and get away with it.

    Go, Cal! Keep on supporting those corporations: they need all the help they can get!

  9. chuck Avatar
    chuck

    You morons crack me up. somebody farts and it's "socialism". I'm not sure where you got all this bs from this commentary on marketing. sure our govt is f'dup, sure our president is a big dissapointment (you redstaters had 8 years and did a pile of damage with your pres).

    Maybe I"m reading it wrong, but this is a commentary on how mindless people are in sucking down the line that marketing and businesses pass on. Oh, Mickey D's said to eat a quarterpounder, so I will. Get a little backbone America. Don't be a lemming and follow the crowd. Make the right choice, regardless of what the Fox lovers say 🙂

  10. morales59 Avatar
    morales59

    SOCIALISM, SOCIALISM, SOCIALISM

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    LOTS OF SOCIALISM IN THERE

    maybe we should change the first couple lines to We the Corporations of the United States etc.

  11. Joey Bidumb Avatar
    Joey Bidumb

    Poster boy and girl for Mickey Obumble's War on Obesity: Bob Beckel and Hillary Clinton. Of course, Mickey's derriere could also use a little scrutiny…………………………………….

  12. Glen Avatar
    Glen

    The problem is religion, which generally supposes a false differentiation of man from animal. We are animals; we just rationalize our irrational conduct.

    Let us pretend, for the sake of argument, that mankind is merely a breed of pig. A pig breed that does not taste that good, but eats nearly everything in sight, like locusts or Tasmanian Devils. What should we do with them? They are ruining the flowers, knocking down the trees, fouling the waters and rendering much of the oceans biological deserts. The answer, of course, would be to limit their population so that they would continue to survive as a genetic pool, but not in such numbers that they would be a threat to the environment. A half billion would be more than sufficient to guarantee their survival. Any more than that, certainly, would serve no good purpose.

  13. MovieMan0283 Avatar
    MovieMan0283

    Cal and CarlE are talking about two different things, which is so often the case with right-left "arguments." Tina Dupuy muddies the water with her deterministic characterizations of consumers and moralistic reading of capitalism (which plays into both right and left characterizations, instead of seeing it as a system which can be a means to an end, not an end in and of itself). Cal is correct in his specific response to Tina, inasmuch as she gives people a pass on their choices, passing the buck onto advertisement. But then he goes on to needlessly generalize about liberals and socialism. CarlE is correct to reframe the debate (in a way Tina did not) so that it's not about consumers being "forced" to buy unhealthy products but rather contaminants of one sort or another – far beyond the merely "unhealthy" – being squeezed into products which most people don't have time to investigate themselves (besides which, they would not necessarily be able to determine everything in there if they did investigate). That's a worthy cause for government regulation – wagging a finger at the "sheep" and directing them to consume the sort of product you want them to consume, not so much.

    Geoff, we're all brainwashed to one extent to another. Either we accept that we have responsibility for our choices, whatever the outside influences, or we don't; but if we don't that does not leave any "experts" to set us straight because they're brainwashed too!

    Having just gotten into a tangle about "left"/"right" on another board, I'm increasingly weary about falling into these ideological traps, which I'm as prone to set for myself as others. The best way to approach these things is issue-by-issue, using common sense, and principles not recourse to generalizations about what different "sides". But yes, it's hard not to fall into that trap especially when people present themselves in this way – as Tina did by turning an editorial about obesity into snarking at capitalism.

  14. MovieMan0283 Avatar
    MovieMan0283

    Glen, who gets to choose which parts of the population get to be "limited"? Who is the "we" deciding what to do with "them"? You can't set yourself apart from the problem you want to fix. If you're sincere, and not just being tongue-in-cheek, remember that all good eugenicists start with themselves.

  15. alxzba Avatar
    alxzba

    most of Tina’s comments are right-on. But just like we cannot blame Mexico for the consumption of grass in the U.S. or (fully) blame the car companies for the overpower and low mileage of automobiles, somewhere in all this is the responsibility of the consumer — us. These rantings about socialism are just smokescreens for not facing taking care of ourselves.

  16. Buffet Avatar
    Buffet

    Fat people are disgusting. They're fat because they're lazy and they hate themselves. http://www.martybeckerman.com/kill-fatty-modestly

  17. janet Avatar
    janet

    Neat article, and great comments. Maybe we are getting fat in body but it is good to see we are still exercising freedom of expressing our thoughts and opinions. We as a society are concerned about keeping our brethren healthy and safe which is socialism and also about providing opportunity to capitalize on an idea which will make us money and keep our economy healthy. No dogmas allowed. We do the latter but regulate it by the former's yardstick. Nobody automatically is plugged into a neccessary slot and forced to work at what they don't like for the same pay no matter what, and no body has the right to do what they damn please no matter who it hurts or how much damage it causes just to benefit themselves, or shouldn't. While people are screaming "socialism!" there are unaccountable mega corporations who don't believe they should spend their unfettered profits to clean up a mess they made through negligence and self indulgence. Over the years food has devolved into an addictive taste sensation which combined with endocrine mimicing substances in our environment is increasing the relative fat mass in our bodies. Smoking killed many and morbid obesity in increasingly younger populations is indeed a social problem which can be nicely addressed through education of the population and accountability of markets seeking to manipulate the minds of the consumer if a product proves perilous.

  18. Rob S. Avatar

    I call BS.

    The reason Americans are fatter is not because of consumption or capitalism, but the "smarter-than-thou" scienticians lowered the standard of what "fat" is to the point that people who are in good shape and lots of muscle mass are considered morbidly obese. Throw in a compliant liberal media that dispatches a camera crew to spend a day looking for fat people for their stock footage. Mix liberally with nanny Statists who know what's good for you better than you do because you're just too stupid and voila! Instant epidemic.

    "Never let a serious crisis go to waste." Especially when you're the one who created the crisis.

    You get annoyed whenever your spouse or significant other tells you you're fat. Why do you accept it as a fact, without question, when some busy-body Communist you don't even know tells you you're fat? Why do you even listen to Michelle "Baby Got Back" Obama when she tells you your kids are fat. Tell them, and Tina Dupuy, to shut the he** up, mind their own business and enjoy that Honey Bun.

  19. Rob S. Avatar

    And who is the AMA? Liberals who went straight to work right out of med school and never had a practice of their own. They don't even represent that many doctors in America. Tell them to shove it sideways as well.

  20. Jim J Avatar
    Jim J

    morales59: I think you are on to something so I rearranged a few words in the preamble to take out the socialism:

    We the corporations of the United States (and those chartered offshore to dodge taxes), in Order to form a more perfect Market, minimize Regulations and Accountability, insure domestic Apathy, provide for common Brand recognition, promote general Consumption, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to our Stockholders and their Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

  21. rose Avatar
    rose

    What a bunch of crap all the way around. Onehundred years ago when people were skinny the average life spam was a whole hell of a lot less than it is today. And believe it or not, skinny people die too, just of different conditions. So eat hearty. Enjoy life while we have it and stop worrying about obesity. I read once about a guy in India who wished he could live in a country where people are fat. Right on!

    Besides, I don't trust skinny people, and our current president is awfully skinny.

  22. Irene Avatar
    Irene

    Let's say it together, very slowly, dear Tina: "Personal" "Responsibility"

    Something Socialists think, apparently, need to be regulated.

  23. ArtW Avatar
    ArtW

    Rob S. :The reason Americans are fatter is not because of consumption or capitalism, but the “smarter-than-thou” scienticians lowered the standard of what “fat” is to the point that people who are in good shape and lots of muscle mass are considered morbidly obese."

    The all-knowing scientists also dictated to the American public a diet extremely high in carbohydrates. Despite the best efforts of the USDA, eating according to the 'food pyramid' leads many to a diet based largely on sugars.

  24. Stug Avatar
    Stug

    Being overweight is unhealthy. There is no way around that simple fact, increased risk of heart disease, diabetes, etc. Those arguing on the right that it is a matter of personal responsibility to maintain a healthy lifestyle are 100% correct. Those arguing on the left that the corporations are serving their own best interests, through advertising, to ensure that we consume are also 100% correct. That the corporations push us to consume is not the problem, that they push us to consume unhealthy foods is. I agree that people are and should be personally accountable for the choices that they make, but to discount the persuasiveness and pervasiveness of the marketing sector is disingenuous. They are very good at what they do. Regulations should be in place to control ingredient labeling such that the average person can read and understand any potential health risks, and to limit advertising in some respects. I don't think children should be legitimate targets by advertisements for foods known to be unhealthy. The argument that people are responsible for their choices goes out the window when the corporations and their marketing experience is pitted against a 7 year old.

    Those making statements like this: "Fat people are disgusting. They’re fat because they’re lazy and they hate themselves." are displaying a remarkable level of ignorance and intolerance.

    I find it amusing that when Glen, who typically comments from the left of the spectrum, mentions population control, which is a legitimate concern given that we have a relatively finite resource base, without offering any specifics, he is immediately attacked by MovieMan who asks: "Who is the “we” deciding what to do with “them”?." This is followed only two posts later by Buffet making the above quoted statement and offering a link to an article whose main statement is "We need to kill the fatties. We need to kill the fatties as soon as humanly possible."

    The article itself is humerously crude, but it does make a couple of solid points. "These repulsive fat fucks require 41 percent higher medical costs on average", "The horrendous bovine masses cost the rest of us $147 billion per year", "An Extra Value Meal costs approximately $6.00 and contains as many as 1,550 calories. Let’s try an experiment called Going to the Fucking Grocery Store! … Holy shit, I just created a healthy meal, totaling fewer than 300 calories—which takes twenty minutes to cook, by the way, not exactly a massive burden—for less than $2.50, NOT EVEN HALF THE PRICE OF A FECAL VALUE MEAL." All of this is true (assuming his dollar amounts are correct). And the language is his, not mine. Point being, the "Fecal Value Meal" has billions of dollars of marketing research and advertising behind it, whereas how to shop properly and create a healthy meal, does not.

    Yet, any attempt by the government to limit the advertising of unhealthy foods is decried as anti-capitalist, any attempt to encourage people to be more healthy is overreaching the constitutional mandate.

    And that segment of the population that does fall into the trap that was laid for them, by making bad personal nutrition choices largely because of the incessant marketing, is demonized for driving health care costs up by the stated "$147 billion per year" by those that supported laying the trap in the first place, and who vehemetly oppose providing the "41 percent higher medical costs" that their policy choices are partially responsible for making necessary.

    The author of the article made another valid statement: "We are Rome in decadent, self-indulgent decline." Yet any attempt by the government to curb this is declared an infringement of our individual right to self-indulge. And so we reach a crossroads: Accept that the government actually has the mandate to limit some personal choices in the best interests of the future of the country as a whole; or Limit the government's powers of regulation, but make a conscious effort to alter America's overall mindset as the land of ignorance and over-indulgence; or Accept the inevitable decline. It's our choice to make.

  25. EASTTEXASREDNECK Avatar
    EASTTEXASREDNECK

    IF YOU WANT TO LOSE WEIGHT, GO DEER HUNTING. VENISON HAS NO CHOLESTEROL, STEROIDS, ETC, AND VERY LITTLE FAT. GO FISHING. SAME REASONS. YOU WILL DROP SOME POUNDS AND WILL HAVE BETTER HEALTH. PLUS IT IS GREAT TO GET AWAY FROM THE RECLINER AND BOOB-TUBE.

  26. Cal Avatar
    Cal

    No CarlE. Your comparison is specious. We have to eat to live and we have the ability to make choices. I choose to eat a very healthy diet and exercise regularly. My brother eats bags and bags of potato chips and is over 300 pounds at 5’7”. Claiming the government needs to get involved in our weight because it regulated lead in paint isn’t the same thing. Children can’t make choices about mouthing their crib rails. They do that instinctively having no idea what’s in them and therefore it makes sense to remove the harmful substance.

    As we get older, we can choose what to put in our bodies. It’s hard to imagine after the trillions of dollars we’ve dumped into public schools that we don’t inform children about calories, exercise, and weight gain. The two schools I’ve taught at since retiring from the Marine Corps sure do and I’m guessing we’re fairly representative of most of the country. I teach in a very poor, Title1 school in Florida and if we can do it, any school can.

    As I’ve said, there IS an important role for government to play in our lives and it’s all about where to draw lines. The Left seems to have _no_ line and _no_ area it doesn’t welcome government into with open arms. Government occasionally gets some things right. (This is where Good Life mentions something irrelevant like “Republicans opposed seat belts” to somehow “prove” we need government food police.)

    As far as Dupuy’s notion that capitalism, not the individual, is at fault, I take exception with that. And to say that government is the solution, well, “dittos.” What’s missing is the emphasis on individual responsibility, choices, their impact and consequences.

    Good comments from MovieMan. I was pleased to see CarlE was much more measured this time out. Nice work! I’d hate to see you slip up and move backward rather than forward. If that happened you might resort to a juvenile personal attack that shows your superior level of liberal tolerance. Way to go CarlE!

    Chuck was especially on the money. “If someone farts, it’s socialism.” That clarifies a lot. I was somehow under the impression it had more to do with the federal government buying private business and industry, taking control of our health care, setting salaries, and so forth. But now I see it’s more a matter of flatulence. What can I say? You live. You learn. Thanks, Chuck. You rock.

    It's good to see Stug agree on America's moral decline due a loss of moral values that worked for centuries by encouraging illicit sexual behavior, drug use, rebellion against authority, and an open hatred of all things God. Government's done an outstanding job in attempting to "curb" all of those societally damaging behaviors and I'm sure it'll do just as fine a job in making sure we eat a more healthy diet. I've got an idea! The government could TAX behaviors it doesn't like! Harry? Nancy? You listening? There's the answer. If they eat it, tax it. What could be simpler?

  27. Stug Avatar
    Stug

    Wow, EastTexas, I think that's the first post you've ever put up that I agree with.

  28. CarlE Avatar
    CarlE

    O f course Stug is correct when he asserts that corporations are very good a persuading folks to eat their products; and, that regulators need to be mindful of marketing to young children. It is appropriate for schools to ban soda and snack machines and to require truth in labeling. Part of the problem is that they don’t go far enough. Juice Drinks laced with high fructose corn syrup does not compare with juice that has no sugar added. Instead they are as bad as the banned sodas. Calling oil instead of fat and dextrose instead of sugar intentionally misleads those giving only a cursory look at a package’s ingredients.

