The future belongs to liberals

Many liberals gave up the term and preferred to be called progressives, since the word liberal became somewhat pejorative. Of course, the reason it had become pejorative is that many of these same people had soiled it. If a term accurately describes folks like them, it is bound to become pejorative. But they were not wrong to want to change their status. We should probably bring liberalism back to some of its original meanings and let progressives have the new permutations.

I was a little disturbed to read in the Economist that young Britons were the most liberal ever, and implying that the future belonged to the liberals, until I read further that they were using "liberal" in the original sense of being socially tolerant and against big government.

According to the article, "Almost 70% of the pre-war generation, and 61% of baby-boomers, believe that the creation of the welfare state is one of Britain's proudest achievements. Under 30% of those born after 1979 agree. The young are deficit-reduction hawks. They worry about global warming, but still generally lean towards Mill's minimal 'nightwatchman state' when it comes to letting business get on with it: they are relaxed about the growth of giant supermarkets, for example."

Would that American liberals would be pro-business and not pro larger state. Maybe they are.

What we today call progressives are the ones that cause the trouble. They are for the expanded state and more nanny interference.

So we kind of have three permutations in the U.S. Conservatives tend to be less socially tolerant but "liberal" when it comes to keeping the state out of business and the economy. Progressives are "liberal" when it comes to social tolerance, but restrictive when it comes to business and the economy. Libertarians are the ones who stayed mostly "liberal" but they lost control of the word. They also tend to encompass lots of weirdos who give the movement a bad name, i.e. animal rights fanatics and druggies.

So let's look at a three way split. conservatives, liberals and progressives, but let's not think of them in that order, which implies a continuum from conservative to progressive. True liberalism should be something of its own. It is conservative in business and economics and progressive in social policy, but unlike conservatives it is not pro-business in that it does not want to state to help business, i.e. no industrial subsidies or promotion. It is progressive in social policy, but breaks ranks with progressives in that it does not want the state of interfere with social arrangements set up by the people, i.e. no affirmative action or hate speech laws.

So we get to eliminate affirmative action and hate speech laws in return for gay marriage and legalized marijuana. And we have businesses regulated, but only as much as minimally necessary to ensure health and safety. We understand free markets are the best way to make everyone richer and we have the government stay away from economic planning in the sense of picking winners and losers (i.e. Solyndras). Government is agnostic about any income distribution; we recognized that racism is diminishing because of freedom. And politicians don't get to have the power to bother you unless you are breaking laws, which are simpler and fewer. And of course, government should never do things like use the IRS to target political opponents or spy on journalists.

Whatever we call it, it sounds okay to me.

Posted by Christine & John at June 1, 2013 1:04 PM
Comments
Comment #366854

I believe that I’ve said it before, but I consider myself a liberal, not a progressive.

Posted by: Warren Porter at June 1, 2013 4:51 PM
Comment #366855

First, it wasn’t Democrats who made “liberal” a dirty word. It’s the hateful voices of a generation of conservatives and pundits who used it as a synonym for being depraved commies who want to live off of handouts.

Y’all still do it.

Second, I would temper your enthusiasm with a question: from what, to what? What does it mean for the young in Great Britain to be more classically liberal than their parents?

Or, put another way, what do these more liberal folks think of politics here? The article doesn’t really make clear what these new British Liberals believe, only that they’re more libertarian than their parents. However, where are their parents starting from? From a fairly strong Welfare State to be sure.

And let’s be sure, however wonderful you might think the demographic changes across the pond are, they’re not that relevant here. Here, my generation has been burnt out on conservatism.

Let me tell you what my perspective is: we could have been a fairly conservative generation. After all, we’re the kids who grew up during the rightward turn that Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, and Bush 43 produced. That’s our history. We’ve spent around half our lives with a Republican Congress. Republicans essentially took over the establishment in Washington, despite all their complaining, and we saw less and less complaint over that as time went on.

It might have become simply our environment, the world we were used to, resigned to.

Now before I go any further, let me warn you against something. I’ve often argued that the Obstruction against Obama was to blame for the failure of the Obama administration to effectively resolve the economic situation, prevent other problems. But that’s not to say that I don’t recognize that even when the assessment is unfair, whoever’s in charge when something screws up often gets the problem dumped in their laps, gets held responsible when things are done right.

So, with that said, I believe that on both a policy and a public relations level, Republicans screwed themselves out of the support of this most recent generation.

Military: Before the Iraq war, most people remember the Gulf Warand the Balkans, when remembering American military success. Today’s young men and women, age 18 to 35 have the Iraq War, with all its complications and chaos, and the Afghanistan war with its protracted malaise, as their experience of the American Military’s exercise of its power.

If my own experience is any yardstick, I’d come to believe that we’d reformed from the troubles of Vietnam, that we’d learned to be more careful, more decisive, less apt to lie to ourselves and let things fall apart to save political face. I’d come to believe that AMERICA DOESN’T TORTURE. That’s what those bad guys over there do.

I’d expected Bush to go right after Osama Bin Laden, not declare him unimportant a year later, and choose to divide America’s attention.

Fiscal-wise, Republicans were willing to let deficits go down when a Democrat was President, even as they bashed him for running deficits that started under Reagan, but once they got into power, they simply did not do what it took to balance the budget. Oh, they were willing to go after regulators and Liberal programs, but they grew spending nonetheless, bloating the Pentagon with contracts that put all the “crony capitalism” examples like Solyndra to shame. I mean, how much did we pay Solyndra and how much did we pay Halliburton for often shoddy work and support?

535 million, with an ‘m’ to Solyndra, 39.5 billion dollars to Halliburton. the total money lost to waste and corruption over the past decade, according to some sources, is around sixty billion.

You could run more than one Cabinet department for a year, based on that kind of money. And the Defense department went from pulling down about 300 billion a year, to pulling down over seven hundred million.

And none of this was covered by new revenues.

Why should they do that? Reagan didn’t cover his new spending! Neither would Bush. Republicans talk big on saving money, then spend big when on the things they prioritize.

So, I don’t trust them. They don’t really add things up properly, budgeting with wishful thinking in the place of their calculator.

I think others in my generation think the same thing, and we don’t miss that deficits grew under Bush from a balanced budget.

Domestically?

Here’s what I’d say. It’s all wonderful to talk about what the future results of your policies are, but if the economic instability your policies create are what kids experience, they’ll get more skeptical of your magic policies. If what you see after you give Wall Street free reign, after you give the drug companies greater influence over their own regulators, and let the oil companies rush into their drilling is something catastrophically stupid, you’re not going to be impressed, or eager to give the promises of the conservatives another chance.

Maybe if the economic prosperity of the nineties had lasted, you could have gotten those kids. But instead, the Bush Administration represented a hollowing out of what was promised. In 1998, when I graduated high school, I was told that getting a college degree guaranteed you work. By 2002, you couldn’t be so sure. By 2008, ten years later, people in my generation ended up some of the hardest hit.

And for what? For who’s benefit? A few people got quite a bit richer, and the great masses quite a bit poorer. You like to style yourself an opponent of Marxism and socialism, so let me give you a tip about how best to fight it: make the masses richer.

The theories on which socialism are based basically say that you, the proletariat, get to work real hard, and then watch somebody else eat the bread you earned. So, what have our nice, friendly capitalists done? They’ve exploited people, cut jobs and income and benefits for the working class and middle class, and then, when they get into trouble and come crawling to the government we elected for help, what do they do? The clueless bastards reward themselves for being such wonderful businesspersons.

These are the people you are selling as the leaders of our economy. Can’t you just feel the awesome just flowing through those people?

Maybe Brits of my generation are fed up with their bureaucratic system, fed up with its high taxes and everything. But people like me are wondering why many of these people aren’t in jail. My generation is wondering why we aren’t learning our lessons, or maybe, if we’re more historically aware, why we forgot the lessons of the Great Depression.

We don’t look kindly on the promises your generation has been breaking left and right. We’re not satisfied with either the Democrats or the Republicans as they were at the start of this previous decade.

And all this BS rhetoric that treats us like we want to destroy our country, destroy our economy, bring down soviet style totalitarian rule doesn’t exactly flatter us. It aggravates us. We want to say, “Stop lying, you wasteful bastards! You changed things, and they didn’t get change for the better! Stop calling us subversives and traitors for just wanting things changed for the better!”

I know plenty of your friends in the comment sections get off on imagining that people like me are like Bond villains, working for some grand conspiracy. one or two of them even think that I actually work directly for Obama!

But the truth is, I’m a very bruised centrist who doesn’t want to compromise towards stupid policy. I can take the fact that a Republican Administration is going to do things its way, and when the have power, we’ll have to make deals and live with that. What I can’t stomach, having bent over backwards to be conciliatory and supportive of such an atmosphere, is that this compromising spirit is not demonstrated in return. What I can’t stomach is bad policy that continues to be insisted upon, even when the evidence of its failure is all around.

I want to compromise with those who compromise in return, and I want to compromise towards smart, not merely split difference policy.

I don’t have willing partners on the right anymore. They’ve all decided that their beliefs are sacrosanct, that mine reflect hostility towards the existence of my own country. They’ve decided that since Democrats got power, rather than do what the Democrats did and compromise and make deals in order to help keep their influence on policy, rather than let bipartisan policy come through, they were going to try and starve the Democrats of achievements.

I cannot support people putting their political fortunes before the functioning of the government that we, for the most part, do not elect to sit on Capitol Hill and **** around. I cannot support the politically driven continuation of stupid policy. It’s time for reform, it’s time to take the system and just go through it and systematically rethink it.

I don’t care whether we streamline some things and grow others. I don’t care about big or small government in particular. I simply want government that works, Good government. If we set government to a certain task, how best does it work. If we need to put more people on the job, so be it. If it’s duplication, and we can get better results with one department rather than four, so be it. I think this “Big government/Small Government debate” fundamentally misses the point.

I might have once supported greater freedom from regulation, but the last decade and a half hasn’t been kind to my sense of economic libertarianism. It’s gone from “I prefer more regulation, but if nothing’s going wrong…” to “Damn it, we have predictable causes here, predictable problems. Why are we doing nothing?”

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 1, 2013 4:58 PM
Comment #366856

Warren

Good. By the classical definition, liberals are okay. By the current definition, progressives suck.

Stephen

The idea of big government etc is what made liberals a bad word.

Re - “Or, put another way, what do these more liberal folks think of politics here?” They probably don’t really understand politics here.

Re “Here, my generation has been burnt out on conservatism.” We will see. Inexperienced voters tend to go left. They come around when they have jobs and pay taxes. Ironically, the Obama economy has slowed this natural trend, but eventually they will get jobs and turn more … classically liberal.

Re “but if the economic instability your policies create are what kids experience, they’ll get more skeptical of your magic policies.” Obama policies have been at work for the last five years. I think they actually slowed the natural recovery of the economy. Leftish people talk about a “new normal” of slower growth and 6% unemployment. Classical liberalism can do better.

Re “if we’re more historically aware, why we forgot the lessons of the Great Depression.” Yeah - don’t create uncertainty by government regulations and avoid punishing tariffs. Let’s remember them.

Re Brits of “your generation” - I think they are Brits of my kids generation. You are no longer the young generation. This is the awful awakening in a late 20 early 30 life.

Re “my generation” - we did pretty well. Well I look back at the world in 1973 and what we thought and feared would be the world by 2013, I am very satisfied with the job “we” did. I only wish we could really take credit for it all. The Soviet Union fell; poverty is much lower worldwide; water and air are cleaner; median income is up; products are higher quality; people are healthier. It was a great 40 years, probably the best in human history.

Re “I think this “Big government/Small Government debate” fundamentally misses the point.” I am not debating that.

I wrote what I like -

“So we get to eliminate affirmative action and hate speech laws in return for gay marriage and legalized marijuana. And we have businesses regulated, but only as much as minimally necessary to ensure health and safety. We understand free markets are the best way to make everyone richer and we have the government stay away from economic planning in the sense of picking winners and losers (i.e. Solyndras). Government is agnostic about any income distribution; we recognized that racism is diminishing because of freedom. And politicians don’t get to have the power to bother you unless you are breaking laws, which are simpler and fewer. And of course, government should never do things like use the IRS to target political opponents or spy on journalists.”

Which parts do you dislike?

Posted by: CJ at June 1, 2013 5:19 PM
Comment #366857

Stephen

Re Bond villains - you need to shave your head and wear quasi-futuristic clothes.

Ironically for a young man, I think you are stuck in old categories, much like the bond villain in quasi-futuristic clothes. Socialism just sucks because it is intellectually bankrupt. The world has become too complex for socialism. It just makes people poorer. Markets are really the only game left in town. That doesn’t mean we have only “market values”; it does mean that any policy maker needs to pay attention to markets the way that a traveller pays attention to terrain and topography. You get much farther if you work with markets. Working against them will create trouble and there are some things you just cannot have, no matter if everybody wants them and votes for them.

You might call what I believe above an ideology, but it is really no more an ideology than the belief in gravity. Those who defy market forces crash to the ground just as those those who think they can fly by force of will.

Posted by: CJ at June 1, 2013 5:34 PM
Comment #366858

Interesting how word meanings change: take “Democrats” for example: they used to be northern Republicans; and “Republicans” used to be southern Democrats, right Daugherty?

But whether we are talking about today’s Democrats as “Progressive” of “Liberal”; they hate to be called “Socialists”, right Daugherty?

It’s hard to keep up with word changes, especially when you have lived 70 years; “Queer”, used to mean “Gay”, but I can remember when my grandmother called you “queer” if you were sick.

Then, none of us can forget how Bill Clinton changed the meaning of “IS” and “SEX”.

My maternal grandfather was English and he almost didn’t get into America back in the early 60’s, through Ellis Island, simply because he belonged to the Socialist Party. He simply believed the government should run everything. Today, he would be welcomed with open arms.

Look at the word “Truth”:

“The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is.” — Winston Churchill

“Where I found truth, there found I my God, who is the truth itself.” — Augustine


“Almost anything is possible if one has the power to change the definition of words. Take for example the word truth. Once upon a time truth had a clear and concise meaning. Merriam-Webster’s dictionary (M-WD) defines truth as “the body of true statements and propositions. Truth is the ‘state of being the case.’” In other words, it is a fact. A fact is something that actually exists, or an actual occurrence. M-WD defines In truth as in accordance with facts. “Facts are stubborn things,” said John Adams, “and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”

In our post-modern culture a number of people have come to believe that there is no absolute truth. For them all truth is relative. M-WD defines relativism thusly: “A theory that knowledge is relative to the limited nature of the mind and the conditions of knowing (b) a view that ethical truths depend on the individuals and groups holding them.” The relativist will declare, “What’s true for you is not true for me” also “no one can know anything for sure.” For the relativist there is no universal moral truth, only what each individual perceives as truth. We all have our own truth, they say, and it is intolerant to push our views on others.”

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/mwest/120719

The sixties teaching of humanistic theology is that of “Situational Ethics”. Example: JFK had secret sexual encounters with women (they remained secret because it would have been considered sin and would have ruined his presidency); now jump ahead 40 years (thanks to the teaching of situation ethics), Clinton’s sexual encounters were ONLY sex…everybody does it. And so it goes.

Posted by: DSP2195 at June 1, 2013 5:54 PM
Comment #366859
By the current definition, progressives suck.

And conservatives suck more. Both progressives and conservatives are intent on growing our governments (both our political and corporate governance). At least the progressives try to support equality along the way; whereas the conservatives do everything they can to support incumbent power holders.

take “Democrats” for example: they used to be northern Republicans; and “Republicans” used to be southern Democrats
Our political party system has changed several times over the past 200 years. Northern Republicans from a half-century ago were “Rockefeller Republicans” and were generally classical liberals. Southern Democrats from the same time were very conservative, they sought to conserve old institutions such as segregation. Northern Democrats were another beast entirely: they were mostly progressives, so they supported liberal initiatives like civil rights, but they also supported illiberal things like expansions to the welfare state.

Regarding truth: Philosophers have debated epistemology for millennia, so these sorts of controversies regarding “situational ethics” are actually not that new. What is new is the fact that more and more people are educated and aware of these ideas than ever before; whether this is good or bad remains to be seen.

Posted by: Warren Porter at June 1, 2013 7:49 PM
Comment #366860

Warren

I don’t much like the concept of equality. I think it has been ruined over the past generation.

A reasonably fair chance is what we should strive for and all we should strive for.

I have been thinking about “life chances” a lot because my career is nearly finished and my kids’ are starting theirs. I grew up poor with uneducated parents. My kids grew up upper middle class with parents with advanced degrees. In many ways, I was better off. It was “harder” for me because I had to work at factories or food service to pay for my education. But it was “easier” for me because I knew I had to get my ass in gear. It was “harder” for me because my parents couldn’t give me lots of stuff, but easier for me because I couldn’t expect it.

Another interesting permutation. My father was able to use his “connections” to get me a longshoreman job that paid pretty well. Despite all my ostensible power and position, I cannot get my kids much of anything through connections. So are they really better off? Progressives would call them privileged. I have a closer point of view and I don’t think so.

What about intelligence and drive? A poor kid who has these is better off than a rich kid w/o them. What about good health? Healthy people are more productive than sick ones. Some people are healthier than others. How do we compensate. The best answer is that we don’t try.

If I could magically make all people equal at no cost to myself or anyone else, I would never do it. It would be evil.

BTW - Southern Conservatives have become classically liberal in many ways. That is why businesses feel more comfortable there. It is not 1960 anymore.

So what is equality anyway? I don’t think we should be so concerned with it.

Posted by: CJ at June 1, 2013 8:13 PM
Comment #366861

Warren

I speculate that the pursuit of equality is one of the things that ruined liberals and turned them into progressives. A superficially good thing, pushed too far and wrecked a promising idea.

Posted by: CJ at June 1, 2013 8:15 PM
Comment #366862

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/12/a-giant-statistical-round-up-of-the-income-inequality-crisis-in-16-charts/266074/

C&J, your philosophy of life sounds reasonable but doesn’t address the reality of today’s workaday world, IMO. The above URL puts that world in economic perspective. No one could/should deny that inequality is growing by leaps and bounds, that inequality, as it exist today is not an easy fix.

In reviewing the graphs it is easy to draw a conclusion that bigtime trouble is in the forecast. From your articles I get the impression that we only need to work harder, get a college education, take advantage of opportunities as they come, etc, and everything will right itself and we shall all dance amongst the tulips in due time. It ain’t in the graphs, C&J.

