There are only a few moments when the phenomenal world of the American blogosphere and our own tiny space coincide sufficiently to get people to glimpse at the way things are likely to go with us in a fast arriving future. This morning I have an op ed in the Irish Times, on what the Obama campaign might have to inform Ireland about its own tight insider and highly whipped game of politics.
Having somehow managed to avoid watching a single episode of the widely praised West Wing TV series I was delighted to discover the entire Box set in my Christmas stocking – and with enough spare time over the holidays to give it a good lash. But with 10 episodes of the first series under my [...] read our review »
Are you confused about ‘dissident’ Irish Republicanism? Anxious about its existence and its seemingly increasingly deadly capabilities? Martyn Frampton’s new book, Legion of the Rearguard: Dissident Irish Republicanism (Irish Academic Press, 2011) serves both as a primer on active dissident groups and a timely analysis of their historic significance and contemporary capabilities. This book clears [...] read our review »
I got a bit of stick for mentioning Slugger in the CIF piece, but it’s not even mentioned in the IT OpEd. It looks like you are peddling hard to get right off the point.
I’m not the only one making the case for greater utility. Dan in the Sunday Times: http://tinyurl.com/5kqmqw
Good item on Irish Election too (with interesting quotes from Micheal Martin and video from Zac Exley, which starts 22 minutes in):
http://tinyurl.com/5kqmqw
No problem with what you suggest. We did have a team of volunteer mods a few years back, but it got messy and fell apart in the end. People were never sure if they were the only ones working.
I do think that the ‘messers’ put people off should be penalised more consistently for ‘messing’. But I’ve never been able to crack it.
Billy,
Here’s a real piece of promotion of Slugger: check out Bob Piper’s comments: http://tinyurl.com/6kmhcm
And Shane has good advice for mainstream journalists engaging with commenters (engage with quality, not the trolls): http://tinyurl.com/5xw7l4
HF
You didn’t just predict McCain, you were being a complete ear-ache about everything Sarah Palin, and while trumpeting the McCain-Palin “lock” on the election your bluster was in full Flashy flow, to wit:
but then again what do I know, I’m just a thick, illiterate, brain damaged, “Aussie”, Fox watching, bollocks spouting know-nothing aren’t I?
We’ll see in the morning of November 5th, won’t we?
But I guess even when you’re dead wrong you’re still dead right, eh Harry?
God help Slugger if McCain *would* have squeeked it; the crowing from your end would have shut down the server.
As it is, as shamelessly as you continue to share your advanced political theories with us all, at least we can take comfort that google knows where to find you. Fox-watching bollocks spouting know-nothing gets it for me every time.
Spanish old boy it may have escaped your notice but this is a political website where people express political opinions, I predicted, wrongly, that Obama would lose, fair enough Obama won by a small margin so I was wrong.
Get over yourself mate, it’s called political debate, sometimes you call it right sometimes you don’t, wind your pompous neck in chum, ease off on the spittle flecked hysteria otherwise you’ll just making a bit of an arse of yourself.
Children, children… You’ll both have Billy JOe chiding me and calling for your heads if this goes any further…
Sorry Mick but just have a look at who started the personal abuse, you’ll find (as usual) it was not me.
Peace out
“because in a free market the quality will quickly assert itself over the trash.”
hahaha.
Dave,
Cheers again for the compliments and kind words and yes the second post was a bit rushed but I was busy at the time of writing, happily sponging off some millionaires toil, so apologies. I still haven’t seen any evidence of where and how your much more enlightened theories (as opposed to my rants) have been successful in any economy anywhere. But please feel free to elucidate any time.
Well, Latch, you’re welcome to my kind words, and you’re also welcome to explain to me why demand-side economies failed to stimulate the growth and merriment that you think it capable of when the Federal Reserve flooded the consumer with cheap credit for most of this decade. I think the end result of that entire demand-side consumer spending con was massive debt, bankruptcy, job losses and even a recession, and not the predicted economic boom. But maybe I’m dreaming and demand-side economics and big government actually worked and much merriment abounds.
