• wishyouwerehere said on Sep 03, 2009....

  With all due respect, I see no problem in our president addressing the nation's youth, per se.  I remember watching past leaders speak way back when I was a little one - President Gerald Ford is the first I remember.  We watched him on television in school when I was about 7, I think - I can't recall the content of his speech, but I do recall being informed, on a basic level, about the way government works and the role of the president as public servant.  We also wrote letters to the President, and it made quite the impression on me in terms of having a voice as a member of a democratic society.
   
  I remember President Reagan making speeches aimed at high school students - don't do drugs, and ironically, using Michael Jackson as his spokesman.
   
  Hopefully, skilled teachers will use the proposed outline as a starting point, adapting as needed to best suit the interests and level of the students, depending on age, etc., 
   
  The questions themselves aren't necessarily so outlandish.
   
  "What do you think the president wants us to do?"Even if we don't agree, it is important that we understand what the president wants us to do - that doesn't mean that we have to blindly follow but gathering information about opposing viewpoints is the first step in informed debate. 
   
  "Can we do what the president asks?"  Depends on the topic - again, it is important to know what he wants so that we can assess whether or not it is desireable or realistic. 
   
  As far as what kids might like to tell the president - well, perhaps they should grant a little amnesty here.  What I'd like to tell him, especially with regards to his proposed health care reform, would definitely land me in detention if I were still in grade school, or at the very least, a free trip to the principal's office.
   
  As long as free dialogue is allowed and encouraged, and a balanced perspective is presented, I think it would be a good learning opportunity and one that shows kids the value of education in being an informed member of this democratic nation.

• curmudgeon said on Sep 03, 2009....

  The form of the questions, though, are so incredibly repetitive that it really is more about Obama and less about the students.
  
  If Obama simply addressed the kids that would be one thing. Turning it into one of his vapid and useless "teaching moments" is plainly ridiculous. The President is here to serve us. He ought not "want" us to do anything. I am for sure not going to do anything he asks.
  
  Again, a real lesson plan would encourage kids to think critically:
  
  Do you believe what the President is saying? Why or why not?
  Should we do as the President asks? Why or why not?
  Does the President have the right to tell you to study hard? Why or why not?
  What is the political motive in this address?
  Why, other than opening day, is the President addressing us?
  Is it right for our teachers and principals to make us watch the President during school hours? Why or why not?
  
  The proposed lesson plans are nothing but hero-worship and shallow cheerleading. The above questions will stimulate far more interesting thinking and discussion. Moreover, my questions make sure to include any student who disagrees with Obama without penalizing them for disagreeing.
  
  Any lesson that automatically assumes everyone to be on board is a lesson in propaganda, not independent, rational thought.
  
  Either way, Obama has more important things to do than address a bunch of schoolkids. Just as Michael Moore ridiculed Bush for being in a classroom the morning of the September 11th attacks, perhaps Obama deserves a bit of the same when the war in Afghanistan is faltering, unemployment is sitting at 10%, people are losing their homes, his health care initiative is sinking, and his popularity is dropping like lead in water.
  

• sheltercrow said on Sep 04, 2009....

  This should work:
  
  http://www.examiner.com/x-12837-US-Headlines-Examiner~y2009m9d3-President-Obama-school-address-lesson-plans-and-George-Bush-video

• sheltercrow said on Sep 04, 2009....

  Were the two Bush's into the "political indoctrination of children" too?
  
  
  Obama's actions not without precedent
  
  George H.W. Bush: Encouraged "America's students to strive for excellence." While president, George H.W. Bush gave a speech to schoolchildren intended "to motivate America's students to strive for excellence; to increase students' as well as parents' responsibility/accountability; and to promote students' and parents' awareness of the educational challenge we face." According to The Washington Post, the "White House sent letters to schools across the nation to encourage teachers and principals to allow students to tune in the speech, which was also carried live by the Mutual Broadcasting and NBC Radio Network. The live television and radio coverage was arranged at the request of the Education Department." [Washington Post, 10/2/91]
  
  George W. Bush: Learning materials from White House. As Media Matters for America deputy research director Simon Maloy noted, former President George W. Bush posted a "teacher's guide" on the White House website intended to help students understand the "freedom timeline" and encouraged them to "explor[e] the biographies of the President, Mrs. Bush, Vice President, and Mrs. Cheney."

• sheltercrow said on Sep 04, 2009....

  This should work: http://www.ed.gov/index.jhtml
  
  If you examine the learning materials of our former president is has some rather interesting things. Like learning the Biographies of you guessed it:
  
  
  Biographies of the President, Mrs. Bush, the Vice President and Mrs. Cheney
  
  Teacher's Guide
  
  Objective
  
  The students will be able to identify the elements of a biography.
  
  Lesson
  
  

  • The lesson will begin with the students exploring the biographies of the President, Mrs. Bush, Vice President, and Mrs. Cheney.
  • The class will identify examples of elements found in a biography.
  • Once students have identified the elements, a classroom chart listing the characteristics will be created.
  
  Pure propaganda for children.
  
  There is a section under 'Biographies of the President' called Goals:
  
  
  Goals
  
  President Bush has pledged to work in a bipartisan spirit, which means he plans to work with both Republicans and Democrats in Congress to pursue goals that are best for Americans. President Bush's goals include strengthening the nation's public schools, reducing taxes for all taxpayers, strengthening the military, saving and improving Social Security and Medicare, and encouraging Americans to be responsible citizens.
  
  
  Pure horse shit.
  

• ALIENated said on Sep 04, 2009....

  I am like a guy I heard last night. He said it has a "Soviet" feel to it. That is probably because it is Obama. We now suspect this guy on every level because he is a shameless Socialist even though he pretends not to be. I would rather teachers and students spend time reviewing Obama's history and his past associations. "OK children, after watching that film of Mr. Obama's church and preacher, Reverend Wright, do you think Mr. Obama is A) a racist, B) a moron, C) deaf?" That would be a good use of everyone's time. I would love to read some of the comments he is going to get on the website after some coaching from disgruntled parents. My kid went to a private church school. They would probably have watched it with the sound off and drew pictures of the president. "Nice ears, Johnny."

• sheltercrow said on Sep 04, 2009....

  Under 'the Vice President' we have:
  
  
  Accomplishments
  
  Vice President Cheney served a crucial role when America needed him most. As Secretary of Defense from March 1989 to January 1993, Vice President Cheney directed two of the largest military campaigns in recent history -- Operation Just Cause in Panama and Operation Desert Storm in the Middle East. He was responsible for shaping the future of the U.S. Military in an age of profound and rapid change. For his leadership in the Gulf War, Vice President Cheney received the Presidential Medal of Freedom from President George Bush on July 3, 1991.
  
  
  Now that is spin! Kinda make you want to vomit doesn't it?
  

• sheltercrow said on Sep 04, 2009....

  Re curm: "The proposed lesson plans are nothing but hero-worship and shallow cheerleading."
  
  See Bush's "teacher's guide" on the White House website and the wonderfully inspiring, albeit fake, Biographies of the President, Mrs. Bush, the Vice President and Mrs. Cheney and learn true "hero-worship and shallow cheerleading." lol.

• sheltercrow said on Sep 04, 2009....

  A couple questions under 'Brain Challenge' in the Vice President bio section:
  
  
  What sport did Vice President Cheney enjoy as a youth?
  Where did Vice President Cheney meet his wife?
  
  
  Lmao!
  
  A couple questions under 'Brain Challenge' in Biographies of the President:
  
  
  What was President Bush's favorite subject in school?
  Where did President Bush attend college?
  How many Presidents served before President Bush?
  What was President Bush's job before he became President of the United States?
  Name two of President Bush's goals for America.
  Challenge Question: What is the meaning of working together in a bipartisan spirit?
  
  
  Lmao!
  
  Questions that should be asked?
  
  What was President Bush's grade point average in college?
  Where did President Bush attend the Air National Guard?
  How much did Bush underfund veterans' health care?
  Did Bush opposed or support a plan to give National Guard and Reserve Members access to health insurance?
  Name two years President Bush could claim a net job gain for the American worker.
  Challenge Question: What is the meaning of 'misleading' and 'false'?
  
  Lmao!
  

• curmudgeon said on Sep 04, 2009....

  Aww, how sweet. Knocking on Bush again to defend Obama.
  
  Typical. And boring.
  
  If the materials you link to are valid, and I have no interest in challenging them, it only proves how decrepit and useless the Department of Education is. Hero worship is not in our civil religion, whether Democrat or Republican.
  
  But see, I am talking about our CURRENT administration, not living in the past as you and other liberal harpies are.
  

• sheltercrow said on Sep 04, 2009....

  Re: "I am... not living in the past"
  
  That is a stretch to say the least. Where but from the past could one dredge up "indoctrinate" and "cult of personality."
  
  It's telling on your cupidity when you elude to "Obama has more important things to do than address a bunch of [school kids]" such as "Afghanistan is faltering, unemployment is sitting at 10%, people are losing their homes" all of which were inherited from his predecessor. Rush would be happy you've bought into his bullshit lock, stock and barrel.
  
  What a shame you waste your meager talents repeating such nonsense.

• curmudgeon said on Sep 04, 2009....

  See again you are harping on Bush rather than addressing the Obama administration. So long as his policies continue to flounder this is all you will do.
  
  You appear to listen to Rush far more than I do. I only listen to him when I happen to be on the road during his show. If we happen to say similar things, it is because we both read the news every day.
  
  Apparently all you read is headlines from 2004.
  

• sheltercrow said on Sep 04, 2009....

  You curm are playing the fool for who knows what reason. Please try not to include the rest of us.
  
  Your role as funny man seems to include selective amnesia. Till you stop acting like the world revolves around wing-nut theology you will never be taken seriously.
  
  All politicians are corporate pimps. It comes with the job. On the baseline continuum of corporate pimps the republicans simply outdo the democrats. As such they are very easy targets. In reality there is no significant difference between the two parties. They both serve the same masters. To blame one without including the other is an exercise in hypocrisy.
  

• Eilan said on Sep 04, 2009....

  I just have to say that my husband's a registered Republican (fiscally conservative, but socially liberal, for the most part). He's no Obama fan, for sure, but he doesn't see what all the fuss is about, and neither do I.  Our daughters will be watching the speech, but their school district will be providing alternative activities for the children whose parents don't want them to take part. 
  
  But, really, what's so bad about encouraging kids to stay in school and do their best?  Isn't this what every parent wants for his or her child, regardless of political affiliation?  I'm following a similar discussion on a couple of my other online haunts, and someone there actually said something along the lines of, "If the President is going to present an idea to our very impressionable children, make sure it is balanced by those who disagree with him." So does that mean there will be a "Don't stay in school and suck at life" speech?  I think my kids and I will opt out of that one!
  
  Not to mention that if one fifteen-minute speech can undo a lifetime of parental "indoctrination," there's obviously been a parenting fail somewhere along the way.
  

• hotaka said on Sep 04, 2009....

  Well, he is commander in chief, isn't he? Follow the leader. Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for its leader.

• bloc said on Sep 05, 2009....

  This is absolutely stupid. The man is going to tell kids to study hard and stay in school. Acting like this is some terrible thing is absolute insanity. 
  
  
  Think about how absurd it is to call a school and tell them that your child shouldn't hear the President speak to them. The sad thing is that you would be saying the exact opposite if liberal parents had called in to prevent their kids from listening to Bush. You'd have called them unpatriotic traitors or some other nonsense. 

• ALIENated said on Sep 05, 2009....

  Jim Greer, chairman of the Republican Party of Florida, called Obama's speech an effort to "indoctrinate America's children to his socialist agenda." Greer said students should not be "forced to watch the president justify his plans" for health-care reform, bank regulation or tax increases.

