Comments Posted By Mike Myers
Displaying 1 To 30 Of 268 Comments
The scapegoat deception is a horrible factor in human affairs, at all levels. God help us always to be on the watch for it and escape its trap. An antidote of mutual repentance and forgiveness is needed, indeed. That about sums it up.
“The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?” Jeremiah 17:9
I look back on some of my posts here with sadness and in a few cases even a bit of alarm. I heedlessly wrote things I didn’t even mean, I hypocritically castigated George and a few others for things I’m guilty of myself, I’ve been unkind, pretentious and worse, far too often. I’m ashamed. I’m overwhelmed and drowning in my own past sins, so burning up these tares in my own heart and utterly mortifying that old man of sin is more than enough to keep me busy for life with what should be deeds of true repentance, in a spirit of mercy and humility, and thanksgiving. Please pray for me, as I have prayed for all of you. May God convert us and deliver us from evil so we can strengthen one another in Christ.
I’m learning painfully yet again the truth about how much trouble the tongue and pen can cause, even with the “best intentions,” not to mention when driven by our passions in delusion, prejudice and bias. I ask the forgiveness of anyone I may have offended. Let’s fast from smashing one another with the fist of wickedness. Lord have mercy.
» Posted By Mike Myers On December 6, 2012 @ 3:58 pm
George, what I wrote below was definitely worded crudely and part of it almost certainly false, so I want to retract it. It’s hypocritical for me to castigate you constantly for inaccuracies and inadequate support for assertions (to be charitable) and then to carelessly and thoughtlessly commit such huge blunders myself, in another thread.
In “The Death Lobby,” Kenneth Timmerman quoted National Security Council staff member and former aide Gary G. Sick:
Brzezinski was letting Saddam assume there was a U.S. green light for his invasion of Iran, because there was no explicit red light [despite months of cross-border attacks between Iran and Iraq]. But to say the U.S. planned and plotted it all out in advance is simply not true. Saddam had his own reasons for invading Iran, and they were sufficient. (an excerpt from the NSC staffer’s memoir, quoted by Timmerman on p. 76)
Wikipedia excerpt (forgive me for being lazy here, I don’t have the book in front of me) — “. . .According to Zbigniew Brzezinski’s memoir, the United States initially took a largely neutral position on the Iran–Iraq War, with some minor exceptions. First, the U.S. acted in an attempt to prevent the confrontation from widening, largely in order to prevent additional disruption to world oil supplies and to honor U.S. security assurances to Saudi Arabia. As a result, the U.S. reacted to Soviet troop movements on the border of Iran by informing the Soviet Union that they would defend Iran in the event of Soviet invasion. The U.S. also acted to defend Saudi Arabia, and lobbied the surrounding states not to become involved in the war. Brzezinski characterizes this recognition of the Middle East as a vital strategic region on a par with Western Europe and the Far East as a fundamental shift in U.S. strategic policy.[10] Second, the United States explored whether the Iran–Iraq War would offer leverage with which to resolve the Iranian Hostage Crisis. In this regard, the Carter administration explored the use of both “carrots,” by suggesting that they might offer military assistance to Iran upon release of the hostages, and “sticks,” by discouraging Israeli military assistance to Iran and suggesting that they might offer military assistance to Iraq if the Iranians did not release the hostages. Third, as the war progressed, freedom of navigation, especially at the Strait of Hormuz, was deemed a critical priority.[10]”
I wrote, stupidly:
“. . .What have the Iraqi people done to Americans to deserve what we (mostly) did to them and their nation? The answer is nothing. Absolutely nothing whatsoever. And yet we’ve been systematically destroying their nation, barbarically, for 20 years — children suffering probably worst of all during much of this time. This destruction transpired after Carter/Reagan had goaded Saddam”
To have used the word “goaded” was shockingly stupid and careless and inaccurate. I should have reread this post before I sent it weeks back and then just deleted it, along with a couple of others in that thread. No evidence for “goaded,” in spite of the speculation here and abroad. That Brzezinski let Saddam assume his invasion of Iran had a “green light” from the US (according to Gary Sick — I don’t know what if anything B. has had to say about this) is very far from being the same thing as goading him to do it, obviously. What probably happened is a result of the Carter Administration just trying to cope with events.
I do not want to contribute to the static and lies. So please allow me to retract that unintentionally erroneous characterization of the NSC Iran expert’s statement in his memoir. And I don’t think we’ve been actively, intentionally destroying Iraq, consciously. But the result of modern warfare and long-standing sanctions can certainly appear systematically destructive. The more I see in this world, the more suspicious I am of violence and war.
The rhetoric here was also careless and stupid:
“… into invading Iran 30 years ago, which led to a brutal stalemate, and after a million human beings had already died on both sides [in Iraq and Iran] and after millions more had been maimed and psychologically brutalized [consequences associated with the first and second Iraq wars, by the US -- ], their lives and their children’s and friends’ and loved one’s lives ruined. . .”
I’m far from being a “blame America firster.” There’s clearly plenty of blame to go around in this world. Finally, I regret referring to our actions in Iraq as a war crime. Most of this just stems from nausea with the maddening impact of modern mass warfare and violence and their horrific effects on civilians and on our service members.
The Lord taught us to pray that our Father’s will be done on earth, as it is in Heaven. We should all be praying fervently to God for President Obama and everyone else who’s now in civil and military authority here in the US. Isn’t that the teaching of the Orthodox Church? Isn’t it what you pray every Sunday in the Liturgy?
Please forgive me for my sloppy language and misstatements, and for any offense I may have given as a result. Please pray for me, a sinner.
I want to wish a Blessed Nativity, Advent and Chanukah to you all.
» Posted By Mike Myers On November 29, 2012 @ 12:11 am
More Narrative Fail: The OCL Weighs In
Thanks, Fr. Ambrose.
» Posted By Mike Myers On September 25, 2012 @ 11:24 pm
With all due respect some of the greatest heretics in the history of the Church have been monastics.
For example? Names please.
» Posted By Mike Myers On September 25, 2012 @ 5:37 pm
Who on earth could possibly think such a thing, Helga? No evidence of that at all . . .
» Posted By Mike Myers On September 24, 2012 @ 11:10 pm
Father Ambrose, Mansfield is my home town, although I haven’t lived there since 1977, aside for a few months’ visit in the mid-80s. I did not know that this man had served at Sts. Helen and Constantine, a church I visited only once. I remember Fr. Michael was rector then. This is very disheartening news.
I only learned that St. Gregory Palamas Monastery existed a couple years ago. I visited it soon after and spent many hours in conversation with Abbot Joseph. He is a deeply impressive and wise man, indeed. Very insightful and perceptive, and profoundly charitable. The brothers there seemed very well led to me. I look forward to visiting again the next time I’m “home.”
I know that like Fr. Seraphim, who I have not met, Fr. Joseph was on Mt. Athos, because we talked about that a bit. Do you happen to know how much time he spent on the Holy Mountain? I can’t recall if that came up.
» Posted By Mike Myers On September 24, 2012 @ 5:37 pm
Where the Rubber Meets the Road
Who are you arguing with, George? CQ, or Jesus? You amaze me.
» Posted By Mike Myers On September 23, 2012 @ 11:14 pm
Social democracy (not “Marxism”) has not only been tried in much of Europe, it’s thriving. Problems posed by aging populations and low birthrates are real enough there and serious, but that is an entirely separate issue from the stark differences in political economy and social contract between the US and much of the EC. The Mediterranean periphery does have some very serious structural problems, but they’re due mostly to half-hearted commitment to the principles of commonwealth as well as having come relatively late into the game. In poverty levels, educational attainment & cost, job training, apprenticeships & rational labor market policies, health care quality, access & cost, abortion levels, out-of-wedlock births, to name only a few metrics — and just general quality of urban and country life, most of Europe is significantly ahead of us. Fact.
As usual, you have little idea what you’re talking about.
» Posted By Mike Myers On September 23, 2012 @ 10:46 pm
“Consumerism” is just a symptom of a deeper hollowness at the core of our political economy. You appear to defend that deeper hollowness, the utterly debunked, empirically devastated nostrums about the “wisdom of markets” or the benignity of laissez-faire liberalism or neo-liberalism. The whole notion that human beings and society itself should be subservient to the marketplace and its sordid valuations and to the abject slaves of Mammon who enforce all that rot while being paid off like bandits to do so is just nauseating stupidity, and priests who defend it, or worse passionately shill for it — in God’s name yet! – are frauds. They should get honest jobs.
» Posted By Mike Myers On September 23, 2012 @ 6:13 pm
Hans,
Get an honest job.
» Posted By Mike Myers On September 23, 2012 @ 5:35 pm
Where did I say you said that? But since you’ve brought up the subject so defensively — if you’re voting for Romney/Ryan, you’re supporting politicians whose platform is to enable plutocratic rapacity, whether you personally think of yourself as “advocating” it or not.
» Posted By Mike Myers On September 22, 2012 @ 11:04 pm
Isaiah 56:11– Yea, they are greedy dogs which can never have enough, and they are shepherds that cannot understand: they all look to their own way, every one for his gain, from his quarter.
Jeremiah 6:13 — For from the least of them even unto the greatest of them every one is given to covetousness; and from the prophet even unto the priest every one dealeth falsely.
