Article

[Mr-Shankly]

Here is an article I wrote for the SocialistAppeal website. Any feedback on the content and style would be appreciated. The website is a marxist one and I am not a fan of marxism but thats by the by.

<a href="http://www.socialist.net/the-rottenness-of-capitalist-politics.htm" target="_blank">http://www.socialist.net/the-rottenness-of...st-politics.htm</a>

[chicken]

upon first read, i've two things.

first is technical: should not the arctic monkeys be treated as a proper noun?

second is somewhat technical, somewhat style: when you say <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->not one solitary mention of the consequences <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> are you absoutely certain about this? absolutes can weaken the integrity of the voice because it is one form of hyperbole. there are many ways you could get your initial message across. you could really try to humanize yourself and say: "no matter how hard i've looked, i have yet to find..." or even a simple: "few, if any."

are you limited for length of the article? maybe referencing historical failures with imperialism? if you wanted, you could get all crazy with the student theme and reference ideas like: "i've been taught to learn from history" and "it is as though i'm supposed to ignore my education" see what i'm trying to get at?
just some ideas.


i'll have to give it a couple more reads to comment on the deeper issues.
i do like it though. it's very tight, succinct.

[Ishihara]

Here is an article I wrote for the SocialistAppeal website. Any feedback on the content and style would be appreciated. The website is a marxist one and I am not a fan of marxism but thats by the by.

<a href="http://www.socialist.net/the-rottenness-of-capitalist-politics.htm" target="_blank">http://www.socialist.net/the-rottenness-of...st-politics.htm</a>

Sure,

1.) Title - "The Rottenness of Capitalist Politics"
Any educated Capitalist will quickly discount/ignore your article, Capitalism is under the school of Economics not Public Policy. I am not sure who your intended audience is, I would assume you would want to reach as wide an audience as possible.

2.) Economic Fallacy - "After all, why should the mainstream media be concerned that we can't afford to give students a free education or to give pensioners a decent living standard due to the fact we've had to pay billions of pounds bombing Iraqi students and pensioners? "

I would assume most of the main stream media have economic advisers/consultants that would quickly point out the relationship you described above is not inverse but positive.
A.) Every unit of capital invested in the war, barring transfer payments, adds 5.1 units of capital back to the GDP, example: If the UK spent 2 billions pounds on the War, 10.2 billion pounds would return to the UK GDP. This is know as the law of Velocity of Money.
B.) Every 2.7% of GDP growth leads to a 1% reduction of unemployment, this is Okun's Law
C.) With more people working the more they will increase consumption and production will increase to meet new demand, in turn creating even more jobs.
D.) The more people with jobs and the more products being sold the more taxes that are collected.
E.) Taxes pay for Education and pensioners, the War has had and will continue to have a positive effect on this issue.

3.) "nuclear arsenal, privatisation" All GDP boosting efforts, resulting in more jobs and more freedom,
how free are you if you have no money?

4.) "As a young person, it is vastly worrying to see the media pushing personality over policies."
as you get older you will begin the realize this is a sad truth in life, very little will ever be done to change
it. What you need to focus on is who his advisers are and what are their positions and agendas.

Nice effort, but you need to brush up on your basic economics.

[Mr-Shankly]

<!--quoteo(post=41425:date=May 29 2007, 03:24 PM:name=Mr-Shankly)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mr-Shankly @ May 29 2007, 03:24 PM) [snapback]41425[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Here is an article I wrote for the SocialistAppeal website. Any feedback on the content and style would be appreciated. The website is a marxist one and I am not a fan of marxism but thats by the by.

<a href="http://www.socialist.net/the-rottenness-of-capitalist-politics.htm" target="_blank">http://www.socialist.net/the-rottenness-of...st-politics.htm</a>

Sure,

1.) Title - "The Rottenness of Capitalist Politics"
Any educated Capitalist will quickly discount/ignore your article, Capitalism is under the school of Economics not Public Policy. I am not sure who your intended audience is, I would assume you would want to reach as wide an audience as possible.

