ext_85238 (![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
fizzyland.livejournal.com) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
talkpolitics2010-06-24 09:39 am
fizzyland.livejournal.com) wrote in talkpolitics2010-06-24 09:39 am
Entry tags:
Today in 'Libertarians are Dumb' News
Rep. Paul Casts Sole ‘No’ Vote on Oil Spill Subpoena Power
When the House agreed to give subpoena powers to President Barack Obama’s newly formed oil-spill commission, 420 members voted for the plan and only one voted against it: Texas Republican Ron Paul.
A spokeswoman for Paul declined to elaborate on the congressman’s vote.
Paul’s son, Rand Paul, a Republican running for the open U.S. Senate seat in Kentucky, came under fire last month for supporting BP. In an interview on ABC’s “Good Morning America,” he said Obama was “un-American” for criticizing the oil company, and said attacks on BP were part of the “blame game,” where tragedy is “always someone else’s fault.”
What is the rationale for this? I suspect it's something along these lines "Accountability of private companies isn't in the constitution. They should be free to do whatever damage they want - the founding fathers would have wanted it that way." Which would be consistent - and patently wrong, bad, stupid.
Today's poll:
[Poll #1583304]
Newsflash: General McFly(err, McChrystal) was just fired, which is what happens when one combines incompetence with public insubordination.
When the House agreed to give subpoena powers to President Barack Obama’s newly formed oil-spill commission, 420 members voted for the plan and only one voted against it: Texas Republican Ron Paul.
A spokeswoman for Paul declined to elaborate on the congressman’s vote.
Paul’s son, Rand Paul, a Republican running for the open U.S. Senate seat in Kentucky, came under fire last month for supporting BP. In an interview on ABC’s “Good Morning America,” he said Obama was “un-American” for criticizing the oil company, and said attacks on BP were part of the “blame game,” where tragedy is “always someone else’s fault.”
What is the rationale for this? I suspect it's something along these lines "Accountability of private companies isn't in the constitution. They should be free to do whatever damage they want - the founding fathers would have wanted it that way." Which would be consistent - and patently wrong, bad, stupid.
Today's poll:
[Poll #1583304]
Newsflash: General McFly(err, McChrystal) was just fired, which is what happens when one combines incompetence with public insubordination.
Re: Two words
And you just said you don't know if there has been a long history of philosophy in China for ~2500 years.
How do you square that with seeming to know what you are talking about?
e.g. Wouldn't knowing about Zhuangzi be important in regards to what we are talking about?
Re: Two words
They may be, but we don't conclude that they are without a reason showing this to be so, and no such reason has been shown here.
"And you just said you don't know if there has been a long history of philosophy in China for ~2500 years.
How do you square that with seeming to know what you are talking about?"
By observing that I satisfactorily responded to your question for some info with me so that you might understand why it seems to me that philosophy is a western-centric institution.
Re: Two words
I look at philosophy as a practice that humans do; why would only some humans do this when philosophy deals with base questions which we are all faced with? That's my view anyway.
If Russell or Hegel ignores Zhuangzi or Kongzi or Xunzi does that make Philosophy qua Philosophy western-centric, or does it make Hegel/Russell western-centric? [Or "Story of Philosophy--also western-centric, but written by a westerner too]
Your sources are western-centric and you don't know about eastern sources, so no wonder you think as you do.
Re: Two words
No. For example, there's also Heidegger's metaphysics and history of being. It's been pretty influential too.
"If Russell or Hegel ignores Zhuangzi or Kongzi or Xunzi does that make Philosophy qua Philosophy western-centric, or does it make Hegel/Russell western-centric?"
If it turns out that comparable sources do not ignore them, then it makes them western-centric. If it turns out that comparable sources produce similar results, then it makes philosophy western-centric. It turns out that comparable sources produce similar results. Then philosophy is western-centric.