OT libertarian demographics

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

----------------------------

“The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times.” --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

----------------------------

September 5, 2003

>>>>>That also brings up the point: people have different brains. Our

society right now rewards a certain kind of creative/analytical brain, but

not everyone has that kind of brain.

----->yep! have you ever heard of " gardiner's mutiple intelligences " ?

intelligence manifests in many forms, and our society currently rewards the

forms that are common to group in power. additionally, kids have different

*learning* styles, and historically, schools only taught to one or two

learning styles which was great for the portion of kids who learn best that

way, but a disaster for the others who have different learning styles. in my

grad school ed program, we had to learn to teach to the different styles.

and i tried to provide for the different styles when i taught...wow...it's a

challenge! i honestly don't think most people realize the complex nature of

teaching...try working with 20-50 different kids all at different levels on

any given subject, and all with a variety of learning styles.

" LEARNING STYLES: A MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES APPROACH

Multiple Intelligence (MI) theory states that there are at least seven

different ways of learning anything, and therefore there are " seven

intelligences " : body/kinesthetic, interpersonal, intra-personal,

logical/mathematical, musical/rhythmic, verbal/linguistic and

visual/spatial. In addition most all people have the ability to develop

skills in each of the intelligences, and to learn through them. However, in

education we have tended to emphasize two of " the ways of learning " :

logical/mathematical and verbal/linguistic. "

see: http://pss.uvm.edu/pss162/learning_styles.html for details on the

different styles.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

http://www.free-market.net/cgi/redir.cgi?http://www.liberalia.com/htm/mvn_statel\

----------------------------

September 5, 2003

Quoting Irene Musiol <irene@...>:

> Definitely a cultural difference (to put it tactfully). I have a european

> friend who completed a PhD in theology. Since theology is not a high

> paying

> career I seriously doubt she could have afforded to do that here. I think

> it is sadly an american bias to think that a higher education is only

> valuable if it puts one into a high paying career.

Being an atheist, I do think that theology is a worthless discipline. That

said, I'm not against voluntary funding of scholarships for theological

education by those who think that it is valuable. I just don't see why *I*

should be forced to pay for it.

In general, society does benefit more from people studying fields for which

there is higher market demand. That's why there's higher market demand.

There are exceptions, but I don't see why the state should be able to

decide what those exceptions are and then force those who disagree to pay

for them, especially when it results in a glut of women's studies majors.

If there are any who think that our society needs more communications

majors than the market will bear, then let them fund scholarships with

their own money.

The crux of the issue is this: If people don't care about something enough

to fund it voluntarily, then why should they be forced to pay for it?

--

Berg

bberg@...

September 7, 2003

In a message dated 9/7/03 8:42:38 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

s.fisher22@... writes:

> ----------->that's *exactly* what i said! you just re-stated it. LOL

What you said was that the denigration was not a denigration of education per

se but a denigration of a certain " brand " of education. What I'm saying is

that it is denigration of education per se, but which arises only under certain

conditions. I figured you *meant* what I just said, but since you said you

were " refuting " what I said, which is basically what you said, I had to assume

out of the two interpretations you meant the one that was different from what

I said. lol

> ------>while i didn't make any mention of whether it's conscious or

> subconscious phenomenon, i can say, ime, it can be one or the other

> or a combo of both. it depends on a number of variables, but age is a

> big one...with older students at the high school level being more

> likely to consciously reject a system that rejects them. i'm not sure

> if you're likely to find evidence similar to the scientific abstracts

> we post here to support a nutritional theory, but perhaps there are

> interviews with students somewhere that might fit into the " hard

> evidence " category that would satisfy you. actually, i think some of

> my books may this and may even include input from some students on

> this issue, but i don't feel like sorting through all my books now!

> LOL

i'd be satisfied with any kind of evidence, i didn't mean experimental

evidence. i suspect that it rarely reaches a conscious distinction between two

types of education, one of which should be denigrated, and the other promoted.

> ------->IIRC, i was refuting what *brandon* wrote originally.

originally, but you used the word " refute " in direct reference to what I said

about the " trying to be white phenomenon. "

> ----->me either! and i don't remember what it was. LOL

i don't think there was one, lol

> >

> > the teacher is the pivotal player

> >>in education.

> >

> >I don't know what you're saying here, but I think this is an

> accurate

> >description of a pathological phenomenon of our education system.

> >

>

> ------->i didn't consider myself a " pathological phenomenon " when i

> was a teacher (turning my life upside down and working harder than i

> ever have in my life to help my students succeed) and i've known a

> number of teachers who've been the single best influence on a child's

> life. my dad, for example, is a lifelong educator and has gone out of

> his way to help " troubled " students whom the other teachers didn't

> want to deal with over the years, even to the extent of having a

> student who was having family troubles stay at my parents' home for a

> while. he is the kind of teacher kids remember into adulthood. he

> recently got a letter from a former student that explained to him

> what a profound positive impact he had on him, for example. how does

> that fit into the notion that a teacher's pivotal role in a child's

> education is " pathological " ?

well, like i said, i had no idea what point you were making. in an ideal

education system, there would be little distinction between teachers and

students

in some scenarios, combined with other environments were the distinctions are

clear but there is a reciprocal dynamic that makes neither unit " the " pivotal

one.

i didn't say teachers were pathological, i was saying the system is. i have

a lot of respect for great teachers.

> OTOH, i've known teachers who've had a horrendously negative impact

> on some of their students. so, ime and opion, teachers being a

> pivotal player in a student's life can either be phenomenally

> important to the child's life and success, but for others be a very

> negative impact. but i've seen/known about far too many circumstances

> where teachers have made all the difference in their students' lives

> to ever consider their role as " pathological " . although i understand

> that your personal experience may not have been so good.

i never had a teacher who played a pivotal role in anything affecting my

life, so i don't have any good or bad experiences in it. but i think the

educational system is fundamentally pathological and deserves radical

restructuring.

teachers work with the system their given, and some of them to an absolutely

fantastic job. i think that's great.

> was Escalante a " pathological phenomenon " of the education

> system? how about all the other teachers out there working themselves

> to the bone to help their students succeed?

i don't know who this person is, but sounds like they were great. i don't

consider people " phenomena, " i consider them people. the phenomenon i was

referring to is a systemic dynamic, which is rather irrelevant from the teacher

per

se.

chris

September 7, 2003

Like I said, I think getting rid of these institutions for the sake of making

gov't smaller is absurd and reckless.

There would be no such thing as a corporation if it weren't for government,

because corporations are fictional legal entities created by governments, which

is why every corporation is chartered by its home state. Limited liability

is probably good for economic growth and stability but it is a fundamental

violation of the free market.

I favor either a single-payer plan or the abolition of health insurance.

My point wasn't that without big government people would " study " the issue of

mental illness, but that without big gov't and big business we wouldn't have

gotten in this mess in the first place. How to get there from here is a much

more complicated question, and I don't have easy answers. But I don't think

it needs to be " studied " more, I think people should start eating real food

now, and I think there is enough evidence about gluten etc that it should be

obvious for everyone to *try* eliminating gluten if they do have mental problems

and see how it goes.

Chris

In a message dated 9/7/03 12:42:42 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

heidis@... writes:

> But that is the point. A family cannot take care of a truly mentally

> handicapped person. Really. Paid or not. I would not have believed it until I

saw

> how my friend changed, but it was like taking care of a 2-year old that is

> your size ... someone who might just drink the drain cleaner, or punch out the

> window, or steal your car and crash it into a wall. Ditto with folks on drugs.

> Drug treatment programs work, at least for some time period, but unless you

> are Mrs. Ford or a Bush girl, they are hard to get into, and if you are

> addicted to them it is next to impossible to get a job, thanks to all the drug

> testing. Further, health insurance doesn't pay much for mental or drug

problems,

> so the problem ALREADY rests on the family, and the family's response (for

> anyone other than those top 5% who truly have power) is often to kick the

> person out of the house.

>

> Now I DO believe that nutrition could solve a lot of these problems -- about

> half of the folks with " mental problems " are also gluten intolerant, and I

> personally know a family whose schizophrenic son is doing fine as long as he

> is on a special diet. But there is zero motivation for anyone to study that

> ... even if the government was small, the corporations would still advertise,

> and who would fund studies besides the drug companies? In our country, the

> health system is run for profit, so where is the motivation to make people

> well? In Europe, with a single payer system, they are VERY motivated to find

> cheap solutions to diseases and in fact they are!

September 7, 2003

In a message dated 9/7/03 3:17:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

slethnobotanist@... writes:

> I think if one thing can sum up the philosophy of nearly *every*

> politician is that they care more about the here and now, many voters as

> well, unrelated to demographics. Wasn't it Roosevelt who said something

> to the effect that we are all dead in the long run? He certainly

> understood what it took to get votes and stay in office.