2.) Economic Fallacy - "After all, why should the mainstream media be concerned that we can't afford to give students a free education or to give pensioners a decent living standard due to the fact we've had to pay billions of pounds bombing Iraqi students and pensioners? "

I would assume most of the main stream media have economic advisers/consultants that would quickly point out the relationship you described above is not inverse but positive.
A.) Every unit of capital invested in the war, barring transfer payments, adds 5.1 units of capital back to the GDP, example: If the UK spent 2 billions pounds on the War, 10.2 billion pounds would return to the UK GDP. This is know as the law of Velocity of Money.
B.) Every 2.7% of GDP growth leads to a 1% reduction of unemployment, this is Okun's Law
C.) With more people working the more they will increase consumption and production will increase to meet new demand, in turn creating even more jobs.
D.) The more people with jobs and the more products being sold the more taxes that are collected.
E.) Taxes pay for Education and pensioners, the War has had and will continue to have a positive effect on this issue.

3.) "nuclear arsenal, privatisation" All GDP boosting efforts, resulting in more jobs and more freedom,
how free are you if you have no money?

4.) "As a young person, it is vastly worrying to see the media pushing personality over policies."
as you get older you will begin the realize this is a sad truth in life, very little will ever be done to change
it. What you need to focus on is who his advisers are and what are their positions and agendas.

Nice effort, but you need to brush up on your basic economics.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I didn't title it. I'm afraid I cant accept that nothing will ever be done about personality politics, soon the general public won't accept it you know. I just can't see how we can maintain life on earth with capitalism, thats all really.

[Ishihara]

<!--quoteo(post=41447:date=May 31 2007, 02:55 AM:name=Shintaro Ishihara)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Shintaro Ishihara @ May 31 2007, 02:55 AM) [snapback]41447[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
<!--quoteo(post=41425:date=May 29 2007, 03:24 PM:name=Mr-Shankly)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mr-Shankly @ May 29 2007, 03:24 PM) [snapback]41425[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Here is an article I wrote for the SocialistAppeal website. Any feedback on the content and style would be appreciated. The website is a marxist one and I am not a fan of marxism but thats by the by.

<a href="http://www.socialist.net/the-rottenness-of-capitalist-politics.htm" target="_blank">http://www.socialist.net/the-rottenness-of...st-politics.htm</a>

Sure,

1.) Title - "The Rottenness of Capitalist Politics"
Any educated Capitalist will quickly discount/ignore your article, Capitalism is under the school of Economics not Public Policy. I am not sure who your intended audience is, I would assume you would want to reach as wide an audience as possible.

2.) Economic Fallacy - "After all, why should the mainstream media be concerned that we can't afford to give students a free education or to give pensioners a decent living standard due to the fact we've had to pay billions of pounds bombing Iraqi students and pensioners? "

I would assume most of the main stream media have economic advisers/consultants that would quickly point out the relationship you described above is not inverse but positive.
A.) Every unit of capital invested in the war, barring transfer payments, adds 5.1 units of capital back to the GDP, example: If the UK spent 2 billions pounds on the War, 10.2 billion pounds would return to the UK GDP. This is know as the law of Velocity of Money.
B.) Every 2.7% of GDP growth leads to a 1% reduction of unemployment, this is Okun's Law
C.) With more people working the more they will increase consumption and production will increase to meet new demand, in turn creating even more jobs.
D.) The more people with jobs and the more products being sold the more taxes that are collected.
E.) Taxes pay for Education and pensioners, the War has had and will continue to have a positive effect on this issue.

3.) "nuclear arsenal, privatisation" All GDP boosting efforts, resulting in more jobs and more freedom,
how free are you if you have no money?

4.) "As a young person, it is vastly worrying to see the media pushing personality over policies."
as you get older you will begin the realize this is a sad truth in life, very little will ever be done to change
it. What you need to focus on is who his advisers are and what are their positions and agendas.

Nice effort, but you need to brush up on your basic economics.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I didn't title it. I'm afraid I cant accept that nothing will ever be done about personality politics, soon the general public won't accept it you know. I just can't see how we can maintain life on earth with capitalism, thats all really.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Capitalism is the absolute worst economic model, except for all the others...
Seriously though, your operating on misconceptions, brush up.