So, are we to sit pat and stick with the ‘party’ plan or should we agitate for reform? Corporate tax havens, corporate welfare and so on - - -

But, why should we expect reform on any level to have a lasting affect when ‘money is free speech’ and ‘one man, one vote’ is what? A misnomer?

Looking at the graphs, why would one believe that a corporate oligarchy, Corpocracy, will serve in our best interests?

Why not use a 3rd party, designed to thwart the money influence, to break up corpocracy and return competition to the marketplace?

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at June 1, 2013 10:12 PM
Comment #366863

C&J,

I would be interested in your thoughts on the pursuit of equal opportunity by one of the largest and fastest growing segments of the economy: professional sports. I am not talking about the race, ethnicity or gender of the athletes but of the leagues themselves which have strongly institutionalized rules designed to protect the competitive capabilities of its franchises. By this, I mean the rigorous revenue sharing arrangements, salary caps, preferential drafting rules, scheduling arrangements, etc.

Certainly, the business model followed by professional sports is highly successful. The NFL draft alone draws an immense national audience. It is also equally clear that such schemes are designed to equalize the haves and the have not. Are they dictating outcome or opportunity?


Posted by: Rich at June 1, 2013 10:23 PM
Comment #366864

“But, why should we expect reform on any level to have a lasting affect when ‘money is free speech’ and ‘one man, one vote’ is what? A misnomer?”

Good line, Roy.

Posted by: Rich at June 1, 2013 10:25 PM
Comment #366865

C&J-

The idea of big government etc is what made liberals a bad word.

Or maybe a generation worth of propagandists stereotyping us as promiscuous spendthrifts who are out to destroy western civilization.

I’d say people in my age group don’t understand the stubborn, angry unwillingness to change, especially in the face of recent developments. It’s one thing to stand by your principles, it’s another to ignore the fact that your policies, your behaviors are screwing things up. And then, after people have replaced you, on account of all that, you practically declare war on the policies of those trying to change things!

As for your generation, your folks were in my position back in the day. The previous generation was in charge when the Berlin Wall fell, when America became the only superpower. And people have real questions about whether the Baby Boomer Generation did the Millennials or the Gen-Xers any favors. We’re loaded down with more debt, and had to do so in order to get those college degrees were told would help us get jobs. And as much as you want to take credit for what was really the work of the previous generation in terms of the clean air and clean water acts, the Baby Boomer contribution is a parade of gas guzzling cars, a disregard for the threat of climate change, the promotion of Mountaintop removal mining, and the Tar Sands as a major source of energy. Plus, much of your progress is local, the big companies having shipped their pollution over to China, where they can pollute with more impunity.

I won’t say that Baby Boomers didn’t fight for greater environmentalism, many did. But many have also fought against it, labeled it anathema to economic growth.

As for understanding free markets?

Look at 2008. When Derivatives and proprietary trading programs rule the roost, there is no understanding the market, because so much of it is either hidden out of site among the traders, or taking place on computers making trades faster than the human brain is capable of making.

Here’s the way I look at it. We gave people freedom, and we made that freedom mean something by punishing those who discriminated, and encouraging people to give folks a chance. We are willing to employ both free market forces and government policy, but we will watch for how it works, rather than dogmatically believe that one or the other simply invariably does the trick.

We shouldn’t go out of our way to help the rich get richer. That’s not government’s job. The government should be willing to intercede, even at the cost of a Business’s existence, in order to protect the public interest.

My concern is not whether laws are many or few, whether they’re libertarian or socialist, whether government is big or small. My concern is how it works, one way or the other. We should be willing to acknowledge when something doesn’t work as expected. As far as Bond villains go, it’s pretty much my way of saying that Democrats get portrayed as having such an unrealistic level of sociopathy, that you practically expect us to train each other in the art of evil laughs. Ah, today I will destroy the economy!

I just think that the world’s too complicated to simply assume one school of thought or another is what we need to follow. I think results matter, and overall results at that.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 1, 2013 10:55 PM
Comment #366868

Stephen, Solomon said, “there is nothing new under the sun”. “Our” generation was “Your” generation 50 years ago. I will show you your comments and then I will show you the comments of those just like you 50 years ago:

“I’d say people in my age group don’t understand the stubborn, angry unwillingness to change, especially in the face of recent developments. It’s one thing to stand by your principles, it’s another to ignore the fact that your policies, your behaviors are screwing things up. And then, after people have replaced you, on account of all that, you practically declare war on the policies of those trying to change things!

As for your generation, your folks were in my position back in the day. The previous generation was in charge when the Berlin Wall fell, when America became the only superpower. And people have real questions about whether the Baby Boomer Generation did the Millennials or the Gen-Xers any favors. We’re loaded down with more debt, and had to do so in order to get those college degrees were told would help us get jobs. And as much as you want to take credit for what was really the work of the previous generation in terms of the clean air and clean water acts, the Baby Boomer contribution is a parade of gas guzzling cars, a disregard for the threat of climate change, the promotion of Mountaintop removal mining, and the Tar Sands as a major source of energy.”

50 years ago:

“There began an anti-establishment movement. People wanting to break away from societies values placed on them…

Using the written word they began to express their frustration , protesting what they saw wrong with the world…

It was the hippies that took the movement out of the coffee shops and on to the campuses around the country. Berkley became the center of the movement. There were protest and demonstrations. Angry at the injustices in this country such as racism, poverty and the lack of women’s rights, sit ins were staged…

I’m not sure what led to the dwindling of the hippie movement. Maybe it was the gains made in civil rights and women’s rights. Maybe it was the end of the war in Vietnam. Could be we just thought the fight was over. I know we made a difference for a while. Then it seems that during the Regan era there was a setback. We started losing the individual rights we gained. It turned from the we generation to the me generation. What’s in it for me? Whole families wound up living on the streets, homeless. Racism has raised it’s ugly head again. The Klan has begun to grow and skinhead groups are showing up even in rural communities. The Environmental Protection Agency is being stripped of it’s authority. Since I first posted my site, I have been glad to find that the movement hasn’t died. There are still a lot of old hippies out there and they’re coming out again. There are also a growing number of new young hippies with the ideals and hopes we had. I’m most proud of them and I hope their ranks will grow. We need them if we are going to survive the next century.”

http://oldhippie.jimgreenlee.com/hiphistory.html

So, now we know..Stephen Daugherty is a Johnny come lately hippy. Fighting he same injustices that were fought by the boomer generation. And like the hippy “We” generation, who grew up and faced the hard facts of life and became the “Me” generation, Daugherty will also grow up, get a job, support a family, and become a “Me” generation.

Posted by: DSP2195 at June 1, 2013 11:45 PM
Comment #366870

DSP2195-
When I was in elementary school, I was given my very own dictionary as a gift. In the first part of that dictionary, it described how the Germanic language of the Danes, the Angles, and the Saxons mixed together to become old English, how the French that William the Conqueror spoke changed the language to become more what we recognize today, and how a series of borrowings and simple shifts created the language we are using today.

Other books I read talked about the language families of the world, about Indo-European, among others.

Languages change and evolve over time, meaning shifts. When we say we won’t let somebody come close, we mean we won’t allow it. But in legalese, contracts often talk about allowing people to do something “without let or hindrance”- “let” used to mean to prevent.

It’s one reason I don’t trust literalism, or any notion that words contain absolute truth.

Absolute truth, or what’s closest to it, is what you pick up when you scoop a handful of dust from the ground. Now whoever saw you do that can say, “He picked up the earth.”

Literally, that phrase means, you picked up dirt. But there’s another meaning there: you become a sort of Atlas figure, literally carrying the weight of the world.

But of course, people don’t do that. Reality filters out bad ideas, erroneous ideas.

It’s not language we should count upon to deliver us reliable meaning. We need honesty, humility in the face of our own fallibility, and a willingness to talk things out between each other, not just use words as weapons against each other, and for our personal interests.

The problem for folks like you is that you only think you know the whole truth. Nobody does. Everybody has some measure of ignorance, some more than others. People also have views of varying degrees of correctness. To make things even more confusing, some matters defy the notion of an absolute truth, and others are so complex that everybody’
spitballing.

People like you want to believe that determining the truth is easy, and you’ve already done it. But it’s not. The whole reason creatures like us have brains is that the world’s underlying rules and truths are often hidden behind several layers of incidental coincidences and illusions of meaning.

The truth is, we all struggle to figure out what’s true, even as we struggle to avoid making mistakes.

One great reason people need freedom, or at the very least accountability regarding the rules we live by that our democratic system provides, is that nobody’s perfect at this.

As for situational ethics?

Several men went after Clinton, knowing that they were, or had been unfaithful to their wives. Larry Craig went after Clinton and called him a bad boy, a bad, naughty boy, even as he cruised bathrooms for gay sex that was fairly bad and naught as his party was concerned.

Oh, and guess what? You just elected Mr. Appalachian Trail to Congress, despite his incredibly public and embarrassing exit from his last job as a public servant.

But Anthony Weiner, who just snapped a pic of his tentpole and sent it to somebody just absolutely had to go, according to Breitbart and his ilk.

Is it just me or are Republicans applying different morality and standards according to what the political situation is, and what they want?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 2, 2013 12:00 AM
Comment #366871

Roy

Inequality is growing, but so is opportunity. Much of the inequality is due to exactly that opportunity. People who develop in demand skills can command higher salaries. Those w/o suffer relatively. Most people are better off than they were.

