Overcoming Liberalism: A 12-Step Program

[sameoldsht]

Overcoming Liberalism: A 12-Step Program

Step 1: Admitting that you're a liberal
This is the first step for every liberal on the way to recovery. It is important to understand that you're not "progressive", "moderate", or "enlightened". You're a liberal, and you need to be honest with yourself about that fact.

Step 2: Pledge to support your beliefs with facts
Realize that truth is more important than moral superiority and is the only way to come over to reality. You must research beyond propaganda from the Sierra Club, Hilllary Clinton, and CNN to understand things as they really exist in the world. You can no longer argue based on "feelings" or emotion. You will actually need to back up your arguments with real information. This is a difficult step, because it means you can't be lazy any more.

Step 3: Love America
This may be the most difficult step for those of you who are hippies and peaceniks. Admitting that the country you hate actually stands as a beacon to defend freedom throughout the world can make some of you physically ill. You might want to make a visit to a military cemetery to better understand that these men and women gave their lives so that you could spew hatred. Otherwise, you would currently be living in a police state that would never let you wear that nasty patchouli oil, let alone speak out against your government.

Step 4: Take a college level economics class
A Socialist is defined as someone who's never taken an economics class. Most Socialists have a hard time balancing their checkbooks, let alone explaining the simple concept of supply-and-demand. It's time to flush your complete ignorance of basic economics down the toilet and understand how the world actually functions. This concept will be very important for the next steps that involve communism, facts about corporations, and the inefficiencies of government.

Step 5: Say "no" to Communism and Socialism
While this concept is obvious to most of the free world, it is an important step in your recovery process. If you have difficulty with this step, spend a week living and working in Cuba.

Step 6: Corporations are not evil
If you're reading this article on-line or in an email, it's thanks to corporations. If you get some kind of paycheck, you can thank corporations. If you work for a nonprofit or the government, you still have to thank corporations. The nonprofit sector and the government wouldn't have any money to pay you without corporations. It is also important that you understand that making a profit doesn't equate to "greed" or exploitation. Capitalism has created the greatest society in our world's history. Even communist countries need corporations to survive, so enjoy a nice, hot cup of reality.

Step 7: The government is inefficient
If you are one of those liberals who believe the government should tax us more in order to take care of society, you need to pay special attention to this step. You need to realize that government bureaucracy will waste most of your tax dollars, while the private sector will put your money to much better use. Even most Democrat politicians understand this to some degree, which is why Hillary's socialist healthcare proposal was voted down by a majority of both Democrats and Republicans. Go to your local post office or call the IRS to ask a tax question if you need a reminder about government inefficiency.

Step 8: The earth is not your "mother", and she's not dying
The time has now come to stop your donations to Greenpeace, The Sierra Club, and every other EnviroNazi organization to which you belong. Face the reality that the earth, society and our environment are better off today than ever in recorded history and that they are continuing to improve. I realize that many of you tree huggers will have a very difficult time letting go of the Douglas Fir on this one. I would suggest reading The Skeptical Environmentalist by Bjorn Lomborg. Mr. Lomborg is a former member of Greenpeace and is currently a statistics professor at a university in Denmark. He set out to prove the world was in bad shape and ended up surprising himself by proving the exact opposite.

Step 9: Stop smoking the wacky tobacco
Okay, some of you might need to enter another 12-step program to complete this step. Marijuana is distorting your sense of reality, and you need to stop using it. Besides, you'll save a fortune on snacks.

Step 10: Eat a hamburger
If God didn't intend for us to eat animals, he wouldn't have made them out of meat. You can put your sprouts and tofu on the hamburger, but get some meat into you. You'll look and feel better than you ever imagined. You can always remind yourself that Nazi propaganda hailed Adolf Hitler as a vegetarian to get you through this step.

Step 11: Stop re-writing political history
It's now time to admit that Bill Clinton is a lying-cheating-sexist-racist-rapist jackass, Hillary Clinton is one of the worst role models for women in this country, Al Gore really did lose the 2000 election by every vote tabulation you attempt, Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War and didn't create the homeless problem, John McCain is not a typical Republican, and Jimmy Carter is a nice man but has one of the worst presidential records of anyone in history.

Step 12: Be a missionary
Once you have completed the previous steps to overcoming liberalism, it's time for you to share this awakening with others who are not as fortunate. Go out amongst the liberal sheep and spread the good word of your freedom from the chains of ignorance that once bound you. Congratulations, and welcome to reality.

[SnakeRat]

Unless your name is Jeremy Robb, please give him credit for authoring this garbage.

Apparently neither you nor he know what a liberal is...

Liberal:

a) Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.

b) Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

Dictionary.com

[wacki]

You sir, are an ass.

I consider myself a liberal via the classical definition:
www.dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com)
1) Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
2) Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

I will agree with steps 1-7 and 11(on some parts but not all), but not the others. Modern democrats have twisted the word liberal till it has lost all meaning. So I will say Step 4,5, and 7 refers to big government democrats that call themselves liberals but are really socialists. Socialism is anything but a new idea.

The world is in serious trouble via global warming, and I intend to create a thread on it the near future after intense study of the topic. I am not a vegetarian, but support those who are. It's their choice! I don't do anything but drink, but I am for legalization. Who are you to tell others how to think or live their life!

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Unless your name is Jeremy Robb please give him credit for authoring this garbage.



Liberal:

a) Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.

b) Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

Dictionary.com




[/ QUOTE ]

Hah, beat me to the punch.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Apparently neither you nor he know what a liberal is...

Liberal:

a) Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.

b) Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

[/ QUOTE ]


Yes, that's what a liberal once was, and that's what a liberal should be. Unfortunately however that's not what most liberals are (today).

Most of today's liberals want to force their views on you, grab your money because the government can spend it better than you can, and stifle meaningful debate under the guise of political correctness or by calling something "hate speech." In short they want to legislate what they think is the right way to be, rather than merely ensuring our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I leave it to you which of the above is worthy of the name "Liberal".

[Nepa]

This is just prove that a neo righty doesn't think for himself. Just take someone elses thoughts.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Apparently neither you nor he know what a liberal is...

Liberal:

a) Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.

b) Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

[/ QUOTE ]


Yes, that's what a liberal once was, and that's what a liberal should be. Unfortunately however that's not what most liberals are (today).

Most of today's liberals want to force their views on you, grab your money because the government can spend it better than you can, and stifle meaningful debate under the guise of political correctness or by calling something "hate speech." In short they want to legislate what they think is the right way to be, rather than merely ensuring our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I leave it to you which of the above is worthy of the name "Liberal".

[/ QUOTE ]

I know, and it really sucks that people are doing this. I guess classical liberals need a new word to call themselves. Or a word describing big government democrats that like to call themselves liberal needs to be found.

[Snoogins47]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Apparently neither you nor he know what a liberal is...

Liberal:

a) Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.

b) Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

[/ QUOTE ]


Yes, that's what a liberal once was, and that's what a liberal should be. Unfortunately however that's not what most liberals are (today).

Most of today's liberals want to force their views on you, grab your money because the government can spend it better than you can, and stifle meaningful debate under the guise of political correctness or by calling something "hate speech." In short they want to legislate what they think is the right way to be, rather than merely ensuring our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I leave it to you which of the above is worthy of the name "Liberal".

