Comments for Hypocrisy and More

Comment on Tanya White reminds us of economist Keynes paths to peace by single child

single child — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 19:10:51 +0000

A Singh: Questions-how did Keynes characterize the Korean War involving one affluent capitalistic country and what did or would he say about a planned,probably permanent State participation as principal in capitalism such as China and many other countries and would he encourage the US to buy, keep and manage large or important companies such as GM, banks etc?

Comment on Christmas Is Under Assault Once Again by Neeneko

Neeneko — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 17:02:16 +0000

@suz

Not to defend this particular champaign, but let’s face it, organized Christianity puts a LOT of money and energy into fighting every else. While it is less so in America (since other areas of the world they still have effectively forced conversion), Churches here expend increadable resources to fight anything that isn’t them,.. including other types of Christians.

And yes, it has been found that humans seem to hard wired for religion,.. though that really makes a case AGAINST religion, not for it. Either way, it isn’t all humans who are wired that way which is why, in any erra, you tend to have aethists and such. The only reason you see more of them in America today is that they have less chaches of having their lives destroyed if someone finds out they don’t follow the local teachings.

Comment on Christmas Is Under Assault Once Again by suz

suz — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 16:12:14 +0000

It is very sad that aitheist need to fight so hard againt Chrsitians. Just why do the need to try and ruin holy days for those that do believe. Me thinks they dost prostest to much! Just who are they trying to convience others or themselves. I do not believe in Aitheist. I know that man is hard-wired for God. (www.meridianmagazine.com/sci_rel/021112wired.html)
When you are ready, When you are tired and empty. Come to Christ.

Suz

Comment on Iran To Sacrifice Dog In Cruel Redundant And Worthless Experiment by Chris

Chris — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 15:41:57 +0000

I’m going to guess that information about space flight intricacies are not readily available from NASA or the Russian Space Program. Instead, the Iranians have to learn how to keep things alive in space the hard way. Like we did. It’s a tough lesson, but if this country weren’t dedicated to keeping important technological breakthroughs under lock and key and patent, then this sort of thing may not happen.

Comment on Christmas Is Under Assault Once Again by bbillet

bbillet — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 15:38:23 +0000

It is not about not celebrating christmas its about preserving the separation of church and state, which is breached every time a nativity scene is placed on publicly owned property.

Comment on Tempest In A Teapot Or Legitimate Constitutional ‘Hillary-Gate’ Crisis? by Steven Pounders

Steven Pounders — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 22:36:50 +0000

The answer to a frivolous grievance is a frivolous rebuttal. The article only applies when a salary is increased “during the Time for which he was elected”.

Quite clearly, the Framers only intended this limitation for male senators. It doesn’t apply to Hillary.

Comment on Tanya White reminds us of economist Keynes paths to peace by A Singh

A Singh — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 12:31:10 +0000

PS I meant to mention, in reply to Single Child, that Minsky says almost nothing about population. Markwell has quite a bit on Keynes’ thinking about population pressure and the chances of war/peace. Thanks again to Arthur James for the references.

Comment on Tanya White reminds us of economist Keynes paths to peace by A Singh

A Singh — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 12:28:25 +0000

Thanks for the reference to Hyman Minsky on Keynes on war and peace. It’s only a couple of pars - remmber Minsky was writing in 1975 -

“Conflict among nations
Keynes also believed that ‘if nations can learn to provide themselves with full employment by their domestic policy … there need be no important economic forces calculated to set the interest of one country against that of its neighbours’ (GT, p. 382). Keynes viewed the tensions among the affluent nations of Europe and America as stemming from the felt needs to export in order to protect domestic employment, if not to raise domestic employment by ‘beggar my neighbour’ policies.

For the first twenty-five years after the Second World War, this view of Keynes was borne out by relations among the affluent capitalist countries. Aside from vestiges of past colonialism, such as the Vietnam involvement by first France and then the United States, there was an absence of war and even of serious tensions among the countries that were both capitalist and affluent. The ideological Cold War is not a question of economic conflict. The ability to sustain domestic markets by monetary and fiscal policies eliminated pressures for countries to ‘compete’ for controlled markets or advantageous positions in world trade.”

How relevant is this again today!

The reference to Markwell is also interesting. He gives a detailed account of how Keynes came to write in the General Theory about the effect of his economics on the chances of war and peace. Fascinating that Keynes was responding to a debate in New Statesman on “does capitalism cause war?”

Comment on Terror In India,Tactical and Strategic Perspective by germany differs

germany differs — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 02:04:05 +0000

Not much different really. As a speaker he is rather interesting and he does seemed to have bungled Iran in 1979. But after more than half a century of the checkered history of Iran and the West, not confident much of anything would cancel out the effects of such colonialism before and after WWII. Yes, I suppose, hindsight vs the times. His point about a culture of fear, nonetheless, seems to have some bearing on extremes in America today.

germany differss last blog post..Ottaviano Petrucci

Comment on Terror In India,Tactical and Strategic Perspective by Marshall Ivan Risidin

Marshall Ivan Risidin — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 19:43:34 +0000

In response to “Germany Differs”, I have considerable respect for Brezhinski’s intellect. To me, he was usually the one in Carter’s otherwise failed administration who made sense.
On the other hand, he collaborated in the ultimate series of blunders concerning Iran that got us where we are today. I do feel he is terribly in error to consider the war on terror to be mere paranoia. He should spend a little more time on the front lines, maybe in Israel–a country he normally sides against, or Afghanistan or Syria.
The saving grace for me is that he will not, as I had feared, be Secretary of State. As a commentator, he is brilliant.
I am curious for your opinion.