Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Bonus Friday Cartoon: What the "Techno-Industrial System" Denies Us
Hat tip to C.S. Prakash.
|5.19.06 @ 3:26PM|#
I saw that today. God, that is the best cartoon I have seen in years. It is just brilliant on so many levels.
|5.19.06 @ 3:34PM|#
What a stupid cartoon.
It's dumb and dishonest on so many levels.
Most people who believe in the health benefits of clean water and
organic foods aren't anti-science or medicine. Nor do they refuse
to take anti-biotics when sick or use a lot of other things that
have increased our life spans that have absolutely nothing to do
with creating a larger, redder, insect resistant, genetically
modified tomatoe.
But feel free to applaud attacks on strawmen.
|5.19.06 @ 3:38PM|#
ChicagoTom:
It's gotta be really difficult going through life without a sense
of humor.
Also, you spell "tomato" like Dan Quayle.
|5.19.06 @ 3:41PM|#
Bily Connolley would blame it on the saber-toothed
earthworms.
How many ChicagoToms does it take to change a lightbulb?
|5.19.06 @ 4:03PM|#
"Most people who believe in the health benefits of clean water
and organic foods aren't anti-science or medicine."
Speaking of a straw man.
Asshat.
|5.19.06 @ 4:07PM|#
Emmajane:
None. ChicagoToms live in the dark recesses of their own
hyper-sensitivity and irony-free humorlessness.
|5.19.06 @ 4:10PM|#
Ron,
It would have been all the more funny if the line had been
"Somethings just not right, our air is clean, our water is pure, we
stopped producing greenhouse gases ages ago, we all get plenty of
exercize, everything we eat is organic and free range, and yet
nobody lives past thirty."
|5.19.06 @ 4:14PM|#
This cartoon is great, on alot of levels.
But it does further a misconception about low life expectancies pre
20th Century.
Much of the improvement in life expectancy came from greatly
improving the odds of living through birth and early childhood.
Alot of people died very young.
But if you made it past, you had a reasonable chance of living into
your 50's or older.
taktix|5.19.06 @ 4:18PM|#
ChicagoTom:
It's clearly a joke based on the "cum hoc ergo propter hoc"
fallacy.
If you're so pissed about the cartoon, why don't you go start riots
in the Middle East and Europe?
ssssss.... Sorry. Too soon?
|5.19.06 @ 4:19PM|#
Not finding something that isn't funny to be unfunny doesn not
make one humorless.
If it was witty or clever, I could understand.
But I don't find mischaracterizing opinions/beliefs and then taking
attacking that mischaracterization as witty or clever....just
dishonest.
If that makes me "humorless", well then I guess I am
humorless.
Witty humor would be to attack the reality, not the
mischaracterization of reality, IMO.
And seriously, if this is "the best cartoon seen in years" then it
isn't my sense of humor that should be questioned.
Speaking of a straw man.
Asshat.
Fuck you, M. Miggs.
The implication of the cartoon was clearly that the whole organic
foods movement is people who want us to go back to the dark ages
and are anti-progress. I presented no straw man. Feel free to tell
me where my understanding of the cartoon is incorrect.
Sandy|5.19.06 @ 4:23PM|#
And of course, the water was pure from industrial pollutants but not water-borne diseases. Getting rid of that problem gave us the modern life expectancy. The rest of medicine is almost marginal by comparison.
|5.19.06 @ 4:25PM|#
statsandmorestats:
Generally a good point, but even as late as 1900 only 1 in 20
Americans made past age 60.
ChicagoTom:
If that makes me "humorless", well then I guess I am
humorless.
What you said.
|5.19.06 @ 4:25PM|#
It is a good thing liberals are not humorless or
anything.
I know, 'cause Pat Robertson is well-known for his cheery sense of
humor.
Oh, man--it's another strawman! It's a strawman festival.
|5.19.06 @ 4:28PM|#
If you're so pissed about the cartoon, why don't you go
start riots in the Middle East and Europe?
Uhmmm...how does not finding something funny translate into being
pissed??
The cartoon didn't piss me off. I just commented on the unfunnyness
of it. I seem to remember quite a few H-N-R posts where tons of
commenters railed about how unfunny cartoons like this in general
have gotten....are they all angry / pissed too?? Or is it only
people who present differing viewpoints who are labeled as angry or
"pissed" and equated with Muslim rioters?
Last I checked the point of having comments is to allow readers to
post their opinions.....does not having a conforming opinion on a
topic make on humorless and angry and pissed?? Just asking
|5.19.06 @ 4:38PM|#
Ronald Bailey,
I don't think that the cartoon reflects the true nature of the life
expectancy of hunter-gatherers, etc. Indeed, it is about as bad as
those stupid FedEx commercials which portrary homonids living with
dinosaurs.
|5.19.06 @ 4:44PM|#
ChicagoTom:
I figure if I eat enough non-organic food, wolf down just enough
genetically modified produce and wash it all down with the right
amount of treated groundwater, I'll be able to shave a day or two
off my life. That is, unless I also take up smoking, which should
subtract another few years.
