Villainous Company

Great post! I'm actually amazed that you were able to slog through the Nation piece!

Grim, while I would agree with you, it goes back to the canard about enforcing the laws we already have rather than bloating the beast.

Good grief, if we enforced just a couple of laws or had insurance company actuaries clamping down on companies who engage in risky behavior that threatens our inalienable rights (to ensure the bottom line) we might actually redeem society.

I'm glad you liked the piece.

I was reminded, reading that paragraph, of Daffy Duck in the classic Warner Bros. cartoon "Rabbit Season." You know the one, where he and Bugs go through the whole shebang, and he thinks he's winning, and suddenly -- BLAM! -- his bill is blown off his head.

This paragraph reads like that. They run through a whole list of things you think you can agree to, and suddenly, BLAM! "Our government stinks, nobody trusts it, it's been getting worse for a long time, let's give them more power!" Wait, what was that last one?

Just so you know, I didn't miss the point, but it seems to me that we would want to reduce it, not turn it into the Blob.

It is the classic shirking of responsibility by the "left". Get everyone to agree on the problem - and actually explain the problem accurately - then blame the problem on someone else. The someone else, of course, being the person who you are "out for" in the first place. You can recognize the pattern in all sorts of situations - in your own family and in big government.

Good one, Grim. It is business as usual for the Left, though. They never let a few inconvenient facts get in the way of their ideological dogma.

Just like when we would read Pravda in the bad old days, when reading The Nation now you kind of know what you are going to get: evil capitalist jingoist Americans this, and valiant spontaneous uprisings of the oppressed workers that.

I thought Chief Justice Roberts nailed it a while back when he said that you stop discriminating on the basis of race when you stop discriminating on the basis of race. This simple truism has always escaped the Left, who kind of look at you blankly, as if you started speaking Esperanto, when something like that is mentioned.

In this context it would be something like you remove corruption in government by removing the corruption in GOVERNMENT, not some third party. Naturally, this is blasphemy to the Left, who believe the government is mother, the government is father. Hallowed is the government.

Great post, Grim -

Reading the paragraph from The Nation reminds me of the old pinball machines. You can play the game and finesse the ball a bit, but if you push the machine too hard you get a TILT light and the whole thing stops.

When I got to the last line, my inner TILT light came on.

What was that thing Ronald Reagan used to say? "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"

The corporation is the government. Watch the film "The Corporation" and it will lay it out for you. Milton Freidman is in the film lining out how it is the corporation gained such power and influence in government. Who do you think lobbyist represent? Surely not the people.

RR had a way with words, did he not? As we math types say, "Elegant."

Although it is more wordy (we're talking legal, here), I liked the quote used by Milton Friedman that ends:

"...The greater dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning, but without understanding."

--Justice Louis Brandeis
Olmstead v. United States
277 U.S. 479 (1928)

Grim, you're shooting fish in a barrel, but we do need the comedy in relief of the rest.

You're missing your history, Sammy.

If the government had not grown so far beyond it's original, constitutional responsibilities and thus entered so many areas of critical importance to business, business would not have felt compelled to react by attempting to influence policy to such an extent.

Actually, I am looking at history in this comment. Remember, the privilege granted corporations to be considered an individual w/o a corpus, and use it under a civil rights amendment (Equal Protection)occurred at the turn of the 20th century. And to do this with the compliance of the supreme court set a tone for lobbyist over one hundred years ago.

Granted, government has grown well beyond its original intent for reasons relative to politics, and as a response to a check and balance to corporate power. We can argue about whether this was detrimental or not. The direct control and involvement of corporations and moneyed interests in government is indisputable, from any politicians relationship, to laws which are written to protect corporations, by corporations.

Historically, corporations grew in control as a response to needing to increase profits, not as a response to government. In fact, quite the opposite. Government grew both for ideological reasons and as a response to a few voices in opposition to corporate power.

