uals that the plan was “highly confidential” and “secret.” TRUMP also said, “as president I could have declassified it,” and, “Now I can’t, you know, but this is still a secret.” — creativesoul

What a buffoon.

Trump stole, lied, and intentionally concealed far more sensitive information...knowingly. — creativesoul

Yeah, and it’s obvious to anyone who isn’t a Trump bootlicker.

And to be clear: Hunter Biden can go to jail for all I care. So can Joe. But it’s the selective outrage that’s so funny. Literally trying to overturn an election and outright lying about it being stolen = just things we don’t like. Nothing to see there. But Joe Biden’s kid does cocaine and hires prostitutes? The sky is falling.

It’s so lopsided it’s embarrassing. But it is also very, very funny. One would almost think it’s satire.

Incidentally, I’m not using the laugh emoji for no reason— I’m actually laughing at this. Watching the Trump believers’ outrage is fantastic stuff.

hoarding classified documents, inciting an insurrection, lying repeatedly about the election, trying to pressure officials to “find votes,” etc. — Mikie

Trump said something I didn’t like. — NOS4A2

:rofl:

The criminal case against President Donald J. Trump over his hoarding of classified documents was randomly assigned to Judge Aileen M. Cannon, a court official for the Southern District of Florida said on Saturday.

The chief clerk of the federal court system there, Angela E. Noble, also confirmed that Judge Cannon would continue to oversee the case unless she recused herself.

Guess this is fine. Unless of course the ruling is unfavorable— then it’s a deep state plot.

Hunter’s laptop. :rofl:

So we should be up in arms about this. But hoarding classified documents, inciting an insurrection, lying repeatedly about the election, trying to pressure officials to “find votes,” etc. Somehow all of that can be rationalized away.

Anyway — who cares. Trump’s getting what he deserves. Actions have consequences.

Had American voters only known about Hunters laptop it would have been a fair election. Such a pity that no one knew about it. — praxis

Lol.

Yes. Would have made all the difference. 7 million votes worth.

What exactly would a modern ‘Luddite’ aim to destroy? — I like sushi

Cell phones.

The details in the indictment make it clear that Mr. Trump knew that he was not authorized to keep national security secrets in his possession and that he played a cat-and-mouse game to conceal them from the F.B.I. and other federal officials. At one point he suggested his lawyer take some documents to his hotel room and “pluck” out anything really bad, the indictment says. “Wouldn’t it be better if we just told them we don’t have anything here?” he asked his lawyers. He added, “Well, look, isn’t it better if there are no documents?” Meanwhile, he instructed his lawyers to falsely inform federal investigators that they had cooperated fully.

With these actions, the former president demonstrated once again his contempt for the rule of law, his disregard for America’s national security and his mockery of the oath he took to support and defend the Constitution. — NY Times

How could the Great Man do any wrong? It’s not like he has a history of lying and conning. Doesn’t seem to be something he’d do.

Trump. The cause of, and solution to, the world’s problems.

Random Trump quote, just for fun:

It's like in golf... A lot of people - I don't want this to sound trivial - but a lot of people are switching to these really long putters, very unattractive... it's weird. You see these great players with these really long putters, because they can't sink three-footers anymore. And, I hate it. I am a traditionalist. I have so many fabulous friends who happen to be gay, but I am a traditionalist.

:scream:

Dogma warning: Donald is not Jesus. — unenlightened

Yeah, I’m just not so sure about that.

You know who else was persecuted? Jesus.

Makes you think…

Too bad you missed the boat on asking Chomsky himself!

:rofl:

Ohhh I love it I love it I love it.

Cult leader can do no wrong. Has to be a deep state conspiracy.

Not my fault mom, the teacher is against me.

Orsnge skies in NY. Living with the effects of climate denial and delay these past 30 -50 years. Thank the Koch brothers.

But our belated move to do something about global warming will at best slow, not reverse, the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, so the climate won’t improve — at best, it will get worse more slowly. So for the foreseeable future we’ll be facing ever bigger climate-related disasters. And this future has already begun. Just look up. — Paul Krugman

Not true. E. g.

https://sites.cardiff.ac.uk/zizekcentre/
https://zizekstudies.org — Baden

Thanks, I’ll check it out.