    It is reassuring that part of the “green awareness” new to most folks includes an emphasis on eating local foods and whole foods instead of processed foods. I think it equally appropriate that governments on all levels help to promote healthy eating habits. Heinz isn’t cutting out the 15% of the sodium for noble purpose, they are reading the writing on the wall. Dr. Pepper and 7Up are switching back away from high fructose corn syrup for the same reason. We very much should have government using their persuasive powers through public campaigns and regulations surrounding the use of food stamps, the WIC program, and School Lunch Programs.

    Regardless of what one thinks of Michelle Obama it should be recognized that First Ladies have always targeted areas to focus on. From Ladybird’s Keep America Clean to Nancy Reagan’s Just Say No, and now Michelle Obama’s focus on healthy eating they all typically take on social issues. Hers is indeed a timely issue relative to the problems associated with obesity in today’s people, especially children.

    Cal, if your school teaches basic nutrition it is out of the norm. Part of the problem with today’s schools is that we have gotten away from providing a well balanced education to spending the majority of time with researched based scripted programs with the sole purpose of raising test scores. We give short shrift to the sciences and social sciences, including health education. We don’t teach students how to think on higher levels, we emphasize lower level knowledge skills like recalling basic facts. The rest of the industrialized world is ahead of us in these areas for precisely this reason.

    But of course, Cal can’t resist describing loans to the auto industries, keeping major industries from collapsing which would result in a ripple effect across the economy, or attempting to provide a modicum of health care for the millions without by off handedly throwing in, “I was somehow under the impression it had more to do with the federal government buying private business and industry, taking control of our health care, setting salaries, and so forth.” Sheesh

  29. Stug Avatar
    Stug

    "Where is the emphasis on individual responsibility and personal choice?"

    – I'll bite Cal, where is it. The Supreme Court has recently ruled that corporations have the same rights as individuals. So where is the emphasis on their responsibility not to peddle slow-acting poisons? Where is the emphasis on their individual responsibility not to target cigarette ads on kids, as if that would have stopped, to some degree, if the government hadn't stepped in. Where is the emphasis on their individual responsibility to promote a healthy lifestyle? I'm with you on this one. If the rise in fast food consumption can be correllated to the rise in obesity, then according to your theory the fast food companies should have no problem paying a significant portion of the additional $147 billion in medical costs that they are individually responsible for causing.

    Oh, I see, you didn't really mean it. You only mean to hold individual people responsible for falling prey to advertising that the corporations have spent billions to ensure that they would fall prey to it.

    And yes, I do agree with his statement that: "We are Rome in decadent, self-indulgent decline." But I would guess that you and I would have a difference of opinion over what would constitute "moral values" and what the basis of those values should be. As for your "open hatred of all things God", that's about the most ridiculously baseless and openly inflammatory comment I've seen you post.

    As for the rest, a sin-tax on cheeseburgers, hmmm….

  30. rose Avatar
    rose

    How about all you people visiting an old graveyard of about 100 years ago. You'll see just how young the majority of people were when they died. For ancient Greeks the average life span was around 23, in Tudor times it was somewhere in the 40s. Even 20 years ago the average life span was lower than it is now. So quit bellyaching that government should now determine what we eat. I'm an adult. I do NOT eat fast food at all. I go to the grocery store, buy healthy and eat healthy, but that's my choice. If someone else doesn't want to do that it's their choice. With all the nutritional information that is available and all the labels on just about everything all we have to do is read them. The government doesn't have to get involved.

    I taught my children good food choices too, even if they saw the ads on TV and begged for the sugar-carb filled junk. Was it easy? No it wasn't, but it can be done WITHOUT the government. Are we adults or not? I am so sick to death of so many people asking for government interference to save us from just about everything—-and frankly, the government is rarely very wise about many things, including what I remember reading about the food pyramid put out by the FDA. Screw the food pyramid. It's probably caused more hypertension and diabetes than all the foods combined that I feed my family.

    And like I said skinny people die too. I've been in the medical business for over 35 years and have seen stacks of statistics and medical records. It's true that fat people die of heart disease and diabetes, but skinny people die of stroke and neurological diseases because nerve fibers NEED FAT. We are all gonna die of something someday, and some of us will lie in hospital beds wondering where we went wrong when we thought we did everything right, beating ourselves up right to the last breath.

    It boils down to adults making choices. Some of us make good choices and die anyway. Some of us make bad choices and die anyway too. Get busy living your life and make your own choices as adults, whatever they are, and enjoy them while you last. Death is forever, even if you ate perfectly.

  31. Stug Avatar
    Stug

    "Even 20 years ago the average life span was lower than it is now."

    – Which says a great deal about our advances in medicine, and nothing at all about the topic at hand.

    " With all the nutritional information that is available and all the labels on just about everything all we have to do is read them. The government doesn’t have to get involved. "

    – The government doesn’t have to get involved?

    Why do you think the nutritional information is available? Why are there labels on everything?

    Because those that want to do what is best for the country and it's actual citizens, not just it's corporate citizens, fought against those who said "The government doesn’t have to get involved."

    Whether or not the government has to get involved is a moot point anyhow. The government is involved. The question is how involved should it be. Some think that a certain degree of involvement is not only desirable, it is necessary, to ensure a modicum of safety at a minimum, if not nutritional content to a degree. Others would argue that for the government to suggest that eating a diet consisting purely of Twinkies might be bad for you is tantamount to a Socialist takeover of our nutritional system.

    " like I said skinny people die too."

    – Well, that certainly clears up the mystery of where all of the 400 year old skinny people are.

    "It’s true that fat people die of heart disease and diabetes, but skinny people die of stroke and neurological diseases because nerve fibers NEED FAT."

    – An interesting comment, and no doubt true, but useless in the debate without context. When you say skinny people, do you mean underweight, or just not overweight? A lack of proper nutrition isn't a much better choice than an excess of fat, so far as leading a healthy life goes. At what average ages do the overweight die as compared to those who aren't. What are the relative percentages of the overweight vs. those who aren't, in the general population?

    And nobody said we didn't need some fat in our diet. You sound like one of the GW deniers trying to pretend that liberals want to remove all the CO2 from the atmosphere. It is a ridiculous supposition.

  32. geoff Avatar
    geoff

    rose: "With all the nutritional information that is available and all the labels on just about everything all we have to do is read them. The government doesn’t have to get involved."

    Well, that info is only there because the gov't did, at one point or other, either get involved or threaten to do so. And, that info still isn't complete: try to find out what hormones or antibiotics are in the milk you drink, for example (a trade secret, apparently).

    Your point about making choices is interesting, because it comes back to something Cal keeps avoiding. Yes, we do have to make choices; the question is, how? On the basis of the "information" we get from advertising? from the possibly misleading claims on product labels? There was this whole thing called "liberalism" and the Enlightenment that was based on the idea that humans are rational and will make rational decisions, but that assumption was in turn based on the further assumption that we would have the information which would enable us to make those decisions. All too often that "rational" system breaks down: tobacco companies pay billions to convince you that smoking is good for you, McDonald's spends billions to tell you greasy burgers will help clear up your complexion and give you a better sex life, BP will spend billions to blame the unions and excessive regulations for its oil spills, etc. That access to accurate information is part of the "free enterprise" equation that everyone from Adam Smith onward have emphasised but which those pulling the strings always try to downplay (or, in cases like Cal's determination to blame everyone but those actually responsible, ignore altogether: we should all just close our eyes and trust big corporations because… our blind ideology tells us so… not very rational…).

  33. Buffet Avatar
    Buffet

    Being fat is simply a choice. Why anyone would choose to be, is beyond me? Why would anyone wanna look gross and not get laid?

  34. rose Avatar
    rose

    Stug says: "The government is involved. The question is how involved should it be. "

    Yes, I agree the government is involved—-to an extent. So the question is, just how far should the government be involved. Well, I believe the government should give us statistics and information (such as the labels on our foods) AND THEN LET US MAKE THE CHOICES. I don't need the government telling me I shouldn't have a a Mac if I want one, or salt if I like salty foods. However, I don't mind them putting a label on it from which I can make my own choices.

    Nor do I think obesity is healthy, but it's still a choice for some people. If they live a reasonably productive life and eat bags of potato chips it's not the government's business or our business. And I hate this sort of political correctness of putting labels on people because of the way they look. In my own family I remember having an aunt who was obese all of her life through no fault of her own. Well, that lady had the heart of an elephant, walked everywhere she went because she never learned to drive, and lived to be 87. But she was always descriminated against because of the way she looked. On the other hand, my mother was meticulous about her diet and exercise and when she got older she had a great body, but her mind was gone because of Alzheimers.

    What I'm trying to say here is that we have to show some gratitude to the food industry for being a well-fed nation, although we also have the right to be ctitical of them when we know better, but the choices are still ours to make, and I think we ought to lay off trying to fit everyone into what we perceive as "the right size". And I certainly believe the government ought to educate and inform us AND THEN STEP BACK AND ALLOW US TO MAKE OUR OWN CHOICES.

    I know all the statistics about seat belts, for instance. Yet there are times when I CHOOSE not to wear one. That ought to be between me and my insurance company and not the government who uses the seat belt law for revenue enhancement and not our safety (at least in California). That's B.S.

    But the more we demand of government, like ambulance services and health care, the more power we give them and the more everything has to turn into safe shades of uniform gray. Seems to me we have a right to be INDIVIDUALS who make our own choices even if they are the wrong choices, and pay for most of them out of our own pocket too instead of asking government to rescue us. I'm sick of it. I want to be FREE and live in a FREE country, and we are losing our freedoms inch by inch because of some of you who can't see what's right in front of you. It boils donw to balance, and I feel we are more and more out of balance with government entering every corner of our lives because some of you are demanding safety over FREEDOM. Nuts to that!!!

  35. rose Avatar
    rose

    As for geoff's comment, if someone is that influenced by advertising it is also their choice. I feel an reasonably aware person ought to know where to get reliable information which is all available to us, both at the local library and on the internet and sometimes even from the government (rare, but it does happen). Thirty years ago I got rid of my TV set because of the advertising that was insulting to have in my own living room. That was my choice, and so I'm not influenced by advertising at all. If other people make other choices, well, I think that's too bad, but it isn't my business and it isn't government's business.

    Are we a FREE country or aren't we? Or have be become so lazy that we don't even bother to dig for good information anymore and just allow advertising to warm our minds?

    Yes, I do get impatient with all the excuses and all the whining because the more government gets involved because people whine and refuse to grow up the more I LOSE MY FREEDOMS every day—-and I resent that enormously.

  36. geoff Avatar

    rose: strange: whereas I trust my gov't (since I can vote them out of office if they don't perform), it seems that Americans generally prefer to surrender their freedoms to big corporations and blame the gov't. BP, GM, AIG, Enron, Halliburton, Exxon, Citibank, Fox, health insurance companies (with their "death panels") – even Walmart – are all "free" to recklessly gamble with your environment, the world's economy, geopolitics, tell you what to eat/drink/wear/hear/read/think, etc., and are only answerable to CEOs who get a huge "golden handshake" even when they screw up. I've mentioned it before: some Americans seem so fixated on their right to "bear arms" that they don't notice they've become slaves to the lobbyists and corporations which run everything. Whereas people in Sweden, for example, have mentioned in polls that they are happy to pay high tax rates because they see what they get out of it: decent day care for their kids (so women are "free" to work if they choose), free university education (so people are free to learn), decent health care and social safety net (so people don't lose their homes if they get sick or lose their jobs, so people don't have to worry about high crime rates, etc.), decent public transit, etc. To me the latter is freedom and the former is not.

  37. Amilam Avatar
    Amilam

    Actually there has been really interesting research that shows that eating diets that are high in sugars and saturated fats actually creates a physiological change that is identical to those brought about by drugs. While I fall pretty squarely into the libertarian side of the camp, it's pretty naive to just call obesity a simple choice, akin to deciding what color shirt you wear in the morning. Rather, walk through your typical convenience store or small grocery store and try and find healthy food. There isn't much to be had. If you live close to a farmers market or a super grocery store you do have the tools to make a healthy diet, but those establishments are shrinking these days. There was a time when a good percentage of K-Marts and Wal-Marts had a large dairy and produce section, now those are being phased out with smaller stores that only provide junk food. With our current food selection being overweight isn't a choice, it's the norm. It's even harder for children. Most school cafeterias have absolutely abysmal food which is high in starch, simple sugars, saturated fat, and sodium. Being within the ideal BMI margin takes a consistent effort unless you are blessed with fantastic genes.

    I'm not really surprised that our fellows on the right are not familiar with these medical studies, or providing any studies on obesity for that matter. But hey, Rob S. has already outed all medical studies from the AMA as being liberal propaganda so I guess we can throw them out. What a relief! It's hard work having to actually educate oneself on a subject. It' must be so nice to be able to just write anything inconvenient off as biased and remain blissfully ignorant. Hey Rob, maybe you can find a way to label cancer statistics as having a liberal bias so we could throw away all those figures too, Finally, a cure for cancer!

    So what is the solution? Unfortunately, there really isn't one besides improving the heath standards of our cafeterias. If kids want to bring in chips from home fine, but we shouldn't be selling it to them on school grounds. Taxes on unhealthy food is likewise problematic because there isn't one problematic food that is driving this problem (sodas is often misidentified as being the primary culprit, but obesity rates are actually higher in people who drink diet soda). Thankfully, morbid obesity rates seem to have topped out in America. The trends say that people who qualify as being slightly overweight and solidly overweight will continue to rise and top out as well. Maybe someday science will find a way to undo the problem it has caused by inventing foods that ease the problem instead of exacerbating it. Until then, we need to stop acting like such self entitled whiners when we hear about an airline charging double for a passenger that is taking up two seats. Or sobbing about how our society places such unrealistic standards of beauty on us.

  38. Good Life Avatar
    Good Life

    Actually all it would take would be for the consumers to see what actually goes into “100% beef”. Beef is anything that comes out of a bovine type critter. Anyone that eats “100% beef” need not laugh at those that eat haggis. Yes, that’s right. Absolutely any part of a bovine that can be ground up goes into those “burgers”. Notice they use “burger” rather than “hamburger”. The government defines the words and “hamburger” is different from “burger”. And not only is a burger anything bovine, the consumer should look at what the critter looked like before it hit the grinder. These are not prime or even choice. (Of course, even the definition of prime and choice has been lowered, but that’s another education) These are the old and sick. Yes, sick. The only limitation is the critter must be able to walk. (Which is a raising of the standard. Before “mad cow” the only requirement was that they were still breathing.) If they can walk they can be burger. The areas that have cancer or other disease are cut out but the rest goes in.

