Sexist

Last night, when Sarah Palin said "For the greater good..." in the debate, all I could think of was Grindewald!

High Five on all points.

The comments are at the top and that is confusing to me. But I'll live.

Anyway, I just wanted to share that yesterday my friend's facebook status said "Sarah Palin is the new Delores Umbridge." And I thought you would appreciate that.

Hear, hear!

I think you might be interested in the weekly TV show "Real Time with Bill Maher" on HBO. He echos quite a few of your ideas at times. If you don't have HBO, you can get the full audio of the program on the "Real Time with Bill Maher" podcast.

And I agree 100% with Robin's comment - I thought the same thing! (I also thought about Hot Fuzz, but that's another issue.)

Cheers,
Kumar

Hi Melissa,
Thank you once again for so wonderfully expressing the things I've been thinking for some time. I agree that we need to do whatever we can, give whatever we can (time, money, coffee...) to ensure that people make the right decision come the first Tuesday in November. As a college student in Ohio, I am so excited to be alive during this time in history, doing what I can to make a difference. It seems everywhere I look, in every conversation I hear, people are talking about this election. People know that this is important and we are ready, ready for change.

Let's do this.

Thank you. Thank you thank you thank you. I'm so tired of feeling like the CRAZY liberal one who is actually paying attention and angry and caring!

Oh - and to the person above who made the Palin = Umbridge comment, I recently wrote a blog entry compiling the many blogs, posts, groups, even mugs and t-shirts with the Palin = Umbridge thing, after I had put a post up on my blog after watching her convention speech!

It's amazing how many political potterfans are out there talking about this! But in all seriousness, the prospect of McCain and Palin making it into the White House scares me deeply. I feel like I will be on pins and needles waiting until November.

-bonnie

I don't know why people hesitate before bringing up politics on their blog. Well, that's not true, I do understand, but I hate that it happens. Politics are important, and should be talked about to the point of exhaustion. Whether I agree or disagree with what you've said, I should appreciate that you said it, and at least sparked thought or discussion.

That being said, the idea of another 4 years of a republican administration scares the living crap out of me, and I can only hope Obama's lead holds. I live in Florida, which is (duh) a swing state, and I have forced all of my friends to register in our county, since we're at college and most are registered at home.

That's funny that the Umbridge comparison is brought up...I put that on my Twitter while I was watching the debate! There was something so creepy about her saying such terrible things with a weird smile on her face. Ugh.

Heh, colloquial usage has been changing general purpose dictionaries for a long, long time, as it should. Language never stops changing, unless everyone stops speaking it.

When it comes down to it, a dictionary that didn't include colloquial definitions would either stop being a general purpose dictionary (and becomes something along the lines of a limited manual of style), or would become outdated and generally useless very quickly.

I have no issue with this, as long as general purpose dictionaries continue to include the "proper" definitions as well (and as far as I know, being a linguist by education, all of them do.)

I agree with everything else you said, though. :)

Melissa,
My respect for you has grown even more. I hate that just because I'm a Veteran, a woman, and former resident of Wasilla, Alaska (and who now lives in Juneau) that I am going to vote McCain/Palin. Not in a million years if you paid me a million dollars would I vote for them.

Here's to volunteering for Obama! Good for you and keep fighting the good fight.

Actually, genius, "impactful" is indeed a word:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/impactful

Let's spell it out for you, since you couldn't be bothered to look it up for yourself:

Main Entry: impactful
Part of Speech: adj
Definition: having a great impact or effect

You lefties are so smug and self-righteous.

Thought Barack will likely win the White House (and I wish him well, as the challenges are many), it's listening to the likes of you that will make the next 4 years untenable, not any policies that he would help establish.

Amen to that, sister. I am an Obama-mama and am proud to say that Sarah Palin IN NO WAY represents me. Since when did I want "someone like me" in the White House? And if said person WAS indeed, like me, then it would be a woman with two Bachelor degrees and a Master's. (And, I'll have you know, I received all of them FROM ONE SCHOOL!!)
I want someone who is SMARTER than me in the Oval Office; not someone who says "gonna" and winks, for the love of God.
If you get a moment, please read this post from a lovely 82 year old woman whom I admire beyond reason.
http://margaretandhelen.wordpress.com/2008/10/03/bitch-there-i-said-it/

Go and knock on those doors, dear.
Liz

I have to agree with Jim Whitley, some liberals will be obnoxious in the extreme. Rather silly to go on a rant about proper speaking and not knowing whether you know what your talking about.

And seriously, a certain manner of speaking is not indicative of intelligence.

It's "you're," J.

And manners of speaking are actually indicators of intelligence. Not the only ones, of course, but they are certainly indicators.

Some of every type of person - liberals, conservatives, green party, etc. - will be obnoxious in the extreme. I don't at all think that's what Melissa was getting at, because I am not trying to read what I want to see into her words. Aggravating how some silly blog commenters will be obnoxious in the extreme.

I agree with you Melissa, and some of the comments posted above (I stress the word "some"). I am in my nearly mid-thirties (wow, where did the time go...) and this is the most excited I have ever been about a presidential election. One thing you said I really identified with. This is the first time, in a while, that the candidate I plan to vote for actually is better qualified than his opponent (IMO). Like you said, it's that I think Obama is perfect or hasn't made mistakes during his campaign, I simply believe he is the best person for this job right now.

And I refused to even start up on McCain and Palin. But I will say this, based on the ran he has ran his campaign(choosing an un-qualified running mate simply because she is a woman to get the "Clinton" vote, being disrepectful and childish in debates, considering himself a "maverick" and using it as part of his platform, when he has yet to do anything to remotely in the vein of a true maverick, among countless others) is proof that he is not the voice of reason and common sense that we need in the White House right now to get our country moving in the right direction.

Being used a certain number of times doesn't make the definition accurate.

Whether or not I like the word "impactful," I'm curious as to how you think words get chosen for addition to dictionaries, seeing as how all major dictionaries add new words every year.

Anticipated very long lines to vote. Fortunately your book comes out the same day as the US election! Will give me something delightful to read while waiting in line as well as waiting for the final results. Best of luck Melissa!

