Frediano

A truly mindbending description... So what do you do about it? No fast, easy solutions, this nation has been over-run for decades before you and I were born. First step: Laugh at Ivy Leaguers in government, like Bernanke, encourage others to do same. Illuminate their nonsense. The Ivies are tiny inbred chokepoints, long over-run by the adversaries of freedom. They became mandrels of left wing thought and indoctrination-- decades ago. Deliberately targets in the 30s, 40s, 50s. By the 60s, completely over-run. The Ivies, today, are the nation's theocratic seminaries of the religion "Social Scientology,' defined as "S"ociety=God and the state is its proper church. They cookie-cutter out instructoids by the wagonload, and by doing so, unduly influence the machinery of state and even other university faculties. The indoctrination is clumsy, heavy handed and obvious...and also effective. For every Stossel that escapes unscathed, there are a hundred identical Katrina vanden Heuvels that spring up like weeds. It is a complete ideological rout. Obama's last two USSC nominees? Identical former Princeton radical feminists. Who whispers into his ear at night? An identical former Princeton radical feminst. The place graduates 1000 or so a year, like a large highschool; is it really such a hot idea that such tiny, inbred places have such an overwhelming influence on our machinery of state? Seriously. When enough finally see the Ivies for what the are, then maybe there is a prayer of a revolt, to take back the nation. But as of today, it is a complete rout. The Ivies are tiny, like large high schools. Totally open campuses in a nation with totally open borders and no police state. Of course they were over-run during the Cold War; what was possibly going to stop that? We didn't win the Cold War; we caught the Cold. Time to start coughing up phlegm.

Example of 'running the[sic] economy' "Bernanke announces record profits turned over by Fed to Treasury." By 'profits' is meant interest charged on past laser printer bond created debt, once used to provide spendable funny money by Treasury or Fanny or Freddy. So, for example: secretary is told to run printer and print out 'bond.' Bond is carred to Fed, who accepts Bond and creates $1Trillion in spendable by Treasury current accounts. Government shows up in private economies and demands $1T in already created by others value. Then, over time, shows up in same economies and claws back same $1T in taxes to payback Fed... plus additional tax to pay interest to Fed. Fed, instead of adding that interest to its lendable current accounts(ie, for the next time it is asked to accept a bond and create money from nothing, so it wouldn't need to create so much-- by past interest payments), hands that same interest back to Treasury...who then spends in in the private economies. The same priovate economies that were just overtaxed to come up with those interest payments is now presented with those same interest payments and new value is demanded of it. Value that it just created. The total -net new value- in this $1Trillion of in and out, plus interest? A secretary ran a printer. And we are surprised that this is not net stimulative? Well, I suppose, she had to buy paper and ink. The failing theory: They will add the new funny money when the economies are flat on their a$$ and unemployement is high, masking the inflation. then, when the economies have recovered from all the federal selective chutes and ladders fatfingering, will overtax them to clawback the principal and interest. Any day now, after five years of secretarys printing fresh new bonds on printers as our net stimulus. In a properly(on an accounting basis)functioning central bank, the treasury would not spend the interest. That is leakage in the concept of a central bank. It is literally 'running the printing presses' by the amount of interest turned over by the FED. Not quite as bad as fully 'monetizing the debt'-- that would be the same thing, but without payback of principal to the Fed. But the amount of 'money from nothing' that is that interest is exactly running the presses. So, Bernanke cheerfully announcing 'record profits turned over to Treasury' should be making us cringe, not celebrate. But we are idiots. Especially when we realize it is not 'the' private sector on the chutes and ladders, but politically selective and chosen winners/losers distributed throughout the private economies. The uncertainty of this political-whim based fatfingering of the economies is -precisely- what is killing the engines of prosperity. It is state fascism/corporatism totally run amok and drving the carcass of once living-breathing American beasts/economies to their knees. The bones are showing. and the frantic agitation of the parasites grows more intense. Time for a war, no doubt. And no doubt who pays the price in blood and treasure for that, either. Not the weasels. History's biggest fragging is a century overdue.