[/ QUOTE ]

Liberals want to grab your money, stifle meaningful debate..?

Did somebody at some point decide it's an absolute necessity to pick a viewpoint on a handful of issues, extrapolate it to a bigger issue and demonize the opposition, in order to be considered "well-versed" in politics?

Come on, when the best both sides can do is to kick and scream about the horrors of (insert pundit here) lying, and then turning around and citing the liars on their own side.

And I'm sorry, to say that the majority of today's liberals are trying to force a way of life on people more than Conservatives...

This is just ridiculous. We have a massive contingent of conservatives, guess what, supporting federal measures to... guess what, *gasp* disallow choice?

Look at the wedge issues of Gay Marriage, Abortion, etc, and we see a trend, for better or worse, where conservatism is actually championing a decrease in personal freedom, in exchange for some of that very right to liberty you mention those dirty liberals as wanting to take away.

I don't want to open this up to an argument about abortion, gay marriage, or some vague notion of social programs taking money away from indiduals, hence a move away from personal freedom.

My personal beliefs are staying completely out of this.

And by the way, just out of curiousity, I'd like to see an example of where this so-called "intelligent debate" has been criticised as being "hate speech." And please, make it somebody who's actually got some semblance of intelligence starting the debate, and somebody who's not a radical nutjob criticising it.

[GWB]

Words change meaings over time, and develop multiple meanings. When we refer to liberals in a general political context people with common sense understand what is meant.

People who pull out the antiquated definition of liberal are laying a smoke screen. You show yourself to be a liberal who is not proud of being a liberal (how pathetic).

A liberal is a big taxer, a big spender, a big regulator, and someone who believes select minority groups must be treated as incapable of running their own lives without big government help.

[Bez]

I am a conservative but if you wish to be taken seriously, please learn what Liberal means.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
People who pull out the antiquated definition of liberal are laying a smoke screen. You show yourself to be a liberal who is not proud of being a liberal (how pathetic).


[/ QUOTE ]

I hope your not calling me pathetic. I consider myself a liberal because of:

www.dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com)
1) Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
2) Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

I understand that politics have twisted its meaning, but that doesn't mean I am a liberal by their standards on all cases. I am on numerous domestic issues a political liberal, and I am a liberal based on dictionary's meaning. I do not try to lay a smokescreen.

I have repeatedly said I am not a democrat, and I am not a conservative either. Both parties get some things right, and some things wrong. Being a scientist, I am very frustrated with conservatives when it comes to the environment and stem cell research and numerous other restrictive laws that democrats seem to get right IMO.

I am also a firm believer in natural selection, not only in nature, but in business as well. With a big government, you impede natural selection of business and the economy. So I do not agree with big government democrats. When it comes to foreign politics I agree with Machiavelli, Lee Harris(conservative), and Thomas Friedman(NYT liberal). Conservatives seem to get this right.

Because of my domestic views, I like to call myself a liberal (using both the classical and, except for the big government, the political definition as well). If I am not, then please tell me what I am. But I do not think that using the definition of liberal in the dictionary is pathetic. Or calling yourself a liberal on domestic issues when is pathetic when you agree with democrats on numerous domestic issues.

[GWB]

My point was general. This definition of liberal issue comes up usually because liberals want to avoid discussing political liberalism, and it is silly to argue over a dictionary when legitinate political discussion is involved.

We know what a liberal is in the political sense, it is described in the OP of this thread, but are we talking about that? No, we are flying in the smoke screen.

Step 1: Admitting that you're a liberal
- from OP, notice how in this thread the liberals have been unable to even get through step 1?

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]

We know what a liberal is in the political sense, it is described in the OP of this thread, but are we talking about that? No, we are flying in the smoke screen.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't agree with that, I just layed out my general philosophy which is domestically liberal (dictionary and politically defs) and economically similar to conservative. How is that a smokescreen?



[ QUOTE ]

Step 1: Admitting that you're a liberal
- from OP, notice how in this thread the liberals have been unable to even get through step 1?

[/ QUOTE ]

Who?

[andyfox]

"Step 3: Love America
This may be the most difficult step for those of you who are hippies and peaceniks. Admitting that the country you hate actually stands as a beacon to defend freedom throughout the world can make some of you physically ill. You might want to make a visit to a military cemetery to better understand that these men and women gave their lives so that you could spew hatred. Otherwise, you would currently be living in a police state that would never let you wear that nasty patchouli oil, let alone speak out against your government."

I was something of a hippy and have always been a peacenik, so I'll just address this Step.

Questioning a person's patriotism because their political views are different from yours is reprehensible. Criticizing the government, or a particular policy, does not mean one hates one's country. I am proud of the country I love when it stands as a beacon of freedom; it is when it subverts that standing that I am in disagreement with the policy that does so. I can't speak for other liberals, but I have lost family members and friends in wars. Some of them died needlessly in wars that had absolutely nothing to do with defending democracy either here at home or elsewhere. Sometimes our government lies; sometimes it does the wrong thing. Was it wrong to criticize Jimmy Carter when interest rates skyrocketed or to criticize Bill Clinton when he lied to us?

The hatred I see being spewed here is being spewed by you.

Shame on you.

[Bez]

'I can't speak for other liberals, but I have lost family members and friends in wars. Some of them died needlessly in wars that had absolutely nothing to do with defending democracy'

As is the case in Iraq. How the hell did Saddam pose a threat? Saddam and Bin Laden hated each other. Sucking up to Saddam would have been a better way to reduce/prevent terrorism.

[MMMMMM]

I get the impression that you think I'm attacking the liberal position because I favor conservative causes. Nothing could be further from the truth. I'm attacking today's typical Liberal stance because it is so very far removed from the Classic Liberal stance. And I am at heart a Classic Liberal in most ways.

That many conservatives today also share some of the same ideological failings as most of today's liberals, does not at all impact my argument.

Myu post was not about liberalism vs. conservativism. It was about true liberalism vs. today's non-liberal philosophy that has the gall to masquerade as liberal.

As for an example of where "liberals" want to stifle meaningful debate, one need not look very far to see meaningful discussions about the religious component of terrorism referred to as "bigotry" or "racism".

[Bez]

Classic liberalism meant freedom in many ways. This racist aspect you talk of is very much evident in Britain; the Reverend Blair's government have made political correctness a major issue, and any talk of stopping illegal immigration is said to be racist. Those lefties that promote political correctness are harming the minorities they seek to protect. They are idiots.

[SnakeRat]

[ QUOTE ]
We know what a liberal is in the political sense, it is described in the OP of this thread, but are we talking about that? No, we are flying in the smoke screen.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are saying a liberal (in the political sense) is an America hating, illogical, uneducated, vegetarian, communist, pot-head.
I disagree.




Overcoming Conservatism: A 2-Step Program
1. Admit you are a conservative.
2. Quit being a tobacco chewing, bible thumping, redneck, bigot.

See how ridiculous that is?
I can't even believe you are defending this nonsense.

[sam h]

A brief anecdote: A few weeks ago I was at a party talking to guy I know who is in the PhD program in Economics at Stanford. This is a top five program at a school that, among major social science research universities, is commonly thought to fall well to the conservative side of the spectrum. I asked him how many people he knew in the program - mainly fellow PhD students but some professors as well - that planned to vote for Bush. His answer: 1.