I have always enjoyed your insights on Harry Potter, and politically we seem allied as well. Eight years ago I had a lot of respect for John McCain, since then it seems he has sold his soul for his party's approval. How anyone can claim he will end the power of the special interest groups when he has clearly sold out his values for the approval of one of the most powerful (The Republican National Committee) is beyond my understanding.

However, I must agree with Sinister Duck on the other matter. Language is always evolving. William Shakespeare would change words simply to make them fit to iambic pentameter, or to force a rhyme. I believe language will always evolve, and along with it journalism and english majors will cringe throughout each transition.

My friends.

Melissa- Totally love all that you have done for the Potter world and yet slighly disappointed in the assesment that just because someone who isn't voting for Obama is more than likely not very well read. (Just how I interpreted the statements you made) I just believe that you teach a person to fish and they have food for a lifetime. Catch the fish for someone and they only have a meal. That is my basic philosphy for life and I think a major difference between democrats/republicans. Now I am sure many will disagree with that statement, but when does government not make things extremely difficult with all of the red tape? I say hand the power back to the people. We are the ones who truly get things done!

Best of Luck. Can't wait for the book.

Leah: That's an incorrect assessment: It's not that I think that if you are voting for McCain you aren't well-read, it's that if you aren't well-read and are voting for EITHER candidate for no good reason, you're doing your vote and yourself an injustice. Like I said: I respect if you have REASONS to disagree. I don't respect if you don't. I respect if it's a different ideology, if you believe in small government and the results of trickle-down economics, if you think that the war in Iraq can be resolved without a timetable for withdrawal, if the government should buy up the bad loans, hell, if you just like the guy better (as long as that's not the only reason; a lot of people voted for GWBush because he was someone they might want to have a beer with - I find serious fault with that being the only reason, but I don't mind if it's one of them).

I have absolutely nothing but respect for people who are voting Republican because they agree with the policies. I have NO respect for those who buy, wholecloth, the lies and hate and disdain that has been spewing from the McCain campaign for the last couple of weeks, and vote for him because of that.

But I didn't say you fell into any of those categories. And I definitely didn't say that everyone voting for McCain isn't read on the issues. I said those who aren't, I don't respect. Same on the other side. This is too important a time NOT to read, is what I'm saying. I'm also asking you to read the passage carefully and find where what I said confirms what you took from it - I don't believe it's there but respect your right to disagree. :)

As for the fish analogy, you're going to have to work really hard to say to me that only Republicans believe that people are better off knowing how to fish than accepting handouts.
That party doesn't have ownership or license on that ideology. And their practices - handing people who already know how to fish (the rich) enough fish to get fat on - have proved that it doesn't work.

To completely abuse the analogy: I believe that sometimes those whose circumstances, despite their efforts, and despite knowing how to fish, have landed in stagnant water, those who are bringing in fish by the metric ton can afford to throw a little to the people who can't get any for themselves. After years and years of the rich guys hording all the fish, and not redistributing it as was the Republican party's intention when they handed them a big fish cut, the ones who can't use their fish-catching skills to feed themselves have a right to demand that the government take back control of the fish-distribution techniques.

OK. I'm off fish.

Melissa said: "...those who are bringing in fish by the metric ton can afford to throw a little to the people who can't get any for themselves."

Charity and government coercion are NOT the same thing. Please do not obfuscate the difference between the two.

If someone wants to give another person a fish, they are certainly free to do so. But to hold a gun to someone's head and FORCE them to give others the fish they caught is disgusting. That is treating them as chattel - as slaves.

Is that TRULY something you would imagine Harry Potter doing?

"Redistributing" fish - ie TAKING wealth and distributing it as YOU see fit - is treating that wealth and those who have produced it as your PROPERTY. The claim to the "right" to "redistribute wealth" is the claim to the "right" to subjugate and enslave.

A man and his effort - ie his LIFE - are HIS, *not* yours. Neither his life, nor his effort belong to you or anyone else. They are not your property to "distribute" as you see fit.

The belief that the lives of others ARE yours to dispose of - ie are yours to "redistribute" - is the view of a SLAVE MASTER.

You vociferously condemn the Republicans. But you do so simply because they don't dispose of other people's lives as YOU would like to dispose of those lives. In other words, you are just squabbling with them over the control of the slave master's whip. That makes you just as bad as those with whom you fight.

What you really need to condemn is the premise that those lives are yours to dispose of in the first place.

They aren't.

Instead of fighting over who gets to treat the producers of wealth as their personal slaves, you should be fighting to STOP the subjugation of your fellow man - be it by the Republicans OR the Democrats.

Now THAT would be a task worthy of a Harry Potter.

>>Charity and government coercion are NOT the same thing. Please do not obfuscate the difference between the two.

I do not, and did not. There's a big difference between giving more and more to the wealthy, and giving the wealthy a slightly higher burden to help people overcome tough circumstances. I am not for handouts for nothing in return. But I do believe that a disproportionate number of people don't get chances they have earned - and that the rich have had quite enough handbacks from the government without much to give back. It's ok, in other words, to continue giving tax cuts and breaks and help to the rich, but not the poor? This is what I'm saying. Bush's tax cuts have not worked, and I do not support instating someone who wants to continue and expand them.

>>If someone wants to give another person a fish, they are certainly free to do so. But to hold a gun to someone's head and FORCE them to give others the fish they caught is disgusting. That is treating them as chattel - as slaves.

Well, I reject the premise of what you're saying. It's not at all in any way similar to putting a gun to someone's head; that fish - rather, money, let's do away with the euphemism - is the price of living in a society that provides every other protection, and rich people are in more of a situation to take advantage of those things. Roads, schools, health care, free market, the ability to invest money and make more from that money - live without that money for awhile and see how easy it is to take full advantage of your society. I'm not saying the rich have to hand over all their money - hell no, then what would be the point? We'd be a socialist society, and I'm not for that. But I do believe that those who are rich can afford a bit of a higher tax rate than those who are poor. And let's be clear: We're talking about three percent. Under $250K: 36 percent. Over it: 39 percent.