[Truman Capote]

I THINK IT'S A PRETTY GOOD ARTICLE, I ENJOYED READING IT. I WON'T DISCUSS THE FACTS BECAUSE I THINK THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE ALWAYS THINKING ABOUT REACHING A WIDE AUDIENCE OR IF WHAT YOU THINK IS AN UNQUESTIONABLE TRUTH WHEN YOU WRITE.

T.

[chicken]

4.) "As a young person, it is vastly worrying to see the media pushing personality over policies."
as you get older you will begin the realize this is a sad truth in life, very little will ever be done to change
it. What you need to focus on is who his advisers are and what are their positions and agendas.

disagree.
i refuse to be a victim of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_helplessness" target="_blank">learned helplessness.</a> (for what it's worth, wiki is definitely not known for psychological knowledge. at least the basic idea comes across)
the thing is, even in the original research, not all subjects gave up.
so as long as one thinks: "very little will ever be done to change it" the more that becomes true. if we roll over and just 'take it,' what do we become?
i've always felt it better to be progress moreso than status quo.


as for what Pete needs to focus on: that is entirely dependent on the intended audience, and my guess is that this should be some sort of persuasive message. if so, Pete: let me know. i've a few tidbits tucked away in this grey matter about the science of persuasion.

[Ishihara]

<!--quoteo(post=41447:date=May 31 2007, 01:55 AM:name=Shintaro Ishihara)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Shintaro Ishihara @ May 31 2007, 01:55 AM) [snapback]41447[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->

4.) "As a young person, it is vastly worrying to see the media pushing personality over policies."
as you get older you will begin the realize this is a sad truth in life, very little will ever be done to change
it. What you need to focus on is who his advisers are and what are their positions and agendas.

disagree.
i refuse to be a victim of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_helplessness" target="_blank">learned helplessness.</a> (for what it's worth, wiki is definitely not known for psychological knowledge. at least the basic idea comes across)
the thing is, even in the original research, not all subjects gave up.
so as long as one thinks: "very little will ever be done to change it" the more that becomes true. if we roll over and just 'take it,' what do we become?
i've always felt it better to be progress moreso than status quo.


as for what Pete needs to focus on: that is entirely dependent on the intended audience, and my guess is that this should be some sort of persuasive message. if so, Pete: let me know. i've a few tidbits tucked away in this grey matter about the science of persuasion.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I think the cult of personality will never go away, I think it's deeply embedded in human nature. People will choose the winning personality over better qualified every time. Look at the Nixon Kennedy debate. Nixon was clearly ahead in the polls but when the first televised debate was on TV, Kennedy was more handsome and charming and took a commanding lead and the Whitehouse. TV has contributed to this in a major way. Also look at Jim Jones, politicians loved that guy! Jimmy Carter's wife met with him, he was part of Walter Mondale's trusted advisers, Jerry Brown entertained him at the California Governor's mansion. Congressman Willy Brown praised him on television regularly. San Francisco Mayor Moscone appointed him to be the chairman for the board of housing. Jim Jones was a popular charismatic figure, and what did he do in Nov. of 1978? He killed over 900 men, women and children with cyanide laced Kool Aide. As a side note Jim Jones was also a socialist.

[elko]

Every unit of capital invested in the war, barring transfer payments, adds 5.1 units of capital back to the GDP, example: If the UK spent 2 billions pounds on the War, 10.2 billion pounds would return to the UK GDP. This is known as the law of Velocity of Money.

Could you explain this for me? I have never studied economics and I can't seem to apply the theory on the 'velocity of money' wikipedia page to the war on Iraq.

[Ishihara]

<!--quoteo(post=41447:date=May 31 2007, 02:55 AM:name=Shintaro Ishihara)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Shintaro Ishihara @ May 31 2007, 02:55 AM) [snapback]41447[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Every unit of capital invested in the war, barring transfer payments, adds 5.1 units of capital back to the GDP, example: If the UK spent 2 billions pounds on the War, 10.2 billion pounds would return to the UK GDP. This is known as the law of Velocity of Money.

Could you explain this for me? I have never studied economics and I can't seem to apply the theory on the 'velocity of money' wikipedia page to the war on Iraq.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Not surprising, Wikipedia is often the worst source of information. When the govt. spends money on goods or services, (not transfer payments) that money changes hands ~5.1 times. For example the govt. buys bullets for the war effort. They pay a bullet company for the bullets. The bullet company pays a chemical company and a steel company for their supplies, the steel company and the chemical company also have suppliers to be paid. The list goes on. This is the law of velocity of money and the growth added to the GDP is one form of the money multiplier effect. The UK and US have the unique ability to manage their money supply through open market operations and get the maximum effect of these models. Nations on the Euro participating in the same behavior would have still benefited but they would have been able to maximize those benefits as well. Before the war even started it was very clear who would take what position based on economic position alone. You can explain everything that happens in the world with 90% economics and 10% psychology.

[elko]

<!--quoteo(post=41474:date=Jun 1 2007, 06:07 AM:name=elko)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(elko @ Jun 1 2007, 06:07 AM) [snapback]41474[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
<!--quoteo(post=41447:date=May 31 2007, 02:55 AM:name=Shintaro Ishihara)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Shintaro Ishihara @ May 31 2007, 02:55 AM) [snapback]41447[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Every unit of capital invested in the war, barring transfer payments, adds 5.1 units of capital back to the GDP, example: If the UK spent 2 billions pounds on the War, 10.2 billion pounds would return to the UK GDP. This is known as the law of Velocity of Money.

Could you explain this for me? I have never studied economics and I can't seem to apply the theory on the 'velocity of money' wikipedia page to the war on Iraq.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Not surprising, Wikipedia is often the worst source of information. When the govt. spends money on goods or services, (not transfer payments) that money changes hands ~5.1 times. For example the govt. buys bullets for the war effort. They pay a bullet company for the bullets. The bullet company pays a chemical company and a steel company for their supplies, the steel company and the chemical company also have suppliers to be paid. The list goes on. This is the law of velocity of money and the growth added to the GDP is one form of the money multiplier effect. The UK and US have the unique ability to manage their money supply through open market operations and get the maximum effect of these models. Nations on the Euro participating in the same behavior would have still benefited but they would have been able to maximize those benefits as well. Before the war even started it was very clear who would take what position based on economic position alone. You can explain everything that happens in the world with 90% economics and 10% psychology.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thanks for taking that apart for me, something like that makes me want to know an awful lot more about economics (more than the nothing I currently know). But even if war increases a country's GDP, it doesn't mean that the benefits are felt by those who actually need it most? I think regardless of flaws in his economics, Pete's point was that in fighting this war, the government have forgotten the people that need them most.

[chicken]

You can explain everything that happens in the world with 90% economics and 10% psychology.

[Ishihara]

<!--quoteo(post=41479:date=Jun 1 2007, 05:03 PM:name=Shintaro Ishihara)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Shintaro Ishihara @ Jun 1 2007, 05:03 PM) [snapback]41479[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
<!--quoteo(post=41474:date=Jun 1 2007, 06:07 AM:name=elko)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(elko @ Jun 1 2007, 06:07 AM) [snapback]41474[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
<!--quoteo(post=41447:date=May 31 2007, 02:55 AM:name=Shintaro Ishihara)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Shintaro Ishihara @ May 31 2007, 02:55 AM) [snapback]41447[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Every unit of capital invested in the war, barring transfer payments, adds 5.1 units of capital back to the GDP, example: If the UK spent 2 billions pounds on the War, 10.2 billion pounds would return to the UK GDP. This is known as the law of Velocity of Money.

Could you explain this for me? I have never studied economics and I can't seem to apply the theory on the 'velocity of money' wikipedia page to the war on Iraq.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Not surprising, Wikipedia is often the worst source of information. When the govt. spends money on goods or services, (not transfer payments) that money changes hands ~5.1 times. For example the govt. buys bullets for the war effort. They pay a bullet company for the bullets. The bullet company pays a chemical company and a steel company for their supplies, the steel company and the chemical company also have suppliers to be paid. The list goes on. This is the law of velocity of money and the growth added to the GDP is one form of the money multiplier effect. The UK and US have the unique ability to manage their money supply through open market operations and get the maximum effect of these models. Nations on the Euro participating in the same behavior would have still benefited but they would have been able to maximize those benefits as well. Before the war even started it was very clear who would take what position based on economic position alone. You can explain everything that happens in the world with 90% economics and 10% psychology.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thanks for taking that apart for me, something like that makes me want to know an awful lot more about economics (more than the nothing I currently know). But even if war increases a country's GDP, it doesn't mean that the benefits are felt by those who actually need it most? I think regardless of flaws in his economics, Pete's point was that in fighting this war, the government have forgotten the people that need them most.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

When all is said and done, not much ever changes in any significant way, so it's best not to get depressed over who is elected and what policy they invoke. If you can understand how their policy will effect the economy and make your investments accordingly then you are on the road to freedom. As far as I am concerned it doesn't matter what rights your govt. expressly grants if you don't have enough money to give you the freedom to live the way you want to.

If you want to dig in deeper read the writings of the following;
David Ricardo, Milton Friedman, Paul Samuelson, Robert Mundel, Robert Solow, that will give you a pretty good foundation to build from.

Anyway GDP growth helps EVERYONE at all levels, think of it as a swimming pool we are all in the same pool, if the pool gets bigger we all get a little more room to swim around. While some may get more space than others it's not to the exclusion of others. One of the biggest misconceptions in economics is that economy is like a pie and and if someone takes a big piece it leaves a smaller piece for the next guy. It doesn't work that way at all.

Some of the biggest problems in economics today have far more to do with consumer behavior than govt. policy.

[chicken]

<!--quoteo(post=41467:date=May 31 2007, 04:44 PM:name=chicken)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(chicken @ May 31 2007, 04:44 PM) [snapback]41467[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
<!--quoteo(post=41447:date=May 31 2007, 01:55 AM:name=Shintaro Ishihara)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Shintaro Ishihara @ May 31 2007, 01:55 AM) [snapback]41447[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->

4.) "As a young person, it is vastly worrying to see the media pushing personality over policies."
as you get older you will begin the realize this is a sad truth in life, very little will ever be done to change
it. What you need to focus on is who his advisers are and what are their positions and agendas.

disagree.
i refuse to be a victim of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_helplessness" target="_blank">learned helplessness.</a> (for what it's worth, wiki is definitely not known for psychological knowledge. at least the basic idea comes across)
the thing is, even in the original research, not all subjects gave up.
so as long as one thinks: "very little will ever be done to change it" the more that becomes true. if we roll over and just 'take it,' what do we become?
i've always felt it better to be progress moreso than status quo.


as for what Pete needs to focus on: that is entirely dependent on the intended audience, and my guess is that this should be some sort of persuasive message. if so, Pete: let me know. i've a few tidbits tucked away in this grey matter about the science of persuasion.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I think the cult of personality will never go away, I think it's deeply embedded in human nature. People will choose the winning personality over better qualified every time. Look at the Nixon Kennedy debate. Nixon was clearly ahead in the polls but when the first televised debate was on TV, Kennedy was more handsome and charming and took a commanding lead and the Whitehouse. TV has contributed to this in a major way. Also look at Jim Jones, politicians loved that guy! Jimmy Carter's wife met with him, he was part of Walter Mondale's trusted advisers, Jerry Brown entertained him at the California Governor's mansion. Congressman Willy Brown praised him on television regularly. San Francisco Mayor Moscone appointed him to be the chairman for the board of housing. Jim Jones was a popular charismatic figure, and what did he do in Nov. of 1978? He killed over 900 men, women and children with cyanide laced Kool Aide. As a side note Jim Jones was also a socialist.