This cannot be evaluated as either good or evil, it just is. To refute that fact is to be intellectually dishonest, or uninformed.

Some examples:
Why were SS and Medicare created by gov? Because post-WWII saw a huge number of people who faced retirement after working in factories and for corps with no safety net offered by corps.

Why were labor laws created? Because of abuses of workers by corps in the first half of the 20th century in regards to wages, hours, conditions, and injury.

Why were environmental laws created? In response to unchecked pollution and waste in the manufacturing sector and in large producing entities.

Why is the tax code more complex than the human genome project? Because to vying entities, big business and liberal social dems fighting back and forth about who should pay taxes over many years. They've both botched it.

I have many more. See the answers are not always clear. Polemics only gets one further rutted in a blind vacuum.

With respect to history, the example I cited under the link "to be counterbalanced" comes from the end of the eighteenth century.

Corporate power does need to be counterbalanced on occasion, either by government or someone else. No human agency can be trusted with power; but someone must wield it. As a result, we balance one power against another, in the hope that they will wear each other out instead of the rest of us.

The problems facing us today, though, aren't corporate problems. They're government problems. It's the government that needs to be fixed.

YOu started out logical, and ended in ideology land. Your last statement completely disregards you previous two paragraphs. If your belief is that government needs to be fixed more than corporations, I would understand that. I would state that they both are insidious and detrimental to the strength and longevity of our nation.

It's like a marriage. Not one person is at fault. They are both right, and they are both wrong. The question is, how do you fix it? The answer is not more government, and it isn't more freedom for corps to control lobbying, money in politics, and do as they please. My hope is dwindling as to a solution.

No, corporations and government aren't like a marriage. They are similar only in that both are capable of exercising a certain amount of power.

There are some cases when particular corporate abuses require a response, from someone -- not necessarily the government. Unions do well on occasion also. Sometimes the "government" response can simply be having the right laws, so that an individual can prevail in court if he needs to do so.

There is no evidence I can see, however, that the problems afflicting the government are examples of discrete corporate abuses that need correction. Rather, the attempt here is to make "corporations" in general a scapegoat to excuse the fact that the government has failed in its basic missions. If a given corporation is doing something bad, we can address that.

Making "corporations" the enemy is not useful, however, because what we're talking about is the failure of the public sphere. Giving the public sphere even more power, when it can't use the kind it already has in a responsible fashion, is simply not rational.

The public sphere has succeeded on many levels, and failed the populace on others. Corporations are not scapegoated. The original intent of lobbyists was to gain some modicum of power to off-set the power of government, and ensure strong capitalistic practices. Our lobbying system today has no resemblance to that ideal.

Government, as well, has no resemblance to its original constitutional responsibilities. At this point in history, the power of the citizen is gone. There is no one man, one vote. You and I are gnats in terms of how we can change the process. We can each live our lives to create change as we see it, but the battle that we speak of is uninfluenced by us, unless we are connected to a larger entity. You said it. Counter balances. That is our destiny. So, thank God for government and thank God for the capitalistic society we live in. May the two off-set each other.

YOu started out logical, and ended in ideology land.

Grim may be accused of many things, but being an ideologue is not one of them.

Rather, the attempt here is to make "corporations" in general a scapegoat to excuse the fact that the government has failed in its basic missions.

David Weber or was it John Ringo, in the March series, mentioned that there was a time back on Earth in which corporations were accused of being too powerful. An analysis of the power issue simplifies the issue, however. After all, if businesses are as powerful as people think they are, then why can't Google or Yahoo bend China to their will instead of the other way around? Why aren't Congressmen speaking of Iraq in terms of how much Haliburton should profit or not, if they are married to corporations?

Theoretically, Sammy's views of the aristocracy and the King (corporations in capitalistic societies and the government) can only be instituted if the aristocracy starts building private armies and spheres of influence to counter-balance the government's influence and military power. That is not exactly the solution that should be aimed for, however, concerning balance of powers.