Jeremiah 8:10 — Therefore will I give their wives unto others, and their fields to them that shall inherit them: for every one from the least even unto the greatest is given to covetousness, from the prophet even unto the priest every one dealeth falsely.
Ezekiel 22:25-29 — There is a conspiracy of her prophets in the midst thereof, like a roaring lion ravening the prey; they have devoured souls; they have taken the treasure and precious things; they have made her many widows in the midst thereof. Her priests have violated my law, and have profaned mine holy things: they have put no difference between the holy and profane, neither have they shewed difference between the unclean and the clean, and have hid their eyes from my sabbaths, and I am profaned among them. Her princes in the midst thereof are like wolves ravening the prey, to shed blood, and to destroy souls, to get dishonest gain. And her prophets have daubed them with untempered morter, seeing vanity, and divining lies unto them, saying, Thus saith the Lord GOD, when the LORD hath not spoken. The people of the land have used oppression, and exercised robbery, and have vexed the poor and needy: yea, they have oppressed the stranger wrongfully.
Ezekiel 33:31 — And they come unto thee as the people cometh, and they sit before thee as my people, and they hear thy words, but they will not do them: for with their mouth they shew much love, but their heart goeth after their covetousness.
Luke 12:15 — And he said unto them, Take heed, and beware of covetousness: for a man’s life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth.
Luke 20:47 — Which devour widows’ houses, and for a shew make long prayers: the same shall receive greater damnation.
Luke 16:13 — The Pharisees, who were lovers of money, also heard all these things, and they scoffed at him.
» Posted By Mike Myers On September 22, 2012 @ 2:42 pm
I think you idolize your very limited understanding. Continual indications of that. Here you’re trying to rationalize a conventional compromise with American materialism and the pandemic of grotesque veneration of the money-rich (regardless of what they had to do, or consent to, to pile up the money). It’s true that you don’t go as far as Morris and Jacobse in their double-minded, shallow sloganeering and parroting of tired, hollow cliches, and that’s a good thing IMHO. It’s certainly a sign of relative spiritual health not to be as silly and confused as they are, or as deceptive. But you need to think this through a bit more.
To understand a parable you need to get beyond the confines of literal-mindedness. In the NT, true wealth is just not material or “earthly” — period. If you don’t get this, you don’t understand the New Age in Christ or much of anything He or the apostles had to say about the Kingdom of God and the reason for, the logos behind, its age-long conflict with the deceptive values that prop up and yet at the same time are destroying from within a fallen world, “lying in wickedness.” It took most of the apostles awhile to get it, judging from the gospel accounts. Eventually they did, though. When will American “Christians” get it? Was Jesus rich, in the material sense, or were any of his apostles? Show me one place in the apostolic epistles where money, and the desire for money, aren’t utterly scorned and warned against. Just one. In the first few centuries of the Church, prior to Constantine’s apparent surrender of the essentially commercial Roman state to the Church, was anyone of any note in the Church rich, as conventionally understood?
Everything belongs to God. We are nothing more than stewards of his Creation. That’s the truth, but it is increasingly alien to many in this country. Priests too cowardly to teach it, and its implications, are basically just imposters. In effect they pick on and marginalize victims of injustice and magnify the guilt of petty sinners while explicitly or implicitly blessing the great ones.
“Who is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved?
I. Those who bestow laudatory addresses on the rich appear to me to be rightly judged not only flatterers and base, in vehemently pretending that things which are disagreeable give them pleasure, but also godless and treacherous; godless, because neglecting to praise and glorify God, who is alone perfect and good, “of whom are all things, and by whom are all things, and for whom are all things,” they invest with divine honours men wallowing in an execrable and abominable life, and, what is the principal thing, liable on this account to the judgment of God; and treacherous, because, although wealth is of itself sufficient to puff up and corrupt the souls of its possessors, and to turn them from the path by which salvation is to be attained, they stupefy them still more, by inflating the minds of the rich with the pleasures of extravagant praises, and by making them utterly despise all things except wealth, on account of which they are admired; bringing, as the saying is, fire to fire, pouring pride on pride, and adding conceit to wealth, a heavier burden to that which by nature is a weight, from which somewhat ought rather to be removed and taken away as being a dangerous and deadly disease. For to him who exalts and magnifies himself, the change and downfall to a low condition succeeds in turn, as the divine word teaches. For it appears to me to be far kinder, than basely to flatter the rich and praise them for what is bad, to aid them in working out their salvation in every possible way; asking this of God, who surely and sweetly bestows such things on His own children; and thus by the grace of the Saviour healing their souls, enlightening them and leading them to the attainment of the truth; and whosoever obtains this and distinguishes himself in good works shall gain the prize of everlasting life. Now prayer that runs its course till the last day of life needs a strong and tranquil soul; and the conduct of life needs a good and righteous disposition, reaching out towards all the commandments of the Saviour.
