Stats

Comments Posted By naxos

Displaying 0 To 0 Of 0 Comments

History, Is It Being Taught Anymore?

You seem determined to mischaracterize my comments. Why, only you know. If the writer is not naive, fine and so what. I explained clearly why I used this word. Is he not capable of replying to explain where and why I err? To have ones point of view labeled naive is not disrespectful; it says one has missed something.
Boasting about IQ? Where? This is nonsense. I said we butt heads. We push each other. We resist labels. That we are not thin-skinned. If you equate my statement that I come from a “Progressive” environment with having a high IQ, you should look inward. The equation is yours, not mine. Anyone who thinks they are “smart”, probably isn’t.
Your scolding may work on kids, if they are a bit dim and the sanctimonious bit about rolling up sleeves is indulgent. Self-congratulations are always suspect and should be avoided, like criticizing one’s Ex.
I offered peace and good wishes. You responded with a defensive lecture. Sort it out yourself.

» Posted By naxos On November 15, 2014 @ 7:26 am

Read through much of it, including the responses. I do not find sneering on anyone’s part. Sneering implies mockery. There is some anger and prickliness, but no disrespect.

– In the example you cite above, I suggest the writer is “naive”- hardly fighting words. My suggestion that Deniers object to what they perceive as Progressive goals, rather than the science, is hardly controversial.

– Me and my “Progressive” friends, in quotations because none of us accepts broad labels, debate constantly. We are products of a place that is famous for its Progressivism. BFD Bullet-point ideologies are for the intellectually lazy. A confrontation of ideas is exactly, precisely the point. No matter. The real goal is intellectual stimulation, to bring out the best in each other. That debate should resemble a support group conversation is an alien notion to me. No surprise.

– In all of the posts I read over the last day, from everyone, I find scant disagreement and lots of mutual congratulation. Excepting me of course. I am a bit the unwelcome guest, which is of absolutely no interest to any of us.

– Thanks again for your measured response. I am just going outside. I may be some time. Peace, and all the very best to you.

» Posted By naxos On November 14, 2014 @ 6:37 am

I agree with much of this, but not all. Kissinger, as others before him, advocated the rule of American self-interest as a determinant of where and when we should intercede politically and militarily. I find this to be abhorrent. I think we should have rescued the girls kidnapped by Boko Haram several months ago (we did not), and saved the Yazikis in Iraq, as we did. Because these things were the right thing to do. We go in, do good, and get out, taking no credit and expecting no thanks. That this is regrettably not how we conduct foreign policy is where we agree. Our disagreement lies in the notion of world police. I believe the strong have an obligation to assist the weak. That is us.

» Posted By naxos On November 12, 2014 @ 3:18 pm

Kalima: Many thoughtful observations. I will re-read my posts as you suggest. My first reaction to the observation that I sneer is discomforting. As I read, I will hope to find something else, impatience, maybe, but if it’s there, I have no intention of dodging it. Everyone needs to have their chain tugged from time to time. Meanwhile, I accept your comments as sincere and constructive. You went to some trouble in writing this reply; thank you. Best, Naxos

– I think the post you attached was not my reply to Nierk, the comment we were discussing, but rather to another comment by Murph. I’ll check.

» Posted By naxos On November 12, 2014 @ 3:08 pm

Kalima:
Your point is inarguable, my post was taken the same way by everyone you cite.

Please read the comment again yourself, without (literally) prejudice.

In brief: I responded to a post that expressed dismay with the part of the populace that is unread in civics and history. I did not disagree with this assessment. To the contrary, I expressed my own doubts about the basis of democracy for just this reason. (How does it work when, for the last 250 years, the general level of education has been even lower than it is today?) I then described a study that found that a large cross-section of people not schooled agriculture were able, armed only with common sense, to make sensible observations on a subject not part of their knowledge. The point is that the votes of large numbers of people derived from common sense but no learning appear to preserve the goals of a democratic system. And thus to the conclusion that suppression of votes is destructive.

This was interpreted as a suggestion that the first writer was FOR voter suppression. You have read the rest.