,

I wasn't making the point that people without means won't dabble in

alternative politics. I was responding to the evidence Suze presented that this

is the

case, and explaining why I thought it was the case. Ther ARE poor

libertarians and greens, and there ARE black libertarians and greens and there

ARE women

libertarians and greens. But the point is that as a general *tendency*

alternative politics activist movements are dominated by white males and

especially white, males less, regardless of the kind of politics. The

statistics are

there, I didn't make them. I'm presenting an alternative theory to the idea

that libertarians are white males because libertarianism favors white males over

other people.

> By the way, I was curious as to what you consider " black " issues.

I was referring to the stereotypical leftist issues associated with the

" black " cause, and pointing out that even when the third party or whatever kind

of

alternative activist movement favors these causes, they are still dominated by

whites, which refutes the notion that Libertarianism is dominated by whites

because it only speaks to " white " issues.

Chris

September 7, 2003

On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 18:18:48 EDT

ChrisMasterjohn@... wrote:

> I don't really think this is the case with libertarianism because libertarian

> is a rather unique out-of-the-box position to take and in fact a lot of

> libertarians are not the kind of folks who say " who cares " if some people win

and

> others lose, but many are the kind who believe that government intervention in

> the economy hurts poor people and helps rich people, and there's a lot of

> truth to it.

<snip>

>

> My theory on the libertarianism is that it's an *alternative* philosophy, and

> only people with a relative amount of privilege will bother dabbling in

> alternative politics.

There is a real world libertarian experiment going on in Africa.

From nation-state to stateless nation: The Somali experience

Source: Liberalia

Author: van Notten

Country: Somalia

In the post-colonial period, Somalia's imposed central government

collapsed and the country returned to customary law -- an order that

(now that foreign troops are out) has brought relative peace, freedom

and prosperity. (4/24/00)

ess_somalis.htm

you can also find the same article here: http://tinyurl.com/mjjh

What is interesting in reading about the author, who recently passed

away, is that he was a European of means who went and actually worked in

Somalia. Like many of the American Revolutionaries, he put his money

where his mouth was. Although he was a co-founder of the Dutch

libertarian movement, he certainly wasn't just some privileged ivory

tower white intellectual.

http://www.isil.org/news/Van-Notten-obit.html

>

> The PERFECT example of this is to look at LEFTIST fringe groups like the

> Greens. Good luck finding blacks among them, even though they speak more to

> " black " issues than the Democrats do. But I think most black people or poor

people

> either don't vote, or if they do vote, they do it to get someone in office

> instead of having fun or playing intellectual/philosophical games because they

> care more about the here-and-now than the philosophy.

>

> Chris

I think if one thing can sum up the philosophy of nearly *every*

politician is that they care more about the here and now, many voters as

well, unrelated to demographics. Wasn't it Roosevelt who said something

to the effect that we are all dead in the long run? He certainly

understood what it took to get votes and stay in office.

By the way, I was curious as to what you consider " black " issues.

Science, Opiate of the Masses?

September 7, 2003

On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 07:57:30 -0700

Heidi Schuppenhauer <heidis@...> wrote:

> Libertarianism is more like the Old West --

> each individual out there with his/her gun trying

> to shoot down dinner and hopefully everyone helps

> out people who need helping, but since everyone

> lives alone there is little social constraint on

> a daily basis, so in fact very few people actually

> help out others, in fact the average white middle

> class person never SEES a lower-class person during

> the day unless that person is the maid at the hotel.

>

> -- Heidi

Heidi,

This is as about as far from an accurate analogy of libertarianism as

you can get, although I can understand how a misunderstanding of

libertarianism might lead to such an analogy.

As for classes, many libertarians (maybe most) do not view class in

terms of wealth or job, but as a function of one's time orientation.

There are lots of poor folk who are currently considered middle class in

the popular sense, and there are lots people considered poor in the

popular sense who are anything but.

Such is the tragedy of gov't help because in nearly all cases it

shortens one's time orientation.

Science, Opiate of the Masses?

September 7, 2003

On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 12:11:55 -0400

" Suze Fisher " <s.fisher22@...> wrote:

> >>>One of the most annoying fallacies I run into when trying to explain

> libertarianism is the notion that because we oppose being forced to do

> something, we must be opposed to doing it at all. This just isn't true.

> We're not opposed to charity--it's just that we think that it's something

> that should be left up to voluntary contributions from families,

> communities, and churches.

>

> >>>>I think I speak for most libertarians when I say that we have enough

> faith in the kindness and generosity of ourselves and others to believe

> without doubt that those who truly cannot provide for themselves will

> have their needs taken care of by their families, churches, and

> communities.

>

> ------->so then...you give to charities and/or volunteer for charitable

> organizations?