II. Perhaps the reason of salvation appearing more difficult to the rich than to poor men, is not single but manifold. For some, merely hearing, and that in an off-hand way, the utterance of the Saviour, “that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven,” despair of themselves as not destined to live, surrender all to the world, cling to the present life as if it alone was left to them, and so diverge more from the way to the life to come, no longer inquiring either whom the Lord and Master calls rich, or how that which is impossible to man becomes possible to God. But others rightly and adequately comprehend this, but attaching slight importance to the works which tend to salvation, do not make the requisite preparation for attaining to the objects of their hope. And I affirm both of these things of the rich who have learned both the Saviour’s power and His glorious salvation. With those who are ignorant of the truth I have little concern.” St. Clement of Alexandria
» Posted By Mike Myers On September 22, 2012 @ 1:13 pm
I think you idolize your very limited understanding. Continual indications of that. Here you’re trying to rationalize a conventional compromise with American materialism and the pandemic of grotesque veneration of the money-rich (regardless of what they had to do, or consent to, to pile up the money). It’s true that you don’t go as far as Morris and Jacobse in their double-minded, shallow sloganeering and parroting of tired, hollow cliches, and that’s a good thing IMHO. It’s certainly a sign of relative spiritual health not to be as silly and confused as they are, or as deceptive. But you need to think this through a bit more.
To understand a parable you need to get beyond the confines of literal-mindedness. In the NT, true wealth is just not material or “earthly” — period. If you don’t get this, you don’t understand the New Age in Christ or much of anything He or the apostles had to say about the Kingdom of God and the reason for, the logos behind, its age-long conflict with the deceptive values that prop up and yet at the same time are destroying from within a fallen world, “lying in wickedness.” It took most of the apostles awhile to get it, judging from the gospel accounts. Eventually they did, though. When will American “Christians” get it? Was Jesus rich, in the material sense, or were any of his apostles? Show me one place in the apostolic epistles where money, and the desire for money, aren’t utterly scorned and warned against. Just one. In the first few centuries of the Church, prior to Constantine’s apparent surrender of the essentially commercial Roman state to the Church, was anyone of any note in the Church rich, as conventionally understood?
Everything belongs to God. We are nothing more than stewards of his Creation. That’s the truth, but it is increasingly alien to many in this country. Priests too cowardly to teach it, and its implications, are basically just imposters. They pick on the victims and petty sinners while explicitly or implicitly blessing the great ones. Their Judge is watching.
“Who is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved?
I. Those who bestow laudatory addresses on the rich appear to me to be rightly judged not only flatterers and base, in vehemently pretending that things which are disagreeable give them pleasure, but also godless and treacherous; godless, because neglecting to praise and glorify God, who is alone perfect and good, “of whom are all things, and by whom are all things, and for whom are all things,” they invest with divine honours men wallowing in an execrable and abominable life, and, what is the principal thing, liable on this account to the judgment of God; and treacherous, because, although wealth is of itself sufficient to puff up and corrupt the souls of its possessors, and to turn them from the path by which salvation is to be attained, they stupefy them still more, by inflating the minds of the rich with the pleasures of extravagant praises, and by making them utterly despise all things except wealth, on account of which they are admired; bringing, as the saying is, fire to fire, pouring pride on pride, and adding conceit to wealth, a heavier burden to that which by nature is a weight, from which somewhat ought rather to be removed and taken away as being a dangerous and deadly disease. For to him who exalts and magnifies himself, the change and downfall to a low condition succeeds in turn, as the divine word teaches. For it appears to me to be far kinder, than basely to flatter the rich and praise them for what is bad, to aid them in working out their salvation in every possible way; asking this of God, who surely and sweetly bestows such things on His own children; and thus by the grace of the Saviour healing their souls, enlightening them and leading them to the attainment of the truth; and whosoever obtains this and distinguishes himself in good works shall gain the prize of everlasting life. Now prayer that runs its course till the last day of life needs a strong and tranquil soul; and the conduct of life needs a good and righteous disposition, reaching out towards all the commandments of the Saviour.
