I would direct your attention to this Open Left post:

Still, ideological labels do not always predict opinions about key policy issues. For example, about half of Americans who describe their political views as conservative say that all (24%) or some (27%) of the tax cuts passed under George W. Bush should be repealed. More than four-in-ten conservatives (43%) say that abortion should be legal in some or all cases. On the other hand, nearly half of self-described liberals (49%) favor more offshore drilling for oil and gas in U.S. waters.

Note the first (tax cuts) has 51% in favor of "some" or "all" agreeing with the repealing of Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy.

The entire post is worth reading but suffice to say "reality" is never quite what you think it is.

http://tinyurl.com/5ksmko

for ehillesum, note the first (tax cuts) has 51% in favor of "some" or "all" agreeing with the repealing of Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy,

that this was among self-identified conservatives.

Also, why these complicated screen names? Better to have timothy3 so we can abbreviate to T3 (hasta la vista ... well, you know the rest).

-------------------

Man, that is wicked. You remind me of the many graduate students I taught in -----------. They were wicked too. Dumb as posts, but wicked. I congratulate you on your wicked idiocy.

I work for a living. I no Sir.

No, siree, me neither. I'm just a dude (minus the ranch). I scramble for a living like anyone else (except for those who talk smartly about fiat currency, keeping one's money in cash, gold or--what--hydroponic tomatoes?).

A.L.

Any bailout, restructuring, or government-overseen bankruptcy should be accompanied by comprehensive health care reform for all workers, along with substantial improvements in the safety net such as wage insurance, extended unemployment benefits, training and education subsidies.

I feel as if I beat my head against a wall when bringing this up myself. And Elephantman doesn't help either, what with the CAFE standards stuff.

Admittedly, my bolder parts can be overwhelming

I've been following this all day and admit to my interest. I'm not often (well, never, essentially) clear about what you, Jebbie and ethics_professor are talking about. Nevertheless, my interest is piqued and I await your or ethics_professor weighing in, with bolder parts present.

By the way, I say this as a fellow of upright moral character whose lapsed morals are characteristically wilted.

Lastly, to imply that connections are somehow inherently bad strikes me as an awfully lonely position to take ... it's rather antisocial to claim to neither want nor have any connections what so ever.

I don't believe Glenn (or anyone else here--and I exclude the weirdos) has suggested that connections are "somehow inherently bad." Rather, the question ought to be, in a democratic republic, who is to represent the people and their interests? Thus, you pose the issue in a rather upside-down fashion; connections and the human inclination to gather as tribes, villages, families, cities, and nations because they f[ind] themselves stronger together than apart, is beside the point.

Is there anyone, man or woman, who will/can represent the interests of the common citizen? The answer is 'yes.' The problem, of course, is the entrenched nepotism so vividly on display here today. One can argue socially, anthropologically, or in any other discipline's language, yet it cannot obscure those facts: connections+networks+money+functional aristocracy=political payday. The only thing missing--the only thing important for a functioning government--is meritocracy.

I said this 200 posts ago But it was deleted by the fuckwits who run this trash heap.

Man, you carry a lot of rage. I doubt you'll live long at this rate.

That's nice. Thanks.

Retzilian--it's nice to have a face to go with a screen name.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: you're skill at finding appropriate links is beyond amazing. I'd present you with an award if I could find one, but you'd find it first.

thanks to adnoto and art guerrilla ...for reminding me the similarities between pontificating a "principled" radical stance and ejaculating into a tissue.

Indeed. These two want to claim "my hands are clean!"

Which, I suppose, is the value of a tissue.

Once again I'll ask for that elusive practical answer: Would you have permitted the torture of one person if it would have prevented the Holocaust? Wbgonne

This is a ridiculous argument, a teleological one (if I remember my university philosophy professor correctly). It amounts to "the ends justify the means."

A few weeks back there was an argument here over whether the death of a baby would be justified if that death brought about cures for any number of human illnesses (at least that's how I remember the debate).

I'll avoid a long and drawn out comment on teleological arguments; what I will say is that you're not looking for an "elusive practical answer." You're looking for justification. You're assuming that a) said person actually possesses critical information; b) that information can be reliably extracted via torture; c) the information "extracted" will happily prevent some earth-shaking event.

Does any of this sound reasonable? I hope it doesn't, because it's not.