I can't speak for , but I am always struck by the notion that

rich/middle class folks aren't involved in the lives of those who

genuinely need it. I don't know if that is what you were intending to

imply Suze, but it is a pretty common notion.

I have noticed with my involvement with various groups over the years

that it is really hard to make that claim. You would be surprised who is

involved and who is funding what. If I were to make a guess, I would say

that upper class folk (of any age) and idealistic young people were the

main cogs, at least as far as giving of their actual time.

I think that makes sense, since life is seasonal. There is a time for

everything and when we are busy raising families or pursuing careers

that might not be as much of a priority. But later in life or earlier in

life, when our responsibilities are different we may have more time for

such activity.

Plus the notion we aren't serving others even in our regular pursuits I

think is wrong. Bill Gates, love him or hate him, has a done a phenomenol

service for the world. This community wouldn't exist without his efforts

and others like him. ly, I wish he would stick to serving by

working in the computer industry. But its his money and he is welcome to

do with it what he pleases.

But you don't have to be Bill Gates to find satisfaction and service in

your ordinary pursuits. But I know you are talking about charitable

activities where no monetary compensation is received.

I also think charity in many instances is conducted on a private level.

I know for myself that whenever I give money these days I do so

anonymously. I have met lots of folks like that from nearly every

aspect of the political spectrum.

In my opinion, and from my experience, the folks least likely to give of

their time and money are those who are usually ready to appropriate and

spend everyone else's money.

>

> >>>there are too many people going to college these days,

>

> ----->yes, ain't it a shame! what's wrong with people these days?????

> wasting their time and money on higher education. sheesh...<g>

Well a lot of people *are* wasting their time and money on higher

education these days, primarily because its not *their* money, but it is

expected of them.

One of the most annoying things about college when I went back after

having been in the work world for a few years, was all the students

right out of high school who had no business being there and wouldn't

have been there if someone else wasn't footing the tab.

They greatly disrupted the classroom experience and were just a drag on

nearly everything (fun to party with though). But this is what you do we

are told in order to get a good job.

I remember telling one of my fellow students in a study group that he

should just flat out quit and go get a job. He was annoying me and a few

other students by his lack of commitment on a team project.

" First of all, none of the professors in the economics or business dept

have ever run a successful business so don't expect they are going to

help you (he wanted to start his own business). You would be better off

finding a successful business owner to mentor you. "

He was wondering how I had learned what I did about philosophy, theology

and economics, and I told him in my spare time, on my own dime, while I

was earning a living.

I told him he was wasting his time being at school. Plus, from an

economic perspective, the opportunity cost was enormous (i.e. the money

he could save by not going right away and the money he would otherwise

have been earning). Well he didn't actually do what I suggested (his

parents would have disowned him) but he did get a job and swore off any

help from his parents and the gov't.

He ended up having to get two jobs and go to school part time. It took

him longer but it was amazing how his attitude and work habits changed

once he was paying for it.

>

> >>>>>Furthermore, colleges are wasting too much money on

> nonessential (to put it tactfully) departments like

> Women's/Black/Chicano/Queer/Asian/Canadian/Whiteness studies. The reason

> that they can do this is that not enough of the cost is being borne by

> students.

>

> ----->this statement clearly reflects your own value system - not

> necessarily that of the majority of college students, so i'd take issue with

> your argument that these depts. wouldn't exist is students were paying for

> them.

Whatever it might say about , from my experience, the women's

studies and the black studies dept. on college campuses

are...ummm...well lets just say I have never been exposed to such poor

scholarship in my life. Even when I was agreeing it was a sad state of

affairs.

It has nothing to do with intellect or ability but rather the sorry

standards of scholarship. I think this is largely brought about by the

smugness of the seeming rightness of their cause that things get pretty

shoddy.

Camille Paglia, herself a feminist educator, regularly rants at what

goes on in these departments.

" Tyldseley's book is timely, since we are at a stage in feminism where

abstruse theory is rightly being seen as a stupid waste of time and

where practical problems must be addressed by traditional methods:

historical inquiry and mastery of hard fact. The glass ceiling will not

be broken by tremulous whiners and thin-skinned hysterics crying sexual

harassment. Our future female leaders must study the nuts and bolts, as

well as the inevitable slings and arrows, of politics: a cold, cruel

game that only a few women like Hatshepsut, I and

the Great have mastered. "

If they did pass the market test, which I doubt, it would be because the

market forced them to clean up their act.

Science, Opiate of the Masses?

http://www.sepschool.org/misc/vouchers.html

September 7, 2003

On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 18:52:49 EDT

ChrisMasterjohn@... wrote:

> > ---->well, there is also the charter school program.