    There are actually slaughtering plants that specialize in fast food critters. A good critter “on the hoof” goes for 80 cents to $1.25 per pound. The critters that go to the fast food plants go for 15-25 cents per pound. Gives you an idea what the quality of these critters is. And gives you an idea why they can have a “dollar menu”.

    Remember this the next time you swing through that drive through.

  39. Cal Avatar
    Cal

    Stug. Interesting reply. "The supreme court and corporations." "You only mean to hold individual people responsible for falling prey to advertising that the corporations have spent billions to ensure that they would fall prey to it." Again, in your world, we're all just a bunch of hapless, helpless victims. No one is individually responsible for the choices they make. They're unable to think for themselves and the agency to help them do so? The federal government, of course. That implies rules, regulations, programs, and of course, more tax dollars to fund the programs to keep us from killing ourselves.

    I'm glad you fully addressed the real decline in America as noted in the short list of "good ideas" liberals have promoted hurrying us on our path to Roman debauchery. No, not a word on the ill effects of "sex, drugs, rock and roll" and "hey, if it feels good do it." Your only complaint is I'm not blaming corporations who "overpower" the hapless, blathering idiots who are unable to resist their enticing advertisements. Sorry, Stug. I'm not buying this one. No one ever forced anyone to start smoking, drinking, or eat fast food. Those are choices we make and those choices have consequences. Blame yourself. Blame me. Blame the individual. But stop laying the blame on other people for some being too weak willed to say "no thank you." That's the guilty culprit in all this. The individual. Not the twinkie. Not the Marlboro man and not the Coors Silver Bullet Train. It's you. It's me. WE are individually responsible for individual choices.

  40. geoff Avatar

    Cal's view of corporations: "we’re all just a bunch of hapless, helpless victims of unions and regulations. None of us is responsible for the choices we make. We’re unable to think for ourselves because of our blind faith in the irrational force Adam Smith labelled the 'invisible hand'" (i.e. a system that was too complicated for him to understand with the limited resources available to him).

    Cal: some of us choose to educate ourselves. What's your excuse for continuing to wallow in your ignorance and clinging blindly to Rush's ideology? You want to have a few good liberal ideas? How about the one that started "we the people"? How about "free enterprise economics"? How about separation of church and state?

  41. geoff Avatar

    :Roman debauchery." Ah: the good old days of the Robber Barons, ca. 1890 or so. Plantations!!! All those territories to conquer…

    So Cal: when will you take responsibility for being a dittohead?

  42. Jim Avatar
    Jim

    So how is it the government's job to rein in capitalism and stop fast food and other producers from giving us unhealthy choices. Have you ever seen anyone reading the nutrition information at McDonald's. We all know it's not good for us but we eat it anyway. We all knew smoking was bad but people continue to smoke. Altrhough I do believe the incidence of smokers is on the decline. I've known smoking was unhealthy since 1953 when my third grade teacher told us. I've known eating too much fat, salt, carbs, etc isn't healthy since my mother told me.

    Have any of you liberals ever flown a kite. It's protected from going out to far because of the string (regulation), but it really soars because of the string that lets it fly (freedom from regulation). So I'm saying some regulation is necessary but sometimes we need to fly beyond it.

  43. geoff Avatar
    geoff

    I was thinking about Cal's reference to Roman debauchery: the luxury and power of the ultra-rich, there and in pre-Revolutionary France and Russia. Contrasted with poverty and slavery suffered by just about everyone else. "Let them eat cake!" indeed. About as grounded in "facts" as anything else Cal has ever written.

    So what is he saying? People like Donald Trump, and all the big boys gambling with AIG, Enron, oil futures, derivatives, mine safety, environmental protection, retirement funds, currency speculation, etc., – all the Gordon Gekkoes of "Wall Street" – are all "liberals"?

    A great new corporate slogan for BP & Halliburton: "hey, if it feels good do it.”

    Cal, we've said it before: learn some history if you don't want to make such howlers with such unceasing regularity.

    And just consider it from a business perspective, dude. Do you think "free enterprise," being (in your eyes) infallible and all, would spend billions on advertising if it wasn't effective? Do you think McDonald's has nothing better to do with its profits than throw them away on crappy ads about how "you deserve a break today" or "two all-beef patties, special sauce," etc., that people can still remember, word for word, decades later?

    How about BP's relentless campaign to prove itself (all evidence to the contrary) "environmentally friendly"?

    Maybe that's why the GOP is so good at packaging its BS: it feeds to the same empty-headed dupes who believe in "trickle down" aka "voodoo economics" or that "global warming is a hoax and a few lines taken out of context from thousands of e-mails proves it," or "the GOP represents 'family values'" and Glen Beck is not a whiny crybaby and Rush Limbaugh is not a former junky, drug smuggler, 3 times divorced, that Ann Coulter personifies not only all the feminine graces but all the Christian virtues as well, etc.

    Otherwise, yeah: we'll continue to take you as a dupe and a fool and a dittohead spouting out anything that Rush pours down your ear; proud to be dim.

  44. Good Life Avatar
    Good Life

    Jim "Have any of you liberals ever flown a kite. It’s protected from going out to far because of the string (regulation), but it really soars because of the string that lets it fly (freedom from regulation)."

    Have you ever cut the string on a flying kite? Shortly the kite crashes, as did the economy when regulation was cut. The trick is to have enough string (regulation) to keep the kite (economy) flying without putting a rope on it that would also pull it down. To fly a kite or economy it takes a balance between freedom and restraint.

  45. geoff Avatar

    Good Life: I was sort of thinking about a sort of algebra today. You can either have "freedom" or "equality." If you have too much freedom, then the rich & powerful will take everything they can. If you try to enforce too much equality then you lose a whole lot of freedom. So you have to find a good balance. Seems like maybe the "liberal" side to American politics aims at emphasising equality while the GOP panders to big corporations and rich folk who don't want anyone limiting their freedom to… pollute, gamble with the world economy, speculate, etc.

    Like the kite, it has to be in balance. And overall, I'd say the string is probably the most important part, and your take on the string as regulation (keeping unrealistic economic wet dreams "grounded") definitely makes more sense.

  46. ArtW Avatar
    ArtW

    Good Life: "Shortly the kite crashes, as did the economy when regulation was cut."

    Right. So let's give the current Congress (the ones that were flying the kite/economy into the ground) more string. That makes sense.

  47. geoff Avatar

    ArtW: I don't think you get the gist of the analogy. Corporations like AIG, Citibank, Lehmann Brothers, and now BP want to fly free, to be unrestrained by "regulations." It wasn't Congress that drove the economy into the ground. It was a mixture of people like Greenspan telling people to go out and spend in an effort to blow up the real estate bubble so some money would stay in the US and not all drain off to China and Saudi Arabia. Granted, Congress (& a whole lot of others) should not have given unlimited credit for wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and looks pretty stupid for cutting taxes under Bush, but…

  48. ArtW Avatar
    ArtW

    Amilam: "If kids want to bring in chips from home fine"

    Negative, good buddy. Not fine. Sure, sounds harmless enough, but try that in my children's school system and you get to have a meeting with the principal. You see, potato chips 'might be' made in plants that also process peanut products. There are some kids (there is one (1) in our elementary school) who are allergic to peanut oils and, hence, they are not allowed to be brought in to school. We are forced to purchase the state mandated chips or our kids don't get to have any. Just so happens the chips provided by the school are very high in trans and saturated fat . . . so, no chips. Love that 'big brother' has our backs.

    "Until then, we need to stop acting like such self entitled whiners when we hear about an airline charging double for a passenger that is taking up two seats."

    Agree 100%.

  49. ArtW Avatar
    ArtW

    Geoff: "If you have too much freedom, then the rich & powerful will take everything they can."

    Not only that; too much freedom can also allow someone to 'become' rich and/or powerful. We certainly don't want people reaching too high . . . they might end up somewhere in the middle if things don't work out perfectly. No, let's all aspire to be "equal" . . . as if that has ever happened under any government.

  50. geoff Avatar

    ArtW: "Not only that; too much freedom can also allow someone to ‘become’ rich and/or powerful."

    Nope: doesn't work that way. Unless something is done to correct the situation, wealth and power tend to concentrate. Most "primitive" societies had means to redistribute wealth, from kula rings and potlatches (until things went wild) to various forms of patronage, "bread and circuses," pyramid-building schemes, etc. Look at, say, the music industry, or film studios, or automobiles. Where there used to be a huge number of companies making cars, a lot either go bankrupt or get bought out by the competition to the point where there is no real competition any more. Then the gov't usually has to step in and break up the cartels.

    Do you think Microsoft would like you to be "free" to compete with it on a fair and open field? They'll either copy your GUI, or sue you, or undercut your prices, or force computer stores not to stock your product; and if that doesn't work, they'll buy you out.

  51. ArtW Avatar
    ArtW

    Geoff: "Nope: doesn’t work that way."

    Funny you should mention Microsoft.

    Bill Gates did not become rich and powerful?

  52. Good Life Avatar
    Good Life

    (the ones that were flying the kite/economy into the ground) ——-Who exactly was it that flew the kite into the ground over the last 30 years?

  53. GetReal Avatar
    GetReal

    So the moral of the story is this: capitalism is bad because it has enabled us to produce more goods, more efficiently, and raise income levels/lower good prices so that more people have the opportunity to get fat?

    Attacking capitalism because of obesity is like killing the messenger. Capitalism provides, it's up to us how we use it. Whatever happened to personal responsibility?

    For me, obesity is a sign of personal irresponsibility/parenting failure.

    For those who think the economy is proof that capitalism fails, think again. How much government meddling has there been in our economy for the past 100 years? Despite this, capitalism is still strong enough to overcome our efforts to destroy it.

    Still don't agree? The information is out there, find it.

  54. geoff Avatar
    geoff

    ArtW: Bill Gates did get rich & powerful. And whereas there used to be a whole lot of good word processing software out there (WordPerfect used to be way better than Word), he was able to cut everyone else out of the market, due to his ties with computer makers because of his operating system. Now, with what amounts to being a near monopoly, he can either push everyone else out of business, or simply buy the competition. The only way to fight back is to go "open source" (i.e. Open Office, Linux).

    Once he has the power and the riches, the only way he can increase market share is to take over the market. Poor man wanna be rich, rich man wanna be king, and a king ain't satisfied till he rules everything.

    And GetReal: I wouldn't say gov't was trying to destroy capitalism. I would say that some greedheads and short-sighted CEOs figured out that it's better to grab their haul and run, rather than keep the system going. AIG, Enron, the whole S&L scandal, etc. are basically waging war against the liberal (i.e. Adam Smith) ideal of unfettered free market capitalism: obviously their idea of "rational" is not shared by all.

  55. rose Avatar
    rose

    Geoff says: "To me the latter is freedom and the former is not."

    You state that as if it were some sort of universal truth, but IT IS NOT!. To me freedom to make my own decisions as an adult is more important than anything. I actually believe the mantra, "Give me liberty or give me death."

    That does not mean that I think corporations should have freedom to do whatever they please, but of late the government has used strings on the corporation to also entangle you and me. Corporate freedom is not the same as INDIVIDUAL freedom, which is what this country ought to be all about.

    People like Geoff will deserve the lack of freedoms they will end up getting, and it is people like me and others who value their freedom who will also become ensnared in that miserable tangle. Resentment isn't good enough. It's actually war between the two ideologies. We don't have the same vision, and I know I will fight for mine until I draw my last breath. That's because I was born and raised in one of thoes countries like Sweden that Geoff talks so fondly about, and my parents came here because they wanted FREEDOM, only for their children to end up with the same sort of restrictions on their adulthood. Shame!

  56. Stug Avatar
    Stug

    "Again, in your world, we’re all just a bunch of hapless, helpless victims. No one is individually responsible for the choices they make."

    – I didn't say that of course, though I understand that your mentality insists on a 'black / white, either / or' scenario. That's the problem with a political ideology built on simplistic terms, it can't handle even relatively basic levels of complexity, and it's believers lose the ability to actually process information in any meaningful manner. Your overly simplistic worldview, that corporations should be free to do whatever they want and we'll blame the individuals for their lack of responsibility, has reduced your ability to comprehend that the problem might be more complex than that. Thus, when anyone challenges your monochromatic vision, all you can see is an exact negative: They must mean that all individuals are victims and it is all the corporation's responsibility. Unfortunately, what is lost on you and others of equally erroneously simplistic worldviews is that the responsibility is shared between the individuals and the corporations. Yes, people are responsible for their choices. However, corporations should also be held responsible for their products and their advertising.

    "I’m glad you fully addressed the real decline in America as noted in the short list of “good ideas” liberals have promoted hurrying us on our path to Roman debauchery. No, not a word on the ill effects of “sex, drugs, rock and roll” and “hey, if it feels good do it.” "

    I'm not sure how I should respond to this elementary a level of foolishness. Sexual practices haven't changed significantly, they just aren't hidden as thoroughly any longer. This is of course bad from the conservative way of thinking. Conservatism relies on keeping people ignorant and keeping reality hidden in order to pretend that all is as you wish it would be, and more importantly, it allows those in power to ensure that they remain in power, as they control the information. If you truly want to address the causes of decline in America, look to the mentality that an increase in the bottom line of each quarterly report is more important than the quality of the environment that will be left for future generations. Look to the rise of Evangelical Christianity and the subsequent decline in respect for other religions and for scientific education in favor of faith-based mythology and politics.

    “hey, if it feels good do it.” – deserves a response all it's own.

    Since this is directly in agreement with all of the support that the conservatives pretend to give to individual freedoms, I don't see what your gripe is. Your last few posts were all about holding the individual responsible for their choices and how limiting those choices via government intervention is a violation of the individual's right to choose. And yet, here you seem to be saying that allowing an individual to make those unfettered choices is somehow bad for society. Your intimation is that the government, which might use science and rational thought, is unfit to limit the choices available to an individual; but that religion, using faith and tradition based on 2000 year old hearsay, would be a good choice for imposing those restrictions. Either way, it makes you a hypocrite. You support the individual's right to eat junk food but not to have casual sex, to get raging drunk, but not to get high. You don't actually support individual freedoms or reponsibility at all, you support the imposition of your worldview on others while telling them that they choose it.