  The Obama administration said the speech, to be broadcast from a high school in Virginia, is planned to last just 15 or 20 minutes. It will not set policy or touch on other issues. Instead, it will showcase the president's interest in education and give him a chance to "challenge students to work hard, set educational goals, and take responsibility for their learning."

  http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/education/orl-obama-student-speech-firestorm-090309,0,4263465.story

  A lady parent in that article says "I don't trust him [Obama]". I think that is the bottom line here. We could trust Bush to talk to school children because the lapdog liberal media would have been all over anything he said if it was politically incorrect or inappropriate for children of liberals. Obama could drop his pants and moon everyone and we would probably never know about it, or it would be applauded as innovative by idiots like Keith Olbermann and Chris Mathews.

• sheltercrow said on Sep 05, 2009....

  Alien: Jim Greer. A good topic.
  
  
  There once was a political operative who loved to tell crowds he had a simple way of explaining to children the difference between Republicans and Democrats.
  
  "Republicans get up and go to work," he would tell his son. "Democrats get up and go down to the mailbox to get their checks."
  
  This man not only talked to his son about Republican values, he went into public-school classrooms and talked about them as well.
  
  That man is Jim Greer — the same Jim Greer who, as chairman of the Republican Party of Florida, just threw a nationwide hissy fit, claiming that the classroom is no place for politics and Barack Obama's "indoctrination."
  
  One Seminole County mother, Barbara Wells, remembers the day Greer spoke to her son's sixth-grade class. "My son said he made some sort of Hillary Clinton joke," she recalled.
  
  But you know what? Wells didn't pitch a fit.
  
  She didn't call up the local TV station to scream about Republican indoctrination.
  
  Instead, she advised her son: "Whatever you are told in life, remember there are two sides to every story."
  
  In fact, Wells didn't even think much about Greer's foray into her son's classroom until she saw him on TV complaining about Obama.
  
  There's no longer any question: Greer is a hypocrite.
  
  
  From State GOP chief Jim Greer rips Obama -- but pushes Republican views at schools
  
  

• ALIENated said on Sep 06, 2009....

  Like everything Obama does, he tries to spread propaganda but gets caught and changes his tune. There is nothing wrong with the president of the United States talking to school children, no matter who that president is. The content of what he says is the problem. Most children are not going to pay any attention to him anyway. What did George Bush senior say when he spoke to the children? Who knows. I doubt that any kid that heard it remembers. Even if Obama get up and says "tell your parents to support healthcare reform and bigger government", most kids will never get that message home. The parents that do hear that message are going to shit a brick, and the fun will really begin for Mr. Obama. There is going to be a point that even MSNBC turns against this plastic president when their ratings go to zero.

• bloc said on Sep 06, 2009....

  I think this is subconscious racism. I can't think of any other explanation. Suggesting that the President of the United States, during wartime mind you, is so dangerous that children must be protected from his words is borderline treason. At least that's what all of the neocons suggested when anyone questions Bush during war. I can dig up quotes of alien saying it.

• bloc said on Sep 06, 2009....

  I forgot that alien deleted his old posts. I wonder why?

• ALIENated said on Sep 07, 2009....

  As the lady said, we do not trust Obama. We trusted Bush. Just because you trust him does not make him trustworthy.

• javadewd said on Sep 07, 2009....

  Bottom line, American's don't trust the fucker. 'Nuff said. Obama could tell our children to eat their Wheaties and over half of America would boycott General Mills overnight. It's a matter of trust, not race or color or even politics. Obama has stood and pissed off the government diving board and the slick has poisoned the pool to the public. Perhaps he should Wag the Dog?
  
  Then again I would expect people like bloc and his lap-dog sheltercrow to call us all racists. Ever since I pulled the handle against Obama I took responsibility for my actions and endured the labels of racism [and sexist, because I wasn't for Hillary]. You boys keep racism alive now, ya hear? Can't really control them there non-Caucasians in your party without race issues. Isn't that why y'all hired Van Jones? Wait for it...
  
  
  
  

• sheltercrow said on Sep 07, 2009....

  Pecker-wood angst. Always charming.

• curmudgeon said on Sep 07, 2009....

  If all Obama wants to do is a pep talk to the kids to stay in school, hey great. But those lesson plans really suck. They do not foster critical thinking. Here are some questions from the 7-12 lesson plan
  
  http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/academic/bts.html
  
  Is President Obama inspiring you to do anything? Is he challenging you to do anything?
  What do you believe are the challenges of your generation?
  How can you be a part of addressing these challenges?
  
  Obama "inspiring???" What's that about? Why choose that loaded term about a secular public servant? Why the leading questions? Why not: "Were you inspired by the President's speech? Why or why not?" Moreover, why is it assumed that kids even want to be a part of addressing the challenges of their generation? What if all they want to do is live their lives pursuing their personal interests? Should they not be free to do so in a "free" country?
  
  Frankly, if a kid were able to cogently argue why kids would be better off not going to school, it would be better than this puddle of conformist pedagogical piss foisted upon taxpayers by Obama's Department of Education.
  
  It used to be that liberals were all about non-conformity and resisting authority, and taking a critical look at what the government is telling us. Now apparently it's all about enforcing uniformity of  viewpoint, with Dear Leader Obama as their front-man.
  
  That is the very definition of indoctrination, not education.
  

• stopmediabias said on Sep 07, 2009....

  I don't know I think I am conflicted on this.  I don't see where President Obama talking to our school kids is a big deal.  I also don't see where people not being ok with it is a big deal.  When GW was President teachers would get fired if they even brought a picture of him into class.

  I saw a childrens book about Barack Obama in a bookstore that I found scary.  It was almost exactly how a childrens book describing Hitler would read.  It is what I would call propaganda.  Who really cares.  If he says anything that is considered indoctrination the mainstream media will ignore it and the right will cry to the point some Senator will mention it, so who cares.

  Everyone on the right needs to cut the crap.  We are not them.  We can disagree with Barack Obama without being disagreeable like nearly every single person on the left during the Bush years.  We can't make mountains out of every mole hill that comes out.

• sheltercrow said on Sep 07, 2009....

  Yawn. Maybe he should have them read Reagan's biography or something. How they could sell cigarettes when their career tanks.
  
  A 'puddle of conformist pedagogical piss foisted upon taxpayers by Obama's Department of Education.' Lol. And I though the right were conformist pedagogues. Funny me. Turn the words around and a left-wing loon would say...
  
  ...puddle of conformist pedagogical piss foisted upon the taxpayers by Bush's Department of Education. Lol.
  

• javadewd said on Sep 07, 2009....

  Yawn. Here we go again. It's all about Bush, isn't it. Bush took eight years to perform his feats, Obama has taken less than 200 days. Go suck a dick, lap-dog.

• sheltercrow said on Sep 07, 2009....

  Pecker-wood angst and family values:
  
  

• javadewd said on Sep 07, 2009....

  Van Jones, your hero...
  
  
  

• curmudgeon said on Sep 07, 2009....

  shelter - thanks for bringing up Bush...again.
  
  and again
  
  and again
  
  and again
  

• curmudgeon said on Sep 07, 2009....

  http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090907/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_school_speech_text
  What three words stand out to you?
  Boring
  Uninspiring
  Drivel
  How is the President inspiring you?
  He isn't.
  What is the President inspiring you to do?
  Turn the channel.
  What is the greatest challenge of this generation?
  Survive the next three years.

• javadewd said on Sep 07, 2009....

  Oh yeah!? Well, here's more BUSH for ya!!!
  
  Just put it on repeat...
  

• sheltercrow said on Sep 07, 2009....

  
  
  More Pecker-wood angst and family values:
  
  

• D6fer said on Sep 07, 2009....

  I don't have any problem with Obama telling kids to stay in school and do good....it's been done before....it may just be one of those "feel good" things all presidents do.....I'm sure the content will be public knowledge.....if there is anything wrong with it....he'll get smacked down for it....we're getting too polarized folks!

• javadewd said on Sep 08, 2009....

  
  More idiocracy from the left. I can do this all day with just Reid and Pelosi alone...
  
  

• sheltercrow said on Sep 08, 2009....

  
  
  Oh Yah.

• sheltercrow said on Sep 08, 2009....

  When the right loses an election we get this...
  
  
  
  And you want these people running the country?

• javadewd said on Sep 08, 2009....

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  One of my personal faves...
  
  
  

• bloc said on Sep 08, 2009....

  If working hard, staying in school, and studying are communist ideas then americans are communists. If they aren't then this was another lame deceit from the right that will come back to bite them. 

• javadewd said on Sep 08, 2009....

  Anything like when the Dems launched a probe over G HW Bush's speech to students in '91? Hypocritical left... I guess it's only okay when you do it! Go fall on a pile of sharp dicks!!

• sheltercrow said on Sep 08, 2009....

  Anyone that relies on fox news for reliable information is a pile of shit. First the black sphere, then Glenn Beck, now fox news. Must be why you have such a sophisticated gig.
  

• ALIENated said on Sep 08, 2009....

  Curm, ever wonder why you are one of the few who have not blocked Sheltercrow? He / she actually believes that Bush eats cats. I wonder where he / she gets his / her information.

• curmudgeon said on Sep 08, 2009....

  Yeah - call names. That is almost as persuasive as blaming Bush...again.

• sheltercrow said on Sep 08, 2009....

  Alien: You people ought to take a human pill once in awhile. The bush picture was a joke to lighten things up.

• D6fer said on Sep 08, 2009....

  bloc......I agree with the first part of your statement......but the second part I think you are missing the mark.....more and more people don't trust Obama....he did that to himself.

• javadewd said on Sep 09, 2009....

  See? If I took ass-hats like bloc and sheltercrow and their "pecker-wood angst" attacks seriously, I'd have to say I have never seen such stellar protege to Joseph Goebbels in my life, but since I'm once of those fun-loving hard-liner conservatives, I'd just prefer they know their meme. Human pill, indeed. How 'bout a humor pill... Oh, wait, it can't fix y'all, 'cause you'd have to have one first.
  

• sheltercrow said on Sep 09, 2009....

  Sorry, JG and memetics aside, I haven't the time nor taste for pecker-wood humor. But if it makes you happy be my guest. It may not do well for a good disquisition, outside the pecker-wood crowd, but at least you're displaying your dubious credentials for your perceived dubious fan base. And that's what counts. Keep up the good work.

• sheltercrow said on Sep 09, 2009....

  
  
  I may not be a democrat but I like this speech.

• sheltercrow said on Sep 09, 2009....

  C-SPAN has video footage if these Presidential Speeches.
  
  Pres. Obama's School Speech (2009)
  
  George H.W. Bush's School Speech (1991)
  
  Pres. Reagan's School Speech (1988)
  
  Obama and Bush made pretty inspirational speeches. Reagan, ever the ideologue, not so good.
  

• andycox said on Sep 09, 2009....

  Hi Curmudgeon, my God, you certainly live up to your name, don't ya? Just how is your President Obama pursuing a 'Marxist' agenda? Like every 'world leader', he's a marionette, dancing to the tune of the collective capitalist class of America. Want a few home truths about the good ol' US of A? See my 'Point of View'. Good day to you, sir

• ALIENated said on Sep 09, 2009....

  I love how so many now bash capitalism, the system that has created the greatest nation in the world, the nation most everyone wants to come to, etc. Just hold on. Mr. Obama will CHANGE all that soon enough, if given a chance.

• andycox said on Sep 10, 2009....

  You keep clinging to your comfort blanket, ALIENated; keep muttering that mantra 'America is the greatest nation on earth', why don't you. 'Cos this won't really be any comfort to your 15 million unemployed, to those millions having to struggle through life in ugly blighted neighbouthoods (as well as those struggling through life in prim clapperboarded little New England towns), to those many millions whose lives are or potentially could be devastated by your inhumane commercialised health system. By what measure is America the 'greatest'? Military power? Well, this playground boast is certainly true: In 2004, the annual military expenditure for the entire world was $1100 billion and the US accounted for about $600 billion of this. But personally, I find this obscene. The capacity to rain death and destruction upon other countries is hardly something gloat over. Perhaps, America is the 'greatest' simply because it has the greatest concentration of capital in the world? Well, in that case, what's your beef? Are you a member of the parasitical class of capitalists? Probably not. When it comes down to it, it is wholly irrelevant whether or not capitalism made America the 'greatest' (This sort of crowing hardly cuts ice with those of us who have resisted the urge to 'come to' the good ol' US of A). It is certainly of no interest to those who see capitalism as an outdated form of society that has had its day, and is now a real threat to the progress and welfare of humanity in toto - not just Americans! Capitalism is a global system, and needs to be addressed as such.

