HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » PosterChild » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: Sun Feb 9, 2014, 12:43 PM
Number of posts: 264

Journal Archives

Stand up for your rights ! !!


Elizabeth Warren keeps pressure on Hillary Clinton

The Washington Post: Elizabeth Warren keeps pressure on Hillary Clinton and Democrats ahead of 2016

It is hard to think of a precedent for the role she has carved out in the Senate. “I think she’s brought some extraordinary credentials to this job in the public policy area. The only analogy I can think of is a former first lady. That’s an interesting analogy, on a lot of levels.”

Warren’s critics, however, say she often steps over the line between simplifying things and being simplistic..... when she was a Harvard Law School professor heading the TARP oversight board.... the hearings that Warren conducted “often felt more like made-for-YouTube inquisitions than serious inquiries. She was worried about the right things, but she was better at impugning our choices — as well as our integrity and our competence — than identifying any feasible alternatives.”

Weiss’s defenders saw the same traits at work in her opposition to his nomination. It was not a total victory for Warren, given that Weiss will instead be given the title of “counselor” to Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, a position that does not require Senate confirmation.

The Washington Post editorial page called Warren and her allies’ case against Weiss “a grab-bag of symbolism and epithets, not a ration­ale.” New York Times columnist Andrew Ross Sorkin called her outrage “misdirected,” “misinformed,” and “just another campaign talking point.”

Adam Smith defends Elizabeth Warren

From The Wealth of Nations, Book II, Chapter II - Of Money considered as a particular branch of the general stock of the society:

To restrain private people, it may be said, from receiving in payment the promissory notes of a banker, for any sum whether great or small, when they themselves are willing to receive them; or, to restrain a banker from issuing such notes, when all his neighbors are willing to accept of them, is a manifest violation of that natural liberty which it is the proper business of law, not to infringe, but to support. Such regulations may, no doubt, be considered as in some respect a violation of natural liberty. But those exertions of the natural liberty of a few individuals, which might endanger the security of the whole society, are, and ought to be, restrained by the laws of all governments; of the most free, as well as of the most despotical. The obligation of building party walls, in order to prevent the communication of fire, is a violation of natural liberty, exactly of the same kind with the regulations of the banking trade which are here proposed.

So sayeth the originator of the "invisible hand."

"Stop shopping and join the movement" ....

.... how moving. 200 protesters? 50 at another location? Pretty pitiful. This is a movement that isn't going to move very much further.

In Ferguson, the cause of justice...

...has been dealt a sever setback. By those who were demanding justice.

Distraught: The manager of the Little Caesar's said he understood the protesters were angry but added: 'Speaking your mind - that’s America. You are supposed to be able to protest peacefully and make your point. But this...'


Just voted.... Had a discussion...

Just voted - all Democrat (of course), and on the "non-partisan" school board ticket I voted for the "Teacher Approved" slate.

Had a discussion - with one of the campaigners outside the polling place. I always talk to the campaigners (of either party) and ask "probing" questions about the candidates, their positions and policy in general. It's interesting to find out their views and motivations, and I get the sense they appreciate it, being taken seriously and getting a chance to engage a bit.

This campaigner was a mature Indian lady, dressed traditionally and with a head scarf. Don't know if she was Muslim or Hindu. Once she realized I was not going to brush her off, she became a bit confessional and told me that "getting involved in politics" was very unusual for an Indian woman. She said this would normally be looked down on and discouraged. What she was doing was very simple and quotidian - just saying hi and passing out campaign literature, but it seemed to have caused her a bit of an emotional crisis to get involved. She said she had just talked to her relatives in India and she did not mention her activity to them at all because they would have been shocked and would try to discourage her!

I suggested that the next time she gets a chance to talk with them, she should tell them what she did. I told her I think it would be good for them to know so that they would have a better appreciation for what it is like in America and how America differs from their part of the world. She agreed that it would be a good idea and that it would help them to gain a broader understanding of America.

My own opinion is that, long term, the future of womankind is the future of humanity. Almost every significant world/historical problem that humankind faces is ameliorated by the progress of women toward full equality and acceptance in education, economic and social life. Malala truly deserves the Nobel peace prize. And this woman, by taking part in an activity that is outside of her traditional comfort zone, and by providing a role model to others from the same background, is also part of that.

I hate to go all exceptional and everything, but... America! You just gotta love it!

You are right. Modern civiliazation DOES require...

... treating other nations with respect, that is, with justice. Treating others with justice, however, can only be done under conditions where it is reasonable to believe that they will, in turn, treat you with justice. And this, in turn, is only possible when, first, there is good reason to believe that both sides share the same idea of what does and does not constitute justice, and, second, that no one can substantially profit by NOT treating others with justice.

Under a civil government, the government ensures that there is a prevailing and accepted notion of what is and is not just between its citizens, and enforces that notion so all citizens can be assured that behaving according to the dictates of justice is in their own self interest. If we break the law, we are punished for it.

That is why citizens within a sovereign state can live in peace with one another, and respect each other through the observance of justice.

But between sovereign states, neither of these two conditions exist. Each nation has its own idea of what does and does not constitute justice, and there is no overwhelming force to ensure that those who do not observe justice in their relations with others will be punished for it. Indeed, they are all too often rewarded for it.

Under those conditions, a war of all against all exists. And it will exist until one nation or another achieves (at least) a hegemony over the others and can effectively propagate and defend a system of justice between nations. Although we can hope for the best, realistically this not going to happen without an advanced military capability and the willingness to exercise that capability in the world at large.

And since, as you note, it is a requirement of modern civilization... Who wills the end wills the means.

Hillary Reviews Kissinger's Book

Hillary's review of Kissinger's Book World Order.

It's odd that, in his paper, Sunstein attributes....

... belief in conspiracy theories to a LACK of civil rights.

Those who hold conspiracy theories do so because of what they read and hear. In that sense, acceptance of such theories is not irrational from the standpoint of those who adhere to them. There is a close connection, we suggest, between our claim on this count and the empirical association between terrorist behavior and an absence of civil rights and civil liberties. When civil rights and civil liberties are absent, people lack multiple information sources, and they are more likely to accept conspiracy theories.


The short section on "Cognitive infiltration" (page 21) is supportive of the basic principle of free speech, that the remedy to falsehoods and fallacies is not less speech, it is MORE speech:

Our main suggestion is just that, whatever the tactical details, there would seem to be ample reason for government efforts to introduce some cognitive diversity into the groups that generate conspiracy theories. Social cascades are sometimes quite fragile, precisely because they are based on small slivers of information. Once corrective information is introduced, large numbers of people can be shifted to different views. If government is able to have credibility, or to act through credible agents, it might well be successful in dislodging beliefs that are held only because no one contradicts them. Likewise, polarization tends to decrease when divergent views are voiced within the group. Introducing a measure of cognitive diversity can break up the epistemological networks and clusters that supply conspiracy theories.

'MURICA!!! Why I <3 Drones!

Love the precision attitude control!
Go to Page: 1 2 3 Next »