.
Bunny tells Mimi about the World Bank and IMF and how wonderful they are.
It's always good to try and think from the perspective of a cat with a liberal education.
.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
"Judge a man by his questions rather than by his answers."
- Voltaire (1694-1778)
.if there existed a category for the kind of creature i seem to be i would inevitably destroy it.
..learn more: here
..learn more: here
activism
adaptation
agency
aphorisms
art
books
capitalism
causality
chaos
cinema
climate
confessions
conflict
critique
ecology
emergence
energy
episteme
existenz
extinction
film
flesh
immanence
James
morality
music
nihilism
ontography
parody
plunder
podcasts
poetry
polity
pragmatism
praxis
projekts
random
resilience
resistance
reviews
satire
sentience
spirtuality
tactics
techne
theory
violence
war
water
the last mutations
nostalgia
-
▼
2010
(199)
-
▼
Apr 2010
(21)
- The Wayfinders
- The Enigma of Capital
- The So-Called Climate Change Debate
- The Politics of Climate Change
- "The myth is the public dream and the dream is t...
- Understanding the Science of Climate Change
- Climate Change, Migration and Environmental Refugees
- Updates From Bolivia and Beyond
- Exposing the Climate Cover-up
- Sky Locked Land - Earth Day 2010
- Sapolsky on the Uniqueness of Human Beings
- Immortal Technique - Point of No Return
- Adrian Ivakhiv on Relations and Pagan Religion
- Banked Into Submission
- Manuel DeLanda – Nature, Space, Society
- Thai Protesters and Army Clash
- The Actor-Network Theory in Plain English
- Latour - Nature, Space, Society
- Collateral Murder
- Urban Prep Defies Odds
- Progressive Discovery
-
▼
Apr 2010
(21)
Posts
strange attractors
- speculative realism
- attempts at living
- knowledge ecology
- larval subjects
- immanence
- noir realism
- struggle forever
- plastic bodies
- enemy industry
- dylan trigg
- ecology without nature
- anarchist without content
- machine machine
- partially examined life
- schizosophy
- critical ecologies
- life and mind
- intensive thinking
- brian holmes
- on the human
- abstract geology
- footnotes2plato
- anthropo.scene
- mutable matter
- dark chemistry
- dead voles
- installing (social) order
- cosmos & history
- necessary agitation
- indecent bazaar
- my desiring machines
- ktismatics
- networkologies
- bldg blog
- enowning
- live thought
- naught thought
- intersecting processes
- cognition and culture
- cyborg apologist
"He who fights monsters must take care lest he become a monster."
- Fredrich Nietzsche
paradigm hunters
- charles darwin
- william james
- karl marx
- martin heidegger
- maurice merleau-ponty
- gilles deleuze
- ludwig wittgenstein
- manuel delanda
- michel foucault
- nikolas kompridis
- donna haraway
- judith butler
- jane bennett
- karen barad
- julia kristeva
- erin manning
- bruno latour
- catherine malabou
- michel henry
- john protevi
- tim ingold
- george santayana
- gregory bateson
- pierre bourdieu
- jürgen habermas
- claude levi-strauss
- richard rorty
- marshall mcluhan
- herbert marcuse
- roy bhaskar
- lev vygotsky
- wilfrid sellars
- jacques lacan
- fernand braudel
- gilbert simondon
- theodor adorno
- arturo escobar
resistance
- oil sands truth
- tahltans
- kick it over
- kanehsatake
- zapatistas
- cochabamba
- bolivia rising
- postcarbon
- act against extraction
- reading kapital
- ecosocialist network
- ecojustice
- in defense of marxism
- socialist alliance
- marxist update
- six nations
- upping the anti
- fire collective
- political theatrics
- zoe blunt
- aim
- global resist
- kasama
psyche, flesh & the ambient order
cogito terra
- architecture for humanity
- blue marble
- climate change chronicles
- climate progress
- common wealth
- cruel mistress
- de smog blog
- earth policy institute
- ecological humanities
- ecoshock radio
- encyclopedia of earth
- keepers of the water
- mammoth
- place network
- progressive geographies
- skeptical science
- terreform
- the source project
- thinking nature
- transition voice
riff without raft
- 3 quarks daily
- 6th or 7th
- a rigid designator
- aberrant monism
- accursed share
- alchemically braindamaged
- algorithm and contingency
- amor mundi
- amusia
- ask and ye shall receive
- avoiding the void
- being sufficiently
- blazevox
- blckdgrd
- brian massumi
- brooklynometry
- c theory
- cengiz erdem
- chaos marxism
- chaotic flux
- china mieville
- circling squares
- conscious entities
- continent
- critical animal