>

> I'm all for it.

>

> I do support vouchers however, because they are the most effective and

> *decentralized* form of " evaluation " of schools. The folks supporting

standardized

> tests are always whining about how if we are going to pay for schools we need

> to demand standards and have some way of evaluating them. Vouchers allow

> *parents* to evaluate the school, and penalize or reward the school by

bringing

> their kids somewhere else or keeping them there. This way they don't

completely

> destroy any semblance of anything worth spending money on in the school

> system, which is what standardized tests do (not to mention further penalize

> blacks.) I would support these being used at charter schools and all forms of

> education, including homeschooling and various variations thereof.

>

A dissenting view on the dangers of vouchers:

There are a number of links at the bottom of the brief article from

people on both sides of the issue. Very interesting reading. But I

believe vouchers are another form of *federal* welfare and ought to be

avoided: http://tinyurl.com/mk7o

but one of my faves, Walter , thinks otherwise:

http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1765

Science, Opiate of the Masses?

September 7, 2003

On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 05:43:52 -0700

Irene Musiol <irene@...> wrote:

> This is true but seems much less common. Especially when you look at worker

> and peasant revolts. Chiapas for example. Or the labor stikes in the US

> earlier this century, and the civil rights movement. Most liberation comes

> from within. Actually how does Moses and the Jews in egypt support your

> point. I am not a biblical scholar, but I was not under the impression that

> Moses had trouble convincing the Jews to leave slavery in Egypt.

> Irene

Oh he had plenty of trouble. And their grumbling later would lead to

some very bad decisions which would cost many many lives.

Science, Opiate of the Masses?

September 7, 2003

> >>>One of the most annoying fallacies I run into when trying to explain

> libertarianism is the notion that because we oppose being forced to do

> something, we must be opposed to doing it at all. This just isn't true.

> We're not opposed to charity--it's just that we think that it's something

> that should be left up to voluntary contributions from families,

> communities, and churches.

>

> >>>>I think I speak for most libertarians when I say that we have enough

> faith in the kindness and generosity of ourselves and others to believe

> without doubt that those who truly cannot provide for themselves will

> have their needs taken care of by their families, churches, and

> communities.

>

> ------->so then...you give to charities and/or volunteer for charitable

> organizations?

>>>I can't speak for , but I am always struck by the notion that

rich/middle class folks aren't involved in the lives of those who

genuinely need it. I don't know if that is what you were intending to

imply Suze, but it is a pretty common notion.

------->i wasn't intending to imply anything! LOL. i have no idea if brandon

is a rich/middle class folk in the first place. i was just curious, since

his (libertarian) perspective is that we as individuals should take care of

those in need, *unmandated* and totally voluntarily, of course. this system

wouldn't work though, if people don't actually *do* it, so i was just

wondering if he walked the walked... *however* i must say it's an unfair

question, and i retract it. since we don't have a libertarian system in

place, i think it's reasonable to assume that not everyone who believes in a

libertarian system will enact their libertarian principles under a different

system of gov't, such as we currently have. especially, since the tax burden

may make it extra difficult to give to charities for some folks. so please

disregard the question, i shouldn't have asked it in the first place. my

apologies, brandon :-)

> >>>there are too many people going to college these days,

>

> ----->yes, ain't it a shame! what's wrong with people these days?????

> wasting their time and money on higher education. sheesh...<g>

>>>Well a lot of people *are* wasting their time and money on higher

education these days, primarily because its not *their* money, but it is

expected of them.

---->well, i'd agree with that! but i didn't get the impression that that

was what brandon was referring to. perhaps i misunderstood him, though.

>>>>>He was wondering how I had learned what I did about philosophy,

theology

and economics, and I told him in my spare time, on my own dime, while I

was earning a living.

I told him he was wasting his time being at school. Plus, from an

economic perspective, the opportunity cost was enormous (i.e. the money

he could save by not going right away and the money he would otherwise

have been earning). Well he didn't actually do what I suggested (his

parents would have disowned him) but he did get a job and swore off any

help from his parents and the gov't.

He ended up having to get two jobs and go to school part time. It took

him longer but it was amazing how his attitude and work habits changed

once he was paying for it.

------->that was a very valuable lesson he learned from you :-) perhaps life

altering...

>

> >>>>>Furthermore, colleges are wasting too much money on

> nonessential (to put it tactfully) departments like

> Women's/Black/Chicano/Queer/Asian/Canadian/Whiteness studies. The reason

> that they can do this is that not enough of the cost is being borne by

> students.