Not bad, Ymar, but I would also quibble with Sammy's notion that "the government has failed in its basic missions".

In my view, the government has been wildly successful in its basic mission as I see it, which is to expand its authority.

I've been there.

Hyperbole, gentlemen. YOu both speak in such huge extremes. Actually, to your point about Haliburton, there has been such talk outside and inside Congress on the profitability of Haliburton. John Conyers and Nancy Pelosi, as well as John McCain and Chuck Hagel, have spoke of this. Congressman in general will not speak of this because groups like Haliburton finance their re-elections on both sides of the aisle. So your premise is very stilted.

As regards China, you are clouding international business and politics with national ones. China is the juggernaut that corporations are embracing. Foreign investment in China is huge by American and European corporations. The Google and Yahoo issue is one of foreign governments notions of censorship and freedom. In that respect, corporations do not have the control to tell China what to do. As far as corporations looking the other way concerning China's human rights and freedom issues, I think you have a great example of the amoral corporation at work.

"In my view, the government has been wildly successful in its basic mission as I see it, which is to expand its authority." Grim

This is not the viewpoint of an ideology? When stated in such absolute terms, it sure smells of ideology.

It appears the issue is I am saying both are corrupted and truly unrepresentative of our nation at its origins, thus both needing reform. You are saying corporations are only benevolent, and government is only malevolent. Generally when discussion is polemic in nature, the arguments are ideological one's. Mine is not ideological. If it were, I'd be taking the position of the Nation, which is saying, "government truly good, corporations truly bad". YOu are responding in direct opposition to that statement, thus creating a polemic discussion. Like the Nation, you are unwilling to examine the strengths and weaknesses of both entities.

Excuse me. That quote should have been attributed to "socialism is error", not "Grim". My apologies.

Thinking, always dangerous. So if the premise is that government has failed us, and that government can't be trusted, always overstepping its bounds,
most posters would agree then (logically)that Congress, Senate, and the Whitehouse failed with this War. Since government was responsible for the execution and for the initially implementation of this war, they failed, and overly expanded their authority which has led to this point of failed policy.

Did this government not engage in the largest spending of any previous period, which has fueled the deficit and contributed to the lowering of the dollar abroad?

This is not the viewpoint of an ideology.

It is the summary of the observations of a career Federal civil service employee, now retired but still working for the gummint on a contract basis.

I've also worked for a number of corporations in my younger days and more recently.

You betray a propensity for tossing out perjorative terms like "intellectually dishonest", "uniformed", "polemics", etc., in some cases before the intercourse with a given individual has gotten much past the initial exchange. It is, as the gamblers say, a "tell".

Logically speaking, to refute your notion that US corporations are malevolent is not to propose that they are only benevolent.

I mentioned Haliburton because you said corporation and US politicians are like a marriage. Yet foreign policy is not made with the benefit of Haliburton or other corporations in mind. The signs don't point to it.

Logic can lead to extreme conclusions but extemeness by itself is not a logic chain's design. To speak of it generally, because you don't mention any specifics Sammy, I will limit myself to my own frames. On the subject of hyperbole then; it is only the logical conclusion for your beliefs, since for corporations to act in the manner that you describe them as acting would need private armies. No mega-corporation wielding government power nor mafia organization overseeing crime, can be without enforcers.

I will make a stronger argument via the use of examples. Roosevelt had to deal with the mob because their organization was present at the docks; docks from which Liberty ships must be launched from for the war effort. Roosevelt knew that the mafia could intimidate and disrupt operations at the docks. The problem was solved eventually. This brings up the point of the balance of powers. The government has a balance of powers internally because they share power. The Legislature, the Judiciary, and the Executive branches share power over the military. The commander leads, the judges declare guilt or innocence, while the law makers write the laws that the military must obey. The branches also share power that the entire government wields. CIA/NSA/FBI split. House of Representatives and Senate split. Big states vs small states split.