You've really bought wholesale into the organic lifestyle bullshit,
haven't you?
|5.19.06 @ 4:45PM|#
Yeah, we need higher standards for cartoons and fedEx commercials. It isn't likely that the men in the cartoon spoke modern English, either.
|5.19.06 @ 4:49PM|#
"The implication of the cartoon was clearly that the whole
organic foods movement is people who want us to go back to the dark
ages and are anti-progress."
No it's not, dummy. The implication is that there are SOME people
who still buy into the whole romantic image of the "noble savage",
the majority of whom wouldn't last a weekend without air
conditioning.
Now go get your shinebox.
|5.19.06 @ 4:50PM|#
Not to gang up on ChicagoTom or anything, but you wrote
earlier:
What a stupid cartoon.
It's dumb and dishonest on so many levels.
Then...
Uhmmm...how does not finding something funny translate into
being pissed??
Now - I'll take you at your word that you aren't really angry, but
describing something as stupid, dumb, and dishonest, certainly
isn't the same as saying it's not funny.
I'm just saying - don't imply angry and expect people to think
you're not.
|5.19.06 @ 4:52PM|#
To those who may be puzzled:
Let me explain about the theory of "humor"--jokes for example are
based on the juxtaposition of the unexpected with conventional
wisdom. You see, and I'll take this slowly, the conventional wisdom
is that pure air and water and organic foods lead to longer
healthier lives. Now, and I hope you get this part because this is
where the "joke" comes in--when the caveman says "yet nobody lives
past 30" that's the unexpected conclusion--sometimes called the
"punchline." Of course explaining a joke to someone who doesn't get
it just ruins it.
|5.19.06 @ 5:00PM|#
Ron,
This is SO not funny. How did Neandertals know what organic and
free-range even meant without any alternative??
(sarcasm)
|5.19.06 @ 5:00PM|#
My archeaologist friend said that in the bronze age, many (I
forget the exact percentage he gave me) people did not live past
30. And those who did showed signs of trauma - broken bones and
cuts. Some people got smashed in the noggin, and they would drill a
hole in their head to relieve the pressure - some of those people
actually survived.
But it wasn't even so much the water or air that killed them young,
but actual person on person violence.
|5.19.06 @ 5:02PM|#
Ron Bailey,
We're all aware that this is a joke. The problem is that it isn't a
terribly funny joke for those of us who know something about
pre-neolithic societies (one can only assume we're talking about
mesolithic people here).
Jim Lesczynski|5.19.06 @ 5:06PM|#
This is the greatest work of comedy since "An Inconvenient Truth."
|5.19.06 @ 5:17PM|#
I'm just saying - don't imply angry and expect people to
think you're not.
I didn't imply angry, you inferred it. The reason I didn't find the
joke funny is because it was stupid.
Stupid is not funny, to me.
There are plenty of stupid jokes that people don't find funny.
Saying that a joke is stupid doesn't imply anger...it implies
stupidity.
I used those words to explain why it wasn't funny, to me. I suppose
I could have just said "thats not funny" and left it at that --
next time I will be sure to post in an approved manner.
Although I have an unsubstanciated hunch that I would still have
been attacked by some even if I would have simply said "that's not
funny"
Maybe people inferred anger because they have preconceived notions
about those they think are "liberal" or whatever other labels they
like to apply to people who don't conform to their views?
Of course explaining a joke to someone who doesn't get it just
ruins it.
So if you don't find it funny -- its because you dont get it? Good
to know.
I got the joke -- I just didn't think it was funny... I am entitled
to that right?
|5.19.06 @ 5:17PM|#
Lowdog,
Yes, but these are stone-age people; specifically pre-Neolithic
people. The bronze age was well into what we would call the advent
of human civilization.
|5.19.06 @ 5:18PM|#
Prediction: Our children will eat more organic food than we do,
and they will have a longer life expectancy.
I'm not implying a connection, just pointing something out.
|5.19.06 @ 5:28PM|#
Phileleutherus Lipsiensus - yes, I am aware of that, I was just throwing out what little I had to contribute to the discussion.
|5.19.06 @ 5:35PM|#
Prediction: Our children will eat more junk food than we do, and
they will have a longer life expectancy.
I'm not implying a connection, just pointing something out.
|5.19.06 @ 5:36PM|#
Actually, now that I have my glasses on, I can see that they are actually supposed to be neanderthals. I don't think this adds any humor to the cartoon.
|5.19.06 @ 5:45PM|#
Really, that is too rich. Clearly, the prominent Mauer mandible
indicates Homo heidelbergensis.