• curmudgeon said on Sep 10, 2009....

  Andycox - hello to you. I have heard opinions of your sort before - that Obama is merely the caretaker of the very well off. To those of you who do not live in the US, this is very true. Obama has stated that it is his intention to see to it that the US remains the most powerful nation on Earth.
  
  But here in the US, Obama and his supporters are trying to change things rather dramatically, and some of us - hardly rich, mind you - do not want to have anything to do with their agenda. And we see the effects of his policy shifts already - Iran and North Korea, for example, are not interested in dialogue and are moving right ahead with their nuclear plans. Obama has failed on foreign policy right from the get-go.
  
  Obama ought to have the US economy and foreign policy as his two top agenda items, but is distracting himself with this ridiculous attempt at health-care "reform."
  You may ridicule our system as it is, but in my personal experience this system has served me pretty well. I do not want the stuff that works to change. I am not against increasing the number of insureds, and addressing portability and other access issues, but many of these particular proposals have nothing to do with this and will likely do more harm than good.
  
  Some of these proposals are downright self-defeating. Take the taxation of "generous" health-care benefit plans to insure other folks who "cannot afford" insurance. In order to avoid the tax and resulting increase in health care costs, people will simply not opt for these plans. Businesses will not offer them, nor will insurance companies. So guess what - government does not get any additional revenue but is now saddled with huge financial commitments. Moreover, this "cadillac plan" taxation scheme exempts Democratic cronies, i.e. the Unions. Fewer and fewer Americans have joined unions in the past few decades. This policy will benefit only a tiny portion of the American population. Does this sound like responsible policy to you? Not me.
  
  I took a quick look at your blog and frankly you are just a bit verbose for my taste. I prefer issues-oriented stuff, not crackpot manifestos emanating from insignificant dung heaps somewhere across the pond - particularly where they misspell the word neighborhood. I will take another look when I want a good laugh.
  
  If you want to live altruistically, I do not see why you are not free to do so right now. Show us how it ought to be done by becoming a living example.
  
  Otherwise, just shut the fuck up.
  

• javadewd said on Sep 10, 2009....

  America is the greatest nation on earth, and Andycox sucks cock. Either you aren't from America or you're a traitor. Either way, go suck a dick, ass bag.
  

• ALIENated said on Sep 10, 2009....

  Hey, I was going to say that. I think he must be thinking of Europe or the Middle East, or maybe Africa.

• curmudgeon said on Sep 10, 2009....

  java & alien - I could not have put it any more succinctly than you guys!
  

• javadewd said on Sep 10, 2009....

  As if referring to me as a racial slur wasn't yet another example of being a useless tool by the smug left, calling me a Nazi would be a compliment from a socialist / progressive (the very inventors of the Nazis, anti-capitalistic rhetoric) and this anti-American sentiment by expatriates or worse, Socialist anarchists who are traitors to the US Constitution, it all must be an after-effect of following such a narcissistic liar like the pseudo-second coming.
  
  It's bad when my left-of-center wife was watching Hanna Montana last night just before I asked her to switch it over to the president's speech last night (I was on the way home and was picking her up dinner). On Disney's HM, the episode was focusing on deflecting questions and how to avoid giving straight answers. About five minutes into the President's speech, she actually paused it (gotta love TiVo) and explained to me that Obama was using the same methods. She was pissed, too! She's usually the one to balance me out politically, and she was fuming over this speech...
  

• sheltercrow said on Sep 10, 2009....

  curmudgeon: You have denigrated some for not reading the legislative bills. But it is quite obvious that you also have not read the bills especially concerning your pet peeve, health care reform.
  
  Here is and examination of the 'tax exclusion' you allude to. It mentions a proposition that is clearly a heart felt concern of yours:
  
  
  ...as with any unlimited tax deduction or exclusion, the highest-income people in the highest tax brackets get the greatest benefit from the tax exclusion, while the lowest-income individuals get the least benefit.
  
  
  And lest we concern ourselves with sheer nonsense let's put this to rest. If 'Businesses will not offer them, nor will insurance companies' how does the government become 'saddled with huge financial commitments?' The government only subsidizes the actual policies offered. If they are not offered they are not subsidized.
  
  Yes the government will be saddled with 'huge financial commitments' in the form of subsidized insurance company health plans. The subsidies are paid directly to the insurance companies. And it's damn ironic that these subsidies are close to the costs of the inefficiencies the insurance companies themselves cause. I'm sure, upon reflection, you know all this already.
  
  And 'This policy will benefit only a tiny portion of the American population' is very true. But not in the way you aver to. The legislation intentionally concerns the entire population but the 'tiny portion' you refer to are not the 'unions' or any other 'Democratic cronies.'
  
  How does legislation that intentionally takes taxes from all citizens and gives them to insurance companies, via subsidies, benefit anyone other than the insurance companies themselves? You have to remember that these same insurance companies take their bloated tithe as the money goes from health consumer to health provider. What a magnificent scam to have enshrined in law, and, to have people like yourself to fight tooth and nail for. The insurance companies seems to have a large percentage it's lobbying costs subsidized by the same people it bilks. P.T. Barnum would be proud.
  

• curmudgeon said on Sep 10, 2009....

  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203440104574400571702189240.html
  
  "There's more. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus has suggested that the federal government could pay for health-care reform by taxing American workers' existing health-care benefits—but he would exempt union-negotiated health-care plans. Under Mr. Baucus's scheme, the government could impose costs of up to $20,000 per employee on nonunion businesses already struggling to afford health care plans."
  
  Two can play the biased link game.
  

• sheltercrow said on Sep 10, 2009....

  Actually: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203440104574400571702189240.html

• andycox said on Sep 10, 2009....

  Curmudgeon, Javadewd, & ALIENated, you lovable rogues you! Hell, you guys crack me up. I literally had tears running down my face, such was the amusement you've provided. I thought characters like you only existed in films like 'Deliverance'. But, no, you're obviously out there, living cheek by jowl with human beings. Since you're such an authority on ''sucking cock'' as you so eloquently put it, Javadewd, I'll leave you to your passion, and address ol' Curmudgeon, who appears to have just one more brain cell than the two that dictate what your index finger does with a keyboard. Curmudgeon, me old mucker, it was Evelyn Beatrice Hall who once said 'I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it'. Its a sentiment I've always admired, so I'm sure you'll understand if I peevishly decline your offer to ''shut the fuck up''. What is it with you? Can't you bear the thought of people having radically different opinions from you? And while I'm on the subject of differences, 'neighbourhood' is not a spelling mistake; it's how the word is spelt in the English-speaking world outside of North America. Perhaps you didn't realise there was one. Well, as one inhabiting a ''insignificant dung heap(s) somewhere across the pond'', let me assure you that this is the case. You guys are such puffed up, arrogant little twats, and it genuinely saddens me that it takes some third world country like Vietnam or Afghanistan to give the ''greatest nation in the world'' a bloody nose to put an end to this sort of bombastic nationalistic drivel. And before you start indignantly mouthing off about me sympathising with 'commies' and 'terrorists', Curmudgeon, let me assure you that nothing could be further from the truth. However, you'll need to allow for a little more than a ''quick look'' at my blog to appreciate where I'm coming from on this issue. The same applies to what I've said on the subject of altruism, which is actually an extremely complex subject. So do me favour, read it, and then lets have a reasoned and measured response to what I've written. Mudslinging can be so boring at times.
  

• andycox said on Sep 10, 2009....

  C,J & A, check this out: Here's an American site telling it how it is http://wspus.org/.  You may also be interested in the following companion site:  http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/. Let me know what you think of them.

  Cheers boys!

• sheltercrow said on Sep 10, 2009....

  curm: Always click on the link to see if it actually works.
  
  Fear mongering at it's best. The WSJ was never the best source in the best of times. Rupert Murdoch's WSJ is just a rag like all his other papers now. The article is filled with 'has suggested' and 'may become.'
  
  Article says:
  
  
  Following this playbook, the Senate bill creates a "personal care attendants workforce advisory panel" that will likely impose union affiliation to qualify for a newly created "community living assistance services and support (class)" reimbursement plan.
  
  
  The senate bill does not create this panel.
  
  The Senates H. R. 3200 America's Affordable Health Choices Act has no "personal care attendants workforce advisory panel." It does reference a "clinical perspective advisory panel."
  
  The Committee on Education and Labor of the House of Representatives mentions a "Personal Care Attendant Workforce Advisory Panel and pilot program to improve working conditions and training for long term care workers, including home health aides, certified nurse aides, and personal care attendants" in their Report concerning H.R. 3200 dated July, 2009.
  
  Article says:
  
  
  The current House version of ObamaCare (H.R. 3200) goes much further. Section 225(A) grants Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius tremendous discretionary authority to regulate health-care workers "under the public health insurance option." Monopoly bargaining and compulsory union dues may quickly become a required standard resulting in potentially hundreds of thousands of doctors and nurses across the country being forced into unions.
  
  
  H.R. 3200 SEC. 225. (a) says:
  
  
  SEC. 225. PROVIDER PARTICIPATION.
  (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall establish conditions of participation for health care providers under the public health insurance option.
  
  
  The whole paragraph is premised on one sentence. The rest is wild speculation.
  
  Since it has made these two glaring errors the article, and it's wild speculations, can be safely consigned to the circular file cabinet.
  

• sheltercrow said on Sep 10, 2009....

  If you investigate the "personal care attendants workforce advisory panel" and "community living assistance services and support (class)" you find nothing in the senate bill or house report that mentions "implement forced unionization schemes." It seems the "CLASS Act - Amends the Public Health Service Act to create a national, voluntary disability insurance program (CLASS program)."
  
  In the House Report you will find the only reference to "unions" is:
  
  
  (2) PERSONAL CARE ATTENDANT WORKFORCE ADVISORY PANEL.—Section 202 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 3012) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
  ‘‘(g)(1) The Assistant Secretary shall establish a Personal Care Attendant Workforce Advisory Panel and pilot program to improve working conditions and training for long term care workers, including home health aides, certified nurse aides, and personal care attendants.
  ‘‘(2) The Panel shall include representatives from—
  ‘‘(A) relevant health care agencies and facilities (including personal or home care agencies, home health care agencies, nursing homes and residential care facilities);
  ‘‘(B) the disability community;
  ‘‘(C) the nursing community;
  ‘‘(D) direct care workers (which may include unions and national organizations);
  ‘‘(E) older individuals and family caregivers;
  ‘‘(F) State and federal health care entities; and
  ‘‘(G) experts in workforce development and adult learning.
  
  
  In the House Report you will find the only reference to "union" is:
  
  
  Subtitle D—Grants for Comprehensive Programs to Provide Education to Nurses and Create a Pipeline to Nursing
  
  [...]
  
  (c) ELIGIBILITY.—To be eligible for a grant under this section, an entity shall be—
  (1) a health care entity that is jointly administered by a health care employer and a labor union representing the health care employees of the employer and that carries out activities using labor management training funds as provided for under section 302(c)(6) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947 (29 U.S.C. 186(c)(6));
  (2) an entity that operates a training program that is jointly administered by—
  (A) one or more health care providers or facilities, or a trade association of health care providers; and
  (B) one or more organizations which represent the interests of direct care health care workers or staff nurses and in which the direct care health care workers or staff nurses have direct input as to the leadership of the organization;
  (3) a State training partnership program that consists of nonprofit organizations that include equal participation from industry, including public or private employers, and labor organizations including joint labor-management training programs, and which may include representatives from local governments, worker investment agency one-stop career centers, community-based organizations, community colleges, and accredited schools of nursing; or
  (4) a school of nursing (as defined in section 801 of the Public Health Service
  Act (42 U.S.C. 296)).
  