Rich

Sports are all games. Games have rules and games require other people to play. They can make whatever rules they want. Beyond all that, games are zero sum. If one team or player gets a lot better, the others lose proportionally. This is the opposite of most free market activities that increase the general size of wealth. As far as I am concerned players, owners and unions can do whatever they please. There is no value added to society if football players get faster, bigger or more agile. The game will always have the same number of winners and losers.

Of course, if we pursued equality in sports, we would have to have roughly 80% of the players white. That would be some affirmative action program.

I don’t like inequality per se. I see it as unavoidable if we want to produce innovation. If someone adopts a better innovation, he will almost by definition become better off than those who don’t. This doesn’t bother me. It is better than keeping everybody poorer and more equal.

Stephen

“people in my age group don’t understand the stubborn, angry unwillingness to change, especially in the face of recent developments.”

First question, what age group are you? My kids are 21-27. I don’t think you speak for them.

Re unwillingness to change - I do nothing but change. If you read what I write, you see I support changes in the energy mix, GMOs, research in materials, nanotech, biotech etc., as well as changes in governance in corporations, leadership and the general creation of wealth and knowledge. I see government has an important role, but the lead in innovation goes to the people.

You are the stick in the mud. You still live in 2005 or maybe 2008. Like the Bourbons of old, you learn nothing and forget nothing.

I don’t have a school of thought except to try things and see what works. Then modify or try something else. Government tends to be too slow to innovate and too political. Innovations will always start in a minority. Established interests are represented in government, since those not yet established are … not yet established.

Government has the indispensable role of creating conditions for innovation, but government itself is not very innovative. Innovation in government is usually illegal, since the official exceeds his/her mandate. A bureaucrat is limited BY LAW in how much he/she can innovate.

You say results matter. But results are hard to measure. Things take a long time to mature. We see that in results freer markets produce better ones over time. If you look at the index of economic freedom, the freer societies are also the most pleasant and advanced.

We can see natural experiments too. Places like Argentina or Venezuela used to be richer relatively to others than they are today, but they screwed up economic management. Or take the classic case of East and West Germany or North and South Korea.

You are half my age chronologically, but twice my age in your thinking about innovation. Update your thinking.


Posted by: CJ at June 2, 2013 12:18 AM
Comment #366872

Warren,
Generally speaking, I’d describe a progressive as a liberal in action.

C&J,
The definitions of liberal and conservative are, of course, broad generalizations. Virtually no one perfectly fits into one category or another. It used to be that liberals were defined as favoring change, while conservatives valued keeping things the same, in order to preserve tradition and convention. I’m not sure that’s a very useful definition.

Sometimes I use liberal & Democratic, and conservative & Republican, interchangeably. Obviously that is not always the case, but more often than not, it works.

Over the past forty years, liberals have remained virtually the same. A liberal from the Carter administration would perceive everything about the same as a liberal today.

Conservatism, however, has changed a great deal. The process started with Goldwater, took hold with Reagan, but latched radically to the right somewhere around the time of Gingrich’s Speakership. As conservative Republican Presidential candidate Bob Dole recently observed over this past Memorial Day weekend, the GOP has become virtually unrecognizable to him, and in his opinion, neither he nor Reagan nor Nixon would be accepted in today’s Republican Party.

Another way to assess the nature of conservatism is through geography. Generally speaking, the conservatives of today’s GOP flourish in rural areas in the South, lower Midwest, and in Rocky Mountain states. Liberal strongholds are in urban areas, the coasts, and the upper Midwest.

Demographically, conservatives are generally older white males with high school educations. Liberals are generally more diverse, with women, latinos, blacks, and gays favoring Democrats. Liberals tend to be better educated and strongest in college towns and within the education profession.

Obviously these are broad descriptions; for example, women vote for liberals/Democrats by 55%, but that means there are a large number of women who are not liberal. The same holds true for all of these generalizations. They represent majorities, but almost no one neatly fits into one category or even one demographic.

Demographically,

Posted by: phx8 at June 2, 2013 12:31 AM
Comment #366873

The example of Bob Dole, conservative presidential candidate in 1996, gives a good example of just how much conservatism has changed. The American with Disabilities Act was signed by Bush #41 in 1990. The Treaty, based upon this Act, came to a vote last year. Again, let me stress, the Treaty was based on American law. Last year, Dole gave an impassioned speech on the floor of the Senate to pass this Treaty. Senator McCain favored it, along with all veterans groups as well as the Chamber of Commerce.

The conservative Republicans of 2012 voted against this treaty. They felt the treaty would subject the US to UN interference with disabled American children, even though it was repeatedly pointed out that the treaty was based on US law.

Twenty years ago, conservatives voting against such a treaty would have been dismissed as crackpots, and rightly so. They would have been perceived as both heartless and cruel.

Today, those are the kind of conservatives who rule the roost.

Posted by: phx8 at June 2, 2013 1:47 AM
Comment #366874

Phx8

“t used to be that liberals were defined as favoring change, while conservatives valued keeping things the same, in order to preserve tradition and convention.”

This is an original definition. But during the 1960s, liberalism became the establishment and started to conserve its power. Beyond that, if liberal means change, the most liberal system in the history of the world is the free market. People we call “conservative” in the U.S. tend to be much more in favor of this change.

RE demographics - IMO Democrats have appealed to group identity, which is why blacks, Latinos etc tend to vote for them. This is the way they lost their way. Group identity is antithetical to classical liberalism. In fact, when I think of my own evolution from liberal to conservative, I realize that my biggest complaint has been group identity. I have to say as a white male, I actually feel many liberals are hostile to me based on the accident of my birth. I believe in judging people by what they do, not what they look like.

I know you may not agree, but I find it very ironic that MLK “judge by content of character not color of skin” is more easily used by today’s conservatives than by liberals.

But all these nuances of definition is why I wrote this post. No matter what we call it, broadly speaking below is what I support:

We get to eliminate affirmative action and hate speech laws in return for gay marriage and legalized marijuana. And we have businesses regulated, but only as much as minimally necessary to ensure health and safety. We understand free markets are the best way to make everyone richer and we have the government stay away from economic planning in the sense of picking winners and losers (i.e. Solyndras). Government is agnostic about any income distribution; we recognized that racism is diminishing because of freedom. And politicians don’t get to have the power to bother you unless you are breaking laws, which are simpler and fewer. And of course, government should never do things like use the IRS to target political opponents or spy on journalists.

Posted by: CJ at June 2, 2013 8:32 AM
Comment #366878

C&J,

Professional sports are foremost a business and a very lucrative business over the past few decades. What they have learned over the years is that increased competitiveness within the leagues is what grows fan interest, innovation and general revenues. In order to achieve that goal, the businesses have instituted rather dramatic measures to assure equality of competitive capability. Wealth redistribution in the form of revenue sharing is perhaps the key concept along with salary caps, drafting rules and scheduling. Spreading the wealth around has not been anathema to sports business leaders. In fact, it has been a highly successful strategy in growing the overall wealth pie.

Posted by: Rich at June 2, 2013 9:43 AM
Comment #366879

Rich,

“Professional sports are foremost a business and a very lucrative business over the past few decades. What they have learned over the years is that increased competitiveness within the leagues is what grows fan interest, innovation and general revenues.”

I have to disagree. This “increased competitiveness” has watered down the product to the point that, for the most part, I no longer care about professional sports. There is no longer an edge to the “games”, and the canned drama doesn’t help either.

If I hear a sports reporter ask an overpaid athlete what he “feels” after even the smallest accomplishment one more time I think I will scream.

The “games” have become a cliche, and the quest for even more revenues has priced the average fan out of the equasion.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at June 2, 2013 10:12 AM
Comment #366880
Whatever we call it, it sounds okay to me.

To me C&J that is the problem. Why not call the uber conservatives of today, so aptly described by Phx8 in the comments on this post, what they are, Fascist. But before we all get our panties in a bunch lets be clear, I am not talking all conservatives but a growing number of the more extreme conservatives that, as an example, would consider Dole not to be one of them.

Where we seem to get lost in all this talk is where conservatives like to think that they are for progress and change, IMHO. They just want to return to the pre Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt days, the time before the liberals became the establishment as you say. That isn’t change that is regressive.

Libertarians are the ones who stayed mostly “liberal” but they lost control of the word. They also tend to encompass lots of weirdos who give the movement a bad name, i.e. animal rights fanatics and druggies.

C&J really? You leave out John Galt and the Ayn Rand types in this comment. But coming from a conservative, such as yourself, the weirdo’s in the ranks of the libertarians seems kinda funny when you consider the fringe groups that make up the ranks of conservatives. Sort of like the pot calling the kettle black. But then you could also say the dems/liberals include them weird pacifisct and others. The point is most libertarians are not weirdo’s just as most conservatives and liberals are not weirdos.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 2, 2013 10:33 AM
Comment #366884

Rich

Sports is a big business but each league is essentially a single firm or at best a franchise. It is mostly a closed system. Just as McDonald’s does not allow individual McDonald’s franchises unlimited freedom, i.e. they cannot make different special sauces, I don’t expect the NFL or the NBA to give players or owners of their franchises complete freedom.

Innovation within sports will not improve the general good. If Lebron James gets 100% better it will not improve the general welfare. In fact, it might hurt if he becomes too dominant. It is still a game. Games have rules. Those who run the games can make what rules they want. None of my business.

Rich and Rocky

Rocky makes a good point. Increased “professionalization” may not make the games more interesting. And if fans stop watching, the game is over. The objective quality of the playing does not matter.

j2t2

I cannot call them Fascists because they share few of the characteristics of Fascists of the past. It would be inaccurate and since the word evokes so much emotion, it would be a pernicious use of the word.

Re weirdos - there are plenty to go around. I probably should have been less colorful and more precise when speaking of libertarianism. I don’t think libertarianism is a governing philosophy because it tends to include too many disparate people.

Re going back - nobody really wants to go back to anything. Even people who think they do don’t. Technical and social developments make it impossible. I have always embraced change, but asked if it is improving things or not. I repeat my last paragraph again. What parts do you agree or disagree.

We get to eliminate affirmative action and hate speech laws in return for gay marriage and legalized marijuana. And we have businesses regulated, but only as much as minimally necessary to ensure health and safety. We understand free markets are the best way to make everyone richer and we have the government stay away from economic planning in the sense of picking winners and losers (i.e. Solyndras). Government is agnostic about any income distribution; we recognized that racism is diminishing because of freedom. And politicians don’t get to have the power to bother you unless you are breaking laws, which are simpler and fewer. And of course, government should never do things like use the IRS to target political opponents or spy on journalists.

Posted by: CJ at June 2, 2013 11:06 AM
Comment #366887

On a completely unrelated topic…

GM wheat, resistant to the herbicide Roundup, recently appeared in an Oregon field. That should not have been possible. No experiments with GM wheat have been conducted in 12 years, and at that time, it was a different kind of wheat.

Nevertheless, there it is. Japan and Korea will not accept GM wheat and have postponed large shipments. Losing this huge export could be an economic catastrophe for the Pacific Northwest.

Posted by: phx8 at June 2, 2013 11:34 AM
Comment #366888

DSP2195-
You keep on trying to pigeonhole me.

I don’t think anybody in my family were hippies or stoners. I’ve never really abused drugs myself. My house was far from new age. As a boy I found books around the house that reflect my mother’s Catholic upbringing. Hair cuts generally remained above the collar. My paternal grandfather was working class, my maternal grandfather a former Captain in the 82nd Airborne Signal Corps. He was buried in his uniform.

When I was nine, my school picture was taken wearing an Airborne T-Shirt.

Of course, my grandfather was from the New York Area, and his children, including my mother, were raised in part in the North. But my maternal grandmother was from Louisiana. Both are buried there. On my father’s side, my grandmother was from Texas, my grandfather from Missouri. Even that can be traced back to Maryland, I believe.

I’m not especially pacifistic, a fact that surprised my father when I told him about it. My objections to Iraq were not to war itself, but the incompetence with which it was carried out, and the failure of the case for that war, which should have been solid if we were sending our soldiers out there to fight and die for it.

I’m not the biggest fan of legalizing Marijuana, and think people should be seeking fewer, rather than more ways to reduce their brainpower.

You have these caricatures in your head you expect liberals to conform to. I don’t, though.

As for what happens when I start a family? I will remember that for years I couldn’t start a family because I had to help my family. I will not want policy to be such so that my children have to do that for me, for my sake. Since Aspergers Syndrome has a genetic component, I will hope to God that my children have the right to services that will help them overcome their disabilities, to aid their own efforts.

We don’t need more selfish bastards in this country, we suffer enough from it. We didn’t abolish a formal aristocracy in this country to be dominated by an informal one.

C&J-
I don’t claim to speak for every individual member of my generation, but I think I provide the sense of what we went through. You folks promised so much, delivered so little. We never saw the tax cuts create the stronger economy. We were poised just on the edge of all the wonderful achievements of the sixties, the space program, the civil rights movement.

My sense has been of a great recession, not of the economy, but of America’s greatness, and a huge part of that is this sort of cheap political grace kind of patriotism, where what you do is express this free-floating sort of love for your country, but where otherwise you are free to let dumb wars drag on, huge deficits emerge where they weren’t before, and let the infrastructure and the working class that helped make this nation rot away in favor of some naïve version of capitalism that dresses itself in chaos theory nowadays the way it once dressed itself up in Darwinism.

I say results matter because results bring us back down to earn, put our ideas to the test. Our brains aren’t meant to be these machines of abstract philosophy. They’re there to help us sort out truth from illusion in the world out there. The paradoxical problem with that is that the same things that allow us to imagine a novel and unknown reality behind that reality also allows us to imagine something that merely exists in our heads. For a fiction writer, that’s a wonderful ability to have, and I think it lets us examine ourselves and our interactions with the world in a wonderfully useful way.

But just so long as we know it’s fiction. You don’t have to be crazy to be deluded. You only have to be cut off from reality in some way.

If your tax cuts really made the economy better, we would have seen it. But both times, the tax cuts failed to make things better economically, and were followed by large deficits. Some would prefer if we waited for some pure case, where the causality was unambiguous, to make their concession, but the problem is, the real economy rarely is so unmistakeable.

If shipping jobs overseas would help create jobs here, why the jobless recovery in the last decade?

If letting Wall Street police itself was a good idea, why the huge collapse, primarily within an area where the government had little interference by law?

You think of innovation in this gee-whiz fashion, but you know what? My experience is that the biggest challenge in science and technology is dealing with human beings and their needs. Innovation is often about making the right trade-offs to still manage good results.

Results may be hard to measure, but they’re worth measuring if you want to do things right.

Also, reality has its way of dictating terms. When I was a child, they were getting gee-whiz about superconductors. In twenty years, would there be floating cars in every garage, current flowing back and forth without resistance to every city? As I turns out, no. They haven’t found room temperature superconductors yet, so everything needs a huge cooling system, and that takes energy. The materials are fragile, making it difficult to bend them and draw them out like we can with copper wire.

If we simply ignore reality, do we get any further? No.

It’s complicated and no ideology can serve as a absolute guide. No complete system of logic, either. There is no perfection in this life, only adaptation, and adaptation requires, in some part, a better quality interface with reality.

As far as innovation goes, I think government can sponsor and promote, then set the rules on what is appropriate. All these technologies you love, including GMO, will not go too far if somebody screws up something publically and catastrophically, and the answer is not to pretend like nothing’s wrong, or to charge ahead hardheadedly despite a demonstrated problem.

No, the reality is, we have to let wisdom catch up to knowledge, to be careful in how we innovate. It’s difficult enough to deal with things like the internet and the mobile computing economy now that they’re in the wild. Think of all the challenges we face with other technologies on the horizon.

The better we understand how things are, the more we can properly fit what is permitted and what is forbidden to the real world. I feel if we don’t acknowledge problems properly, whether they are more discernible scientific ones or more complicated social and economic ones, we will err in the direction of too little control until something catastrophic happens, and then err in the direction of too much control. We need to be less reactive, and take the initiative in testing our own conclusions.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 2, 2013 12:15 PM
Comment #366889

phx8

This is actually a similar subject, re accepting science or giving in to superstition. Classical liberals would accept science.

Japanese and Korean Luddites should not stand in the way of science. There have always been such people. They tried to silence Galileo, resisted the installation of electricity and fought modern medicine. We will overcome them. I have confidence science will win over superstition.

Stephen

“…but I think I provide the sense of what we went through. You folks promised so much, delivered so little.” Yeah, you are suffering so much and working so hard. Give me a break. I came out of college facing double digit unemployment and experienced recently double digit inflation. I complained. My father told me about his times. Things are easier for you than for any previous generation besides the few lucky people who graduated in the late 1990s or early 2000s.

We delivered more than you deserve, just as my father did for me. I didn’t appreciate it when I was your age either.

Let me set you straight on a few details.

RE “If shipping jobs overseas would help create jobs here, why the jobless recovery in the last decade?” Job have been lost to technology and techniques. We manufacture more stuff than we did in 1970 but with only about 1/3 the workers. When I was your age, we had real work. I used to load 94lb cement bags. It was no fun. You cannot do that today, not because you are weak but because few of those jobs exist anywhere. Today machines do all that and bypass human workers. Do you want to go back to that?

Re Wall Street - I was an is heavily regulated. In some ways the complex regulations allows the collapse and in the case of Fannie and Freddie may have deepened it.

Re “My experience is that the biggest challenge in science and technology is dealing with human beings and their needs. Innovation is often about making the right trade-offs to still manage good results.” That is my experience too. The difference is that I actually have such experience, so I know it is true. You still think that I am talking about “gee wizz” after I have explained it to you so many times. It is your misfortune and not mine.

Re the innovations I love - I have explained to you hundreds of times that government has an important role to play. You keep on trying to put me into your stereotype. Honestly, Stephen, are you just brain damaged? How many times need I explain to you?

I think your problem is that you don’t understand what “we” means. You think of “we” as some sort of government sponsored uber intelligence that will know what to do and what choices to make. Innovation, like life in general, is messier. Progress does not move in straight lines. You almost seem to understand this; you use some of the right words and terms, but you are still waiting to be told what to do.

Ask yourself this. Do you think that the politicians should manage the scientists?

We have in place lots of wonderful systems of checking and balancing both in government and other parts of our society. I am constantly amazed when I visit labs around our country at the innovation of the scientists AND the integration with businesses. This relationship is just not well understood, but it is why we innovate better than the Chinese and will until they come around.

Posted by: CJ at June 2, 2013 12:52 PM
Comment #366891

C&J,
I’m not sure you understand the implications of the GM wheat. It should not exist. What happened should have been virtually impossible. The GM wheat found in an eastern Oregon field was a different variety from the one tested 12 years ago. The two varieties flower at different times, and the pollen should only be able to travel a short distance, about 120 feet. Controls at the time were “rigorous.”

The economic implications are bad enough. But the real fear is that something happened that shouldn’t have been possible.

Posted by: phx8 at June 2, 2013 1:38 PM
Comment #366892

phx8

This wheat is resistant to Round Up. Besides that, it is not very different. Somebody evidently didn’t properly care for the seeds. Não faz mal. In the great scheme of things this is unimportant, except that it feeds the flames of ignorance.

Wheat itself is not native to Oregon. This is just another of the many varieties introduced.

Posted by: CJ at June 2, 2013 1:46 PM
Comment #366893

Rocky,

You may not like the direction of professional sports over the past few decades but you cannot deny their incredible financial success. The NFL has been particularly successful at achieving competitive balance (on any given Sunday, etc.). The “watering down” that you refer to is in reality a consequence of success.

Posted by: Rich at June 2, 2013 1:57 PM
Comment #366895

Rich

One thing that sports teams are good at, but that I hate, is how they manipulate local governments. The teams and the players are making millions, but they still threaten and cajole government to build massive stadiums, financed by taxes often on travellers. One reason all those pituitary cases are paid so much is because we taxpayers, even non-fans, pay for most of their infrastructure.

Posted by: CJ at June 2, 2013 2:18 PM
Comment #366896
I cannot call them Fascists because they share few of the characteristics of Fascists of the past.

“Fascism operated from a Social Darwinist view of human relations. Their aim was to promote superior individuals and weed out the weak.[6] In terms of economic practice, this meant promoting the interests of successful businessmen while destroying trade unions and other organizations of the working class. Historian Gaetano Salvemini argued in 1936 that fascism makes taxpayers responsible to private enterprise, because “the State pays for the blunders of private enterprise… Profit is private and individual. Loss is public and social.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_fascism

That sounds real familiar C&J, like how the “free market” operates today. Like the extreme right wing of this country. Yet you don’t want to hurt their feelings by calling them what they are. Why let them hide behind the conservative name?


blockquote>It would be inaccurate and since the word evokes so much emotion, it would be a pernicious use of the word.

Yes the word fascist is an emotional trigger but then so is communist and socialist but those words are bantered about by the extreme right wing without being labelled as pernicious.

I disagree with “We understand free markets are the best way to make everyone richer” C&J as we have seen income inequality rise and the top 1 or 2 percent has had a disproportionate income gain while the rest of us has seen our income stagnate. So when I hear “free market” it has this emotional resonance I associate with the “ism” I can’t name without being labelled harmful or deadly.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 2, 2013 2:56 PM
Comment #366897

Daugherty wrote; “We shouldn’t go out of our way to help the rich get richer. That’s not government’s job. The government should be willing to intercede, even at the cost of a Business’s existence, in order to protect the public interest.”

I would ask why government went to the aid of big business with taxpayer dollars at the insistence of liberals such as SD?

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 2, 2013 4:13 PM
Comment #366898

J2t2

I do not believe that the Tea Party folks, advocating smaller government, resemble the definition you provide, of “An inherent aspect of fascist economies was economic dirigisme, meaning an economy where the government exerts strong directive influence, and effectively controls production and allocation of resources” Furthermore, Tea Party types opposed stimulus spending, which in cases such as Solyndra exactly “the State pays for the blunders of private enterprise… Profit is private and individual. Loss is public and social.”

Your definition just plain doesn’t fit. If you find people who advocate greater government involvement and control of the economy and who want to pick winners among industries, which privatizes losses and gets taxpayers to pick up the tab for losers, I suppose you can call those folks what you want. Of course, in America we usually call them liberal Democrats.

Re “Yes the word fascist is an emotional trigger but then so is communist and socialist but those words are bantered about by the extreme right wing without being labelled as pernicious.” - I never “banter” such words about. I have seen the results of all these sorts of things and I don’t call any other Americans that. Find a case when I have w/o some mitigating explanation and I will sent you a dollar.

There are idiots on the left and right who don’t understand these things. I am not among those idiots who misuse those terms. Perhaps you might ask yourself why you do.

Re Free markets - in recent times the top of the U.S. income distribution has indeed benefited, but so have all groups, until the recent recession and Obama doldrums, when rich and poor have seen incomes drop. In the world in general, in the last decades, liberalization (original sense of the term) has brought billions of people out of abject poverty. It is not perfect, but better than those socialist, fascist, communist or Nazi alternatives you talk about.

Posted by: CJ at June 2, 2013 4:17 PM
Comment #366899

Rich,

“You may not like the direction of professional sports over the past few decades but you cannot deny their incredible financial success.”

Fox News is an incredible financial success as well. Would you all that good?

The false drama of reality TV has made it’s way into our favorite sports. We have become a WWE, MMA, society, where it is fun to watch two guys kick the crap out of each other and we call it a sport.

I suppose that it is the “American Way” that That the NFL, for instance, has piles of money to spend on itself. Unfortunately it doesn’t spend some of that money on teaching it’s athletes on how to prepare for life after their sports career is over, and many of our sports heroes are broke within a few years of retiring.

The money goes into the teams coffers, most of what is spent on the players is wasted.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at June 2, 2013 4:42 PM
Comment #366900

Unfortunately it doesn’t spend some of that money on teaching it’s athletes on how to prepare for life after their sports career is over, and many of our sports heroes are broke within a few years of retiring.

Rocky
Posted by: Rocky Marks at June 2, 2013 4:42

Just what we need Rocky…nannyism for professional athletes. What other employers can you name that “prepare (their employees) for life?” By the time folks reach employment age they should already have that basic knowledge if they have paid attention.

I have read numerous cases of lottery winners being broke in just a few years after winning. Should the lotteries set up a program to prepare them for life also?

This “hand-holding” liberal crap is one reason so many Americans fail today.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 2, 2013 5:39 PM
Comment #366901

Rocky,

I brought up professional sports not because I think that they are so wonderful. I do enjoy watching them but I am not a couch potato. I actually prefer to play and compete rather than watch. I am a low handicap golfer and compete in many local and regional tournaments. You couldn’t pay me to watch a WWE or MMA event.

I brought up professional sports because they have long recognized that wealth re-distribution is essential to maintaining the overall competitiveness and financial health of the total enterprise. They attempt to control the 1% problem. It is perhaps a flawed analogy but few seem to challenge the methods used by professional sports to maintain competitive opportunity.


Posted by: Rich at June 2, 2013 6:37 PM
Comment #366902

Rich

Sports teams are all part of the same franchise. They are like a single firm. The rules of competition are only those they want to make. Not the same as a larger economy where people can innovate and new firms can enter.

Try to form a new football or basketball team on your own and see if they let you play.

Posted by: CJ at June 2, 2013 7:06 PM
Comment #366903

Flush,

“Just what we need Rocky…nannyism for professional athletes. What other employers can you name that “prepare (their employees) for life?” By the time folks reach employment age they should already have that basic knowledge if they have paid attention.”

This is crap and you know it.
Most of the athletes in professional sports, baseball is the exception, come from backgrounds where money was tight or non-existent. They get into collage on a sports scholarship and have to be tutored in even simple subjects in order to stay eligible to play. They aren’t allowed to work by the NCAA, and they get a huge paycheck upon signing with a professional team.
The bottom line is that for the most part they know squat about finances, having never held a real job.
Yes, it’s like winning the lottery, but without the life skills to deal with it.

The point is that the average pro sports career is very short. NFL players are used up and thrown away at an alarming rate.

I can only assume from your comment that you think I am suggesting that the government should step in.

Well, once again the conservative loses. You’re wrong again.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at June 2, 2013 8:11 PM
Comment #366904

Maybe Rocky those sports scholarships ought to come with a stipulation that you MUST carry at least a C average and be able to read, write and add 2+2. otherwise NO SCHOLARSHIP or you DON’T play sports until you do get at least a C average.

Posted by: KAP at June 2, 2013 8:22 PM
Comment #366905

It may be that athletes have become too undisciplined. But how can we bring them back into line?

When I was a kid, Vince Lombardi or the GB Packers suspended one of his best players for gambling. If the players mouthed off to Vince, they were gone the next day. This is changed.

Posted by: CJ at June 2, 2013 8:39 PM
Comment #366909

KAP,

The NFL is a multi-billion dollar business. Perhaps I am wrong but I would think it would be in the best interests of the owners to make sure that their investment in their players would be secure.

Their cash cow is their players.

No stars, no fans, no money.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at June 2, 2013 8:57 PM
Comment #366911

Hell Rocky only a rich guy can go watch a pro sports game at any given stadium. What working man can afford to take his family to a game? Almost $300. for a court side seat at a Basketball game and $50. for a seat at a football game. I sure can’t afford to go, hell even to go to a baseball game is expensive. I went to a pro basketball game and even the cheap seats were expensive. Not counting refreshments.

Posted by: KAP at June 2, 2013 9:18 PM
Comment #366912

Oh, and BTW. In any other business, professional sports teams would be treated as a monopoly.

So, no Royal, they aren’t like any other business.

Professional sports leagues are essentially elite clubs. In order to buy a team you have to have not only cash totalling in the hundreds of millions, but you have to be voted in to be a member as well.

Rich,

Not spreading the money around to the weaker teams would cost the rich teams even more money in the long run.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at June 2, 2013 9:20 PM
Comment #366913

KAP,

Yeah, I said that in comment #366879.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at June 2, 2013 9:23 PM
Comment #366914

“Not spreading the money around to the weaker teams would cost the rich teams even more money in the long run.”

That was my point, Rocky.

Posted by: Rich at June 2, 2013 9:47 PM
Comment #366915

Rich,

The bigger point is that if these teams were treated as normal businesses, held under anti-trust laws, the leagues wouldn’t exist as they do. There would be a few teams, maybe 20, in the NFL, maybe 15 or 20 in the NBA, maybe 20 or 25 in MLB.

The rest would have been allowed to fail.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at June 2, 2013 10:29 PM
Comment #366921

We Stephen Daugherty, if you read the link; you will find you have more in common with the hippy ideology than I do:

http://oldhippie.jimgreenlee.com/hiphistory.html

That was the whole point of comparing your words to those of a hippy from 50 years ago. But, I guess that one (ZOOM), went right over your head. Here are some similarities, (evil corporations, killing mother earth, poisoning the air and water, destroying women’s rights, evil rich people); ring a bell Stephen?

Regarding SD having a family; a scary thought. Someone said the reason liberals want to legalize illegals and make them voting citizens, is because liberals are a dying breed. They keep aborting their offspring. Of course it’s harder to have offspring when your gay. No matter how hard they try; 2 men fudgepacking each other can’t seem to produce offspring. LOL

Posted by: DSP2195 at June 3, 2013 12:26 AM
Comment #366922

Oh no, now what do we do?

“When the IRS scandal first broke, the first thing administration players did was to blame low-level IRS employees. Seasoned political watchers predicted that it wouldn’t be long before those low-level employees refused to be the administration’s scapegoats and started speaking up. That moment may finally have arrived.

On Sunday, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R., Calif.) revealed on CNN’s State of the Union that employees in the IRS’s Cincinnati office explicitly stated that they received orders from Washington, D.C. to scrutinize Tea Party groups.”

http://www.mrconservative.com/2013/06/18284-irs-employees-say-that-orders-to-target-tea-party-came-from-d-c/

But I can’t wait to hear the left attack this black man for changing parties:

“Louisiana State Senator Switches Party, First Black Republican Since Reconstruction”

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/05/31/Party-Switch-Louisiana-State-Senator-Is-Now-First-Black-Republican-In-Legislature-Since-Reconstruction

Posted by: CasperWY at June 3, 2013 12:52 AM
Comment #366926

CasperWY,

Wrong, as usual.

Issa provided Crowley on CNN a partial transcript from his hearing to prove Washington was tied to the IRS Office. When Issa asked if there was a the tie, one person testified “I believe so.”

Crowley pointed out that this was totally NOT definitive. Issa replied that another person at that office felt uncomfortable with what was going on and asked for a transfer. At this point, Issa realized he was in trouble. He said the full transcripts would be released at a later date, and those would prove his case.

Now, I may not be a lawyer, but when a person says “I believe so,” that does not prove a case. It takes proof. Facts. Explicit connections. And normally, when a person like Issa goes on a Sunday talk show to prove his case, he puts his best foot forward; he doesn’t provide something lame and unconvincing, like basing his case on someone saying “I believe so,” then promise to do better later.

Just more lies passed on from the conservative echo chamber. This is what happens when you hitch your wagon to Issa’s star.

Posted by: phx8 at June 3, 2013 10:36 AM
Comment #366927

Here is the actual transcript.

“Q: So is it your perspective that ultimately the responsible parties for the decisions that were reported by the IG are not in the Cincinnati office?

A: I don’t know how to answer that question. I mean, from an agent standpoint, we didn’t do anything wrong. We followed directions based on other people telling us what to do.

Q: And you ultimately followed directions from Washington; is that correct?

A: If direction had come down from Washington, yes.

Q: But with respect to the particular scrutiny that was given to Tea Party applications, those directions emanated from Washington; is that right?

A: I believe so.”

Posted by: phx8 at June 3, 2013 11:18 AM
Comment #366928

phx8, Are you saying that a few rogue agents took it upon themselves to hold up conservative application for tax deferment? If you believe that IMO you would believe Palm Trees grow at the north pole. Somebody high up at the IRS or the WH. had to order those hold ups and Lerner pleading the 5th is a good indication that someone high up is giving orders to do the dirty work. You don’t need a Law Degree to figure someone ordered those agents to hold up those applications.

Posted by: KAP at June 3, 2013 11:27 AM
Comment #366934

KAP,
What you need, KAP, is evidence. The only reason any of us are paying attention to the scandal is the possibility what happened at the IRS had a tie to the White House; otherwise, we’re just covering the same ground already covered by the IRS IG last year. I have beliefs. You have beliefs. Beliefs are not facts. Beliefs are not evidence.

Senator Lindsey Graham said today: “I don’t believe this was something thought up in the Cincinnati office, but I have no evidence that goes to the White House.”

And when you have no evidence, you’re back at square one. You’re back to pushing conspiracy theories, pretending there’s a cover-up… if only you could find it! And anyone who disagrees with Issa is a liar!

Both Republican Senators McCain and Graham have warned Issa to dial it back. When Issa has evidence, he should make it known. Until then, do his job heading Oversight in the House, investigate, and publicly present EVIDENCE if it is relevant.

In a previous comment I warned conservatives about hitching their wagon to Issa’s star. He failed conservatives with the Fast & Furious investigation, he really failed conservatives with his hearing about contraception and health insurance in the public sector, and there is every reason to ‘believe’ he will fail again.

Posted by: phx8 at June 3, 2013 3:23 PM
Comment #366935

C&J-
In my studies into the realm of Chaos and complexity theory, I’ve come across the logistic equation. Essentially, it describes the give and take of populations with their resources. At certain r values, population collapses. At middle ones, the population reaches some natural limit and stays there. At others? Chaos, the population jumping between different levels.

The simple truth is, it’s foolhardy to believe we’ve outraced this. We’ll have to face it one day, and I don’t believe it will be automatic.

We don’t have to fall victim to it, but I don’t think simply assuming the market will correct things, or that science will keep us from going over the edge of population stability, is wise.

I think you put emergent solutions up on a pedestal. I’ve had enough encounters with emergent phenomena in my studies and my own life to realize that emergent just means that it’s a characteristic of a second order effect, not that it’s inherently good or right as far as we, the folks who have to live with it, are concerned.

It’s a tool in the toolbox, something to keep an eye out for, whether its for or against you. But it’s not inherently good.

Science might one day show us that we’re at the end of the line, as far as chances to dodge the bad side of the threshold of logistical equation.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 3, 2013 3:41 PM
Comment #366938

Rocky writes: “This is crap and you know it.
Most of the athletes in professional sports, baseball is the exception, come from backgrounds where money was tight or non-existent. They get into collage on a sports scholarship and have to be tutored in even simple subjects in order to stay eligible to play. They aren’t allowed to work by the NCAA, and they get a huge paycheck upon signing with a professional team.
The bottom line is that for the most part they know squat about finances, having never held a real job.
Yes, it’s like winning the lottery, but without the life skills to deal with it.

The point is that the average pro sports career is very short. NFL players are used up and thrown away at an alarming rate.”

Rocky, the only crap being thrown around comes from your own manure spreader.

The overwhelming number of NFL players do indeed go to college on a scholarship and some do need tutoring. Most believe they will become NFL players and anticipate big money earnings. Are you expecting us to believe that they wouldn’t be interested enough in their own future to take a few college level classes on finance and money management? If they don’t…tough shit. Are you saying that the majority of them are so stupid that they don’t know what happens to those who don’t plan for retirement.

Yes, their careers are usually short and very lucrative. Just a little initiative on their part will prepare them to know where to go for sound retirement planning.

Those who lack “life skills” do so willingly and are not the responsibility of the NFL.

Private industry nannyism doesn’t work any better than government nannyism.

When one plans for incompetence and rewards it, it should not be surprising that it flourishes.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 3, 2013 5:26 PM
Comment #366939

phx8, We need to find out what is going on with these scandals. If Obama is innocent so be it if guilty in some way we need to know. Someone is behind all this, this crap don’t happen because a few people love Obama and want to help him. Obama with his I don’t know anything or I found out about it the same way everyone else did just shows his incompetence, you would be calling for heads to roll if he were a republican.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at June 3, 2013 6:21 PM
Comment #366941

“In my studies into the realm of Chaos and complexity theory”

This bullshit comment was written by Stephen Doughboy. Stephen wants us to believe he sits around studying into the realm of “Chaos and complexity theory”. What elitist BS. If Stephen really wants to study “Chaos”, all he has to do is watch Obama try to be president of the United States.

phx8 said:

“And when you have no evidence, you’re back at square one. You’re back to pushing conspiracy theories, pretending there’s a cover-up… if only you could find it! And anyone who disagrees with Issa is a liar!”