When it comes to businesses however, they do not share in the power that the government wields. At most businesses can influence the laws that they must abide by and the regulations placed over them. In that sense, the relationship is more like a serf to his master, the aristocrat, than any kind of balance of powers.

I speak of logic leading to extreme conclusions only because that is what the logic chain leads me to.

Like the Nation, you are unwilling to examine the strengths and weaknesses of both entities.

If you were willing to recognize the difference between these entities, that statement might have some weight.

By the way, young Sammy, I have on my desk a copy of Friedman's "Free to Choose", an abridgement of his longer work "Capitalism and Freedom".

Beyond the first chapter (a capsule description of free-market mechanics), the book consists of an almost continuous indictment of the economic effects of government overreach. An investigation of the word "corporation" in the index reveals a few technical remarks sprinkled throughout the text, none of which is judgemental. You might consider reading it.

My opinion is simply if an individual is unwilling to examine all facts, and takes a stance without any discourse relative to the facts, that person is being intellectually dishonest. Especially if one is articulate and demonstrates intelligence.

It would be intellectually dishonest for me to say that corporations are the ruin of our nation, mostly. That they are intent on disregarding the disenfranchised. That is incorrect, since corporations do offer many benefits to society. You clearly or not uninformed. But since you don't recognize, or do not believe some aspects of government do work, I deduce that you come from a relatively strong, maybe ideological, point of view. I do not intend for this to be personal. And the term polemics is not a pejorative term. It is a description of strongly opposed points of view with limited to no discussion of what is held in common.

I as well have worked in both sectors. They both need overhauls.

Corporations are not scapegoated.

Our lobbying system today has no resemblance to that ideal.

Government, as well, has no resemblance to its original constitutional responsibilities.-Sammy

you speak of the G and the Corporation as if they are the same entities. Perhaps this is because in your mind, they are the same kind of entity if not the exact same entity.

So, thank God for government and thank God for the capitalistic society we live in. May the two off-set each other.

Marriage is often said to be a give and take. One spouse balances the other, so to speak. BOth are equals and therefore both balance the excesses of the other, sort of like a partnership but with less cooperation. (A note directed to Grim: I am not making a societal comment, just setting up the lines.) If so, then when you say "marriage" and "two off-set each other", you are speaking of the balance of powers between equals such as the Legislative, Judicial, and Executive Branches.

However, the flaw in your logic is with your premise; the premise that this is a relationship of equals. It is not a relationship of equals. It may be marriage, but only marriage in Saudi Arabia and under the Taliban.

You need to spend more time working out the holes in your logic, Sammy.

So if I'm young, then you're a codger. I amazed how you can tell my age by text. Just for fun, guess my age.

I've read Capitalism and Freedom. I've read Das Kapital. I have neither on my desk. Milton Freidman, along with Leo Strauss and the other University of Chicago folks have yet to prove their theory of supply side economics. We have and most likely never will have low inflation, low interest rates, high yield on savings and investment, and no deficit at the same time. The U of Chi guys say it can happen. Marx had some good ideas, but alas, the notion of his idea of socialism will never happen on this planet.

On the other hand, Clinton's combination of Keynesian economic principles and some supply-side ideals, plus the coincidence of an economy changing led to great growth in the mid to late 90s. Through the course of Reagan's time, he average 3.1% economic growth relative to GDP, while Clinton's was somewhere around 2.7%. Both employed a good combination of the two philosophies in order to take advantage of the economies of those periods.

I understand that Freidman believed that government should stay out of the way of business. But if it did, we would have a very imbalanced proposition.

Come on, though. Private armies? That is quite a stretch. It is a quantum leap from saying that corporations unduly influence government, to "if you believe that than you are saying corporations would have their own armies". Seems you are hung up a bit on war. Since you seem quite learned, I'm sure you remember the history of the Roman Empire. Similarities?