It's simply my philosophy that I find this acceptable. It's not yours. But using your gun analogy would be similar to me saying the rich have their feet on the backs of the poor, stopping them from getting up. I do not believe either is accurate. I do believe those who have been able to make themselves a success in this country can shoulder the responsibility of helping out the less fortunate. That's my belief. Not an extreme on either side - I also believe that if you become a success you should be able to enjoy that success - and I also do not believe that Obama's plan takes that away.

>>Is that TRULY something you would imagine Harry Potter doing?

Harry Potter? Honestly, you want to invoke Harry? You don't believe Harry would think that the richer people should give just a bit more back to help those less fortunate? Then yes, TRULY.

>>"Redistributing" fish - ie TAKING wealth and distributing it as YOU see fit - is treating that wealth and those who have produced it as your PROPERTY.

No. Redistributing fish is called taxes. Let's be clear: The taxes already exist. It's not like Obama is saying, "Currently, you don't have to give any fish! I will make you do that!" No. He is talking about a slightly higher amount of fish.

To put it more accurately: There is not a presidential candidate who believes in no redistribution. They just believe in different rates for different people. McCain believes the rich should give out less, Obama believes they should give out more. But they definitely both believe they should give it out.

>> The claim to the "right" to "redistribute wealth" is the claim to the "right" to subjugate and enslave.

The claim to levy taxes is important. If you think no redistribution should happen, anywhere, then you should figure out how the government is going to fund anything.

Again: McCain's not anti-distribution. He just believes in different rates. You can't say that one of the candidates would eliminate your taxes - only that depending on your income bracket your'e going to have a different result from either president. A different type of redistrubtion. McCain believes that the redistribution comes in the form of giving money BACK to the rich. That's redistribution, too, is it not? That's his form. And I believe that is unfair - and a form of subjugation - to those who are not privy to the benefits of money in this country, but are working hard and acting honestly.

>>A man and his effort - ie his LIFE - are HIS, *not* yours.

Excuse me, please do not make this personal. This is a discussion of differences.

Bottom line is this: A man and his effort is his life, you are right. And if he wants to live in a society where he is not obligated to redistribute at all - to pay any taxes - he should find somewhere else than the US in which to do it. It's the price of being a citizen, and exists no matter which party is in power. The rate is the difference, not the existence of taxes (redistribution).

Let's also keep in mind: No president can redistribute as he sees fit. A bill will have to be passed through representatives of all states in two houses, who are elected by the people. It's how our representatives - and by extension, we - see fit. That's how this works. We don't have a king.

>>The belief that the lives of others ARE yours to dispose of - ie are yours to "redistribute" - is the view of a SLAVE MASTER.

I believe you are fundamentally wrong about that.

>>You vociferously condemn the Republicans.

No. I refer you to a few comments above for proof this is not the case. I condemn this YouTube clip I've posted because John McCain the man - and I'd say it whether he were Democrat or Republican - is acting in a sexist fashion. I condemn him for claiming to put country first and then choosing someone who is in a very high chance of having to take over his job, who is in no way qualified to be president of the US.

I absolutely condemn the current administration for being abominable in terms of policy.

But I do not condemn Republicans in general. That is a gross generalization that not only have I not made, but undercuts my very firm belief that both sides of the debate have valid points.

>>But you do so simply because they don't dispose of other people's lives as YOU would like to dispose of those lives.

...where is anyone disposing of someone's life?

Again, we live in a society where redistribution of money happens. This is called taxes. Our many elected officials - not one president - decide how that is to happen.

You act as though Republicans have never made a decision to fund something - do you really believe this is true? Well, it's not. And every time they have voted for or against funding of ANYTHING, they are spreading your money around. That's not a bad thing - that's how this works. Just because one says he'll lower your taxes doesn't mean he doesn't want a budget to use in governing, and doesn't want to fund certain things. Funding tax cuts, for instance - that's hugely expensive. It wouldn't be, perhaps, YOUR money he' giving back - but is it fair that the mother on welfare who gave her fair share in taxes last year and works hard, will see a percentage of her money handed back to the rich? That's just as decisive and redistributory as you claim is true of the Democrats - both will redistribute, both will decide where to send your taxes. The only difference is who they will give money to.

This is not slavery. This is how we fund our society.

>> In other words, you are just squabbling with them over the control of the slave master's whip.
That makes you just as bad as those with whom you fight.

I find this an abhorrent and offensive statement and if something like it appears again on my blog it will not be approved.

>>What you really need to condemn is the premise that those lives are yours to dispose of in the first place. They aren't.

Again, no one in the least bit said they were - except you.

>>Instead of fighting over who gets to treat the producers of wealth as their personal slaves, you should be fighting to STOP the subjugation of your fellow man - be it by the Republicans OR the Democrats. Now THAT would be a task worthy of a Harry Potter.

Sooooo, Harry Potter would end all taxes so that no one can redistribute any money? That sounds like a great plan.

Look: this is a difference about how to distribute taxes. I find taking it to this ridiculous extreme - slavery - to be unworthy of the very important and serious discussion that needs to be happening about this right now.

It is simply my philosophy that aligns more closely with Democrats on this. If yours is Republican, fine. Talk issues, don't invent some conflated slavery issue that has nothing to do with the actual thing at hand. This isn't about who will redistribute money and who won't: This is about HOW each side will redistribute money. Make no mistake: They will both do it. Giving to the rich is redistributing, too.

But I'd never equate it with slavery. Ever. This is how we make our country work.

Brian: "If someone wants to give another person a fish, they are certainly free to do so. But to hold a gun to someone's head and FORCE them to give others the fish they caught is disgusting. That is treating them as chattel - as slaves."

Melissa: "Well, I reject the premise of what you're saying. It's not at all in any way similar to putting a gun to someone's head; that fish - rather, money, let's do away with the euphemism - is the price of living in a society that provides every other protection, and rich people are in more of a situation to take advantage of those things.

RESPONSE: The forcible confiscation of an individual's wealth - ie the effort, the LIFE of an individual - is the "price" a human being must PAY in order to be ALLOWED to live in this society? WOW!

So much for the premise of the Founding Fathers that we have the INALIENABLE RIGHT to our lives, our liberty, our property, and our pursuit of happiness. That these rights are sovereign and born with us. According to your statement, they are NOT rights at all. Instead one's life liberty etc, are GRANTS of society, grants which we must BUY from government.

