Yearly Archives: 2003

Socialism v Capitalism

This entry was posted in Economics on by

And a bit earlier in the day Gregory Markle found himself in “..the old socialist/capitalist debate…” and as so often seems to be the case in these discussions it is not at all clear what the participants mean when they use these terms. If the debaters would simply provide a 2-3 sentence definition with their first use of one of these words (plus others like democracy, fascism, liberty, etc) these discussions would become instantly more meaningful to their readers (and I suspect the particpants as well). A link to a more detailed exposition would be even better.
My task, before I get too involved in similar debates will be to write my brief expositions or pick the variant closest to my position from the many that already exist on the web. Then, if I say something like “…was built on the shoulders of capitalist democracy…” you, the reader, might be able to figure out what country/society is being referred to and whether the writer means something like free market capitalism based on protecting individual rights or, as exists today in many variations, a state regulated and subsidized corporate economy (and no matter how many times some form of the latter is called capitalism…it isn’t).

Help Page Humor

This entry was posted in Humor on by

Gregory Markle at American Realpolitik points us to this takeoff on the IE page not found(error 404) message. It is funny. And, perhaps, it also holds a lesson for Microsoft: Help pages really can present useful and relevant information!

More Domestic Impact

This entry was posted in Iraq on by

Spadehammer quotes at length from this Steve Lopez column in the LA Times (free registration). I have raised concerns before about the true motivation of the administration and Lopez plays another frequency

The effort to turn Iraq into a democracy, in other words, is making the U.S. less of one. Our opposition party has disappeared, corporate interests dictate public policy, and the feds may be rummaging through your e-mail.

Aren’t you just a bit concerned?

Bush League

This entry was posted in bush Economics Iraq US Foreign Policy on by

Sean points us to this article where you can find out why Michael Hoyt says:

“Fox tries to position itself as ‘the real American network,'” said Michael Hoyt, executive editor of the Columbia Journalism Review. “But real Americans believe in democracy and freedom of speech. I think what they did was cynical and bush league.”

And, there can be no question that the FNC is BUSH league.
In the same post Sean provides a lengthy analysis of what he calls

a new form of peace protest . It involves the citizens of relatively wealthy democracies taking full advantage of their civil rights to protest the Allied effort to bring these rights to others.

and provides a point by point rebuttal. You must choose whether you agree with Sean’s arguments.
At one point Sean says

Let us accept that there IS an economic motivation. This doesnt change the fact that Saddam Hussein is a monster and that the Iraqi people are his slaves. I think playing political football with war is dispicable. Hoping to harm the US economy as a way of “getting back” at Bush is a disgusting abuse of the people who are impacted by both sides of the issue.

One point at a time:

first:, yes, there probably is some economic motivation but I think a lot of folks suspect the administration has a much deeper motivation; second: yep, SH is a pretty sick person; third, what does being his slave mean? That some part of their income goes into his coffers? How much? Somewhat over 30% of mine goes to local, state and federal gov, and yes, technically this is probably a form of slavery; and fourth, yea, ‘..playing political football with war is dispicable.” See first point above and review the history of the Bush administration.