Admittedly, this was not a very scientific sample. But I think it illustrates a point that most people just don't understand. This is that people now on the cutting edge of economics research are much more "liberal" than commonly believed.

The idea that conservatives somehow "get" economics while liberals don't is just a mantra, one repeated ritualistically by people who don't know much about the field.

As an aside: I know the list is supposed to be funny and present things in stark terms, but it reflects a certain intellectual vacuousness.

[Bez]

I don't know about in America, but the political right in Britain follow a particularly Liberal economic policy i.e. free trade. The economic policies of the left are in contrast to liberalism - high taxes, redistribution of wealth etc.

[SnakeRat]

The notion that the environment is "better off today than in any time in recorded history" is laughable.

[Snoogins47]

[ QUOTE ]
I get the impression that you think I'm attacking the liberal position because I favor conservative causes. Nothing could be further from the truth. I'm attacking today's typical Liberal stance because it is so very far removed from the Classic Liberal stance. And I am at heart a Classic Liberal in most ways.

That many conservatives today also share some of the same ideological failings as most of today's liberals, does not at all impact my argument.

Myu post was not about liberalism vs. conservativism. It was about true liberalism vs. today's non-liberal philosophy that has the gall to masquerade as liberal.

As for an example of where "liberals" want to stifle meaningful debate, one need not look very far to see meaningful discussions about the religious component of terrorism referred to as "bigotry" or "racism".

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I'll concede that I misunderstood your point, mainly the last line, which tended to imply, at least upon first read, that you weren't simply bashing the neo-liberal agenda, but trying to put the opposing viewpoint on a pedestal above it.

Now, as for the religious aspect of terrorism... one may not need look far for an example where any mention of the word "muslim" or "islam" in the same breath as "terror," "suicide bomber," or the J-Word *gasp* "Jihad" is instantly passed off as religious bigotry..

But you also need not look far for an intense concentration of non-liberals that demonstrate not only a keen misunderstanding of the relationship of Islam and Terrorism, but extend that to mean that in fact, all followers are Terrorists, that their religion explicitly informs them to fly planes into buildings, etc.

So, I'll concede that there are many liberals that fall into that shortcoming... some sort of blind notion of political correctness and freedom of religion making any mention of negativity + a religion = bigotry.

However, to be brutally honest, I'd be hard pressed to mention a single time in the popular media that I've even HEARD a meaningful attempt at debate on the issue.

Now, this isn't even a point brought up here, so I'm sort of hijacking the post, but so be it. My apologies for misinterpreting your argument, by the way.

[jokerswild]

They hate America. They hate the bill of rights. They hate that their racism and double standards for the wealthy get exposed evrytime that they post.

People who call themselves conservative here are some of the worse read bigots that I've ever been exposed to in my life. They'd vote for David Duke over Kerry.

[pokerjo22]

[ QUOTE ]
A liberal is a big taxer, a big spender, a big regulator

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course this is completely different from your good self, who is a big spender, a big regulator and who doesn't bother taxing people because somehow the books will all balance in the end /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
A brief anecdote: A few weeks ago I was at a party talking to guy I know who is in the PhD program in Economics at Stanford. This is a top five program at a school that, among major social science research universities, is commonly thought to fall well to the conservative side of the spectrum. I asked him how many people he knew in the program - mainly fellow PhD students but some professors as well - that planned to vote for Bush. His answer: 1.

Admittedly, this was not a very scientific sample. But I think it illustrates a point that most people just don't understand. This is that people now on the cutting edge of economics research are much more "liberal" than commonly believed.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are big problems with this. Alot of Ph.D. students often are in academia. When I say academia I mean post docs, grant money, etc. Academia, while very noble, is almost like a cult. I should know, I'm in it. People in academia are extremely bright, and most of the brightest scientists are in academia. The problem with academia is that it pays about 1/3 what private industry pays, and sometime even less, yet you have to work twice as hard just to survive. Principle Investigators spend about half their time writing grants, and only the other half the time working. As a result, they have to spend twice as much time working to get the same amount done as someone who doesn't write grants. It's very inefficient, almost laughable. Here you have some of the brightest and best trained people in the world and you force them to waste 1/2 their time. It doesn't matter how much work they've published, or prizes they've won, they still have to write grants to fund their research. I've seen PI's spend 3 weeks writing a grant proposal till 3 in the morning that only had a funding rate of 3%. Most people in academia completely depend on federal funding to fund their research. Their lives depend on the government. Their life is very different than real world experiences.

Because of all of this, and numerous other reasons, I can't help but think the mentality of someone in academia is also very different than someone who is in the real world.

Don't misunderstand me, the smartest people I know are in academia. I'm just curious how finance experts in small companies differ from finance experts in big companies and those in academia. I have a feeling it will be very different.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know about in America, but the political right in Britain follow a particularly Liberal economic policy i.e. free trade. The economic policies of the left are in contrast to liberalism - high taxes, redistribution of wealth etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's the same in America, atleast economically. The right is small government, pro-guns(no gun laws), anti-abortion, pro tobacco, anti-marijuana, anti-gay marriage.

The left (democratic) bans smoking in bars/pubs, is pro marijuana, pro gay marriage, pro-choice for abortion, and loves big government.

Neither agenda makes a whole lot of sense to me. I can't help but think they both seem to contradict each other. For instance the left is pro-marijuana yet bans tobacco and shuts down bars at 1 AM. The right wants people to have the freedom to smoke, drink, own guns yet draws the line when it comes to non alcohol/tobacco drugs, being gay, abortion, and is much more controlling in foreign politics.

The liberals (political definition) seem to be alot more inconsistent in their philosophy than the conservatives, which pisses me off as it bastardizes the meaning of the classical liberal and I get people telling me I'm not a liberal. Oh well, what can you do.

[Snoogins47]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't know about in America, but the political right in Britain follow a particularly Liberal economic policy i.e. free trade. The economic policies of the left are in contrast to liberalism - high taxes, redistribution of wealth etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's the same in America, atleast economically. The right is small government, pro-guns(no gun laws), anti-abortion, pro tobacco, anti-marijuana, anti-gay marriage.

The left (democratic) bans smoking in bars/pubs, is pro marijuana, pro gay marriage, pro-choice for abortion, and loves big government.

Neither agenda makes a whole lot of sense to me. I can't help but think they both seem to contradict each other. For instance the left is pro-marijuana yet bans tobacco and shuts down bars at 1 AM. The right wants people to have the freedom to smoke, drink, own guns yet draws the line when it comes to non alcohol/tobacco drugs, being gay, abortion, and is much more controlling in foreign politics.

The liberals (political definition) seem to be alot more inconsistent in their philosophy than the conservatives, which pisses me off as it bastardizes the meaning of the classical liberal and I get people telling me I'm not a liberal. Oh well, what can you do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, that's always perturbed me as well.

Then there's the way too often cited, but still interesting idea, that the standard Conservative platform includes support for capital punishment, on the grounds that eliminating criminals from our world is for the common good, and yet is anti-abortion, saying that humans don't have the right to take life.