The only fellow academic of major standing that I know of and respect highly who outright rejects him is Chomsky. — Baden

If that’s true that’s interesting. Between Chomsky’s comments and a number of lectures/debates I’ve watched, and some SEP reading, I’ve formed an opinion— but it’s true that in order to really give someone a chance you should at least read one of their major works. Based on the interest on here alone, I’ll have to do so this year. I’ll be happy to be wrong.

In any case, he’s not a climate denier and seems to reject capitalism, so he’s certainly not doing any harm, in my view.

I don’t see much of interest, in what I’ve read. Seems like a lot of fluff. Maybe I’m wrong or am missing something.

No one seems to discuss his ideas or contributions, although he’s published books. Always makes me a little suspicious, but perhaps the ideas are so complex that it’s difficult to simplify. I know this is often the case with Heidegger and Hegel, so who knows.

Law is existentially nonsensical and unintelligible, for there is no human ontological rationality attendant upon the mistaken jurisprudential presupposition that language of law is determinative of behavior. — quintillus

To translate this awkward sentence:

Supposition: Language of law is determinative of behavior.

What does that mean? I don’t hear many arguing that the law, as its written, determines human behavior. It may encourage or discourage behavior.

Anyway…because there’s no “ontological rationality” underlining this supposition, law is unintelligible. That’s your claim.

What does ontological rationality mean?

Until these basic terms are explained, your thesis is very unclear and comes across as both “ridiculous” and incoherent.

Any idea why 55 year-old men have shrines of plastic figures four decades on? — Tom Storm

Nostalgia.

I'm curious what people think is behind the intense attraction and longevity of these movies and the wider Star Wars universe. Is it a new mythos, complete with life lessons? — Tom Storm

I loved them as a kid. Like (almost) any movie, there are some parts I don't like and never have, even as an adolescent. The dialogue is often cringey. But I think the reason it's so popular is because of the basic storyline -- it's a classic good vs evil story. You have a great bad guy in Darth Vader, and the stormtroopers, the empire, the Death Star -- all easy to digest and root against. A cool underdog hero.

Factor in the special effects, which were really cool at the time (blasters and lightsabers), and ideas like "The Force", which is also a cool amalgam of mostly eastern religious teachings and "science" (I guess), and you have a winner during a time of first summer blockbusters.

Alec Guinness really helps give some weight to the movie, as does James Earl Jones' voicework. None of the main actors are very good, though, in my opinion. I like them, but they're stiff in this one (the first one).

Anyway -- yeah, just a lot of things went right. Like Michael Jackson's Thriller, it came at the right time and made a lot of good choices.

Most of all, though, I think the choice of John Williams to score the film was by far the most important. What would this movie be without the music?

Obviously you don't like capitalism, but the fact is profit is given to those that are the owners. Workers get salaries, owners profits. — ssu

:lol:

Bye.

Terrible practice to make a profit? Terrible for business? — ssu

Making a profit is fine, provided it’s done morally. Giving those profits to the rich is morally wrong and terrible practice. It’s also not an investment. R/D, capex, raising wages, community programs — those are good investments potentially.

So yes, it’s terrible practice. We see the results for business, too. Maximizing short term profits and giving 90% back to shareholders, which is what’s been happening these last 40 years, has been a disaster. True, not a disaster for Carl Icahn and the like— if that’s what you mean by success, you’re welcome.

Going to close the thread for now. Thanks for all your questions. Any last minute ones I'll try to squeeze in, just PM me.

Stock companies try to make a profit for their owners. It's not a terrible investment, if they achieve doing that. — ssu

It’s not an investment in anything. And it’s a terrible practice. Terrible for businesses, in fact. To say nothing of the moral bankruptcy of the shareholder primacy view, which you seem to assume as a law of nature.

Basically if the company makes a profit, then it's a healthy company. — ssu

Just more nonsense.

Quarterly earnings tells you little about a company’s “health.” It only tells you it’s profitable this quarter.

Why would they be a terrible investment? — ssu

Because raising prices, which customers pay for, just to maintain profits, and then giving away 90% of those profits to shareholders is a terrible investment. It’s terrible for workers, customers, society, and, as has been studied, for businesses themselves.

To even call it an investment is misleading. It’s not investing anything, really. It’s trying to keep the profits and stock prices high.

It's really about just who can put this inflation into motion.... — ssu

Yes. Companies can. Wal Mart chose to absorb extra cost, for example. Others don’t.