- crooks and liars
- david little
- denatured
- deontologistics
- disinformation
- dreamflesh
- duncan law
- eidetic illuminations
- eliminative culinarism
- evolving thoughts
- feral structures
- figure/ground
- gavan watson
- hypertiling
- i cite
- in the middle
- infranet lab
- intense city
- jeremy lent
- k21st
- limited inc
- logical regression
- machinemachine
- mark kerstetter
- mediacology
- menticulture
- mitochondrial vertigo
- monoskop
- mystery of mind
- naxos
- no border metaphysics
- no useless leniency
- omniorthogonal
- our god is speed
- overthrow
- pattrice jones
- philosophys other
- planomenology
- premediation
- project 21
- reality zone
- refracted input
- requiem for certainty
- schoolboy errors
- sketching a present
- solomons mindfield
- somatosphere
- space collective
- spectacular agency
- speculations
- speculative heresy
- subtractions
- synda xvuzz
- the crows eye
- the far queue
- the immanent frame
- the infinit yes
- the pinocchio theory
- the vomitorium
- violent signs
- wild hunt
- xenophrenia
Endgame
26 comments:
Self-sufficiency, aka- Juche, sure worked well for Kim Jong-il, and if hadn't completely eradicated predatory lending practices and capitalism, the people of North Korea would likely be starving to death today whilst trying to repay their evil western bankers...
Oh wait, the Koreans aren't repaying any western loans, but they're all still starving??? And the South Koreans who took all those preadtory loans are rolling in dough?
Que paso?
...of course Democrats never have been very good at distinguishing the differences between productive and unproductive labour.
Smart people (conservatives) generally don't go into debt and take out loans to spend on the latter...
Did you even watch the 3 min video?
You don't think my comments apply? Didn't YOU watch the video?
Oh, wait, South Korea doesn't fit the "paradigm" of a colonial exploiter... or a poor little power exploited by colonialism and western loans.
And North Korea, representing a power that declared self-sufficiency to be it's highest principle, exports nuclear and missile technology to all the world's rogue nations yet STARVES it own people by the millions and works them to death in gulag style labor camps. It doesn't fit the video paradigm either... So sorry...
Just think... if North Korea had invested in manufacturing tractors and or industrial machinery instead of nuclear missiles... what a prosperous nation it might be today. But then, one would might actually distinguish a difference between "productive" and "non-productive" capital investments, wouldn't they?
In other words...
It's not the western loans that enslave third world countries... it's what the countries use the loaned money to buy and/or produce that matters.
Adam Smith hinted at a rule of thumb, only borrow money to invest with and never to consume with.
Ooops. So much for the democratic rationale for all America's social spending driven "national debt" and that recent $700b+ in Obama "stimulus" spending for "state government" supplemental "unemployment" insurance...
do you get paid to argue with people and spread ideology? Are you a public liar? I'm on to you Yul, you crazy baboon. lol
1. North Korea is a failed state hiding behind weapons. The sooner that ends the better.
2. Let me get this on record here: you are angry about people ALLOWING black kids to get loans for education when they won't (you assume) finish college, but you are willing to support large financial institutions DEMANDING nation-states take out impossible loans and spend their money paying Americans to 'tap' their resources and develop their cities? wow.
3. As far as, "productive and non-productive capital investments" goes, well lets just say that I think we should actually track where "investments" go and see WHO accumulates the wealth they generate. Shall we?
Lets start with Donald Rumsfeld. Did you know that the former secretary of defense signed off on handing 50 billion dollars of tax payers money (your money) to companies he personally owns stock in? That's on record. And, from the time he entered the Bush Admin to the day he "left office" he increased his considerable wealth 300%.
4. There are many kinds of 'capital' to be explained in much more detail than that of the binary of "productive" and "non-productive". Poor Yul. A better question dear sweet Yul is, productive for whom? Whom does capital work for?