Note, I said typical, and note yes, I know there's a huge gulf of difference between the death penalty and abortion, but it's just another interesting twist on the whole thing.

[nicky g]

"This concept will be very important for the next steps that involve communism, facts about corporations, and the inefficiencies of government."

And if it's a decent course the dangers of monopolies and cartels, the near non-existence of perfectly competitive markets, the need for regulations, the problems of "externalities" (eg pollution), the irrationality and inefficiency of financial markets, the importance of tradeoffs (eg a certain level of inefficiency may be acceptable if it reduces poverty) blah blah blah. There are a broad range of opinions and arguments within economics and the idea that even classical economics is perfectly in line with "conservatism" or opposed to "liberalism" (more generally left/right), is just plain wrong. Adam Smith himself, supposedly the standard bearer for conservative free market fundamentalists, pointed out that if "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices"; what better argument for competition regulation. See also for instance the recent list of novel prize-winning economists that endorsed Kerry.

[adios]

You can do better than this, economists have political leanings just like anyone else. I'm almost certain that the economists you cite didn't point to anything specific Kerry policy but if so I'd be more than glad if you shared the info.

[The once and future king]

Perhaps their opinions/leanings are better informed than most.

Though dont know why they wouldnt endorse Bush seeing he has done such a great job of running the American economy /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[nicky g]

"economists have political leanings just like anyone else. "

Of course, but the point of the "program" was that a basic knowledge of economics would make "liberals" see the error of their political ways. That clearly isn't true and there are plenty of "liberal" economists, both in their professional and personal views. According to the story below the economists attacked Bush's economic policies; doesn't say anything about them endorsing Kerry's but clearly they find them preferable.

10 Nobel economists endorse Kerry (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5818277/)

[adios]

Well I just posted an op ed piece in todays Wall Street Journal written by the man himself, John Kerry, about his economic policy so let's debate it there.

[adios]

Why do they endorse him is the question and I'm almost certain that there is no concrete analysis forthcoming contrasting their economic policies. If there is fine I'd love to see it. I think the content of the post you responded to is silly btw.

[MMMMMM]

No need to apologize; I went off on a bit of a tangent too, and I could have been more explicit as well. Thanks for your input.

[MMMMMM]

Along the lines of Wacki's response to your point, Sam:

Your stated sampling is from academia. How many of the top CEO's, entrepreneurs, or chairmen of boards do you think might be voting for Bush? And do you think the top academics in the field of economics are really smarter or more knowledgeable than the top folks who are making many millions through applied economics? And if they're so smart, why don't they start a company or, say, a successful hedge fund, and make $100 million or so and retire while they are still young enough to enjoy it? (by the way, look what happened to that hedge fund started by top academics and Nobel Prize winners: it went belly-up with great loss and scandal).

I'm not saying there is no value in your sampling or that the academics are necessarily all wet. I'm just pointing out that your sampling is from not only a limited pool, but also a pool that is less than the most successful (in some ways), and it is a pool not even required to produce results in the real world in their field of expertise.

I strongly suspect that if you broadened your sampling to include highly successful business people in the real world, many would be voting for Bush--and I'll bet that would be true even if both candidates promised precisely the same tax package.

[Utah]

Adam Smith! My God. I dont think I have heard his name since Buniness School.

Certainly, Adam Smith was a supporter of free markets and his main concept, The "Invisible Hand Theory" directly supports capitalism and is directly at odds with communism.

Is anyone arguing for no regulation of any kind? Certainly, some is needed to set the correct playing field for corporations. However, more often than not, heavy handed regulation hurts competition, creates false barriers to entry, and stifles creatively. A perfect example here in the U.S. is satelitte radio. Satelitte radio is vastly superior to standard radio. However, false barriers have prevented satelitte radio from coming to market until recently and satelitte radio is still not allowed to carry local broadcasting.

I do think that liberalism has a component of communism in the concept that liberalism would trade some prosperity for equality among citizens. Not that equality isnt a lofty goal. Its just doesnt work.

[nicky g]

Um, economics ("applied" or otherwise) and business aren't the same thing. The skills needed to run a paper factory aren't the same as those needed to forecast GDP growth, or indeed formulate a tax plan. Also, some people have other ambitions than making money, and those that are may well be more interested in policies that benefit their pockets directly than that help the country as a whole.

[MMMMMM]

Nicky,

I agree with your point, but would add that for the most part, the very smartest economists (whose theories also hold water;-)) are also making big money. Alan Greenspan would be one example.

[nicky g]

"Not that equality isnt a lofty goal. Its just doesnt work. "

Depends what you mean. There are societies that openly strive to reduce inquality that work pretty well; eg the Scandinavian model. Lots of different economic models "work", depending on what your goals are. If your goals are increasing overall well-being, I'd say the evidence is firmly on the side of including measures that reduce inequality. If it's to increase overall wealth regardless of how it's distributed there are better routes. I don;t really see a point in the latter.

[sfer]

Economics isn't business. Economics is a theory of choice and consumption and allocation. Business is about making money.

[sfer]

Two of the smartest, Nobel prize winning, economists are Myron Scholes and Robert Merton and both are looked down upon by large segments of the finance community. And Black-Scholes is probably the most commonly applied economic model ever written.

[Utah]

I think that is the tradeoff that should be discussed, but never is.

What society would you prefer A or B?

A) 100% of the population makes $30,000 a year each

B) 2% of the population makes $15,000,000, 10% makes 300,000 , 70% makes $60,000, 10% makes $30,000, and 8% make $8,000 and live in poverty

[MMMMMM]

Business, in a very basic sense, is applied economics.

[nicky g]

It is arguably applied microeconomics; at any rate, there are microeconomic concepts involved. It has largely nothing to do with macroeconomics.

[MMMMMM]

Yes, Utah, that is the point that should be examined.

I will mention again that I read somewhere that Americans living below the so-called "poverty line" have a standard of living above that of average Europeans.

[MMMMMM]

Ok...but all this doesn't really impact my original point. Note that my point was not a hard and fast rule but rather a general one.

[nicky g]

Obviously the second, but I don;t think those are realistic comparisons; that is, to achieve something close to equality, I don't think you have to sacrifice 90% of the GDP achievable under an unequal distributive arrangement. I think there are strong links between inequality and a variety of social problems, but I don;t think living in equalised poverty is a great idea either.

[superleeds]

Assuming the money generated is the same your fiqures don't make sense.

A would have to be over 360,000 or

B would be 2% make 1,400,000; 10% make 26,000, 70% make 5,500, 10% 2,800 and 8% make 750 and live in extreme poverty.

I'll go for A

Disclaimer: I did this very roughly and I ain't had a coffe yet so my fiqures may be total crap /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[nicky g]

"I will mention again that I read somewhere that Americans living below the so-called "poverty line" have a standard of living above that of average Europeans."

Unless this includes Eastern Europe , there is no way this is true. The definition of the poverty line in America is something like a family of 4 living on less than $18,000. There is no way the average income for a family of four is less than US$19,000 in Western Europe (say the EU 15). For example Portuguese GDP per capita was around US$12500 in 2003; that implies income of a lot more than $19000 per family of 4, and Portugal is one of the poorest countries in the EU15.