I was in NY this past weekend, talking with my 25 yr old son and his roomates. I'm encouraged. They are so burned out out on politicians and the prevailing institutions that have failed, including government and crony state capitalism, that they are also largely 'ducking.' By necessity. Humans love their life, and will do whatever they can to live it. Big government is failing in plain sight, the current generation doesn't need it drawn out in a huge crayon for them. Their human urge to live their lives will guide them to sanity, or they willbe mistaken in their assessment and it will fail them. That is nothing less than the Universe asserting its harsh rules for getting up hills and for not finding oneself at the bottom of others.

Attempting to 'run the economy' is not a goal, like attempting to put a man on the moon, subject to the rigors of science. First of all, and most importantly, there is a moon.

Selene: Well, Rand felt that way in 1960, and argued clearly-- and loudly -- that there was no real political choice between the GOP and Democrats. And absolutely, at the time, there little to distinguish between the administrations of Eisenhower and JFK. They were both convergent, centrist presidents, perhaps shaped by their sharedWWII experience. Yet with some irony, we'd kill today to have either of them back in office with their $100B of federal overhead.. What she would say about today I suspect would be akin to "I'm glad I'm dead, but I told you so,and so, sleep like a baby." But that was obvious in the 70s. These ideas just were never going to be popular. I voted forClark in '80, not Reagan, a meaningless gesture. But I recognized I was living in a stampede, so I did what I could. I didn't so much 'shrug' as I did 'duck.' I stopped worrying about popular politics, 1% in 1980 was more than enough writing on the wall, thank you.... in the sense of ever having any hope that libertarian ideas would ever be mainstream, and simply found a way to prevail personally, and watch social justice unfold from the sidelines. Comfortably, and also sleeping like a baby. When you find yourself floating in a vast Sea of Stupid, its time only to sink or swim; not going to swallow the ocean away, no matter how much we drown in it.. The folks paying the price for their political beliefs today are largely those that hold those political beliefs. I don't share them, and to the best of my ability, I don't share their consequences, either, other than, watching the nation go down the tube. A tragedy. So was the Titanic. Tragedies happen, and history ain't over.

Do we elect political leaders to be emperors? Or do we elect them to be honorable state plumbers? Do we hand them a scepter, or do we hand them a plunger? When someone rises to the office of POTUS, are they awarded carte blanche to implement their personal favorite pet Soc. grad school theories on the entire nation, or are they granted the power of the (once) most powerful office on earth in order to fulfill a sacred obligation, which is, to defend the freedom of all Americans from attacks both domestic and foreign? Those are fundamental questions that America isn't explicitely asking, only implicitly answering, by tolerating the hucksterism of a succession of seekers of power.

Selene: See, that is -exactly- it -- it is never defined.... it always 'deals with....is concerned with ...' something. And that 'something' is always -- forever -- defined so broadly as to include anything imaginable at all. The political defition of politics is 'The Universal Solvent--- able to dissolve any barrier, such as, a pathetic claim that our life is ours and not theirs, when a 'politiician' shows up with his substitute for an actual gun. Carte Blanche. The Keys to The Magic Kingdom. Anything they need it to mean in order to get what they want from you as their peer on this earth which is no less than dominion over your one and only life here. How dare you or I question what they are about; they are about no less than the Human Good....

I've considered Aristotle's definition and found it lacking in any meaning or defintion. I will thus cling to my own meta-definition, because so far, it fits all the offered up variants: politics: the art and science of getting what we want from others using any means short of actual violence; the supserset that includes violence I call mega-politics. My meta-definition applies to such common instances of usage as 'sexual politics'(when what we want is a BJ) ... 'personal politics'(can I have the TV remote?...no, let's move to Boston) ... 'gender politics'(The reason you are paying me less is because of menses and your mysogony .. 'geo-politics'(I want Kuwait) etc. Examples of politics are ... commerce, begging, lieing, stealing, cajoling, huckstering, cheating, and very rarely, almost never in this nation, convincing due to rational , honest, thoughful well considered debate among peers. Examples of politics in moderm AMerica are James Carville, not two years after the visible public collapse of command and control/sentralized planning when the Berlin Wall fell and the USSR went belly up, coming out with his pithy Cajin folksy wisdom of "Heeeeeeeeits the Economy, Stooooooopit!" ... and sweeping both parties with that 'argument.' Or, Obama with his PROFORMA you fill in the blank "Hope and Change." As in, he hopes AMerica will let him get away with his plans to change it from a free America to something else, while millions make up whatever they want, in their desperation, and inerpret 'Hope and CHange' to mean whatever they wish for. Brilliant politics...for a nation of complete idiots.

