Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Entry 47940
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
2022/06/30 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular

2007/9/7-10 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:47940 Activity:moderate
9/7     Hey dipstick, thanks for nuking a link to a very thoughtful essay.
        Let's try again.
        "The Capitalist Threat," by George Soros.
        \_ Maybe you could add a summary or something?
           \_ I did that the first time and it was immediately nuked.  Let's
              try again.
        \_ OH hey, this is the famous "relexivity" essay. I thought I
           recognized it. Yes, this is a very interesting idea from
           Soros, but not light reading.
        \_ Essays sometimes say more about the author than the subject matter.
           We don't have good models for how real economies work, but we also
           don't have good models of income redistribution, or more generally
           good models of how to intervene in a society effectively to achieve
           given ends.  A smart man once said that best way to help society
           isn't to crusade for a given cause but to work on eliminating
           biases in oneself.  Otherwise you run the risk of dismissing a
           distressing truth as 'too absurd to be true,' for example. -- ilyas
           \_ Yeah, I remember in 2003 when I said that Bush had presented
              no evidence that Saddam Hussein had WMD and was dismissed as
              being "too absurd to be true."
           \_ My way or the highway, pal!  You're clearly just a <insert
              random insult>.
           \_ Yes, I remember suggesting that there was no evidence that Saddam
              Hussein had WMD before the war and being dismissed as "too
              absurd to be true."
2022/06/30 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular

You may also be interested in these entries...
2010/2/22-3/30 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:53722 Activity:nil
2/20    Ok serious question, NOT political.  This is straight up procedural.
        Has it been declared that we didn't find WMD in iraq? (think so).
        So why did we go into iraq (what was the gain), and if nobody really
        knows, why is nobody looking for the reason?
        \_ Political stability, military strategy (Iran), and to prevent
           Saddam from financing terrorism.
2009/2/9-17 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:52544 Activity:nil
2/9     Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau, May 1939
        "We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever
        spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and
        now if I am wrong somebody else can have my job. I want to see this
        country prosper. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people
        get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. I say after
2008/11/4-5 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:51828 Activity:high
11/4    Regardless of the outcome, I'm very proud of all the Americans
        who voted today. We've come a long way and it's amazing that
        women & black men actually have a chance of winning. Something
        like this was unthinkable in the 60s. We've come a long way.
        \_ not really.  they all suported the bailout which continues to come
           pouring out of our pockets.  maybe it was necessary to win the
2008/11/2-3 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:51777 Activity:kinda low
11/1    SCHWARZENEGGER: [W]hen Americans go into that voting booth on Tuesday,
        I hope that you will think about this. If you were in a POW cell, with
        the threat and danger and torture as part of the daily life, who would
        you want in that cell with you?
        AUDIENCE: John McCain!
        \_ Where were the lovely folks with their "Vote McCain! Not Hussein!"
2008/8/16-21 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50885 Activity:moderate
8/16    Hilarious.  Barack catches himself saying Clarence Thomas was not
        exprienced enough.
        \_ you know Justice Thomas hasnt said a word in court for 2.5 years?
           \_ Do you now he has written some of the best dissents?
           \_ Do you think Obama is experienced enough?
2008/8/11-18 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50847 Activity:nil
8/11    Analysis: roots of conflict between Georgia and Russia
        \_ This is an excellent insight. Thank you.
        \_ this is pretty straightforward actually:
           - s. ossetia is de facto independent and allied with Russia
           - georgia takes s. ossetia by force, pokes Russian Bear in eye
2008/7/26-30 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:50698 Activity:nil
7/26 [AP]
        Analysis: US now winning Iraq war that seemed lost
        \_ So move the goalposts enough and eventually you can claim
           victory and bug the fuck out.  That's not winning.
           What exactly was won again?
           \_ Huh?  What goalposts are you talking about?
2008/7/5-10 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:50475 Activity:high
7/4     Jesse Helms is dead. Too bad he didn't die in pain: maybe
        God is Conservative afterall. At least he gave America a good
        present on this 231st birthday of ours.
                          \_ 232nd. And thanks for showing the example of all
                             that is wrong with politics today.
                             \_ I'm not a fan of cheering death, but I'm
2008/6/12-13 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50240 Activity:nil
6/12    Barack Obama's Birth Certificate
        Not really that interesting, except that I didn't know that his full
        name is "Brack Hussein Obama II" (The Revenge)
        \_ This obsession of yours is beginning to look unhealthy.
        \_ I'd like to thank Obama for releasing this so that the burgeoning
2008/6/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50181 Activity:high
6/6     Pure comedy as freepers react to Obama's fist bump with his wife:
        "History has shown repeatedly, when Whites set up new countries and
        then give the control to the blacks, or any non-White race, it will
        soon collapse into another third world catastrophe."
2008/5/28-31 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50070 Activity:high
5/28    Former White House press sect comes out with book bashing
        his old boss.  I feel like we're trapped in an alternate
        universe where I read the newspaper and think immediately
        I read the newspaper and that The Onion should give up, since
        their writers will never be able to keep up with the tragic
2008/4/8-12 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:49689 Activity:nil 52%like:49632
4/8     Yes, the Iraqi army kicked Al-Sadr's ass
        \_ Nope. You have been lied to (again).