5. You are a puppet - and i will henceforth sensor your propaganda on this site
m-
"...it's what the countries use the loaned money to buy and/or produce that matters."
Exactly Yul, good job.
Speaking of non-productive labor - how about that $400-700 billion carte blanche given every year to the military by the Bush administration (and, admittedly continuing in the Obama administration). People complain about spending a few billion to make the US population healthier, but when billions of dollars go missing in Iraq or Afghanistan, or when they spend a few billion dollars on weapons that turn out to be worthless, nobody seems to care. What's more, they'll cry foul if you even suggest that the military needs to be more judicious with its spending!
Seems to me Republicans are no better at investing than Democrats.
Except when the Republican's offer a "stimulus" bill, it's usually to build infrastructure, not indefinitely extend unemployment benefits to a newly created class of "ex-stay at home" moms who can now afford to stay out of the work force and raise kids on a 2 year unemployment government dime...
It sure beats the 6 weeks of 'pregnancy' leave they USED to get.
No, when the Republicans create a "stimulus" bill they give the money to banks who use predatory lending practices that cause a global depression so that they can continue to give their CEOs gigantic bonuses! That's "investment" for you!
I'd rather give the money to an unemployed mother (as if being a mother is unproductive!) because at least she'll spend on things she needs like diapers and food, not on fucking gold toilets.
lol! Many more republicans voted against the bailouts than democrats....
How soon the Lefties forget their own votes... who as with John Kerry, always vote FOR the bad bills until they decide it's time to vote AGAINST them.
...and in the House:
Most Democrats voted in favor (172 yeas to 63 nays), while a slighter majority of Republicans voted against (91 yeas to 108 nays).
Okay, so you've proven that both parties are crap (the majority of both voted for the bill) - this is not news to me. This doesn't prove that republicans are better with money than democrats - only that they're both right-wing and both in the pockets of the corporations.
The fact is, you conservatives complain about spending money to help poor mothers or to make the nation a little healthier, but shrug or even cheer when the wealthy get another billion dollar tax cut or when the military misplaces another billion dollars in Iraq.
Helping the poor, making the nation healthier - these are investments which are just as important as building infrastructure (nor are the two mutually exclusive, and liberals endorse both).
So what you are telling me about conservatives is just that they don't care about the poor or underprivileged. If that's the case, then I am truly sorry for you.
I'll reiterate Michael's words "Productive for whom? Who does capital work for?" And leav it at that. Good day.
So what you are telling me about conservatives is just that they don't care about the poor or underprivileged.
Not true at all. We care soooooo much about them, that we refuse to be indiscriminating in our aid. There are two types of poor people, those that can't help themselves (whom conservatives give to freely called the "deserving poor" - widows/orphans) and those that could help themselves but choose not to (whom conservatives call the "undeserving poor" - alcoholics/ drug addicts from whom they withhold subsidies). Democrats insist on subsidizing both types of poor people w/o discrimination. But conservatives refuse to subsidize the unhealthy and immoral habits of the undeserving poor. They believe such subsidies to be immoral. They insist that the undeserving poor obtain "moral guidance" in the form of a sermon or a teaching along with thorough addiction de-toxification.
Let's face it, democrats believe in giving all men fish, republicans believe in teaching men how to fish for themselves.
And therein lies ALL the difference. We refuse to subsidize the moral hazards established by democrats in the form of indiscriminate handouts. We insist that those that ARE able, provide for themselves.
So live with it. It's what Marvin Olasky called, "The Tragedy of American Compassion."
Conservatives believe in individual "justice" and giving every man his due. This is very different from progressive ideas of "social justice".
Plato, "Republic"
Tell me then, O thou heir of the argument, what did Simonides say, and according to you truly say, about justice?
He said that the repayment of a debt is just, and in saying so he appears to me to be right.
I should be sorry to doubt the word of such a wise and inspired man, but his meaning, though probably clear to you, is the reverse of clear to me. For he certainly does not mean, as we were just now saying, that I ought to return a deposit of arms (ie - knife/gun) or of anything else to one who asks for it when he is not in his right senses; and yet a deposit cannot be denied to be a debt.
True.
Then when the person who asks me is not in his right mind I am by no means to make the return?