>

> ----->this statement clearly reflects your own value system - not

> necessarily that of the majority of college students, so i'd take issue

with

> your argument that these depts. wouldn't exist is students were paying for

> them.

>>>Whatever it might say about , from my experience, the women's

studies and the black studies dept. on college campuses

are...ummm...well lets just say I have never been exposed to such poor

scholarship in my life. Even when I was agreeing it was a sad state of

affairs.

----->just curious, how extensive is your experiences with black and women's

studies depts that you base your opinion on?

my own experience is limited in that i've only taken one course in each

discipline, both at the same university, so i don't have much of an idea

about how these depts. rate in terms of scholarship in a broader sense. most

of my knowedlge on black and women's studies were done " in my spare time, on

my own dime, while I was earning a living. " <g>

i think the value of such depts, though, is subjective. some folks are happy

with an exclusionary version of learning, while others believe it is

limited, and that an inclusive version is far more challenging and valuable.

the rigorousness of any given college dept. though, i'd imagine would be

dependent on the administrators and professors who run it or teach in it.

that's been my experience in *every* discipline i've ever studied in all the

colleges/universities (6) where i've studied, ranging in size from 100

students to approx. 20,000 and from state school to ivy league. still, i

realize it's anecdotal (and hopefully not immodest sounding).

>>>>It has nothing to do with intellect or ability but rather the sorry

standards of scholarship. I think this is largely brought about by the

smugness of the seeming rightness of their cause that things get pretty

shoddy.

----->boy, that's not been my own experience at all, but i can certainly

imagine it's possible.

>>>>Camille Paglia, herself a feminist educator, regularly rants at what

goes on in these departments.

" Tyldseley's book is timely, since we are at a stage in feminism where

abstruse theory is rightly being seen as a stupid waste of time and

where practical problems must be addressed by traditional methods:

historical inquiry and mastery of hard fact. The glass ceiling will not

be broken by tremulous whiners and thin-skinned hysterics crying sexual

harassment. Our future female leaders must study the nuts and bolts, as

well as the inevitable slings and arrows, of politics: a cold, cruel

game that only a few women like Hatshepsut, I and

the Great have mastered. "

----->LOL! i read this yesterday since you sent a link to it. what is

paglia's concept of " hard fact " i wonder? you yourself wrote:

" You have to wade through junk in any media, including if not especially TV,

not just the Internet. And think about all the omitted truths, lies and bias

in the *******written word******: text books, biographies, autobiographies,

newspapers, magazines, etc. "

is " cultural relativism " relative? LOL

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

----------------------------

September 8, 2003

In a message dated 9/8/03 12:30:16 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

slethnobotanist@... writes:

> But the funny thing about Reagan is that under him the gov't *didn't*

> become smaller. In fact every Republican president has " grown " the gov't

> while simultaneously preaching smaller gov't. Yet I can't think of any major

> entitlement program since Nixon that wasn't signed into law by a Republican

> president. And not since Lyndon has there been a spender like

> Jr.

Oh, Reagan was the biggest " big government " fanatic around. Not only did the

size of the budget get bigger, and not only did the biggest public housing

project in the country-- prisons-- double (as it did again under clinton), but

he also was a great fanatic for undercutting the constitution, for example,

making all states raise the drinking age from 18 to 21 by executive order.

Since

he couldn't do that, he technically bribed the states with federal highway

money to raise the drinking age, which is just a loophole to use powers that

weren't constitutionally his.

Chris

September 8, 2003

In a message dated 9/8/03 4:18:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

slethnobotanist@... writes:

> Hmmm, I'm not sure where we were disagreeing, LOL!

We aren't, but I never claimed to be disagreeing with you ;-) This is the

third non-disagreeing debate I've gotten in this week and for once it's no fault

of mine!

Chris

September 8, 2003

Hmmm, I'm not sure where we were disagreeing, LOL!

Science, Opiate of the Masses?

On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 16:40:00 EDT

ChrisMasterjohn@... wrote:

> ,

>

> I wasn't making the point that people without means won't dabble in

> alternative politics. I was responding to the evidence Suze presented that

this is the

> case, and explaining why I thought it was the case. Ther ARE poor

> libertarians and greens, and there ARE black libertarians and greens and there

ARE women

> libertarians and greens. But the point is that as a general *tendency*

> alternative politics activist movements are dominated by white males and

> especially white, males less, regardless of the kind of politics. The

statistics are

> there, I didn't make them. I'm presenting an alternative theory to the idea

> that libertarians are white males because libertarianism favors white males

over

> other people.

>

> > By the way, I was curious as to what you consider " black " issues.