           \_ Sorry, can't read the article.  And nothing in the intro
Cache (8192 bytes)
Atlantic Home Page February 1997 The Capitalist Threat by George Soros In The Philosophy of History, Hegel discerned a disturbing historical pattern--the crack and fall of civilizations owing to a morbid intensification of their own first principles. Although I have made a fortune in the financial markets, I now fear that the untrammeled intensification of laissez-faire capitalism and the spread of market values into all areas of life is endangering our open and democratic society. The main enemy of the open society, I believe, is no longer the communist but the capitalist threat. The term "open society" was coined by Henri Bergson, in his book The Two Sources of Morality and Religion (1932), and given greater currency by the Austrian philosopher Karl Popper, in his book The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945). Popper showed that totalitarian ideologies like communism and Nazism have a common element: they claim to be in possession of the ultimate truth. Since the ultimate truth is beyond the reach of humankind, these ideologies have to resort to oppression in order to impose their vision on society. Popper juxtaposed with these totalitarian ideologies another view of society, which recognizes that nobody has a monopoly on the truth; different people have different views and different interests, and there is a need for institutions that allow them to live together in peace. These institutions protect the rights of citizens and ensure freedom of choice and freedom of speech. Popper called this form of social organization the "open society." Written during the Second World War, The Open Society and Its Enemies explained what the Western democracies stood for and fought for. The explanation was highly abstract and philosophical, and the term "open society" never gained wide recognition. Nevertheless, Popper's analysis was penetrating, and when I read it as a student in the late 1940s, having experienced at first hand both Nazi and Communist rule in Hungary, it struck me with the force of revelation. I was driven to delve deeper into Karl Popper's philosophy, and to ask, Why does nobody have access to the ultimate truth? The answer became clear: We live in the same universe that we are trying to understand, and our perceptions can influence the events in which we participate. If our thoughts belonged to one universe and their subject matter to another, the truth might be within our grasp: we could formulate statements corresponding to the facts, and the facts would serve as reliable criteria for deciding whether the statements were true. There is a realm where these conditions prevail: natural science. But in other areas of human endeavor the relationship between statements and facts is less clear-cut. In social and political affairs the participants' perceptions help to determine reality. In these situations facts do not necessarily constitute reliable criteria for judging the truth of statements. There is a two-way connection--a feedback mechanism--between thinking and events, which I have called "reflexivity." Whether the theory is valid or not, it has turned out to be very helpful to me in the financial markets. When I had made more money than I needed, I decided to set up a foundation. Having lived through both Nazi persecution and Communist oppression, I came to the conclusion that what was paramount for me was an open society. So I called the foundation the Open Society Fund, and I defined its objectives as opening up closed societies, making open societies more viable, and promoting a critical mode of thinking. My first major undertaking was in South Africa, but it was not successful. The apartheid system was so pervasive that whatever I tried to do made me part of the system rather than helping to change it. I started supporting the Charter 77 movement in Czechoslovakia in 1980 and Solidarity in Poland in 1981. I established separate foundations in my native country, Hungary, in 1984, in China in 1986, in the Soviet Union in 1987, and in Poland in 1988. My engagement accelerated with the collapse of the Soviet system. By now I have established a network of foundations that extends across more than twenty-five countries (not including China, where we shut down in 1989). Operating under Communist regimes, I never felt the need to explain what "open society" meant; those who supported the objectives of the foundations understood it better than I did, even if they were not familiar with the expression. The goal of my foundation in Hungary, for example, was to support alternative activities. I knew that the prevailing Communist dogma was false exactly because it was a dogma, and that it would become unsustainable if it was exposed to alternatives. The foundation became the main source of support for civil society in Hungary, and as civil society flourished, so the Communist regime waned. After the collapse of communism, the mission of the foundation network changed. Recognizing that an open society is a more advanced, more sophisticated form of social organization than a closed society (because in a closed society there is only one blueprint, which is imposed on society, whereas in an open society each citizen is not only allowed but required to think for himself), the foundations shifted from a subversive task to a constructive one--not an easy thing to do when the believers in an open society are accustomed to subversive activity. Most of my foundations did a good job, but unfortunately, they did not have much company. The open societies of the West did not feel a strong urge to promote open societies in the former Soviet empire. On the contrary, the prevailing view was that people ought to be left to look after their own affairs. The end of the Cold War brought a response very different from that at the end of the Second World War. The idea of a new Marshall Plan could not even be mooted. When I proposed such an idea at a conference in Potsdam (in what was then still East Germany), in the spring of 1989, I was literally laughed at. The collapse of communism laid the groundwork for a universal open society, but the Western democracies failed to rise to the occasion. The new regimes that are emerging in the former Soviet Union and the former Yugoslavia bear little resemblance to open societies. The Western alliance seems to have lost its sense of purpose, because it cannot define itself in terms of a Communist menace. It has shown little inclination to come to the aid of those who have defended the idea of an open society in Bosnia or anywhere else. As for the people living in formerly Communist countries, they might have aspired to an open society when they suffered from repression, but now that the Communist system has collapsed, they are preoccupied with the problems of survival. After the failure of communism there came a general disillusionment with universal concepts, and the open society is a universal concept. These considerations have forced me to re-examine my belief in the open society. For five or six years following the fall of the Berlin Wall, I devoted practically all of my energies to the transformation of the formerly Communist world. More recently I have redirected my attention to our own society. The network of foundations I created continues to do good work; nevertheless, I felt an urgent need to reconsider the conceptual framework that had guided me in establishing them. This reassessment has led me to the conclusion that the concept of the open society has not lost its relevance. On the contrary, it may be even more useful in understanding the present moment in history and in providing a practical guide to political action than it was at the time Karl Popper wrote his book--but it needs to be thoroughly rethought and reformulated. If the open society is to serve as an ideal worth striving for, it can no longer be defined in terms of the Communist menace. The New Enemy Popper showed that fascism and communism had much in common, even though one constituted the extreme right and the other the extreme left, because both relied on the power of the state to repress the freedom of the individual. I contend that an op...