  
  About the CLASS Act, Health Care Bill Amendment Highlights Direct-Care Workforce, H.R. 1721, The CLASS Act,
  
  

• javadewd said on Sep 10, 2009....

  Who is this pinko commie faggot that is emitting green house gases and breathing my air?

• andycox said on Sep 11, 2009....

  Go have a lie down Javadewd. I'm worried about you. You might want to read through http://andycox1953.webs.com/ whilst you're resting up

• javadewd said on Sep 11, 2009....

  Essays, drivel and propaganda and lies? I don't lie down with mangy dogs you tool! Good going, Pip.

• andycox said on Sep 11, 2009....

  yawn.

• javadewd said on Sep 11, 2009....

  But Andy, Shelter, bloc... Hey pal... There's nothing wrong... You need to calm down... All the world is a glorious fruit basket... Calming waters... Birds chirping... Little Puppies.... Butterflies...
  
  AS YOU DRIVE A FUCKING SCREWDRIVER INTO OUR SKULLS!?
  
  FUCK YOU! FUCK THE PEOPLE WHO BORE YOU! YOU ARE ALL DEMONIC FUCK-STAINS ON SOCIETY WITH YOUR DRIVEL!!!
  
  I hope you get hit by a bus today! I will cheer, especially today! Lest we forget this was your moment to turn your back on the US Constitution and side with the bastards who flew planes into our buildings and murder our citizens. You applaud this because it fits your political ends. You are traitors that don't deserve to stand on the very ground that this country has safely provided you. You deserve the justice of having your personal property taken away from you to give to the criminals you defend so adamantly, but unfortunately even though as criminals you exploit the very Republic that allows you to be the criminals that you are, the grace that these laws provide you will allow you to continue your self-defeating march to change society into your own personally entertaining puppet show, filled with narcissists, liars, tax cheats, hypocrites, fraudsters and radicals who would rather spit in your face than to show you the same grace as our country has for over 200 years.
  

• sheltercrow said on Sep 11, 2009....

  This pecker-wood character seems to be a Astroturf mole for the democrats me thinks. With every inane comment he vilifies the right, not the left.

• andycox said on Sep 11, 2009....

  Javadewd, you really are a wonderful ambassador for your country. Your uppercase-rage is just sooooo amusing. Let me put you right on a couple of things: Firstly, I'm not an American, and therefore no traitor to the good ol' US of A. And I'm not aware that America has dealt gracefully with any other country, unless that furthered it's own ends. Secondly, your contention that I've sided with those who flew planes into 'your' buildings is so off the scale, it beggars belief. Just how do you draw this conclusion, mate? If you'd bothered to read my blog, you'd know that I have nothing but contempt for these cowardly fanatics who draw on Islam to rationalise their deranged actions. 9/11 was an unspeakable tragedy , that no one with an ounce of humanity wouldn't weep over. The point I was making, Javaweed, is that people like you who spout all this nationalistic drivel only ever pause to think when the US gets taken down a peg or two. I'm NOT suggesting that the your country SHOULD  be taken down a peg or two, I'm only saying  that - as a matter of fact -  this momentarily puts a stop to all that inflated ' America is the greatest' crap that assails our TV screens even here across the pond (and which only fuels the the deep and fairly universal sense of anti-americanism which more thoughtful Americans than yourself are sensitive to) Do you get it, Javadewd? I really think, sir, that you sound as though you have some serious anger management issues. The sort of language you deploy is not clever or amusing. Yes, you do really need to calm and try arguing your case a little more rationally. In part that means understanding the other's point of view.
  In spite of your venom, I wish you well.

• javadewd said on Sep 11, 2009....

  Andy, you're a criminal. Shelter, you are a criminal. bloc, well, you're just a douche bag, but that's a whole other story.
  
  Anti-Americanism would be laughable enough outside the country by "those who wish to take us down a notch" by flying planes into our buildings, appointing communists as czars (Russia has czars, the US has a cabinet -- if you're too scared to appoint people to your cabinet because of the number of skeletons in their closet then that should say something about your appointments, shouldn't it?) and otherwise criminalizing our government, but to have ass-hats inside of this country use the same exact tactics and verbiage as socialist dictators should have sent up flares a long time ago.
  
  Today, of all days, people like that should be smoked out and exposed for being the post-modernist existentialists that they are. I hope that every American takes the time to let their government representatives know that the mother fuckers work for us, and we will be happy to clear the board -- on both sides of the isle -- come 2010, if this bullshit doesn't stop.
  
  All you self-righteous cock sucking criminals who think that we can't see through your bullshit, expose your origin of thought (communists, radicals, anarchists, satanists) and drag your happy ass down from the smug platform of 'astro turf' that you've been waiving around have another thing coming. No, I will not relent. You bet I'm angry. You bet I am "full of angst" -- racial slur aside (by the way, when did liars, narcissists, douche bags, Canadians, Australians and thieves become their own race? You throw around the word racist as though you were not Caucasian, and that alone makes you a traitor to your own race) -- I see what these fuckers are trying to pull and I know that it's wrong. Your argumentative skills to convince me otherwise are at the level of epic fail. Now what? Go ahead, proceed without my approval. Let's face it, you think you didn't need it in the first place. How's that working out for you? You haven't painted the white house red yet, and other than the lawn and the level of experience of your pseudo-savior, I don't see anything "green" yet.
  

• ALIENated said on Sep 11, 2009....

  You guys are such puffed up, arrogant little twats ...

  Puffed up enough to kick "Great" Britian's ass out of here. Puffed up enough to pull "Great" Britian's ass out of Hitler's grip. You are welcome. America is greater than ever (or it will be once we kick these Socialists out of Washington in the next elections). As I understand it, "Great" Britian is rapidly being taken over by Muslims. "Great" Britian has lost the world and now it is losing its own country. Yes, we are the arrogant twats. Ha ... ha ... ha.

  And you would have to be a moron to think we could not have done to Vietnam or Afghanistan what we did to Iraq. Our own stupid politicians are the only thing that can hold back the greatest force in the world today.

• ALIENated said on Sep 11, 2009....

  ... communists, radicals, anarchists, satanists ...

  Yep, as someone said recently (Curm, SMB?), we are not in a battle of left and right. We are in a battle of right and wrong. That is the bottom line. Obama and his posse want to enslave us to bigger and bigger government, a government that can force us by various means to agree with their satanic view of the world. Someone mentioned stem cells. At the cost of blending the body parts of aborted babies? Reduced healthcare costs. At the cost of supplying older Americans with cyanide pills? Are you detecting a pattern? Fascists, Communists. Makes no difference. They are both murderers. Both rely on bigger and bigger government. This is so simple a caveman could understand it, but I suppose it is too complicated for a college professor or other elite Democrats / Socialists. Education is good, but should not be used to indoctrinate people and lead them into slavery to the State.

• sheltercrow said on Sep 11, 2009....

  The pecker-wood now adds 'satanists' to his crackpot list, and, the most racist wing-nut of them all chimes in with an Attaboy and 'satanic view.' You two keep good company. Two less than original loons.
  
  And 'traitor to your own race.' Ouch. Makes the nails longer. Here is something for you two seekers! LMAO.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

• javadewd said on Sep 11, 2009....

  Hey, your boy andy's side of the street endorses you... Congrats, you are a servant of Satan.

• sheltercrow said on Sep 11, 2009....

  To the resident pecker-wood: Try not to reference your own posts. The really don't help. Lol. It's like a nutter using fox to make a point but with greater perversity.

• javadewd said on Sep 11, 2009....

  You could always reference your own, but then that would be the only way they would be seen...

• sheltercrow said on Sep 11, 2009....

• javadewd said on Sep 12, 2009....

  
  Shelter, you are a racist, fascist pig fucker.
  
  

• sheltercrow said on Sep 12, 2009....

• javadewd said on Sep 12, 2009....

  
  
  

• porcelain said on Sep 12, 2009....

  I don't mean to make light of the issues, but the arguments just got funnier and funnier as I scrolled down the page. It's genuinely endearing to see adults behave this way. Name-calling and such. Ass hat is my favorite. :)

• andycox said on Sep 13, 2009....

  Javadewd, your obsession with cock-sucking is making me wince. You really need to come to terms with your suppressed homosexuality, and spare the rest of us this frothy colourful language you deploy to put across your, frankly, psychotic world-view. As for Shelter and I being criminals, what are you on about, mate? In fact, what are you on? You seem to have this irrepressible urge to churn out furious, nonsensical claptrap. But lacing your language with 'fuck yous' doesn't give it gravitas. It only emphasises the poverty of your thought processes: You don't argue, you just fume. Well, suit yourself.
  ALIENated, for your information, I'm not British. However, your comment about the UK being taken over by Muslims is just silly: British Muslims number about 1.6 million, out of a population of 60 million. And the vast majority of them are ordinary decent folk who are appalled at the antics of Islamic extremists. I'll say that in their defence despite being a militant atheist myself. As for you taking umbrage at my criticism of a species of American that constantly harks on - ad nauseum - about America being the greatest, well you don't exactly help your case by then asserting that 'America is greater than ever'. So I guess that really does make you a puffed-up, arrogant little twat. QED. Oh, and one more thing, Socialism has nothing to do with exerting state power within a capitalist context, and it has nothing to do with state capitalism (Cuba, and North Korea, for example, are predominantly state capitalist countries) 'Socialism' refers to a free, world-wide society in which property is held in common, in which people may freely avail themselves of goods and services, and in which none of the accoutrements of capitalism, or 'commodity production' - producing goods and services for a profit - exist (That is to say, there would be no such thing as money or any other sort of exchange mechanism, nor wages, nor profit in Socialism). So, just cut out all this crap about Obama's 'socialist' agenda, It's anything but! (Check out http://wspus.org/.for more details)
  
   

• sheltercrow said on Sep 13, 2009....

• javadewd said on Sep 13, 2009....

  Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.
  
  Procelain -- My pleasure to entertain you... I think.
  
  Andy cock -- I'm sure you think you sound semi-intelligent, and I'm sure your haughty one note may hold the admiration of the twats you associate with in whatever jack-asswards country in which they allow you to currently reside, but we don't really tolerate moose-licking jack-hole fuck-tards like you or your kind. We "played it cool" long enough to let a smug, narcissistic, compulsive liar like Obama slip through. Now we're no longer cool. We're pissed off. I'm as sure as shelter's object bar gets bigger that we will be pissed off that much longer. Keep it coming boys, our ad nauseum will ride you out to your mausoleum. An oh, by the way, your link to the World Socialist Party describes every goddamn pinko-commie thing that red retarded mutherfucker is trying to do to our country, so all you did was prove our points. Say goodnight, Gracie. Take a toke off that bong of "hope" for me, too, pal. You could use a second.
  
  Oh, and shelter, using post-modernism to prove your point only proves mine, you fore-flushing low-life scum-sucking shit for brains. If you want to sing along to commie ideas, why don't you just play some Elmo? I'm sure that's the "flower power" bullshit your goofy ass parents raised you on! I'm sure that it's all their fault you're so fucking retarded when it comes to the history and heritage of this country.
  

• andycox said on Sep 13, 2009....

  Javadewd, see, you're doing it again! You just can't help yourself , can you?

• porcelain said on Sep 13, 2009....

  The pleasure is mine! :D

• javadewd said on Sep 13, 2009....

  :-D

• sheltercrow said on Sep 13, 2009....

  The pecker-wood is entertaining his fan club. Like all the ditto-head right-wing door knobs that pass through here, his choice of language is geared to reflect the nature of his, and his readers, ignorance. He neither understands the concepts he comments on nor their association. His way of making friends with his lot I suppose. Lol. All flash and glitter for the gutter people.
  
  A note to the unwary. To occasionally be dogged by a slime ball is part of the gig here.

• ALIENated said on Sep 13, 2009....

  And the vast majority of them [Muslims in England] are ordinary decent folk who are appalled at the antics of Islamic extremists.

  I hope you are right, but I have heard otherwise.