Ymarsakar, you fail at Philosophy or Rhetoric 101. You can't even structure a cogent response. You wildly extrapolate from my points and create premises which aren't even relative. Those premises are based in your belief. Logically, you would state your belief, which is that government is oppressive and overreaching. You got lost somewhere between trying to use the marriage analogy and Saudi Arabia. It's hard to tell whether you are implying the government in America is like a marriage in Saudi Arabia, or that marriage is not one of equals. Confusing. I guess you are attempting to say that corporations are treated by the government the same way that women are treated in Saudi Arabia and by the Taliban. Is that correct? Because if so, I think you need your own talk show next to Michael Savage.

"socialism is error" can I talk to you now?

Sorry. Referring to U ofChi supply side, I said "We have" when I should have written "We don't have". Typing too fast.

"socialism is error" you have examined the strengths and weaknesses of both and have concluded that the corporation is serf to the aristocratic/landowner government. I disagree with that notion for lack of evidence. Businesses and corporations have more power in government (socially and economically) than anytime in history. How is it that private industry is permitted to re-write the laws and rules for energy, environment, trade and commerce with limited oversight. The oversight that does exist keeps them honest as it relates to the public. I believe that two examples where we have allowed private enterprise to control too much of our decision making processes in this country are Katrina and the Iraq War. FEMA was largely privatized, and as result, the events were horrific. The Army Corp of Engineers put levee enforcement out to bid for repair, long before Katrina, and the work was never completed.

Private think-tank leaders (Perle, Wolfowitz, Project for a New American Century) were the braintrusts behind the Iraq invasion, and they were proven to be wrong and unprepared. They compromised the military.

I'm certain you can give me many examples where government failed to the public as well. I believe those are equally as real. Just as without certain government programs, you might be turned into Soylent Green in your later years. Just as I wouldn't be enjoying the quality of life I enjoy without the influence of business and corporations on our economy. I'll take and examine it all.

Sammy, I regret to say that I have to get ready for a long weekend away with my wife when she gets in from work shortly.

I do have dial-up connectivity at my destination, but my time may be much more limited due to marital duties (gotta take her to restaurants and wildlife preserves and outlet malls and so forth).

I have enjoyed this and I thank you. If possible, I'll pull your chain again. :)

Jerk away.

You wildly extrapolate from my points

An interesting perspective over something you said was not cogent.

You can not get away from the words you have written or the positions you have taken. Regardless of what you have read or what excuses you make.

China has permanent 'Favored Nation' trading status...most likely got it because of donations to the Democratic Party...along with classified
material, but hey, what are a few laws and governmental responsibilities between trading partners, eh?

China is a juggernaut precisely because of government.

And what is the difference between a corporation and a cartel? Remember Rockefeller's maxim of 'Competition is a sin?' OPEC is an example of a cartel and supply side economics. The reason why the cartel exists off-shore is because it violates the anti trust laws of the US.

Hugo Chavez controls Venezuela's oil. He 'nationalized' it, remember? After paying off his debt to the World Bank or the IMF...don't recollect which one, but there you have it...and Citgo is owned by Venezuela.

Now it will be interesting to watch, since Chavez
is an avowed socialist, to see how far his government will go in 'securing the blessings of liberty and promoting the general welfare' of his people.

To Y Boy...Look up the definition of 'cogent'. That which your remarks are not. Thus, a wild extrapolation would indicate lack of cogency. Thus, making little sense or having any relevance or connectedness to what is being said.

Cricket, if you think the only people doing business with China are Dems, you are cloaked in blinders. Get rid of politics and right/left for a moment. China is about money. When do you think the development of trade relations opened up with China? Deng Xiao Ping and Reagan. Everyone since has furthered that relationship for the outcome of greater dividends. Wal Mart is an example of supporting favored nation status for its own economic growth. Gov is the tool used by business, in this case. I would suggest you read more to get your facts in order. All corps benefit from the relationship with China. The question is, does it make the World economy stronger?