I'll try again to make this fit: "The reason that it is reasonable for 25 yr olds to pony up resumes and college transcripts when applying for crap cubicle jobs, but also reasonable that folks claiming to want to run 17% of 'the economy' need not be asked to produce same, is because the latter are involved with nothing less than the human good,, concerned with the noble action or happiness of the citizens. (I edited this to try an make it as complete as possible from the offered definition.) I'm not trying to be a wise ass. I understand you are advocating only for the definition and not its application in the original assertion. I'm just trying to understand the argument in terms of the original assertion "It is politics" if this is what politics is in its oldest incantation. And yet, if this is its accepted defintion, then I must yet ask; w.t.f. is politics, and what is its special nature that shields one from the reasonableness of showing one's college transcript when claiming to want to lay one's greasy fingers all over 'the[sic] economy?' Could it possibly be the especially bright, astute, and competent air often found around poltiical science majors when I run into them? Like, the ones who crumble at the simple query "What is your working definition of the word 'politics' after four years of studying political science?" No, really. These are the folks we want running 'the'[sic] Economy. The results are looking smashing.

Which is: "Politics is a practical science, since it is concerned with the noble action or happiness of the citizens " In the Nicomachean Ethics Aristotle describes his subject matter as political science, which he characterizes as the most authoritative science. It prescribes which sciences are to be studied in the city-state, and the others -- such as military science, household management, and rhetoric — fall under its authority. Since it governs the other practical sciences, their ends serve as means to its end, which is nothing less than the human good. “Even if the end is the same for an individual and for a city-state, that of the city-state seems at any rate greater and more complete to attain and preserve. For although it is worthy to attain it for only an individual, it is nobler and more divine to do so for a nation or city-state” Aristotle, it appears, was also a political scientist. No doubt. But in your own words....not the assertions without definition above -- what was Aristotle's definition, if you are arguing for it? Because I can't find Aristotles definition in any of that; only his assertions of where it places itself in relationship to other human efforts. It appears to be baseless leglifting so far, even attributed to no less than Aristotle himself. So, politics is concerned with nothing less than the human good, concerned with the noble action or happiness of the citizens? Could he be any less specific about what it is?

Ding! Another perfectly acceptable definition, join the endless parade. There are dictionary definitions, plural, of the word 'politics.' (As many as there are dictionaries, which is telling.) And God bless them, they try. It's their job. They just can't skip over the word 'politics' just because it has no widely accepted 'the' definition. So inevitably, they try to clean up one of the instances, and then proceed to start one of those snake eating its tail things... Politics: the activities associated with the governance of a country or other area, esp. the debate or conflict among individuals or parties having or hoping to achieve power. Oh, well then....just don't go look up 'governance.' Governance: the action or manner of governing. Uh-oh. Starting to get that dizzy feeling. The BS meter is kicking a 7.3... Governing: conduct the policy, actions, and affairs of (a state, organization, or people). Gee, that narrows the topic down; all of them? Sounds like a political definition, wouldn't you say? No room for 'limited' in any of that. It is as if Totalitarians wrote the dictionaries. Didn't they? Society: the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community."drugs, crime, and other dangers to society"synonyms: the community, the (general) public, the people, the population; Morecivilization, humankind, mankind, humanity "a danger to society"the community of people living in a particular country or region and having shared customs, laws, and organizations.plural noun: societies"the high incidence of violence in American society"synonyms: culture, community, civilization, nation, population More"an industrial society"a specified section of a community."no one in polite society uttered the word"the aggregate of people who are fashionable, wealthy, and influential, regarded as forming a distinct group in a community.noun: high society; plural noun: high societies"a society wedding"synonyms: high society, polite society, the upper classes, the elite, the smart set, the beautiful people, the beau monde, the haut monde; Moreinformalthe upper crust, the top drawer "Sir Paul will help you enter society"a plant or animal community.2.an organization or club formed for a particular purpose or activity. "S"ociety: a single world community: the 'totalitarian aggregate of mankind, civilizations, plural into civilization, singular. an 'it' out of many. e·con·o·myiˈkänəmēnounnoun: economy; plural noun: economies 1. the wealth and resources of a country or region, esp. in terms of the production and consumption of goods and services. synonyms: wealth, (financial) resources; More financial system, financial management "the nation's economy" a particular system or stage of an economy. "a free-market economy" 2. careful management of available resources. "The" singular wealth and 'the' singular resources of a country or region, especially in terms of 'the' singular production and 'the singular consumption of same, though in practice, very little concern for the running uphills production parts and maximum concern for the running downhills consumption parts of economic activities, plural. Two fisherman are at the dock, loading up their boats for a day of risky fishing. Do they fish the shallows, or fish the deep? The right daily decision is not always the same one. They use their experience and heuristics, they risk their investment in supplies, and they each go fishing. A storm at sea destroys one of them. The other returns to the dock with his boat loaded with fish. He is met at the docks by politicians and economists concerned about consumption of the nation's wealth.

