![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
fizzyland.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsRep. 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
Date: 26/6/10 20:19 (UTC)Cause to be a philosopher [and thus join the community] the community must recognize you, but the community doesn't exist before philosophers exist, right?
Re: Two words
Date: 26/6/10 20:20 (UTC)I think it developed out of Milesian speculations about nature, probably in the context of the literary tradition established by Hesiod.
Re: Two words
Date: 26/6/10 20:21 (UTC)I doubt Zhuangzi developed out of that tradition and he was certainly a philosopher...right?
Re: Two words
Date: 26/6/10 20:23 (UTC)I don't know.
Re: Two words
Date: 26/6/10 20:27 (UTC)what what what??
That's like saying music is western-centric. That's just crazy-talk.
You aren't stupid; why would you say such a stupid thing?
If I happen to be wrong about this, I welcome a correction in my view.
Also, is non institutionalized philosophy unworthy of discussion?
Re: Two words
Date: 26/6/10 20:29 (UTC)Is it?
"That's just crazy-talk."
It doesn't seem to be.
"You aren't stupid."
Thanks.
"why would you say such a stupid thing?"
Because it seems to be true.
"If I happen to be wrong about this, I welcome a correction in my view."
This is always a good policy.
"Also, is non institutionalized philosophy unworthy of discussion?"
What's non institutionalized philosophy?
Re: Two words
Date: 26/6/10 20:31 (UTC)Re: Two words
Date: 26/6/10 20:33 (UTC)Re: Two words
Date: 26/6/10 20:35 (UTC)He was writing in response to Kongzi; he was certainly part of a dialogue of ideas and was/is being discussed in academic circles. Are you unaware of this or are you merely being difficult?
Re: Two words
Date: 26/6/10 20:38 (UTC)Well there you go then.
Re: Two words
Date: 26/6/10 20:40 (UTC)Re: Two words
Date: 26/6/10 20:42 (UTC)Re: Two words
Date: 26/6/10 20:51 (UTC)I should have instead assumed you just don't know about Zhuangzi--no reason for me to assume you were trying to be difficult; apologies.
Re: Two words
Date: 26/6/10 20:34 (UTC)Re: Two words
Date: 26/6/10 20:37 (UTC)Now, what do we in fact find?
What conclusions do we then draw?
Re: Two words
Date: 26/6/10 20:40 (UTC)Well, Russell is biased as he is a westerner, as is your/my reading of philosophy.
If we ask a student in China about philosophy we might get different results; but it's nonsensical to say that philosophy isn't going on in the east. It's been going on for 2500+ years
Re: Two words
Date: 26/6/10 20:42 (UTC)Westerners can't provide valid comments on the subject of philosophy?
Re: Two words
Date: 26/6/10 20:52 (UTC)I said he was biased.
Do you deny that there has been a long history of philosophy being done in China? Since at least the time of Confucius?
Re: Two words
Date: 26/6/10 20:53 (UTC)I said he was biased."
Ok. Let's try another source for our experiment then. How about Hegel's history of philosophy? It's been very influential.
"Do you deny that there has been a long history of philosophy being done in China? Since at least the time of Confucius?"
I don't know.
Re: Two words
Date: 26/6/10 20:58 (UTC)And as for Hegel, you went from one Westerner to another. so...yeah. Still biased.
Now, clearly a Chinese person would be biased too--but to rely upon a westerner who suggests philosophy is primarily a western idea....I don't trust it, given that, unlike you I *do* know if philosophy has been done in China [and other places that aren't western] for quite some time.
It's a pity you make a generalization about philosophy without knowing if it's been done in China.
Re: Two words
Date: 26/6/10 20:59 (UTC)Westerners can't provide valid comments on the subject of philosophy?
"You should look into that before making sweeping generalizations about how western or eastern philosophy qua philosophy is."
Why's that?
Re: Two words
Date: 26/6/10 21:02 (UTC)If there has been a long history of philosophy in China and you are simply unaware of that, then you may easily make untrue statements about philosophy qua philosophy being a Western thing.
That is why.
I mean--if you want to only talk about western philosophy that is fine, but admit that it is what you are talking about and do not attempt to say it is the only philosophy out there until you looked around for another sort.
Re: Two words
Date: 26/6/10 21:03 (UTC)But I seem to know about what I am talking about, so evidently you are wrong here.
Re: Two words
Date: 26/6/10 21:07 (UTC)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
Date: 26/6/10 21:08 (UTC)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
From:Re: Two words
From: