Re: History of bulk electronic components suppliers

[John Larkin]

So those who struggled for civil rights were all cowards and the thug cops
who set dogs and used fire hoses on them were all brave? Have you seen the
Mad Hatter in your world recently? Alice?

Hmmm, do you remember Martin Luther King's original occupation?

Read "Who Really Cares."

John

 

[James Arthur]

Liberal/conservative is often a silly smokescreen. I think a better,
in the sense of more useful, way to separate people is by their levels
of fear and courage (or oblivion to fear, if you prefer.) But I'm sure
that liberal:conservative correlates to afraid:unafraid.

I always hesitate to use "liberal" or "conservative," since the tags
are so ambiguous today, and I'm usually sorry when I do.

I'm coming to the idea that in general, the division is that between
optimists and pessimists, between people who understand the world, and
those who don't.

Most of the "liberal" motivation seems to be that they're afraid:
of global warming, of medical costs, of illness, of retiring
penniless, of corporations... I'm not afraid of any of those things.
Maybe all those fears are why these people so want someone to protect
them everyone else, and from themselves.

In turn, a lot of that fear seems to come from not understanding
things. People who don't understand free markets fear them. People
who don't understand corporations, finance and profit fear those too,
as if they were somehow bad rather than essential(!). People who
don't see the rationale behind things react angrily, unpredictably,
irrationally.

And the lack of concern shown by "conservatives" isn't always
rational either. In some cases, it's not courage so much as an
inability to appreciate a real danger. But this is the trouble with
generalizations: not everyone thinks the same way. Some are
courageous, some just oblivious. Some are fearful by nature; others
because they see a real threat.

Enough rambling for the moment.
Best,
James Arthur

 

[Rich Grise]

Wrong as usual.

"There is no progress without liberals".

True, if you define "conservative" as "resisting change," but wrong
for conservative in the sense of "conserving [a resource]," or in the
sense of "prudent judgement," "allowing a margin of safety," or "fiscally
responsible."

In the pinball biz, the owner/operator can set the electronics to "liberal"
or "conservative". In this case, "liberal" means "loose", or "really easy
to get a high score", and "conservative" means "tight", "stingy", or
"really hard to extract any points out of it.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Richard The Dreaded Libertarian]

Interesting. I'd have said it differently.

"Liberals" seem afraid of things they don't understand. Conservatives
seem oblivious to them.

The word "liberal" used to mean "in favor of Liberty", but it's come to
mean "socialist" these days. >:-[

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Richard The Dreaded Libertarian]

Liberal/conservative is often a silly smokescreen. I think a better, in
the sense of more useful, way to separate people is by their levels of
fear and courage (or oblivion to fear, if you prefer.) But I'm sure that
liberal:conservative correlates to afraid:unafraid.

Do you mean afraid:in denial? ;-)

Conservatives, and especially religious conservatives, tend strongly to be
generous, civil, social, and civic-minded (those are statistical facts)
and less driven by fear (my opinion.)

Oh, yes! They have Faith! (which is really just belief without evidence.)
[snip]

Cheers!
Rich

 

[James Arthur]

So those who struggled for civil rights were all cowards and the thug cops
who set dogs and used fire hoses on them were all brave? Have you seen the
Mad Hatter in your world recently? Alice?

You make a basic mistake: the aim of the civil rights movement was to
secure liberties for oppressed people. These liberties came at no
expense to any other party; no man was required to toil or expend
effort as a result. The _effort_ and labor previously was in actively
preventing them from securing their due, proper place in society. All
that was needed was for these people to be recognized, accepted and
respected.

The chief aim of modern "liberal"-ism in the US, however, is to make
one man pay for another's desires, i.e. getting someone else to pay
for your retirement, education, children, subsistence, or medical
care.

Charity, but using someone else's time/labor/money, if you will.

Except that if you take someone's wallet, then give it to someone
else, that's usually considered theft, not charity at all.

Best,
James Arthur

 

[Homer J Simpson]

The chief aim of modern "liberal"-ism in the US, however, is to make
one man pay for another's desires, i.e. getting someone else to pay
for your retirement, education, children, subsistence, or medical
care.

The only problem with this proposition is that it is bullshit. What liberals
want is fair treatment for all. What the reactionaries want is preference
for some - themselves.