    And of course you support the economic corollary: "Hey, if it makes us a profit, do it.", the battlecry of the conservative corporatist. Every cut corner that has ever caused an accident, an illness, or a fatality can be traced back to this mantra. I would guess that a significantly larger amount of damage has been done to the country, in terms of real dollars as well as the social fabric, by the worship and idealization of greed combined with blind religion that your philosophy represents.

  57. ArtW Avatar
    ArtW

    Geoff: "Bill Gates did get rich & powerful."

    Thank you for the direct answer. Nice to know that opportunity still exists in America.

  58. geoff Avatar

    rose: "government has used strings on the corporation to also entangle you and me." Actually, I would think it's the other way around. Corporations have pulled gov't strings to get you entangled: TARP, BP, GM bailouts, Halliburton's "no bid" contracts in Iraq, etc. Ever heard of lobbyists?

    "Corporate freedom is not the same as INDIVIDUAL freedom, which is what this country ought to be all about." True. But it's not going to happen so long as your elected officials are more interested in getting support from big corporations rather than what voters think or care about. Which is why I keep saying that you guys are slaves; you're not free at all in the way the Swedes are, for example. Your idea of "freedom of choice" is the freedom to choose between Coke & Pepsi at 7-11. Swedish women can choose to work because they know that decent daycare is available. They can more easily choose not to have abortions because they know their decisions to have kids will be supported. They can choose to walk around at night because they know there is little crime to worry about. While you were worried about protecting your petty little "right to bear arms" or the freedom from the kinds of "regulations" which might have prevented BP from polluting your coasts so horrendously, you lost your freedom to make real choices: between Democrat & Republican isn't really a choice if both have been bought out by corporate interests. Which of your parties are advocating complete nuclear disarmament, for example? Isn't that a choice? don't you want your kids to grow up free of the angst of nuclear holocaust? Which of your parties is arguing for immediate withdrawl from Iraq & Afghanistan? for nationalising your banks and industry? Where are your really green, socialist, or even communist parties? I mean: just about every other country in the world has them.

    Those are just examples of issues that might be debated if you really were free, and not confined by your 2-party system that only gives the merest semblance of "freedom" and "choice."

  59. geoff Avatar

    ArtW: nice to see you're still only reading what you want to read and stripping things of context.

  60. geoff Avatar

    Stug: "corporations should be free to do whatever they want and we’ll blame the individuals for their lack of responsibility." I haven't been following all that closely. Has Cal (or anyone else, for that matter) said anything about BP? Does his double standard (individuals responsible, corporations blameless) hold there, too? Or has he tried to pass the blame on to unions and/or "regulation"?

  61. Cal Avatar
    Cal

    I take great comfort in knowing I’m never far from geoff’s thoughts. I take even greater comfort in not bothering to read them. But seeing my name is so many makes me all warm and fuzzy inside.

    Did Rome have corporations? If not, I’m sure there must have been some rich guys he could bash for causing its collapse. After all, we don’t want to blame individuals for choosing to live lives of debauchery, do we? Nope, it’s always someone and/or something else I’m sure. And money and/or power are the likely bad guys. This was a blind but educated stab. Am I close?

  62. geoff Avatar

    Well, of course, Cal: how can poor people lead lives of debauchery?
    And yes, of course, you can blame some rich guys: it takes a whole lot of money to raise an army and try to take over an empire. I was sure that you, in your omniscience, would have known that already. I mean: how much did Blackwater rake in per diem?
    And no, Rome did not have corporations: Rome had a whole lot of slaves held on huge plantations owned by relatively few very rich, very powerful landowners. Then a large number of small landowners with absolutely no political clout sitting out in the conquered territories (a whole lot of veterans: citizenship being part of their payment after 25 years’ service in the Legions).

  63. Stug Avatar
    Stug

    "Does his double standard (individuals responsible, corporations blameless) hold there, too? "

    – I was giving him the chance to address that question. He had asked: "Where is the emphasis on individual responsibility…" And I replied that given the fact that corporations have been given many of the rights that an individual has, where is the emphasis on their individual responsibility? His response was, predictably, to side wholeheartedly with the corporations rights to do or say whatever they like without fear of being held responsible in any meaningful way. He then proceeded to blame the decline of America on the fact that Her citizens have the gall to exercise the freedoms that he supposedly cherishes as their right.

    I don't know, sometimes I wonder if it must hurt to live in a bubble of constant cognitive dissonance.

  64. rose Avatar
    rose

    While I don't believe corporations should be able to do anything they want, I think what Cal is trying to say here is that it is also those very corporations who have helped bring us the standard of life that we are privileged to be living now, which you anti-corporate types don't want to acknowledge at all. You want to turn every corporation into a big bad ogre, and so you turn the conversation into a black/white, either/or debate and then blame the other side for it. Of course corporations must have rules that are enforced, and government should do that for the protection of the individual.

    But it seems to me you have side tracked the conversation into "corporate responsibility" when really what I put into my mouth is MY RESPONSIBILITY, and thus, as usual, you progressives or whatever you call yourselves have fogged up the original issue. That's exactly how we got to this point in history with our country losing more and more INDIVIDUAL freedoms. Talk about cognitive dissonance! You just refuse to see it in yourselves.

    As for this comment: "Which of your parties are advocating complete nuclear disarmament, for example? Isn’t that a choice? don’t you want your kids to grow up free of the angst of nuclear holocaust?" Yes, I'd like my kids to grow up in a world free of the angst of nuclear holocaust, but at the same time I want my country to be the strongest possible in a world where not everyone is idealistic and peaceful. I'd rather be prepared for whatever some loony dictator in some other place that I have no control over faces us with than to live in your sort of dreamy "oh, if we disarm and our side gets rid of nuclear arms they will follow our example" nonsense. The world doesn't work that way and never has worked that way. I prefer to be aware of potential dangers and be ready for them, than to live in your kumbaya world.

    I believe in government making general rules to keep the playing field even and then getting out of the way and LETTING US PLAY THE ACTUAL GAME. That means only very basic rules and not tying our hands and feet with restrictions and endless taxes. Of course, the extent of what "general rules" are can be argued indefinitely.

    And therein lies the difference between conservatives and progressives. We have two differing world views right from the get-go, and they are irreconcilable. Conservatives believe in a minimum amount of rules whereas your side seems to glory in endless rules. You trust government to do the right thing, while conservatives KNOW that government more often than not does the wrong thing, or the more expensive thing, or ignores the shortest way between two points because a bureaucracy must constantly be fed. You get a kick out of feeding the monster; conservatives have better things to do.

  65. geoff Avatar

    rose: Cal does tend to "turn the conversation into a black/white, either/or debate and then blame the other side for it." That's his MO. If you pay attention, he will equate "liberal," "left," "socialist," "communist" and "Democrat" as though they were all synonymous. I try to maintain clear definitions and consistent use of terminology which reflects clear distinctions between these and other shades of gray.

    "Of course corporations must have rules that are enforced, and government should do that for the protection of the individual." That is, of course, the problem. Cal & a lot on his side keep insisting that "gov't is not the solution, gov't is the problem." That gov't regulations (your "protection" or "restrictions") only stifle growth, prevent innovation, limit freedom, etc. But what examples of the consequences of such "freedom" have we seen? the economic meltdown as a result of bad banking practices (AIG, Lehman Brothers, etc.) resulting in large part from deregulation; the BP environmental disaster; recently there was also a mining disaster in W. Virginia where, despite numerous fines for previous infractions, some miners lost their lives. Despite the "very basic rules," some people are gambling with other peoples' lives, welfare, livelihood (think of the Gulf Coast fishermen) and arguing that even those "very basic rules" are draconian, socialist, fascist, etc.

    Loony dictators: usually the best idea is to prevent them from getting too much power in the first place. The Shah of Iran, the Saudi ruling family, Pinochet, Marcos, etc.: things probably would have been a whole lot better if democracy had been supported rather than suppressed over time; if human rights had really been respected. The whole problem with Iran can be traced back to some bad decisions made back in the 1950s, when the "conservative" fight against "communism" made the CIA & MI5 be very active indeed. The CIA even tipped Saddam as someone to lead a coup, and the US provided him with satellite imagery and other intel when he was fighting against Iran (and gassing Kurds).

    And we "progressives" were criticised for protesting American support for the Shah, Apartheid, Saddam, Marcos, Pinochet, Noriega, etc., in case you've forgotten. The US and Britain were even dealing with the Taliban in the months up to 9-11, because they wanted to build a pipeline across Afghanistan and the Taliban looked like it was the only force strong enough to provide the necessary stability. Some of us were against that; some of us are aware of potential dangers and try to do something about them while they are still small and manageable, rather than wait until they spin out of control.

    A little prevention on the part of BP might have saved a whole lot of trouble, for example. A little bit of oversight in economic matters might have prevented the recent economic collapse, for example.

    You missed my point on nukes altogether: I just meant the full political spectrum is not represented in your 2 party system. It is inconceivable that either the Republicans or the Democrats would make nuclear disarmament a policy issue, the way it might be in any European and many Asian countries. It doesn't seem likely that either party would come out with a platform that would include a "Canadian-style health insurance program," either, just… wishy-washy compromises. And your argument avoids the fact that, even with your nuclear arsenal, however strong you might like to think you are, you're still powerless against people like Iraqi "insurgents," the Taliban, Hamas, guys with boxcutters, and Kim Jong Il.

    Your take on conservatives is interesting. "Conservative" means to preserve the status quo: to not change anything. They're perfectly happy with the way things are: rich and powerful people buying face time with the candidates of their choice, hiring lobbyists to write the legislation they want to have. So they're perfectly happy to let BP get away with infractions because, hey… doing something to prevent such disasters in the future might cut into their profit margins. Writing laws to enforce quaint notions like "equality" or "justice for all" might mean that, for example, black people don't have to ride at the back of the bus, workers might expect safe working conditions, people might expect to know what chemicals are in their water, milk, etc.

    As for gov't doing "the right thing": you don't own your gov't: you are run by 2 parties which are largely unaccountable to the people and interested only in scoring donations for the next elections. With us: we vote the bums out.

  66. Amilam Avatar
    Amilam

    "And therein lies the difference between conservatives and progressives. We have two differing world views right from the get-go, and they are irreconcilable. Conservatives believe in a minimum amount of rules whereas your side seems to glory in endless rules."

    There's actually very little truth in this statement, though to be far it makes up for it with repetition by the part faithful. The sides you should be thinking of is socialist v. libertarian. There are plenty of liberal libertarians. You may have had more ground to stand on if you had stuck to the old mantra of big government vs. small government when defining the two parties. This is a bit more biased in reality, but even this has those pesky shades of gray the left has plenty of instances of opposing big government control while the right wants more. Prime examples: military spending, border control, increased prisons, and social legislation (why do you think we have sodomy laws on the books in many states).

    There is a reason why Ron Paul, a pretty consistent Conservative Libertarian, is an outsider even among far right journalism. So while it sounds good to wrap oneself in these tired platitudes they don't hold up to careful scrutiny. Rather, it's more accurate to say that Republicans favor Big Government in some cases, and Democrats in others.

  67. Stug Avatar
    Stug

    "you anti-corporate types"

    – Who's anti-corporate? I'm all for corporations. There are a great many facets of our life that would not be possible without the resources that only a corporate structure can provide. I also believe that corporations have a responsiblity to their employees and their consumers, as well as their shareholders. Cal, and other corporate enablers, believe that the only responsibility is to the shareholders and any regulations that would inhibit the quest for ever-greater profits are antithetical to this. OSHA safety regs, environmental protections, consumer protections, anti-monopolistic practices, Cal's brand of conservatism believes that all of these should be removed in order to allow the free-market full reign. As has been proven repeatedly though, the removal of these restrictions results in dangerous levels of pollution, employees treated as disposable assets, the production of unsafe products, and anti-competitive business practices that stifle rather than engender new ideas.

    "I believe in government making general rules to keep the playing field even and then getting out of the way and LETTING US PLAY THE ACTUAL GAME."

    – Odd that you should use the phrase "keep the playing field even" in the same post that you are attempting to defend Cal's positions. In Cal's book, any government that seeks to "keep the playing field even" is by definition a Socialist government.

    "We have two differing world views right from the get-go, and they are irreconcilable."

    – Nonsense. Oh sure, the extreme left as represented by pure socialists and anarchists and the extreme right as represented by religious zealots and intolerant isolationists, will never be reconciled. The majority of us are somewhere in between though. We believe in keeping our country strong and free and we believe that the best way to do that is by keeping Her citizens healthy and well-educated. We believe that a strong and vibrant middle-class is the economic and intellectual heart of the country.

    Unfortunately though, the right-wing extremists have been on the ascendancy for the last thirty years or so; individual rights subsumed in favor of corporate protectionism; scientific pursuits derailed in favor of religious dogma; political decisions made to favor the wealthiest 10% or so of the population to the severe detriment of the remining 90%.

    Cal asked in another post that I address "sex, drugs and rock & roll" as the leading cause of the decline of American society. Societal permissiveness has nothing on today's version of extreme economic and religious conservatism, in terms of it's corrosive effect on American culture.

  68. Good Life Avatar
    Good Life

    Cell phones, virtually free long distance, internet connections, all came about because the government broke up AT&T. Yes, there was mass confusion at the time and conservatives wanted back the old monopoly that gave stability to communications. But for capitalism to work there needs to be competition. When one corporation gets too big only one source of power, the government, can restore the balance. Wouldn't it be interesting to know what innovations would be in store if Microsoft were not a virtual monopoly?

    Balance is the key in all things. For some reason we can't find that balance. Before the '80s labor and government regulations were too strong. Now the pendulum has swung too far the other way. What the worshipers of Reagan forget is he was a pragmatist. He did what needed to be done at the time. That is also true of Obama. In many ways they think alike. Only half of Reagan's policies are remembered. Yes, he deregulated many areas, but he also regulated others. When there was a recession, he cut taxes, went into debt and started government programs to employ people. When it was over he raised taxes, made attempts to control debt and attempted to withdraw government from employment. He adapted to the times. Unfortunately, his worshipers didn't. They demanded even more deregulation, more cuts in taxes, and (as a result) more debt and more suffering for the middle class who for some reason still cheered as they fell further behind. If Bush, Clinton, Bush, and the congress from 1980 to 2008 would have been as pragmatic as Reagan we wouldn't be in this mess. But, just as worshipers of any god remember what they want of scripture and ignore the meat of the teachings, the worshipers of Reagan only remember the scriptures out of balance. It is that lack of balance that sends the nation into 30-50 year economic wild swings. Those swings have been since the founding. Someday maybe we'll learn.