Of course you said standard of living rather than income, but that;s a very different and highly subjective argument. I would still doubt that under most measures that's the case.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Um, economics ("applied" or otherwise) and business aren't the same thing. The skills needed to run a paper factory aren't the same as those needed to forecast GDP growth, or indeed formulate a tax plan. Also, some people have other ambitions than making money, and those that are may well be more interested in policies that benefit their pockets directly than that help the country as a whole.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this 100%. Before I say this statement, I really do love this state and I live/work out here during the summer months. Massachusetts is a very academic state. There are over 200 colleges and Boston is one of the youngest cities in the U.S. There is no better place to go to see more people in academia.

That being said. Massachusetts was the only state to be won by McGovern. As I've said before, there is a very different mentality out here. I know, I live out in Mass.

Link to 1972 election (http://www.multied.com/elections/1972state.html)

Again I have the utmost respect for academics, and I am one myself. I think more federal funding needs to be given to scientists as NASA, WHOI, and other university/government funding has propelled almost every major innovation/discovery in the last century. I just don't think people who live that lifestyle are always right. There are many worlds that people live in on this planet and each one of them teaches different lessons. All of them should be listened to.

[sfer]

Economics is utility maximization. Business makes utility and money equal. They are not the same.

[MMMMMM]

I didn't say they were the same.

[MMMMMM]

Well Nicky I would guess it does include Eastern Europe.

Other less obvious components are things like lack of air-conditioning in France, smaller apartments, etc.

[nicky g]

Wow, Nixon won every state!? That is quite a whupping. I'm shocked. I haven't combined an exclamation mark with a question mark since I was about 12.

[The once and future king]

You read wrong.

The average wage in the UK is 24k. About 48k Dollars.

Unless the poverty line in the USA is set at 48k income a year.

Saying Europe dosnt mean anything. That could include Sweden and Romania. The standard of living in the two countries couldnt be more different.

[nicky g]

"Well Nicky I would guess it does include Eastern Europe."

In that case it's something of a different story. I don;t think there's much controversy over the fact that Eastern European economic policies were a disaster, and we're not talking about broadly similar economic policies at all. If it includes Russia it is even more meaningless.

As for the standard of living, as I said that's pretty subjective. Many people would argue that what it lacks in appartment space (and I don;t think that's a legacy of economic policies; Europe is much more densely populated than the US), it makes up for in decent public tansport, social services etc. Depends on your priorities.

[nicky g]

"The average wage in the UK is 24k"

Man I hate my job.

[The once and future king]

I have been to some of the most depressed areas of the UK.

The poverty I saw here in no way compares to the poverty I saw in USA which at times reminded me of my visit to India and other thirld world countries.

Frankly disgusting in the richest country in the world.

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
Well Nicky I would guess it does include Eastern Europe.

[/ QUOTE ]

So for N. America we can include Mexico yes?

[ QUOTE ]
Other less obvious components are things like lack of air-conditioning in France, smaller apartments, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

The weather is a big factor concerning Air Conditioners. France like the rest of Wesren Europe has a far smaller ratio of space per person than the US which explains why abodes are smaller. I take it you have never lived in NY.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Wow, Nixon won every state!? That is quite a whupping. I'm shocked. I haven't combined an exclamation mark with a question mark since I was about 12.

[/ QUOTE ]

Damn Nicky G, You were posting before I went out to play poker last night. I just woke up, and your still posting! you are a machine. Glad your reading my posts tho. We may not agree on alot of topics, but you are a good source of information/different views, so keep it up.

[nicky g]

Lol. See above on my comments about my job, and my addiction to internet poker, for an explanation of why I post so much. Thanks for the comments, which I reciprocate.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Lol. See above on my comments about my job, and my addiction to internet poker, for an explanation of why I post so much. Thanks for the comments, which I reciprocate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Glad you feel the same way.

Is your job description in this thread? Couldn't find it.

[nicky g]

I just mentioned I didn;t like it, is all. Was sort of joking.

[busted_player]

Step 5: Say "no" to Communism and Socialism
While this concept is obvious to most of the free world, it is an important step in your recovery process. If you have difficulty with this step, spend a week living and working in Cuba.

================================

you realize like 9/10 planks of the communist manifesto have been implented in the US, don't u? (I think its 10/10 but just being conservative, hardy har har)

[MMMMMM]

"You read wrong.

The average wage in the UK is 24k. About 48k Dollars.

Unless the poverty line in the USA is set at 48k income a year.

Saying Europe dosnt mean anything. That could include Sweden and Romania. The standard of living in the two countries couldnt be more different."


I read "EUROPE", not "UK". Clear enough?

[Matt Flynn]

sameoldshit,

got to #2 before cracking up. the right has rarely in the past few years bothered with anything remotely resembling facts. do you not read? or by fact do you mean whatever Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh makes up on the spur of the moment?

but the real doozy was take an economics course. may have worked a decade ago, but now we've got more spending the ever, the biggest increase in spending ever, and a huge tax cut to go with it. the average third grader understands econ better than most bush republicans. s/he at least knows not to spend more than they have in their pocket. those of us who are fiscally conservative actually long for a return of clinton, who at least didn't create another huge social entitlement and actually paid his way as he went. put bush and bush clones in office for 6 more terms and we would have the greatest economic depression ever seen in the world. if you don't see that, you need to take Econ 10 again.

i find it depressing how little most people care for reason or facts. and - if you meant your steps as straight criticism instead of sly satire - that sadly includes you.

i hate american politics. all the wing nuts run the show.

matt

[sam h]

M,

I basically agree with your points, but I think you are confusing two different things. What you call applied economics is really the world of business and finance. While it certainly takes serious brains to conquer, it is not the same as "academic economics."

The distinction is important because when people say that liberals don't understand economics, they are usually talking about macro and microeconomic issues that are firmly within the realm of "academic economics."

So yes, I think people in the business and finance world - who are certainly often intelligent and successful individuals - tend to support the Republican party in America. But I think people in the world of academic econmics - who are the people coming up with the research and theories that really inform policy through diffusion and drive long-term understandings of the economic realm - tend towards more of a leftist position than most observers understand.

[sam h]

Wacki,

You make an intersting point. But I still think that my point that "people on the cutting edge of economics research" tend to actually be fairly liberal stands because, although those people may be an odd lot, they (academics) tend to be engaged in a research endeavor that is not replicated in the private sector.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]

and do you think the top academics in the field of economics are really smarter or more knowledgeable than the top folks who are making many millions through applied economics? And if they're so smart, why don't they start a company or, say, a successful hedge fund, and make $100 million or so and retire while they are still young enough to enjoy it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Just to be fair, when I was saying sampling only academics isn't the best idea, I wasn't trying to say that they aren't smart. The best and the brightest scientists are attracted by federal funding. Not because it pays well, but because it allows them to "play". Most major scientists literally sacrifice their lives in order to promote their field. It's what they love to do. They could be very easily earning much more in the private sector, but don't because they love what they do.

I could very easily be earning 4-5x what I am earning right now but I'm not because I am doing amazing work that will eventually save millions of lives a year. The work I'm doing doesn't end up creating a product I can sell because it is published and becomes public property. It's a different lifestyle. You are poor, but the work couldn't be more rewarding.