Contrary to popular misconception, the Laffer curve doesn’t mean that cutting tax will counter-intuitively increase tax revenue. It only works if under within specific parameters. So, cutting income taxes sans discrimination and citing supply-side economics as the rationale is misguided. The top rate of income tax in the US reached 91% at its peak. The trick is not to kill the golden geese while you steal as much of those gold eggs as possible as you change the curve.
America was a fine example of the free market system before big government. Politicians love big government because it increases their power, influence, importance, prestige, etc. They do this for their gain as a ruling class, not your gain. If you want conmen, chancers and hacks to have ever more control over your life, sobeit. Your freedom vanishes along with your prosperity.
Comrade Stalin, rather than waste my time typing to someone whose politics was decided once and for all time by reading Marx, I’ll post a link to a post of mine from yesterday.
Dave,
Your contribution on the other thread (a link to a highly partisan op-ed piece in the WSJ) does not address the apparent fact that your daft definition of “socialism” incorporates Adam Smith and Margaret Thatcher. I’d like us to get over what you mean by “socialism”, because I see little point in arguing with someone who arbitrarily redefines the dictionary to suit himself.
The only comment I’ll add is that it is possible for non-socialists to also want to see all strata of society do well and that the actual point of difference is the economics of attaining a shared agenda.
Well, would you do us a favour and define that point of difference ? Because your definition up until now has been sufficiently vague to classify several champions of capitalism as “socialists”.
It is, however, a fact that the bottom 40% of American workers pay no income tax at all and that the bottom 60% pay only 0.6% of the tax take.
I’m not disputing this (yet), but I’d like to see where those numbers are derived from. If I can’t trust you when you use words like “socialist”, I’m not sure that I can trust your numbers.
In effect, the top 40% are carrying the bottom 60% who are getting a free ride at their expense.
Federal income tax is not the full story of the federal tax burden on people, though, so talking about a free ride seems excessive.
That is not sustainable, and making big government even bigger as Obama proposes to do will cause a critical failure (as outlined in the above link) as the laws of economics come into play.
We’ll see about that, once we can have a closer look at your sources.
The problem that socialists have is that they despise the class of people whom they depend on to provide the economic prosperity for the classes of people whom they embrace. Biting the hand that feeds you isn’t good practice.
It’s been very good practice in the past. Since we’re in the business of posting partisan articles, how about this one which shows that the stock market always produces better returns for the Democrats ? If the Democrats and their socialism damages the economy and the long term prospects for ordinary people, why isn’t this reflected in stock market returns ?
Again Dave,
The era you’re talking about was the era of Bushenomics so blame the little guy if you want because he was borrowing to survive but the period when the US was at its most prosperous came as a result of socialist programs like the GI bill and extending HS school education which made the middle class bigger and wealthier and thus lifted all ships (according to Comrade Greenspan anyway).
America was a fine example of the freemarket when the middle class were given a fair shake. Still no examples of Trickledownopia to give? Again you ignore the fact that the poorest people don’t pay income taxes because they frickin can’t; because they are now so poor and the rich are so rich, moreso now than at any time in US history in fact. Might this strangling of the wealth not be related to the present economic gloom? That’s why the government gives the poorest money back at tax time, to reimburse them for the other revenue taxes exacted which disporportionately hurt them most like gas, utilities,food,clothing etc.
Flash,
Of course you’ll know that Fix News last night revealed your beloved great white dope didn’t know that Africa was not one country and she couldn’t name the three countries in NAFTA. And you thought her pick was genius why again? You thought handing her the keys to leadership of the Western world would be a sublime choice why again?
Comrade Stalin, are you implying that the figures in the WSJ are inaccurate? If not, why do you feel the need to point out that the WSJ is pro-business? It would be very surprising if it wasn’t. Its figures are accurate, and if you wish to contend otherwise, rather than simply imply it, then you should produce figures that support your contention.
