US Politics Mega-thread - Page 667

On November 27 2013 07:56 IgnE wrote:


I posted arguments that were directed at clarifying the bolded part in your first post. Obviously, as I said, there have been positive changes to the public health since the 18th century.



I suppose it doesn't literally contradict anything you wrote. I was responding to this:
Food companies aren't out there to make you as healthy as possible, but that's in part because of preferences for unhealthy food.
Because why would you say that unless you were implying that food companies were simply fulfilling a demand that has existed and will exist, independent of them. You seemed to be strongly implying that food companies aren't out there to make you as healthy as possible, because they are just trying to make money on people's own natural proclivities for self-destruction or something to that effect. Hence the perceived conflict.

On November 27 2013 08:03 IgnE wrote:


He's not talking about the standard of living. He's talking about the anomie and disillusionment within the modern world. He is making a valid point. Kwark's argument is borderline ridiculous, as he seems to be unaware of the widespread socio-structural changes that have occurred with the advent of modernity. Yes, people have 200 friends on facebook, but they also have fewer roots in the community in which they live and work. The nuclear family, a tiny, anomalous conception of family which had already replaced a larger conception of family beginning after WW2, is itself increasingly fragmented. People increasingly have to uproot themselves from their friends and communities multiple times in their life in order to go where employers are hiring. And traditional forms of social solidarity have been dissolved in place of commoditization of social transactions.

On November 27 2013 08:04 Acrofales wrote:


But the desire to eat sweet and fatty foods IS natural. The food industry hijacks that to some extent with their processed foods including large amounts of crap like high fructose corn syrup, but it is not fair to put the blame solely on food producers either.

It's not even clear yet whether obese people ARE addicted to food. It has some similarities, but there are differences too with other addictions. First and foremost that the body actually does need food to survive (as opposed to nicotine, alcohol, gambling, etc.).

But I don't want to get in this discussion. While obesity is obviously a problem, people are demonstrably healthier and live longer lives than they did 50 years ago, despite new first-world disorders. So using this as an argument that we're worse off simply doesn't fly. You could argue we're not as good off as we should/could be, and nobody will contradict you, but it is nonsense to claim that because of junk food we are worse off than 100 years ago.

On November 27 2013 08:03 IgnE wrote:


He's not talking about the standard of living. He's talking about the anomie and disillusionment of a modern world. He is making a valid point. Kwark's argument is borderline ridiculous, as he seems to be unaware of the widespread socio-structural changes that have occurred with the advent of modernity. Yes, people have 200 friends on facebook, but they also have fewer roots in the community in which they live and work. The nuclear family, a tiny, anomalous conception of family which had already replaced a larger conception of family beginning after WW2, is itself increasingly fragmented. People increasingly have to uproot themselves from their friends and communities multiple times in their life in order to go where employers are hiring. And traditional forms of social solidarity have been dissolved in place of commoditization of social transactions.

On November 27 2013 08:05 Acrofales wrote:


This is an unproven hypothesis that is highly disputed, insofar as I know.

On November 27 2013 08:13 KwarK wrote:

And you assume that this is new? And that there weren't issues with the world that it replaced? Here's something else that's not new, romanticisation of the rural idyll. It's a myth. You think people born farmers who were always going to be farmers didn't feel disillusioned with having a life of toil without any real choice or meaning? You think they didn't get lonely seeing the same small group of people all day every day? And that's before we even address the fact that the uprooting of people was far more severe, permanent and widespread two hundred years ago than it is today. I can drive across the country in a few hours to see a friend who moved away for work, or pick up the phone, or read his facebook updates and yet you look back to a time of mass migration to the cities from the country with no place to return to (booming population and more efficient farming, surplus people forced to leave the countryside) to make your point?

It's total nonsense.

Here's my thesis. Disillusionment, boredom and loneliness are part of the human condition. That's why things that kill our time, hold our interest and make us feel connected to others are so attractive to us and why we spend so much of our surplus productivity on them. We've gotten much better at it, we've created technological marvels that do it. We have never had it as good as this and if you think otherwise then you need to take off those rear facing rose tinted lenses.

On November 27 2013 08:17 MoltkeWarding wrote:
Kwark is saying: out of the 18 possible moves with which a Chess game can be opened, we can do away with the majority of them without impoverishing the game. In fact, Kwark would be perfectly happy to abolish all openings except A4 or H4, so children don't get sidetracked by sub-optimal play.

On November 27 2013 08:18 IgnE wrote:


I don't think anyone yearns to go back to the 18th century. But it's total nonsense to say that we have it the best it can be.

Except that using Jane Austin as a reference for how people lived in the 18th century is about as useful as taking 50 shades of grey as an accurate representation of modern society.

Boring people leading boring everyday lives didn't get written about then, just as they don't get written about now (although for some reason they do get televised in reality shows).

THIS little work was finished in the year 1803, and intended for immediate publication. It was disposed of to a bookseller, it was even advertised, and why the business proceeded no farther, the author has never been able to learn. That any bookseller should think it worth-while to purchase what he did not think it worth-while to publish seems extraordinary. But with this, neither the author nor the public have any other concern than as some observation is necessary upon those parts of the work which thirteen years have made comparatively obsolete. The public are entreated to bear in mind that thirteen years have passed since it was finished, many more since it was begun, and that during that period, places, manners, books, and opinions have undergone considerable changes.

On November 27 2013 08:21 KwarK wrote:

I don't think today is some Platonic ideal but it's the best we've come up with, certainly better than everything that came before it. Try spending a week without the internet, tv or radio, without reading anything but a handful of books you've read a dozen times before, without using a phone, and without talking to anyone who doesn't live within walking distance. That's how people used to live. It was shit. It was so shit we invented all those things to get away from it. There is a reason alcoholism was rampant, why England used to have a pub on every street and why drinking was the main form of leisure activity, it's because alcohol was the first big breakthrough humanity made in making life less shit.

WASHINGTON -- The Treasury Department and Internal Revenue Service announced on Tuesday new guidelines clarifying the definition of political activity for nonprofit organizations.

The new rules, which still face many procedural hurdles, would limit the political activities of nonprofit organizations and help prevent political actors from using these groups to provide anonymity to donors.

Since the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United ruling, nonprofit organizations, particularly social welfare nonprofits organized under section 501(c)(4) of the tax code and trade associations organized under section 501(c)(6), have radically increased their reported political spending. In 2012, these groups reported to the Federal Election Commission spending in excess of $300 million. That was up from $69 million in 2008 and nearly $6 million in 2004, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Much of this spending was allowed because of the lack of clear guidelines for political spending by nonprofits. The statute governing political activity by these nonprofits says that they must work "exclusively" on their social welfare purpose, but the regulatory interpretation of that statute says that "exclusively" means "primarily." The term "primarily," has been criticized since it does not specify the acceptable percentage of political spending for tax exempt groups.

To determine whether a nonprofit is engaged "primarily" in its social purpose instead of politics, the IRS uses a "fact and circumstances" test; an IRS employee determines whether a given communication or action is political or not. For years, there has been no clear guidance for what constitutes political activity.

On November 27 2013 07:56 IgnE wrote:


I posted arguments that were directed at clarifying the bolded part in your first post. Obviously, as I said, there have been positive changes to the public health since the 18th century.



I suppose it doesn't literally contradict anything you wrote. I was responding to this:
Food companies aren't out there to make you as healthy as possible, but that's in part because of preferences for unhealthy food.
Because why would you say that unless you were implying that food companies were simply fulfilling a demand that has existed and will exist, independent of them. You seemed to be strongly implying that food companies aren't out there to make you as healthy as possible, because they are just trying to make money on people's own natural proclivities for self-destruction or something to that effect. Hence the perceived conflict.

On November 27 2013 08:30 IgnE wrote:


But surely you realize that no one is saying that the internet, books, or phones are the cause of modern anomie?

Edit: and neither are they a panacea

On November 27 2013 08:29 MoltkeWarding wrote:


Uhm. Have you ever read Jane Austen? Mrs. Bates? Sir Lucas? The protagonist of Persuasion? Listen to Emile Bronte's evaluation of Austen: "She ruffles her reader by nothing vehement, disturbs him with nothing profound. The passions are perfectly unknown to her: she rejects even a speaking acquaintance with that Stormy Sisterhood."

The question of the relationship between novel and history, and how historians legitimately use the novel, and other forms of literature to gauge the past is a difficult subject, but you completely throw off the debate by comparing J.A. with Fifty Shades of Grey. Incidentally, historians can learn something by reading Fifty Shades of Grey, but it is not historical in the class of a J.A. novel. Consider only what Jane Austen felt necessary to write in her preface to Northanger Abbey:

Iranian officials say that the White House is misleading the public about the details of an interim nuclear agreement reached over the weekend in Geneva.

Iran and Western nations including the United States came to an agreement on the framework for an interim deal late Saturday night in Geneva. The deal has yet to be implemented

The White House released a multi-page fact sheet containing details of the draft agreement shortly after the deal was announced.

However, Iranian foreign ministry official on Tuesday rejected the White House’s version of the deal as “invalid” and accused Washington of releasing a factually inaccurate primer that misleads the American public.

“What has been released by the website of the White House as a fact sheet is a one-sided interpretation of the agreed text in Geneva and some of the explanations and words in the sheet contradict the text of the Joint Plan of Action, and this fact sheet has unfortunately been translated and released in the name of the Geneva agreement by certain media, which is not true,” Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Marziyeh Afkham told the Iranian press on Tuesday.

Afkham and officials said that the White House has “modified” key details of the deal and released their own version of the agreement.

Iran’s right to enrich uranium, the key component in a nuclear weapon, is fully recognized under the draft released by Tehran.

“This comprehensive solution would enable Iran to fully enjoy its right to nuclear energy for peaceful purposes under the relevant articles of the NPT in conformity with its obligations therein,” the agreement reads, according to a copy released to Iranian state-run media.

“This comprehensive solution would involve a mutually defined enrichment programme with practical limits and transparency measures to ensure the peaceful nature of the programme,” the Iranian draft reads. “This comprehensive solution would constitute an integrated whole where nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.”

Iran’s objection to the deal raises new concerns about final stage talks meant to ensure that the deal is implemented in the next few weeks.

The White House confirmed to the Washington Free Beacon on Monday that the final details of the plan have yet to be worked out, meaning that Iran is not yet beholden to a six month freeze its nuclear activities.

“Technical details to implement the Joint Plan of Action must be finalized before the terms of the Plan begin,” a senior administration official told the Free Beacon. “The P5+1 and Iran are working on what the timeframe is.”

The White House could not provide additional details on the timeframe when approached by the Free Beacon on Tuesday.

As the details are finalized, Iran will have the ability to continue its most controversial enrichment program. This drew criticism from proponents of tough nuclear restrictions.

“The six month clock should have started early Sunday morning,” said former Ambassador Mark Wallace, the CEO of United Against a Nuclear Iran (UANI). “If this is a serious agreement, the P5+1 must ensure that these negotiations do not become a tool for Iran to further increase its enrichment abilities.”

Christians United for Israel (CUFI) Executive Director David Brog said he fears that the White House may have been “played by the Iranians.”

“This may prove to be yet another worrisome sign that the Obama Administration was played by the Iranians,” Brog told the Free Beacon in a statement. “Their concessions were either illusory or meaningless, while ours will resuscitate the Iranian economy.”

The White House said in its fact sheet on the deal that it could release up to $7 billion dollars to Iran during the first phase of the agreement.

The United States additionally agreed to suspend “certain sanctions on gold and precious metals, Iran’s auto sector, and Iran’s petrochemical exports, potentially providing Iran approximately $1.5 billion in revenue,” according to the now disputed fact sheet.

Iran could earn another $4.2 billion in oil revenue under the deal.

Another “$400 million in governmental tuition assistance” could also be “transferred from restricted Iranian funds directly to recognized educational institutions in third countries to defray the tuition costs of Iranian students,” according to the White House.

While Iranian foreign ministry officials did not specify their precise disagreements with the White House, they insisted that “the Iranian delegation was much rigid and laid much emphasis on the need for this accuracy.”

Asia is on the cusp of a full-blown arms race. The escalating clash between China and almost all its neighbours in the Pacific has reached a threshold. All other economic issues at this point are becoming secondary.

Beijing's implicit threat to shoot down any aircraft that fails to adhere to its new air control zone in the East China Sea is a watershed moment for the world. The issue cannot easily be finessed. Other countries either comply, or they don't comply. Somebody has to back down.

The gravity of the latest dispute should by now be obvious even to those who don't pay attention the Pacific Rim, the most dangerous geostrategic fault line in the world.

....

Mr Hagel asserted categorically that Washington will stand behind its alliance with Japan, the anchor of American security in Asia. “The United States reaffirms its long-standing policy that Article V of the US Japan Mutual Defense Treaty applies to the Senkaku Islands,” he said.

Whether China fully believes this another matter, of course. The Senkaku islands offer a perfect opportunity for Beijing to test the resolve of the Obama Administration since it is far from clear to the war-weary American people why they should risk conflict in Asia over these uninhabited rocks near Taiwan, and since it also far from clear whether President Obama's Asian Pivot is much more than a rhetorical flourish.

Besides, Beijing has just watched the US throw its long-time ally Saudi Arabia under a bus over Iran. It has watched Moscow score an alleged victory over Washington in Syria. You and I may think it is an error to infer too much US weakness from these incidents, but that is irrelevant. Beijing seems to be drawing its own conclusions.
....

On November 27 2013 09:00 farvacola wrote:
I'm not sure, but I'll forestall judgment until more news sites give the story coverage. Pardon my distaste for the Washington Free Beacon