  ... there would be no such thing as money or any other sort of exchange mechanism, nor wages, nor profit in Socialism.

  That sounds like fantasy land to me. Even a child wants money almost from day one. Without some means of keeping score, everything would be rationed. I discussed my opinion on all that in a previous post ...

  http://www.soulcast.com/post/show/247047/Free-Food-For-Everyone#

  Socialism does not even sound good on paper, forget in practice. The only ones that benefit from Socialism are deadbeats who do not want to work to pay their own way. Charity (as the Bible suggests) should be the way to help the truly needy, older people, and the sick. Government mandated "charity" in the form of Socialism only complicates things and makes the problems worse. About all Socialism really does is create jobs for beaurocrats, government leeches.

• porcelain said on Sep 13, 2009....

  It's kind of you to grace us with your knowledge, sheltercrow. ; ) I'm thankful you have nothing better to do with your time than argue with ignorant people.

• sheltercrow said on Sep 13, 2009....

  porcelain: ...argue with ignorant people? Hell, I have enjoyed this exchange. Remember, as long as this pecker-wood dogs on me, he leaves others alone. And andy sounds like he has enjoyed the flea flicker too. It has even drawn in the resident racist and fake Christian, alien. What more could you want without paying to go to the movies?

• porcelain said on Sep 14, 2009....

  What more could I want? An exchange with intelligent people.

• andycox said on Sep 14, 2009....

  Hi ALIENated,
  I'm pretty sure I'm right regarding Muslims in the UK: I've heard enough commentary, seen enough on TV, spoken to enough Muslims, and read enough poll results to know that this is the case. What clouds the picture is the fact the majority of British Muslims ( as I suspect is the case with your possibly considerably larger number of American Muslims - estimates run to 7 million, I believe) deeply resent the West's involvent in Iraq and Afghanistan. And, quite frankly, the majority of non-muslims in both countries are similarly troubled by this involvement too, instigated as it was by the Bush/Blair lie about the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Saddam Hussein's loathsome regime. I have no time for religion of any description, which I regard as a primitive mental shoehorn enabling people to fit into brutal constraining world that is capitalist society. But individuals are more than mere religious cyphers, and it is unfair to tar all Muslims with the the same brush.
  With regard to your comments on socialism/communism, I have to tell you that it is not something I haven't heard before, and is typical of the sort of unreflective reaction of someone who has only fleetingly come across the idea. It may surprise you to know that there is quite a large body of literature on the subject, and that it is an idea with very ancient pedigree. Your blog on state handouts has absolutely no relevance to this issue. What we talking about here is a fundamentally different form of society; one in which a wholly different mindset would prevail. Moreover, it would be intrinsically democratic, and free of oppression. That you should characterise it as a fantasy at least implies that you recognise that socialism/communism bears no relation to the quasi-fascistic state capitalist regimes who cynically describe themselves as 'socialist' or 'communist'. The arguments in support of communism are numerous and complex, and you would do well to acquaint yourself with them before pouring scorn. Space does not allow me to restate them here, and so I can only suggest that you have a look at my blogs, in particular, parts 1 and 2. More on the subject, and a wealth of links can be obtained from http://wspus.org/ or http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/. I look forward to a constructive, unpetulant debate on the issue

• javadewd said on Sep 14, 2009....

  Ignorant about what? Socialism, communism, the joys of being a criminal? Oh, you're all such martyrs for your plight: Killing babies and old people in the name of population control, mugging people with taxes to line the pockets of those who simply choose not to be productive citizens... What's next? Gun control, hate speech laws, government-ran lifestyles? You call people racist because it's a fad. You'll fade in time and we'll still be here. Keep hittin' the ol' bong o' hope you brainwashed automatons!
  

• porcelain said on Sep 14, 2009....

  What do these arguments even have to do with the thread anymore? It's irritating to read thousand word diatribes expressing that anyone who doesn't agree with the author is clearly ignorant. What qualifies any of us as an authority on these topics? The majority of these responses are entirely counter-productive.

• javadewd said on Sep 14, 2009....

  It all started with shelter using a racial slur against me when I simply stated that people don't trust Obama. He and bloc are basically calling conservatives racists again, a fad that seems to be dragging on like blaming Bush for creating hurricanes or something. Angst I've never disputed. Being called a racist... Seriously? How is it productive to call people racists, Bush-lovers and the like? Great job at closing that little cultural and important partisan gap you tools! How about some cheese for your whine? Your "winning" attitude makes my ass sore. Have you never heard of a 'sore winner?' Bullies like Obama have! Next time he should do his own homework and pack a lunch. Most school children learn this to be an important skill before the sixth grade.
  
  Just remember kids, work hard, study hard, do your homework and be responsible so that some day you, too, can be replaced by an inexperienced charasmatic minority!
  

• porcelain said on Sep 14, 2009....

  I understand your frustration, javadewd.

• javadewd said on Sep 14, 2009....

  Sigh. I guess it's all fun and games until somebody puts an eye out, but hey, great sparring with you guys. I think I'll move on now.

• andycox said on Sep 14, 2009....

  Good to see you moving on, mate. Don't forget to take the tablets now, mind.

  On behalf of the criminal fraternity: Hasta la vista, baby!

• sheltercrow said on Sep 14, 2009....

  porcelain: Another fan for the pecker-wood con. Suit yourself.

• javadewd said on Sep 14, 2009....

  Again with the racial slurs!
  
  LIE -- Short of a fancy title, you'll never see this man with a military combat uniform and a firearm. He never served in the military and doesn't even cover his heart during the pledge of allegiance.
  
  Andycox in a nutshell.
  
  Sheltercrow in true form. I see although sheltercrow has many a blog to show and write, sheltercrow has few readers. Good job! Stay in school... You are certainly New Hampshires finest.
  

• stopmediabias said on Sep 14, 2009....

  It is funny how I have been trying to ignore this thread but now I have to comment.  First about my friend Sheltercrow:

  Shelter is a very bitter person, he is a moral relativist in almost a disgustingly partisan way if that is even possible, he is raging antiSemite, profoundly extremist to the left (ask him about 9/11) and rarely offers a personal opinion, his opinions are usually expressed in his sometimes profane but many insults and his endless supply of links.  I blocked him and believe me it is hard to get blocked by me.

  Andycox-I am just not sure about the term "mate."  Sorry Americans think that sounds.... well... strange.  Anyway this: 

  "The arguments in support of communism are numerous and complex, and you would do well to acquaint yourself with them before pouring scorn."

  One doesn't have to read any arguements in support of communism because communism has failed just as socialism is failing.  Look what communist and socialist regimes have brought us in the past compared to what capitalist regimes have brought us.  Compare our absolute poorest to some of the poor people in China or Africa. 

  Societies thrive and grow better and faster when the people are in charge of their own destinies while recognizing the government can nudge and help by keeping them safe, history has certainly proven that.  And I'm also going to take a guess that you are full of shit.  You could be that smart but I think you are word dropping.  Part of the link I read from wspus was a bunch of socialist nonsense, the same stuff that has been debunked more times than Sheltercrow.

  Porcelain-a very thoughtful statement about what qualifies any of us.  A very good question, what exactly makes us experts?

  Alien/Java-Did someone forget to give Shelter his grumpy medicine? :>

    

• javadewd said on Sep 14, 2009....

  Funny, for some strange reason I thought he was a she... Probably because they've been acting like their pussy hurts.

• sheltercrow said on Sep 14, 2009....

  Well thank you for the compliment. My posts are all concerned with facts regardless of readership. If I cared about readership I would undoubtedly have gone down the path that most of my critics have.
  
  zimbio.com is the primary reason I post here. Because they post it their.
  
  discussanything.com was alright but had too many trolls. Although I did have a bit more discussion there.
  
  widgetbox.com is an excellent resource. I used it on my progressive blog. 'SoulCast: The Last Refuge for Cowards' is one of my fun ones. It reflects what happens when you come here and are disappointed with the insipid lever of discourse.
  
  area603 is primarily concerned with fluff. Not my best suit.
  
  nhunderground.com and freekeene.com are libertarian forums that advocates free staters taking over NH. The unfortunate problem they have is that they deal in falsehoods to do the gig. I was born here and made a point of trying to point out their obvious mistakes. Not a popular endeavor.
  

• javadewd said on Sep 14, 2009....

  Okay, I gotta give credit where credit is due. I had never heard of a "free stater" until this last comment and I have certainly never heard of the Free State Project, either. I don't know whether to be happy or frightened. Libertarians vs. New England Democrats? No shit? Now that's really fucking creepy! These left-coasters are all fucking nuts... Well, hey, even KevinUnknown can be a pain in the ass from time to time, but every once in a while even I can glean a nugget of gold out of his European Socialism bullshit. At least he does the research!
  

• andycox said on Sep 15, 2009....

  Stopmediabias, hi pal (will that do?). You just don’t get it, do you? What you state simply bears out the fact that you’ve NOT acquainted yourself with the arguments before ‘pouring scorn’. You’ve missed the point completely. What you refer to as a ‘communist’ or ‘socialist’ states are anything but. They are simply ‘state capitalist’ countries, where the state has assumed a predominant role in the production of commodities (goods and services produced to be sold for the purpose of realising a profit). As such, state capitalism is simply a variant of capitalism in the generic sense. Wages, money, capital and profit all exist in state capitalist countries, which in itself disqualifies them from being described as ‘communist’ or ‘socialist’.  Moreover, in the classic model of a state capitalist society, you get a privileged and elitist nomenklatura that lords it over the indigenous working class, absorbing the ‘surplus value’ (in the Marxist sense) produced by the latter; their power usually underpinned by an oppressive one-party state, notwithstanding a lack of actual legal title to the ‘means of production’. The opulent seaside villas belonging to the elites of the Soviet Union and present day China bear witness to the class-ridden nature of these societies. When you say that such societies have failed or are failing, what you mean is that they are moving inexorably towards a laissez faire or ‘Western’ model of capitalism. Well, I couldn’t agree more: This is undoubtedly happening, and was predicted by ‘convergence theorists’ forty or so years ago. The irony is that it has been many of the privileged party cadres who have benefited most from this shift, and who transformed themselves overnight into super-rich oligarchs. You may gloat that this development represents a vindication of capitalism and the failure of communism – it is nothing of the sort – but it also has to be said that has been happening at great cost to the ordinary working class people of these countries. In Russia, for example, the life expectancy of men has dropped dramatically, and there is widespread anxiety about the abandonment of a whole raft of social benefits. Literally millions now - including very many well educated people – have been consigned to the fundamentally unproductive occupation of sitting behind a fold-up table selling cucumbers, plastic sandals, cheap cigarettes, or whatever, in a kind of travesty of ‘playing the market’. I know, I’ve seen it for myself. Meanwhile Moscow is being trashed by a rash of advertising hoardings, and historic buildings are left to crumble so that unscrupulous property developers can knock them down.  And then there’s China, which, despite shamelessly characterising itself as a ‘communist’ bears many of the hallmarks of a fascist regime, particularly in its brutal oppression of minorities and dissidents. Let me quote from an article titled: ‘The Realities of China Today’ by Martin Hart-Landsberg (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/):

   

   ‘‘The reality is that China’s market reform polices have created a growth process underpinned by increasingly harsh working and living conditions for the great majority of Chinese.

  Perhaps most surprising is the fact that the country’s rapid growth has failed to generate adequate employment opportunities. According to the International Labor Organization (ILO), total urban (regular) manufacturing employment actually declined over the period 1990-2002, from 53.9 million to 37.3 million. And while there was a small increase in total urban employment, almost all the growth was in irregular employment, meaning casual-wage or self-employment – typically in construction, cleaning and maintenance of premises, retail trade, street vending, repair services or domestic services.

  More specifically, while total urban employment over this 13-year period grew by 81.7 million, 80 million of that growth was in irregular employment. As a result, irregular workers now comprise the largest single urban employment category – much as in Africa and Latin America where such an outcome is blamed on stagnant capital accumulation. In addition, the ILO reports declining labor force participation rates and double digit unemployment rates for urban residents.