That is a very, very precious argument. Under segregation whites were "forced" only to associate with whites, \and blacks with blacks. Geddit. Yes, exactly: segregation was an example of forced association in the public commons. (or maybe, forced -disassociation, it's evil twin.) The CRAs did not end discrimination; they ended discrimination in the public commons, in public commerce and public education. There is no acceptable way (nor justifiable reason)in a free nation to end discrimination in private matters(who we marry, who we admit into our families and homes, who we lend to money to privately, not as matter of public commerce-- who we admit into our private socius; discrimination in the selection of our private socious is alive and kicking in every race and religion and creed. Jews still predominantly marry other Jews. Blacks still predominately marry other blacks. Whites still predominantly marry other whites. Not exclusively so, but there is the key: under rules of free association.(Who or what is 'forcing' any of that?) In matters of choosing our private socious(except, briefly, for a crackpot law pushed by theocratic Republicans and signed into law by Clinton)we are perfectly free, as free people, to discriminate using any basis we choose including race, religion, sex, and age under rules of free association. However, our obligations to each other on the public commons are different; as citizens of a free nation, we enter the public commons as peers living in freedom. We are not -forced- to enter the public commons(except in the most trivial of sense, to travel from one private context to another, and while traveling, our freedom to travel is not impeded by tribesmen demanding to see our travel papers.) We choose to enter the public commons for commerce, as a convenience or expedient. We are not forced to attend desegregated public school(else, how to explain private schools and the home schooled? Our mandates are for education, not public education.) We are not forced to conduct public commerce; we do so for the advantages that offers(access to the broadest possible markets.) If we chose -- and many do -- to not conduct our commerce in public -- many of every race and religion -- we are perfectly free to discriminate using any basis we choose. We invite who we select into our private homes. We conduct what private commerce we might inside our private homes. We privately lend and even give money to those we choose. We do not live in the kind of a police state (yet) that could possibly prohibit any of that. But it is self limiting(the market by definition is not broad.) Our tribe still -- barely, yet -- distinguishes that which is public behavior and obligations from that which is private behavior. Consider free, rational people on the public square, each with their own destinations. Do they all sprint headlong, in a straightline, directly to their destinations, without regard to other peers on the same public square? No. They instead -navigate- to their respective destinations, mindful of the trajectories of others; they as peers avoid unnecessary collisions. We see this principle all the time on the Interstates, where both large and small vehicles share the pubic commons, and each gets to its destination. It is a Western principle. (I guarantee you, the same sense of traffic laws do not exist in places like Chittagong, Bangladesh, where only physics rules: biggest vehicles goes where it will, turns when it will, and smaller vehicles must look out for themselves and give way in the presence of a larger vehicle, all the way down to the 3 wheel Cushman taxis and finally poor souls being pulled in rickshaws. There was not a single trip I ever took through the streets of Chittagong or Dhaka where I did not witness, either in real time or the direct aftermath of, a rickshaw and its occupants sailing through space like ragdolls.) In the West, when there is a traffic accident, folks call 911 and send for ambulances. In Chittagong, the local crowd descends on the wrecked rickshaw and mangled bodies and berates them fro causing an accident, by not getting out of the way of the larger vehicle in time. When I was first there doing business and witnessed all the single and double amputees lining the streets, begging, I asked the agent if these were the result of some recent conflict, and he nonchalantly told me "No, those are former rickshaw drivers.") The Western sense of freedom isn't like that; that is anarchy. It is(or maybe better said, should be) tempered by reason. Sometimes we are in the smaller vehicle. Sometimes, the most effective way to defend our freedom is to defend the freedom of our peers. The CRAs are not 'forced association.' They are the repeal of forced public disassociation, coupled with a polite reminder of the difference between our obligations to our peers living in freedom on the public commons vs. our still existing rights in choosing our private socious. And yes, I Geddit. Do you? Or, is the innate need to lurch to the single word argument "RaceGenderClass" so innately programmed in back at the factory that there is never any hope of not blurting it out on queue?