II. Perhaps the reason of salvation appearing more difficult to the rich than to poor men, is not single but manifold. For some, merely hearing, and that in an off-hand way, the utterance of the Saviour, “that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven,” despair of themselves as not destined to live, surrender all to the world, cling to the present life as if it alone was left to them, and so diverge more from the way to the life to come, no longer inquiring either whom the Lord and Master calls rich, or how that which is impossible to man becomes possible to God. But others rightly and adequately comprehend this, but attaching slight importance to the works which tend to salvation, do not make the requisite preparation for attaining to the objects of their hope. And I affirm both of these things of the rich who have learned both the Saviour’s power and His glorious salvation. With those who are ignorant of the truth I have little concern.” St. Clement of Alexandria
» Posted By Mike Myers On September 22, 2012 @ 12:49 pm
There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. — Luke 16:19-25
No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money. “Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes? So do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. — Matthew 6:24-25, 31-33
Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. — Matthew 6:19-21
Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. — Matthew 19:23-24, Mark 10:23-25
But woe unto you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation. — Luke 6:24
Go to now, ye rich men, weep and howl for your miseries that shall come upon you. — James 5:1
» Posted By Mike Myers On September 21, 2012 @ 11:52 pm
If he loves his country so much, I’m wondering why he nevertheless dared to rake in untold millions hawking tobacco and liquor to his people — while in holy orders, exploiting the tax-exempt status of the ROC as a charitable organization to undercut his competition, thereby joining the ranks of Russia’s oligarchy. This is rather puzzling, ethically and spiritually speaking, under the circumstances of his Throne, and all.
You yourself brought up the matter of “principle.” Could this be what you were alluding to: “. . . Just because he loves his country doesn’t mean that he has to abide by the same principles as those who don’t.” Perhaps you can explain your thinking in more detail here, George. I’m a bit baffled on this topic. Everyone else I’ve asked studiously abstains from answering related questions — those who hold up the MP and the ROC as the Beacon of Orthodoxy, I mean. It reminds me very much of the old days, back in the U.S.S.R., when foreign reporters and so on couldn’t get a word out of the natives re: their motherland. Same family of “principles” at work?
» Posted By Mike Myers On August 21, 2012 @ 4:05 pm
OCA Snubbed at Ft Ross Celebration?
“. . . it’s in the canonical territory of the DOW. If anybody should be doing the inviting it should be Bp (soon to be Metropolitan) Benjamin.”
I understand this. Honestly, I don’t want to intrude onto chatter about this particular tempest in a teapot. It isn’t any of my business, and I shouldn’t even have commented. My only dog in the hunt here is what I see as your often questionable tactics in discourse. Someone once spoke ironically of people who lie (and cheat) with a clear conscience, because it’s “for a ‘good’ cause.” That’s a very dangerous policy, and a slippery slope. Good causes don’t need propping up by lies and distortions or rhetorical sleight of hand.
» Posted By Mike Myers On August 21, 2012 @ 2:17 am
OK, then by what right did ROCOR invite a foreign bishop before — when Jonah was the Metropolitan? Were they trying to humiliate Jonah?
As usual, your logic is faulty. So what was your point, again? You appear once again to be ahoist by your own petard. What else is new.
You need a guide dog, George. To vet your own posts before you discredit yourself further, if that were even possible.
» Posted By Mike Myers On August 20, 2012 @ 9:25 pm
The OCA is sans Met. now. Therefore it is hard to imagine how announcements about the celebration posted since his resignation could feature Jonah “front and center.” You’re just stirring up trouble as usual, affixing the worst possible interpretation upon the results of your arbitrary inspections of various internet entrails, with malice aforethought in respect to the Holy Synod. This is your MO. Everyone who sees straight is clear on that.
Another specific case in point: Colette carelessly misread this following text from another announcement, where the convention of beginning a list of hierarchs of the same rank with a plural title, in this case, “Archbishops,” is used merely to avoid redundant use of the title before each name, and not to send a signal of MP’s alleged displeasure with OCA episcopal “aggrandizement,” obviously. What is your glitch??
Collette wrote:
“It is anticipated that First Hierarch of ROCOR, Metropolitan Hilarion, Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk (MP) and others, including Archbishops Kyrill (ROCOR), Benjamin (OCA) and Justinian (MP) will concelebrate. Archbishop Kyrill has also invited Bishop Peter of Cleveland”
I just wondered because there is no “+” or “bishop” or titles in front of our man “Benjamin” . . . .”
You replied:
“good catch Collette. I guess that in addition to our autocephaly, Moscow will studiously ignore the recent childish aggrandizement in titles.”
» Posted By Mike Myers On August 20, 2012 @ 12:18 pm
George, your post above asserts in the passive declarative voice that “the OCA was not invited” to the Fort Ross bicentennial. But that’s flatly false. More than a few of your correspondents have demonstrated the falsity of this claim with irrefutable evidence from many sources that on the contrary, the OCA and AB Benjamin were not overlooked but specifically included in other announcements and descriptions.