======
Melissa: "Let's be clear: The taxes already exist. It's not like Obama is saying, "Currently, you don't have to give any fish! I will make you do that!" No. He is talking about a slightly higher amount of fish."

RESPONSE: As I said, you are simply squabbling over how to dispose of the misgotten spoils - to dispose of the efforts of others - the lives of others. Not only do you fail to challenge the premise that one's life is rightfully disposed of by others, but you EMBRACE the premise, claiming it is the "price" one must pay for the PRIVILEGE of living here.

As I said, that makes you no different than those with whom you are fighting (ie the Republicans). You SHARE their same premise.

As such, the only difference is the Dems usually want to confiscate MORE, where the Reps usually want to confiscate less of an individual's life.

======
Brian: "The claim to the "right" to "redistribute wealth" is the claim to the "right" to subjugate and enslave."

Melissa: "The claim to levy taxes is important. If you think no redistribution should happen, anywhere, then you should figure out how the government is going to fund anything."

RESPONSE: There are a number of ways to provide for the proper functions of government (ie protection against the initiation of force, such as courts, police, army, etc) WITHOUT having to resort to the initiation of force, The problem is NOT a lack of means of voluntary financing. The problem is the belief that men may initiate force against their fellow man so long as they think their ends are just.

In other words, the problem is the idea that the ends justify the means. They don't.

Put simply, the forcible confiscation of the wealth - the effort - the life - of other human beings is NOT "important". It is IMMORAL - regardless of what ends one seeks to achieve through such subjugation.

===========
Melissa: "McCain believes that the redistribution comes in the form of giving money BACK to the rich. That's redistribution, too, is it not?"

RESPONSE: No it isn't at all. If I take your wealth from you and then give it BACK to you, I have NOT redistributed anything. I have returned to you that which was YOURS in the FIRST place.

RE-distribution of wealth is when I take wealth from the person who created it and hand it over to the person who did NOT create it.

-
Melissa: "And I believe that [giving back the money taken from the rich] is unfair - and a form of subjugation - to those who are not privy to the benefits of money in this country, but are working hard and acting honestly."

RESPONSE: It is NOT "unfair" to return to a man that which was forcibly taken from him. Nor is that return an injustice to the man who did not receive the spoils of that confiscation.

I have no right to the wealth which is taken from you by government. As such, it is not "unfair" to me if it is given BACK to you rather than given to me. The point is, it shouldn't have been TAKEN from you in the first place - let alone be given to me or anyone else.

No one has the right to TAKE your money from you.

When an individual does that, it's called theft and is a crime. It is no less a violation of an individual's rights when government does it. Iin fact, it is precisely AGAINST such violations of rights that a proper government is formed. If a government turns around and engages in the very thing it is supposed to prevent, it VOIDS the justification for its existence. The fact that men have VOTED to take your property - your effort - your life - doesn't give them the right to have done so.

There is no right to steal, rape, murder, or otherwise violate an individual's rights. The claim that one has any such rights is the claim of ownership over others.

It is the claim of slavery.

now if you want to give away your wealth to others, you are certainly free to do so. But NO ONE has the right to take away your wealth - your effort - your life. Not me, not my neighbors, nor any group that I or others form.

===================
Melissa: "A man and his effort is his life, you are right. And if he wants to live in a society where he is not obligated to redistribute at all - to pay any taxes - he should find somewhere else than the US in which to do it."

RESPONSE: WHY? By what *right* do you or anyone else DEMAND - at the POINT OF A GUN - a man's wealth, effort, or life? Such a demand, by definition, is exactly the demand of slavery!

--
Melissa: "It [taxes]...exists no matter which party is in power."

RESPONSE: So did slavery. Fortunately, the Abolitionists didn't accept slavery as either moral or immutable. They FOUGHT against it. And, while working to eliminate it, they supported those who did what they could to DECREASE it rather than INCREASE the scope of slavery.

--
Melissa: "Let's also keep in mind: No president can redistribute as he sees fit. A bill will have to be passed through representatives of all states in two houses, who are elected by the people. It's how our representatives - and by extension, we - see fit. That's how this works. We don't have a king."

RESPONSE: The number of people who demand the wealth - the effort, the life - of others doesn't magically give them a right to it. Be it a Dictator or a MOB, such subjugation is still WRONG. It is still the treating of others as slaves. It is still treating them as CHATTEL.

Whether it is one or one million clamoring to forcibly take the effort of another matters not a whit. The number of people who want something doesn't somehow make it moral.

=======
Melissa: "...where is anyone disposing of someone's life?"

RESPONSE: You just agreed "a man and his effort is his life". To dispose of his effort is therefore to dispose of his life. That is why it is subjugation. It is slavery. As wise a man as Frederick Douglass recognized this fact - identifying the *government* confiscating his wealth as the SAME as a *slave owner* confiscating his wealth - ie the product of his efforts - of his life.

He identified BOTH as immoral - because they both proceed from the SAME principle: that one man is the property of another, to dispose of him as he sees fit.

========
Melissa" "...every time [Republicans] have voted for or against funding of ANYTHING, they are spreading your money around. That's not a bad thing - that's how this works."

RESPONSE: Actually it IS a "bad thing" - for the reasons I have identified, ie the lives of others are NOT theirs to dispose of. Republicans have no more right to take the wealth of the citizens of this nation than do Democrats.

The point is to fight for your right to your life - rather than fight for the non-existent right to enslave others. And the way to do that is to REJECT the principle, work to abolish the laws based upon it and, in the meantime, support those who MINIMIZE the violation of that right (as the Abolitionists did), rather than those who seek to INCREASE such violations.

=================
Melissa: "This is not slavery. This is how we fund our society."

RESPONSE: The systematic confiscation of an individual's wealth - of his efforts, ie his life - regardless of his consent IS slavery. And you are correct, it is INDEED how we fund our society today. That is precisely why it is wrong and thus needs to be changed - rather than blithely accepted and actually ENCOURAGED.