  The reform process has taken an especially heavy toll on state workers. According to Chinese government figures, state-owned enterprises laid off 30 million workers over the period 1998-2004. As of June 2005, 21.8 million of them were struggling to survive on the government’s “minimum living allowance” – the basic welfare grant given to all poor urban residents. In June 2005, this allowance was approximately $19 a month.

  Of course there has been job growth in the private sector, especially at firms producing for export. But most of the new jobs are low paid with poor working conditions. “Even after doubling between 2002-2005, the average manufacturing wage in China was only 60 US cents an hour, compared with $2.46 an hour in Mexico.”

  A recent report on labor practices in China by Verite Inc., a U.S. company that advises transnational corporations on responsible business practices, found that “systemic problems in payment practices in Chinese export factories consistently rob workers of at least 15% of their pay.” Workplace safety is an even greater problem. According to official Chinese government sources, about 200 million workers labor under “hazardous” conditions. “Every year there are more than 700,000 serious work-related injuries nation-wide, claiming 130,000 lives.”

  One critical but often overlooked explanation for China’s manufacturing competitiveness is that approximately 70% of manufacturing work is done by migrants. Over the last 25 years, some 150-200 million Chinese have moved from the countryside to urban areas in search of employment.

  Although the great majority of these migrant workers have moved legally, they suffer enormous discrimination. For example, because they remain classified as rural residents under the Chinese registration system, not only must they pay steep fees to register as temporary urban residents, they also have no rights to the public services available to urban born residents (including free or subsidized education, health care, housing and pensions). The same is true for their children, even if they are born in an urban area.

  As a consequence migrant workers are easily exploitable. They typically work 11 hours a day, 26 days a month. Most receive no special overtime pay and commonly earn one-quarter to one-half of what urban residents receive.

  The overall effectiveness of Chinese labor policies (which are primarily designed to boost export competitiveness) is well illustrated by recent trends in wages and consumption. Chinese wages as a share of GDP have fallen from approximately 53% of Gross Domestic Product in 1992 to less than 40% in 2006. Private consumption as a percent of GDP has also declined, falling from approximately 47% to 36% over the same period. By comparison, private consumption as a share of GDP is over 50% in Britain, Australia, Italy, Germany, India, Japan, France, and South Korea; it is over 70% in the United States.’’

  And yet:

  ‘‘According to the Boston Consulting Group, China had 250,000 U.S. dollar millionaire households (excluding the value of primary residence) in 2005, the sixth greatest national total in the world. Although this group made up only 0.4% of China’s total households, it held 70% of the country’s wealth’’.

   

  So you see, Stopmediabias (why don’t you use you name, by the way?), if the corollary to your assertion that ‘communism’ has failed in China, is that ‘capitalism’ has succeeded; you need to ask yourself, succeeded for whom? But the truth of the matter is , as I’ve hope you can see now is that what has happened in China and other erstwhile state capitalist regimes is that the state has merely limited its involvement in capitalist production, and permitted private enterprise to flourish – with dire social consequences. I want to see the end of both laissez faire and state capitalism, as well as everything in between. Your insistence on describing countries like China or Cuba as ‘communist’ ironically only serves the interests of these regimes who persist in trying to foist this myth that they are just that in order to bolster their legitimacy. You are complicit in this because you accept their version, the official line, as the only basis for dialogue.(Take note, Javadewd)

  As for the socialist case being ‘debunked, pray tell me, by whom?  If your post is anything to go by, I suspect we’re talking about aunt sallies being debunked, and not the socialist case, which you’ve obviously not bothered to understand

   

   

• ALIENated said on Sep 15, 2009....

  Oh my god. sheltercrow has divided and spawned andycox. Goodbye curmudgeon. It has been fun.

• andycox said on Sep 15, 2009....

  Actually, where is the ol' eminence grise of our resident loony platoo?. Come back, mate! All your familiars are flapping away to other gloomy turrets. Life will not be the same.

• javadewd said on Sep 15, 2009....

  It's bad enough andy's cock had to cut and paste an article into a comment, but he did so from a fucking blog that has no credibility other than for those who love commie pinko faggots. I second that something has definitely divided to spawn such a pest. Darn. I was actually hoping to hear about -- find out more about -- these "Free Staters." Oh, well... It would have been much more interesting than listening to communist garbage.
  

• andycox said on Sep 15, 2009....

  Dear, oh dear, Jiffydew, cocks and faggots? Here's a link just for you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqdAlsSPiUQ. You're obviously incapable of cobbling together a coherent argument. So you resort to frothy, redneck diatribe. Sad really

   

• javadewd said on Sep 15, 2009....

  I don't negotiate with communists.

• andycox said on Sep 15, 2009....

  Yawn. Goodness gracious, is that the time? Better get my beauty sleep!

• javadewd said on Sep 15, 2009....

  Read more commie drivel... Puts me to sleep just thinking about it.

• stopmediabias said on Sep 20, 2009....

  Lets begin:

  "Stopmediabias, hi pal (will that do?). You just don’t get it, do you? What you state simply bears out the fact that you’ve NOT acquainted yourself with the arguments before ‘pouring scorn’. You’ve missed the point completely. What you refer to as a ‘communist’ or ‘socialist’ states are anything but. They are simply ‘state capitalist’ countries, where the state has assumed a predominant role in the production of commodities (goods and services produced to be sold for the purpose of realising a profit). As such, state capitalism is simply a variant of capitalism in the generic sense. Wages, money, capital and profit all exist in state capitalist countries, which in itself disqualifies them from being described as ‘communist’ or ‘socialist’"

  First of all lets speak in real world terms.  Everyone knows there are no pure democracies and no pure socialist states there are only variations.  What I refer to communist and or socialist disasters are groups like the Stalinists, Nazis, Cubans, Chinese, they are not state capitalist countries and the government has total control not a predominant role.  Wages, money, capital, and profit exist but are controled by the people in a capitalism versus the alternative which is government control. 

  "Moreover, in the classic model of a state capitalist society, you get a privileged and elitist nomenklatura that lords it over the indigenous working class, absorbing the ‘surplus value’ (in the Marxist sense) produced by the latter; their power usually underpinned by an oppressive one-party state, notwithstanding a lack of actual legal title to the ‘means of production’. The opulent seaside villas belonging to the elites of the Soviet Union and present day China bear witness to the class-ridden nature of these societies. When you say that such societies have failed or are failing, what you mean is that they are moving inexorably towards a laissez faire or ‘Western’ model of capitalism. Well, I couldn’t agree more:"

  This is complete nonsense.  What your dancing around with all of this unnecassary rhetoric is your comparison of elites in China and the Soviet Union to the elites in this country.  Can poor people in China work very very hard and become wealthy?  NO.  Here in America anyone can if they apply themselves and work really hard.  Chinese/Soviet elites don't lord it over they subjugate.

    "This is undoubtedly happening, and was predicted by ‘convergence theorists’ forty or so years ago." 

  Well that is kind of funny if it was predicted 40 years ago.  Especially if you compare capitalist living versus communist/socialist living today.  Ask someone in Cuba if they could live anywhere where would they go? 

   "So you see, Stopmediabias (why don’t you use you name, by the way?), if the corollary to your assertion that ‘communism’ has failed in China, is that ‘capitalism’ has succeeded; you need to ask yourself, succeeded for whom? But the truth of the matter is , as I’ve hope you can see now is that what has happened in China and other erstwhile state capitalist regimes is that the state has merely limited its involvement in capitalist production, and permitted private enterprise to flourish – with dire social consequences"

  See this is why I think you are full of it.  You can't believe this shit.  You are trying to make an argument against letting private enterprise flourish based on China.  Are you really serious?

  If you are where you are seriously lacking in your comparison of countries is an economic and governmental system work hand and hand.  A capitalist system will not work under a communist,socialist, nazist, marxist, facist, government.  Our system works so well because we have a government elected by the people.  Trying to trickle bits of capitalism into the regimes above is a recipe for disaster. 

  There are countelss stories of people who have worked endless hours and saved and started their own business that eventually made them wealthy.  This is because our government encourages and doesn't stunt growth with grossly high taxes and strangling regulation.  This is why everyone wants to live here.   

• andycox said on Sep 20, 2009....

  Let’s begin:

  ‘’First of all lets speak in real world terms.  Everyone knows there are no pure democracies and no pure socialist states there are only variations.  What I refer to communist and or socialist disasters are groups like the Stalinists, Nazis, Cubans, Chinese, they are not state capitalist countries and the government has total control not a predominant role.  Wages, money, capital, and profit exist but are controled by the people in a capitalism versus the alternative which is government control.’’

  There are no pure democracies, I’ll grant you that. But there are no such things as ‘socialist states’ – variations or otherwise - in the sense I’m using the word ‘socialist’; viz , characterising a society in which wages, money, capital, and profit do not exist, where the means of production are held in common, and where there is free access to goods and services. I have no gripe with your description of Stalinism and Nazism as disasters, but I utterly refuse to characterise these as ‘socialist’ disasters. There’s obviously no point in me trying to persuade you to use the words ‘socialist’ or ‘communist’ in the way in which I use the words (which from a historical perspective is the CORRECT one (The cynical usurping of these terms by the Bolsheviks was intended to garner world-wide support for the essentially state capitalist – it could NOT have been otherwise, given the backwardness of Russia at the time- revolution of 1917. Prior to this, the words were more or less used in the way I’m using them). But at least acknowledge that we are talking at cross purposes here: What you choose to call ‘socialist’ or ‘communist’, I do not. In fact, you implicitly acknowledge the correctness/appropriateness of the description ‘state capitalism’ when you say ‘‘Wages, money, capital, and profit exist but are controled by the people in a capitalism versus the alternative which is government control.’’ For ‘government control’, read ‘state control’, and, voila, there you have it ‘State control’ of capital=’State Capitalism’. See? It’s no big deal!

  ‘‘This is complete nonsense.  What your dancing around with all of this unnecessary(sic) rhetoric is your comparison of elites in China and the Soviet Union to the elites in this country.  Can poor people in China work very very hard and become wealthy?  NO.  Here in America anyone can if they apply themselves and work really hard.  Chinese/Soviet elites don't lord it over they subjugate. ‘‘

  Stopmediabias, I don’t want to sound condescending, but I don’t think you’ve really grasped what I was saying: I was outlining the nature of state capitalist regimes, such as Soviet Russia and China, which have been ruled by privileged elites (they have been called the ‘nomenklatura, by many commentators), and classically their privileged position (privileged in many senses, but fundamentally in the disproportionate wealth flowing in their direction) has been bolstered by a oppressive one-party state. I was making the point that these societies can justifiably be called ‘class societies’, with the ‘working class’ being exploited by this elite class. You say this is complete nonsense. How so? Which bit of my analysis is nonsense, and why is comparing elites in these countries with those in your own ‘rhetoric’? (In fact, I’m not aware that I was explicitly making such a comparison). You can go on to make some rather unsubstantiated claims about ‘social mobility’ in China and America. Well, where exactly did I say anything about Chinese or American social mobility?  Go on, tell me. I think you’ll find you’re putting words into mouth. And as before, you end up declaring the very point I was making, as if to rebuff me: You say ‘‘Chinese/Soviet elites don't lord it over they subjugate. ‘‘. Duh!  This is precisely what I said – ‘‘their power usually underpinned by an oppressive one-party state‘‘. When you engage in argument, Stopmediabias, it really pays to LISTEN to what the other person actually says. Otherwise, you’ll find yourself tripping up over little contradictions and misunderstandings like this .

  You then attack my reference to ‘convergence theory’, saying:

  ‘‘Well that is kind of funny if it was predicted 40 years ago.  Especially if you compare capitalist living versus communist/socialist living today.  Ask someone in Cuba if they could live anywhere where would they go? ‘‘ 

  Here again, Stopmediabias, the point I was making has nothing whatsoever to do with the merits of living in Cuba, as against living in the USA. It may well be the case that most Cubans harbour a desire to flee to Florida. I don’t know, and frankly I don’t care. Both Cuba and the USA are capitalist countries, and all that I intended by referencing ‘convergence theory was to make the point that  SO-CALLED socialist countries and AVOWEDLY capitalist countries would appear to be getting more and more similar every year. You really are a master of the non sequitur, Stopmediabias, and if you don’t know what that means I suggest you look it up.