  69. Cal Avatar
    Cal

    Stug. What Rose said. I was prepared to generate another one of my lengthy tomes on the difference between individual responsibilities and corporate rights but Rose hit the nail on the head and took the keyboard right out my hands or fingertips or whatever! (I think I’m politically in love. Intelligent and articulate. My heart is still palpitating! Go Rose!) 🙂

    I’ll just note that some of what you call “personal freedoms” ARE the reasons America’s where it’s at. Yes, we have the freedom to choose many things such as illicit sex, drugs, rebellion against authority, etc., but that does NOT mean those are GOOD choices. I can assure you the Right has NEVER advocated for any of those. All of those are the results of secular humanism, moral relativism, feminism, and atheism and progressives’ attempts to further those ideals at the expense of traditional values which they openly mock.

    We’re on the Road to Rome NOT because of corporations “tricking” Americans into eating Big Macs but because our society is increasingly choosing to follow the path of least resistance and immorality. And that is summed up nicely by “if it feels good, do it.” That is a value of the Left, not of the Right.

    All choices are an exercise of freedom. But bad ones don’t deserve to be praised or rewarded let alone regarded as good or even just “neutral.” Choices have consequences and that takes us full circle back to individual responsibility. McDonalds hasn’t put a single French fry in my mouth and Mr. Budweiser’s never put a beer in my hand. I did it all on my own and I bear the responsibility for any harm I may have done to myself. Not them, not you, not my wife. Me.

  70. rose Avatar
    rose

    The comment of the lack of balance from GoodLife is oh so true, but frankly, on this finite earth with so many differing opinions, lack of balance will always be a fact of life. To find it is difficult; to keep it is even more difficult. And we can certainly see that right here with all the differing opionions. And it is my opinion that the more government interferes the more things become UNbalanced, since the bureaucratic beast needs to be fed continually and grows ever fatter and has no competition to keep it somewhat in check the way corporations do.

    As for Stug suggesting that I am defending Cal's position, that's nonsense since I also stated that corporations need rules. What I am suggesting however, is a MINIMUM amount of governmental rules since I do believe a well educated populace can let the market decide. The trouble is that we don't have a well educated populace, and if there should be any government interference it ought to be precisely in the education of the public instead of everything else.

    As for this statement: "the left has plenty of instances of opposing big government control while the right wants more. Prime examples: military spending, border control, increased prisons, and social legislation (why do you think we have sodomy laws on the books in many states). " —- First of all, sodomy laws are something out of the past that were mostly determined by custom and have very little to do with current social legislation, although it certainly seems to me that sodomites have been forcing the opposite social legislation down our throats of late. Neither is acceptable to me, since that is precisely an area where people ought to be able to make their own decisions without interference either way. As for the other prime examples given, I believe that government ought to be concentrating on exactly those areas—military and border control first since we are a country with finite borders and the population must be kept safe. Without that safety everything else becomes null and void. The same can be said with prisons except that in that instance I believe prisoners ought to be made to work for their keep instead of having "corporations" provide for them so they can get government hand-outs.. And frankly, there has been too much social legislation for decades by both sides. Like I said, give us a minimum of rules, keep the playing field even and then let social legislation take care of itself just like market forces. So once again, we are almost at opposite ends about priorities.

    When I was raising my children, I had very few rules. Those rules were: Don't cheat, don't lie, don't begin a fight, but if you're forced to fight make sure you end it as the winner. And if you have questions or need help, come to get it from me. Other than that make your own rules and settle your own problems. It worked. My children are strong and educated and honest, and they still live by those rules. I believe a country can live by them too.

    That's the same sort of thing I want from government—nothing more and nothing less.

  71. geoff Avatar

    rose: "I do believe a well educated populace can let the market decide. The trouble is that we don’t have a well educated populace, and if there should be any government interference it ought to be precisely in the education of the public instead of everything else." Very liberal (in the traditional, non-USA sense). So I see now where you're coming from, and basically I agree: it would be best if everyone was, if not on a level playing field, then at least playing the same game. If everyone is smart, they'll work together, make rational decisions, and everyone benefits (John Nash's "Beautiful Mind" figured that one out, but then so did Adam Smith). The trouble is, "conservatives" generally liked things being the way they are (powerful church, powerful elite or nobles ruling things, a few rich folk owning everything and a whole lot of poor folk working hard and not getting anywhere), so they try to conserve it. Your "progressive" politics aims to level the playing field, recognising that the ideal of everyone making "rational" decisions is pretty much an ideal.

    Basically, I think the world would be a whole lot better if corporations did act rationally, and thought of the long-term, instead of getting too greedy and looking only to the next quarterly report. BP might have saved a few bucks a while back, but it's going to cost them big time now.

  72. rose Avatar
    rose

    Stug says, "the extreme left as represented by pure socialists and anarchists and the extreme right as represented by religious zealots and intolerant isolationists, will never be reconciled."

    I certainly agree with that statement, but then he goes on to make this bold statement: "Unfortunately though, the right-wing extremists have been on the ascendancy for the last thirty years or so"

    While that is also true, what he left out is that the left-wing extremists have also been on the ascendancy for the last fifty years or so. It's funny how blind one can be to one's own side of things.

    Personally I resent both sides. I resent the religious zealots just as much as I resent the sodomites who are attempting to force legislation about something that ought to be private. I resent anti-abortionists as much as I resent pro-abortionists since that ought to have stayed a decision between a woman, her doctor and her God and is no one's business at all. It is the extreme right that wants bigger and more prisons while the extreme left feels sorry for all and wants to send them out on parole before they've served their time. It is the right that wants a bigger and bigger military/industrial complex and the left that seems to want unilateral disarmament. In fact, it is those two extreme sides that are, in a way, forcing government into the picture even if govenment would prefer to stay out of the picture altogether, and it is up to the rest of us to keep those two extreme sides in check. I'm not sure how we can do that anymore since a society needs a certain amount of social cohesion to do that, and somewhere along the way we have lost that cohesion.

    I blame that loss of social cohesion mainly on the left because even those leftist who tend more toward the middle seem to hold no one accountable for anything except for blaming corporations and the rich. You will find if you study social cohesion in tribes and smaller units that with social cohesion come custom and even unwritten rules that everyone adheres to. That can stifle individuality. But if you lose the cohesion you have individuality run wild as we have in this country right now. The balance is gone in either case, and like I said, that balance is difficult to find and even more difficult to keep.

    I don't know how to solve these problems, but I feel we are heading in the wrong direction, and have been for the last fifty years, ever since the ascendancy of the left (and by that I do mean democrats since they seem to have taken up all the favorite leftist positions). We have lost our ground, and that ground was conservatism (and by that I don't mean republicans).

  73. rose Avatar
    rose

    Geoff's statement of: "The trouble is, “conservatives” generally liked things being the way they are (powerful church, powerful elite or nobles ruling things, a few rich folk owning everything and a whole lot of poor folk working hard and not getting anywhere), so they try to conserve it." — I agree with that statement. In looking at history, there can be no doubt about that.

    "Your “progressive” politics aims to level the playing field, recognising that the ideal of everyone making “rational” decisions is pretty much an ideal." —- I do not agree with that statement. I think progressives are just another power-hungry entity that will ultimately enslave the individual, just as the conservative view did, only in differning ways.

    Maybe the two forces are necessary and must go back and forth in order to keep some semblance of balance, except that at the present moment I also believe the progressives have been at it too long and have pretty much thrown out the baby with the bathwater in their eagerness for change and power.

  74. geoff Avatar

    "Maybe the two forces are necessary and must go back and forth in order to keep some semblance of balance." That leads you to Hegel and dialectics. A few years back Francis Fukuyama wrote a very controversial paper on this topic: "The End of History."

    Hard to say much about "eagerness for change and power" when people are still starving (or worse: the divide between rich & poor is growing), we're still faced with pollution, unemployment, war, etc. Even within the USA: high infant mortality, high crime rates, high rates of incarceration, etc. However eager they might have been to enact change, it hasn't really happened. The "checks and balances" of your Constitution basically prevents that, doesn't it?

  75. Stug Avatar
    Stug

    "Yes, we have the freedom to choose many things such as illicit sex, drugs, rebellion against authority, etc., but that does NOT mean those are GOOD choices. I can assure you the Right has NEVER advocated for any of those. All of those are the results of secular humanism, moral relativism, feminism, and atheism and progressives’ attempts to further those ideals at the expense of traditional values which they openly mock."

    – LOL, that has to be the most idiotic statement I've seen you make in a while! Neither side ever advocates these choices, they both just do them and then lie or make excuses about it. Just ask your thrice divorced drug addicted conservative prophet.

    "our society is increasingly choosing to follow the path of least resistance and immorality. And that is summed up nicely by “if it feels good, do it.” That is a value of the Left, not of the Right."

    – No, it's a value of humanity. The value of the Left is to embrace the feeling as long as nobody else is hurt by it. The corresponding value of the Right is to legislate against it, even though nobody is hurt by it, because their narrow morality is offended by it (well, at least publicly).

    "Choices have consequences and that takes us full circle back to individual responsibility. McDonalds hasn’t put a single French fry in my mouth and Mr. Budweiser’s never put a beer in my hand. I did it all on my own and I bear the responsibility for any harm I may have done to myself."

    – I see. Yes, choices do have consequences. Unfortunately you choose to pretend not to understand how people make choices. And yes, that willful ignorance and naivete has consequences.

  76. Stug Avatar
    Stug

    "While that is also true, what he left out is that the left-wing extremists have also been on the ascendancy for the last fifty years or so."

    – LOL, Yeah, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush Jr., all were way out on the left. The rise of the SBC, completely left-wing. And don't forget all those left-wingnuts trying to force Creationism into science classes. Oh yeah, the ascendancy of the left has been a real threat over the last fifty years.

  77. Amilam Avatar
    Amilam

    I'm a bit pressed for time this morning, so can't wade into the argument in full. However, I just want to quickly return to the idea of Conservative Libertarianism. If your party is really the party of small government then run Ron Paul for president. If your party is the party of big government in different areas then run Palin or Romney.

  78. Cal Avatar
    Cal

    Stug. I almost decided to ignore your response as you’re in another of your fits of frustration. When someone with your level of intelligence resorts to “willful ignorance” and “idiotic” rather than providing a reasonable response based on something cultural or social, that is itself rather “idiotic.” But since I know you’re prone to either hyperbole or these kinds of comments when you get frustrated, I’ll take one more stab at this.

    When America was turned on its head in the mid-to-late ‘60s was it conservatives or liberals urging America’s youth to “turn on, tune in, and drop out?” Which side was behind telling kids to get high and rebel against authority? Which side proudly proclaimed “God is dead” and my other two favorites “sex, drugs, and rock and roll” and “if it feels good, do it?” Hint: not conservatives.

    As far as “idiotic statements” I’ll suggest that trying to use someone who’s failed to live up to his standards as evidence the standards themselves are flawed, is indeed, idiotic. One side says, “These are the best, time-tested standards to live by for raising children, staying drug and disease free, and for ensuring the greatest stability in society.” The other says, “Those things don’t much matter.” The moral mess we’re in today with an epidemic of unwed mothers, abortion on demand, drug abuse and alcoholism are NOT due to people following conservative, traditional values. Those things DO matter very much.

    The fact that we’re human and subject to temptation doesn’t negate the values. It means some have less character and/or willpower than others but it doesn’t mean “traditional family values” is a four-letter word. Abortion, births out of wedlock, drug use and addiction, and many other ills can be directly traced to abandoning principles societies and families lived by for centuries. Only the freedoms and prosperity of a country like America have allowed for so many “new” choices to do whatever makes one happy w/o regard to what those choices mean to society. One side has done its best (with PLENTY of examples of failure) to try and retain those time-tested values. The other has done its level best to ignore, mock, repudiate, and replace them.

    Your side doesn’t hold anyone accountable for moral failure but that doesn’t make it a “better” philosophy. And your comment that “The value of the Left is to embrace the feeling as long as nobody else is hurt by it” proves my point. _Society_ is hurt by it. We are now paying the price for following the “if it feels good, do it” mantra. Your side doesn’t like any rules or boundaries in areas of sex, drug use, abortion, etc. But I don’t see how anyone can say those have been solid, healthy, socially productive choices when we compare what our country looked like in the 1950s against today. (And I’ll repeat for the umpteenth time that excludes the inexcusable of slavery and Jim Crow.)

    What we have now is a society that’s lost its moral compass, made a mess of the two-parent family which has set the stage for a demand for government to come in and save us from ourselves and our own poor choices. On that front…

    _I’m_ pretending not to understand how people make choices? Really? You, on the other hand, I assume do? I believe that puts you in a category of one because while sociologists and psychologists can easily explain what we like/do, in most cases we can’t explain why we like it/do it. I know I like black better than pink but I don’t know why. I believe you’re confusing influence (advertising) with choice and causation (overeating, etc.,) which leads me to believe it may be you misunderstanding the concept of free choice. I can afford to drive a Lexus. They have great ads. But I’ve never bought one. I love sausage and biscuits and the Jimmy Dean ads with sunshine, clouds, and rainbow are great, but I’ve never bought a box of his fat-laden product. Why is that if advertising is so overpowering and I’m not 100% in charge of what I buy, do, or consume?

    Does personal choice even enter into your calculus on decision making and choices? Does the individual bear any responsibility or are we just mice in a maze subject to the will and influence of others?

    I’m not sure I like the new Cagle layout. It doesn’t leave articles up very long. If this one falls off tomorrow I may have to try and remember this was another Dupuy thread.

  79. rose Avatar
    rose

    I see Stug prefers to stay blind. He names Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush as though that has any bearing on what I said. Forget the fact that their powers are limited and that most of the social legislation is liberal and has come out of the courts in the last 50 years. And I will add to that the fact that I think the two Bushes were not really conservatives at all, and I never claimed they were. In fact, I do not equate "real conservatism" with republicans and haven't for decades. So your silly comment is quite irrelevant to what I said.

  80. rose Avatar
    rose

    Cal says: "The fact that we’re human and subject to temptation doesn’t negate the values."