We're getting closer; cow pies? That's politics. As soon as you step in it, there is a definite stink in the air.

How can something that requires so much practice yet not require delivery of a college transcript when all the practice is over and some acolyte wants to lay his greasy fingers all over 'the[sic] economy.' Including, the sick economies. You started this, wench, with your drive by explanation; "it is politics." I found that lacking in any explanation. I am still looking in vain for an explanation. There isn't one. Your Mr. Otto didn't help much with the explanation, but he was the closest to explaining: "because he can; because enough of the tribe lets him get away with it." You know, pure Democracy. It's the same reasoning behind a gang rape: "because they can." I was thinking there might be some deeper, more meaningful meaining, deserving of my respect for the process. Nope; pretty much baseless, and deserving only of contempt. You'd think with so many folks approving of it, there would be some defense of it to found. Crickets. Oh well.

"get" stoned?

This is kind of a hoot. See, nobody can just come out and tell us what the word politics means; it always ... pertains to something. It is ... concerned with something. And in this latest example, something very concrete, like ... the noble action or happiness of the citizens. Seriously. What the fuck is it? What it 'pertains' to ... what it is 'concerned' with ... is so vague as to be completely meaningless. And by 'the noble action or happiness of the citizens' does that mean of all citizens or of connected crony interest goups? No wonder we can't stand politicians. They are 'concerned' with .... whatever whim suits them, like Emperor wannabes. If a carny huckster rolled into the tribe and wanted to take it over, his first act would be to make up a new word that could mean absolutely anything, and then constantly refer to it as his justifcation for doing whatever he wanted.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-politics/#PolSci At least we can all agree with this as a definition to start an argument from... In total, that is one of the most blatantly political definitions of the word 'politics' I've ever seen. Including your last unilateral assertion. Ha! Lets see if it sheds any light on what was asserted up thread: It is reasonable to require aspiring cublicle denizens to pony up college transcripts for crap jobs, while at the same time, it is also reasonable not to require same of politicos intent on 'running the[sic] economy' because the latter are involved in something pertaining to the city-state concerned with the noble action or happiness of 'the' citizens. Well, Ok, but apparently the crap jobs in the cubicles have more demanding requirements than all that ill defined goo. What doesn't pertain to the city-state concerned with the noble action or happiness of the citizens? Is it impolite of me to point out that the quoted definition came from a political science department? Methinks it might be a little self serving. These are academic entities which can pump out political science majors totally flabbergasted when asked to simply provide 'a' definition of the word politics, and yet, they claim to build critters able to put under their 'authority' such things as military science, household management, and rhetoric — which 'fall under its authority' Seriously? I wouldn't assess the average politsci major as able to authoritatively rule a bag of cats, much less, 'the' city-state, but even so, should one show up claiming such ability, as in, running the[sic] or 17% of the[sic] economy. I'm still looking for the first explanation as to why a peek at the college transcripts is not only not reasonably in order but an absolute necessity, relative to your basic cubicle denizen seeking to take over his expense account?.

That is another insight into why the word politics is never accurately defined; the last thing in the world politicians want is for those they are begging, cajoling, and huckstering to clearly understanding what the Hell the activity is really about. Hell; they have most of us convinced they are engaged in some kind of honarable tradition, even as we despise what they are all doing. That is some politics. The beggars in Media (please lets us keep making a living doing this, we really never want to get anywhere near a real job) have the nation perseverating on politics 24/7/365 every year, not just during election years. Just, not in any informed way. That's so unfair to journalists; do I think it is easy to put opinions down in writing?

But Shirley we can discuss politics wihout being engaged in politics????

I must disclose what I want from others by being here: I've disclosed it many times in many contexts. "To participate in my cheap alternative to much needed therapy." And, thank you for doing so. That's it, I swear.

