Let's see, Judge Andrew Napolitano is a Judge who went to law school. He doesn't have a degree in history, he hasn't presented a book with citations or even notes. Nothing tangible about this, it's not supported by any facts whatsoever, I suggest he write an essay at least that can be backed up.

This is the problem with a lot of academia, anyone can claim anything for history because it's a soft science. You should be forced to demonstrate your findings with evidence, none of which is presented here. So it's just hard to take seriously.

I'd love to see an essay written on this subject, and references to the evidence on which this idea comes from. So far though I've only seen stuff that's ethereal.

Also maybe it's just me but why is this being brought up again? If you want to take down Lincoln whatever you can do this to every president, they're world leaders who make hundreds of decisions. To me though this is most likely about racists trying to show that the country isn't that racist and the real baddies are those who stopped the racists.

Specifically this new challenge to the Civil War reminds me of a book that came out awhile ago arguing that the Palestinians aren't actually from Palestine, so they don't belong there. There's no issue, they don't belong so the Jews are doing nothing wrong occupying their land and keeping them in a giant open air prison. This book was praised in the media for obvious reasons that Israel is one of our close allies. It didn't take long though before it was destroyed academically by some intelligent people. It has largely been forgotten because it's a waste of fucking paper.

This in my opinion is a waste of breath and time, please prove me wrong.

I remember watching this a long time ago, after watching tons of talks where Chomsky was introduced with that New York Times quote and corrected and expanded on it. I've heard him do the same thing in a dozen interviews, so if this guy had listened to just about ANY Chomsky he would've heard him correct it before. He was glad Chomsky missed the correction this time and was using it to go for what he thought was his jugular.

I've read over 50 Chomsky books, dozens of his essays and listened to over a hundred interviews. I don't agree with him on several things and I would LOVE IT if anyone who wanted to argue with Chomsky would fucking bring any of those up.

Whenever Chomsky gives a talk there's either:

1. Worshipers who praise him for days without bringing up anything interesting.

2. Whiny Fucking College Kids who complain that it's really hard and my feet hurt after protesting a couple times. This dude has seen people stand up for things knowing they'd probably be killed for doing so, don't bore him with your stories of woe you little whiny hipster pussies.

Finally 3. People who hate him and frame their arguments in the stupidest way possible making it plainly clear that they have never read his arguments in anyway shape or form. You don't want to read or listen to him Fucking Fine, he isn't god he's just a dude. But mother fucker if you want to argue someone you have to at least hear what they're fucking saying first. Ya know who is most guilty of this by the way, fucking Communists. They come up and yack and yack about shit that Chomsky has never said or endorsed and then blame him for all of Americans actions around the world. It's fucking incredibly to hear and I'm sorry but I just want them to bite the curb because they don't fucking listen.

@Trancecoach
interesting.
i admit my utter failure in expressing my position and decide to use someone i highly admire who could explain it better.

and in doing so i offend you?
and you respond by offending my sensibilities?

do you REALLY think i cannot think for myself?
are we in some epic battle where there is some abstract "winner"?
i thought i was talking to someone who i am quite fond of and who i also just happen to disagree with on this particular subject.

i want to understand why you choose your flavor of libertarianism.
which i dont because you never address the elephant in the room.it appears to me your style of libertarianism is circa 1790.
even blankfist agreed that corporate power and influence MUST be restructured and possibly returned to temporary partnerships,a privilege given by the people,to be dissolved when the project was concluded.
and blankfist is a die hard libertarian.

or is the corporate tyranny not as evident to you?
maybe reading too many heritage foundation essays?
have any of these articles outlined the flaws in capitalism?
like that the system will ultimately begin to cannibalize itself when growth becomes stagnant?
that unfettered capitalism will lay waste to everything..eventually and eventually everything will become a commodity.
to be sold and traded.

its not like it is a huge secret.
the problems with capitalism are well know and well understood,but i guess you are not one of those people.

and i am not one of those people who are good at conveying things such as these..never have been.
but i have always been respectful with you,even when i disagree.
and yet you assume my intentions.
take offense when i meant none and snipe at me from some imagined superior balcony.