    I think that's something the progressive mind finds hard to understand or is unwilling to understand. I'll try and explain it, however: Picture a mountain. You are a person that wants to climb to the peak of that mountain. You, however, have certain limitations that may be both physical and mental, so you try and try and try, but ultimately you may fail, or you may get partially up and then fail, or you may even fall and get hurt. That doesn't mean the mountain is not there and it doesn't mean you shouldn't try and should just stay at the bottom and become a vegetable and only "do whatever feels good". Climbing that mountain is hard, and painful, and doesn't feel good, and sometimes you will fail.

    But that mountain is like a goal that we as individuals and a society should always have in front of us, even if we do fail, because if the mountain isn't there then there is nothing to aim for and everything falls into the "me, me, me" and if "it feels good do it" mode like we have over the past 50 years or so—–and that IS A LIBERAL/PROGRESSIVE CONCEPT.

    You probably had a goal to get good grades in college, and you may have failed sometimes. You probably had a goal to have a good marriage, and you probably failed sometimes. You probably had a career goal and failed sometimes. You probably wanted to raise good children and failed sometimes. But just because you were human and failed does not negate the original goals.

    And those conservative goals are basic decent goals which have been tested by time and almost every society that ever existed on this earth. So don't confuse those conservative goals with politics, and don't throw the baby out with the bathwater in your eagerness to turn us into irresponsible victims as you progressives have done.

  81. geoff Avatar

    "Which side was behind telling kids to get high and rebel against authority?" Let's see… which side was representing authority? Authority in the form of segregation & napalm?

    Isn't that how it worked? "“if it feels good, do it?” Yep: sounds like good justification to keep them "uppity darkies" in the back of the bus and to bomb them Commies into the stone age. Yep. Gotta be able to destroy a country if you want to save it.

    So Cal: if that "sex, drugs, and rock and roll” slogan isn't "conservative," then why does it describe Rush's lifestyle? Wore out three wives, junkie, drug smuggler… if he's not living the "conservative" lifestyle, why are you such a big fan? Make him accountable! Put your money where your mouth is, if you don't want to confirm your hypocrisy (as if that was ever in doubt). He made his choices, right? He decided to be a junkie, get fat, go deaf, have 3 divorces…

    Drug use and addiction? Coca was used for centuries in South America with no obvious effects. Heroin was invented to try to stop the wave of morphine addiction. Alcoholism became especially troublesome with the beginnings of the industrial revolution: seems people don't like becoming parts in a big machine.

    You would also have to prove that illegitimacy wasn't the norm in the past. Ask anyone with the prefix "Fitz" in his last name for their ancestry.

    Learn some frigging history for a change.

    "What our country looked like in the 1950s"!!! Bingo: repressive paranoia leads to risible revisionism. Beatniks and a whole lot of others jumping the lines to "drop out" of that "Reds under the Bed," suburban nightmare portrayed so nostalgically WHITE on "Happy Days." Yep: all the "darkies" sure knew their place back in those days, and the gays knew to stay in the closet, and no one had to worry about maybe ever having a Catholic President (because they were all too afraid of the Reds under their beds).

    Sorry, Cal: sometimes you scrape so low you amaze even me.

  82. geoff Avatar

    "the “me, me, me” and if “it feels good do it” mode like we have over the past 50 years or so—–and that IS A LIBERAL/PROGRESSIVE CONCEPT."

    Uhm… no. I'd argue that it's only been within the past 50 years or so that normal people have been able to afford the "sins" that were previously the reserve of the rich folk (usually men). Why else did Karl Marx refer to religion as the "opiate of the masses"? Rich people could afford to keep up an opium habit; poor people had to make due with religion. Rich men could afford to keep mistresses; poor men could not afford to get married, so there were something like 50-80,000 prostitutes in London during the Victorian era. Rich men were able to visit "private museums" to see erotic frescoes and sculpture from Pompeii; women and children were forbidden to see such things. Rich men have always been able to get safe abortions for their mistresses (or could afford to have their "problems" dealt with by sending them to the countyside until the coast was clear); poor women who found themselves "in the family way" often drowned themselves.

    Examples? "Tess of the D'Urbervilles." "Maggie, a girl of the streets." "The Scarlet Letter." "Bleak House." "The Woman in White": all deal to some degree with the consequences of illegitimacy. Although they're fiction, they deal with problems which obviously were not rare.

  83. rose Avatar
    rose

    Geoff, you seem to fail in understanding, but I expect nothing less from a "progressive". Talk about more cognitive dissonance with your irrelevant answer to Cal.

    I read something this morning that I think boils down our differences to its essence. It's from Arthur Brooks in a op-ed he wrote in the Washington Post. He says:

    "This is not the culture war of the 1990s. It is not a fight over guns, gays or abortion. Those old battles have been eclipsed by a new struggle between two competing visions of the country’s future. In one, America will continue to be an exceptional nation organized around the principles of free enterprise: limited government, a reliance on entrepreneurship and rewards determined by market forces. In the other, America will move toward European-style statism grounded in expanding bureaucracies, a managed economy and large-scale income redistribution. These visions are not reconcilable. We must choose."

    Exactly!

    I know which side I'm on, and it is NOT the European version. My parents came from there to get away from that version, I will fight until my last breath to keep it from happening here. Europe is in its death throes, but won't admit it or can't see it yet and neither will those who admire European ways of doing things. But I for one hope the U.S.A. will not follow down that same "dead" path.

  84. rose Avatar
    rose

    Geoff, you have become downright funny and have given me my laugh of the day. Thank you for that.

    You state: ". . . so that normal people have been able to afford the “sins” that were previously the reserve of the rich folk" That's one of the strangest things I've ever heard and it shows very clearly why progressives like you have such great envy towards rich folk. Instead of having finer goals you envy them for the sins they commit. Yup, that explains it pretty well.

    Well, OK, if rich folks live in the sewer, go ahead and live there with them now that you can. As for me, I prefer fresh air and sunshine and will try to continue to climb that mountain in front of me even if I fail. Not because it's fun, but because I have dignity as a human being with better things to do than to follow rich people into the gutter.

    But yes, I do see your point—-except that I think it lacks everything that is fine and good and noble, and THAT IS OUR CHOICE.

  85. geoff Avatar

    Rose: "Europe is in its death throes." Really? That's why, even with a strong Euro against a weak $US, strong unions and environmental regulations, health insurance, etc., Germany has such a huge trade surplus while America has a huge trade deficit? Interesting definition of "death throes."

    I was just thinking about this quote from this Rand Paul guy:

    "The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society."

    It seems that "freedom" is more important than equality, which is something much of the rest of the world has been trying to regulate since… well, since the first laws regulating relations between monarchs, nobility and the rest of society. Sure forcing BP to worry about the potential environmental consequences of its actions limits BPs freedoms, just like preventing someone from not serving someone or hiring someone just on the basis of the colour of their skin, or their gender, or which school they went to (not Yale, Cambridge, Harvard or Oxford? then you're worthless).

    Why can't you balance equality and freedom? Why do you have to put freedom above everything? Shouldn't there be a limit? Should AIG and Enron and Halliburton and Blackwater and BP be "free" to get away with what they've done? My understanding of freedom was that yours ended where it starts to interfere with mine. If I lose my pension because of something someone does at Lehman Brothers, then those bastards should get pay, and should never have been "free" to gamble on such a massive scale in the first place. If that means managing the economy somewhat, then fine: you need a license to drive, you need a license to fly a plane, you need a license to do surgery, why shouldn't big banks and big corporations be regulated, watched, supervised…?

    In your fear of "statism" you're ignoring the greater danger that corporations (oil companies, health insurance, Wall Street) will take over your country. Americans already complain that their gov't is "out of touch," but not because your elected representatives don't listen to ordinary people, it's because ordinary people aren't as "free" to spend on campaigns the way big corporations are; Americans can't afford the same kind of lobbyists to push their "freedom" onto the agenda and the front pages or onto the nightly news.

    I'm free: are you?

  86. geoff Avatar

    rose: "it shows very clearly why progressives like you have such great envy towards rich folk." No. I've been around a lot, but most of them weren't happy: all worried about making more money, losing what they had, etc. One even died when he crashed his private jet. I live well enough on French cheese & wine, vacations in Spain and Scandinavia; we can sponsor a few orphans in Africa, etc. What more do I want (or should I equate "freedom" with "wealth")?

    The point was to debunk this lie trying to blame "liberals" for addictions and crap that has been going on for centuries, that are the real traditions people refer back to. Castratos to sing for them; boxers who fought to the death. I even remember a case where one of the Czars got one of the domes either at the Kremlin or in St. Petersburg gilded and something like 20-50,000 of the workers died of lead poisoning.

    Wondering: how are you going to keep that fresh air & sunshine? Is BP going to protect it for you? Because your fresh air infringes on corporate freedom.

  87. rose Avatar
    rose

    There ya go with more nonsense Geoff, but you gave yourself away by implying your envy. It's too late to take it back. And I have long felt that the progressive envy of the rich is what drives a lot of their politics. Deny it all you want, but it's plain as day with this sentence of yours: "…. so that normal people have been able to afford the “sins” that were previously the reserve of the rich folk". I certainly won't stop you from playing in the gutter. That is your choice.

    Then you ask: "Why do you have to put freedom above everything?" —- The answer is a big bold BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT I BELIEVE!!!!!! My parents left Europe for the freedom that has been continually eroded away even in this country and so I value it above everything else, except God and the basic moral laws. And that means I understand better than most people that my freedom ends where your nose begins. I certainly understand that better than most progressives who seem to have only a very superficial understanding of the concept since many of you have thrown our moral belief right along with everything else and go from pillar to post depending on which way the wind is blowing with political correctness. And kindly don't jump in here and call me a religious zealot because I'm not. I have a luke-warm relationship with religion in practical terms, but a very warm and involved relationship with basic moral principles that have been found to be beneficial to human beings and the family and society over millenium.

    As for letting BP or any other corporation get away with everything in the name of freedom, please read my posts again. Nowhere did I even once say that or imply it. Corporations are huge entities that need to have limits. The question is, what should those limits be? Just as I have limits to my freedoms that interfere with other individuals, so must corporations have limits. I am not advocating that corporations can sin against individuals or against the environment that individuals live in. But I also feel that government is an even larger infringement since corporations have at least competition whereas government does not. Once in power a governmental bureaucracy only expands into a huge maw that is always open and always needs to be fed.

    As for Europe "dying", yes they are!!! Just because Germany looks good to you now doesn't mean a thing over the long haul. Europe has given in to the "government above all" and Europeans have allowed their lives to be regulated to the nth degree. Try living in a place like Germany some time and see how many freedoms you will have to give up, including cutting your grass on a Sunday because it "might" disturb your neighbor. That stifles creativity in people over the long run even if it looks like a "pretty fairy tale village" in the short run. I know, I was born there and raised there for part of my life, and it was America that expanded me. It is America I owe my freedoms to—not Europe.

    So believe what you will and life in your rosy-colored idealistic never-never land. Just don't foist it on me because I know better.

  88. rose Avatar
    rose

    Oh, and now that you have shown your envy of the rich slip, I just want to let you know that the rich will continue to commit sins that you will not be able to commit. After you have installed your food police, they will still be able to eat a McDonald's burger and get fat. After you have installed the environmental police they will still jet to anywhere in a world and drive big cars while you will be stuck in your little cramped bug and get run over by a truck. They will still use more electricity in one day for their big houses than you and I use in a whole year. They will still have their butlers and maids while you and I wash our own laundry, if the environmental police will let us use the "right" soap. They will still have their fountains while you and I will be lucky to get enough water to wash ourselves.

    The only thing you will have done is put yourself into a box that you won't be able to get out of because you will have lost your freedoms while the rich will sit and laugh at your gullibility. And who will many of those rich be? Why, many of them will be people in government, both democrats and republicans. All one has to do is look at them now, with their limos and jets and sexual adventures and privileges that they have voted for themselves, instead of being the "public servants" they were meant to be.

    So quit kidding yourself.

  89. geoff Avatar

    "Implying your envy"? More like you seeing in what you want to believe. I don't see why you would take offense at the statement you quote. Adultery, drug addiction, alcoholism, "Roman style debauchery" are all basically "sins," right? Which people normally could not afford to indulge in until the post-war wave of prosperity. So… I don't think I said anything there to indicate that I indulge or condone or approve of such "sins." Otherwise I believe I would have used some other term, such as "illicit pleasures," or "decadence," etc. By using the word "sin" I believe I was expressing my belief in the emptiness of such material indulgences (i.e. my way of looking down at those in your "gutter").

    And OK: so you believe. Some people believe in the Easter Bunny, you believe in unlimited freedom. You have no logical or rational or other basis in your belief, you simply believe. Fine. I happen to disagree, and have expressed some of my (historically derived) reasons for why I disagree with your beliefs. I also believe, for example, that you contradict yourself in arguing that "progressives have thrown [out] moral belief" when you tie it to "political correctness." What exactly is "political correctness"? The idea that maybe everyone should be treated with the same modicum of respect? Politeness? That their rights should be respected equally? If "political correctness" is not an attempt to be "moral," what is it?

    If that's too complex, what problem(s) does "political correctness" try to solve? the fact that women still earn less than men? the fact that blacks and other minorities still don't have the same opportunities available to whites? Is this moral?

    And which "moral principles" do you mean? Slavery was practiced over millenium; so was polygamy, female genital mutilation, witch burning, etc. Just because these "institutions" survived and became tradition to the extent that they helped maintain societies does not make them "moral."

    "Companies have at least competition." So you have a real choice out there in your computer operating systems? A big choice between gas prices? health insurance providers? whatever bank is doing derivative trading? I question the amount of competition there really is out there, with increasing concentration of most markets: how many major music labels are there, and how many independent radio stations? The number of oil companies keeps decreasing, banks keep buying each other out, airlines are merging, Microsoft owns just about everything… a large amount of the competition that existed for the past 100 years was the result of anti-trust legislation passed around the time of Teddy Roosevelt.

