Recent Comments

1. about 1 month ago on Jeff Danziger

   He’s a member of the Central Committee.

2. 2 months ago on Unstrange Phenomena

   As a matter of fact, there are a couple of “pygmy” forests on the California coast, one in Sonoma County and one in Mendocino, and a “dwarf” forest in the northern Sierras.

3. 3 months ago on Calvin and Hobbes

   Oh, you made that easier than expected. After all, the great source for most fans of moral absolutes, the Bible, presents slavery as a morally acceptable practice. So how do you support a claim that slavery is wrong if it’s considered normal and acceptable in one of the greatest sources of moral values?

   It is not sufficient to merely state that “slavery is wrong.” They are merely words on a page (or screen as the case may be) that are completely lacking in rational content. If someone asks, “Why is slavery wrong,” all a moral absolutist can answer is, “Because it is.” But, although there have always been critics, slavery was considered perfectly fine for most of recorded human history. Many slave owners in the American South defended it, even argued that it was virtuous (and there are those who still make that argument today).

   Kant’s point is that it is insufficient to make such claims. They have to be supported by reasoned argument. In other words, it is not sufficient to merely state, dogmatically, that slavery is wrong. You have to explain why you think it is wrong. And if you don’t like Kant, then go read John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty, and see what he says about “dead dogma” and “living truth.”

   I agree that slavery is wrong. But unlike a moral absolutist, I can explain why it’s wrong. That requires logic and reasoning. I’m not going to bother giving you my explanation here, because it would be a waste of time. After all, we already agree.

   Have a nice day.

4. 3 months ago on Calvin and Hobbes

   “No one?” That’s quite a claim. No, I won’t play because there is no way to win with moral absolutists. It’s the closed-mindedness that kills all the fun. Bye.

5. 3 months ago on Calvin and Hobbes

   A declaration is not a refutation. Thanks for demonstrating that you either didn’t read, or didn’t understand, his argument.

6. 3 months ago on Calvin and Hobbes

   Oh? So refute his arguments. Go ahead. It’s easy to dismiss someone as “a bunch of gobbledygook.” It avoids the more challenging task of actually engaging with their arguments. That is not the way to advance truth. But then, maybe you don’t have all that much interest in truth, especially if it challenges the ideas you hold dear.

7. 4 months ago on Calvin and Hobbes

   What a perfect metaphor for our times.

8. 4 months ago on Ted Rall

   Oh, it’s not the same at all. For one thing, you can’t wave a magic wand and make the problems go away. But also, Republicans have fought tooth and nail against progressive reform proposals by Democrats and roll back progress whenever they take power. Obamacare and the Inflation Reduction Act, while not sufficient, take meaningful steps to address the problems of healthcare and climate change. Trump would rip them apart.

   A second Trump presidency would be like opening the gates of hell. And the people who would suffer the most are the people who always get the short end of the stick.

9. 4 months ago on Ted Rall

   You make a good point, Ted, when you say that our political system fails to address major problems. But it’s hard to fault democracy for that when our political system, including the media system that supports it, is so badly corrupted. But the answer is definitely not to turn things over to the most corrupt guy out there. The answer is to make the system more democratic. That means more people need to vote. And yes, to vote against Trump.

   So let’s try this: "Vote against Trump! He’ll take away everything you care about! Forests will burn! Cities will drown! People will die because they can’t get healthcare! Schools will “teach” kids obedience and nothing else! Your food and water will be poisoned! Cops will rule the streets and kill anyone they don’t like! And if you protest you’ll be thrown in jail!"

10. 5 months ago on Brewster Rockit

    A 2013 study by the Labor Center at UC Berkeley (“Fast Food, Poverty Wages: The Public Cost of Low-Wage Jobs in the Fast-Food Industry") found that taxpayers funded over $6 billion in welfare for full-time employees of fast-food restaurant chains. HR staff at Walmart are trained to assist workers in applying for public assistance. This amounts to a taxpayer subsidy for corporate profits that overwhelmingly benefits the top 1% (the top 1% owns over 50% of all stock; the top 10% owns 90%).

    Compensation for CEOs is now over 350 times that of the median wage at their business—the median wage, not the bottom. That means people at the supervisory or management level, not entry-level or low-skill jobs.

    The economy these days functions as a pump to turn the meager incomes of the 90% into wealth for the top 10% (and especially the top 1%).

    Solutions include high taxes on top tax brackets (it was over 80% during the Eisenhower administration) to discourage top executives from overpaying themselves, and caps on executive compensation—if executive pay is “only” 100 times that of their median employee they’ll still be very wealthy, and their employees will be better off.