Simone_De_Beauvoir's Xanga

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

Wed, 15 Oct 2008 21:17:55 GMT

Greetings philosophy nuts and fellow students. It's been quite a while since I've used this site, and I certainly didn't think I'd be back so soon.

But something has happened so vile, so outrageous, that I find myself catapulted back to this forum where I hope we can learn and share together and help to shed some light on

the logical argument and rational thought.

Simone's site has always been a forum for discussion and learning, and I'd like us to continue in that tradition. Who knows how long we'll keep it up? It will ultimately depend on the level of passion and motivation in us all.

To begin, let's examine some arguments we are currently hearing in the news media, analyzing them for reason or fallacy. Can you find reason or logical fallacy in this article? Please post your reply/answer right here so everyone can follow along in the discussion. Flames and attacks will not be allowed and will promptly be deleted, so be sure you have REASON behind your argument rather than EMOTION (a big no-no in a logical discussion).

So glad to be back!

Simone

Commentary: The poverty of Democrats' ideas for cities

Story Highlights
Beck: Detroit, Buffalo rank highest on list of cities in poverty
Democrats have been in office for decades but haven't solved problem, he says
Beck says voters wanting "change" should throw incumbent parties out
Why is an issue like poverty "owned" by one political party, he asks

var clickExpire = "-1";

By Glenn Beck
CNN

Editor's note: Glenn Beck is on CNN Headline News nightly at 7 and 9 ET and also hosts a conservative national radio talk show.

Glenn Beck says Democrats have ruled many of the poorest cities for too long, and it's time for a change.

NEW YORK (CNN) -- "I think the best way of doing good to the poor is not making them easy in poverty but leading them or driving them out of it."

What hate-mongering politician would be so politically incorrect as to suggest that things like higher minimum wages and more government handouts don't actually help the poor? I'll identify the culprit at the end of this column, but for now, I'm more interested in figuring out why that statement sounds so controversial.

Poverty is one of the few national issues that, at least on the surface, unites us all. It's not a political condition; it's a human one. After all, when's the last time you've heard a politician campaign on a pro-poverty platform?

But although the problem may unite us, the solutions don't. And perhaps nothing illustrates that better than what's been happening in Detroit, Michigan, and Buffalo, New York.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, nearly a third of the residents in those cities are living beneath the poverty line, the highest rates among large cities in the entire country.

No matter what side of the political aisle you're on, that is nothing short of appalling. Yet if you ask people what we should do about it, you'll probably hear answers that inexplicably break down right along party lines.

Is there a perfect answer? Probably not. But what bothers me is that people stubbornly stick to their solution, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that it's not working.

For example, Detroit, whose mayor has been indicted on felony charges, hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1961. Buffalo has been even more stubborn. It started putting a Democrat in office back in 1954, and it hasn't stopped since.

Don't Miss

Unfortunately, those two cities may be alone at the top of the poverty rate list, but they're not alone in their love for Democrats. Cincinnati, Ohio (third on the poverty rate list), hasn't had a Republican mayor since 1984. Cleveland, Ohio (fourth on the list), has been led by a Democrat since 1989. St. Louis, Missouri (sixth), hasn't had a Republican since 1949, Milwaukee, Wisconsin (eighth), since 1908, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (ninth), since 1952 and Newark, New Jersey (10th), since 1907.

The only two cities in the top 10 that I didn't mention (Miami, Florida, and El Paso, Texas) haven't had Republicans in office either -- just Democrats, independents or nonpartisans.

Over the past 50 years, the eight cities listed above have had Republican leadership for a combined 36 years. The rest of the time -- a combined 364 years -- they've been led by Democrats.

Five of the 10 cities with the highest poverty rates (Detroit, Buffalo, St. Louis, Milwaukee, Philadelphia and Newark) have had a Democratic stranglehold since at least 1961: more than 45 years. Two of the cities (Milwaukee and Newark) have been electing Democrats since the first Model T rolled off the assembly line in 1908.

Two cities, 100 years, all Democrats.