Slavery is how the South 'funded its society' as well. That didn't make it right then any more than it makes it right now. And those then who recognized the *immorality* of treating the effort - the lives - of others as the property of another human being, FOUGHT it rather than supporting those who actually sought to INCREASE it.

============
Brian: "What you really need to condemn is the premise that those lives are yours to dispose of in the first place. They aren't."

Melissa: "Again, no one in the least bit said they were - except you."

RESPONSE: Actually, YOU have stated that this is *indeed* what happens - that one's effort, one's wealth, is one's life, and that other's disposal of it is the "price" of living here.

In other words, you have accepted subjugation as the price of living. But subjugation is NOT the "price" of liberty. That is a BLATANT contradiction.

=============
Brian: "Instead of fighting over who gets to treat the producers of wealth as their personal slaves, you should be fighting to STOP the subjugation of your fellow man - be it by the Republicans OR the Democrats. Now THAT would be a task worthy of a Harry Potter.

Melissa: Sooooo, Harry Potter would end all taxes so that no one can redistribute any money? That sounds like a great plan.

RESPONSE: Would you have tried to ridicule the the Abolitionists with the same line, saying "So, you would end all slavery so no one can subjugate anyone?" And YES, I certainly see Harry Potter on the side of the abolition of ANY form of subjugation. I am simply sorry you do not see the systematic and forcible confiscation of a person's wealth - his effort - his life - AS subjugation - as slavery.

But then, most in the Harry Potter world didn't see a problem with the subjugation of House Elves either. It was simply accepted as 'the way things are' - ie it was accepted as if it was beyond questioning. It was simply a premise they couldn't even conceive of challenging.

But, like Hermione, that is what I am suggesting you do here - check your premise instead of simply accepting it as if it were somehow an unquestionable, immutable fact of reality. It isn't.

If you truly believe human beings have a RIGHT to the wealth, the effort, the life, of others - that such subjugation is the price one must pay for one's freedom, then you need to do more than simply say 'Well, that's how it is.'

You said you don't respect those who don't have a "good reason" for their view. Do you truly believe the claim 'That's how we do it' qualifies as a "good reason" to hold this - or ANY - premise?

Brian: You are repeatedly saying that I am for the complete handing over of all wealth for the common good. I am not.

I simply feel that instead of turn money back over to the rich, the same amount could be used to relieve the burden on the poor.

That's it. Please don't misrepresent or overblow my position. We have a difference in agreement: You don't believe in any taxation at all. That's your prerogative, but I fail to understand how a government could operate under those terms, and I think you are wrongly perceiving Republicans to agree with you, as well.

That's the extent to which I'm furthering this conversation; we simply have a disagreement. I do not see taxes as subjugation - or, rather, I do not see one party as wanting to subjugate more than the other, I simply see them having different ways of doing it, and it is my right and prerogative to side with one, as it is yours.

However, I refuse to make this as personal as you seem to want to - and I find offense with the idea that one of us is up-and-down right or wrong - that somehow you are against slavery because of this discussion and I am not. I do not believe in, nor am I convinced by, your equations of taxation to slavery. I am not required to be, and repetition of your (in my view strange) opinion that they are alike will not change that.

I would never, however, say that your difference of opinion makes you alike to those who would push such abhorrent agendas. That is, however, what you have done to me. If you respond to this and do it again in your comment, you should not expect it to appear on this page. I have respect for your opinions and will not equate your having them with being sympathetic to one of the worst blights on humankind; I would very much appreciate you offering me the same.

I would also appreciate you quoting me correctly, as it's right on the page and doesn't require much effort: I said I don't respect people who don't have reasons. Not those who don't have *good* reasons, as my idea of good and their idea of good spar wildly. My lack of respect is for those who have not discovered more than, "Yeah, I like that guy, I'll vote for him." Today, on either side, that is simply not enough.

Good luck to you, and I hope you are satisfied with the outcome of the election.

Melissa: "You are repeatedly saying that I am for the complete handing over of all wealth for the common good. I am not."

RESPONSE: That is not at all what I said. I neither specified the amount you demand nor the specific purpose to which you seek to put it. I have simply identified that you accept the PRINCIPLE that you have a right to make such demands. And I have disputed that any such right exists.

Are you trying to say you do NOT claim the right to make such demands? If so, on what basis do you then claim taxation is right - is a "good thing"?

That is what I have endeavored to get you to identify - so far with absolutely no luck whatsoever.
-
Melissa: "I simply feel that instead of turn money back over to the rich, the same amount could be used to relieve the burden on the poor."

RESPONSE: I understand that you think the ends justify the means. That the poor need it and that need therefore justifies taking it from the rich. But the initiation of force is immoral, regardless of what one seeks to accomplish with it. And it is immoral precisely because people are NOT property. As such, one may NOT do with them as one pleases, regardless of the ends one hopes to accomplish.

One may not dispose of another's life, even if it would help someone else. Why? Because a man is not someone else's property.

One may not dispose of their liberty, even if it would help someone else. Why? Because a man is not someone else's property.

One may not dispose of their effort, even if it would help someone else. Why? Because a man is not someone else's property.

If you think one may dispose of another man's life, liberty and effort, you need to identify what supposedly justifies that disposal. So far you have not done that. You have simply repeatedly claimed that it is right to do so.

Repeating an assertion is not an argument for an assertion. Such an assertion is logically identified as "arbitrary".
-
Melissa: "You don't believe in any taxation at all. That's your prerogative, but I fail to understand how a government could operate under those terms..."

RESPONSE: So you accept the subjugation of individuals because you cannot conceive of how individuals can live WITHOUT initiating force against each other - ie without treating each other like property, to be disposed of as others see fit?

If the only thing preventing you from rejecting the initiation of force against your fellow man is a lack of imagination about how human beings can deal with each other voluntarily, I would be happy to engage in a discussion of just how such a proper government could be financed. (Just as, had I been an Abolitionist, I would have been happy to help you understand how a society and its government could operate without the enslavement of a race.)
-
Melissa: "I think you are wrongly perceiving Republicans to agree with you, as well."

RESPONSE: Given your repetition of statements such as this, I must suggest it is *you* who has misrepresented *my* arguments here, not the other way around.

If you will note, I have stated *explicitly* that you have accepted the SAME premise held by the Republicans. On the basis of such statements, I am at a loss to understand how you could come to the conclusion that the Reps hold a premise OPPOSITE to yours (ie how they could hold my premise).

In other words, I do not think - nor have I EVER indicated here - that the Reps are currently advocating a voluntarily financed government - ie a government which *defends* against the violation of an individuals rights rather than systematizing such violations itself - any more than I believe the Dems are advocating such a government.

I merely pointed out that the Reps are the party which seeks to engage in LESS of such violations. And, as with the Abolitionists, while fighting for abolition, I choose to support the party which, while it does not yet embrace Abolition, does not seek to INCREASE the scope of subjugation, but instead seeks to at least LIMIT it.
--
Melissa: "I do not believe in, nor am I convinced by, your equations of taxation to slavery."

RESPONSE: That has been clear from the start. What has been *missing* the entire time is your REASONING for your disagreement.

I would be quite HAPPY to hear whatever reason you might have about how the demand for an individuals wealth - effort - life, is NOT slavery - NOT subjugation - NOT the violation of an individuals right to his life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness. In FACT, I indicated *just that* in my last post. As such, I wish you had taken the opportunity of your latest post to actually *identify* how men supposedly have a right dispose of the wealth - the effort - the life - of others, rather than simply repeating the already very clear point that you disagree with me.
--
Melissa: "I would also appreciate you quoting me correctly, as it's right on the page and doesn't require much effort: I said I don't respect people who don't have reasons. Not those who don't have *good* reasons..."

RESPONSE: Actually, in clarifying your position to Leah, you EXPLICITLY stated "good reason" rather than just "reason". THAT is where my quote of you came from. But if you are simply balking at the use of the term 'good' as a modifier to 'reason' in my question to you, I am certainly happy to rephrase my statement:

Do you truly believe the claim 'That's how we do it' qualifies as a rational "reason" to hold this - or ANY - premise?

As I said before, if you truly believe human beings have a RIGHT to the wealth, the effort, the life, of others - that such subjugation is the price one must pay for one's 'freedom', then you need to do more than simply say 'Well, that's how it is.' That is NOT a rational argument for the position. That is simply a REPETITION of the claim - ie a circular argument. It is saying: 'The premise is true because, well, thats just how it is - its true.'

So, is a logical fallacy really the basis on which you accept your premise? Because simply "Yeah, I like that idea. I'll support it" - especially today - "is simply not enough." In other words, as you indicate, an appeal to emotions is NOT a "reason" - be it for a guy OR for an idea.

RESPONSE: That is not at all what I said. I neither specified the amount you demand nor the specific purpose to which you seek to put it. I have simply identified that you accept the PRINCIPLE that you have a right to make such demands. And I have disputed that any such right exists. Are you trying to say you do NOT claim the right to make such demands? If so, on what basis do you then claim taxation is right - is a "good thing"? That is what I have endeavored to get you to identify - so far with absolutely no luck whatsoever.

Do me a favor: go out into your community and try to get something voluntarily funded. Tell them it's for a good cause. Get people to voluntarily give up money to you. Let me know how much you make. Now try to fund something wildly unsexy - highways, garbage removal - on voluntary funds. Tell people how much better it would be for them if their pocket money went to you voluntarily. I'm sure that'll work.

Taxation is a good thing. Absolutely. And I keep saying that. You seem to think it is not. That's fine, and your right to think, but I think you are simply and profoundly wrong. Is taxation necessary? No. Can we live without it? Yes. Would we have the things we take for granted if we didn't have taxation? No.

I got up this morning and drove home from my mom's on a road that was built with tax money. The street was clean because of tax money. I passed several police stations because of tax money. I went to public school, therefore allowing my parents to save money to send me to a good college, because of tax money. This is extremely top-of-head stuff. Without taxation is any of this possible? Slimly, yes, but you can bet it would take a lot longer with a lot less return. Why? People don't want to give up their money for ANY reason they can't see right in front of them - and that's a position that makes some sense, but sometimes it takes a longer lens to see the result. This is why I believe taxation is a good thing. It is my belief that we would not have the same benefits of society without taxes as we do with them. You don't, and that's fine - but I am not required to accept your premise of "subjugation as taxes," nevermind argue that your (to me, flawed) premise is a positive. I am not required to come around to your view, and so far nothing has tempted me.

I respect your right to your opinion, but I will repeatedly and unflinchingly tell you that it's simply one with which I cannot and do not agree. We can agree to disagree, and I find no fault in that whatsoever. I daresay it's the basic thing that keeps our government even marginally honest - the constant opposition that is the best thing about a multi-party system.

Melissa: "I simply feel that instead of turn money back over to the rich, the same amount could be used to relieve the burden on the poor." RESPONSE: I understand that you think the ends justify the means. That the poor need it and that need therefore justifies taking it from the rich.

Nooooooooo, no no. You don't get to turn my position into some Machiavellian calling card, because the other side is doing the same thing: They think their means - giving it back to the rich - will be justified in the end. It is NOT one party thinking that way and the other not. It is NOT one party engaging in subjugation and the other not. It is one party slanting toward one part of society, and the other leaning the other way. Neither is an extreme, neither is more right, neither is more wrong. One of which has my support, the other does not. It's not the same for you, OK. But you cannot possibly believe that one side is engaging in Machiavellian tactics and the other is not? It's simply different methods used.

But the initiation of force is immoral, regardless of what one seeks to accomplish with it. And it is immoral precisely because people are NOT property. As such, one may NOT do with them as one pleases, regardless of the ends one hopes to accomplish. One may not dispose of another's life, even if it would help someone else. Why? Because a man is not someone else's property. One may not dispose of their liberty, even if it would help someone else. Why? Because a man is not someone else's property. One may not dispose of their effort, even if it would help someone else. Why? Because a man is not someone else's property. If you think one may dispose of another man's life, liberty and effort, you need to identify what supposedly justifies that disposal. So far you have not done that. You have simply repeatedly claimed that it is right to do so. Repeating an assertion is not an argument for an assertion. Such an assertion is logically identified as "arbitrary".