I wonder if you really expect me to take seriously your claims that my understanding of socialism is confused because Adam Smith supported a tax policy that included a fairness doctrine wherein those who can afford to pay more do so for the benefit of those who cannot. I have never claimed that everyone should pay exactly the same amount of tax. It is not sensible for you to attempt to argue that those who favour redistribution of wealth (a socialist policy) are actually advocating laissez-faire doctrines because of Smith’s tax policy or that those who promote affordable housing schemes cannot possibly be socialists because Margaret Thatcher sold council houses at a discount to lower income groups.
As I have pointed out, President Bush – from the party that is depicted as the party of small government – actually increased the size of government by 46% during his two terms. And as I have also pointed out, President Bush – from the party that is depicted as the party of supply-side economics – actually predicated his fiscal and monetary policies on demand-side economics. What do you think the Federal Reserve was doing by using monetary policy to stimulate consumer spending? It was manipulating the economy on the demand-side. Does that mean that Alan Greenspan isn’t an advocate of Milton Friedman and free market economics after all? Would you claim that can’t possibly be an advocate of deregulation because he (was) is a regulator? Would you claim that all governments are Keynesian because all governments engage in public spending? No, so your comments about Adam Smith and Margaret Thatcher are silly, and you are capable of better.
There are very few ideologues where money and power is concerned. Politicians, as a class, are mostly amoral – pathological liars, megalomaniacs, sociopaths and confidence tricksters excel in that dismal profession. These shape shifters will pick-and-choose from whatever dogma is most expedient at the time, so you usually end up with mix of them, inherited and improvised. Socialist systems import free market dynamics from capitalist systems, and vice versa. China is a mix, New Labour and the Tories are virtually identical.
I would see socialism as now lacking a formal definition in its applicable contexts, thereby allowing its dogma to be incorporated by stealth even in countries such as America which were anti-socialist. Much like the manner that the liberal left (another loose group) got much of their preferred legislation passed: not by claiming that such legislation was important (and frightening the conservative horses), but by downplaying its importance as simple ‘fairness’ that no sensible person would object to. It really has to be a qualitative assessment, determined by emphasis on what are regarded as socialist elements.
To me, that emphasis is on big government (again I’m fully aware that the Republicans are now the party of big government and Democrats are to become the party of even bigger government); a belief that free markets (as if there is such a thing in an overregulated environment) is evil and that the public needs to be protected from them by ever-increasing layers of regulation; a belief in the goodness and wisdom of the State and its ruling class; a belief that business people exploit workers rather than help them by providing them with employment; a belief that people are incapable of prospering without the support of the State; a belief that the working class and not the entrepreneurial class create wealth; the creation of an entitlement culture that promotes the concept that people who don’t work or don’t prosper have a right to benefit from those who do, ect – not all that different from the actuality and a good guide to tell a duck from a rabbit by the sound of the quacking.
[b]Continued[/b]
The reason no party advocates traditional socialism is because folks understand that it doesn’t work. Instead, they seek a system that allows the entrepreneurial class to work their magic (as only they can) and for the less talented classes to live off the wealth that is generated by the entrepreneurial class. That’s tacky and self-serving, of course – but that is the core dynamic of the socialist. I think one area where they’ll come unstuck in the US with stealth socialism is in creating a ‘them and us’ class as has been done by creating a new majority class of non-taxpayers and taxpayers (with the non and nominal taxpayers comprising 60% of the voters who contribute a tiny 0.6% of income tax revenue and the other 40% of voters who contribute 99.6% of the income tax take.
Sorry I can’t provide you with a better definition than that in the modern fluid context, but it is the socialists who have deliberately obfuscated it.
Dave
Socialism too obfuscated?
Hmmm, guess that means it should be with us for quite some time then, just like Freedom and Liberty. Oh, and supply-side economics as well – to think we used to reckon that was about reduced government spending…that was before W created the trillion-dollar deficit with his version of them.
Semantics…who needs ‘em, eh?
latcheeco
Great White Dope – nice one. It’s the continuity with GWB that works for me.