The Fed printing money does inflate certain assets, yes. That’s only one part of overall inflation.

Companies that have the ability to put the highers costs into prices and protect their margins are actually quite good investments in this environment. — ssu

No they aren’t. They protect the profits, yes, which goes to shareholders. The consumers and workers get screwed, as always. It’s a terrible investment.

But are they really the sources, the main culprit, for inflation? — ssu

It’s a major contributor and, often, the main culprit, yes. In the case of food, it’s the main culprit. In the case of cars…It’s partly that but partly supply disruptions. Etc.

For example real estate doesn't have this ability — ssu

As I’ve said elsewhere, housing, stocks and bonds are all a different animal. The Fed is great at creating asset bubbles. Especially when moral hazard is factored in, which they’re exceptional at creating.

Does that mean that Noam Chomsky will only reply to questions which have been raised so far on this particular thread? I was coming from the angle that he would have more of a live presence like David Pearce did. — Jack Cummins

First part is correct. He will not be here live.

I may be expecting too much from such an important figure, so it is useful for know whether he will only look at what has been raised on the thread as I am wondering whether it will be closed, and whether a new one will be started for when he engages on the site. I was hoping that the thread here would be a starting point and that questions could emerge in relation to points which he makes. — Jack Cummins

Questions are for this thread and he’ll respond to them. I’m sending them along soon. So if you have one, I’d put one forward within the week.

Ah…You want a medal or something?

Why was the bloated, redundant military budget off limits in the debt limit negotiations between the militaristic GOP and Joe Biden? That’s over half the federal operating budget. Untouchable. Full of contractor rip offs and corruption. — Ralph Nader

God bless this man. Still plugging away.

True. I’ve softened my stance on religion over the years— it’s too big a category to make generalizations. On the other hand, things like the Christian evangelical movement in the US still angers me. I was one of them, once upon a time.

Among the Abrahamic religions, certainly. Not so sure about eastern religions.

Alright everyone— last call on questions. One more week.

People seem to forget that religion is the reason LGBT people, who merely just exist, fear for their lives and rights. — Darkneos

Some religion, yes. I’d be reluctant to categorize all religion as anti-LGBT though.

Here in the US, there’s a particularly vocal and powerful group of the evangelical persuasion that’s behind a lot of this— as well as being anti-abortion.

But you see it elsewhere, too. Uganda just passed a highly restrictive law, for example.

Well that was fun.

Now maybe we can get back to the important things— like fighting wokeness, Disney…arming teachers, banning books, restricting unions, gutting environmental regulations, etc. You know— the normal Republican agenda.

From the front page of the Times:

Companies Push Prices Higher, Protecting Profits but Adding to Inflation

Glad to see some attention to this glaring contributor to inflation.

That big retailers exploit their financial control over suppliers to hobble smaller competitors is a different phenomenon. — ssu

Right, a phenomenon which explains the inflation that matters for most people. Not stocks and bonds.

As I've said, prices can go up and down for many reasons that aren't related to inflation. And you can allways find new reasons to argue just why prices are up. — ssu

Prices going up over time is inflation.

And you're right, you can always find new reasons -- which is only right, considering the world is complicated. Which is why clinging to obsolete generalizations from yore is silly.

If you give it to people, inflation will happen sooner or later. Just as the example of giving 100 million dollars to everybody shows. — ssu

Except that’s not what’s happening. The article on food shows why.

It works in some cases, like housing and stocks. Those assets inflate, sure. You can see why. When attempting to explain the rise in food or gas, it just completely fails.

What’s irritating is that this story is so very convenient for corporate America.

Corporate greed, not wages, is behind inflation. It’s time for price controls

Food prices, gas prices, car prices…we now know why prices have gone up so much. Trying to fit it all nearly into “we’re printing too much money” is really a joke. I guess you have to be a Nobel winning economist to see it in such terms, and be so silly.

The underlying economic problem is profit-price inflation. It’s caused by corporations raising their prices above their increasing costs.
Corporations are using those increasing costs – of materials, components and labor – as excuses to increase their prices even higher, resulting in bigger profits. This is why corporate profits are close to levels not seen in over half a century.
Corporations have the power to raise prices without losing customers because they face so little competition. Since the 1980s, two-thirds of all American industries have become more concentrated.