"Repeating an assertion is not an argument for an assertion." - No, you seek to make me accept your premise that there's a disposal going on. I do not believe so, and repetition of an assertion does not an argument make, as you so rightly pointed out. If repetition will help you understand MY assertion, I will repeat it - but your insistence that I haven't come around to your way of thinking, as an argument that I should, is tautological and is not tempting me your way in the least.

You see taxing the richer portions of society as initiation of force and disposal of property, but not the other way around. Fine. I see the same amount of force in giving money back to the rich, money that was collected from the general population as taxes. Money collected from the non-rich going to the rich - I see the same amount of force going into taking a poor person's taxes and giving them to the rich, as you see taking from the rich and giving to the poor. You can't claim a moral high ground for one side: they're both doing it. I prefer the way Democrats do it, and will continue to.

So you accept the subjugation of individuals because you cannot conceive of how individuals can live WITHOUT initiating force against each other - ie without treating each other like property, to be disposed of as others see fit?

Again your argument rests on my accepting your presmise of taxes as subjugation, and of one side subjugating while the other is innocent of it. I find significant fault,, and therefore do not agree, with your premise and therefore cannot agree with your conclusion.

If the only thing preventing you from rejecting the initiation of force against your fellow man is a lack of imagination about how human beings can deal with each other voluntarily, I would be happy to engage in a discussion of just how such a proper government could be financed. (Just as, had I been an Abolitionist, I would have been happy to help you understand how a society and its government could operate without the enslavement of a race.)

And I will be happy to help you understand how taxes do not equal slavery. I will be happy to help you understand my astonishment that you see taxing rich people as enslavement; let's talk to the poor people about who's more strapped by the sytem. I will help you to understand how your condescending attitude is not appreciated and is doing nothing to further your argument or make me think of you as a rational mind on whom I should be spending this time.

Melissa: "I think you are wrongly perceiving Republicans to agree with you, as well." RESPONSE: Given your repetition of statements such as this, I must suggest it is *you* who has misrepresented *my* arguments here, not the other way around. If you will note, I have stated *explicitly* that you have accepted the SAME premise held by the Republicans. On the basis of such statements, I am at a loss to understand how you could come to the conclusion that the Reps hold a premise OPPOSITE to yours (ie how they could hold my premise).

...that's because I didn't say that. I actually said, in the part you JUST quoted, that I do not believe Republicans agree with you. I do not believe they hold your premise. I've never met a person on earth who holds it except you. I've made this abundantly clear.

In other words, I do not think - nor have I EVER indicated here - that the Reps are currently advocating a voluntarily financed government - ie a government which *defends* against the violation of an individuals rights rather than systematizing such violations itself - any more than I believe the Dems are advocating such a government. I merely pointed out that the Reps are the party which seeks to engage in LESS of such violations.

And, again, I will point out that I understand that to be your position. It's a radical interpretation of the basically centrist popularly accepted idea of the Republican platform. However, I disagree with you. You believe they engage in less violations because there's less actual handing over of money from people and more getting it back. We profoundly and fundamentally disagree. I believe handing money back to the rich is just as bad of a system as you think taking from them is. My belief is backed up, though: It's been eight years of tax cuts, and they have not worked. They didn't work in the 1980s. They do not work now. Because people who get their money back don't use it voluntarily or uniformly. They use it to advance their lives, mostly. And that's their choice. I simply believe in a government that doesn't put so much trust in the rich people, especially when that trust has clearly been missplaced for the past eight years. I do not believe in absolute trust on either side, the way I do not believe in many absolute or radical positions. I believe a challenged government is a better functioning one. I believe that a lean from center will have to happen to correct our course, and I prefer that lean going toward the poor. That's just me. I'm not trying to tell you it should be you. You have your beliefs, and I have not once said you aren't entitled to them - which is quite the opposite of what you have said.

And, as with the Abolitionists, while fighting for abolition, I choose to support the party which, while it does not yet embrace Abolition, does not seek to INCREASE the scope of subjugation, but instead seeks to at least LIMIT it.

Again, I do not see even the slightest throughline between your position and abolition. It is simply a way to tack on an emotional peak, and I don't find it advancing your cause at all. And once again, you can continue to call taxes subjugation, but that does not require me to believe you or come to your way of thinking on it. I repsect your right to have that position. I do not share it. That is all. Even if I were to share it, I would not argue that the Republicans are engaging in less - simply doing it in a different way, one that favors those who already have the most benefit of society.

Melissa: "I do not believe in, nor am I convinced by, your equations of taxation to slavery." RESPONSE: That has been clear from the start. What has been *missing* the entire time is your REASONING for your disagreement. I would be quite HAPPY to hear whatever reason you might have about how the demand for an individuals wealth - effort - life, is NOT slavery - NOT subjugation - NOT the violation of an individuals right to his life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness. In FACT, I indicated *just that* in my last post. As such, I wish you had taken the opportunity of your latest post to actually *identify* how men supposedly have a right dispose of the wealth - the effort - the life - of others, rather than simply repeating the already very clear point that you disagree with me.

I've repeatedly identified it, and explained myself ad nauseam, so if you want to continue saying I haven't, and that works for you somehow, that's fine. But it is simply untrue. You are distorting my argument and then expecting me to defend your distortions: I do not at ALL accept your premise that taxation equals slavery, subjugation, violation of life liberty and property and pursuit of happiness. I get that's your position. That's fine. It's not mine. The rally cry used to be "No taxation without representation" - that's what subjugation would be, taxation with no choice from elected representatives choosing what to tax; that's why we have representatives and why it is not subjugated. We have chosen it through our representatives. That IS how this system works. If a king was imposing them, it might be subjugation. We have referendums on policy through our elected officials. It's why we have them. We elect them to try and make good choices to better our lives: that is how we avoid subjugation.

I have said this repeatedly. You are free here: You have the freedom to live in this society where you are required to pay certain dues - like being a member of any club that offers benefits in return - or you are free to leave it. If you were FORBIDDEN FROM LEAVING the country AND required to pay its taxes, you'd have a point. That would be subjugation. But if you don't like this club, you are free to leave at any time. If you want to be in it, there are dues. That's the contract you enter into with citizenship. If you don't like it, that's your prerogative - if you want to change it, also your prerogative - you can run for office, start explaining your position to people, and if it has merit it will gain ground and you will have a more direct say in those decisions. Or, you can move somewhere there's no taxes, but don't complain about all the taken-for-granted comforts you give up when you do.

" RESPONSE: Actually, in clarifying your position to Leah, you EXPLICITLY stated "good reason" rather than just "reason". THAT is where my quote of you came from.

And that is a selective quote based on the version you prefer, rather than the one it makes sense to take from, the actual post. That was your choice: Fine. But it does not make me respect the integrity of your position.

But if you are simply balking at the use of the term 'good' as a modifier to 'reason' in my question to you, I am certainly happy to rephrase my statement: Do you truly believe the claim 'That's how we do it' qualifies as a rational "reason" to hold this - or ANY - premise?

Absolutely not. But as I've said repeatedly, taxation is not a premise with which I find fault. And you keep trying to get me to defend the opposite of it as a fault, and I keep refusing, because I refuse to accept your premise, period. If it were something with which I find fault, "that's how we do it" would not be a rational reason. But "that's how we do it" wasn't said to say, "that's why taxation is good" - it's meant to say "that's why it's not slavery." Very different things. This is a contract: citizenship equals certain rights and responsibilities, and one of them is taxes. If you don't like it, you don't have to be a citizen. You are welcome to go any time.

As I said before, if you truly believe human beings have a RIGHT to the wealth, the effort, the life, of others - that such subjugation is the price one must pay for one's 'freedom', then you need to do more than simply say 'Well, that's how it is.'

You're conflating arguments that have nothing to do with each other. I say, "that's how it is," because I accept "that's how it is" - I accept the state of taxes. Your lack of accepting of them doesn't mean I have to defend the opposing position of an argument I find flawed, in the least. And furthermore, I do not believe at all that taxation takes away your right to wealth or life; I do not believe the right to wealth is in conflict at all with the responsibilities owed as a citizen. You do. That's fine. But I do not agree with your premise and continue to not agree with your ideas. I do not at ALL have to say why subjugation is the price to pay for freedom, because I DO NOT BELIEVE subjugation is the price we are paying for freedom. I cannot simultaneously disagree with your premise and then explain to you why your premise is central to my argument. I reject your premise, I disagree with it. Therefore I will not defend the opposing position because i feel the base argument is flawed. That is what I am saying, at long, long length.

That is NOT a rational argument for the position. That is simply a REPETITION of the claim - ie a circular argument.

No - I am clearly NOT repeating your claim. YOU are saying that I should be explaining why subjugation is the price for freedom. What I am saying is that I will NOT do that because I do not agree that subjugation comes into play at all when talking about a price of freedom - I do not believe 'subjugation' is in the picture, therefore I won't defend why it's acceptable. If I do not believe it plays a part here, I cannot take either position. Both are unacceptable to me, and it's not at all conflicting with my view: I don't see taxes as subjugation, therefore neither the argument you espouse, nor the argument you want me to make against your espoused argument, are positions i am interested in defending or arguing against. That's a discussion you can only have with yourself, since I am not accepting the basic argument and therefore not entering into the fray. You need to find someone who accepts your premise. You need to find someone who DOES think that subjugation is the price for freedom AND thinks that's a good thing: I am someone who does not believe freedom is paid for via subjugation. We are on different tracks of argument with no hope of intersection. And repeating your premise is not tempting me to get on board with it. I do not accept your premise. I believe it is faulty. I believe it is wrong.

If you have a premise on which we agree, we can have an argument. Until then it's diminishing returns. And a lot of repetition.

It is saying: 'The premise is true because, well, thats just how it is - its true.'

For the umpteenth time: I do not agree with your premise. I have never once even hinted that I would at any point now or in the future say "the premise is true." I DO NOT BELIEVE your premise is true. Therefore what you have said is a gross misunderstanding of the discussion.

So, is a logical fallacy really the basis on which you accept your premise? Because simply "Yeah, I like that idea. I'll support it" - especially today - "is simply not enough." In other words, as you indicate, an appeal to emotions is NOT a "reason" - be it for a guy OR for an idea.

"Yeah, I like that idea. I'll support it," IS enough. Because that statement is based on an UNDERSTANDING of that idea. Liking the ideas of a candidate IS enough. Simply liking the candidate - the guy, his personal qualities, whatever - IS NOT. Because it has nothing to do with the issues. The ideas ARE important. I'm flabberghasted you think they are not. Saying, "I like that idea" is, to me, a PERFECTLY logical, valid, and laudable position to take when figuring out who you want to endorse as a candidate. And it has nothing to do with emotion, and never has. It's reason, which is quite different.

If you would like to take this argument to email you can reach me at melanelli@gmail.com: This whole conversation is quite off topic for this post, which is based in my belief that an action of Senator John McCain's was sexist, and that I only respect your vote if you have actual reasons behind it (you know, beyond, "My Dad votes Democrat, so..."). I believed that then, I believe it now, I have not seen any evidence to the contrary.

Brian, you are quite simply the rudest and most sincerely wrong person I have ever read about, on any blog.

You go, Melissa. Way to stay civil in the face of thugs.

Show 'em Melissa! What a shmutz, honestly. Brian, you need a civics class, a history lesson, and then for someone to treat you the basic human respect that children are taught in kindergarten.

"I find significant fault,, and"

OMGWTFBBQ!!1!!1! you put 2 commas there! You are clearly not American anymore!
[/sarcasm]

Keep up the good work Melissa, I look forward to your book almost as much as I look forward to this political season being over with. And that's not a slight towards you, more towards all the bickering ads everywhere.

Hooray for smart people like Melissa.

We've had a "Republicans for Voldemort" sticker on our car for years and our eight-year-old daughter has declared that John McCain is an inferius.

We're currently listening to Order of the Phoenix (the audio books are in rotation around here), despite the fact that it makes me so angry--because it reminds me so much of the way things have become in the US under Dark Lord Cheney.

"I always say, dare to struggle, dare to grin."
--Wavy Gravy