i was never trying to say you were wrong.i just wanted to understand why you believe the things you believe.

and now as i am writing this i am being forced to question.
will he take this sentence wrong?
how will he perceive this word in that context?
and i have to admit..its kinda irritating.

but ya know what?
thats on me.
i made certain assumptions about you based an very little.
he likes floyd..check.
dropped some acid back in the day...check.
is educated and in the psychology field...check.

so every correspondence i have had with you is with that person in my minds eye.
i have written every word to you as if you were sitting right next to me.

i wrote about this before and you ridiculed me then.i should have gotten the message.
you are not the person i gave you credit for.
you are you.
and thats ok.

watch the video if you wish.its pretty informative.
or dont.
it doesnt matter.

i apologize for offending you.
/end transmission

Sorry, I'm unclear why you are comparing killing a few hundred dolphins a year to killing the buffalo (which were slaughtered by the millions). I already said the international community should intervene if there was any threat to the continuation of the species by the hunting and no such threat has been shown. And livestock raising is as much of an ecological threat (see this U.N. report) if not more so than overfishing, seeing as it is directly tied to global warming.

I'm curious where you got the facts on Japanese cuisine? I'm also curious what you think the Japanese people should eat if not fish? Before replying, please read this incredibly well-researched essay about the state of food consumption and production in Japan. You'll also want to read this article about the state of maritime fishing which shows that Japan is not nearly as much of a culprit as you seem to be implying--many countries around the world rely on maritime fishing to feed their people--and that by properly managing fishing hauls sustainability can indeed be maintained. In Japan's case especially, because the population (and hence demand for food) will continue to decrease over the next 50 years.

I suspect you are not basing your opinions about Japan off of the evidence. Perhaps you read the articles about blue-fin tuna consumption (Japanese consume 80% of all blue-fin tuna caught and stocks are hitting dangerously low levels), in which case you definitely have an argument against consuming that particular fish but it seems a bit odd to extend that argument to say Japanese people should not be eating fish or that they somehow don't care about the environment.

"I don't like it it when mummy and daddy fight!"

Fair enough I can't disagree with a lot of that (your right to say it was directed at you upon a 2nd reading sorry).

As far as your criticism of Chingy in general your half right, but what I see after lurking on here for a few years reading posts is someone who has bashed his head against the same wall so long it's hurt.

Perhaps I'm projecting (don't we all?) but I see a pitfall I've fallen into myself many times throughout my life and it's the same pitfall we all fall into in our own ways. Love is the most virulent and dangerous of poisons!

Without wishing to delve into a very lengthy essay on the dynamics of dualistic consciousness/reality I strongly suspect that Chingy went through what is ultimately a very similar thought process to the one you just espoused i.e. "I'm sick of people not even trying to understand my heartfelt positions so fuck them".

Long story short: a lack of sympathy and patience on both sides.

Sad but entirely understandable and I have no desire to get on a high horse about it. I'm as bad if not frequently worse myself. This is the great curse of caring; we expose our flanks and allow our opponents blades to drive that bit deeper.

Is it really such a surprise that the more we care the thicker our armour of contempt becomes?

I guess when all is said and done though it's not my business to tell either one of you how to behave. Just from my pov your mutual bitterness here stems from a common source. Both of your arguments make perfect sense to me as does your contempt for each other and that on balance is probably what bummed me out enough to pitch in (futilely) with my own 2cents.


I'd like to ask you both to be a little more understanding with each other but I have no right to do that (nor would it work unless you each wanted it to anyway). So I shall end simply with "Do what thau wilts".

*Insert 4000 word essay here on WTF US designers were thinking or not thinking, as the case may be.

He is making reference to Orwell's "Slavery is Freedom." The hawks do wage endless war to end war and taxation is theft, as Chodorov and others have demonstrated, and social democrats do advocate massive taxation. Your gripe is a bit like complaining of ad hominem when saying Communists and Nazis engage in theft and murder. Sometimes people do bad things and that needs to be pointed out. There are however plenty of non-ad hominem argument provided by Murphy, which I encourage you to read.
Furthermore, "argumentum ad hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument."