If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result, the asylums in those cities must be as full as the soup kitchens.

Not too long ago, I had the great honor of being invited to a charity dinner hosted by Chris Gardner. He's the guy whose rags-to-riches life was portrayed by Will Smith in the movie "Pursuit of Happyness." Chris had been on my show a few times, and I've always admired his story and his message of hope through personal responsibility.

As I prepared for the dinner and looked into Chris' charity, I started to get nervous. The roster was filled with liberals, most of whom would probably hate me. Hillary Clinton, Mario Cuomo, Alan Alda, Kenneth Cole and Charles Grodin were just a few of the people I was worried about running into.

But the question I kept asking myself was, why? Why can't people from wildly different political stripes come together in support of a common cause without feeling alienated? Why is an issue like poverty "owned" by one political party?

I consider myself a conservative, but I consider myself an American and a human being first. When people whom I normally agree with screw things up, I call them on it. Yet the people in these cities apparently don't. Newark keeps drinking the Kool-Aid, electing the same people with the same ideas, slipping down the poverty list (along with the "Places Never to Visit Unless it's the Airport" list) and wondering why.

We've talked a lot about "change" in this country recently, but there's a much more important catchphrase that we've neglected: "All politics is local." Maybe instead of focusing so much on who we put in charge of our country, we should focus more on who we put in charge of our cities.

Oh, and before I forget. The hateful politician who suggested that we should be "driving" or "leading" the poor out of poverty? It was Benjamin Franklin.

Good thing he never tried to run for mayor of Newark

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the writer.

Good bye, Simone

Thu, 03 May 2007 16:52:28 GMT

Dear Participants,

It is with motivation and determination to put myself to use towards things I believe in, that I say to you adieu. Over the past two years, this forum has seen many topics, discussions on love, war, morality, even the physics of time. Hopefully, if you've participated in the discussions, you have thought critically about them, perhaps incorporating something new into your beliefs. I know that I have.

One of the greatest lessons I've learned from this forum has to do with the meaning of morality. It has become evident through our varied discussions and radically opposing positions, that morality is subjective to the individual. The evidence is in the forum. Simply look back at the replies to topic questions. Not one of us has agreed on all points on the exact meaning of morality. Unfortunately, the vast majority of us have difficulty accepting this truth and labor intensively to force a particular idea of morality onto others.

Morality is an odd beast, meaning everything and nothing. It is and it isn't. To those of a particular faith which condemns "immoral acts," morality is a defined set of rules. Yet the irony of that fallacy is that the rules seem to change according to the needs of the day--which sadly often are based on a narrow and selfish agenda.

I have my own idea of morality, and thanks to a very few key participants of this forum, I have had the opportunity to develop and refine what I find to be truth (those that have most affected my thinking and to whom I am most grateful are Shahrazad1973, RedHairedCelt, Czolya, Nance1, and italian_culture, but of course each of you has helped make it the interesting forum it has sometimes been). Since changing the focus to discuss Contemporary Moral Issues, I have allowed myself to share some of those truths refined herein with you: that killing is wrong, that pacifism should be explored, that all people should be treated with the same respect and dignity we want for ourselves and our children--regardless of if they are a blood relation or a stranger around the world. It is difficult to express just why, but I will try.

If we fail to uphold these basic moral truths, we fail ourselves, falling without a net, for in the end, we will have nothing in return for the nothing we have given, as those that would have been there to catch us will no longer exist; we had long ago let them fall to a preventable demise.

To put it plainly, it is in our own best interest to care for others as we would want to be cared for. It is a social contract that we must abide by because if we don't, when it comes time that we need a hand, that social contract will not be there for us either. To put it bluntly, we are destroying ourselves and assuring our own disaster by failing to uphold this social insurance policy. Regardless of your idea of morality, this applies to you.

For our children and their children, we must not allow this to happen.

Thank you to all my subscribers who have come to enjoy and appreciate this forum. I will keep this site open as a resource for those of you who appreciate having it on hand.