They are best defined as a group who would rather put a dollar in the pocket
of a Chinese army general than in the pocket of a working person in the USA
if there is any benefit to themselves.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Most of the "liberal" motivation seems to be that they're afraid:
of global warming, of medical costs, of illness, of retiring
penniless, of corporations... I'm not afraid of any of those things.
Maybe all those fears are why these people so want someone to protect
them everyone else, and from themselves.

Nope. Progressives think things can be better for everybody. Reactionaries
assume that they can't be and want to make sure that they are the winners at
any cost.


--
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..

 

[Homer J Simpson]

The word "liberal" used to mean "in favor of Liberty", but it's come to
mean "socialist" these days. >:-[

Nope. It means progressive.



--
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..

 

[John Larkin]

Nope. Progressives think things can be better for everybody. Reactionaries
assume that they can't be and want to make sure that they are the winners at
any cost.

But it doesn't matter what you think. It matters what you do. Thinking
you are progressive doesn't relieve you of the obligation to be good;
far too many people think it does.

John

 

[John Larkin]

Do you mean afraid:in denial? ;-)

Denial? No, exactly the opposite: neurotic fear that's statistically
and factually unjustified.

Oh, yes! They have Faith! (which is really just belief without evidence.)

And hope. And charity. Look it up.

John

 

[Homer J Simpson]

But it doesn't matter what you think. It matters what you do. Thinking
you are progressive doesn't relieve you of the obligation to be good;
far too many people think it does.

I'll put Fred Rogers up against Halliburton any day.


--
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..

 

[John Larkin]

I'll put Fred Rogers up against Halliburton any day.

OK, guess which state has the lowest level of charitable giving.

John

 

[Homer J Simpson]

OK, guess which state has the lowest level of charitable giving.

Why not compare countries - or continents - or hemispheres?


--
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..

 

[John Larkin]

Why not compare countries - or continents - or hemispheres?

Because within a single country it's easier to determine causalities.

For example, even the poorest US states are more generous than the
richest Canadian provinces.

http://www.envision.ca/pdf/news/FraserInstitute.pdf

Table 3, pages 11-12, sums it up nicely.

John

 

[Richard The Dreaded Libertarian]

Most of the "liberal" motivation seems to be that they're afraid:
of global warming, of medical costs, of illness, of retiring
penniless, of corporations... I'm not afraid of any of those things.
Maybe all those fears are why these people so want someone to protect
them everyone else, and from themselves.

Nah. It's about money. The right-wing were born with silver spoons in
their mouth, and the left-wing are condemned to survive on crumbs from
the rich man's plate, or make a pittance scrubbing his toilets.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Richard The Dreaded Libertarian]

Denial? No, exactly the opposite: neurotic fear that's statistically
and factually unjustified.


And hope. And charity. Look it up.

It's easy to be charitable when you're awash in cash. The rest of us
realize, you can't give from an empty vessel.

But Da Gubmint takes it away anyway. >:-[

Thanks,
Rich

 

[John Larkin]

Nah. It's about money. The right-wing were born with silver spoons in
their mouth, and the left-wing are condemned to survive on crumbs from
the rich man's plate, or make a pittance scrubbing his toilets.

That's simply untrue. Self-identified liberals in the US have a higher
average income than conservatives. But the liberals are far less
generous with what they have. The most selfish US demographic is young
liberals, who are also the noisiest about social justice.

Your premise is that the only human motivation is selfishness, that
rich people want to keep what they have, and poor people want to take
it from them. Aside from being ignoble as hell, that's simply not the
way it is.

Don't confuse actions with pious rhetoric.

John

 

[John Larkin]

The word "liberal" used to mean "in favor of Liberty", but it's come to
mean "socialist" these days. >:-[

Nope. It means progressive.

Tell me, sincerely: as a progressive, presumably in favor of sharing
the benefits of the planet with everyone, are you willing to sacrifice
any of your own personal well-being to, say, help miserably poor and
sick people in less developed places? Or is your progressivism of the
theoretical "tax somebody else to help them, I can't afford it" sort?

I know a lot of theoretical progressives who are nasty, selfish, angry
jerks. They don't give squat about actual poor people, they just want
to crush people who are richer than themselves.

John

 

[Eeyore]

That's simply untrue. Self-identified liberals in the US have a higher
average income than conservatives.

Cite ?

But the liberals are far less
generous with what they have. The most selfish US demographic is young
liberals, who are also the noisiest about social justice.

Your premise is that the only human motivation is selfishness, that
rich people want to keep what they have, and poor people want to take
it from them. Aside from being ignoble as hell, that's simply not the
way it is.

I suggest you try being poor.

Graham