As to OPEC, read down the list of OPEC nations and you'll see why it is 'off shore'. We don't control OPEC, and that is one reason why Wolfy and the boys wanted to have Iraq become a buffer state. Read "Fiasco" and "Armed Madhouse". We would like to control OPEC more. Why do you think we give arms and protection to Saudi Arabia? Why do you think Chavez is still in power? By Chavez slightly toying with the price of oil, but not drastically changing it in Venezuela, he is a buffer against Saudi. Now if I'm not mistaken, Defense is part of government. If so, do you support that kind of wild government growth and spending?

Look up the definition of 'cogent'. That which your remarks are not.

There is no real reason I have to aid you in your attempts to attack me, you know. You only do so because you can't argue the merits. Just because you spin out illusion does not mean I have to act like I believe.

What my remarks are, beneath your distortions, is something you cannot deal with.

Thus, a wild extrapolation would indicate lack of cogency.

No, that is called circular reasoning. You believe that because I wildly extrapolated from your baseless views, that my words are not cogent. You base the fiction that my words are not cogent based upon your personal prejudices concerning why I am wrong and why you are right; which is simply another way to say that you base your conclusions upon your assumptions that you and only you can see past your own fabrications.

To make it short for you, the reason why you believe in the lack of clarity is because you disagreed with my views and the reason why you disagreed with my views is because you view them as lacking clarity. However, the vision problem is yours, not mine.

Well, Sammy, I have returned, but not for long.

I reviewed the comment history and checked into "The Corporation".

I think you need to talk to this gentleman.

With perhaps minor qualifications, it can serve as my answer to most of your...stuff.

I don't have to guess your age. I've met people of all ages with marvelously broad education who have never outgrown the superficial thought processes hatched in the late-night college dorm bull-sessions that provided all the answers to "Life, the Universe and Everything."

I bid you farewell.

Something to chew on:

Recommendations for public discussion

Communication and Argument included his recommendations for civilized public discussions. Næss argued for abstaining from the following to make discussions as fruitful and pleasant as possible:

1. Avoiding tendentious irrelevance
Examples: Personal attacks, claims of opponents' motivation, explaining reasons for an argument.
2. Avoiding tendentious reciting
Reproductions should be neutral regarding the subject of the debate.
3. Avoiding tendentious ambiguity
Ambiguous arguments may be easily adopted to suit criticism.
4. Avoiding tendentious use of straw men
Assigning views to the opponent that he or she does not hold.
5. Avoiding tendentious original research
Information put forward should never be untrue or incomplete, and one should not withhold any relevant information.
6. Avoiding tendentious tone of voice
Examples: irony, sarcasm, pejoratives, exaggeration, subtle (or open) threats.

For many years these points were part of the two compulsory courses in philosophy taught in Norwegian universities ("Examen philosophicum" and "Examen facultatum").

In reference, we all are culpable. You are right Y Guy, I think I don't agree with you. I violated rules #1 and #6 while you engaged in #3 and #4, from my perspective. Sorry.

I understand the position of this blog/site. My attempt is for you "true believers" to see all facts and info. I'm not sure that is possible.

Be careful who you reference, S is E. Hogeye Bill, Bill Orton, is a radical anarchist living in Utah somewhere.

http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/antiwar/index.html

He is vehemently opposed to the Iraq War and is against the government almost entirely. Your link only confirms his disdain for any essence of attempted regulation of any entity. However, if you see Hogeye Bill's point, even though he is anti-war, maybe there is hope.

I believe we have found common ground. His points about the film "The Corporation" are excellent critiques. The film is not 100% truth and fact. Like any documentary, the positions of the filmmaker can shine through by editing facts and information. Although, I do agree the phrase about defining corporations as psychopaths doesn't jibe with the notion that corps are entities without a corpus which don't possess human quality, therefore they are simply a force to be used as such. For the documentarian, or person, to make such comment is hyperbole.