  Finally, you arrive at an even more absurd claim:

   ‘‘You are trying to make an argument against letting private enterprise flourish based on China.  Are you really serious? ‘‘

  No sir, are you serious? Just how do you arrive at the conclusion that I’m against letting private enterprise flourish in China? You really have not understood me at all:  Let me spell it out for you: It is a matter of COMPLETE INDIFFERENCE to me whether China moves from state capitalism to private laissez faire capitalism. All that interest me is the prospect that sufficient workers in that country will reject both models of capitalism, and join forces with fellow workers from all over the world to throw off the shackles of capitalism that weigh all of us down. The purpose behind my lengthy quote from ‘The Realities of China Today’ was simply to illustrate to people like you who enthusiastically espouse the introduction of ‘private capitalism’ in China and other state capitalist regimes, is that such a development  will entail dire consequences for ‘ordinary folk’, as you right wing Americans are so fond of saying. I was quoting facts, you’re the one that lives in fairyland if you think that hard work and dedication on its own will assure you wealth and prosperity.

   

   

   

• curmudgeon said on Sep 20, 2009....

  Andy - prove your silly model can work before you go around trying to make us change our ways.
  
  If any good or service can be held in common, there is no incentive for anyone to spend time and effort developing that good or providing that service. Why would someone spend time developing expertise in radiology if any old guy can come along and operate an x-ray machine without any training?
  
  Just how is it that syringes should be held in common? Sounds like a recipe for an epidemic. How shall syringes be disposed of if every clod of dirt is public property? Who shall mine the iron ore to make syringes if just anybody can take the fruits of the miner's labor?
  
  Your model makes no sense whatsoever.
  

• stopmediabias said on Sep 21, 2009....

  "I have no gripe with your description of Stalinism and Nazism as disasters, but I utterly refuse to characterise these as ‘socialist’ disasters."

  Disaster is probably a strong word when you look at certain countries that have far less of a population.  First my definition of socialism is basically the government takes money in taxes and uses it to provide things for the people who pay the taxes and other people who don't pay taxes. 

  We have technically a partial socialism in America because our schools infrastructure, police etc..are handled by the government, funded by taxes.  We have the attitude that socialisms are not good for society because:

  1-Our schools have gotten to the point they are pathetic when it comes to waste, underperfomance, conditions for students, parental control and choice.  We see this as showing how even a partial socialism just doesn't work to its full potential.

  2-Socialist systems in other countries like the UK and Canada healthcare systems grossly underperform and the people pay ridiculous tax rates.

  3-Socialist thinking puts everyone into a collective group and doesn't factor in individual strengths and weakness which creates an unfair advantage and a means to take advantage for depraved and corrupt people.

  Here is what you said:

  "The opulent seaside villas belonging to the elites of the Soviet Union and present day China bear witness to the class-ridden nature of these societies. When you say that such societies have failed or are failing, what you mean is that they are moving inexorably towards a laissez faire or ‘Western’ model of capitalism. Well, I couldn’t agree more"

  What I think is nonsense is your comparison of the Soviets and China with the western model of capitalism and my pointing to social mobility is an example as to why it is a dubious comparison. 

  "Both Cuba and the USA are capitalist countries, and all that I intended by referencing ‘convergence theory was to make the point that  SO-CALLED socialist countries and AVOWEDLY capitalist countries would appear to be getting more and more similar every year."

  How in God's name could you think Cuba is a capitalist country? 

  First I have to go back to this:

  "I do not. In fact, you implicitly acknowledge the correctness/appropriateness of the description ‘state capitalism’ when you say ‘‘Wages, money, capital, and profit exist but are controled by the people in a capitalism versus the alternative which is government control.’’ For ‘government control’, read ‘state control’, and, voila, there you have it ‘State control’ of capital=’State Capitalism’. See? It’s no big deal!"

  Do YOU even know what you are talking about here?  Government control into state control into state capitalism...... what the fuck are talking about?  Government control of wages, money, capital is not state capitalism it is socialism, look it up and stop waisting my time and get to the point.

  "All that interest me is the prospect that sufficient workers in that country will reject both models of capitalism, and join forces with fellow workers from all over the world to throw off the shackles of capitalism that weigh all of us down. "

  This is such an absurd comment that is shows what little you know about this subject.  Shackles of capitalism?  Are these the same shackles that help beat back and destroyed the greatest threat to all of mankind during WW2?  The shackles that have created the single greatest source of good and prosperity and social mobility that the world has ever seen, in the shortest amount of time?  Sorry I don't buy it. 

  "I was quoting facts, you’re the one that lives in fairyland if you think that hard work and dedication on its own will assure you wealth and prosperity."

  I have friends who are self-made millionares who would laugh out loud at that comment.  You are bitter because you don't have what it takes to change your social mobility so it is pay-back time for what you call greedy people.  It is kind of sad really that you espouse these nonsensical socialist rantings as an excuse for your bitterness.

   

   

   

• sheltercrow said on Sep 21, 2009....

  stopmediabias: What drivel:
  
  The Stalin and Nazi regimes were 'communist and or socialist disasters' only in the sense that both were reactions to socialism and communism. Among other things Stalin completed the destruction of the Bolsheviks and Hitler completed the destruction of the German socialists.
  
  The rest of your comment is little more than the propaganda that can be found in any trade magazine. Shame on you for trying to pass off this garbage again.

• andycox said on Sep 22, 2009....

  Curmudgeon, hi there!

  First of all, let me correct you on one point: If you carefully retrace what I’ve written, you’ll see that I spoke of the means of production (factories, farms, laboratories etc) being held in common, not goods and services. The latter, however, would be – generally-speaking – freely obtainable without having to exchange something for them; be it money or other goods and services (as happens in the case of barter). Of course, I’m not advocating that syringes are ‘held in common’ in the sense you are suggesting. That’s just silly, as is your question about how they might be disposed of if they were ‘public property’. Syringes don’t constitute a ‘means of production’: They would be used much as they are used today by people competent to use them, and safely disposed of after single use (except where re-use was a possibility).

  That you should describe my model as ‘silly’ and as making ‘no sense whatsoever’, only tells me that you’ve not really grasped what it is all about – an impression that is further reinforced by your above-mentioned confusion regarding the use of syringes in communist society. I will qualify this slightly, Curmudgeon, because at least you, amongst all of your right wing fellow travellers, have bothered to have a look at my blog, ‘A Point of View’.

  To make sense of the notions of ‘ownership’, ‘possession’ and ‘property’ implicit in this debate, I think one needs to comprehend the basic principles on which communist society – true communism, not the ‘state capitalist'  monstrosities cynically masquerading as ‘communist’ – would operate. They are these:

  1. It would function as a world-wide system (yes, I know, whilst being established, it wouldn’t stretch to all corners of the world. But the dynamic unleashed once a significant number of people/countries embraced it would result in it eventually becoming a world system)
  2. It would be premised upon ‘abundance’, upon the world being able to more than adequately provide for everyone’s needs. Technically speaking, this possibility has existed for several decades. What gets in the way of abundance being realised is capitalism. How else can you explain the agricultural policy of ‘set aside’ when world hunger exists? How else can you explain homelessness when the USA has enough empty houses to house the entire population of the UK (approximately 60 million)?
  3. It would be entirely democratic at all levels; from the local level to the level of the world as a whole, decisions would be made on the basis of the will of the majority. The minutiae of the arrangements whereby this will was expressed might differ from one area to another, but the principle would obtain universally. How the various ‘tiers’ might interrelate is something that could be thrashed out at a universal level.  It also has to be said that it needs to be brought about democratically, not imposed by some vanguard as Lenin suggested, because this would give it legitimacy and the process of actually establishing it would help to create a radical change in peoples’ world view: For example, it is reasonable to suppose that the understandable cynicism informing perceptions of ‘human nature’ will disappear. You’ll need to see my blog, or visit http://andycox1953.webs.com/  to get the gist of this closely argued point
  4. Property would not exist, no-one would have ‘legal title’ to property, be that land or buildings factory. This does NOT mean, say, that anyone could just – without invitation - move into the house you’d be living in. Of course not! There would have to be ‘laws’, if you like, pertaining to rights to personal usage, and democratically sanctioned methods of resolving disputes and differences. However, given that we are talking here of a society in which there is abundance, it is hard to envisage why such differences might occur in the first place.
  5. Goods and services would generally-speaking be freely available. Obviously, this needs to be qualified to an extent. For example, you could have a nine year old wandering into a car depot demanding access to a flashy sports car. No, there would have to be democratically-sanctioned criteria attaching to who might be eligible to access certain sorts of products, from syringes – to quote your example, Curmudgeon – to potentially hazardous equipment. That’s just common sense. Also, shortages in certain items would inevitably occur from time to time, but these could be managed and corrected in a coherent logical fashion, without the encumbrance of the cash nexus.
  6. Communism would also be an essentially non-coercive form of society. Those who fear the prospect of a tyranny of the majority scenario arising should bear this in mind.  Since people could freely access goods and services, there would be no compulsion to work. Moreover, people’s ‘liberty’ (that holy grail of neo-cons in the US) would be far greater, with limitations/restrictions applying only insofar as demonstrable harm to others occurred – an obvious example here would be paedophilia). When looking at this particular issue, however, it is important to bear in mind that peoples’ take on the world would inevitably differ from the generally cynical, harsh, superstitious, angry attitudes current today. The latter have their origins in the grim reality that is contemporary reality, replete as it is with wars, recessions, cut-throat competition between people/companies/countries, industrial strife, and the looming threat of an ecological catastrophe (which, frighteningly, capitalism CANNOT address because it is driven by the profit motive, and therefore has to carry on raping the planet regardless), amongst other things

  These, and a few others I’ve not touched on, are the broad parameters describing communism (or socialism). Many people find these difficult to comprehend because they make the elementary mistake of projecting many of our present–day attitudes and assumptions into this project for a future society. They’ll say things like ‘It will never work, because people are essentially selfish’, or ‘people are wicked, or ‘people will not bother to work’, and so on. Believe me; I’ve heard it all before. But it these misgivings I address and, I believe, effectively rebut in my blog. I’d love to be able to reproduce the arguments here, but that would run into 10 or more pages. So I can only suggest that you revisit my blog- or http://andycox1953.webs.com/  And I would urge you to do so with an open mind. Because only then will you get the point, and only then can we have a fruitful debate, rather than the mudslinging that passes for discourse in Soulcast.

• curmudgeon said on Sep 22, 2009....

  Seems to me that the age old question is how to balance self-interest with the good of the community. Any system that does not hold these two in tension will not hold water.
  
  You have mapped out some process by which disputes are resolve by a third party. Of course, the two opponents will attempt to curry favor with whoever is in authority in order to secure an outcome in their favor.
  
  Here is an example - land exists by a large stream. One group wants to farm it, another wants to build a nuclear reactor. Which party gets their way pretty much boils down to whomever can persuade the democratically-chosen arbitrator.
  
  Here is another: Fisherpeople net produce from the southern delta of a large river. 100 miles to the north, a nuclear power plant uses the river water to cool its rods. Resulting water temperature increases creates algae blooms that kill off the fish. the nuclear power plant offers thousands of people the "uncoerced" opportunity to work productively, and supplies millions of people with abundant power. What right do the fisherpeople have to control what goes on 100 miles away,and impacts millions of people, even if harm does come to their way of life?
  
  You might argue that I am presenting a false sense of scarcity by limiting available land to one stream or river, but geography plainly dictates that there will be more of certain resources in certain areas, and less in others.
  
  Competition and cooperation each serve their purposes in allocating resources. By emphasizing communal interest over self-interest, I am afraid you model calls for a fundamental change in human nature - which is why communism practiced around the world has invariably failed.
  

• andycox said on Sep 22, 2009....