» Posted By naxos On November 12, 2014 @ 6:08 am

Nirek, Kesmarn: We have gotten off on a bad foot. I offer peace. My posts were not intended to be aggressive or argumentative. If you doubt this, re-read them. Anything prickly in them was under provocation. Yes, I could have reacted better. My background is scientific. Years of a particular sort of discipline tend to make you clinical, analytic. If I present my perspectives clumsily, without finesse, nerd-ishly, apologies. Pleasure for me is solving puzzles and sorting things out.

If you cannot accept this, so be it. Pax vobiscum.

» Posted By naxos On November 11, 2014 @ 3:29 pm

Oh my. You find it “bizarre” that the observations of a large number of merchants, carpenters, and school teachers, rather than farmers, could, on average, be rather accurate about something that in theory, only the farmer should possess insight.

Democracy, a process where millions of people who are not politicians, historians, or lawyers determine the future of a country, must just rattle you to the core.

» Posted By naxos On November 11, 2014 @ 9:08 am

No. My post is a statement. Just read it and do not infer from it, do not personalize it. Read the first sentence of my post. You’ll see I was decribing an incident- my happening onto a 19th century study- that addressed MY OWN doubts.

» Posted By naxos On November 11, 2014 @ 8:57 am

Plain, uneducated, uninformed common sense. A quality present in many voters regardless of their political leanings. The intent of my post was hardly obscure. To suggest I advocated for ignorance is ridiculous.

I’ll take “falsehoods” from any news source on one by one.

You have no hesitation about putting words in my mouth, claiming I “implied” this or that. Bristling when it happens to you is humorous.

If you have honest dialogue to offer, I am all ears. So far you have suggested: – I do not want to teach history in schools
– That the masses can be inspired wrongly (a truism observed often since biblical times)
– I support an ignorant electorate
– I would defend (or at least not condemn) “lies” offered by a news outlet
– It interests me to waste time
– The tired quip that clocks are correct twice a day

You hold the cynical belief that the US polices the world for the profit in it, the baseless belief that the UN could do so, that Americans “crave” violence, that disagreement with any of these notions is “sophistry”, and that confronting disagreement is a waste of time.

You are being disagreed with. So what? Two choices: a) defend your cynicism, b) lash out.

The rest is obvious and I’m no longer interested.

» Posted By naxos On November 11, 2014 @ 6:35 am

I did not advocate an ignorant electorate, nor a particular media outlet.

I doubt your scolding of the world to “grow up” constitutes an effective foreign policy. Countries like Saudi Arabia and Sweden do not police the world, no. If you want to know their motives you can ask them, but I doubt you will receive an acceptable response.

For now, the world needs a force capable of imposing rule of law. This is us. Hopefully this will not be the case always.

– follow none of your post.

» Posted By naxos On November 10, 2014 @ 8:46 am

It did not occur to me that you wanted to suppress voting. I find it just as odd as you probably do that ignorant votes, uninformed votes may be one of the bases of successful democracy.

America is the world police force until you can suggest a better one, or argue for none at all.

» Posted By naxos On November 10, 2014 @ 6:43 am

Civics: The notion that the masses, whose level of knowledge you describe here, should determine our future by vote seems absurd. But I read an experiment done by a statistician in the 19th century, who also doubted the idea of democracy. He attended a country fair where everyone could take a chance on the weight of a cow. Hundreds entered; few were actual farmers. Afterwards he asked if he could analyze the guesses. The average was incredibly close to the truth. Democracy works when great numbers of diverse people participate. Suppressing votes, any votes (even those who disagree with you or who have zero knowledge) is anti-democratic.

On US involvement overseas: Foreign affiars are complicated. We try, we are human, we make mistakes. Like it or not, someone has to keep order, be the good guys, the cops. This is us. We just have to do it better.

» Posted By naxos On November 10, 2014 @ 6:22 am

An Open Letter to President Obama: Let Republicans Play with Their Own Boehner

Okay. What should the Prez be willing to give away in the horse trading?

» Posted By naxos On November 10, 2014 @ 7:12 am

Why Tuesday Went So Badly for Dems

Perhaps you are serious.
1) All but one (the current President) was White. One was Catholic (Kennedy). None were Hispanic, none were Asian, none were women.
2) Blacks have voted for one Black candidate. He was successful. Black candidates for president have a success rate of 100%.
3) All of the White presidents had Black support. All of the White candidates had women’s support, Hispanic support, Catholic support, Jewish support, Muslim support, and Asian support.
4) Blacks have not been candidates in 200 years of campaigns. This has occured but once. (This candidate won.) Women, Hispanics, and Asians have never been candidates.

The obvious questions are :
How many Presidents have been elected since the founding of this nation? How many were women, Hispanic, or Asian?

Since women, Hispanic, or Asian have gain the right to vote, how many women, Hispanic, or Asian presidents have they voted for? And how many white presidents had women, Hispanic, or Asian support?

When will white Americans vote for a women, Hispanic, or Asian president?

» Posted By naxos On November 10, 2014 @ 7:37 am

Perhaps you are serious.
1) All but one (the current President) was White. One was Catholic (Kennedy). None were Hispanic, none were Asian, none were women.
2) Blacks have voted for one Black candidate. He was successful. Black candidates for president have a success rate of 100%.
3) All of the White presidents had Black support. All of the White candidates had women’s support, Hispanic support, Catholic support, Jewish support, Muslim support, and Asian support.
4) Blacks have not been candidates in 200 years of campaigns. This has occured but once. (This candidate won.) Women, Hispanics, and Asians have never been candidates.

The obvious questions are :
How many Presidents have been elected since the founding of this nation? How many were women, Hispanic, or Asian?

Since women, Hispanics, or Asians have gain the right to vote, how many women, Hispanic, or Asian presidents have they voted for? And how many white presidents had women, Hispanic, or Asian support?

When will white Americans vote for a women, Hispanic, or Asian president?

» Posted By naxos On November 10, 2014 @ 7:36 am

I responded to this question in another place.

But no matter; my perceptions are not at issue here; at issue are the perceptions of the millions who do not vote for Democrats. These people vote in disagreement with what they perceive this ideology to be. To get a complete answer, you’ll have to determine, if possible, what this general perception is.

» Posted By naxos On November 7, 2014 @ 11:00 am

– If black voters voted for GOP candidates, there is zero doubt that the GOP would be at the forefront of get-out-the-vote drives among this population.

– White GOP voters vote for black GOP candidates without hesitation.

-Is there some deep ideological reason behind the Left’s disbelief in these two facts of life? Is the Left secretly invested in the posture that the GOP is a nest of racists? Is it too difficult to grasp that many people simply, plainly, and without prejudice, do not agree with their ideology?

» Posted By naxos On November 7, 2014 @ 10:27 am

The GOP Wave Pool: Money, Lies, Ignorance and Democratic Apathy

I have no idea how to quantify the reserviors of racism out there. If you wish to characterize it as “mainstream”, I chave no basis for comment.

» Posted By naxos On November 11, 2014 @ 7:12 am

So it was racism, dark money, Citizens United, and the Kochs. Not a single legitimate force at work, and not a single shortcoming on the part of Democrats (except in their inability to fend off these evil forces).

Like, got it.

» Posted By naxos On November 10, 2014 @ 9:01 am

A common theme here is that non-support of the Prez is “racist.” Of course this is true in some cases. All groups have racists among them, and the greedy, self-serving, and small-minded. No exceptions. We all have to accept this. But over-stating it is misleading; the President’s performance and policies did the Dems in. Ignore this, and learn nothing.

A clinical clear-eyed analysis of why voters voted the way they did, what policies they approved and which they opposed, is the first step to knowledge.

» Posted By naxos On November 10, 2014 @ 6:35 am

2010 and 2014: The Election Sequel of Dumb and Dumber

Yes. Some successful people are wealthy because they chose a career that pays well. Other successful people are not wealthy; they chose a career that does not pay well. All of them and everyone in-between can lead fulfilling lives. That their political outlooks differ is to be expected; people view politics through a very complex lens. If I inferred something different, my post was poorly framed.
Thx, Naxos

» Posted By naxos On November 8, 2014 @ 6:41 am

Get a grip, EXFAN. I was referring to the perpetuation of fear-mongering in negative ads. I used “socialism” and “Fergueson” as two egregious examples;in your words, charades. Look what the mere mention of the word just did to you. You flew into a sanctimonious rage, blind to the fact that we are saying essentially the same thing.

BTW I lived in Scandanavia.

» Posted By naxos On November 8, 2014 @ 6:25 am

You might consider two thoughts:
a) Many people just love what they do for a living. Their 18-hour days are bliss.
b) Many people consider it noble to work for wealth. Wealth gives them security, control, comfort, a way to educate kids, travel with them to teach them about the world, get a nice place to retire to, when the time comes. If you fault these goals, think valuing them is a sign of mental instability, this is your perogative.

» Posted By naxos On November 7, 2014 @ 11:16 am

Dem and GOP operatives understand it is far easier to mobilize voters against something than for something. This is why negative ads work. The coming of socialism on one station is matched by a threat of another Fergueson on another. Neither side is pure, both exaggerate, both sow fear. I am unimpressed by assertions that one side occupies higher moral ground.

Worse, I can’t remember the last time I heard a pol for either side give a straight answer. “How can I answer in a way that will make me look best” is the FIRST impulse. Staightforward and honest don’t even hit the radar.

Re: Dumb people versus voting in a dumb way- understood. A question on voting one’s “interest”. If I feel capable of earning a good living and am willing to give all my focus, energy, drive, intelligence, and application to acquiring wealth, voting Democratic makes less sense than voting the GOP. Is this interest valid?

» Posted By naxos On November 7, 2014 @ 9:51 am

ADLIB: well-argued, compliments. You will be aware that opposition will take the same circumstances and data and reverse the argument. Harry Reid has buried several hundred pieces of House legislation to prevent them from reaching the Senate floor, and possibly Obama’s desk. I could argue this is obstructionist and at least tie your assertion about “the party of ‘no’…”, etc.

On a constructive note; the asssertion that people who disagree with you are “dumb” sounds a bit nervous. Haven’t you ever run into a plain-spoken person with moderate education and maybe no sophistication whose common sense and wisdom were admirable? If they don’t agree with your politics should you treat them with disdain? Just a thought, no preachiness intended.

» Posted By naxos On November 7, 2014 @ 8:36 am

Why The GOP Will Have A “Good” Night Tomorrow

A thought occured to me as I was reading your piece, about the state getting hit with “huge ER and Medivac bills.”

Is this true? Do hospitals send states ER bills for uninsured patients who come in the door?

BTW: Hospital ERs are staffed with doctors and equipment. Patient care “costs” the ER only what they paid for the medications and the electricity to keep the lights on. They bill is not based on service but rather on what they can collect for it. Because the doctors, nurses, and equipment are there regardless. If no one comes into the ER, the equipment sits idle and the staff gets paid anyway.

When we read about “the high cost of care” in the ER, the stats are based on what the hospital might bill AT FULL RATE.

» Posted By naxos On November 5, 2014 @ 10:38 am

The Science of Fox News: Why Its Viewers Are The Most Misinformed

Has it occurred to you that what politicians believe and what they say they believe are not necessarily the same? The same goes for non-politicians. Start here. The rest gets easier.

» Posted By naxos On November 7, 2014 @ 11:09 am

You would like a brief on my perception of the basic ideology of the Left. I assume your desire is to correct and rephrase what I jot down. Fine by me. Here we go: An aim of the Left is to have government level the social, educational, and economic playing fields and thus insure equal opportunity. Another is to have government ensure the social and economic well-being and health of the lower and middle classes. Another is to minimize strife among the masses, and redress historical wrongs in the areas of politics, history, international voice, and culture. This is a start.

» Posted By naxos On November 7, 2014 @ 10:15 am

Ecological conerns aside, you want a brief on the wishes and concerns of the Left that require expanded government, more taxation, and additional regulation? You aren’t already aware of these things? – Really?

» Posted By naxos On November 7, 2014 @ 8:16 am

Killgore, your question is on point but I am not going to hunt down a list of the last few years proposed regulations and penalties for excess carbon emissions. Nor am I going to condemn all of them because in Canada, specifically Vancouver, there have been really encouraging carbon tax innovations that seem to be working there.

My post was a proposition about the depth of the distrust of climate change science on the Right. I think the distrust is purely politically-driven, that it has no depth. Thus my observation that IF proposals were offered that DID NOT coincide with well-known aims of the Left, that Deniers, newly-unobstructed by their distrust of the Left, would become Believers.

Thx-

» Posted By naxos On November 7, 2014 @ 6:46 am

«« Back To Stats Page