Neanderthalensis, indeed. Harumph.
SPD|5.19.06 @ 5:51PM|#
Lamar Alexander sez: "See? Even cavemen could speak perfect
English! What's the big deal?"
A great weekend to all regardless of political stripe!
|5.19.06 @ 5:52PM|#
Pro Libertate,
I find about as much humor in this cartoon as I find poignant drama
in Mel Gibson's The Patriot.
|5.19.06 @ 6:01PM|#
That movie didn't work for me, either. I liked
Braveheart, even if it was a little off on the history.
The Patriot, well, I can only just barely recall that it
had something to do with some war we fought in. Which one was it
again? :)
I thought the cartoon was funny when we started, but now I'm having
to make up anthropological humor to keep it fresh. Must be time to
go home.
|5.19.06 @ 6:10PM|#
Pro Libertate,
A little off? Now that is funny. :)
Which one was it again? :)
*groan*
|5.19.06 @ 6:14PM|#
I don't get it. There are no environmental regulations, no zoning regulations, no subsidized industries, no anti-poverty programs, no Social Security, and yet I'm squatting on a dirt floor and my teeth are rotting.
|5.19.06 @ 6:19PM|#
Actually, now that I have my glasses on, I can see that they
are actually supposed to be neanderthals. I don't think this adds
any humor to the cartoon.
Yes, I think we are all sufficiently clear that you find no humor
in the cartoon; that has been meticulously demonstrated (and
explained) by the earnestness of your concern over the
classification of the cartoon characters as pre-Neolithic,
bronze-age or Neanderthal.
|5.19.06 @ 6:21PM|#
To those who may be puzzled:
Let me explain about the theory of "humor"--jokes for example are
based on the juxtaposition of the unexpected with conventional
wisdom. You see, and I'll take this slowly, the conventional wisdom
is that the absense of regulation and government involvement in the
economy lead to greater wealth. Now, and I hope you get this part
because this is where the "joke" comes in--when the caveman says
"yet I'm squatting on a dirt floor and my teeth are rotting" that's
the unexpected conclusion--sometimes called the "punchline." Of
course explaining a joke to someone who doesn't get it just ruins
it.
Not that I'm an arrogant, condesending prick or anything.
uncle sam|5.19.06 @ 6:26PM|#
It didn't strike me funy either.
I liked the one with two cavemen sitting by a fire gnawing on big
haunches, one says to the other: "It doesn't get any better than
this." That was funny.
uncle sam|5.19.06 @ 6:31PM|#
Damn! It took me about 5 attempts to get past the server squirrels and I never noticed I missplled 'funny'.
|5.19.06 @ 6:37PM|#
Oh, and that's pronounced Neander-tahl not Neander-thul, you small-browed, inset-chinned weaklings.
|5.19.06 @ 6:38PM|#
I did not know that an un-hot ass was a required attribute of
dorkiness...
wow, you learn something new each day.
And I thought this guy
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/kupka.jpg
was a dork. But I guess not.
|5.19.06 @ 6:43PM|#
Nobody with an ass as hot as mine could possibly be a
dork.
That's sooo not true. I know a few self described dorks that have
some smoking hot asses.
|5.19.06 @ 7:02PM|#
We Beavers have got to stick together.
Heh heh, yep - Go Beavs! Anyway, no offense P.L., whatever your
feelings about the cartoon. I just got a kick out of the discussion
of Neanderthal vs. pre-Neolithic, which I bet we both agree was at
least as funny as the cartoon! :)
|5.19.06 @ 7:05PM|#
"There are no environmental regulations, no zoning regulations,
no subsidized industries, no anti-poverty programs, no Social
Security, and yet I'm squatting on a dirt floor and my teeth are
rotting."
That would be funny Joe if it wasn't for the fact that you really
beleive that people are that helpless and would be sitting on a
dirt floor with rotting teeth if it wasn't for the government to
help them. It is kind of disturbing on a lot of levels.
|5.19.06 @ 7:24PM|#
Y'all are looking at this backwards ...
It's not a joke that maligns New Earth-ers ... it's asking the
question, "What good is progress if we aren't around to enjoy
it?"
Has Wal-Mart made anyone's life better? (sorry to those of you who
work there ...)
We're living past 30, and we have enabled ourselves to obliterate
all life as we know it on the planet.
Some bonus game. I'm with Chicago Tom. Not funny. I liked the joke
about "..get any better..." more.
uncle sam|5.19.06 @ 7:35PM|#
The intent of the cartoon was to make a point, not to be funny. Obviously.
|5.19.06 @ 7:36PM|#
So basically, John's contribution is "That's not funny."
Are you, by any chance, a Womyn's Studies major?