  Stopmediabias, I think we’re getting into a fruitless debate over definitions here: You choose to call state involvement in economic activity ‘socialism’, I call it ‘state capitalism’ and define ‘socialism/communism’ as something else; viz a world-wide society in which the means of production are held in common, and there is free access to goods and services. The outcome of this is that we continue to argue at cross purposes, and get nowhere. You keep citing the examples of how iniquitous or inadequate countries like China and  Cuba are, and I keep reminding you that these are ‘state capitalist’ and I don’t have any quibble over some of what you say about these countries (although I do take issue with your rose-tinted views on the introduction of laissez faire style capitalism into China). This is essentially a sterile exercise. To move on, we both need to recognise that we’re using the terms ‘socialism’ and ‘communism’ in completely different ways. Now I can’t compel you to accept my definitions, but then neither can you compel me to accept yours. But at least let us RECOGNISE that we are discussing two completely different things when we engage in this discussion. Otherwise, we’ll make no progress at all in understanding each other’s points of view

   

  Thus points 1 – 3 in your post have no relevance whatsoever to the case I’m making. With regard to your comments regarding healthcare in the UK, it might interest you that a recent WHO study placed the UK as 18th and the USA as 37th in terms of ‘health system performance’ out of 191 countries. Here’s the link for you to follow up: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=554041 It should also be noted that 45 million Americans under 65 lack insurance cover; a frightening statistic if ever there was one. If you’d care to peruse my blog, I do discuss the issue of issue. In many respects, even Cuba has a superior healthcare system, as Michael Moore amply demonstrated in ‘Sicko’. Now there’s one brave admirable American – I have a lot of time for the guy.

   

  I should like to say that under socialism/communism – in the sense that I use these terms – individuality would actuality be promoted to a far greater extent than occurs in capitalism, be it state or private. You’ll need to see my blog to appreciate the detailed arguments in support of this. Suffice to say that it is capitalism that stifles real individuality, stultifies possibility, closes doors to the vast majority because they don’t have the wherewithal for the better things in life, pollutes our consciousness with incessant MacCrap – buy this, buy that, blah, blah, blah, endeavours to turn kids into industrial fodder suited to the ‘needs of industry – I’m sure you get the picture

   

  With regard to your comments on convergence theory, I really don’t understand what you’re carping on about: All I was suggesting is that there appears to be a lot of evidence that countries calling themselves ‘socialist/communist have over the post war years become more and more like the conventional  Western capitalist countries. Do you dispute this? Compare Mao Tse Tung’s China with the business-minded, billionaire’s paradise that is contemporary China. Your comments regarding social mobility are inane. In the first place, you grossly overestimate the social mobility in the USA. Check out:  http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/04/b1579981.html . A key finding in this report is that:

   

  ‘By international standards, the United States has an unusually low level of intergenerational mobility: our parents’ income is highly predictive of our incomes as adults. Intergenerational mobility in the United States is lower than in France, Germany, Sweden, Canada, Finland, Norway and Denmark. Among high-income countries for which comparable estimates are available, only the United Kingdom had a lower rate of mobility than the United States’

   

  As to the lack of social mobility in state capitalist countries, you conversely overstate this. Occupational mobility is now common in China, for example, and even in Mao’s time, the Party afforded any aspiring bourgeois a greasy pole to clamber up   

   

  Incidentally, Stopmediabias, I’m not ‘bitter’ or ‘envious’ or malicious’ towards anyone. What makes you say that? You don’t know me from Adam. What I feel is anger at this depraved SYSTEM, angry that you, me and everyone has to put up with the stress, the ugliness, the dangers, the deprivation visited upon us by this outmoded, outdated, inefficient, harmful, anarchic system. l just wish that you and others like you, could just once in a while  tone down the invective and seriously look at what is actually happening to our world. For example, along with most sane people, the thought of global warming scares the shit out of me. I dread the thought of what sort of world we will bequeath to our children. It’s the thought that capitalism; because it is driven by the PROFIT MOTIVE; will not be able to stop its relentless pillaging of the planet, and because each capitalist enterprise, whether we talking about China plc or Coca-Cola or your friendly local corner shop, will always endeavour to MINIMISE COSTS, and thus disown full responsibility for putting right the damage we inflict on the nature, because to do so would disadvantage it vis-à-vis competitors

   

  One last thing, Stopmediabias:

  Capital refers to money or goods used to generate income, i.e. profit, through investing in an enterprise. State or ‘publicly owned’ (sic) enterprises, wherever they are – China, Cuba, the USA, are fed by capital from state coffers. Let us call this ‘state capital’ No less than private enterprises, these enterprises need to realise a profit. Or they’ll become a millstone. The process of ensuring the profitability of a state enterprise is not qualitatively different from that found in private enterprises: Costs (including labour costs) need to be minimised, markets expanded, the organisation may need to be re-structured, and so on and so forth. Is this what happens in Cuba? Of course! There may be a little latitude insofar as the Cuban state may opt to stump up additional capital (at the expense of other expenditure options. But at the end of the day, the books have to balance, or the country as a whole will go into the red through having to borrow money abroad to make good deficits in the supply of capital at home.  It is essentially the fact that the state itself is involved in capitalising enterprises that warrants calling the system ‘state capitalism’.. And that is why I call Cuba a state capitalist regime

   

• andycox said on Sep 22, 2009....

  Stopmediabias, I think we’re getting into a fruitless debate over definitions here: You choose to call state involvement in economic activity ‘socialism’, I call it ‘state capitalism’ and define ‘socialism/communism’ as something else; viz a world-wide society in which the means of production are held in common, and there is free access to goods and services. The outcome of this is that we continue to argue at cross purposes, and get nowhere. You keep citing the examples of how iniquitous or inadequate countries like China and  Cuba are, and I keep reminding you that these are ‘state capitalist’ and I don’t have any quibble over some of what you say about these countries (although I do take issue with your rose-tinted views on the introduction of laissez faire style capitalism into China). This is essentially a sterile exercise. To move on, we both need to recognise that we’re using the terms ‘socialism’ and ‘communism’ in completely different ways. Now I can’t compel you to accept my definitions, but then neither can you compel me to accept yours. But at least let us RECOGNISE that we are discussing two completely different things when we engage in this discussion. Otherwise, we’ll make no progress at all in understanding each other’s points of view

   

  Thus points 1 – 3 in your post have no relevance whatsoever to the case I’m making. With regard to your comments regarding healthcare in the UK, it might interest you that a recent WHO study placed the UK as 18th and the USA as 37th in terms of ‘health system performance’ out of 191 countries. Here’s the link for you to follow up: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=554041 It should also be noted that 45 million Americans under 65 lack insurance cover; a frightening statistic if ever there was one. If you’d care to peruse my blog, I do discuss the issue of issue. In many respects, even Cuba has a superior healthcare system, as Michael Moore amply demonstrated in ‘Sicko’. Now there’s one brave admirable American – I have a lot of time for the guy.

   

  I should like to say that under socialism/communism – in the sense that I use these terms – individuality would actuality be promoted to a far greater extent than occurs in capitalism, be it state or private. You’ll need to see my blog to appreciate the detailed arguments in support of this. Suffice to say that it is capitalism that stifles real individuality, stultifies possibility, closes doors to the vast majority because they don’t have the wherewithal for the better things in life, pollutes our consciousness with incessant MacCrap – buy this, buy that, blah, blah, blah, endeavours to turn kids into industrial fodder suited to the ‘needs of industry – I’m sure you get the picture

   

  With regard to your comments on convergence theory, I really don’t understand what you’re carping on about: All I was suggesting is that there appears to be a lot of evidence that countries calling themselves ‘socialist/communist have over the post war years become more and more like the conventional  Western capitalist countries. Do you dispute this? Compare Mao Tse Tung’s China with the business-minded, billionaire’s paradise that is contemporary China. Your comments regarding social mobility are inane. In the first place, you grossly overestimate the social mobility in the USA. Check out:  http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/04/b1579981.html . A key finding in this report is that:

   

  ‘By international standards, the United States has an unusually low level of intergenerational mobility: our parents’ income is highly predictive of our incomes as adults. Intergenerational mobility in the United States is lower than in France, Germany, Sweden, Canada, Finland, Norway and Denmark. Among high-income countries for which comparable estimates are available, only the United Kingdom had a lower rate of mobility than the United States’

   

  As to the lack of social mobility in state capitalist countries, you conversely overstate this. Occupational mobility is now common in China, for example, and even in Mao’s time, the Party afforded any aspiring bourgeois a greasy pole to clamber up   

   

  Incidentally, Stopmediabias, I’m not ‘bitter’ or ‘envious’ or malicious’ towards anyone. What makes you say that? You don’t know me from Adam. What I feel is anger at this depraved SYSTEM, angry that you, me and everyone has to put up with the stress, the ugliness, the dangers, the deprivation visited upon us by this outmoded, outdated, inefficient, harmful, anarchic system. l just wish that you and others like you, could just once in a while  tone down the invective and seriously look at what is actually happening to our world. For example, along with most sane people, the thought of global warming scares the shit out of me. I dread the thought of what sort of world we will bequeath to our children. It’s the thought that capitalism; because it is driven by the PROFIT MOTIVE; will not be able to stop its relentless pillaging of the planet, and because each capitalist enterprise, whether we talking about China plc or Coca-Cola or your friendly local corner shop, will always endeavour to MINIMISE COSTS, and thus disown full responsibility for putting right the damage we inflict on the nature, because to do so would disadvantage it vis-à-vis competitors

   

  One last thing, Stopmediabias:

  Capital refers to money or goods used to generate income, i.e. profit, through investing in an enterprise. State or ‘publicly owned’ (sic) enterprises, wherever they are – China, Cuba, the USA, are fed by capital from state coffers. Let us call this ‘state capital’ No less than private enterprises, these enterprises need to realise a profit. Or they’ll become a millstone. The process of ensuring the profitability of a state enterprise is not qualitatively different from that found in private enterprises: Costs (including labour costs) need to be minimised, markets expanded, the organisation may need to be re-structured, and so on and so forth. Is this what happens in Cuba? Of course! There may be a little latitude insofar as the Cuban state may opt to stump up additional capital (at the expense of other expenditure options. But at the end of the day, the books have to balance, or the country as a whole will go into the red through having to borrow money abroad to make good deficits in the supply of capital at home.  It is essentially the fact that the state itself is involved in capitalising enterprises that warrants calling the system ‘state capitalism’.. And that is why I call Cuba a state capitalist regime

   

• andycox said on Sep 22, 2009....

  Curmudgeon, Stopmediabias, Javadewd, ALIENated, Sheltercrow, Porcelain et al:

  Guys, because we appear to have deviated from the title of the thread, and because the scrolling entailed is getting a little tiresome, I propose we upsticks and resume our good natured banter at the link below.What say you?

  What is Socialism/Communism, and is it a good idea?

• andycox said on Sep 22, 2009....

  Re The above suggestion, I think you have to click tho my name, and that will take you to my blogs, and in particular

  :What is Socialism/Communism, and is it a good idea?

• javadewd said on Sep 22, 2009....

  I'll pass. You kids have fun now, ya hear?

• sheltercrow said on Sep 22, 2009....

  ...and in particular, this should work better What is Socialism/Communism, and is it a good idea?

• andycox said on Sep 22, 2009....

  Thanks Shelter, you're right, it does. Sorry to hear you won't  join us, Javadewd. I actually quite enjoy our little lemon-chewing sessions (well, some of the time). But if you change your mind....

• stopmediabias said on Sep 22, 2009....

  Andycox-I am not going to go line by line like I would like because I plan on visiting your blog in order to help you see the light.

  I will say when you site Michael Moore as a source that will cause great laughter and your credibility taking a nose-dive.  He is a despicable propagandist who rips apart the very freedom and capitalism that had made him very rich.

  Shelter-You bore me. 

Comment on "Dear Leader Obama to Address our Nations Students"

Currently tagged	education Obama politics President Obama madness politics healthcare capitalism Marxism america (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment