A very eloquent defense of a much maligned word.
Recent Comments
 | suzy blah blah on For a Crisp Spring Saturday… |
 | Narration on For a Crisp Spring Saturday… |
| Narration on For a Crisp Spring Saturday… |
| Narration on How does vinegar mix with tin… |
| suzy blah blah on For a Crisp Spring Saturday… |
| suzy blah blah on March against Monsanto this… |
| Narration on For a Crisp Spring Saturday… |
| Narration on For a Crisp Spring Saturday… |
| Narration on For a Crisp Spring Saturday… |
 | Forest Queen on March against Monsanto this… |
| suzy blah blah on Priorities |
 | Cookie on For a Crisp Spring Saturday… |
| suzy blah blah on For a Crisp Spring Saturday… |
| Anonymous on Priorities |
| Narration on For a Crisp Spring Saturday… |
37 comments
Comments feed for this article
November 20, 2010 at 8:22 am
Erasmus
In terms of public policy, I have no quarrel with O’Donnell. I never tire of pointing out to anyone to the right of me that our economy is already socialized to a massive degree — even our health care system. Our schools, police, agriculture, military, libraries, roads….. an endless list of society’s tools for warding off barbarism and penury….. are socialized. — That said, the pedant in me wishes O’Donnell could be more precise in his language. Cuba is a “mixed economy”? That would be welcome news to the would-be entrepreneurs on that island. I applaud the recent changes and proposals in Cuba, but how can I not see them as a movement away from classic socialism? O’Donnell is not alone in adhering to a diluted idea of socialism. In his mind, J.M. Keynes is a “socialist.” Karl Marx would not agree. In truth, we are all “mixed economy”-ists today. When Castro yells “socialism or death,” we know exactly what he means. When O’Donnell utters “we are all socialists,” we had better ask for a long list of footnotes, accompanied by a host of asterisks.
November 20, 2010 at 8:23 am
Mitch
Yes, Eric, very eloquent. I doubt anyone listens to both Glenn Beck and Larry O’Donnell, so perhaps he was preaching to the “progressive” community, or trying to keep some panicked MSNBC manager from locking him off the air.
Do you really think defending “socialism” is going to help any American politician in the next election cycle? (That’s a real question.)
November 20, 2010 at 8:31 am
Moonshadow
Damn that was EXCELLENT!
November 20, 2010 at 8:38 am
Eric Kirk
Do you really think defending “socialism” is going to help any American politician in the next election cycle? (That’s a real question.)
No. And quite frankly, I don’t think the use of the word to attack really works anymore. It didn’t work for McCain.
November 20, 2010 at 8:41 am
Anonymous
By this past elections it would not appear that everyone is a socialist.
A loose definition of “progressive” is “socialist”.
Who would have thought that all the “progressives” would get waxed in the Eureka election! Kind of cool, gives you some hope for the city.
November 20, 2010 at 9:22 am
Ernie's Place
Well heck yeah, I’m a socialist now. Now that I’m on Medicare.
Just this morning I got a papercut and a hangnail. I have a doctor’s appointment this afternoon. Did I thank all of you for paying for it??? Well, thanks!
November 20, 2010 at 10:04 am
the last stone
Clear, rational, accurate. Thanks for posting.
Though I’m not expecting that accurate rational arguments will suddenly play a significant role in electoral politics…
November 20, 2010 at 10:19 am
mresquan
Mitch asked,”Do you really think defending “socialism” is going to help any American politician in the next election cycle? (That’s a real question.)”
Probably not.But pointing out when right wingers and Tea Partiers are blindly (or not) hypocritical about what good “Socialism” brings them,as a lot of things they use in everyday life,and even the think tanks they prop up,come as a result of some sort of government assistance.
I can’t tell how much I would love to see the Tea Party movement go after government handouts given to Chamber of Commerce sects,not something we are likely to see happen.
And if you really want to put a dent in the that movement,redirect funds currently going into Social Security and put them into some educational funding to make it easier for a kid just out of school to go a decent trade school,and begin to bring manufacturing jobs back here to the states,and quit relying on Communist China to provide our goods.
November 20, 2010 at 10:36 am
Mitch
Ernie,
I’m glad you’ve been able to get that paper cut taken care of.
Leaving morals completely aside, the economic justification for universal health care is that enabling all people to see a doctor when a problem is at an early stage is a way to reduce the society’s overall costs for health care. Early cancer diagnosis can vastly reduce the cost of treatment. Early detection of communicable diseases can prevent epidemics.
With anything that is offered for free, there will be some abuse. That is understood by those who still favor offering universal health coverage as a way to reduce the medical costs born by society. It is the same as shoplifting — it could be prevented by frisking every customer on the way out, but most businesses feel it is wiser to bear the cost.
Fortunately, for the vast, vast majority of people, going to see the doctor is not a fun treat, so most doctors offices will not be overwhelmed by people requesting care for their paper cuts or hangnails.
November 20, 2010 at 1:15 pm
John Lenin
History has proven its past that socialism does not work.
In the case of extreme socialism with Joseph Stalin, he would put his farmers in a ditch, if they didn’t give up their crops to be distrubuted evenly throughout Soviet Russia. Socialism does not fit the needs of people, Capitalism does. History has proven it’s past, and Socialism without a doubt, does not work. As Franklin D. Roosevelt’s famous saying goes:
“Capitalism is unequally divided riches while socialism is equally divided poverty.”
While appealing to many people, socialism is wrong. As famed French economist Frederic Bastiat put it, “The [socialist] state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else.”
To begin, socialism is bad because it is condescending. Socialism takes away the liberty to decide how you wish to spend your money; it presupposes you are not smart enough to decide what you need. Your income was yours, now it is the government’s and it will provide for you what it thinks you need.
Further, socialism is inefficient because it makes economic calculation impossible. This fact is really common sense (thanks to an economist named Ludwig von Mises). With a central government owning all (or any) means of production and distribution there can be no competition, profits, losses, market prices, or market, for that matter
Finally, socialism is bad because it is immoral. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.” This amounts to nothing more than compulsory servitude.
(Source Sterling T. Terrell)
November 20, 2010 at 2:13 pm
moviedad
So right, why should we fix Ernie’s finger now when it’s only a bandaid. Let’s wait until it gets infected and requires a $10,000. surgery to save his life.
November 20, 2010 at 2:16 pm
moviedad
It’s amazing how adamant people are against their own benefit. It’s like a battered woman who refuses to believe she deserves better treatment.
November 20, 2010 at 3:05 pm
Ernie's Place
Steve Heilig on healthcare.
November 20, 2010 at 4:34 pm
Eric Kirk
Finally, socialism is bad because it is immoral.
It’s kind of a trite discussion at my age, but I am obligated to ask you whether publicly owned police and fire departments are immoral. The military? Roads? Sidewalks?
November 20, 2010 at 5:06 pm
Not A Native
OK J. Lenin. Nothing is more socialistic than mandating that adults provide(at great expense and sacrifice) for the material, emotional, and security needs of infants and children. Only an extreme socialist would hold that any baby that can’t take care of itself has a right to be cared for by others.
November 20, 2010 at 5:06 pm
tra
Yup, it’s about time we instituted toll booths on sidewalks.
November 20, 2010 at 7:37 pm
Anonymous
Whats wrong with a toll booth, they have one at Lil’ Tooby Park. I was charged $30 bucks because I had 16 kids at my sons 8th birthday party. Now thats fair, seems cheap when you add up what it cost to operate the Park and thats a public Park.
November 20, 2010 at 7:52 pm
moviedad
Notice how it’s all or nothing. We can’t talk about using the best of socialism and the best of capitalism. No, it’s so arbitrary that it stinks of brain-washed mentality.
I still go back to my original argument, way back…..people I know from Germany seem to be doing pretty damn good. great benefits, but Gosh, I didn’t realize they were actually all living in a hell, they look so happy……
November 20, 2010 at 9:31 pm
tra
“We can’t talk about using the best of socialism and the best of capitalism.”
Why would we even want to discuss such a thing, when it’s so much more fun and profitable to privatize profits while socializing costs!