    "Once in power a governmental bureaucracy only expands into a huge maw that is always open and always needs to be fed." Only if you let it. As Cal keeps noting, George W. oversaw one of the longest periods of job creation, but most of those were gov't jobs, so…

    Now look at the consequences: too few inspectors in food plants, so a whole lot of cases of salmonela in your food supply; close ties between BP and the inspectors looking the other way; not enough workers fixing highways, so some of your bridges collapse; or the levies break in New Orleans, or… they have to close schools or lay off teachers and let the traffic lights fall apart and potholes get big enough to swallow cars…

    And actually, I live in Germany. I have also lived in the Netherlands, England, the USA, Israel and (originally) Canada. I know about the "noise" laws here; my example was the one where it was illegal to shower or take a bath in an apartment building after 22:00 at night, and I used to point out that Germans need these kind of laws, whereas Canadians ordinarily wouldn't think of taking a bath or a shower that late at night because they wouldn't want to disturb their neighbours (i.e. "interfere with other individuals"). If not being able to cut your grass on a Sunday is "stifling creativity" (not just being considerate, polite, respecting other peoples' right to have some peace and quiet one day in the week), then, well: not much I can say: I don't want that kind of freedom. I'd rather be free from noisy neighbours so I can spend some quiet time with my family one day of the week at least. That's my kind of freedom.

  90. rose Avatar
    rose

    And to this from Geoff: "The “checks and balances” of your Constitution basically prevents that, doesn’t it?"

    I can only say huh????????????

  91. geoff Avatar

    rose: I think the wealthy can afford to eat somewhere other than McDonald's.

    My "food police"?!? As I've said: the antibiotics and hormones fed to the cows that produce your milk are a corporate secret in the US: corporations like Monsanto are using you as guinea pigs with their genetically modified crap and you, all gullible, have been distracted by spurious threats to your "freedoms." Oh no! Maybe you won't be able to mow your lawn on Sundays any more! That would be worse than the Holocaust! Those lawn-mower Nazis!!!

    The only thing you will have done is put yourself into a box that you won’t be able to get out of because you will have lost your freedoms while the rich will sit and laugh at your gullibility." Well: that's what I'm saying has already happened in the USA: the lobbyists and the people who run your parties (rich boys like the Bushes and Kennedies, Kerry, Reagan, etc.) sit back and laugh at the way you believe they care about you at all; they're only in it for the bucks, the lobbyists, the pat on the back they'll get once they leave office.

    Do you remember how minor (in American standards) a scandal brought down Helmut Kohl? No one would have even paid attention in the US because it only involved corporate finances, not some sleezy sex deal.

    As I asked: are you free? We vote those bums out. If we don't like the Christian Democrats we vote for the Communists, or the Socialists, or the Liberals, or the Greens. We have real politics here; we're in charge. You're gullible.

  92. geoff Avatar

    “The “checks and balances” of your Constitution basically prevents any major change, thereby leading to legislative inertia, stagnation, a public sense that gov't is "out of touch," but more important a "conservative" tendency to leave things as they are. As in (for example), only gradually broadening the right to vote, and only when forced to do so. This is its purpose: to perpetuate an institution. If, suddenly, women or a whole lot of blacks were allowed to vote, white property owning men would lose their rights and/or privileges.

    The same process occured in South Africa fairly recently; very interesting to watch the reactionaries and compare them with everyone now ranting about how Arizona has to crack down on illegal immigrants.

  93. rose Avatar
    rose

    More nonsense from Geoff. I swear, there's so much nonsense in your last post that I can't keep up with it. I'll just take this little tid-bit: "So you have a real choice out there in your computer operating systems? A big choice between gas prices? health insurance providers?"

    Yes, as long as there is a free marked I do have a choice of computer operating systems? In fact, I'm about to go from a PC to a MAC, and happily so.

    Not much choice in gas prices, but that's because gas has turned into a monopoly. That means to me that some competition would be good for us in that area. Free market, remember?

    Health insurance? Oh yeah, just wait until you have some government bureaucrat in charge of your health insurance. What a picnic that will be—-especially when they run out of money, as almost all European countries have.

    Need I say more?

    OK, I am done with this subject. I really do not like speaking with liberals or the politically correct, since I remember political correctness from what my father has told me during Hitler's ear. He was arrested because he was not "politically correct" —– and don't think it can't happen here. And the Nazi's were pretty much also trying to make life better for the people instead of giving them freedom TO BE, and they actually did do that for a little while for "some", to give them the illusion—-but oh the price!!!!! Been there, done that, and your gullibility amazes me.

  94. geoff Avatar

    rose: so you've basically been reduced to two choices: Microsoft or Mac, and even Mac has decided to go with the flow and put dual systems on its machines, and sell MS-Office, etc. Big choice.

    Want real competition? Look at how healthy Linux is these days: Suse, Ubintu, Debian, etc.

    Why has gas turned into a monopoly? Because the big corporations which sell it can only get bigger either by selling a better product (how?) or by buying out their competition. Leading to… a few oil companies, Boeing vs. Airbus, a few movie studios, a few record labels all turning out the same bland pulp… the same "views" available on Fox, CNN, Time, Clearwater…

    Health insurance: despite having paid mine, some minor surgery for my wife still cost me over 2 months' wages at the hospital run by the university where I was employed out there in the US. Seems like too often people are free to either go bankrupt or die when they face major surgery there in the US.

    And no, the Nazis weren't interested in making life better for "the people." Just for their cronies in the inner party (kind of like Cheney giving his former employers at Halliburton a whole lot of no-bid contracts…).

    Talk about "Roman decadence": living above the law, have the power of life and death over a pile of people, your own slave army…

  95. Stug Avatar
    Stug

    "Which side was behind telling kids to get high and rebel against authority?"

    – Side? Are you really trying to imply that those on the more liberal side of the established political spectrum at the time were advocating “sex, drugs, and rock and roll” and “if it feels good, do it?”? No, that movement developed among the population as a reaction to the "conservative" politics of the day, Vietnam, McCarthyism; unnecessary war and pervasive fearmongering. Gee, those conservative values haven't changed much have they?

    "One side says, “These are the best, time-tested standards to live by for raising children, staying drug and disease free, and for ensuring the greatest stability in society.” The other says, “Those things don’t much matter.”

    – That you believe the liberals think “Those things don’t much matter.” is one of the problems with todays brand of conservatism. I agree with the majority of what you are defining as traditional conservative values. I disagree with the conservative mindset that those values must be legislated and that those who don't follow them should be castigated. It returns to what you claim to value above all else, individual freedoms. Nobody thinks “Those things don’t much matter.”, though it is a handy lie to tell yourself to give you the excuse to trample their freedoms in pursuit of your goals.

    "And your comment that “The value of the Left is to embrace the feeling as long as nobody else is hurt by it” proves my point. _Society_ is hurt by it. We are now paying the price for following the “if it feels good, do it” mantra."

    – No, Society grows from it. True, though, the donation coffers of the SBC may be hurt by it. A repressed society, such as you advocate, stagnates. If the founders of our country had meekly accepted the status quo, we wouldn't be having this conversation. They, the liberals of their day, had other ideas, individualism and religious freedom, and built a great country around them. The conservatives of today are adamantly insisting that everyone conform to their vision of moral correctness, the death of individualism, and that the degree of religious influence in various levels of government has grown to dangerous levels is testified to by the Texas school board's efforts at revisionist history, as just one example.

    "_I’m_ pretending not to understand how people make choices? Really? You, on the other hand, I assume do?"

    – No, but the marketers and advertisers do.

    "I believe you’re confusing influence (advertising) with choice and causation (overeating, etc.,) which leads me to believe it may be you misunderstanding the concept of free choice."

    – I well understand the concept of free choice. It is you who seem to be seriously underestimating the efficacy of marketing in influencing the choices that people make. If the marketers, and ours are the best in the world, weren't able to successfully influence the choices that people make then why is it such a huge business? The very purpose of marketing is to remove, to as large a degree as possible, the element of freedom from people's choices.

    You argue that the failure to follow traditional moral values is damaging to society, I would counter that the culture of rampant consumerism is far more damaging. In fact, though I'm not aware of any studies to this effect, I would wager that what you see as a national "loss of moral compass" is directly related to our current culture of greed and instant gratification.

    To this you will ask again: "Does personal choice even enter into your calculus on decision making and choices? Does the individual bear any responsibility or are we just mice in a maze subject to the will and influence of others?"

    – Yes, it does and yes, they do, and, to a degree, yes, we are.

    You argue that individuals are solely responsible for their choices. You argue that corporations, in the spirit of the free market, are free from any responsibility to society because the responsibility to choose wisely rests on the individual. Yet, a significant percentage of our medical costs are directly related to people choosing to smoke and/or overeat. Apparently the average individual doesn't choose wisely. Your answer to this is that it is their problem, caused by their choices, but the reality is that it affects everyone in the form of higher healthcare costs, reduced effectiveness of workforce, etc. In plainer terms, it is bad for society.

    So, the question is, why is it you are willing to legislate against freedom of choice when it comes to moral matters, in the best interests of society, but are unwilling to legislate against freedom of choice when it comes to corporate profit margins, in the best interests of society? Arguably everyone would gain if traditional family values were followed more closely, and arguably, this goal will not be served well by legislation as that will engender rebellion by those who share your passion for individual freedoms, even if they largely share the same values, because they probably won't share all of them. Also arguably, everyone would gain if corporations were held more responsible for their products; not only the end product but the environmental, material, and human costs of their production processes. These goals would be best served through legislation and regulations.

    Rose uses the metaphore of climbing a mountain to compare conservative and liberal values. She states (paraphrasing here) that those who stick to their goal of climbing the mountain are exhibiting conservative values, while those that accept failure are exhibiting liberal values. I would argue that the far-right conservative values represented in today's politics would be better represented by a chaotic group of free-climbers, each scrambling to the top heedless of the safety or progress of the group as a whole, while the far-left is indeed content to sit at the bottom of the mountain and wait for a chair-lift to be installed. The rest of us though, are trying to combine the determination of the first group with a degree of common sense that would mandate the use of ropes, climbing harnesses and other elements of proper planning and safety, to ensure that the majority makes it as high as possible, and that all of those with the desire to do so make it to the top.

    You may deride that as Socialism, but that is how all intelligent and successful mountain climbing expeditions are handled. There will always be individuals who excell beyond the rest, but to do what is best for society as a whole, one must use social methods at times to help people up the steeper parts.

  96. ArtW Avatar
    ArtW

    Geoff: "Rose: “Europe is in its death throes.” Really? That’s why, even with a strong Euro against a weak $US, strong unions and environmental regulations, health insurance, etc., Germany has such a huge trade surplus while America has a huge trade deficit? Interesting definition of “death throes.”"

    May 27, 2010

    WORLD FOREX: Euro Up From Near 4-Year Low Vs Dollar, But Outlook Grim

    Grim? Can't be. Geoff on Cagle Post says the Euro is strong.

  97. rose Avatar
    rose

    Thanks ArtW. My point exactly. Right now the Chinese are propping Europe up, as they are propping us up since Obama's spending spree. But what are we gonna do if they decide to call in the chips?

  98. rose Avatar
    rose

    And heck, with Stug's last posting I could tear that apart bit by bit, but I don't have time. But his comment of "society grows from it" in the third paragraph does boggle my mind somewhat. Since when does a society grow by destruction and rebellion and sex and rock and roll? And he fails to see that not only the right adamantly insists that everyone conforms to their vision of moral correctness (and I agree, the EXTREME right does that), but the left adamantly insists that we all conform to their vision of what we eat, how much we should weigh, how our money should be spent, environmentalism (right or wrong), illegal immigration, which wars are incorrect, etc, etc. In fact, that whole paragraph is amazing, because he names the Texas school board's efforts at revisionist history, when I can name dozens of examples of liberal revisionist history, including the city seal of LA. where the progressives/atheists have insisted the cross be removed even though that cross is a historical symbol of the padres who actually did found the city. Our schools are filled with revisionist history and junk science that your side insists is correct even when it hasn't been proven, and courses on multiculturalism and feminism and sexuality and very few substantial courses on the history of this country let alone the world. In fact, as a result of progressive pressures, our schools seem to prefer to teach all about sex and condoms and homosexual sex instead or the three R's which is what they are really there for while our children get farther and farther behind in academics compared to the rest of the world, but the schools keep screaming for more money. It's shameful! But I guess it's good for society, huh?

    Then he goes on to say: "you argue that individuals are soley responsible for their choices" —– Well, YES THEY ARE, like it or not. You are just making excuses for bad decisions if you believe individuals are not thusly responsible.

    Then he continues: "You argue that corporitions, in the spirit of the free market, are free from responsibility to society . . . . " —– I don't recall anyone ever saying that or even implying it.

    And all the rest of that paragraph is equally nonsensical because I think your reading comprehension must be lacking or you read into it only what you want to believe.

    In the next paragraph he goes on to ask why we are willing to legislate against freedom of choice when it comes to moral matters . . . .? — But by the same token I would like to ask why is it your side is willing to legislate in the matter of all sorts of individual choices that may not be moral but that infringe on my freedom? Personally I don't think we should be legislating either and the government needs to keep its nose out of it. So your side is no better than those who want to legislate morality. But like I've said before, it's funny how blind you are to your own side's faults.

    As for the mountain paragraph, you want to represent today's "conservatives as a chaotic group of free-climbers who are heedless of the safety or progress of the group as a whole". Then you tell us how you would save the group with "common sense?" by mandating ropes and climbing harnesses and other elements of proper planning . . . . " That one gave me my morning laugh. That's exactly what your side does!!!!!! You mandate things that are NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS and that adults can handle all by themselves or take the consequences. It seems to me if those chaotic climbers want to have most of them reach the top, they will be smart enough to plan for the safety of most of them on their own without your help or mandates. Intelligent and successful mountain climbing expeditions are NOT handled by your mandates as you say, but by the individuals who are climbing the mountain—in other words, a LOCAL effort that is freely decided without your help.

    Most people don't need your help, in case you haven't noticed. In looking out for their own interests they will automatically cooperate with one another to get the job done. If there is any mandate at all, it should also be done locally instead of on a national level because one size simply doesn't fit all. But a liberal wouldn't have noticed that enormous fact either.

    That's all I have time for, but thanks so much for the laugh. You progressives are the comedy of the day for me. I have trouble believing you are adults, but then maybe that's why you need all the rules of what to eat and what car to drive and government medical care—because you aren't bright enough to take care of yourselves.

  99. rose Avatar
    rose

    Oh, and since you brought up the mountain, while the far left is content to sit at the bottom of the mountain to wait for a chair lift, and you and your kind are busy legislating harnesses and ropes and deciding on the safest way to get up there even though you've never been there, many of those climbers you call "chaotic" will get to the top of the mountain without your help, and they will then build a lift and charge for it, which they have a right to do since they took all the risk. It doesn't matter that you think it was too risky. They did it. And now that they are charging for it you will complain that they are getting rich and complain about environmental degredation because they are building a lift and have to move some rocks, even though most of it will use it regularly even if you got along without just fine before, and then you will begin to fine them and legislate against them and make life a living hell for them with taxes and regulations and ropes of another kind. Then, when the original explorers move to another mountain and the lift falls apart from lack of maintenance you will complain because they left you and aren't maintaining the lift anymore, and the loudest and most obnoxious SOBs will be the ones who waited at the bottom for the lift.