Gimme Back My Dog|5.19.06 @ 7:46PM|#
joe,
The problem with your punch line is that very few people believe
that the programs you list are suppressing progress. After the
libertarian revolution, that will be a better caption than the
current one.
And it is nice to know that you oppose condescension, perhaps next
time you get the urge to post one of those "you guys and your
little party are so cute" messages, you will shove it up your ass
instead.
|5.19.06 @ 7:58PM|#
"The problem with your punch line is that very few people
believe that the programs you list are suppressing progress."
Around here they do. A good writer knows his audience.
Rich Ard|5.19.06 @ 8:21PM|#
Is this how you guys act at parties, too?
Guy 1: "Hey, that was pretty funny!"
Guy 2: "No, it wasn't - plus, go fuck yourself."
I'm starting to get a clearer picture of how the intoonfada
started. :)
uncle sam|5.19.06 @ 8:27PM|#
"The problem with your punch line is that very few people
believe that the programs you list are suppressing
progress."
It's not necessarily the programs themselves that interfere with
progress, it's the ravenous beast that is required to establish and
maintain said programs that eats up so much wealth. The big
shortcoming of statists both conservative and liberal, is that they
fail to notice any negative consequences of their favored
interventions. As their perceptions usually run no deeper than the
most visible, uh, the intended, benefits, and that tends to satisfy
their desires.
|5.19.06 @ 8:30PM|#
What an odd turn this thread has taken.
Anyway, The Other PL, Braveheart was way the heck off
historically. I blame Randall Wallace, who also screwed up The
Man in the Iron Mask. Though my objection to that flick was
his failure to follow the plot of the book, not history (which
Dumas ignored when he felt like it, anyhow).
No one laughed at my chimp-sex joke? How sad. And it was topical
humor, too.
|5.19.06 @ 8:49PM|#
ProL
No one laughed because Chimp sex is very serious business...
http://www.dlynnwaldron.com/Kissingcrop.jpg
http://www.subgenius.com/bigfist/pics2/pics3/apics2/BONOBO!.jpg
;~)
|5.19.06 @ 8:55PM|#
Dear Zaius--chimp porn. Why aren't I surprised?
We haven't changed much since the early days, have we?
uncle sam|5.19.06 @ 9:09PM|#
One blatant failing of the progessive view is the hopelessly flawed tendency to compare the past to the present and to assume that whatever progress has occurred can only be attributed to government action.
|5.19.06 @ 9:38PM|#
...when we all know that all progress can be attributed to The
Free Market.
Like the reduction in workplace deaths that happened between 1900
and 1930. Or the reduction in poverty among old people that
happened between 1932 and 1970. OSHA-wuzza? Social Whatnow?
|5.19.06 @ 9:51PM|#
Joe: have you complained about Republicans talking bullshit
about "trading freedom for security" lately?
And if so, then why are you praising it now?
uncle sam|5.19.06 @ 9:56PM|#
...when we all know that all progress can be attributed to
The Free Market.
Like the reduction in workplace deaths that happened between 1900
and 1930. Or the reduction in poverty among old people that
happened between 1932 and 1970. OSHA-wuzza? Social
Whatnow?
Joe illustrates my points perfectly. Thanks Joe!
uncle sam|5.19.06 @ 10:14PM|#
...when we all know that all progress can be attributed to
The Free Market.
I didn't say that Joe, obviously you assumed I meant that.
I attribute it to increasing per capita income, evolving
sensibilities, and technological development. We have never really
had a "free market".
|5.19.06 @ 11:33PM|#
So L.A. 10,000 B.C. is on. What an awesome show. Stuntmen fighting robot prehistoric creatures in caveman outfits. I smell Emmy.
Warren|5.20.06 @ 12:03AM|#
OK so is this funny?
"Something's just not right, our air is free, our water is
unregulated, we all get to say any damn thing we want, everything
we eat is untaxed, and yet nobody retires to Florida"
|5.20.06 @ 12:34AM|#
eh. Ask Grugh, the clan leader, if you can be the leader for
awhile and then tell me the cavemen are living in a
free-market.
The cartoon was directed at "Earth First," people that argue for
life without technology, not Democrats.
|5.20.06 @ 4:43AM|#
So basically, John's contribution is "That's not
funny."
And I thought joe only made comments like that to me. You
completely ignored the substance of what he said
That would be funny Joe if it wasn't for the fact that you really beleive that people are that helpless and would be sitting on a dirt floor with rotting teeth if it wasn't for the government to help them. It is kind of disturbing on a lot of levels.
which in the past you've made it quite clear you believe, and
choose to make the douchebag cheap shot.