We are exchanging ideas in a section of this site titled 'Politics' We chose to come here. Surely, we must know what we're about. It is politics.

While you are depending on Otto von Bismarck for your definition of 'politics', here are some more of OvB's greatest hits: Get quotes daily Sign in with FacebookSign in options Otto von Bismarck > Quotes Otto von Bismarck quotes (showing 1-30 of 36)“People never lie so much as before an election, during a war, or after a hunt.” ― Otto von Bismarcktags: lies30 people liked itlike“Fools learn from experience. I prefer to learn from the experience of others.” ― Otto von Bismarck30 people liked itlike“It is the destiny of the weak to be devoured by the strong.” ― Otto von Bismarck Jesus, that last one was a bit strong, don't you think? What would labor leader A. Philip Randolph say about that? "At the Banquet Table of Nature, there are no reserved seats; you get what you can take; you keep what you can hold." Wise men.

"The art of the possible" is how I have usually thought about it, I guess. It sure isn't a science. Now we're getting somewhere: you believe that the reason it is reasonable to ask 25 year old kids getting crap jobs in cubicles to pony up their college resumes before assuming those kind of jobs, while at the same time, it is reasonable not to ask a man who claims to want to 'run the[sic] economy' or even just 17% of it, to see his college transcript and credentials and qualifications for that job, because the latter is engaged in, quote, "The art of the possible." Is that about right? Please correct me if I've misrepresented your meaning. If that's what you mean, then that is what you mean.

But politics is not a meritocracy, of itself or the disciplines in which the politicians are trained. It is politics. But politics is not xxxx...It is politics. I don't really understand your comment. Right back at you.

It is politics. My personal meta definition(may not be yours) of the seldom defined word 'politics:' Politics: the art and science of getting what we want from others using any means short of violence. Mega-politics: the superset that includes violence. There are other instances of definitions, many of them circular. On separate occasions, I asked recent graduates of both Duke and Syracuse -- both claimed to be "political science majors" -- if they could, after four years, define for me their working definition of the word 'politics.' Not 'the' definition (there is no single definition -- the 'wiki' example is an instance, not a meta definition) but, their working definition. They both stared at me like I had C4 strapped to my chest. They hemmed and hawed. The girl from Duke finally admitted, "I never thought about that." She'd been studying something called "Political Science" for four years at a major university. The boy from Syracuse finally erupted with "Uh...you know; political parties and stuff." Other instances(not meta-definitions): "Politics: the art of governing others(when what you want is to convince them to let you govern them.). "Politics: the art of who gets what(when what you want from others is to convince them to let you be the emperor of who gets what.) My meta-definitions fits all of the above. Maybe there is a better meta definition. Once, when I was in search of 'the definition' --or at least, a definition that did not circularly refer to 'politics' or 'political' like a snake eating its tail--, I came across a set of materials for educators on the UNESCO website. In it was the admission "there is no widely accepted single authoritative definition of the word 'politics.' If you think about that, the reason is obvious; the reason is purely political. And the surprising thing is, when I say what would never be accepted in any other context of defining a word, that you do know what I mean, even if you deny it. So by necessity, I've established my meta-definition, which I will cling to until someone provides a better meta-definition of the word, at which point I will gladly substitute theirs.. Sometimes what we want from others is to ask for the time of day, and our strategy is 'to ask for it." Ditto the TV Remote, a material thing, though largely useless, except for reruns of Honey Boo-Boo.. Sometimes what we want is Kuwait. And then, there is everything in between. Sometimes what we want from others is to ride them as our birthright like they were tribal public property ponies. Sometimes what we want from others is to be left alone to live in peace. Both of those are political wants, though they are not symmetric on any axis of aggression. Before I could possibly parse your comment, I'd have to understand what your definition of the word 'politics' is. Especially, what is so special about that definition of politics that it should shield one from the requirement of demonstrating competence before taking on the job of "running the[sic] economy?" Politics: the most used and least defined word in political debate. And yes--think about it. The reason it is never defined is precisely ... political. It is a more powerful, all encompassing word if left undefined. Without definition, you can make claims like "It is political" and then pretend that something has been argued or conveyed. It is political. Oh, well then; check the reason at the door. After all; It is political.