Jim's comments

Jim's comments from the Happy & Brainy Group group.

Note: Jim is no longer a member of this group.

Since this is Ilyn's group & there is no longer any basis for further conversation between us, I'll be stopping my membership to it. She shouldn't have to worry about me looking over her shoulder, but should be able to promote her book.

Ilyn, I'm sorry it didn't work out.

"Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves."
— Ronald Reagan

Intellectual dishonesty disturbs me, obviously. It is a heinous crime. It is the base cause for the deaths or ruin of many a great person such as Socrates, Galileo & Marco Polo. It has caused enormous destruction through religious & other wars. It has stifled or harmed research immeasurably. Look at what happened to Rhine's program when Levy's fraud in psychic research came out.

There may not be many (any?) 'right' answers in philosophy today for all situations. Since we're relying on the imperfect medium of written language to communicate our ideas, there is a lot of room for misunderstandings. Even if we understand each other perfectly, situations are so complex that cause & effect are often unclear, so our political philosophies can be completely different, even when we hold the same basic values.

I don't care for philosophers who can't make their philosophy work in the real world. It is a waste of time at best & deadly at its worst. Jim Jones used that kind of sloppy thinking. I had friends who had to clean up after his mess. Luckily, I was rotated out just before the news broke so my battalion didn't have to go.

Stephen, thank you for the clarification. It's no wonder I missed the reference since I think it's been 30 years since I saw a baseball game. I don't follow sports.

Peggy, I think Ilyn has ever right to censor her group, but I believe it is against the philosophy she purports to believe in, live by & write about. her final cop out & failing.


Stephen, what does 'Rhubarb!' mean? The only thing I know about it is that it makes a great pie when mixed with strawberries.

Ilyn, if I made any statement that wasn't factual, please feel free to correct it. I joined these groups at your invitation & because you told me you believed in, lived by & wrote about Rand's philosophy, something I am interested in. I've met some interesting people here, too.

You've shown that you're a dishonest debater. If you had once admitted that your philosophy might not be up to dealing with our complex world or honestly admitted to not knowing, I would be much more forgiving. Instead, you use any artifice not to answer. This now includes a topic designed not to allow any dissenting points of view. Why not just start a group like that?

If you wanted a topic just for like POV's & Kudos, I would not post there, at your request. I feel the way you have handled this is dishonest.

Why would anyone want to buy a book by someone who purports to hold to & write about a philosophy, yet doesn't live by it & can't defend it?

Ilyn, your new topic on Politics is a shame & flies in the face of the philosophy you purport to believe in. The rules you posted prove that you can't properly defend your views because they are illogical & indefensible.

If you want a topic where you can post only your views, just make it read only. If you need accolades only, you should start a topic entitled, "My Politics & Kudos ONLY". Why even pretend the guidelines say anything else?

I joined this group in hopes that you really did understand Rand's philosophy & knew how it would apply in the world today. Instead I've found that when out of direct quotes & pressed, you twist words out of context, insult & spout as many inaccuracies as anyone else while pretending you hold to a higher standard. It's hypocritical.

Anyone who says there shouldn't be any economic regulation doesn't agree with Thomas Jefferson. He believed that trade regulation would be an alternative to war. (This is economic regulation. He told people who they could trade with.) He bankrupted many in his vain attempt to forestall the war with England that came about in 1812. While it didn't work for him, it is still a valid tool of diplomacy & is often used. Just one reason we must have some regulation, but there are many others.

Pure capitalism doesn't work. If people were actually rational, it might, but people are greedy & short sighted. In this country, we've seen unions established & mine workers revolt due to unregulated capitalism. These movements didn't happen because the people were simply inconvenienced, but because conditions had become so bad that men grouped together to form impromptu armies & gangs, demanding better conditions from their employers.

Another problem with pure capitalism is that it only goes where the money is. If that had been allowed, there still wouldn't be utilities in many of rural areas. A huge portion of our country would be disadvantaged due to that lack creating a schism that would have torn the country apart.

The US was a radical departure (the most radical?) from the norm when it was formed, but it was constrained by the realities of the rest of the world. Jefferson dreamed & advocated a new country where there didn't have to be a central bank or a standing armed force. It was a nice dream, but Shay's & the Whiskey Rebellions proved that no central bank was a dream. The agressive Europeon powers, piracy & other international concerns made a standing armed force necessary.