You may have a handful of fans here, joe, and I hope that and your
parasitic government job keeps you warm at night.
|5.20.06 @ 4:45AM|#
Oops, that was a smartass name I was going to post something else under, but after reflection, changed what I wanted to say.
|5.20.06 @ 10:50AM|#
Without the ENORMOUS engine of the mostly free market, what,
precisely would the government do any "good" with? Frankly, I think
the industrial era of the late 19th-early 20th centuries started
out fairly exploitive and moved away from it socially as much as
being regulated away. It's like claiming that the Civil Rights Act
is what chased away most racism in this country. That's silly, and
it's not true. We were 75% of the way there, and giving the
government the majority of credit takes away from the people who
did the hard work in the first place.
More importantly, to the extent that the government has played a
role in improving some people's lives--and it certainly
has--there's always the question of whether the cost of the cure
might not outweigh the benefit of curing the disease. By that, I
mean that the problems could've and probably would've been solved
without giving the government so much power. Power that we
ALL--left, right, other--are unhappy with today.
Asimov addressed this problem in The Foundation:
A horse, having a wolf as a powerful and dangerous enemy, lived in constant fear of his life.
Being driven to desperation, it occurred to him to seek a strong ally. Where upon he approached a man, and offered an alliance pointing out that the wolf was likewise an enemy of the man.
The man accepted the partnership at once and offered to kill the wolf immediately if his new partner would only cooperate by placing his greater speed at the man's disposal.
The horse was willing and allowed the man to place bridle and saddle upon him. The man mounted hunted down the wolf and killed him.
The horse joyful and relieved thanked the man and said "Now that our enemy is dead, remove the bridle and saddle and restore my freedom."
Whereupon the man laughed loudly and replied "The hell you say, giddy-up Dobbin" and applied the spurs with a will.
|5.20.06 @ 11:12AM|#
Well, the water wasn't that pure, since the source of water did
the same job as a sewer...
Unfortunately this is a tendency that homo sapiens has not outgrow.
It still confuses the toilet with the water fountain, only with
industrialization, there is a lot more variety of crap...
We should be descended from cats, not monkeys....
Specially cats as adorable as mine.
|5.20.06 @ 1:40PM|#
Analyzing humor is like dissecting a frog. Few people are
interested and the frog dies of it.
EB White
uncle sam|5.20.06 @ 3:14PM|#
Another shortcoming of the progressive mentality is it's apparent inability to recognize that, while events of history may stand as factual, the meanings, whys, and hows, are subject to interpretation. The progressive has bought into a particular interpretation and holds it as holy truth.
|5.20.06 @ 3:33PM|#
"The progressive has bought into a particular interpretation and
holds it as holy truth."
Unlike our enlightened Uncle Sam... give me a fucking break.
uncle sam|5.20.06 @ 4:18PM|#
You may have a fucking break. Nice comeback. It really leads me to consider the error of my ways.
|5.20.06 @ 4:36PM|#
Pro Libertate, that's not original to Asimov - he's adapting it
from something slightly older:
http://www.mythfolklore.net/aesopica/oxford/47.htm
uncle sam|5.20.06 @ 4:43PM|#
The holy grail of the progressive is...getting the right people
in office.
Now that's funny.
|5.20.06 @ 4:46PM|#
ChicagoTom -
Since you didn't imply angry and I merely inferred it - the next
time you're in a meeting with executives and the first speaker
makes an ice breaker joke you don't find amusing I suggest you
stand up and say, "It's stupid, dumb, and dishonest."
Then take a quick poll on your way to the unemployment office to
see how many assumed you were angry and how many assumed you meant
"not funny."
|5.20.06 @ 11:14PM|#
Geico caveman dude-
That cartoon is so offensive.
I think that is one of my 'all-time' favorite commercials!
While the 'suit' is apologizing, the first 'caveman'
orders(confidently, and with just the perfect touch of 'controlled
outrage'), "I'll have the duck---- w/ the mango salsa". Then the
second caveman says he's "lost his appetite"... and puts that
'glare' on!
(giggle)
|5.20.06 @ 11:17PM|#
Cartoons are not inherently funny. It takes many factors to
generate their humor in a human mind. So stop declaring absolute
judgements on such relative things.
----------
Asimov addressed this problem in The Foundation:
A horse, having a wolf as a powerful and dangerous enemy, lived in
constant fear of his life...
That's funny Pro L', I inferred that it was a pure "libertarian"
society Ike was modeling. That "contract" drawn up in a "free
market" in a society without courts and police to enforce it had a
typical outcome. Them what got the power will have their will
imposed on others.
Oh, and it is _Foundation_ not _The Foundation_.
...just sayin'
Another Damned Leftie Here To |5.20.06 @ 11:35PM|#
What's funny is where you lifted the cartoon: From the New
Yorker.
Y'know. Hersh. Hertzberg. Trillin.
All the superstars of "libertarianism."
THAT'S comedy.
|5.21.06 @ 8:22AM|#
pseudolus:
How right you are.
