Re-writing History

[Bonam]

Alright go get a textbook and become an astrophysicist if it so easily done. The fact that you think it is so easily done shows a vast ignorance of what formal education does.

Well, since you asked, I have in fact personally learned several subjects independently in just this way. Specifically: orbital mechanics, nonlinear control theory, and calculus of variations. These were topics that were prerequisites for subjects I took during my PhD studies, but had not been exposed to previously and had no time to take formally, and so simply learned them on my own as needed.

This is something that anyone can do, if you have the prerequisite knowledge to learn something, you can learn it reasonably effectively without an instructor, provided that you have some time and motivation.

Again when most people get a second opinon it is not because they have the ability to question the diagnosis. It is because they don't like the diagnosis. To the few people who aren't doctors that can understand the diagnosis cool but their knowledge is still a fraction of the doctors. Most people don't understand what an actual flu is so forgive me If I don't expect them to be able to diagnosis themselves.

With a flu you may be correct indeed, but when a person is diagnosed with a serious condition, they might be motivated to find out more about it. They may have to live with the condition for years, and may learn about it at a certain rate over that whole timeframe. After a while, their knowledge may be quite substantial. Of course, they would not have the practical medical experience to diagnose or treat the condition, but they could gain an understanding of what the condition is, what bodily processes it affects, what symptoms are associated with it, what exacerbating factors to avoid, etc.

I think you are in general underestimating the ability of a typical individual to learn something, given time and motivation. "Experts" are not superhuman geniuses gifted with mystical knowledge that is unknowable to the masses; they are simply people who spent time to learn something. Anyone with reasonable intelligence can do the same, and many do.

Edited March 26, 2010 by Bonam

[Guest TrueMetis]

Well, since you asked, I have in fact personally learned several subjects independently in just this way. Specifically: orbital mechanics, nonlinear control theory, and calculus of variations. These were topics that were prerequisites for subjects I took during my PhD studies, but had not been exposed to previously and had no time to take formally, and so simply learned them on my own as needed.

This is something that anyone can do, if you have the prerequisite knowledge to learn something, you can learn it reasonably effectively without an instructor, provided that you have some time and motivation.

I remember learning the basics of those in my Grade twelve physics class. I struggled with my teacher so If you did it without congrats but that it not the norm. Unfortunately the vast majority of people don't have the time or motivation or the prerequisite knowledge to do it without a teacher of some kind.

With a flu you may be correct indeed, but when a person is diagnosed with a serious condition, they might be motivated to find out more about it. They may have to live with the condition for years, and may learn about it at a certain rate over that whole timeframe. After a while, their knowledge may be quite substantial. Of course, they would not have the practical medical experience to diagnose or treat the condition, but they could gain an understanding of what the condition is, what bodily processes it affects, what symptoms are associated with it, what exacerbating factors to avoid, etc.

I think you are in general underestimating the ability of a typical individual to learn something, given time and motivation. "Experts" are not superhuman geniuses gifted with mystical knowledge that is unknowable to the masses; they are simply people who spent time to learn something. Anyone with reasonable intelligence can do the same, and many do.

And many more don't. Call me a cynic but the average person lacks so much knowledge that should be basic it is really quite depressing. I have been unable to find it but I recall a study showing scientific literacy vs education level that showed a the highschool level the majority of indivduals didn't know basic facts about are world. While these facts were known by university level people. I've been trying to find it but no luck so far. Overall I think all levels of education must be improved and the first and best step towards that would be the abolishment of teachers unions as a bad teacher does so much damage to a young childs education.

Oh and I have to fix a mistake I said no people who say they have to challenge the experts should be allowed on a schoolboard. Which is what I though the schoolboard dentist said he actually said they had to stand up to the expert. Slight difference.

[Pliny]

If an individual, without permission, posts a religious artifact or symbol on government property, then of course its not an endorsement by the government.

But if there is a stone tablet with the ten commandments permenantly installed in front of government property, then yes, this is an endorsement of that religion.

It is someone's endorsement of religion. It is not govenrment's endorsement. Government's endorsment comes in the form of laws.

The ten commandments permanently (Impossible in the first place - nothing is permanent)

installed on the front of government (Public) property is not an endorsement by government of a religion. There must be a law that establishes it there for it to be a government endorsement.

The implication of an endorsement is due to proximity. The religious item that belongs to only one religion is displayed in front of a non religious building. That implies endorsement.

I suppose the absence of any religious display is an endorsement of atheism?

There must be a law that states endorsement of a religion for government endorsement to exist. I only see an individual in government who wishes to display his personal religious affiliation. What would you like - a law prohibiting the free practice of one's religion? Yes, Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhists, Atheists and Sciencetologists can, as individuals, display their symbology as well. Good luck to them all in getting elected.

When I go to a church, even on public property, there is no mixed message. I know what the purpose of the church is. I just don't want the courthouse to also have references to a religion. Because its purpose is not religious.

Here is the crux of the matter. A church symbolizes it's essence at every instance and opportunity. An individual may do so also. Government must make a law in order to endorse a religion. You are simply not making the differentiation between an individual's and a church's endorsement of itself as a religion and what government is. Government is not Catholic or Protestant unless it states so as law. It is not capitalist or socialist unless it's laws define it as such. It is law that defines government. If one doesn't approve of the ten commandments on public property take it up with the individual who put it there OR advocate to repeal the law that put it there. You will find no law to repeal. If no one objects you may have your wish but chances are you would like a law preventing such free practice of religion.

Individuals can express any belief they wish. A turban or a ten commandments shirt, by proximity, imply that person has a relationship with a specific religion.

Same thing with a public building that has a permenant religious installation. It implies a relationship between the building and the religion.

On a church? Fine. On a courthouse? No.

In your mind it "implies" a relationship. Government is law. If there is no law there is no relationship. You may make your case to the individuals responsible for installing and upholding the display.

I will accept your argument as entirely valid if public funds were used to erect or construct a display - that would indeed be an endorsement of a religion and violation of the law. The first amendment states it shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion. It cannot use public funds for the promotion of a religion.

So perhaps in some instances where public money was spent on displays or monuments you have a valid point.

[Pliny]

"Experts" are not superhuman geniuses gifted with mystical knowledge that is unknowable to the masses; they are simply people who spent time to learn something. Anyone with reasonable intelligence can do the same, and many do.

So does saying so make you an expert on education or something?

Just kidding! I entirely agree and well said. The lib-left would of course have some concerns regarding the ability of the masses to even spend time to learn something.

[bloodyminded]

So does saying so make you an expert on education or something?

Just kidding! I entirely agree and well said. The lib-left would of course have some concerns regarding the ability of the masses to even spend time to learn something.

Nonsense. I have only ever been informed by right-leaning posters that my opinion means less than, say, Ann Coulter's because I do not have a political science degree. They also soberly inform me that if a four-star general--say, Mr. Petraeus--says something about Afghanistan or Iraq, we damn well better beleive him...because (wait for it) he's the "expert." (This, even though Generals of this type are evry bit as much political animals as military ones.)

Or that Sarah Palin being "rural" and--crucially--a "hockey mon" gives her special insight. Claims to authority, again, albeit hilariously.

"George W. Bush went to Yale," I'm told indignantly. "Did you, Bloodyminded, go to Yale? No? then don't presume to quesiton the man's assessments of the Earth." (Presumably it's about 6 000 years old; but since I didn't go to Yale, who am I to argue?)

It's not that your points are in and of themselves incorrect, Pliny; it's that you've been taught the conventional pieties about "liberal elites" and so on, apparently unaware that it's a propaganda effort put forth by the--yes, you got it--conservative elites, who despise and look down upon the masses of humanity at least as much as does the "lib-left"...and probably moreso.

Arguably the apotheosis of all this has been the conservative Straussian movement, which has birthed intellectuals such as Allan Bloom, Bill Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, et al. These guys are elitists--quite openly elitists, who look down upon the masses, notably including the religious conservatives who vote for these atheists. That is, they are not accidentally snobs and elitists: it is part of their philosophy.

Evidently, it's seductive, as power always is; so even old-school hold-power-to-account gadflys like Christopher Hitchens support and defend and admire their intellectual elitism, their contempt for the "common man," so long as the insufferable elitists are authoring this or that war. Hitchens explicitly made the case FOR their deceit and propaganda, since us regular folks can't be trusted to support wars enthusiastically enough.

I can't imagine a more paternalistic and hateful ideological stance as wehat we've seen from the Rigth Wing in recent years.

Just because some Right-Wing millionaire, who has achieved wealth and influence and an elite position by decrying "elites" (eliding his or her own culpability) tells you about the snobbishness of the "lib-left," doesn't make it a scientific fact.

And when he or she informs you, from his or her position of monumental ignorance, that the "lib-left" looks down on everyone, and that this is a matter of philosophical distinction...well, it's simply not true. There is no philosophical entity called "conservatism" that adheres to some notion of respect for human beings; just as there is no philosophical entity called "the left" that looks down on everybody.

these promiscuous simplificaitons and overgeneralizations have been concocted by porpagandists, who are just prescient enough to cite the "proper" philosophical or Economic "authority" to buttress their wholly partisan and ideological arguments.

Edited March 27, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Bonam]

Overall I think all levels of education must be improved and the first and best step towards that would be the abolishment of teachers unions as a bad teacher does so much damage to a young childs education.

Couldn't agree with you more on this point. Bad teachers can absolutely destroy someone's motivation and interest to learn about a subject, or even to learn anything in general.

[Bonam]

Nonsense. I have only ever been informed by right-leaning posters that my opinion means less than, say, Ann Coulter's because I do not have a political science degree. They also soberly inform me that if a four-star general--say, Mr. Petraeus--says something about Afghanistan or Iraq, we damn well better beleive him...because (wait for it) he's the "expert." (This, even though Generals of this type are evry bit as much political animals as military ones.)

Or that Sarah Palin being "rural" and--crucially--a "hockey mon" gives her special insight. Claims to authority, again, albeit hilariously.

"George W. Bush went to Yale," I'm told indignantly. "Did you, Bloodyminded, go to Yale? No? then don't presume to quesiton the man's assessments of the Earth." (Presumably it's about 6 000 years old; but since I didn't go to Yale, who am I to argue?)

It's not that your points are in and of themselves incorrect, Pliny; it's that you've been taught the conventional pieties about "liberal elites" and so on, apparently unaware that it's a propaganda effort put forth by the--yes, you got it--conservative elites, who despise and look down upon the masses of humanity at least as much as does the "lib-left"...and probably moreso.

...

An appeal to authority is a fallacy whether it is committed by a liberal or a conservative, or any other individual of any political stripe. An argument must stand on its own merit, not merely because some expert with supposedly infallible knowledge says so. That being said, referring to the statements of someone who has extensively researched and written about a specific topic can be useful. Their thoughts on that topic, which can encompass a large amount of literature, can then be taken into account and discussed, rather than the poster having to write it all out themselves to get their point across. There is significant value in the things that an expert may have to say on a subject, and I'd argue that that value is far greater when the topic of discussion is to do with hard science rather than politics or ideology, but in neither case is an expert an absolute, unquestionable, authority.

Like I said before, any individual, whatever their qualifications, can choose to think about a topic and come to their own conclusions.

[Pliny]

Nonsense. I have only ever been informed by right-leaning posters that my opinion means less than, say, Ann Coulter's because I do not have a political science degree. They also soberly inform me that if a four-star general--say, Mr. Petraeus--says something about Afghanistan or Iraq, we damn well better beleive him...because (wait for it) he's the "expert." (This, even though Generals of this type are evry bit as much political animals as military ones.)

Or that Sarah Palin being "rural" and--crucially--a "hockey mon" gives her special insight. Claims to authority, again, albeit hilariously.

"George W. Bush went to Yale," I'm told indignantly. "Did you, Bloodyminded, go to Yale? No? then don't presume to quesiton the man's assessments of the Earth." (Presumably it's about 6 000 years old; but since I didn't go to Yale, who am I to argue?)

I'm sorry, did I say you must question only lib-left "experts"? If I did. I apologize.

You should question those right wing experts as well.

Besides you are a lib-left kool-aid drinker and no expert on anything so STFU.(Joke)

We certainly must be aware of our place but experts need to be questioned and dismissals without answers to our questions are tantamount to oppression. That doesn't mean, as elitists tend to do, to treat others, who want answers, in a condescending manner.

It's not that your points are in and of themselves incorrect, Pliny; it's that you've been taught the conventional pieties about "liberal elites" and so on, apparently unaware that it's a propaganda effort put forth by the--yes, you got it--conservative elites, who despise and look down upon the masses of humanity at least as much as does the "lib-left"...and probably moreso.

A lot of people mistake me as a supporter of the right wing. I certainly fit the mold because I definitely do not support the left wing. I am a person who demands government restrict itself in it's mandate, keep itself limited to justice and the defense of the nation and the right to the individual ownership of property and the protection of that right.

So don't go on about my right wing indoctrination.

Arguably the apotheosis of all this has been the conservative Straussian movement, which has birthed intellectuals such as Allan Bloom, Bill Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, et al. These guys are elitists--quite openly elitists, who look down upon the masses, notably including the religious conservatives who vote for these atheists. That is, they are not accidentally snobs and elitists: it is part of their philosophy.

I agree. I call these people the Neocons. They have been traditionally left-wing as was the Straussian movement and have moved to the right because the left in their estimation is too wishy-washy to achieve socialist ideals. I have listened to Billy Kristol somewhat and might give him a little leeway considering him just a conservative. I would have to know his history a bit before I make a real call on his label.

Evidently, it's seductive, as power always is; so even old-school hold-power-to-account gadflys like Christopher Hitchens support and defend and admire their intellectual elitism, their contempt for the "common man," so long as the insufferable elitists are authoring this or that war. Hitchens explicitly made the case FOR their deceit and propaganda, since us regular folks can't be trusted to support wars enthusiastically enough.

I think the left holds the bar on condescension. They have to in order to think that they know best as regards how citizens lives should be run. I beleive it is the politicians role to advise their constituents on issues not vote with the party and absolve himself of ever having to understand the issues himself.

I must say there are politicians on the right that believe themselves to be above the masses as well. John McCain is an example of that, in my opinion. GW Bush, never appeared to be above the common folk or in any way an elitist. He made major gaffs and perhaps had been himself ill advised on issues. In my estimation he left too much to the intellectuals and didn't question them enough on their expertise.

I can't imagine a more paternalistic and hateful ideological stance as wehat we've seen from the Rigth Wing in recent years.

They are just being socialists. That's what socialists are about. You have to ask who is for limiting the centralization and concentration of power in government to know who is not a socialist. Sarah Palin is not a socialist. Now it is very difficult to make differentiations because government has granted entitlements to certain people and taking them away would be perceived as "Fascistic" or ideological or downright mean. But that is what limiting the size of government means. Limiting government isn't asking government to control people's lives or grant them entitlement from the coffers of the nation - doing that would be socialistic.

So you see there must be a differentiation between those on the right calling for government to beat back the hated lib-left socialists. In their view, it takes big government to do so. But really it only takes the citizens limiting the size and scope of government.

Just because some Right-Wing millionaire, who has achieved wealth and influence and an elite position by decrying "elites" (eliding his or her own culpability) tells you about the snobbishness of the "lib-left," doesn't make it a scientific fact.

As you know there are no scientific truths.

Most successful people, including capitalists, become left wing because they have an inner sense of being right or they would not be successful, and they develop that left wing idea of thinking they "know best" how other people's lives should be run. In their minds, following their advice would lead to Utopia for all. When they become politically active or express their political opinion they translate their success into seeing laws that will make people's lives better. I call that socialist because they themselves were successful and feel they know best how other people should run their lives so that they too will be successful. Bigger government and more entitlements to tell them what to do.

And when he or she informs you, from his or her position of monumental ignorance, that the "lib-left" looks down on everyone, and that this is a matter of philosophical distinction...well, it's simply not true. There is no philosophical entity called "conservatism" that adheres to some notion of respect for human beings; just as there is no philosophical entity called "the left" that looks down on everybody.

I agree. Since conservatism is about preserving the status quo. If communism be in vogue then conservatives will be seen to protect the status quo. Liberals are about change. Unfortunately, they are today about progressivism. The progressive growth of government which basically defines socialism.

these promiscuous simplificaitons and overgeneralizations have been concocted by porpagandists, who are just prescient enough to cite the "proper" philosophical or Economic "authority" to buttress their wholly partisan and ideological arguments.

Once again, the right is not void of socialists.

Edited March 28, 2010 by Pliny

[Pliny]

An appeal to authority is a fallacy whether it is committed by a liberal or a conservative, or any other individual of any political stripe. An argument must stand on its own merit, not merely because some expert with supposedly infallible knowledge says so. That being said, referring to the statements of someone who has extensively researched and written about a specific topic can be useful. Their thoughts on that topic, which can encompass a large amount of literature, can then be taken into account and discussed, rather than the poster having to write it all out themselves to get their point across. There is significant value in the things that an expert may have to say on a subject, and I'd argue that that value is far greater when the topic of discussion is to do with hard science rather than politics or ideology, but in neither case is an expert an absolute, unquestionable, authority.

Like I said before, any individual, whatever their qualifications, can choose to think about a topic and come to their own conclusions.

Are you sure you have a University degree? It certainly doesn't sound like it. The ability to think is not generally a trait of graduates.

You have a more individualistic point of view than most posters and I enjoy it.

[Bonam]

Are you sure you have a University degree? It certainly doesn't sound like it. The ability to think is not generally a trait of graduates.

You have a more individualistic point of view than most posters and I enjoy it.

Haha yeah the individualistic point of view is certainly despite my university education and not because of it. The constant bombardment of socialist ideas was everywhere, even though my degree was about as far removed from politics as it can get.

I remember in a course on "technology and society", we were debating urban sprawl, commuting, and pollution, and other students were suggesting such solutions as having the government mandate that you can only use your vehicle every second day and must telecommute on the other days, or mandating higher density housing (i.e. all highrises) to mitigate urban sprawl. At that point I commented that while environmental concerns may be important, they are not worth surrendering our freedoms in these respects (to use vehicles when we want or to live in individual homes). The discussion that ensued after that was quite funny looking back on it, most students seemed to have never before encountered the idea that someone might want the powers of government to be limited.

Anyways, I enjoy your posts as well

[bloodyminded]

An appeal to authority is a fallacy whether it is committed by a liberal or a conservative, or any other individual of any political stripe. An argument must stand on its own merit, not merely because some expert with supposedly infallible knowledge says so. That being said, referring to the statements of someone who has extensively researched and written about a specific topic can be useful. Their thoughts on that topic, which can encompass a large amount of literature, can then be taken into account and discussed, rather than the poster having to write it all out themselves to get their point across. There is significant value in the things that an expert may have to say on a subject, and I'd argue that that value is far greater when the topic of discussion is to do with hard science rather than politics or ideology, but in neither case is an expert an absolute, unquestionable, authority.

Like I said before, any individual, whatever their qualifications, can choose to think about a topic and come to their own conclusions.

Then we are in 100% agreement on every sentence you've written here.

[bloodyminded]

I'm sorry, did I say you must question only lib-left "experts"? If I did. I apologize.

You should question those right wing experts as well.

A lot of people mistake me as a supporter of the right wing. I certainly fit the mold because I definitely do not support the left wing. I am a person who demands government restrict itself in it's mandate, keep itself limited to justice and the defense of the nation and the right to the individual ownership of property and the protection of that right.

So don't go on about my right wing indoctrination.

Ok. But I sense some wanting-it-both-ways in these discussion with you. You will recuse right-wing power from your criticisms, until your criticisms are challenged; only at that point do your critiques become more expansive.

However, I can't in good faith single you out on this. Most of us do it in some way or another, and hopefully it's usually no more than laziness.

Besides you are a lib-left kool-aid drinker and no expert on anything so STFU.(Joke)

Good point, good point.