>

> I was referring to the stereotypical leftist issues associated with the

> " black " cause, and pointing out that even when the third party or whatever

kind of

> alternative activist movement favors these causes, they are still dominated by

> whites, which refutes the notion that Libertarianism is dominated by whites

> because it only speaks to " white " issues.

>

> Chris

September 8, 2003

> >>>>The notion of a level playing field is a farce. Find one single

> place in the natural world where such a field exists. People,

> animals, insects, whatever are born with specific aptitudes, talents,

> faults, skills, looks, upside and downside. There is no such thing

> as a level playing field.

>

> ----->mike, i don't think anyone's under the illusion that the " playing

> field " will ever be *perfectly* level, although it's certainly a worthy

> ideal to strive for. however, the issue is that some americans (sorry to

be

> so ameri-centric you folks in other countries :-) face an *extreme* number

> of obstacles put before them by a system that was designed by and for a

the

> group in power, and a system that was designed to maintain that

> demographic's power.

>>>I disagree. First the idea of leveling the playing field usually means

doing something by legislative or bureaucratic fiat that supposedly

helps disadvantaged folk who have the deck stacked against them. No it

doesn't. It just creates a different playing field equally bumpy that

some people learn to manage and many don't. And the many who don't will

continue to blame the " system " because the field isn't " level "

---->is this because there's something inherantly wrong with the notion that

all citizens of a country should at least have even moderately equal access

to the nation's resources (ie; power), or due to the fact that we have a

dysfunctional system that has woefully failed in removing obstacles to

groups who face (sometimes significantly) more obstacles than the group in

power?

>>>>Lets face it. In the whole history of the world, the field has never

been level.

---->so? should we strive to repeat this?

>>>To give people the idea that their success or failure is

dependent on a level playing field does them a grave disservice in my

opinion.

----->well, i agree! but, i didn't say that a person's success or failure

depends solely on the levelness of the playing field. however, i think

awareness of the context in which we are operating is important, and i think

that it's often not understood that we live in a system of sometimes stark

differences in access to power. i certainly wouldn't try to persuade anyone

that their success or failure is solely dependent on an outside force.

>

> it actually has nothing to do with the aptitude of the individual - which

> actually " blames " the individual for not succeeding in a stacked system,

but

> has to do with the number of obstacles to power each of us faces.

>>>>Actually it has everything to do with the individual and his/her

cultural

milieu and very little to do with a " stacked system. "

----->you know, i agree that it does have to do with the individual - but

not the *aptitude* of the individaul *carte blanche* which was the statement

i was responding to. and the notion that a lack of " aptitude " is what keeps

people *carte blanche* (sorry for overusing this word!) from succeeding in

america is simply not true. for example, the statement that was made about

the attitutude of poor african americans and hispanics as_a_group keeping

them from succeeding, is just not true of the vast majority of poor african

americans, ime. it's the generalization that i'm refuting. it IS true of a

*subculture* of african americans, but hardly represents the attitude toward

education of the entire african american community nor the entire segment

living in poverty. for the rest, neither their attitude nor aptitude are the

biggest problems facing them. that was my point.

for *everyone* imo, and this goes for all ethnic groups, economic success

has to do with *both* the individual and the system in which they live.

although i chose to emphasize the obstacles aspect in my response, because

ime, most people are simply not fully aware of them and assume that some

folks don't succeed economically due to some inherant " shortcomings " ,

inaptitude or poor attitude on their part. which i maintain, is completely

and utterly false, as a *carte blanche* statement of any group, although it

is true in part, of some indivduals and of some subcultures.

>>>One of the greatest untold stories in modern times is that of Black

Americans. No group has come so far and so fast in such a short period

of time. No one. And I don't think anyone would argue that the deck

wasn't stacked against them.

But you don't hear about it. All you hear are the stories of people who

fell through the cracks. All you hear are the gut wrenching tales that

are not representative of the modern black experience.

----->this is true, for the most part, imo.

>>>>>It is rather politically incorrect to talk about the rising black

middle

class.

---->ime, it depends on who you're referring to. i rarely hear it discussed

among whites, but it is not so uncommon to hear it discussed among middle

class blacks, again, ime.

>>>>Black Americans have dramatically risen in wealth over the last

forty years. That rise began while some of the most obnoxious barriers

in our society were still in place. The black underclass is *not*

representative of Black America. It is a statistically unrepresentative

sample that seems nearly impervious to any change.

----->right-o in terms of representation. according to the CDC, the number

of african americans living in poverty in 2000 was 22 percent as compared to

7.5% for non-hispanic whites. the numbers are disproportionate, however

clearly most african americans do NOT live in poverty. is that what you

meant?