Does anyone realize that feudal society was built of such
contracts? That serfdom actually involved a contract between the
serf and the lord? So how come the Middle Ages are not known as a
golden age of freedom (unless you were the lord of the manor, of
course)?
The affection of many Europeans for the State comes from their
ancestral memory of a strong King bringing the nobles to heel, and
ensuring justice instead of the whims of the lords.
I wonder how many libertarian propositions would bring us back to
those golden days of chivalry, etc. etc...
As for the cartoon, it is funny, but not factual. We are talking
about people who a) had no germ theory of disease, who saw nothing
wrong in eating sick animals, or defecating next to their water
source, who did not see a need to wash their hands before eating,
who took no proper care of their teeth, who had no idea of what a
balanced diet was, for whom warfare was a way of life, and other
features for which organic food or clean air were not enough to
counteract (I do not include clean water, because humans have a way
of fouling their water source - that was why wine and beer were
considered to be "healthy drinks").
So, have a chuckle, but do not take it as an argument for anything
- unless the folly of solving the equation before you known all its
variables.
uncle sam|5.21.06 @ 10:25AM|#
Does anyone realize that feudal society was built of such
contracts? That serfdom actually involved a contract between the
serf and the lord? So how come the Middle Ages are not known as a
golden age of freedom (unless you were the lord of the manor, of
course)?
Originally, the king was held to own everything, including the
serfs, by right of conquest, until...shit, what was that document
called? You know, the one that first limited the power of the
king?
IAC, libertarians do not hold up kings and such as an example of
freedom or free markets, but rather as the origins of the modern
state, where the people are still ruled, but with a fairly well
developed illusion of consent.
King George still rules! Ha ha ha ha ah.
|5.21.06 @ 1:32PM|#
Yeah, Magna Carta, which limited the power of the king over the
nobles.
Note that the nobles never granted a magna carta nor anything to
their serfs...
And never mind what the king was supposed to own or rule, at the
beginning they were quite powerless face to their nobles. As a
French historian put it, about the first king of the Capetian line
"Hugh Capet's ambintion was to be able to move in his territory
without being held to ransom by some baron or other"
If you were a serf, or a peasant, you prayed that the King was
strong enugh to put down the tyranny of your lord...
Check the Lope de Vega's play "Fuenteovejuna" where the peasants
revolt against their feudal lord and kill him. He pleads "I am your
lord" and htey answer "Our Lords are the Catholic Kings! (Fernando
and Isabella)"
|5.21.06 @ 6:33PM|#
fletch, it's the way the first one says, "I'll have the roast
duck..." and pauses, so you get this image of a caveman with a duck
on a spit over a camp fire, which is then broken up when he says,
"...with the mango salsa."
Which makes you think, "Oh, geez, I just assumed..." and bam,
you're in the shoes of the "suit."
Good stuff, works on a lot of levels.
jf, you kiss your mother with that mouth? You shouldn't - she's got
scabies.
uncle sam|5.21.06 @ 10:46PM|#
Yeah, Magna Carta, which limited the power of the king over
the nobles.
But also established the idea of limitation of political power.
|5.22.06 @ 12:17AM|#
After wading through all that (OK, so I quickly scrolled past
much of it), I still like the cartoon.
Apparently, some people just need to relax and enjoy. Admit it, it
WAS funny, even if it offends your political/environmental/cultural
view.
uncle sam|5.22.06 @ 12:39AM|#
Apparently, some people just need to relax and enjoy. Admit
it, it WAS funny, even if it offends your
political/environmental/cultural view.
It didn't offend my p/e/c view, but it didn't tickle me either.
It's too anachronistic/contrived.
Andrew Ian Dodge|5.22.06 @ 5:50AM|#
Surely Al Gore has that up on his wall as a bit of nostalgia? He probably believes people living to only 30 would be the best thing for the enviroment.
|5.22.06 @ 10:19AM|#
sam:
Limitation of the political power over those who can fight
back.
I bet that none of the barons who forced John to respect their
rights would dream of respecting their serf's rights the same
way.
"How is it that we hear the loudest cry for freedom from the
drivers of Negroes"? Dr. Johnson
uncle sam|5.22.06 @ 11:15AM|#
Limitation of the political power over those who can fight
back.
I bet that none of the barons who forced John to respect their
rights would dream of respecting their serf's rights the same
way.
"How is it that we hear the loudest cry for freedom from the
drivers of Negroes"? Dr. Johnson
Evolution of sensibility, awareness, and understanding. It
happens.
uncle sam|5.22.06 @ 11:41AM|#
I always wonder about those who express skepticism for human
freedom by citing examples of violations of human freedom.