    How very quaint.

  100. Good Life Avatar
    Good Life

    Getting back to the original subject. I have a challenge. As you watch TV tonight don't skip the commercials. Instead listen very closely and make a list of "facts" that you can use to make a decision and "emotion" (sex, join the crowd, envy of others, fear of what others think, how good something looks, unneeded options to brag about, etc.).

    Now decide if Americans are making decisions based on "knowledge" or something else. There is a difference between "dumb" and "ignorant". Americans aren't "dumb" but there are few ways to gain "knowledge" through ordinary communications. And humans tend to buy on emotion.

  101. Cal Avatar
    Cal

    Brooks’s article is absolutely on the money and paints the battle for society perfectly. Will we stand by the constitution and traditional values or move toward some “brave new world” built around new meanings of the words fairness, justice, and equality? Will social justice replace blind justice? Will a “world court” trump the supreme court?

    I couldn’t agree more on the two Bushes. Neither were conservatives outside of defense and perhaps life. They were big government, tax and spend moderates. Reagan is the last conservative president we had.

    I never offer unsolicited advice to adults, but I’ll suggest to rose most of us have learned the hard way with geoff. You’ll endlessly chase your tail in a dizzying round of what I call “bob and weave.” You’ll get a question as an answer to your own question and then be accused of changing the subject when you look for an answer to the original question. I lasted less than a month and have been "gooff clean and sober" for about a year and a half. Never again.

    Envy of the rich? I think it’s closer to hatred but it’s at least anger. I don’t get it. I grew up literally dirt poor and have never asked for a dime and would be offended if someone offered. I don’t want a nickel of Bill Gates’s money or anyone else’s and I don't envy or resent them having it. All I want is a fair chance to do my best and live my life without an oppressive government intruding into my life. Government IS important but it needs to be the smallest government possible not the gargantuan created and fed by both Republicans and especially Democrats.

    Your posts are fantastic, btw, rose. I’m glad you’re here. There’s no requirement we agree on all things and likely won’t but so far I'm duly impressed! You’re definitely a breath of fresh air!

    Stug. "That movement developed as a reaction to…" Read what you’re saying. You’re not only excusing it, you’re giving it justification as though they just couldn’t help themselves! Think about that. This is akin to being driven to buy by flashy advertising and in both cases you’re implying people are helpless, hapless dolts who can’t avoid bad behavior because they're just driven by external events. Maybe that’s why your side seems to honestly think all conservatives get their marching orders from talk radio or Fox. Do you guys REALLY believe people are led about by nose rings others just pull? As to the “hippies” which side was cheering the movement’s development? Who prodded and pushed it? Who nurtured it and gave it wings? Hint: not conservatives.

    At NO point have I said or implied that conservative values should be _legislated_. That’s a figment of your imagination. I’m as strongly against legislation liberal values like abortion on demand funded with taxpayer money.

    Of course marketing DOES work or no one would spend billions on it. However, it doesn’t diminish the role of free will one iota. My examples from yesterday are illustrative. And much of the success of sleazy or slick advertising is directly related to a lack of yes, traditional values. Families that eat together, discuss current events, and (uh, oh) pray together, and attend church, etc., provide a strong defense against the glitz of what’s on the boob tube and in shiny magazines. Kids who are left to fend for themselves are very susceptible to anything that sounds fun, exciting, and new. That said, they too, have free will and can not blame slick advertising for their “sins.” You say personal responsibility plays a role to a point. To what degree does individual responsibility enter into to the equation? In my book, it’s 100%. You can use corporations or marketing or sexy ads as “reasons” but they are not excuses for poor choices.

    I can’t speak for rose but how have societies functioned in the past? As dictatorships, monarchies, oligarchies, and kingdoms. America is a unique experience in liberty and with that comes the requirement for strong personal responsibility or we have social chaos—sort of like what we have in most inner cities where progressive ideals have dominated for decades. I’m out of time today. More to follow. Good discussion!

  102. Stug Avatar
    Stug

    "Since when does a society grow by destruction and rebellion"

    – Perhaps you're forgetting how our country came into existence in the first place. How much of our technology comes from what was originally militarily oriented research? How many innovations came from a refusal to accept the status quo?

    "Our schools are filled with revisionist history and junk science that your side insists is correct even when it hasn’t been proven, and courses on multiculturalism and feminism and sexuality and very few substantial courses on the history of this country let alone the world."

    – I agree with the second portion of your statement, though I'm afraid I don't get the first. My side? When it comes to education, I'm all for dealing with facts and reality. Where there is revisionist history and junk science of either conservative or liberal origin, then I would be totally against it.

    "I think your reading comprehension must be lacking or you read into it only what you want to believe."

    – That does seem to be your MO so far.

    "But by the same token I would like to ask why is it your side is willing to legislate in the matter of all sorts of individual choices that may not be moral but that infringe on my freedom?"

    – Such as? I wouldn't support any legislation that would infringe on your freedoms unless it had a substantially more positive effect for society as a whole.

    "But like I’ve said before, it’s funny how blind you are to your own side’s faults."

    – I don't have a "side", I have my own beliefs and opinions. Yes, they tend to be more liberal than not. I take the "side" of whichever policy or lack thereof I believe will be in the best interests of the country in the long run.

    "Then you tell us how you would save the group with “common sense?” by mandating ropes and climbing harnesses and other elements of proper planning . . . . Intelligent and successful mountain climbing expeditions are NOT handled by your mandates as you say, but by the individuals who are climbing the mountain—in other words, a LOCAL effort ”

    – An example of your lack of reading comprehension. The metaphor of the climbing expedition refered to the country as a whole. The mandate to use safety equipment would have to come from the group, not from an outside authority. Any organized climb has a leader or leaders, which sets forth the rules, as regards planning and safety, prior to the climb. We, as a country, have our elected government, federal and local.

    "If there is any mandate at all, it should also be done locally instead of on a national level because one size simply doesn’t fit all. But a liberal wouldn’t have noticed that enormous fact either."

    – Some decisions can and should be handled locally, some should be handled at the federal level. In some respects, one size must fit all. We represent ourselves to the rest of the world as one country, not a group of chaotic individuals, perhaps you haven't noticed that enormous fact.

    "the loudest and most obnoxious SOBs will be the ones who waited at the bottom for the lift."

    – The loudest and most obnoxious? Sounds like an apt description of Limbaugh, Beck, et al.

    "That’s all I have time for, but thanks so much for the laugh."

    – You're very welcome. There will be more to come, here or on other threads. I look forward to future Jr. High level tirades from yourself as well.

  103. geoff Avatar

    ArtW: the Euro's not strong? relative to the dollar? Or what?

    Basically, the dollar is weak, right? So, relative to the dollar, the euro is strong.

  104. ArtW Avatar
    ArtW

    Geoff: "ArtW: the Euro’s not strong? relative to the dollar? Or what?

    Basically, the dollar is weak, right? So, relative to the dollar, the euro is strong."

    LOL. LOL. I love your logic and I'm surprised the Obama admonistration hasn't offered you a job yet.

    The Euro is weak. Period.

  105. geoff Avatar

    Stug: I was under the impression that you were in support of the federal and state legislation that prevents homosexual couples from having the same rights as traditional couples.

    If I understand it correctly, Cal is not against Homosexual couples having same rights as married couples.

    He only opposes to them using the word marriage.

    Am I right Cal?

  106. ArtW Avatar
    ArtW

    Stug: "Lots of ads for sodas, not so many showing the debilitating effects of diabetes."

    Why should they? Soda, in and of itself, does not cause diabetes.

    By your logic, Beer ads should also show the 'debilitating effects of diabetes' (maltose being the king of sugars) as well as: car accidents, liver transplant operations, people being arrested for drunk driving, the debilitating effects of obesity, etc.. Instead of a label on the back of the bottle, each beer will have to come with a user guide and TV ads will all have to become infomercials . . . heck, there may not be any time for actual programming, but if that's what it takes for people to be able to 'make an informed choice', then I guess so be it.

  107. Stug Avatar
    Stug

    Cal, “You’re not only excusing it, you’re giving it justification as though they just couldn’t help themselves!”
    – No, not that they couldn’t help themselves, that they made a conscious choice not to follow the status quo that they disagreed with. Once again, back to personal freedoms.

    “At NO point have I said or implied that conservative values should be _legislated_. That’s a figment of your imagination. I’m as strongly against legislation liberal values like abortion on demand funded with taxpayer money.”
    – Well then, we are in agreement on those points. I was under the impression that you were in support of the federal and state legislation that prevents homosexual couples from having the same rights as traditional couples.

    “Families that eat together, discuss current events, and (uh, oh) pray together, and attend church, etc., provide a strong defense against the glitz of what’s on the boob tube and in shiny magazines.”
    – I agree, even with the prayer part if that’s what floats your boat. Personal responsibility can only be taken so far though if marketers are permitted to provide partial or misleading information. Yes, I agree that generally the information is there if people will dig for it. My point though is that if marketers are permitted to be deceptive or misleading, it is not wholly realistic to expect the general population not to be deceived or mislead. I see lots of ads showing folks out drinking and having a great time, not so many showing the aftermaths of chronic liver disease or graphic car wrecks. Lots of ads for sodas, not so many showing the debilitating effects of diabetes. You want to hold people 100% responsible for their choices, I don’t have a problem with that, just as soon as you begin holding corporations responsible for giving people the information they need to make an informed choice.

  108. rose Avatar
    rose

    Art asks: "Why should they? Soda, in and of itself, does not cause diabetes."

    Of course, it's because the liberals have said it's bad. They take one little partial fact and twist it until it suits their purposes. THEY decide what's bad for you and why instead of you deciding for yourself. And then they begin legislating with the help of their courts (who were NOT elected by us) for the "good of society" because they have it all figured out even when they are WRONG. And we are supposed to sit still and just shut up and do as we are told because people like Stug know what's best for us. And if you disagree with them you are called intolerant and selfish. He once more proves it by this comment: "I wouldn’t support any legislation that would infringe on your freedoms unless it had a substantially more positive effect for society as a whole." But I ask you, who decides what has a substantially more positive effect on society as a whole? You? On what basis? On the evidence of some pseudo-scientist who is looking for grant money? The liberal courts which we never elected? A Congress that has abrograted its responsibility to legislate and has left it to the courts instead of taking its power back? By educators who don't educate? By a president who spends us into debt such as we have never seen in the history of this country? By special interest groups who scream the loudest? By a news media that has forgotten how to connect dots and tell the truth?

    Nuts to that! As an adult I'll decide what's good for me, not you and not any of those entities or any other entities.

  109. Cal Avatar
    Cal

    “Once again, back to personal freedoms.” Stug, EVERY choice is about personal freedom. But some choices are good and others are bad. Choosing “free love, drug abuse, dropping out of school, and rebellion are ALL bad choices.” They weren’t compelled to it as you’ve been implying (McCarthyism, “slick” advertising, etc.,) but willingly chose to throw the baby out with the bathwater as they pursued selfish, harmful behaviors. Now we’re reaping the whirlwind for that generation’s terrible set of choices.

    Nice attempt at bait and switch on “legislating morality.” An attempt to _block_ new legislation that further harms traditional marriage (homosexual “marriage”) is not legislating morality. Trying to _pass_ the legislation is. If religious Americans get members of congress to mandate church attendance or prayer, that’s “legislating morality.” Making abortion available on demand at taxpayer expense is the same thing.

    I just haven’t seen much that can be considered “legislating morality” from the Right except attempts to block new laws they feel will be harmful to the values they hold dear. Am I missing some obvious one? I may have because as a conservative I probably wouldn’t think they were bad ideas. If so, please refresh my memory. I also second the comments from ArtW and rose.

    I brought my Sowell book in on the housing bust but I realized I’d have to write PAGES to even sum it up. Next thread on economics I’ll give it a stab. I don’t think I’ll come back to this thread again so I’ll wish you Happy Memorial Day. Even though it isn’t Veteran’s Day, I’ll say thanks again for your service to our nation and to anyone else on Cagle.

  110. Stug Avatar
    Stug

    "But I ask you, who decides what has a substantially more positive effect on society as a whole? … A Congress that has abrograted its responsibility to legislate and has left it to the courts instead of taking its power back?"

    – Yes, Congress, the officials that we have elected to represent us. Granted, the system isn't perfect, but its what we have.

    "As an adult I’ll decide what’s good for me, not you and not any of those entities or any other entities."

    – Yes, advocating anarchy has always been a time-honored conservative position.

    You might be taken more seriously if all of your posts didn't read like a spoiled 14 year old who isn't getting her way.

  111. geoff Avatar

    Rose: "who decides what has a substantially more positive effect on society as a whole?"

    Whoever hires the best lobbyists.

    "As an adult I’ll decide what’s good for me, not you and not any of those entities or any other entities." Reminds me of Fox's "We distort, you decide."

  112. Stug Avatar
    Stug

    "Nice attempt at bait and switch on “legislating morality.” An attempt to _block_ new legislation that further harms traditional marriage (homosexual “marriage”) is not legislating morality. Trying to _pass_ the legislation is."

    – Nonsense. Blocking legislation for no real purpose than because it disagrees with your moral stance is legislating morality.

    "I just haven’t seen much that can be considered “legislating morality” from the Right except attempts to block new laws they feel will be harmful to the values they hold dear."

    – Precisely. Rose has presented us with a few choice rants on how she, as an 'adult' is capable of making her own decisions regarding what is good for her, regardless of any evidence to the contrary, with which you seemd to offer your full support. Yet here you are, defending the Right for deciding what others should be permitted to do based on nothing other than whether or not it offends their values.

    Nice attempt at labeling it a bait and switch instead of just accepting it for what it is.

  113. Paramjit Avatar

    The author has very succinctly summarized obesity as the success of capitalism. Never thought of it that way. Great perspective. Also spot on about "The Biggest Loser" program. It is an infomercial for the overweight. The whole Biggest Loser concept is ridiculous, trying to promote massive weight loss that is not sustainable.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *