& I'll give you my answers in a bit.
(1) In your day to day do you find yourself enjoying less freedom?
(2) Do you accept Obama as your president?
(3) Is capitalism a perfect system?
(4) Should the Archie comic strip have a gay character?
OK as for (1) in large part the answer is no but that's probably because of my simplistic lifestyle. I got up this morning and had a cup of coffee, went to Stop & Shop, hit the library and otherwise did what the hell I wanted to do on MY terms and nobody but nobody stopped me. However if I were building an extension to my house most likely I'd need some type of permit or if I planned on starting up a small business I'd probably be burdened by onerous rules and regs so in that case I'd have more of a mixed response and I'd like to hear yours. (2) is surely the most controversial and if you even consider the option of saying NO then you're considered dangerous by the liberal set although what's interesting here is I think it's safe to say a good bulk of 'em didn't even consider George Bush to be a valid president, I mean it was a no-brainer as far as they were concerned. For me re Obama this remains an open question. If he truly is a socialist or Marxist then no I can't accept him as my president but this question seems to be still very much up in the air at the moment with conservatives saying yes he is a socialist and libs saying we all go to K-Mart to get our tinfoil hats. Certainly when a president goes against almost everything you believe in and hold dear, when he is so diametrically opposed to your own way of thinking it becomes very hard indeed for anyone liberal or conservative to accept him as a valid president but most times you should. When you start commenting here I want honest responses, just give us a straight Mal answer yes or no. (3) OF COURSE capitalism is not a perfect system despite your rank-and-file conservatives acting like it is but overall it's the best system on the face of the globe and the operative principle here is freedom and any shortcomings of the capitalistic system should be corrected in their own way. As you know the Dems are preparing another rush job of some major legislation and this time instead of trying to reform health-care they're trying to reform Wall Street, some 1,300 pages worth and again they don't want the country to have time to read it. Gotta love 'em! (4) and we saved the most fun for last. The Archie comics have introduced their first gay character, Kevin Keller, who is going to Riverdale High with the rest of the gang. He explains to Jughead why he just ain't that into Veronica and so Jughead is gonna have a little fun with this and let Veronica figure it out on her own (heehee). Now my answer has absolutely nothing to do with being anti-gay but I just think the strip should be non-controversial. Now presumably Kevin is gonna act with decorum and is not gonna grab Jughead's balls but what's next? Veronica gets an abortion or Betty has a stalker? ("Oh Archie I killed our baby, I can never live with myself!" or Betty: "should I buy a gun?") I'm just sayin' Archie used to be an oasis from all of this, the complexities of the Larger Society. On the other hand it does make the storyline more interesting, I mean how many times can the gang go to the malt shop?
The Person of the Week Who Should Just Go Away Already -- Ashley Dupre. She's become a larger scourge on this country than bubble-gum pop. If that Billy Mumy character from Twilight Zone were here he'd just wish her into the cornfield.
4 very provocative questions
ReplyDelete& I'll give you my answers in a bit.
(1) In your day to day do you find yourself enjoying less freedom?
(2) Do you accept Obama as your president?
(3) Is capitalism a perfect system?
(4) Should the Archie comic strip have a gay character?
1. No
2. NO!
3. Yes, and No
4. I always that that Jughead was gay!
Veronica #199 has "The Gang Meets President Obama"
ReplyDeleteAdult themes in clean comics, I'd leave 'em out. Now I'm sure Reggie masturbates from time to time, say he's in his room one night and his Dad catches him - "is the cat in? omg" - but normally you leave this stuff out. OK so Kevin wants to get on up in there, whatever man.
(1) In your day to day do you find yourself enjoying less freedom?
ReplyDeleteYes! Whereas I wish to use the rather large black contractor type lawn bags (many are left over from last year) I am now unable to do so thanks to the Minneapolis city counsel banning them. They will not be picked up by the city's refuse workers. I've got to purchase the brown paperbag lawn bags.
(2) Do you accept Obama as your president?
He's the president of the United States. I'll give him that. It is the vast majority of his policies that I do not accept the premises of.
(3) Is capitalism a perfect system?
Define "perfect" first.
(4) Should the Archie comic strip have a gay character?
Never got into Archie beyond when they used to have it on the Bazooka gum wrapper. That's been a while.
As re #1 excellent example and I can certainly think of a few but today I enjoyed my freedom. Re #2 leaning in that direction too. Re #3 in a word GREED. Lastly #4 I go both ways on this one.
ReplyDelete1. No
ReplyDelete2. Yes
3. No
4. Well now, Archie Comics began in the year I was born. Haven't followed that close through the decades. IMO, if it increases their sales, yes..if it's an odd experiment, no. (Either way, I'll keep my dime..or have comics gone up?)
It's just the constant pc lingo that makes me queasy, saying there's no social message here but just to be so "inclusive"
ReplyDeletebullhockey!
Now the new character can add some nice new comedic twists to the plotline which is fine but remember it's mostly young kids and young adults who read this stuff although judging from a recent trip to a comic book store with my friend you do have your 45-something geekmen walking around taking this shit seriously. Heh used to think the thing was porn but that's sooooo yesterday, think Wolverine.
When Obama said to the finalists on Idol Gives Back "y'all are my dogs" if you responded NO to Question #2 then you don't accept that either. BTW WTF was that?
ReplyDeleteNow saying NO makes you into a system-hater in the eyes of some or maybe Obama is the real system-hater dunno but I wanna know what's the deal with soapie's lawn bags. What's up with that?
Define Greed Z. In the modern era where the politics of envy prevail and the class warriors are seemingly everywhere, greed has taken to meaning a man who has more than another thinks he ought to.
ReplyDeleteTo be perfectly blunt, that is backasswards. What is truly greedy is any individual who, through force and coercion, stakes a claim to the byproduct of another man's labor.
The moral justification for the existence of Capitalism is not that it is distributively "fair" or that it is a means towards "social planning".
The moral justification for Capitalism is plain and simple. It is the only system that is consonant with man's intrinsic nature and who man is as a human in existence.
When you say Greed Z, let me ask you quite plainly.
ReplyDeleteAre you fine with a man (I'm using this term as gender inclusive) creating a product or service and in so doing he voluntarily contracts with others to help him in his quest? Further, he is not regulated, taxed, or subsidized. He either fails or succeeds on his own merit and the merit of those whom he employs by way of voluntary contract?
Once creating this good or service, he then puts it to market whereby the patrons or citizens who comprise the market can purchase said good or service of their own volition and thus dictate the price thereof.
With all that having been said this man becomes a multi-billionaire.
Is that greed? Is this a man worth demonizing?
I'm sure you know my response.
"...I wanna know what's the deal with soapie's lawn bags. What's up with that?"
ReplyDeleteA bunch of goddamn busy bodies running that circus that's what. And to be certain, they were lawn bags. Lord knows what the hell good they are to me now.
Nice questions...
ReplyDelete1. No, not at all, except for being searched more at airports and borders, all without probable cause. Thank you Patriot Act.
2. Yes, of course, as I did Bush before him.
3. Not by a long shot. Might be best for state organization though. But is certainly not Christian, by any means.
4. I'm like BB-Idaho. Haven't read Archie in years.
Good questions...
My answers:
ReplyDelete(1) Yes
(2) Yes
(3) Yes (with regards to greed, people can be greedy, an economic system isn't)
(4) Is that comic strip still around, for real?
I've nothing against multi-billionaires soap but if a multibillionare never engages in philanthropy, never gives to charity, never helps the poor through his or her own volition then he or she is greedy and that is a sin. Capitalism isn't perfect of course but it doesn't have to be perfect to be the best system there is. As regards freedom we still enjoy a large amount of freedom in this country but it's those little laws that gradually chip away at it which is why I say since we still have alot of freedom (although maybe not as much as we used to) let's stop legislating until we have no meaningful freedom at all. Re Archie I think it's best as I said if the strip is noncontroversial in nature, that it doesn't take a pro or con stand on gay rights for instance by not even having it in the storyline but on the flipside it does give me something to talk about.
ReplyDeleteBTW it's my Mom's birthday tomorrow so I don't think I'll be blogging so have at it until Monday.
ReplyDelete1. Nope
ReplyDelete2. Absolutely
3. Not in any sense of the word
4. I don't see why Archie SHOULDNT have a gay character.
And as far as lawn bags go, that's a no brainer: they're obviously going to recycle and plastic won't work in a recycling system. Using paper bags means that lawn stuff and all can be recycled directly, which is more time-efficient and cuts down on costs.
Geez, I didn't even have to think about that one... was fairly obvious.
I've nothing against multi-billionaires soap but if a multibillionare never engages in philanthropy, never gives to charity, never helps the poor through his or her own volition then he or she is greedy and that is a sin.
ReplyDeleteThat is the billionaire being greedy, that doesn't mean capitalism is greedy, capitalism just is a system of economics.
I've nothing against multi-billionaires soap but if a multibillionare never engages in philanthropy, never gives to charity, never helps the poor through his or her own volition then he or she is greedy and that is a sin.
ReplyDeleteWow. Wow. That's remarkable. You know, I don't see it that way at all.
Why does such a man owe anything more to society beyond the benefit that his good or service has already provided?
He doesn't.
The fulfillment and the realization of this man's rational self interest provides voluntary employment for individuals thus bettering their life. The good or service too has the same effect.
To infer that such a man owes anything more to society, a society mind you that purchases his good or service not through force or coercion but voluntary, is to assert that the rest of society has a claim on this man's mind.
Man is not a slave to anyone. To be sure, man is an end in himself. He is not a means to the ends of others.
Of course altruism dictates otherwise.
Thank you Saty. Beth you have given me food for thought here as usual. Soap here's where Ayn Rand has gone astray.
ReplyDeleteWe'll agree to disagree Z. But know this, so long as you adopt that premise, you will never ever ever ever ever ever ever in a million lifetimes win the battle for Capitalism. You will have instead sacrificed actual capitalism for something that is nothing of the sort; something which is much more apropriately defined as a "mixed economy".
ReplyDeleteAlas we are thus brought to this crucial point with capitalism taking the brunt of the criticism (unfairly so I might add).
Well that's because I'm a Christian first and it also seems to me, what's the word here? downright absurd for someone to have gazillions of dollars and yet hoard them all for himself and not lift a finger to help out humanity. Christianity and capitalism can co-exist soapster so long as it's voluntary, so long as our charity is not coerced by government but I have a God to answer to in the end and to take all those billions to the grave with me, well I think there might be some questions afterwords.
ReplyDeleteYes, Z-man, but that is for you to decide for yourself, and no one else to decide for you that you need to be charitable.
ReplyDeleteThat is my problem with liberals who think they need to take your money and spend it for you, I say I can stimulate the economy and donate to charity myself, thank you very much.
My whole point about Ayn Rand is she took the opposite, other extreme position and basically espoused the virtue of selfishness. That's not the way for conservatives to go but as for me I have to go. It's been that kind of day at work:)
ReplyDeleteI do see your point, I agree that we should not hold selfishness up as a virtue, however, I do agree with the premise that hard work deserves to be rewarded, and that non-production should not.
ReplyDeleteYou grossly missinterpret selfishness and rational self-interest Z. Your presumption is that selfishness begins and ends with one's physical being. What is more, you are presuming that it is somehow in a man's self-interest to take his wealth to his grave. You'd be hard pressed to find a rational man who agree that the remainder of his wealth is better left burned with his corpse than to be used for some other such purpose that will transcend this man's death.
ReplyDeleteIt's like the ridiculous example that Saty once put forth about a man on his way to a business meeting and running late. Her claim was that helping person stranded in a well doesn't serve this man's self-interest.
That of course presupposes that letting the stranded individual remain stranded and potentially die does serve the man's self-interest.
It's like the ridiculous example that Saty once put forth about a man on his way to a business meeting and running late. Her claim was that helping person stranded in a well doesn't serve this man's self-interest.
ReplyDeleteuh.. when did I say this?
Over at Patrick's blog some time back.
ReplyDeleteI have this problem, I've blogged so much over the years that's it's hard to keep track of it all. Research time.
ReplyDeleteI don't remember ever saying anything about a man in a well. If I did say it, I have no memory of such a thing and quite honestly it doesn't actually sound like an example I'd come up with.
ReplyDeleteJust sayin.
It wasn't a man in a well. The example you put forth was a businessman on his way to an important business meeting. On his way to said meeting, he comes across a young girl/child trapped in a well. Your argument was that coming to the aid and comfort of this girl/child doesn't serve the man's self-interest whereas attending the business meeting does.
ReplyDeleteI may have misrepresented some specifics but that was primarily the gist of it.
This example reminds me of the recent case in New York where a homeless man came to the aid of a woman being attacked and he wound up being stabbed himself and for a whole hour at least pedestrians just strolled right on past until the man died. Some simply walked, some stopped and looked and one man even stooped over him, picked up his head and saw a pool of blood and then kept walking. I've a theory about all this and it's not to say nobody should have helped that man but maybe a few of them didn't want to be accused of the poor man's murder by hanging around too long. Anyway back to the well...
ReplyDelete