So benefit of the doubt time...I am interested in hearing your point, Y Guy, how government/corporate relationships are like a marriage in Saudi Arabia or under the Taliban? Please also explain how my points constitute labeling one "aristocracy" and one "the king", although that might not be a bad analogy. These must be your terms, right? Building private armies might be envisioned goal of some in "aristocracy", but it is a big jump from a discussion of the powers of two entities like corps and govs. If that is your view of a logical outcome, and a beneficial one, than you should say that. I believe that is your intent, to say that, but not mine. Afterall, Blackwater and Dygeny are private military forces contracted by business interests in Iraq who receive funding from the Department of Defense. So, in essence, both government and corporate entities are funding private armies. Remember the four Blackwater security people who were killed in Iraq, and whose bodies were paraded around the streets? Paid by government.

Please also explain how my points constitute labeling one "aristocracy" and one "the king",

Those are my views and points, not yours.

how government/corporate relationships are like a marriage in Saudi Arabia or under the Taliban?

Those were the positions you took. If you can't explain, then how do you expect me to?

It's like a marriage. Not one person is at fault. They are both right, and they are both wrong. The question is, how do you fix it? The answer is not more government, and it isn't more freedom for corps to control lobbying, money in politics, and do as they please. My hope is dwindling as to a solution.-Sammy

Those are your words, not mine.

Building private armies might be envisioned goal of some in "aristocracy", but it is a big jump from a discussion of the powers of two entities like corps and govs.

Not really. All power is based upon the inherent power over the life and death of individual people. Armies are just the quickest expedient method to achieve such power.

Afterall, Blackwater and Dygeny are private military forces contracted by business interests in Iraq who receive funding from the Department of Defense.

So you believe corporations and governments fund or hire mercenaries? In the US, that is.

So, in essence, both government and corporate entities are funding private armies.

Has this army ever clashed with government forces in a hostile takeover attempt? If not, why not? If yes, where and when.

Re: comment of August 14, 2007 12:02 PM

This is becoming downright entertaining.

I see that you have apparently lifted a portion of this entry in Wikipedia. Possibly it was from some other source, but I think it improbable as the verbiage and layout is congruent. In any event, refer to the warning at the top of the entry; it is there for a reason.

The material itself promoted an immediate chuckle, as I envisioned some pitiful graduate philosophy major attempting to develop a taxonomy of irrelevance, of ambiguity, etc.

To be serious, I presume it might be something as simple as a faulty translation from Norwegian to English and I do recognize the true intent; but it is yet another example of failing to critically examine material before using it.

More errors follow:

"I understand the position of this blog/site."

Indeed? Many positions on diverse issues are represented here and you can reduce them to a unitary statement without specificity? Seems like another violation of the so-recently-stated #3.

"My attempt is for you "true believers" to see all facts and info."

"True believers"? Refer to #6.

"I'm not sure that is possible."

Too dull, are we? #1, I think.

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

Re: comment of August 14, 2007 12:14 PM

http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/antiwar/index.html

As chess notation has it, ???

While it's encouraging that we can agree on valid critiques of this piece of propaganda ( you said it yourself, "the positions of the filmmaker can shine through by editing facts and information"), it follows another (extended) violation of #1 or #4.

While I can assume it was intended as a joke (#1), the serious reader could see an accusation that I would allow a person's politics to cloud my judgement as to the validity of his reasoning (#4). I try not to do that.

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

You should be able to see by now why I developed the impression reported in my earlier sign-off; it was not a personal attack, but an honest appraisal based on the increasing frequency of error displayed in your commentary which could only be explained, in my experience, by an immature level of process.

If you simply take some lessons from this exchange and reflect a bit before posting such volume, the other qualities I see in you will ultimately make you a disputant to be reckoned with.