The whole purpose of a government is to regulate individuals in a society for the survival of that society. Our society wouldn't have survived if we'd simply followed the dream. Luckily for us, there were other Founding Fathers who were more practical than Jefferson. We weathered the war of 1812, discouraged the pirates that preyed on our shipping & Jefferson had the money to make the Louisiana Purchase.

It must be Christmas & there has been a miracle! We're all in agreement!!!

Seriously, have a good holiday. We're waiting for my oldest to come by. We have the youngest. Friday we'll have everyone except my mother, so it should be fun. Chaotic with 9 people & 7 dogs for the afternoon & evening, but fun!

Peggy wrote: "Just imagine where we'd be economioally if we didn't have to spend so much of our gnp on arnament."

Good point! It is a huge expenditure & our cost per man is higher than anyone else with all the gadgets, too. We also spend a ton of money 'helping' other countries. We pay France rental for the graveyards packed with men who fought to free them. Wrong!

Bottom line: We're not thrifty & instead of cutting our school or other internal budgets, I'd rather see much of the money spent abroad spent at home.

I don't think we can be isolationists. We do have to maintain a military & other presences around the globe, but I think the extent of what we do is too much.

Stephen, I was thinking of the new infrastructure we built Japan. I used to live near Baltimore & the steel mills of Japan were much newer & more efficient, that Sparrow's Point shut down. (The demise of Sparrow's Point is debateable, they were like the auto maker's we're currently bailing out.) No, I don't seriously think it was worth it to them for us to raze their country & give them all new, but we certainly did wind up cutting our own throats. I think we're agreeing on the results, just coming at it from different angles.

The last troops were pulled out of Vietnam in 1976 & the first were there in 1950's, although Kennedy didn't officially commit us until 1962. I don't care what the official start & end dates are/were for either, though. It doesn't matter. Both are/were limited warfare - a half-assed measure guaranteed not to work for the maximum cost & upset to all involved. Yuck.

Stephen, I was referring to the idea behind "The Mouse That Roared" - a country was better off after being conquered by us.

Ilyn wrote: "A moderator has to suffer impolite personal attacks. "

LOL

Stephen wrote: "Actually, what our REAL problem is, is that the NOBILITY of our wars has been compromised! ..."

You're kidding. There is no 'nobility' in war. It's failed politics with young kids paying for their elders mistakes. It's the worst thing we can do except roll over, unless it's roll over while we're doing it, which is what has happened in so many of the 'limited' wars lately.

As for the Japanese deserving the atom bomb over the Germans, read the POW stats some time. I disagree completely. Dropping the A bomb saved thousands of our men. Read Duty: A Father, His Son, and the Man Who Won the War which I reviewed. It's about Paul Tibbets, in part.

As for the Republicans, I felt they had a better handle on foreign affairs than the Democrats during the first part of my lifetime, but I don't see much difference in the past 15 years between the parties. JFK screwed up with Cuba, LBJ screwed up with Vietnam. Nixon opened China, Carter couldn't even get the hostages out of Iraq. Reagan did great against the USSR & after that, it all went to hell. I haven't been impressed by either Bush or Clinton.

Stephen wrote: "...This country NEVER does anything the way it ought to be done!! ..."

I wouldn't go that far, but I certainly don't understand our foreign policy reasoning either. I'd like to believe there is an underlying logic somewhere. I hope, but I think it is a forlorn one.

You mentioned how we razed Japan. One of the things that I really don't get is how we then built them back up. Did you ever see the movie or read The Mouse that Roared: A Novel?

It seems to me that our society has forgotten what war really is about.

The US helped create Kuwait back in the 50's, didn't we? Wasn't it out of a piece of Iraq? All the European powers have been dabbling in the Middle East for centuries. They've been fighting each other for longer. They're as bad as the Scots were.

Stephen, you say we've been in Iraq longer than anywhere else fighting a war. I'm not surprised or sure that's completely true. Clinton got us into a mess in the Balkans & we're still there. We're still in Korea. We're still in Afghanistan & while we kicked out some really nasty people, the Taliban, we've set up some really nasty people - drug warlords. We've propped up some folks that were every bit as bad as Hussein, IMO. Look at Panama & Noriega, too. I don't get it.