I agree. I call these people the Neocons. They have been traditionally left-wing as was the Straussian movement and have moved to the right because the left in their estimation is too wishy-washy to achieve socialist ideals. I have listened to Billy Kristol somewhat and might give him a little leeway considering him just a conservative. I would have to know his history a bit before I make a real call on his label.

I don't klnow that Kristol isn't a real statist, calling for endless war and eliding the fact of government propaganda (at least Hitchens was honest about it..hell, Hitchens openly defended the deception.)

And yes, it appears to be true that the neocons are ex-leftists; but the fact is that they are now conservatives. Their voting base is made up of conservatives. They support the domestic policies of conservatives.

It seems you blame the "lib-left" even for the actions of conservatives. The fact is, conservatives are what conservatives do. By definition.

I must say there are politicians on the right that believe themselves to be above the masses as well. John McCain is an example of that, in my opinion. GW Bush, never appeared to be above the common folk or in any way an elitist. He made major gaffs and perhaps had been himself ill advised on issues. In my estimation he left too much to the intellectuals and didn't question them enough on their expertise.

I agree that Bush--as far as we can gather--was not a thoughtful president, and so relied on others to do all the thinking. (Although, just by the way, I don't equate a paucity of thoughtfulness with rank stupidity: as much as I dislike Bush, I disagree with his many critics when they say he is stupid. I honestly doubt this.) But to say he wasn't elitist is a jaw-dropping assertion. He is the definition of the American Business-political-nexus elite, an aristocratic elite of the old New England style. His "regular guy" persona is likley a PR creation; though like all successful PR moves, there would have to be a small element of truth to it: for example, citing the oft-repeated, meaningless, stupid, though effective campaign talking-point, he might be "the kind of guy you'd have a beer with."

But lots of people are, and it's unrelated to elitism. In fact, the socialist Chavez is (incontestably) far MORE of a "common man" who "isn't an elitist." Just look at his background. So I don't know if your version of "common" and "elitist" is too meaningful here.

They are just being socialists. That's what socialists are about. You have to ask who is for limiting the centralization and concentration of power in government to know who is not a socialist. Sarah Palin is not a socialist.

How do you know? the only evidence you have for this is that she calls herself a "maverick" and critiques Washington. This is substantively the exact same campaign method as was Barack Obama's. Further, Palin's PR was intensely and almost solely based on identity politics, which we (falsely) tend to consider the province of the Left. She is a "hockey mom" (a totally meaningless demographic, though a viscerally effective one for reasons that make me doubt the public's rationality); and is the mother of a special needs child. She has continually used political correctness to attack her critics; and she doesn't even understand the elementary basics of free speech. (She said that all the criticism of her was an attack on her "freedom of speech," which means she doesn't quite get it.)

I see no reason to doubt she's a statist reactionary, talking about God suppoorting a war in Iraq. We have zero evidcence to the contrary.

Now it is very difficult to make differentiations because government has granted entitlements to certain people and taking them away would be perceived as "Fascistic" or ideological or downright mean. But that is what limiting the size of government means. Limiting government isn't asking government to control people's lives or grant them entitlement from the coffers of the nation - doing that would be socialistic.

But then all conservative governments in North America--all of them--have been "socialistic." So why focus on the liberals, when there is no distinction beyond empty soundbites?

Most successful people, including capitalists, become left wing because they have an inner sense of being right or they would not be successful, and they develop that left wing idea of thinking they "know best" how other people's lives should be run.

This is a tautology. Your premise is that conservatives would not tell people what to do, so therefore none of our political and business leaders are conservatives.

This is the same kind of argument that posits the Taliban as being left wing...simply because we don't like them, they must not be conservative. But in fact, they are arch-conservatives; they are as conservative as you get.

I can anticipate a response, with which I actually have some sympathy: that they aren't properly conservative. And that's cool...but then, they aren't properly left-wing, to say the least. If we're going to use labels like "conservative" and "the elft"...well, the Taliban have a hell of a lot more in common with conservatives than with the left.

And so do the neocons. They rule as conservatives; they are voted in by conservatives; they despise the left; they continually defend conservatism. So, if labels apply (and since you use the labels, they must), then these people are conservatives. Not leftists.

Once again, the right is not void of socialists.

