wrote:

Personally, I think the scam is kind of brilliant and needed to happen to force the issue.

That statement is disgusting. TCF has it right, but independent of that, you have it wrong from the start.

wrote: There is no individual consciousness, even though there are individual brains.

Is that consciousness speaking for all of us, or is that your brain talking just for you?

wrote:

All non-reductionists are saying (very crudely) is that the brain is not a closed system in which one day we could make a direct one-one mapping between a particular brain state and a particular human experience, because human experience is intermingled with cultural and conceptual history

If that is what non-reductionists are saying, then they are dead wrong. Information enters through the senses; it is processed in the brain. Consciousness happens. Can anyone say more? Sure, by studying the function of the brain. But even a perfect understanding of the mapping would not answer the "great question". However, there is no reason to assume that experience of the external world results from anything other than information flowing in through the senses. Our current understanding has located the "great question" in the brain. No amount of circular reasoning is going to move it out.

wrote:

It's the sort of value-free "philosophy" that could easily paint itself into a corner where nothing remains but hell on earth..

You forgot to post a link that that study that shows that reductionists, atheists, etc. are on average far less ethical than other folks.

wrote:

And of course, you will have the same religious lefties who make all of this possible by whining about "tolerance" telling us all how we shouldn't really judge religious people by the stupid people religion inspires.

Where is the tolerance from "lefties" on the issue of bad text books? Most oppose religion-inspired books and say so.

Let's not condemn the whole state. There are plenty of people in Texas who do not support this nonsense. Just not enough.

Some years ago a person from South America (not Argentina, if it matters) told me (paraphrase):

We do not need all of your modern conveniences. We have people to do those things for us.

This is where we are headed, but with the modern conveniences. You cannot be an overlord without an underclass. I suspect that most of the people working so hard to create a true underclass, that is, one where nearly everybody is in it, are too stupid to know what they are doing. Most of those who do understand, maybe nearly all, think it is inevitable, and so you might as well get on the better side. But it is happening; you cannot deny how the financial affairs of the US are being handled.

wrote: Was it Wall St that....

Well, "Wall Street", loosely interpreted, did pay for a lot of that, and some came along for free.

It is important that the new building have a lot of windows, for looking in, as well as out.

So are you saying that industry in general, and the financial industry in particular, does not buy government protection and favors?

So let me see it I understand this:

If the government did not have the power to establish and regulate the banking and financial system, it would not have been necessary for players like AIG-FP to use financial products that avoided these regulations.

And then, putting on my libertarian hat, I can say that in the absence of these regulations that they got around anyway, the system would have been perfectly stable, would not have crashed, and would have been fair to everybody, or at least everyone would have made so much money that fairness would not matter because everyone would have more than they need. And all this would have happened because the government had no power to regulate (which it apparently did not, in any case).

Or am I a little too optimistic?

...might think that G. is working for the Chinese. Probably not, but her misplaced paranoia (be it real or simulated, and who can tell?) might just have a small basis in a different reality. Are the American people really his primary client?

Their inability to control members of their own government could do serious damage to our war on terror. A number of serious, patriotic members of the former administration are still unable to find work worthy of their expertise. Obama should send them to Britain to help out in correcting this deficiency that so threatens our security and way of life.

Where are all those pesky libertarians who hang around Grennwald's comments? Yes, the ones who want to reduce the government's power to 1% of what it is? Why are they not here, where their ideas might make some sense? Maybe some of them would have the nerve to say "sexters are not sex offenders", without first saying, "Oh my! Oh my! Those girls are so irresponsible."

what is the value of a document signed under the threat of torture? (And that is what it is if you already have been tortured by the same folks offering you the agreement.) What is wrong with sign and tell?

"Fox News and other credible media"

Surely you are joking Ms. C?

wrote: You always leave out the point that some planned terrorist acts have been prevented.

Glenn will do as he sees fit, of course, but I would not be in favor of stating the "point" that terrorists acts have been prevented without some actual evidence. Unsupported statements issued from government spokesman are not good enough.

Yes, that is an interesting article (from the Atlantic) that you referred to. I suspect that he is underestimating the criminality in the Wall St-Government relationship that he describes. That is, he says the US is different from the 3rd world cases he has dealt with. Maybe so, maybe not. Outright bribery and corruption are easier to hide when you work for the world's richest country.