I know there is a lot more going on than I know about currently & we have a lot of old treaties & such to honor as well. I don't have a problem fighting a war or an 'action' if some good will come of it. I just wonder how much good we're doing & if the public will ever really know.

I knew when we went into Iraq that it wouldn't be quick. Bush took a chance going in early. He lost & didn't catch Hussein red-handed. I believe there was something to catch him with, but I think he got it out of the country fast enough. He absolutely did have WMD when he shouldn't have. He definitely was a rotten leader, by our liberal standards. I agree that it isn't reason for us to interfere though.

I don't know what other strategic aims they may have been shooting for, but I doubt either Bush did it just because they wanted a fight. Seems to me Iraq has been a buffer for Iran, but maybe they felt that time is past. I doubt we'll know any time soon, but I doubt that Bush is just stupid. He might be wrong, but I think there was some calculation behind it that we're unaware of. No matter what he said, he had to know this couldn't be fast & his name would be Mudd.

I think Reagan got it right when he shut Khadafi down by lobbing a couple of missiles into his downtown palace. As I recall, it took some very good intelligence & a lot of bad behavior before Reagan could do it & many disagreed with him. His intelligence services had less restrictions on them, too.

All the people that get upset about our treatment of prisoners better realize that the other guys aren't nearly as nice. We've crippled our services by making them play by rules the other guys ignore. I'm not saying we need to let our guys run rampant, but I'd rather give them the benefit of the doubt & let them handle it internally rather than breath down their necks. Their services hopefully understand the situation, certainly better than the armchair quarterbacks at home. If that means some rules get broken, I don't really care. Our guys are in a tough spot & deserve our support, not criticism.

Thre's 18 posts with about 50 fantasy novels recommended at http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/5040...

I've been reading fantasy & SF since I could read. I think the suggestions there are good ones.

It's too late now for Xmas, but some great places to get books are through PaperBackSwap.com & BookMooch. You put up a list of books you have to trade & another list of those you want. All you pay is postage after that. I just got Founding Brothers, a $15 book in trade for a paperback I didn't want any more. Postage is under $3 & if you get low on books, grab some from the local Good Will - $.50/book. I just got 10 that way & sent out 3 the next day.

Really helps the budget & for the first time in years, I have more new books to read than I have time. What a wonderful problem to have!

Merry Xmas,
Jim

I don't think the media is cowed so much as popularized or mainstreamed. Obviously Nixon didn't squelch all the media. The media consistently goes overboard loving a particular cause or person or hating them. Sensible reporting & balanced views or strict facts are not their forte. It doesn't sell, I guess.

Look at the ridiculous celebration of A Million Little Pieces just because Oprah said it was great. Anyone who knew anything about addiction knew it was a crock, but it took months before the mainstream media could no longer ignore those who said it was. Until then, they held out that it was wonderful. Only when so many small media outlets were tearing it to shreds did the main ones finally acknowledge it because they realized they were losing credibility.

After reading Illicit: How Smugglers, Traffickers, and Copycats are Hijacking the Global Economy, I realized that I have absolutely no clue about world politics. I'm sure I don't know enough to have a decent opinion on whether we should be in Iraq or any country over there. My instincts say we shouldn't be wasting money & lives there, when there is so much to do at home.

I sincerely doubt that the U.S. invasion of Iraq has made anything worse for Iraq, though. What those people endured under their last despot was incredible. His poison gas attacks on the Kurds were well documented along with many others. Where he would have led them & the rest of the world through his actions was probably worse. I think he had to be stopped.

I doubt our invasion was the best way to handle cleaning up the mess, but I doubt there was a good solution. Seems to me it's been a mess for most of recorded time & probably will remain one for a long time to come. Mixing fanatic religious beliefs into politics just makes a mess & will continue to do so.

Throwing anything in that situation is irresponsible at best. We may not be fully right in being there, but that attack was wrong & should be punished.

I'm not a fan of Bush, although I'll admit to voting for him. His invasion of Iraq & timing was terrible. His 'No Child Left Behind' act was exactly the kind of social misfit I was hoping to avoid by giving him my vote. He didn't manage to do other things I'd hoped he'd do, either. <sigh> I wonder how much difference the president really makes.

"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools." -- Herbert Spencer, (1820-1903) British author,economist, philosopher.