Until now you’ve ignored this completely. You don’t update your post to retract your deceitful implication that the wording in just one announcement adequately supports your assertion. The intention of your post appears to be to deceive, or at best to stir up suspicion and discontent. How can you not see this? What is your glitch with respect to the most elementary honesty and accountability? Who do you think you are?
» Posted By Mike Myers On August 19, 2012 @ 9:56 pm
CQ, I feel your pain. Welcome to Michalopulosworld, where love means never having to say you’re sorry. No matter how patently baseless and/or debunked the mischievous bloviations may be. Par for the course in this joint. Enjoy!
» Posted By Mike Myers On August 19, 2012 @ 7:04 pm
George, this is simple-minded. You’re ascribing all the blame quite falsely to the public sector. You ignore entirely the private sector contribution to recession.
The macroeconomic consequences of public sector deficit spending are complex, there is no black and white here. As even you appear to recognize, some of this deficit spending can be and has been prudent and fruitful investment. Other kinds are just black hole waste.
The other huge factor, that you conveniently ignore, evidently because it doesn’t gibe with your ideology and talking points, is supply and demand in the private sector, and the impact of the inequality in income and wealth that has been widening since the 70s, on that. Take off the blinkers.
And then there’s the obvious fact that “government spending” by the public sector is money spent on … products and service in the private sector. The wingnut propaganda that tries to separate these two sectors into separate moral universes is pure BS, obviously. But that’s another show.
» Posted By Mike Myers On August 24, 2012 @ 6:09 pm
I’m calling your bluff. Deficit spending on and borrowing for what? Let’s see what you know about the macroeconomic facts. Let’s see if you can perform at the minimal level of laying out the numbers for Federal expenditures in the basic categories, since Nixon. This isn’t rocket science. You are both claiming to understand this. Prove it, with the numbers.
And it’s interesting that both of you completely ignored these questions, which I repeat for your convenient reference:
While you’re at it, explain the steady decline in real wages, adjusted for inflation and purchasing power, since the mid 70s and the shocking concentration of wealth at the very top of the income ladder in the US. Is socialist incursion behind the destruction of manufacturing and the metastasis in the proportion of the American GDP represented by the FIRE sector over the last 4 decades, especially in the Financial segment?
The truth is, I ask rhetorically, not expecting anything substantive or informed from either of you partisan hacks. What could you say?
The contribution to the Federal treasury from the upper deciles of income and particularly from the ultra-wealthy, who derive by far the greatest benefits from this society and its economic system, have been plunging for 40 years. Much of the money they have been extracting is invested or spent offshore rather than invested here in the US. It’s primarily a tax policy issue and the problems have been accumulating for decades. Neither of you has much clue what you’re babbling about. You parrot talking points you hear on Faux news like tape recorders and demonstrate little insight into the macroeconomic facts.
Setting aside the private sector macroeconomic distortions and injustices I ask about above — and about which I expect crickets wrt to any substantive reply — there are two sides to the public sector problems, fiscally: Revenue and Spending. I take it that both of you have little problem with the vast expenditures on War, since Johnson — it’s the rest of the Federal spending that you dislike, presumably. I take it that neither of you has any problem with the plunge in Treasury revenues, proportionate to those from lower income Americans, from upper income Americans since Nixon. My question to you both is simple: if so, WHY? The deficit and the borrowing to cover it can be more than accounted for right here. If you are going to go on pretending to be honest men you must explain why you insist on closing your eyes to these facts. Give an account for this. I’m all ears.
» Posted By Mike Myers On August 24, 2012 @ 5:45 pm
. . . A flurry of words Mike, most of which I will ignore . . .
A prudent decision, father.
» Posted By Mike Myers On August 24, 2012 @ 2:33 pm
OK, ic. So woe is you if you don’t preach your trite sermons on free enterprise and that market idol to which you guys are always bending your knees. But I’m very curious just what you think is the root cause of this Great Recession. You certainly appear to want to be taken for a well-informed savant of economics. (Ever studied the subject?) While you’re at it, explain the steady decline in real wages, adjusted for inflation and purchasing power, since the mid 70s and the shocking concentration of wealth at the very top of the income ladder in the US. Is socialist incursion behind the destruction of manufacturing and the metastasis in the proportion of the American GDP represented by the FIRE sector over the last 4 decades, especially in the Financial segment? Explain these things to me, padre.
» Posted By Mike Myers On August 24, 2012 @ 2:21 pm
Correction: these numbers are abortions per 1,000 women, not 1,000 births.
» Posted By Mike Myers On August 23, 2012 @ 8:14 pm
Oh, and another thing, Karen. If abortion rates may be admitted into evidence as an index of spiritual malaise — and I think a good case could be made that they are more relevant here even than suicide — then the US is a spiritual basket case compared to Western Europe. In 2008, the last year the CDC had statistics from every state, the rate was about 20 per 1,000 births, down 33% from the high of 30 in 1981. That compares to averages of 12 per 1,000 in Western Europe, 17 in the Nordic states and 43 in largely Orthodox Eastern Europe. The nation with the highest reported rate of abortion is Orthodox Holy Mother Russia, at 73 (2010). China’s probably even worse, but I don’t think we have data.
A world capital of abortion if not the capital just happens to be the world capital of capital itself, the world headquarters of the neoliberal “free market” favored by God Himself, according to the good Rev. Jacobse: NYC, at nearly 800 per 1,000. Again, as I often repeat here, cited just in case the facts matter to some in this joint, as opposed to cliches, hollow cant and partisan propaganda. Or waving red, white and blue ostrich-feather-plumed pompoms.
» Posted By Mike Myers On August 23, 2012 @ 5:31 pm
Such a definition of evolution would be regarded as inadequate by any molecular biologist today, because it is far too simplistic. Genetic variations are now know to arise for many reasons, some of which are clearly very far from being random or “abiogenic.” So NO, I don’t “believe” in that. Try again. Recall that in 1859 we knew next to nothing about genetics and heredity, and absolutely nothing about molecular biology.
» Posted By Mike Myers On August 23, 2012 @ 11:26 am
George, dunno if I could answer your question yes or no. Depends on what you mean by “Darwinism.” Evolutionary biology’s been through some radical revisions in the past century. A revolutionary new way of understanding the genome could shake things up big time. Are you familiar with Crick’s central dogma? It may be wrong, or inadequate. Evolution and heredity may be vastly more complex and interesting than “Darwinists” thought. Check out James Shapiro.
Not sure believe is the word I’d use for the way I think about these things. So, two problems with your request: we may not be on the same page re: the meaning of “Darwinism” and much about that isn’t really in the domain of belief, unless you’re referring to the bigthink theory stuff as it gets more remote from high resolution molecular biology and mechanisms and into wooly speculations, where belief is closer to the right word, or philosophy. My default tendency is to be quite skeptical about such speculations. But don’t know all that much about it, since I’m not a molecular biologist, and therefore not a competent judge. Anyway, why do you ask?
» Posted By Mike Myers On August 23, 2012 @ 1:08 am
«« Back To Stats PageI was a bit stumped by the relevance of that intro to Fr. Jacobse’s homily upthread, wherein he expounds briefly upon God’s economics for the benefit of quite benighted ones such as myself:
“I can’t say what heaven will be like Mike, but I can see that the servant who took his talent and created more received a greater blessing than the one who hid his in the ground (Matthew 25:14-30).”
Attempting to do justice to his undoubted wisdom, I was just poring over the whole thing once more, asking myself precisely what he meant by citing our Lord in this rather sordid context. Reading him is often a lot like trying to apprehend a feather in a hurricane, with me in dogged pursuit of some welterweight thought as it’s blown about by fierce blasts of cliche, amid landmarks of genuine solidity, those occasional allusions to the spiritual greats. One assures oneself: there must be something of his own here, something at least sorta weighty to justify invoking such lofty company, surely. And so one soldiers on, seeking it, in faith.
Then it hit me: Jacobse takes the parable of the talents literally! That’s why it’s here. I’m often struck nearly speechless by his literal-mindedness and his rigid, black or white take on things, that clunky concept mongering for the team, and how his mind gets all bogged down in the narrow ruts of far-right wing prejudice and empirically debunked Reagan-era nostrums and old Republican wives tales. But it had not occurred to me that he could have meant something so banal …
So I have to ask the good father now: Do you mean to teach that our Lord commanded us to make lots of filthy lucre and invest it for a hefty killing? Isn’t that rather, oh, I don’t know . . . Calvinist?
“Marxism, wherever it has been practiced, becomes totalitarian no matter what variety (Russian, Chinese, African, etc.). The Marxism of the classroom however, continues to capture the minds of the gullible even though it leaves them with the unpleasant task of having to maintain the academic fiction in the face of real world facts.”
Except the post-war European variety, of course. Not that “Marxism” as such is practiced there, but I assume Fr. Jacobse sees these countries as basically socialist in economic arrangements. This is highly debatable, as none have command, or planned, economies, of course, but their technocrats have tended until recently to take rather more seriously than some Marx’s acute diagnosis of the inner contradictions and dark heart of late capitalism, and they’ve made real attempts to ameliorate the inevitable social pathologies to which its ever worsening crises give rise. Now, I appreciate that to those who confuse the Gospel with the “miracle of compound interest,” this can seem like blasphemy. Pace, Father Jacobse.