And now for a parting question, what do you do to uphold the social contract? If you would like to share something you do to help make the world a better place, you may leave your comment as a reply to this post. By doing so, others will see that helping is a necessary and popular idea, good for them to try as well. And maybe I will get some useful ideas of how I can constructively apply my own energy.

Genocide. On our Watch?

Mon, 30 Apr 2007 15:44:29 GMT

The resources of the United States, although vast, are limited. Especially the resources involving money and manpower. Given that fact, one has to wonder how we prioritize the spending of that money and use of that manpower. Fortunately, we still have rights as individuals. We have the freedom to choose for ourselves how we spend our personal money and personal efforts. Yet we also have rights as individuals of a democratic nation to demand our government use those resources for constructive, humane purposes, rather than destructive, inhumane purposes.

The question has been pondered over and over in my head as I watch us, day after day, continue to send our troops to foreign lands for questionable purposes and devote billions of tax-payer dollars to support that effort while millions of impoverished in other lands are ignored and neglected. In fact, we, as a nation, seem to have forgotten our promise after WWII that we would not ignore the very types of atrocities that are being committed in these other lands. Yet we do.

If you aren't yet familiar with what is going on in Darfur, Uganda, and the Sudan, please take some time to visit Human Rights Watch to get some information.

How do we excuse the manner in which we are using our human and monetary resources, given the dire need to stop genocide and mass human rights violations occurring at this very minute? What is our moral responsibility as a nation and leading world power in the global community?

Death for Oil?

Thu, 26 Apr 2007 15:39:34 GMT

If history finds that we have participated in the death of countless people so that a few could profit from oil production, will our compliance with the war have been a moral act?

Today, I listened to another edition of the Diane Rehm Show, entitled simply Iraqi Oil. Both sides of the issue were represented; however, either J. Robinson West, chairman of PFC Energy, is an idiot, or he's incompetent in the art of debate. Antonia Juhasz, analyst, Oil Change International and author of "The Bush Agenda: Invading the World, One Economy at a Time" blew him out of the water with her argument that the Bush Administration is using our military to secure its oil agenda. Currently on the table, a law that would give 75% of Iraqi oil to international corporations for a lengthy 35-year contract with no responsibility whatsoever for those corporations to share technology with Iraqi oil scientists or engineers, train Iraqi workers, or even employ Iraqi workers--all to be decided conveniently by a weak, puppet government of our own creation. (Be sure to listen past the first interview with Edward Wong, New York Times reporter on site in Baghdad).

After you listen to the program, please weigh in with your opinions on the war (have your opinions on our motivation for war in Iraq changed?) Are we guilty of ignorant and weak compliance? Or can we brush off all responsibility for the deaths of innocents by our own military as the act of a greedy few?

For the convenience of everyone, please keep your responses to the topic at hand. Also please limit your response to your own argument, rather than just pasting in someone else's article, email, whatever.

Did we, as a society, fail Cho?