As for academics being wrong about politics and economics. Well, this goes for any sector of the population, that's why majority opinion is so important.

Academics are very good at what they do and they are the usually worlds most foremost expert in their field. The smartest people I know are in academia. And when I say smart, I mean insanely smart. So smart, I don't think you could really understand how smart they are unless you had an IQ of 140 or something similar.

But being smart has nothing to do with making good decisions. People that are depressed know they make bad decisions, yet they do it anyway. They are not dumb, they just make poor decisions. It's two completely different parts of the brain.

As for economics. I have a friend that graduated from a very prestigious business school. I once told him, drunk as a skunk at a bar, that I envied him because what I study is so difficult, and he is going to earn all of the money. He looked at me and said back, "When you made that plastic, did anyone argue with you that you made plastic? Everything in my field can be disputed. You don't want that. Economics and business is based off of statistics. And with enough statistics, I can prove anything. The trouble is, so can someone else".

That is why I am a scientist, and that is why I am for darwinism in business. Let nature sort it out.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Wacki,

You make an intersting point. But I still think that my point that "people on the cutting edge of economics research" tend to actually be fairly liberal stands because, although those people may be an odd lot, they (academics) tend to be engaged in a research endeavor that is not replicated in the private sector.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you. Still majority opinion is vital. Also polling people at one college isn't always the best thing to do. One of the most prestigous science centers in the world is the MBL. Watson and Crick were very interested in DNA, but the general consensus at the MBL was that calcium was more important that DNA so they should study calcium. No one wanted to waste their time on DNA. Look how that turned out.

To make it even more complex, economics is a gray science. I don't think that there is an absolute right and absolute wrong. The economy and the rules of the game are always changing. Plus that field is based off of statistics, and anything based off of statistics can look good on paper, but not in real life. This is why majority opinion is such a good thing.

[MMMMMM]

I would not be surprised that many of the best and brightest scientific minds are in academia. However I would be very surprised if a much higher respective proportion of the best and brightest financial minds were not in the private sector.

I do understand that some work primraily for love rather than money. I am not trying to diminish that. My point is more along the lines that financial experts could be more expected (than certain other academic experts) to be making very serious money somehow.


P.S. By the way, I don't think 140 IQ is tremendously high for this forum; you would probably be surprised at just how smart many of the posters here really are.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Economics is utility maximization. Business makes utility and money equal. They are not the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

For me they're pretty damn close /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
I would not be surprised that many of the best and brightest scientific minds are in academia. However I would be very surprised if a much higher respective proportion of the best and brightest financial minds were not in the private sector.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can see that. You have a very valid point, and I am wondering if there has been any study of this. If I was to guess, I would guess you were right. In economics, it seems the private sector might be best way to practice your trade the way you want to. That's not the generally the case in science.

[ QUOTE ]

P.S. By the way, I don't think 140 IQ is tremendously high for this forum; you would probably be surprised at just how smart many of the posters here really are.

[/ QUOTE ]

Considering an IQ of 130 puts you in the 98 percentile, 150 is Genius and Einstein was 160, I think 140 is reasonably high. And I didn't say 140 IQ is required to work with some of these people, I meant 140 is required just to truly appreciate how smart they are. Even with a 140 IQ it still would take atleast 8 years of post highschool study in the field to really appreciate what seperates people like Watson, Felsenstein, Mark Hughes, and Steve Hajduk from the average scientist out there. Big difference.

My dad is a smart man, he never got a C on a paper in his life while in school. He asked me what I was doing this summer, and I told him "Phylogenetic analysis of high throughput cDNA via Baysian analysis (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/BayesTheorem.html), Markov Chains (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/MarkovChain.html), and Parsimonious techniques." Try explaining to someone why you would do that, let alone what that is. It's not easy, the stuff is complicated. I'm not dumb, but I can't even understand some of the PI's I work with. When they stop to talk to me, they actually have to go into baby talk mode just to explain what I'm supposed to do. Not only are they smart, but they have a never ending attention span and are workaholics.


Sometimes I wonder if some of these people aren't half alien.

[juanez]

My uncle is a high school teacher and a flaming liberal. I mean he's a Bush hating, anyone but Bush, no war for oil, peace-love-dove, smot poking (pun intended), Greenpeace is great, we're all gonna die from global warming, liberal. He teaches "Government", which means Social Studies to those of us who aren't full of ourselves about teaching history to kids.

We had a family gathering last weekend and of course we were discussing politics - it's all he ever talks about. He said he "lives for elections like this". Vile hatred being spewed forth by both sides is just sad in my opinion, but to each his own. He routinely says crap like "Bush isn't my President" and "Bush wasn't elected, he was selected". Ya know, the usual anti-Bush BS. He even said that "The USA exchanged Communism for Terrorism". What the...? He thinks terrorism is OUR FAULT. I just let that one slide.

Anyway, school started for him this week. He was proud to proclaim at the family gathering that he was going to show "Farenheight 911" to his students the first week of school. I asked him if he was also going to show "History of the World Part I" because it would be a more accurate depiction of history.

He was not amused. He told me that he is going to tell the kids that they should call their Congressman if they want a different view other than Michael Moore's. He even admitted that Michael Moore was misleading and not honest with the content of F-911, yet he's going to show the movie to STUDENTS who are there to LEARN anyway.

Isn't it assumed that a teacher would present both sides of a topic in High School? I was appalled that this guy would be so blatant about pushing his radical liberal positions on KIDS IN HIGH SCHOOL. Sad.

I told him that I would insist that my kid be put into another Social Studies class if he came home with Farenheight 911 propaganda in his notebook.

Again, he was not amused. By the way, he married into the family and isn’t a blood relative (thank God).

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, school started for him this week. He was proud to proclaim at the family gathering that he was going to show "Farenheight 911" to his students the first week of school

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, I wonder where he got his hands on a copy of the movie that hasn't released to video yet.

One of three things is happening:
1) he downloaded the movie and is going to play it (unlikely as he could likely lose his job over something so stupid)
2) he was trying to get you all riled up and succeeded
3) you're full of sh*t about a mythical liberal uncle

[wacki]

juanez

Send your uncle to this website (http://www.darwinawards.com/)

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, school started for him this week. He was proud to proclaim at the family gathering that he was going to show "Farenheight 911" to his students the first week of school

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, I wonder where he got his hands on a copy of the movie that hasn't released to video yet.

One of three things is happening:
1) he downloaded the movie and is going to play it (unlikely as he could likely lose his job over something so stupid)
2) he was trying to get you all riled up and succeeded
3) you're full of sh*t about a mythical liberal uncle

[/ QUOTE ]

Um no, it's all over Kazaa. In fact it was released on mirc before it was even in the theater, and I have it on my computer right now. Plus a friend told me that Moore said that you are allowed to distribute the movie if you don't charge people for it.

Why the hostility elwoodblues? Do you like Moore or something? He wasn't bashing liberals, he was just bashing his stupid uncle.

[elwoodblues]

The fact that it is on Kazaa doesn't mean it is legal to download it.

Again, a teacher downloading a movie and playing it before it is officially released would be a moron in more ways than just being on the loony left.