“The distinction you should be drawing if you want to distance Stalinism and other Marxist inspired brutality from the purity of Marxist theory would be the one Christopher Hitchens and other fellow travelers were so fond of making: Trotskyism vs. Stalinism. Hitchens got a lifetime of mileage out of it.”
I’m admittedly impressed by the bead Marx took on the MO of late capitalism — as a diagnostician, that is, and a critic. But as a therapist, the man was a disaster. Or more accurately, his followers have been a disaster — he himself wasn’t a “Marxist.” His anthropology was relatively shallow, feeble and uninspired; materialists always have this problem. So, your attempts at tarring me here with some sort of guilt by association are just false accusation, and not terribly bright. I’m not a commie, nor am I a Marxist, nor a “Marxist.” I recognize his genius as a critic, however. As do most informed people. The thing is, what to do with these insights? This has proved a perennial problem ever since. Wall Street has found a heretofore untried approach: take his dark foreboding prognostications about the dark side of capitalism as if they were the Lords of The Universe’s owners manual for the management of the global economy, and then run with them as if they were directions. As we’re about to see soon enough, a very bad idea. Not what he intended, probably.
“The distinction doesn’t work in Africa of course since Trotsky lived in Russia, but it’s still enough to keep the illusion alive for true believers. Maybe we could posit Trotsky against Idi Aminism?”
This bon mot sails right over my head, I confess. Gnomic to be sure, but opaque. Or possibly just confused and more or less meaningless. One can’t be sure. I’d ask for clarification but I feel sure of disappointment, somehow.
“On the other hand, we could all become European Socialists like Mike Myers thinks we should. Why not follow the secular European West who embraced the materialism of the European East without all the bloodshed of the Russian Revolution but nevertheless managed to self-sterilize and pass the cost of building their socialist paradise to their diminishing posterity.
Very, very wooly stuff, here. How exactly is the secular European West more “materialistic” than America? You can’t be serious. As practicing materialists — whatever may be in their heads “in theory” — who’s more materialistic these days than we are? China, probably. Russia, from what I hear. But the Europeans definitely have a long way to go to catch up with us in practice. And anyway, whatever you mean, what is its link with “self-sterilization,” or low birth rates? Causal mechanism, please. Unless this is just some sort of incommunicable intuition, or perhaps magical thinking that I’m expected to take on faith from a member of the clergy.
“Keep that up and the grandchildren will probably be bowing the knee to Mohammed and his Allah.”
Maybe we can come back to this after Fr. explains the mechanism he has in mind. If he can. Which I doubt.
“Why Myers thinks we should sink into even more debt and have the next generation pay for our socialist fantasies he has yet to explain.”
We got into debt in the first place because of the 12-year-long Viet Nam war, Father. Its calamitous financial consequences were why Nixon closed the gold window, unilaterally shelving Bretton Woods and taking us off the constitutional gold standard and instituting wage and price controls, all quite literally overnight over a weekend. Very, very desperate measures indeed. With what was to become the world’s reserve currency no longer tied to gold but to oil instead, and backed up by our vast arsenal and willingness to use it, we’ve been in an ongoing phase of late capitalist crisis ever since, the one now ending. Debt owed to ourselves wouldn’t pose such a huge problem, but, unfortunately, Reagan’s and Bush’s subsequent wars, and Bush’s tax cuts, were paid for by China and Japan, mainly. You appear to pretend to understand economics, but you clearly don’t have a clue.
“He believes that an inviolable and seamless moral congruency exists between Christianity and Socialism that should be self-evident to everyone. That’s why any objection to his thesis is met with paragraphs of vituperation instead of clear reasoning. But that’s also the clue that a lot of fuzzy thinking is going on.”
I do think there is a seamless consilience, if not congruency (sic), yes. But only among Christians. For highly developed and spiritually advanced human beings only. Not suited for greedy, warmongering, lie-loving, brutally selfish and short-sighted quasi-simians, no.
“Nevertheless, even the Europeans are beginning to discover the error of their ways (except for France who just elected a Socialist and is speeding towards bankruptcy at warp speed, but then France always has trouble governing herself). []
“Margaret Thatcher had it right: The trouble with Socialism is that sooner of later, you run out of other people’s money.”
Not at all inappropriate, citing silly old Maggie to supply the coda for your odd sermon. You know, father, I honestly wonder whether you’ve missed your real calling: Maybe you’d be much more at home on Wall Street. They never run out of other people’s money there for very long. And they “make it” the old-fashioned way — they steal it.
Get an honest job.
» Posted By Mike Myers On August 22, 2012 @ 4:37 am
Recent Comments