But I can't parse out where, by your standards, the Right isn't socialist.

Edited March 28, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Pliny]

Ok. But I sense some wanting-it-both-ways in these discussion with you. You will recuse right-wing power from your criticisms, until your criticisms are challenged; only at that point do your critiques become more expansive.

However, I can't in good faith single you out on this. Most of us do it in some way or another, and hopefully it's usually no more than laziness.

I don't klnow that Kristol isn't a real statist, calling for endless war and eliding the fact of government propaganda (at least Hitchens was honest about it..hell, Hitchens openly defended the deception.)

And yes, it appears to be true that the neocons are ex-leftists; but the fact is that they are now conservatives. Their voting base is made up of conservatives. They support the domestic policies of conservatives.

It seems you blame the "lib-left" even for the actions of conservatives. The fact is, conservatives are what conservatives do. By definition.

I agree that Bush--as far as we can gather--was not a thoughtful president, and so relied on others to do all the thinking. (Although, just by the way, I don't equate a paucity of thoughtfulness with rank stupidity: as much as I dislike Bush, I disagree with his many critics when they say he is stupid. I honestly doubt this.) But to say he wasn't elitist is a jaw-dropping assertion. He is the definition of the American Business-political-nexus elite, an aristocratic elite of the old New England style. His "regular guy" persona is likley a PR creation; though like all successful PR moves, there would have to be a small element of truth to it: for example, citing the oft-repeated, meaningless, stupid, though effective campaign talking-point, he might be "the kind of guy you'd have a beer with."

But lots of people are, and it's unrelated to elitism. In fact, the socialist Chavez is (incontestably) far MORE of a "common man" who "isn't an elitist." Just look at his background. So I don't know if your version of "common" and "elitist" is too meaningful here.

How do you know? the only evidence you have for this is that she calls herself a "maverick" and critiques Washington. This is substantively the exact same campaign method as was Barack Obama's. Further, Palin's PR was intensely and almost solely based on identity politics, which we (falsely) tend to consider the province of the Left. She is a "hockey mom" (a totally meaningless demographic, though a viscerally effective one for reasons that make me doubt the public's rationality); and is the mother of a special needs child. She has continually used political correctness to attack her critics; and she doesn't even understand the elementary basics of free speech. (She said that all the criticism of her was an attack on her "freedom of speech," which means she doesn't quite get it.)

I see no reason to doubt she's a statist reactionary, talking about God suppoorting a war in Iraq. We have zero evidcence to the contrary.

But then all conservative governments in North America--all of them--have been "socialistic." So why focus on the liberals, when there is no distinction beyond empty soundbites?

This is a tautology. Your premise is that conservatives would not tell people what to do, so therefore none of our political and business leaders are conservatives.

This is the same kind of argument that posits the Taliban as being left wing...simply because we don't like them, they must not be conservative. But in fact, they are arch-conservatives; they are as conservative as you get.

I can anticipate a response, with which I actually have some sympathy: that they aren't properly conservative. And that's cool...but then, they aren't properly left-wing, to say the least. If we're going to use labels like "conservative" and "the elft"...well, the Taliban have a hell of a lot more in common with conservatives than with the left.

And so do the neocons. They rule as conservatives; they are voted in by conservatives; they despise the left; they continually defend conservatism. So, if labels apply (and since you use the labels, they must), then these people are conservatives. Not leftists.

But I can't parse out where, by your standards, the Right isn't socialist.

The basic problem in discussing liberals and conservatives is that they are like chameleons and change over time. This is what makes it difficult to reach any resolutions.

I would say that Sarah Palin is a conservative with some socialist tendencies but recognizes the State should not be running people's lives. That's where her socialism ends. The Taliban are by definition "Conservative" as they are attempting to "preserve" the status quo of fundamentalist Islamic law and governance. The liberals in Afghanistan would want change and progression. I believe Afghanistan needs to move into the twentieth century so I would be for change and could be called a liberal in that sense.

A liberal in the West though, although being for progress, is basically calling for the growth of government and for an increase in government engineering of society. That is their concept of Progressivism. This I am not for in any respect. Government is too big already.