Certainly not.
When Simonides said that the repayment of a debt was justice, he did not mean to include that case?
Certainly not; for he thinks that a friend ought always to do good to a friend and never evil.
You mean that the return of a deposit of gold which is to the injury of the receiver, if the two parties are friends, is not the repayment of a debt,—that is what you would imagine him to say?
Yes.
And are enemies also to receive what we owe to them?
To be sure, he said, they are to receive what we owe them, and an enemy, as I take it, owes to an enemy that which is due or proper to him—that is to say, evil.
Simonides, then, after the manner of poets, would seem to have spoken darkly of the nature of justice; for he really meant to say that justice is the giving to each man what is proper to him, and this he termed a debt.
That must have been his meaning, he said.
As the tyrant Hipparchus used to inscribe upon the Hermes at crossroads, "walk, thinking just thoughts". (Plato, "Hipparchus" aka "The Profiteer"). :)
"Not true at all. We care soooooo much about them, that we refuse to be indiscriminating in our aid."
I'm glad, Yul, to hear that you and your fellow conservatives are not entirely heartless. And what you say sounds reasonable and pragmatic in theory (and I'm sure there are a great many professed conservatives who believe that it is the case - maybe you're one of them). But in practice, it is not so easy to make the distinction between "deserving poor" and "undeserving poor", and it ends up being code for "we'll give money to white men, but not women or brown people." So in that sense you're right, conservatives do tend to be discriminating in their aid...
Aside from all that what gives conservatives the right to give "moral guidance" to alcoholics/drug addicts, or even sexual deviants?
conservatives do tend to be discriminating in their aid...
"Race" is a construct of those who deal in "social justice" and NOT individual justice. Talk to the Democratic Party about those kind of constructs. We're the party of Lincoln and "rugged individualism".
Aside from all that what gives conservatives the right to give "moral guidance" to alcoholics/drug addicts, or even sexual deviants?
We have a name for the likes of leaders in our party who are addicts and/or sexual deviants. We call them RINO's and vote them OUT of our party. What do you call the sexual deviants like Barney Frank in YOUR party? That's right, you call them Mister Chairman.... for life.
"Race" is a construct of those who deal in "social justice" and NOT individual justice. Talk to the Democratic Party about those kind of constructs. We're the party of Lincoln and "rugged individualism".
Actually, race is a construct of wealthy 18th century whites created to justify the ownership of one person by another. It is that history and that legacy (among others) that complicates the deserving/undeserving dichotomy.
And herein lies the real difference - conservatives reduce "undeserving" and "deserving" to individual choice while liberals extend it historically and socially to include things like racism, sexism, colonialism - systematic oppression.
The fact is, in practice your version of the deserving/undeserving dichotomy is code for white men/brown people & women. You subscribe to the race construct no less than liberals - it's just that liberals are not discriminating in their aid.
What do you call the sexual deviants like Barney Frank in YOUR party? That's right, you call them Mister Chairman.... for life.
First of all, I am not a Democrat (indeed, I'm far more liberal than most Democrats), nor did I claim that Democrats are free from such scandals. That said, Rush and O'Reilly continue to be spokespeople for your party despite their obvious moral flaws.
The point is, conservatives claim to offer "moral guidance" to the "undeserving" in spite of these flaws, Democrats do not.
The fact is, in practice your version of the deserving/ undeserving dichotomy is code for white men/ brown people & women.
lol! Since you wrote the "code book", you should know... after all, liberals set all the racial quotas, not conservatives.
The point is, conservatives claim to offer "moral guidance" to the "undeserving" in spite of these flaws, Democrats do not.
Yep. Liberals hand everybody loaded guns and omit the instruction manuals...
Since you wrote the "code book", you should know...
Sorry, but the "code book" was written hundreds of years ago, and not by liberals.
Liberals hand everybody loaded guns and omit the instruction manuals...
And conservatives hand out loaded guns and ask us to shoot ourselves.
liber - Latin for "book". The "liber-als" most certainly wrote the book.
Liber - latin for Free. I'm glad to be a "liber-al"
It's a shame you liberals all "move-on.org'd"....
My country is about to experience this video first-hand. Thanks for the warning...it's gloom ahead I tell you!
Post a Comment