These you cited above are not "fallacies" and hardly irrelevant, as they provide reasons why the current system is not desirable. In any case, I can put you in touch with the author to see if he'd like to respond to your response to his essay.

Robert is used to this kind of BS and has worked out some really good replies. This is the man who, after all, is challenging Krugman to a debate it seems Krugman will continue to avoid.

In any case, whether the rest of it is "worth your time" or not, only you can decide on that.

"From each according to their abilities, to each according to their need."

I believe in Stateless society, but I don't believe in privatization under a capitalist system. We need to find a balance between profitability and equal compensation for provider and receiver.

There is a role for limited government, but I think it's limited to a nexus for regulation, and nothing more. Let everything else be privatized, but to a very limited extent. Honestly I really think that everything should be non-profit, but I don't actually know how to propose something that isn't leaning towards communism.

I will gladly read the essay you linked to tomorrow, but from my understanding of human nature and history, I don't think there is any way to balance a for-profit enterprise without succumbing to the evils of man.

Competing private security or insurance would be far cheaper and much more efficient and effective than the state-imposed police force that we have now. Chief among the many reasons that it would be an improvement is the fact that it wouldn't be a monopoly (which are invariably rife with corruption and abuse). Of course, this doesn't include the millions of others who are willing and able to defend themselves on top of that.

Do you think police services are "free?" Even if you happen to be a nonproductive tax consumer, you still pay for it in other ways (especially if you're a minority or unlucky enough to be born into the wrong "class").

Here is a link to lengthy PDF essay on how a stateless society would deal with law enforcement, courts, prisons and such. Because a fundamental truth about life is that it cannot be fully predicted (a truth, I might add, that seems to elude the central planners and government bureaucrats much to our horror and detriment), we cannot know 100% as to how law enforcement would work in the absence of the current state-imposed police force. But imagination and logic help guide us into trusting a free society.

The author uses his own knowledge, logic, and imagination to posit, for example, that prisons would actually need to compete to attract prisoners, as clients. The author sees that as both making prisons more secure and preventing prisoner abuse -- a far cry from the prisoners-as-chattal, state-contracted, crony-"semi-private" prisons that we have today.

An interesting read.

Well, I did say that my comment really needed a book-length essay. I used short hand to get my point across. Glad to see that there were Sifters who got it without having to patiently prove each syllable with detailed facts and figures.

I presume you mean the very last line, not the stuff I learned in the class. About women getting blotto drunk.

That last sentence can be unpacked into a book length essay. I just cut to the chase -- given this rape culture we live in, where nice guys don't speak up and shame the bad guys, where men and women both slut shame women while giving a pass to the men who commit actual crimes -- given that starting point, it is a foolish person who gets blotto drunk.

It is a stupid thing to do regardless of your gender.

It is also a foolish person who walks into a high poverty area at midnight, alone, with twenty dollar bills stapled to their clothes and wads of bills clutched in their hands. That is a gender neutral statement.

Your video, Bill Moyers Essay: On the Sabotage of Democracy, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Get back to work/writing that essay/cleaning your house, @Procrastinatron!

This needed to be the first post!

Referenced article can be found here:
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2013-05-09-1.html

Card very clearly qualifies that the quoted statements are entirely a 'what if Obama decided to act like Stalin or Hitler' mental exercise and not his personal beliefs. The stuff he throws in prior as his actual opinion is far more moderate and not nearly so nutty. This has gotta be one of the lowest points I've seen from Cenk...

Well I'm disappointed in TYT.

The original article on the Slate was hack written 'Caveat in Paragraph 19' tabloid junk. The caveat being that they fail to mention they are quoting fiction until the very end of the article.

TYT have taken the bait and regurgitated the story without even mentioning the caveat. The conviction that Cenk has in his furore (which is exactly what tabloid articles aim to cause) makes me doubt TYT's credibility on other stories they report that I haven't happened to have read first.

The article the Slate quoted is "Civilization Watch - Unlikely Events" which you can read directly here.

Cards' political views are about as far removed from my own as you can get; but this essay was about reinterpreting history and the absurdity of predicting the future.

You could argue that Card is protecting his real views behind a shield of fiction, or some weak argument to that effect, but It's obvious TYT didn't even read it