I suppose it can't be said often enough. Libertarians oppose ALL
violation of the right of humans to life and liberty. We do focus
on institutionalized impingements on human rights, but then, there
is VERY LITTLE disagreement on the merits of chattel slavery, at
least in the Western world.
So why would anyone bother to bring up that travesty in critiquing
the libertarian perspective?
Is it that political enslavement is more acceptable to them than
chattel slavery?
|5.22.06 @ 2:19PM|#
My point is that libertarians too often cannot tell the
difference between those who want freedom for themselves and
others, and those who want the freedom to oppress others.
It is their particular blind spot.
It struck me in various libertarian fiction how they tended to
romanticize organized crime types, and marvel how well run their
territories were. I wonder where such confussion could come
from.
uncle sam|5.22.06 @ 3:15PM|#
"My point is that libertarians too often cannot tell the
difference between those who want freedom for themselves and
others, and those who want the freedom to oppress others."
I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with that literature, but libertarians
are usually able to tell the difference. Those who want the freedom
to oppress others (which is not a human right, thus not an aspecft
of freedom) usually want the government to do it for them.
|5.22.06 @ 8:28PM|#
Chicago Tom:
"There are plenty of stupid jokes that people don't find funny.
Saying that a joke is stupid doesn't imply anger...it implies
stupidity."
Indeed. I did imply your stupidity.
|5.22.06 @ 8:28PM|#
uncle sam:
There are those who do, and those who don't.
I am afraid that your comment places you among the dense. Do you
really think that those who oppress others wants the governemnt to
do the job? All they want is for the government not to interfere,
or at most facilitate their work.
Ask any wife beater if he wants his wife beaten by governemnt thugs
instead of doing it himself.
There have been slave owner with or without governemtn and they
prefer to use the whip themselves. All they ask of goverment is to
return their property if it runs away.
uncle sam|5.22.06 @ 9:57PM|#
Oh, yes. You assume much. I am among the dense, therefore you
are among the undense (enlightened). I don't know how you do it.
We've exchanged a few paragraphs and already you have an
appreciable grasp of what I know and comprehend.
There have been slave owner with or without governemtn and they
prefer to use the whip themselves. All they ask of goverment is to
return their property if it runs away.
This is true. But is there only one kid of slavery (chattel)?
Why did slave owners have to get the government to enact fugitive
slave acts?
Is slavery acceptable to you if it is fractional rather than total?
Institutional rather than private?
Ask any wife beater if he wants his wife beaten by governemnt
thugs instead of doing it himself.
Ask any woman who is denied legal possession of a firearm if she
feels safer from that wife beater. If you think this is a silly
response, it's because I'm addressing a silly excuse for political
government. I have absolutely no regard for wife beaters (or
husband beaters for that matter...yes, it happens). But how is the
existance of spouse beaters an excuse for a government that takes
as much wealth as it chooses from men and women, wages war whenever
it is deemed expeedient, etc.
|5.22.06 @ 10:00PM|#
joe:
You are still a dick for your comment to John, and as far as the
comment about my mother goes; well, that's just a sad commentary on
what kind of human being you are.
uncle sam|5.22.06 @ 10:15PM|#
Spousal violence is one problem that the political approach has
been only marginally in dealing with. Cops have difficulty in
getting the beaten spouse to press charges, and stick with it. Cops
have found domestic violence one of the most dangerous calls for
cops to respond to.
This is a psycho/socio/cultural issue (as with many issues) that I
don't think the legislative approach will be able to provide a
really satisfactory solution.
We can see how well laws have worked in perfecting humanity and
society. I'm still looking for the evidence. Are you aware of
any/
uncle sam|5.23.06 @ 12:04AM|#
There have been slave owner with or without governemtn and
they prefer to use the whip themselves.
OK, tell me about slave owners in a stateless society. When and
where exactly was that?
uncle sam|5.23.06 @ 3:13AM|#
Not that I think this is relevant to the discussion. The
assumption seems to be that if we figure a way to have social order
without political government, then a bunch of no-goods will decide
to turn many of us into chattel slaves.
You might consider that if Africans had been able to procure
firearms during the time of the slavers capturing them for the
American colonies, it would have been prohibitively expensive to go
slaving in Africa. The sensibility of the times that permitted
slavery happened to coincide with a very unequal state of
technological development which permitted not just slavery, but
also conquest for purposes of colonization around the world by a
few countries, mainly England, Spain, and France.
We could refer to this as colonial slavery. Mercantilism, where
colonial governments performed the conquests and the colonial
administrators and associate merchants raked in the wealth, a
substantial portion of which went to the respective kings.
But that still has little to do with the discussion. Mercantile
colonialism has been left behind, as has chattel slavery in the
modern world. The question is, what is next? Is political
government capable of improving the state of humanity?
I think not.
|5.23.06 @ 8:59AM|#
sam:
There was slavery and spousal abuse in the caves, long before the
modern state was invented.
People oppressing other people have been occurring since day 1, and
ranting about an institution that came much later will not change
the fact.
uncle sam|5.23.06 @ 2:12PM|#
People oppressing other people have been occurring since day
1
Obviously, given that our biological heritage is animalian,
mamalian, social, primate, and tribal.
The so called "modern state" is simply an evolved tribal structure
and retains, and institutionalizes, certain basic traits:
expediency, tribalism, hierarchy, and brutality.
The state, like any criminal, relies upon its ability to strike
fear in the hearts of humans. that's why the law, no matter how
stupid or unjust, is enforced by men with guns, ready to kill, to
achieve the ends of the state.
You may tout such a mechanism as modern, I do not.
You worry about bullies having their way without constraint of the
law. Do you never worry about bullies having their way via the
law?
|5.24.06 @ 1:36PM|#
tomatoe, and potatoe, may be spelled with or without an
"e"
Children - are we loosing sleep over this one?
Iambe
|5.25.06 @ 2:37PM|#
judging from all these comments by the readers of agribiotech, the cartoon did not serve any purpose in our main concerns about GM crops!In factit should not have been republished here as it confused the whole issue about GM and added to the triviality which has surrounded this very important issue! Who cares if the cave man lasted only 30 years, we are in 2006 and science has progressed even with the stupidity of man, so lets elevate this debate one notch up from trivial discussions to a more enlightened one so that all the readers benefit from this important issue.
|5.25.06 @ 2:38PM|#
judging from all these comments by the readers of agribiotech, the cartoon did not serve any purpose in our main concerns about GM crops!In factit should not have been republished here as it confused the whole issue about GM and added to the triviality which has surrounded this very important issue! Who cares if the cave man lasted only 30 years, we are in 2006 and science has progressed even with the stupidity of man, so lets elevate this debate one notch up from trivial discussions to a more enlightened one so that all the readers benefit from this important issue.
|5.25.06 @ 2:38PM|#
judging from all these comments by the readers of agribiotech, the cartoon did not serve any purpose in our main concerns about GM crops!In factit should not have been republished here as it confused the whole issue about GM and added to the triviality which has surrounded this very important issue! Who cares if the cave man lasted only 30 years, we are in 2006 and science has progressed even with the stupidity of man, so lets elevate this debate one notch up from trivial discussions to a more enlightened one so that all the readers benefit from this important issue.
|5.25.06 @ 2:38PM|#
judging from all these comments by the readers of agribiotech, the cartoon did not serve any purpose in our main concerns about GM crops!In factit should not have been republished here as it confused the whole issue about GM and added to the triviality which has surrounded this very important issue! Who cares if the cave man lasted only 30 years, we are in 2006 and science has progressed even with the stupidity of man, so lets elevate this debate one notch up from trivial discussions to a more enlightened one so that all the readers benefit from this important issue.
|5.25.06 @ 2:38PM|#
judging from all these comments by the readers of agribiotech, the cartoon did not serve any purpose in our main concerns about GM crops!In factit should not have been republished here as it confused the whole issue about GM and added to the triviality which has surrounded this very important issue! Who cares if the cave man lasted only 30 years, we are in 2006 and science has progressed even with the stupidity of man, so lets elevate this debate one notch up from trivial discussions to a more enlightened one so that all the readers benefit from this important issue.
|5.25.06 @ 2:38PM|#
judging from all these comments by the readers of agribiotech, the cartoon did not serve any purpose in our main concerns about GM crops!In factit should not have been republished here as it confused the whole issue about GM and added to the triviality which has surrounded this very important issue! Who cares if the cave man lasted only 30 years, we are in 2006 and science has progressed even with the stupidity of man, so lets elevate this debate one notch up from trivial discussions to a more enlightened one so that all the readers benefit from this important issue.
|5.25.06 @ 2:39PM|#
judging from all these comments by the readers of agribiotech, the cartoon did not serve any purpose in our main concerns about GM crops!In factit should not have been republished here as it confused the whole issue about GM and added to the triviality which has surrounded this very important issue! Who cares if the cave man lasted only 30 years, we are in 2006 and science has progressed even with the stupidity of man, so lets elevate this debate one notch up from trivial discussions to a more enlightened one so that all the readers benefit from this important issue.
|5.25.06 @ 2:39PM|#
judging from all these comments by the readers of agribiotech, the cartoon did not serve any purpose in our main concerns about GM crops!In factit should not have been republished here as it confused the whole issue about GM and added to the triviality which has surrounded this very important issue! Who cares if the cave man lasted only 30 years, we are in 2006 and science has progressed even with the stupidity of man, so lets elevate this debate one notch up from trivial discussions to a more enlightened one so that all the readers benefit from this important issue.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245