Instead of repeating the liberal talking points, phx8 should have watched acting IRS Commissioner Daniel Werfel and Treasury Inspector General J. Russell George answer questions before the House Financial and General Government Subcommittee. Even Werfel admitted the “low level” employees being at fault was not true.
He and both sides of the isle agreed that conservative groups were targeted and Werfel said a full investigation needed to be conducted to find out “who” ordered conservatives to be targeted. This scandal is far from over.

Posted by: DSP2195 at June 3, 2013 6:34 PM
Comment #366942

KAP,
Issa’s interview on CNN is all over the internet. He grossly overstepped his bounds, called the White House Spokesman “a paid liar” without justification, saying “We’re getting to proving it.” It gets worse from there.

There already was an investigation conducted by the IRS IG. They found a problem and they investigated. That investigation was publicly announced.

I would be calling for heads to roll if the evidence justified it. There has been at least one resignation at the IRS, for what happened within the IRS. That seems appropriate. If Issa wants to conduct an investigation whether there was a connection between the White House and the IRS, and no one believes the conclusions of the IRS IG, well, ok. But before going on the Sunday talk shows, making wild accusations, and calling a White House official a “paid liar,” he had better have more than “indications” and “beliefs.”

Otherwise, he’ll lead you down another rabbit hole chasing conspiracy theories about cover-ups.

I’ll say it a third time: you might want to think long and hard before following the lead of Darrell Issa.

Posted by: phx8 at June 3, 2013 6:39 PM
Comment #366944

Stephen

The market represents the massive decision making power of many people aggregated. Government, even at its best, is the choice of roughly half the people delegated to particular people who will probably have little first-hand knowledge of particular problems.

Government is necessary for some things, but it does not have the capacity to manage society, as experiments in too much control have clearly shown.

In the U.S. and in democracies in general, good government is part of the market mechanism. It is a big part but it can get too big if it tries to manage too closely.

I have never advocated leaving government out, but I do advocate keeping government in its place. The American nation is always greater than the American government, since the nation includes the government but the government only represents the nation.

If you look at my post on green infrastructure, you will see place where government and market forces intersect to produce results that neither alone could do.

As I told you, I love government. I have experience, lots of it, with government. I know that most official are smart and well meaning. But the smartest and most effective among them are those that recognize their limits and show proper restraint.

Posted by: CJ at June 3, 2013 7:23 PM
Comment #366946

Whatever phx8, those low level employees take their marching orders from someone, and those orders come from someone higher up in the food chain.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at June 3, 2013 7:33 PM
Comment #366948

phx8 has no idea what he is talking about. The IRS IG admitted today, that all he conducted was an audit and not a complete investigation. phx8 is just repeating the liberal talking points put out for the purpose of cover-up.

Like I said, he should have watched the hearings today. He might have actually leaned something.

Posted by: DSP2195 at June 3, 2013 7:56 PM
Comment #366949

Royal,

So what you’re saying is that I can put you down in the “they knew the job was dangerous, they’re own their own, screw’um” column.

Yeah, it figures.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at June 3, 2013 8:35 PM
Comment #366950

C&J-
A Market is not merely aggregate, a summation, it is a dynamic, iterative system. No man is an island in the market, able to make decisions without having to contend with the advantages that others might have if they don’t make compromises.

You can end up having the system become a corrupting influence, where the feedbacks undo the corrective part of the market. That’s the reason for rules, not simply for what can fail, but what can succeed and be promoted in the market despite its lack of virtue.

I think of my position as more conservative than yours in a way: I believe that individuals must make decisions about what is moral, not simply everybody altogether. But I acknowledge that the crowd can have a negative effect on people’s judgment. Rather than wait for things to build to a threshold, and then cause catastrophic failures, I believe there are certain ethical and moral lines, certain instances of bad behavior clear enough that they merit rules to discourage them.

Unfortunately, many free marketers put too much reliance on the markets to do this. But markets can be distorted, and morality with it. We have to have standards apart from what the crowd simply says.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 3, 2013 8:55 PM
Comment #366951

Caser point Rocky, Lebron James goes from H.S. to NBA star, gets Nike endorsement contract for $93 million plus his NBA salary. The kid is set for life. If a sports figure doesn’t have the brains to have a fall back career or is to stupid to have one he deserves what he gets.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at June 3, 2013 8:59 PM
Comment #366952

KAP,
Well, if orders came from higher up in the food chain, were they within the IRS, or did they come from the White House? Name names. Prove it.

I can think of scenarios where all of this to happen without any wrongdoing whatsoever. But I’m not going to speculate. If Issa feels an investigation is warranted, then by all means, go for it. But provide proof. Provide evidence. What he is doing right now is grandstanding. He’s running in front of cameras and going off half-cocked.

DSP,
Ever deal with an IG? There used to be an old joke:

What are the two biggest lies?

1) Hi! We are with the IG, and we are here to help!
2) We are glad you are here!

Here is a link to the IRS IG audit:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/14/read-the-inspector-general-report-on-the-irs-scandal/

An Inspector General is NOT something to be casually dismissed. They are a formidable bunch, and they really don’t care who gets thrown under the bus. In this case, they conducted an exhaustive investigation. Read the link. It will help anyone interested to understand what is involved, and how wildly off-base Issa is with his ‘investigation,’ which so far seems to consist of ‘beliefs’ and ‘indications,’ and precious little evidence beyond what the IG already discovered.

Posted by: phx8 at June 3, 2013 9:21 PM
Comment #366953

Tell you what phx8, if orders didn’t come from higher up I’ll publicly apologize to you here on WB. But if they did you do the same.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at June 3, 2013 9:31 PM
Comment #366954

Stephen

The market is not perfect. But it is what we have to work with.

Government is part of the equation. But government is not wiser. Government needs the discipline of the market. Markets require rule of law and order that only government can provide.

Governments that depend on virtue quickly fall. Ours is based on checks and balances. Virtue is good but not absolutely required in every case. And nobody can be trusted unless he has some checks on his power.

Morality must generally remain a private affair. We can and should judge the behaviors of others, but it is dangerous to apply law to it.

I agree that decisions can be negatively influenced by “the crowd.” This is also likely to happen in government. In many ways it is worse in government. In a market, I have to bring something to the transaction. In government I can simply vote to take what I can convince a majority to give me. This is the threat I see with the Obama rhetoric and why I disliked those little shits with the OWS. It is immoral, IMO, to demand more than you can earn from a free exchange. It is like demanding charity.

I like everybody to have some skin in the game.

Posted by: CJ at June 3, 2013 10:00 PM
Comment #366955

KAP,
It is not a matter of belief. It is a matter of proof, of evidence, of certainty. I do not expect an apology from you, nor do I plan on apologizing. As I have said all along, an investigation is fine. If someone outside the IRS is involved, that person should suffer the consequences. But that involvement needs to be documented, certain, proven, and so far that has not been the case. Until then, it looks to me like Issa is merely grandstanding. Sop far, he has nothing… and it would not be the first time.

In other words, let’s keep our powder dry, and see if anything definite comes of it.

Posted by: phx8 at June 3, 2013 10:07 PM
Comment #366957

KAP,

“Caser point Rocky, Lebron James goes from H.S. to NBA star, gets Nike endorsement contract for $93 million plus his NBA salary.”

Two things: A mother who cared, and a private (Catholic) high school.

Oh, and the rest of the team was pretty good too. Good enough to help bring the spotlight to James.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at June 3, 2013 11:12 PM
Comment #366958

Rocky do you think that Catholic H.S. would have let him play if he was a sub par student? HELL NO. He had to keep his grades up or else NO BASKETBALL. Education that’s what counts because there is no guarantee you will make the pros and get the big bucks. That’s the point if your just a jock and can’t add 2+2 and have nothing to fall back on you deserve NOTHING.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at June 3, 2013 11:32 PM
Comment #366959

A person I used to know worked for Nike as a high school basketball scout. He developed a relationship with James while James was still in HS, in order to assure Nike landed that big contract. Developing that kind of talent is not left to chance. And if you’re curious, the scout had nothing but great things to say about James as a person back when.

Posted by: phx8 at June 4, 2013 12:50 AM
Comment #366974

KAP,

Have you ever heard of Dexter Manley?

He was an NFL player during the ’80s who famously went before Congress and admitted he was functionally illiterate.

He was not just a run of the mill player. He was an all pro defensive lineman. He graduated high school and went to Oklahoma State University. He made it to almost 30 years old without being able to read.

This article was written in 1989;

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/05/28/sports/views-of-sport-how-illiteracy-makes-athletes-run.html

“Sixty-seven percent of the N.F.L., 92 percent of the National Hockey League, 80 percent of the National Basketball Association, and 84 percent of major league baseball players are without degrees, according to the leagues. And many of those who have graduated from four-year institutions admit that they were given, rather than having earned, their degrees.”

We worship these guys while they are able to entertain us with their physical abilities, and when their bodies fail we discard them for the next big thing.

Unlike Royal, who could give a rat’s ass, I believe the responsible thing to do would be to make sure these guys understand what they face when the party’s over.

Personally, I think it would be cheaper for the owners of the teams to teach them these basic skills, than for us, you and me, to support them for the rest of their lives.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at June 4, 2013 7:55 AM
Comment #366975

Exactly Rocky, IMO the team owners should bare the burden after their Star fails to be their cash cow.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at June 4, 2013 8:20 AM
Post a comment