>>>>Having worked down in South Central LA in the five years I was living in

California, I can tell you it won't change unless there is a change in

mindset, which is a cultural issue, not an institutional one.

----->i agree when, for example, you're discussing the specific *subculture*

of african americans (or any other ethnic groups, including whites) who

" denigrate " school and so forth, but not when discussing the *broader*

demographic of *poor* african americans, or poor whites or poor latinos,

etc. none of these are culturally monolithic and none are universally of low

aptitude, or poor attitude, etc.

>>>Further, in some of his later work, he shows how various groups, no

matter where they end up in the world, and no matter how severe the

obstacles, tend to build a certain kind of success unique to them. That

is a product of culture, not environment.

---->the uniqueness of how each group *responds* to obstacles IS a product

of culture, i agree with that.

>>>>In other words, it is the culture we bring to the environment that

ultimately changes the environment, and not vice-versa.

---->yep! i agree!

one that is controlled by the group in power and works to

> maintain dominance of the group in power. by taking the focus off the

group

> in power and their institutions that uphold the status quo, and suggesting

> that those who can't seem to succeed within such a system have

> " shortcomings " , puts the " blame " so to speak, where it does not belong. in

> my experience, there's a remarkable number of folks who are not part of

the

> power demographic, who posesss extraordinary skills and talents with which

> they could make profound contributions to our nation, if their time and

> energy were not used up trying to overcome all the obstacles in front of

> them.

>>>Well that is a subjective evaluation on your part, which may very well

be true, but none of us can look inside the heart of a man or woman and

tell whether they have what it takes to make profound contributions to

our nation.

---->sure it is, but i bet there are other teachers out there who recognize

exceptional gifts and talents in some of their students, and who feel they

may be capable of doing such. however, re-reading my paragraph i see that i

should have said " with which

they have the potential, in my opinion, to make profound contributions to

our nation " .

>>>As it stands many *have* made profound contributions to America, in

spite of the obstacles, real or perceived. And it seems to me that the

degree

of success you achieve is in direct proportion to the number of

obstacles you are willing and able to overcome.

---->i wouldn't argue with that.

if perseverance, intelligence and the like were the *only*

> criteria, then white men, who are a numerical minority, wouldn't be

> overrepresented in positions of political and economic power and women and

> people of color (or whatever the respectful term de jour is [i missed the

> politically correct movement, so don't keep up with terminology]) wouldn't

> be underrepresented. unless of course, we are just stupid, lazy and

> incapable ;-)

>>>>The problem with this is that politics is not a measure of success for

most people period, white or otherwise. Politics under no circumstance

is subject to the discipline of the market. It is whole different

ballgame and really is not germane to the subject of success. Playing

the political game is not playing the game of life in any real sense. It

is a poor measure.

>>>And what positions of *economic* power are you talking about?

----->owning resources, having enough economic power to influence the public

mind, to buy washington lobbyists, etc.

Underepresented by what measure?

--->numerically.

According to whose standard?

----->not by a " standard " but by statistics. am i wrong? (picture this in my

best bill o'reilly voice. LOL)

>>>And women are a special case simply because most marry, have kids, and

leave the marketplace at least temporarily. Nearly every study I have

seen that takes such into account shows that a woman who does not leave

the marketplace and has the same educational attainments as a man, earns

nearly dollar for dollar what a man earns in that particular field.

The income difference studies remind me of the mortality studies that

get skewed because they don't take into account infant mortality.

---->can you explain how the statitstics on women's earnings compare to the

life expectancy rates/infant mortality stats? i'd be interested to hear

that.

>

> >>>> Some find

> themselves lavished in opportunity and some don't. You can find

> plenty of folk who " made it " from the hood and plenty who have

> crashed and burned from the " rich " part of town. I think on this

> issue the libertarians are right, people are dealt a certain hand via

> genetics, culture, happenstance, etc... and they need to be trusted

> to play their hand.

>

> ------>if it were just a matter of " happenstance " then the poverty rate of

> women and african americans (and especially african american women!), for

> example, wouldn't be so disproportionate to our numbers in society. so

> either women and people of color:

>

> a) have a disproportionately high amount of " shortcomings " as compared to

> white males,

>

> OR

>

> the system we live in rewards and maintains white male privilege.

>>>>or your idea about the poverty rate of African Americans and other

minorities is incorrect

---->well, maybe! i'm going by the CDC stats posted above, as well as others

i've read in the 90s, which i imagine could be incorrect. if you have access

to more accurate numbers and would care to explain why they're more

accurate, please do. :-)

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics