The Virginia Society for the Preservation and Appreciation of High-Quality Posts

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

According to my source (I wrote a few posts like this in this thread with informations about Democratic primaries) there is some kind of infighting between Sanders and Warren about staffers, donors, money,  or simply who is better candidate of progressive wing in these primaries and whole elections and stuff.

That is not good news for progressives.

i not know this.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I don't get why you're all floored with what Fuzzy posted? He says/posts things like that ALL THE TIME. That's why he's such a fantastic poster, because he's entirely in sync with the needs and concerns of real people because he's an actual, real working class person who bears - willingly and joyfully so - burdens that'd break the lot of you.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

We have an Oracle in our midsts.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

This made me laugh out loud even if I obviously disagree. It’s the short quips/jokes like this that are high quality and worth being appreciated.

This will not be the hill I get banned on.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

In response to "Why do conservatives usually seem to jeopardize the safety of the public?"

Because individuals rights (which inherently imply "risk") predating and enshrined in the Constitution are more important than the fearful feelings of others, especially when those feelings are motivated by on-paper hypothetical safety gains.

I mean, we literally require criminals to be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt ... you really think that doesn't result in a ton of criminals going free? Warrants PRIOR to searching suspected terrorists. Assembly for ANY peaceful reason. Presumption of bail. Hell, we make prosecutors GIVE their arguments to defendants in advance.

99.9% of privately owned guns (300 MILLION+) aren't used in crimes, the idea that something with such a teeny tiny low percentage of criminal abuse is "jeopardizing the public safety" is an absolute joke unless you literally believe the dumb argument of "muh even 1 life lost is too much". If you applied that argument to literally everything we couldn't do anything. Pools, cars, sugar, salt, fat, red meat, booze, cigarettes, peanuts, eggs, airplanes, XRays, coffee, aspirin, tylenol, football, sex, hell even flippin vaccines entail a risk of death.

We dont live in a risk free society and the only way to get there is for everyone to just die. The notion that we arent allowed to assess and discount hypothetical risks in a free society is absurd, dangerous, and leads to authoritarian regimes which (surprise surprise) also present a risk of death.

So the real answer to your question is that "conservatives" usually seem to "jeopardize the safety of the public" because your personal definition of "jeopardizing the safety of the public" is so expansive as to include a ton of innocuous activities that statistically dont lead to bad outcomes the vast vast vast majority of the time.

These so-called protestors are a bunch of selfish putzheads who are no better than the anti-vaxers.  You don't get to get other people killed just b/c you want to act like an idiot.

Stay inside then?

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

In response to "Why do conservatives usually seem to jeopardize the safety of the public?"

Because individuals rights (which inherently imply "risk") predating and enshrined in the Constitution are more important than the fearful feelings of others, especially when those feelings are motivated by on-paper hypothetical safety gains.

I mean, we literally require criminals to be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt ... you really think that doesn't result in a ton of criminals going free? Warrants PRIOR to searching suspected terrorists. Assembly for ANY peaceful reason. Presumption of bail. Hell, we make prosecutors GIVE their arguments to defendants in advance.

99.9% of privately owned guns (300 MILLION+) aren't used in crimes, the idea that something with such a teeny tiny low percentage of criminal abuse is "jeopardizing the public safety" is an absolute joke unless you literally believe the dumb argument of "muh even 1 life lost is too much". If you applied that argument to literally everything we couldn't do anything. Pools, cars, sugar, salt, fat, red meat, booze, cigarettes, peanuts, eggs, airplanes, XRays, coffee, aspirin, tylenol, football, sex, hell even flippin vaccines entail a risk of death.

We dont live in a risk free society and the only way to get there is for everyone to just die. The notion that we arent allowed to assess and discount hypothetical risks in a free society is absurd, dangerous, and leads to authoritarian regimes which (surprise surprise) also present a risk of death.

So the real answer to your question is that "conservatives" usually seem to "jeopardize the safety of the public" because your personal definition of "jeopardizing the safety of the public" is so expansive as to include a ton of innocuous activities that statistically dont lead to bad outcomes the vast vast vast majority of the time.

These so-called protestors are a bunch of selfish putzheads who are no better than the anti-vaxers.  You don't get to get other people killed just b/c you want to act like an idiot.

Stay inside then?

Grow up

You're the one pissing the bed here, not me.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

The point is that we should be more concerned with what they are protesting, than the protests. Do I wish they hadn't turned violent? Yeah (though many were instigated by undercover cops, or cops flatly shooting rubber bullets or tear gas at people, or instigated by white supremacists or violent anarchists). But do I blame them for turning violent in some cases, after years of going unheard? No. It's understandable. More understandable than the Boston Tea Party or Boston Massacre.

I can walk and chew bubble gum at the same time.  Believe it or not it is possible to simultaneously be furious about George Floyd and furious about the anarchist looters burning down my city.

If the looting and rioting was being done by black folks who are personally affected by this tragedy and the epidemic of police violence in this country, they would be understandable.  If it was people who've been hurt time and time again boiling over in their frustration, it would be understandable.  And that MLK quote you dropped would apply.  Although it would still be wrong and really really bad and worthy of strong condemnation.

But that isn't what's happening here.  Black folks were out in the streets demonstrating in a peaceful, organized fashion.  And their voices were being heard loud and clear.  It was very effective.  Or it would have been.

Then the protests started getting infiltrated by all these dirtbags.  Antifa jackasses, anarchists, communists, white kids from the burbs who think this is their opportunity to overthrow capitalism, professional rioters, and so on (these groups overlap pretty heavily).  It's this underclass of angry, stupid assholes that's existed in America for decades, counter-cultural morons with left-wing extremist viewpoints who glorify rioting and violence and criminal behavior.  They organize themselves into all these little groups and give themselves cutesy names, but at the end of the day the folks tearing up the Seattle downtown right now are the same folks who tore it up in 1999.  Buncha white punks in black masks who want to smash-and-dash the Banana Republic in the name of overthrowing capitalism.

The riot-fetishists honestly are some of the greatest enemies of black people in this country.  Every time black people want to have a peaceful protest and make their voices heard, their protests get turned into riots and their voices get drowned out.  Not through any fault of their own, but because these jackasses just can't miss an opportunity to ruin everything.  Widespread peaceful protest is still a very effective political weapon in America today.  But it only works if you can do it successfully.  BLM is unable to do it successfully because these anarchist idiots have shown up to make it all about their own agenda.

Take it from someone who's been to these protests, this happens time and time again.  You see the same sorts of people.  White, 18-35 years old, dyed hair, lots of piercings, black clothing, masks, backpacks full of weapons.  They'll be there, all loitering together, waiting/hoping for things to turn violent.  They don't care what the issue is.  They just love the energy of civil disobedience and are hoping, praying, for the opportunity to smash things up and shout "f*** the police, f*** capitalism, f*** you mom!"

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Some thoughts on Atlas Shrugged that I wrote up a while back:

1) Despite her tendency to go on and on at times, Rand has a great knack for metaphor, magical realism, and imagery. The descriptions of the collapsing society are long-winded, but almost always captivating. Things fall to pieces very gradually, mimicking how these things happen in real life (socialism always works in the beginning, when there's still a lot of wealth to seize). One great line stood out to me: "The inhabitants of New York had never had to be aware of the weather. Storms had been only a nuisance that slowed the traffic and made puddles in the doorways of brightly lit shops... Now, facing the gusts of snow that came sweeping down the narrow streets, people felt in dim terror that they were the temporary intruders and that the wind had the right-of-way."

2) The mystery is built up expertly. Lots of fake-outs, which get irritating in an effective way-- they make you want to read more. When the origin of the phrase "Who is John Galt" gets revealed, it's immensely satisfying. In the last third of the book, the pieces start to fall together intricately, and in a logical, coherent way.

3) For all I've heard about how unrealistic and silly the book is, I can't put my finger on why it feels silly. It sure does seem ludicrous at times, but I'm still waiting on the argument that empirically explains that. Some people say it's ridiculous to imagine a situation where incompetent fools seize control of a country's agriculture, killing millions in a massive famine... except that happened in China. Some people say it's silly to imagine a country where the best and brightest are persecuted because they are the best and brightest... except that happened in Cambodia. Some people claim that it's insane to say that corrupt bureaucrats who are impotent and inept in every aspect of their lives could rise to power in a country, plundering the nation's wealth for themselves and killing those who protest their rule... except that happened in Russia. I think that, without the context of communism, the book seems pretty dumb to a lot of people. I guess they'll learn just how realistic it is one way or another.

The most ridiculous part of the book is easily the "strike" itself, where the nation's most productive individuals  off to Colorado while everything decays behind them. But this is just a description of the brain drain, only with a little magical realism. Rand even accounts for this by making every nation in the world a socialist "democracy," which leaves smart people with nowhere to run. Yeah, it's exaggerated... but it's got one foot in the realm of possibility.

4) A great lead character. Why is Dagny Taggart-- a genius railway executive who constantly outshines her talentless brother-- not considered a feminist icon? Maybe it's because Rand also uses her as a channel to work through her demented sexual predilections. Still, despite a few eyebrow-raising sex scenes, I found this character compelling. She has a very rational thought process that makes her relatable and human. Like all of Rand's characters, she's an archetype and an exaggeration, but I appreciated her ruthless competence and cutting wit.

5) Rand showed incredible foresight in mocking her detractors. Her critics (who have never read her works) call her "anti-social," "psychopathic," and "egotistical," which ironically makes them sound like villains in one of her stories. This creates a feedback loop in which those who critique her fulfill her prophecies. This woman was a legit troll. I find this whole situation funny.

Now the bad:

1) Given the existence of global warming, the book hasn't aged well. It literally ends with a judge writing a new amendment to the constitution, stating that congress shall pass no law restricting free enterprise. Really, Ayn? No law at all? So those people drinking flammable fracking water in Oklahoma have no legal recourse in your perfect world? I don't think the woman grasped the concept of unintentional externalities (as evidenced by her love of cigarettes). If she'd known about climate change, she'd probably think it was awesome.

2) A distinct lack of unique characters. Every "good" (see: selfish) character is handsome/beautiful, confident, and completely without any self-doubt. Every "bad" character has a loathsome, ugly name (Wesley Mouch), and the various bureaucrats are generally indistinguishable from one another. There are a few notable exceptions, but I think there are a lot more facets to human nature that Rand didn't bother to explore here. When a worldview boils everything down to a "two kinds of people" theory, you know it's flawed. All of the conflict is external to the characters; there's very little personal growth in the story, and Rand leaves no possibility of redemption for her villains. Also, in the entire US, there is apparently only one person capable of running a bank, one person capable of mining coal, one person capable of manufacturing cars, etc. It seems extremely half-assed.

3) A sixty-page speech. This comes right before the last hundred pages of the book, and makes the conclusion feel rushed in comparison. Hey Ayn, did you know that speeches of this length are indicative of megalomania? You and Qaddafi would have been best buds. I feel no shame in saying that I skipped this part (it's the only part of the book I did this with).

4) Going off of point number two, no characters change. In Rand's world, changing is seen as a weakness, and I somewhat agree-- but one should always alter their worldview based on contradictory facts (though not based on contradictory opinions). If a villainous "looter" character had seen the error in his ways at the end, that might've made Rand's tent a little more inclusive. But I don't think she has any interest in reaching across the aisle, as evidenced by her statement that "the midpoint between right and wrong is evil." As it is, the villains do ultimately see their own errors, though by that point they're essentially beyond saving. One character, an industrialist, does go through a change-- he learns to be less generous. ayy lmao

5) Despite some predicative power, the book conjures up some caricatures that are just patently ridiculous-- not the least of which is the preeminent scientist who denounces reason. 1000 pages later, and I'm still not sure what Rand was trying to say with that character.

6) The most conclusive argument against Objectivism appears to be its followers. Rand herself testified against communists for McCarthy-- a sin I can almost forgive, considering her personal history. Paul Ryan is a Rand-lover who appears to have no understanding of insurance, health care, or government in general. Donald Trump says he read The Fountainhead, a dubious claim at best, given that the book is well beyond his attention span of 140 characters. But then again, Rand's fans include Gene Roddenberry, who created the best television series of all time, and which incorporated some elements of her philosophy. Overall though, I don't think it's fair to judge a philosophy by its adherents, which is fortunate for Rand.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

The Carters are good people, and I'll pray for them.

One wonders if the reason why Jimmy Carter failed, was because he was too " nice " to be President.

It was more of an issue that he lacked experience and was - despite some success - the wrong guy for that particular time. Gerald Ford was an equally nice guy (his nickname literally was "Mr. Nice Guy") though I believe he would been better equipped to deal with the many challenges of the late 1970s.

Carter was not too "nice" to be President.  He had his nasty side.  George McGovern called him "the biggest p---k in politics" in 1972, and Carter was, in truth, rather nasty in his efforts to stop McGovern from being nominated.  After being nasty to McGovern, only to see McGovern nominated anyway, Carter called Scoop Jackson at 4 am to ask if Scoop would call McGovern and plug him for McGovern's VP.  Robert Kaufman, Jackson's biographer, stated that Jackson could never think of Carter again without a certain revulsion, and McGovern was put off by the attempt as well.

Niceness and Nastiness was not the reason for Carter's troubles as President.  The problem was that Carter was the only true "centrist" to be elected, other than Eisenhower, since WWI.  Carter, on issues, was, on the whole, positioned almost dead center between the bases of each party.  He was not an ideologue, and his liberal positions and postures came in conservative wrappers.

Such a posture was needed for a Democrat to be elected President in 1976.  Carter was looking to run for President in 1976 long before the 1972 convention, and he (correctly) recognized that a Democratic victory in the 1976 Presidential race would require a different kind of Democrat, one that could manage to gain the support of the more conservative elements of the Democratic Party (who were actual conservatives, and not just to the right of the left wing base) while being acceptable to liberals (who received a dose of reality when Nixon won 49 states in 1972).  And Carter was a stunning success here; he won the support of Southern blacks AND Southern conservatives (Eastland, Stennis, Wallace, and every Southern Democrat of consequence openly endorsed Carter).  He won the support of the anti-war Left and the AFL-CIO (no mean feat in 1976).  He did this because after 1972, no one wanted to be responsible for blowing a Presidential election they ought to have won post-Watergate.  This worked out well, in that Carter won the Northeast, the industrial Midwest (save for Illinois, which had problems, locally, with their Democratic Party in 1976), and 10 of 11 Southern states.  It was the last hurrah for the FDR coalition.

But what worked in winning an election did not work in governing.  Because Carter was a "Moderate Hero" as President, he pleased no one.  Liberals were unhappy from Day One, viewing Carter as a placeholder until their God-Prince Ted Kennedy could come on horseback and restore Camelot.  (Ted Kennedy's speech line "The Dream will never die" was as much about that as it was about "progressive ideals".)   Southern conservatives supported him to the extent that they would rather Carter be on the top of the ticket in 1980 than someone else, but he was not warm to them, and he could not count on their votes for some of Carter's liberal initiatives.  Carter had more legislative successes than he gets credit for, but his wins were compromises that pleased nobody.  But what really undid Carter (at least in the South) was his abandonment of a "neocon" position on foreign policy in favor of what Elliott Abrams once called "his own brand of McGovernism".  This is where the image of Carter as "weak" came in.  Carter, after all, was a Jackson supporter, and Jackson was the candidate of the traditional anti-Communist liberals in the Democratic Party (e. g. Jeanne Kirkpatrick, Zbignew Brzenski).  Carter's nomination represented a repudiation of the anti-war Left to some, but his governing represented the locking in of a number of anti-war Left positions as part and parcel of the Democratic Party.

Not that Carter was always wrong here.  Carter attempted to strike a balance.  He did attempt to interject Human Rights into the foreign policy discussions, and that was good.  But he allowed himself to be manipulated by some Leftists to do things like push for the ouster of Somoza in Nicaragua, or (even worse) the Shah of Iran.  These sort of leaders were not good people, but their replacements were (A) far worse and (B) more entrenched.  Richard Nixon, for all his faults, was rightly critical of Foreign Policy that "greased the skids for our allies", and Carter's foreign policy included some of that.

This does not change the assessment of Carter as a fundamentally good man.  I do not view Carter as the "failed President" so many do.  I regret my support of Kennedy in 1980 and my abstaining in the Presidential race in 1980.  I believe that had Carter been re-elected, his second term would have been much better than his first.  What I am writing here is an explanation of why things went for Carter as they did (at least in part).  God Bless Rosalynn and Jimmy Carter in their final days.