[juanez]

[ QUOTE ]
One of three things is happening:
1) he downloaded the movie and is going to play it (unlikely as he could likely lose his job over something so stupid)
2) he was trying to get you all riled up and succeeded
3) you're full of sh*t about a mythical liberal uncle

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. #2 is most likely. He does that a lot...says crap just to get you all riled up. Very mature guy...

But, he downloads music all the time. I guess stealing is OK for him, so maybe he did download F911.

I wish I knew last weekend that F911 wasn't released on DVD yet.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that it is on Kazaa doesn't mean it is legal to download it.

Again, a teacher downloading a movie and playing it before it is officially released would be a moron in more ways than just being on the loony left.

[/ QUOTE ]

Elwood, before you get to hostile again, it IS OFFICIALLY RELEASED. Moore released it for free via BitTorrent, a peer to peer network, after the Cannes film festival.

[wacki]

Here is proof

http://moorewatch.com/index.php/weblog/comments/964/

[elwoodblues]

My hostility shines like no other.

I'm looking for something verifying that the movie was released by Moore on the web and can't find anything. Anybody able to verify this (the reason I'm looking is because it would be VERY strange, not impossible, but certainly strange.)

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Here is proof

http://moorewatch.com/index.php/weblog/comments/964/

[/ QUOTE ]

again here is proof

[elwoodblues]

That is a FAR cry from an official release.

[wacki]

again
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/07/05/BUG267FNPT1.DTL

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
That is a FAR cry from an official release.

[/ QUOTE ]

He is ok with people downloading it, that's all you need. He's opposed to anti-piracy laws.

[juanez]

You may be hostile, but any Spinal Tap fan can't be too bad. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

"This one's called 'Lick My Love Pump'".

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
it IS OFFICIALLY RELEASED. Moore released it for free via BitTorrent

[/ QUOTE ]

From the articles you posted as support:

The controversial film, like almost every new release, has been circulating online for days. Early last week, anti-Moore Web site MooreWatch. com posted a link to a pirated version of the film ...

It wasn't officially released (it was pirated)
It wasn't released by Moore (it was pirated)

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
You may be hostile, but any Spinal Tap fan can't be too bad

[/ QUOTE ]

You just have to get to know me better. I'm a d*ck.

[juanez]

.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
it IS OFFICIALLY RELEASED. Moore released it for free via BitTorrent

[/ QUOTE ]

From the articles you posted as support:

The controversial film, like almost every new release, has been circulating online for days. Early last week, anti-Moore Web site MooreWatch. com posted a link to a pirated version of the film ...

It wasn't officially released (it was pirated)
It wasn't released by Moore (it was pirated)

[/ QUOTE ]

ok you got me with semantics, still Moore has made it official that its ok to download.

"I don't agree with copyright laws, and I don't have a problem with people downloading the movie and sharing it ... as long as they're not trying to make a profit off my labor," - Moore

[elwoodblues]

My last word on the topic (I promise.)

I wouldn't be so confident that Moore's comments constitute an official OK to download pirated copies of his movie. It's better than you'd get from most. Better yet, it is probably a pretty good he wouldn't support legal action against the pirates/downloaders.

All that being said, I still wouldn't claim that you have a legal copy of the movie. I certainly wouldn't show a pirated movie in a classroom before it has been released to video.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
My last word on the topic (I promise.)

I wouldn't be so confident that Moore's comments constitute an official OK to download pirated copies of his movie. It's better than you'd get from most. Better yet, it is probably a pretty good he wouldn't support legal action against the pirates/downloaders.

All that being said, I still wouldn't claim that you have a legal copy of the movie. I certainly wouldn't show a pirated movie in a classroom before it has been released to video.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have a good point, I wonder how the law looks at it since his statement is in print.

[hetron]

[ QUOTE ]

Overcoming Liberalism: A 12-Step Program


[/ QUOTE ]

Step 1: Admitting that you're a liberal
This is the first step for every liberal on the way to recovery. It is important to understand that you're not "progressive", "moderate", or "enlightened". You're a liberal, and you need to be honest with yourself about that fact.


[/ QUOTE ]
Ok, that doesn't seem so bad if you also consider "FDR" a liberal.
[ QUOTE ]

Step 2: Pledge to support your beliefs with facts
Realize that truth is more important than moral superiority and is the only way to come over to reality. You must research beyond propaganda from the Sierra Club, Hilllary Clinton, and CNN to understand things as they really exist in the world. You can no longer argue based on "feelings" or emotion. You will actually need to back up your arguments with real information. This is a difficult step, because it means you can't be lazy any more.


[/ QUOTE ]
LOL! I didn't realize I wasn't doing the right type of "research". I suppose Pat Buchanan, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh are beacons of the truth?
[ QUOTE ]

Step 3: Love America
This may be the most difficult step for those of you who are hippies and peaceniks. Admitting that the country you hate actually stands as a beacon to defend freedom throughout the world can make some of you physically ill. You might want to make a visit to a military cemetery to better understand that these men and women gave their lives so that you could spew hatred. Otherwise, you would currently be living in a police state that would never let you wear that nasty patchouli oil, let alone speak out against your government.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'll do that, but only if you promise to go walk among the grave sites of citizens of the world who died at the hands of dictators backed by the US.
[ QUOTE ]

Step 4: Take a college level economics class
A Socialist is defined as someone who's never taken an economics class. Most Socialists have a hard time balancing their checkbooks, let alone explaining the simple concept of supply-and-demand. It's time to flush your complete ignorance of basic economics down the toilet and understand how the world actually functions. This concept will be very important for the next steps that involve communism, facts about corporations, and the inefficiencies of government.


[/ QUOTE ]
I took several college level economics classes. In fact I minored in economics in college. If you knew anything about economics you would realize that the government plays a vital role in Keynesian economic theory.
[ QUOTE ]

Step 5: Say "no" to Communism and Socialism
While this concept is obvious to most of the free world, it is an important step in your recovery process. If you have difficulty with this step, spend a week living and working in Cuba.


[/ QUOTE ]
Cuba has a better healthcare system in many ways than the US does. Isn't that sad?
[ QUOTE ]

Step 6: Corporations are not evil
If you're reading this article on-line or in an email, it's thanks to corporations. If you get some kind of paycheck, you can thank corporations. If you work for a nonprofit or the government, you still have to thank corporations. The nonprofit sector and the government wouldn't have any money to pay you without corporations. It is also important that you understand that making a profit doesn't equate to "greed" or exploitation. Capitalism has created the greatest society in our world's history. Even communist countries need corporations to survive, so enjoy a nice, hot cup of reality.


[/ QUOTE ]
Corporations aren't evil, but they should be made accountable to the law. Those who flout the law should be punished, like the fools at Enron. Does this make sense to you?
[ QUOTE ]

Step 7: The government is inefficient
If you are one of those liberals who believe the government should tax us more in order to take care of society, you need to pay special attention to this step. You need to realize that government bureaucracy will waste most of your tax dollars, while the private sector will put your money to much better use. Even most Democrat politicians understand this to some degree, which is why Hillary's socialist healthcare proposal was voted down by a majority of both Democrats and Republicans. Go to your local post office or call the IRS to ask a tax question if you need a reminder about government inefficiency.


