public unions versus the public

[Samson Corwell]

Think you can tell me who the guy in the top-left corner is because I still can't figure it out?

P.S. Whoever he is, he's got the ugliest mug of them all.

Samson:

Lavrenty Beria, Soviet secret police chief under Stalin.

See here for the exact image (cover of Time Magazine).

Michael

Basically the Himmler to Stalin's Hitler. On a side note: Damn, Stalin's got a great stache.

[Brant Gaede]

Getting shot after Stalin died was the best thing he ever did.

--Brant

[Francisco Ferrer]

Samson:

Lavrenty Beria, Soviet secret police chief under Stalin.

See here for the exact image (cover of Time Magazine).

Michael

The Wikipedia article gives Beria too much credit for the Soviets' acquisition of the atomic bomb. The secret of the bomb and the materials needed to manufacture it were dropped in the Soviets' lap through America's Lend-Lease program, as overseen by FDR adviser and New Deal architect Henry Hopkins. See here and here.

(The American taxpayer's arming of mass murderers should serve nicely as an example of the "ransom" Moralist "willingly pays" because it is "simply the cost of living in the reality of this world as it is, and not the utopian fantasy of how I think it should be.")

[BaalChatzaf]

Basically the Himmler to Stalin's Hitler. On a side note: Damn, Stalin's got a great stache.

Much better than the Fuhrer. Which is why he won.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Samson Corwell]

Basically the Himmler to Stalin's Hitler. On a side note: Damn, Stalin's got a great stache.

Much better than the Fuhrer. Which is why he won.

Ba'al Chatzaf

"Stalin" = "Man of Steel"

[BaalChatzaf]

Basically the Himmler to Stalin's Hitler. On a side note: Damn, Stalin's got a great stache.

Much better than the Fuhrer. Which is why he won.

Ba'al Chatzaf

"Stalin" = "Man of Steel"

He sent all the Kryptonite to the Gulags.

[moralist]

If your public infrastructure didn't exist you probably wouldn't be living in your rural canyon, but it sounds like a great place to visit. The question is should it exist? Not your cited examples. Your point seems to be it does so take advantage of it.

--Brant

It is. It's where people visit on their vacations, and exists only because people pay the property taxes for it to exist. No one can buy in for under 600k.

[caroljane]

Unions like all institutions have corruption and inefficiency. But they are the only institutions I know of that are bottom-up, based on the rights and the needs of the workers, period full stop.

The rights and needs of the workers are not the "bottom". The bottom is value creation, which is what qualifies action as "work".

If you are digging a hole and filling it back up, that is not work, that is a waste of time and effort.

For those workers to have their needs (which are as relative as our expectations, by the way) met someone needs to be producing. And for that production to be valid people need to voluntarily spend money on it... which makes Capitalism the most democratic system there is.

Not to mention Hostess, or have you forgotten about that already?

[caroljane]

In your view the bottom or foundation is the boss, in mine it is the individual worker, in practice the two usually need each other.

[moralist]

The danger of leftism is not in any tendency towards the feminine. The allegation is a grotesque smear of womanhood.

I just caught up to this thread.

FF - That was very well done. I got a chuckle out of it (followed by a bad feeling from looking at those monsters).

But I don't find "grotesque smear against womanhood" to be accurate. Who in their right mind thinks the point Moralist was making was to humiliate "womanhood"? That he's a bigot against women and that was what he was trying to preach? I mean, come on. Seriously? That's the issue to you?

Moralist is floating, not attacking.

I do agree with you that ideologies do not have gender. And I'll go even further. There is only one way to defend the left is feminine argument--by circular reasoning. You start by proclaiming this is so--that whatever is attracted to leftism is feminine. And if it is not attracted to leftism, it is not feminine. So why are men attracted? Because of the feminine elements within them, of course. And what are those elements? The ones that are attracted to leftism. Round and round and round she goes.

When I try to look deeper on the "feminine" is different than "woman" distinction, I don't see anything of substance there except maybe an attempt to smuggle in a stolen concept for whatever reason. But I don't even think it's that. I speculate, I know, but I imagine it's something that felt right to Moralist in a kind of unfocused manner, he latched onto it and put it out there because it sounded good, he got challenged in a hostile manner and simply dug in. Now he's in a scramble to make the unfittable somehow fit.

Feminine is an adjective meaning having woman-like or girl-like qualities. Anyone can look it up in any dictionary. How someone can detach that from "woman" on a conceptual level is beyond me.

At best, this is some made-up arbitrary meanings attached to words and, in my opinion, should be considered as such. (Also, arbitrary is a far more accurate description than an attack on womanhood.) In other words, something not to be taken seriously. It's carelessly slapping labels on things without actual concepts behind them.

This is a good example of how bad ideas are spread.

(Sorry Moralist, I like you a lot, but this one is pretty far out there. I suggest a rethink, and that's OK. God knows I've done enough of this stuff myself. )

Michael

No offense taken, Michael... because I'm not a liberal.

There are many real world examples of how the ideologies of Conservatism and Liberalism correspond with the two gender archetypes. And I can give you some relief as I've begun another Capitalist venture which is soaking up a lot of my extra time, so my visits here will be less frequent. I do appreciate your forum and the amiable atmosphere you've created here.

Take Care,

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

In your view the bottom or foundation is the boss, in mine it is the individual worker, in practice the two usually need each other.

The boss is the individual worker too. The owner is the boss of the boss, so to say, and may be the owner-boss.

--Brant

you know, property rights?

[Brant Gaede]

The danger of leftism is not in any tendency towards the feminine. The allegation is a grotesque smear of womanhood.

I just caught up to this thread.

FF - That was very well done. I got a chuckle out of it (followed by a bad feeling from looking at those monsters).

But I don't find "grotesque smear against womanhood" to be accurate. Who in their right mind thinks the point Moralist was making was to humiliate "womanhood"? That he's a bigot against women and that was what he was trying to preach? I mean, come on. Seriously? That's the issue to you?

Moralist is floating, not attacking.

I do agree with you that ideologies do not have gender. And I'll go even further. There is only one way to defend the left is feminine argument--by circular reasoning. You start by proclaiming this is so--that whatever is attracted to leftism is feminine. And if it is not attracted to leftism, it is not feminine. So why are men attracted? Because of the feminine elements within them, of course. And what are those elements? The ones that are attracted to leftism. Round and round and round she goes.

When I try to look deeper on the "feminine" is different than "woman" distinction, I don't see anything of substance there except maybe an attempt to smuggle in a stolen concept for whatever reason. But I don't even think it's that. I speculate, I know, but I imagine it's something that felt right to Moralist in a kind of unfocused manner, he latched onto it and put it out there because it sounded good, he got challenged in a hostile manner and simply dug in. Now he's in a scramble to make the unfittable somehow fit.

Feminine is an adjective meaning having woman-like or girl-like qualities. Anyone can look it up in any dictionary. How someone can detach that from "woman" on a conceptual level is beyond me.

At best, this is some made-up arbitrary meanings attached to words and, in my opinion, should be considered as such. (Also, arbitrary is a far more accurate description than an attack on womanhood.) In other words, something not to be taken seriously. It's carelessly slapping labels on things without actual concepts behind them.

This is a good example of how bad ideas are spread.

(Sorry Moralist, I like you a lot, but this one is pretty far out there. I suggest a rethink, and that's OK. God knows I've done enough of this stuff myself. )

Michael

No offense taken, Michael... because I'm not a liberal.

There are many real world examples of how the ideologies of Conservatism and Liberalism correspond with the two gender archetypes. And I can give you some relief as I've begun another Capitalist venture which is soaking up a lot of my extra time, so my visits here will be less frequent. I do appreciate your forum and the amiable atmosphere you've created here.

Take Care,

Greg

"Amiable atmosphere"? And I thought I had been thoroughly nasty to you roasting you on a spit.

--Brant

this attacks my self-esteem (if it would attack my pseudo self-esteem that'd be okay; who needs it?)