November 21, 2010 at 9:09 am
Peter Meter
Nice comments ; ” TRA”raldo .
November 21, 2010 at 4:05 pm
Ernie's Place
Police, fire, and road departments are a good example to use when comparing democracy to communism. It used to be that when we need a fire department, we would establish a district and a tax base, we put it on a ballot and vote whether or not we would fund that fire department.
The way communism works is; a group of people come along, and they want to build a trail, or a bike path, or something similar, that nobody wants to fund. The bicyclists are not willing to tax themselves, but feel comfortable in taking money, and road safety away from the group of people that fund roads. I have nothing against bicyclists, in fact I think that they should have their very own roads, as far away from motorized traffic as possible. It seems that the taxpayers would rather have fire departments and roads than bike trails, but communism doesn‘t give us that choice. What happens is our government officials take money away from fire police and road departments, because they are “over-funded”. Then they give back to the departments the funding that they can prove that they need. Sadly, a good portion of the remaining money is spend on social programs and things that the average taxpayer would never approve.
Someday we will be able to vote on whether or not we want to fund some of the things that our government officials want us to pay for. At that point we will be able to compare communism to democracy, in the voting booth…
Until then we are all communist, whether we like it or not.
November 21, 2010 at 4:11 pm
Ernie's Place
Communism: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.
Socialism: From each according to his ability, to each according to his deeds.
November 21, 2010 at 5:04 pm
Eric Kirk
You should know Ernie that a polls some years back revealed that the majority of Americans identified “from each according to his ability…” as being contained within the Constitution. The same poll also indicated that Judge Wapner was the most popular Supreme Court Justice.
So what if I don’t want to fund a police or fire department, but someone comes along and forces me to. Is that communism? Is it communism that I’m forced to pay for the Iraq War. Or more freeways (which I definitely do not want to fund)? Or drills to prepare authorities to combat dam bombing terror marijuana growers?
There are a few out there who don’t want to be compelled to pay for anything, and to them every such thing is communist. Like socialism, it’s a relative term if you aren’t describing a very particular ideological system.
November 21, 2010 at 6:52 pm
Anonymous
So its kind of like the Park Board, they use public money, in the form of donations, to fulfill their own private dream and also control every inch of the dream and then take credit for everything? What would call the Park Board in all of this?
November 21, 2010 at 7:09 pm
Ernie's Place
It’s called a democracy when the majority rules by vote. When that vote is bypassed it becomes something else, call it what you will. I follow the rules of society everyday, some that I may not agree with. For instance I feel that there are times when I could drive perfectly safely at 80mph, but I don’t because that is society’s rule.
I simply want the right for citizens to decide what they want and not want without having the funding high-jacked by people with projects that would never be funded by popular vote.
I accept society as generally good. Definitely better than anarchy. Just like you, there are many things that I don’t like about it. You don’t like freeways. I don’t like freeway funding being diverted to projects that were not intended by the voters.
Maybe if people didn’t feel so powerless, more of them would vote. Maybe if people felt that they had more control they would pay more attention to details. Sadly, young people have not had the opportunity to see as many things in life as some of us have. That doesn’t mean that they aren’t very intelligent. If they felt that they had more control with their voting, Judge Wapner may very well have been a supreme court justice. Do you think that would be all that bad? I personally think that he would be much better than some of the justices that we DO have.
November 21, 2010 at 8:23 pm
Eric Kirk
Well, are we talking about general transportation funds? Because if so, I don’t think there’s ever a strict consensus as to how they are spent. At this point, I think the majority of California voters – living as they do in urban areas – probably support expenditures on public transportation more than freeways. So if we can draw some money out of the populous condensation for bike trails that they drive up here to use, it’s probably in our interest.
Democracy is a very complicated process, and what the voters “want” is often harder to ascertain than what we actually need. So we give our representatives discretion to balance the conflicting desires and interests.
Judge Wapner is a smart guy, but I don’t think he is qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice. I actually don’t think there are any Justices who are unqualified. I simply have serious philosophical disagreements with about 4 of them.
November 21, 2010 at 9:25 pm
Anonymous
Who paid for the bike path trails throughout Paradise Ridge area of the King Range National Conservation Area, Queen Peak, north of Shelter Cove Road? Was that only funded with private money or Federal funding or both? Who had a say in that project if public funding was used? The half million people who us that bike trail every year?
November 21, 2010 at 10:00 pm
Mitch
You don’t think there are any Justices who are unqualified?!
I guess as a lawyer you kind of have to say that, but for heaven’s sake!
This is the Court that will go down in history for Bush v Gore. If that isn’t disqualifying, I don’t know what would be.
November 21, 2010 at 11:01 pm
Eric Kirk
Well, I was speaking in terms of competence alone. Knowledge of the law, and while I am not impressed with Scalia either philosophically nor ethically, he is in fact brilliant.
November 22, 2010 at 6:33 am
moviedad
“Citizens United” is the biggest crime of this court. Just wait for a couple of more election cycles, and we’ll have a dictatorship that has the face of that smug, self-satisfied, woman who is being made Queen, by the media. Palin’s campaign has been ongoing. you can’t open a newspaper, turn on a tv, or listen to the radio (Thank God for KMUD) without seeing, or hearing Sarah Palin.
November 22, 2010 at 7:15 am
Mitch
It’s not worth belaboring the point, I guess, but history will acknowledge the criminality of the decision in Bush v Gore. It raises the philosophical question of whether a Justice can be a criminal if he is the final authority on who is a criminal and he states he is not.
Brilliant or not, it was probably the single most corrupt action I’ve seen in my lifetime, and that’s including the Goldman Sachs bailout. One was a theft of the United States Treasury; the other was the theft of the United States Presidency.
November 22, 2010 at 7:27 am
Ernie's Place
Two things, I wonder what would have happened if the decision would have gone to Gore, and I wonder what judge Wapner would have decided. (Humor)
November 22, 2010 at 8:08 am
Eric Kirk
Two things, I wonder what would have happened if the decision would have gone to Gore, and I wonder what judge Wapner would have decided. (Humor)
There would have been yelling and screaming either way, but there is a general consensus in the legal community that the majority’s imposition of the Equal Protections clause holding that recount procedures must be identical in each county across the state to be valid was not only impractical, but an overreach of authority. It was very telling that the majority insisted that the ruling should have no precedent value and that nobody better actually cite the case in subsequent lawsuits.
November 22, 2010 at 8:40 am
Ernie's Place
Eric
You, of course, realize that you are making my case that popular vote should rule.
November 22, 2010 at 9:43 am
Bolithio
Maybe if people didn’t feel so powerless, more of them would vote. Maybe if people felt that they had more control they would pay more attention to details. Sadly, young people have not had the opportunity to see as many things in life as some of us have.
Im young, I think, (30s) and I feel pretty powerless when it comes to voting. I think I can speak for the vast majority of my friends my age too. I have a brother who is ten years younger then me, and he is really apathetic. He tells me its hard enough to make a living, get laid, and so on – let alone try to decompress ‘whats really going on’ in politics.
I would consider my self more cynical than apathetic. I vote, but generally find the experience anti-climatic. Local stuff tends to have more excitement, and even appears to directly effect me more, but is still hard to get into. When you engage people who are ensconced in politics, they tend to drench you with very strong opinions. There is allot of talking at people. This, like religion, I believe turns people off faster than the speed of light. The masses are content, for the time being, to carry on without turbulence.
November 22, 2010 at 1:29 pm
Mitch
Justice Stevens’ dissent puts it crisply, in completely appropriate though rarely heard language from a Justice:
“Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year’s Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation’s confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.”
November 22, 2010 at 2:55 pm
Moonshadow
I was not going to comment on this thread but then Bolithio posted. I’m 55 and I feel much the same. The recent election cycle has very nearly completely alienated me from our political system. The acrimony, stubbornness, and general lack of civility in the process has completely turned me off. While I did go vote on the 2nd it felt more like obligation than an act borne out of civic duty. I cannot quite bring myself to not vote, but I no longer feel like my vote has much value. Even if it does make a difference in the outcome of close races it still feels completely devalued by the lack of respect the candidates and parties show one another AND to the voters. None of it makes me feel respected or valued.