[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, the fools at Tyco put the company's money to very good use, pissing champagne fountains for the CEO's wife's party. Now THAT's what I call good use.
[ QUOTE ]

Step 8: The earth is not your "mother", and she's not dying
The time has now come to stop your donations to Greenpeace, The Sierra Club, and every other EnviroNazi organization to which you belong. Face the reality that the earth, society and our environment are better off today than ever in recorded history and that they are continuing to improve. I realize that many of you tree huggers will have a very difficult time letting go of the Douglas Fir on this one. I would suggest reading The Skeptical Environmentalist by Bjorn Lomborg. Mr. Lomborg is a former member of Greenpeace and is currently a statistics professor at a university in Denmark. He set out to prove the world was in bad shape and ended up surprising himself by proving the exact opposite.


[/ QUOTE ]
Mr. Lomborg's children probably weren't born with 5 legs or two dozen tumors because they were born downwind of chernobyl in 1987.
[ QUOTE ]

Step 9: Stop smoking the wacky tobacco
Okay, some of you might need to enter another 12-step program to complete this step. Marijuana is distorting your sense of reality, and you need to stop using it. Besides, you'll save a fortune on snacks.


[/ QUOTE ]
I'll switch to coke, our current prez's DOC (drug of choice). Much safer, if your idea of safety is being in a coffin six feet under.
[ QUOTE ]

Step 10: Eat a hamburger
If God didn't intend for us to eat animals, he wouldn't have made them out of meat. You can put your sprouts and tofu on the hamburger, but get some meat into you. You'll look and feel better than you ever imagined. You can always remind yourself that Nazi propaganda hailed Adolf Hitler as a vegetarian to get you through this step.


[/ QUOTE ]
Human beings are made of "meat" too. Do you eat people? If God intended for us to eat meat, how come a red meat-rich diet has been found to be a risk factor for colon cancer, but fruits and vegetables have been shown to contain anti-carcinogenic substances? Feel free to explain this to me.
Also find to me which types of meats have been found to prevent cancer, I'm curious to know.
[ QUOTE ]

Step 11: Stop re-writing political history
It's now time to admit that Bill Clinton is a lying-cheating-sexist-racist-rapist jackass, Hillary Clinton is one of the worst role models for women in this country, Al Gore really did lose the 2000 election by every vote tabulation you attempt, Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War and didn't create the homeless problem, John McCain is not a typical Republican, and Jimmy Carter is a nice man but has one of the worst presidential records of anyone in history.


[/ QUOTE ]
And FDR got us out of the depression and helped save the world from Adolf Hitler. Fair enough.
[ QUOTE ]

Step 12: Be a missionary
Once you have completed the previous steps to overcoming liberalism, it's time for you to share this awakening with others who are not as fortunate. Go out amongst the liberal sheep and spread the good word of your freedom from the chains of ignorance that once bound you. Congratulations, and welcome to reality.

[/ QUOTE ]
I guess reality is the same thing as Rush Limbaugh's radio show. Pretty interesting.

[MaxPower]

I've spent about 7 years in acedemia and 9 years in business dealing with senior executives of major corporations. I think most of what you are saying about academia is true.

There are some very smart people in business, but I am sure that on average academics are smarter.

However, how smart they are really isn't the issue. The fact is that in academia a persons ideas and theories have to stand up to a very high level of scrutiny. This is why academic papers are so boring. They have to submit these for peer review and have to cover every possible criticism.

In business there is a rather low standard and much less scrutiny of ideas. Most ideas are communicated by bullet points in powerpoint presentations and most objections can be glossed over. Certainly great ideas do come out of business and many business are operated very intelligently, but I think that the average businessman does not have the cognitive skills of the average academic.

Even if academics are not smarter, they are more skilled and practiced in thinking and we should certainly take what they say very seriously. Academics are frequently wrong, but the same can be said for business. Businesses make frequent mistakes in alloting capital and in forecasting their growth.

I often laugh when I hear people say that government is inefficient and should be run like a business. Perhaps small businesses are efficient, but large businesses are not. In fact the larger and more profitable the business the more waste there is. Perhaps government is worse, but I think there would not be much difference in efficiency if there were a corporation as big as our federal government.

Anyway, I'm rambling. Goodnight.

[wacki]

MaxPower,

I agree with you 100% when it comes to peer review, and very high level of scrutiny. My experience in academia is in Indiana and Massachusetts. In Massachusetts I have met people smarter than I have ever imagined, but at the same time I am shocked by some of their political views. I have heard very smart people say that "the US is no better than Al Qaeda", "All wars are unnecessary", and "If Bush is re-elected I'm moving out of this country".

Again I have the utmost respect for these people, I just think many of these people have been raised with certain moral values that are so deeply engrained that they are impossible to shake out. No matter what kind of evidence you put infront of their face. They have become a "true believer".

The academia in Indiana has a different mentality then Mass.

My general view is that the most caring, giving, and generally smartest people are in Academia. I am also a firm believer that in academia you can get blinded by perfect pictures and they don't always work. There are some lessons that you just can't learn in a textbook. I believe that Machiavelli's "The Prince", and similarly written books, is the about the closest you can get to learning some of these lessons out of a book, but only the harsh bitter real life experiences will make you really understand. There are just some things you can't learn without a good old fashioned butt whoopin.

I was not trying to insult academia. I was merely trying to say that academia doesn't always know best. Neither does the private sector.

The key is to listen to all of the experts. Not just the academian ones. Nor should you listen to just the practical ones. Listen to all of them.


Too be fair, I will admit that I have little experience in high end private industry, but I don't think that's really relevant considering my message is "listen to all experts".

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]

I often laugh when I hear people say that government is inefficient and should be run like a business. Perhaps small businesses are efficient, but large businesses are not. In fact the larger and more profitable the business the more waste there is. Perhaps government is worse, but I think there would not be much difference in efficiency if there were a corporation as big as our federal government.


[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with this. I've worked for big coorporations, in my experience was that it was the most worthless work experience of my life. So much time was wasted. Maybe I am slanted by limited experience, but small business simply can't survive like big governments and coorporations can with alot of waste. Maybe in some areas it is ok or even good, but I am a firm believer that natural selection is good for business and the economy. Sometimes big business/government is good, and sometimes it's not. I think the economy should be a soup of variously sized organizations that can adjust as needed.

[Cyrus]

Here's another admittedly anecdotal piece of testimony :

Every businessman that I know (Americans and non-Americans) are "very uncomfortable" or just plain "worried" with George W Bush, because they consider his foreign policy to be a disaster for American trade, and for international trade in general. At the root of their discontent is George W Bush's inability to present a coherent objective for the future and his administration's excessive (some called it "parochial") adherence to 20th century ideology. These are modern people who view with amusement the obession with Christianity (they are not atheists themselves), abortion, gays and the like.

By the way, they, being people of numbers, do not worry about John Kerry "taxing them to death" or anything like that. They are all prediciting a tax increase next year, in one form or another, no matter who gets elected, in order to stop some of that red ink hemorrhage in the US budget.

But, as I said, anecdotal evidence.

I wonder if there's a Fortune 500 CEOs' poll somewhere.