Sun, 22 Apr 2007 00:25:22 GMT

Edit Saturday 9:25: the following question is not meant in any way to belittle the deaths of 32 innocent people at Virginia Tech this week. We mourn for them with the rest of our friends and neighbors. Instead, it is meant to serve us by encouraging us to look at ourselves and our society for ways we can keep such atrocities from occurring in the future. If you are feeling overwhelmed by grief, this may not be the best time for you to participate in this discussion.

~~~

It's easy to broach the subject of how we, as a society, failed the 32 dead Virginia Tech students. But I'd like to address the question from a different perspective.

Did we, as a society, fail Cho?

A little immigrant boy new to our country, placed in a new and foreign school where he didn't know the language. He didn't know how to talk to them or make friends. The kids laughed and taunted him, and he became more and more reclusive. By the eighth grade, out of anger, frustration, and bitterness, he had written his first hit list.

Was Cho any different than many other immigrant children new to our country? Do we treat them any better? How about the smelly homeless guy on the corner? Or the strangely dressed man that walked just a bit too close to your car? Or the grungy lady scrounging for spent cigarettes and begging for change?

We willfully ostracize those we deem different, weird, or weak. We insult them with our fear and our air of superiority.

Is this not a moral failing on our part?

Does our culture promote mass murder?

Thu, 19 Apr 2007 22:42:08 GMT

My husband said no. He explained that even without guns, various groups have massacred other groups, with machetes, even. But wouldn't it be much more difficult for one person to massacre thirty-two without a gun? Does the ease of obtaining guns in our country promote such mass murders? Do our various freedoms, taken to extremes, promote mass murders?

This isn't to say that the United States is the only country with problems, but we seem to be an icon for such violence. Isolation in our modern culture is surely a factor as well, and we could discuss all kinds of causations for the behavior of Cho Seung-Hui. Imo, Cho was no different than the boys at Columbine, deeply disturbed, vengeful, and dangerous (amongst other things). I find myself wondering where the parents were and why this boy was allowed to live such an isolated existence (where was his community?).

But given the nature of our society to encourage distance between family members and isolation, shouldn't we also be downplaying (rather than glorifying) violence? And isn't part of that downplaying enacting strict gun-control laws and harsh punishments for violators? And before you say that I'm just a flake, let me tell you that I come from a pro-gun family. These thoughts are erupting as a result of studying our modern culture.

What do you think? Do we create our own hell?

Edit 4/19 Thursday 7:40 p.m. Blip32962 has shared an article from The Guardian by Lionel Shriver on the subject of the shootings and gun control. If you have the time, give it a read (say thank you and a few words to Blip), and come back here and post your thoughts.

Friday, April 13, 2007

Fri, 13 Apr 2007 13:12:43 GMT

It seems one must have money to truly have freedom of speech, or at least one should not represent a large corporation. Slaps on the hand are for pro players; for the rest of us, it's "off with the head."

Morality on the air waves, it's nothing new. Here in the U.S., the FCC controls much of what is said or not said, and sponsors throw their weight around effectively controling output that might tarnish the reputation of their brand associations.

What do you think? Was the firing of Imus a hit on the Bill of Rights or a score for feminists and decency?

Friday, March 09, 2007

Fri, 09 Mar 2007 21:36:24 GMT

Not to take away from the latest topic, which is one of the best I've introduced in a while, imo, but I'm currently obsessed with a fundraisor for my daughter on my other blog. For over a year, I've hesitated to introduce Simone's readers en masse to my other site, but as this involves a shameless plea for monetary contribution, I will finally allow my much-deserving regulars a glimpse at the complicated person I really am. Please stop in and meet my daughter, Eden, a young lady on the verge of adulthood, working hard to spread her wings. More importantly, you won't want to miss my Vagina Art auction I'm holding on her behalf. It starts tonight at 11:30 EST. Simone

Thursday, March 08, 2007

Thu, 08 Mar 2007 22:00:11 GMT

Watching an old episode of Six Feet Under the other day made me remember the half a second that I pondered selling my eggs--Yes, my eggs--the part of me that would/could become another human being. Trust me, when an individual is VERY short on cash, he or she debates a variety of ways to raise money. I eventually opted to raise funds by lap dancing and skipped the egg selling but only after talking to my mom about it. Her point against selling HER eggs was that she felt that they would be her children (if born), and she simply could not fathom the thought of her children being raised by someone else, if at all possible.

What does it mean to sell one's eggs? or sperm, for that matter?

Are the offspring of donated or sold eggs the children of the donor or seller? From a moral perspective, is it moral to sell one's unborn children? Is it more moral to donate one's unborn children?

What do you think?

Wednesday, February 21, 2007

Wed, 21 Feb 2007 15:13:15 GMT

What pisses you off?

This morning, I've been aroused by yet another discussion with customer service about an order I placed back in January (sorry, make that December 21st!) for furniture. During the process, which may have lasted 20 minutes, I realized my body felt differently, that I was experiencing heightened anger reserved especially for poor customer service.

The question I ask now may seem trivial. But I think it might help us learn a bit about ourselves and our priorities.

So, what pisses YOU off?