<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


your first sentence, "I think the cult of personality will never go away, I think it's deeply embedded in human nature." is exactly the point i was trying to make. look at what you just said, you've already submitted to the cult of personality with that very belief. if you think it is deeply embedded in human nature, then it is equally embedded in your nature.

it was "Flavor-Aide", not Kool Aide--it was the cheap knock-off brand.
as far as Jones being a socialist, i've never read that. i think he went through a socialist period, but ended up as a communist. most cults go in that direction. his is interesting because of the long history of endorsement from the host culture, which really isn't that common when you come to things like this. most situations like this enjoy just a few years in a situation like that, Jones kept his herd for close to a decade before things started to get shifty. and really, in all honesty, the people who were endorsing him at the time were "the people" of that time. while history says many things, we've no idea what it will say about today. thus, understanding Jones means understanding the evolution of his mental illness(es <---how many were there? a debated topic in that 10%er pseudoscience of psychology).

i find it strange how we tend to speak about society as if it were "out there" lurking somewhere in the bushes, slavering. both the counters and the counted make up society. the cult of personality will continue as long as people desire it.

the only signatures i've collected are ones from my friends.


Pete: i hope the acticle is coming along famously.

[Ishihara]

<!--quoteo(post=41471:date=Jun 1 2007, 07:27 AM:name=Shintaro Ishihara)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Shintaro Ishihara @ Jun 1 2007, 07:27 AM) [snapback]41471[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
<!--quoteo(post=41467:date=May 31 2007, 04:44 PM:name=chicken)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(chicken @ May 31 2007, 04:44 PM) [snapback]41467[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
<!--quoteo(post=41447:date=May 31 2007, 01:55 AM:name=Shintaro Ishihara)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Shintaro Ishihara @ May 31 2007, 01:55 AM) [snapback]41447[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->

4.) "As a young person, it is vastly worrying to see the media pushing personality over policies."
as you get older you will begin the realize this is a sad truth in life, very little will ever be done to change
it. What you need to focus on is who his advisers are and what are their positions and agendas.

disagree.
i refuse to be a victim of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_helplessness" target="_blank">learned helplessness.</a> (for what it's worth, wiki is definitely not known for psychological knowledge. at least the basic idea comes across)
the thing is, even in the original research, not all subjects gave up.
so as long as one thinks: "very little will ever be done to change it" the more that becomes true. if we roll over and just 'take it,' what do we become?
i've always felt it better to be progress moreso than status quo.


as for what Pete needs to focus on: that is entirely dependent on the intended audience, and my guess is that this should be some sort of persuasive message. if so, Pete: let me know. i've a few tidbits tucked away in this grey matter about the science of persuasion.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I think the cult of personality will never go away, I think it's deeply embedded in human nature. People will choose the winning personality over better qualified every time. Look at the Nixon Kennedy debate. Nixon was clearly ahead in the polls but when the first televised debate was on TV, Kennedy was more handsome and charming and took a commanding lead and the Whitehouse. TV has contributed to this in a major way. Also look at Jim Jones, politicians loved that guy! Jimmy Carter's wife met with him, he was part of Walter Mondale's trusted advisers, Jerry Brown entertained him at the California Governor's mansion. Congressman Willy Brown praised him on television regularly. San Francisco Mayor Moscone appointed him to be the chairman for the board of housing. Jim Jones was a popular charismatic figure, and what did he do in Nov. of 1978? He killed over 900 men, women and children with cyanide laced Kool Aide. As a side note Jim Jones was also a socialist.


<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


your first sentence, "I think the cult of personality will never go away, I think it's deeply embedded in human nature." is exactly the point i was trying to make. look at what you just said, you've already submitted to the cult of personality with that very belief. if you think it is deeply embedded in human nature, then it is equally embedded in your nature.

it was "Flavor-Aide", not Kool Aide--it was the cheap knock-off brand.
as far as Jones being a socialist, i've never read that. i think he went through a socialist period, but ended up as a communist. most cults go in that direction. his is interesting because of the long history of endorsement from the host culture, which really isn't that common when you come to things like this. most situations like this enjoy just a few years in a situation like that, Jones kept his herd for close to a decade before things started to get shifty. and really, in all honesty, the people who were endorsing him at the time were "the people" of that time. while history says many things, we've no idea what it will say about today. thus, understanding Jones means understanding the evolution of his mental illness(es <---how many were there? a debated topic in that 10%er pseudoscience of psychology).

i find it strange how we tend to speak about society as if it were "out there" lurking somewhere in the bushes, slavering. both the counters and the counted make up society. the cult of personality will continue as long as people desire it.

the only signatures i've collected are ones from my friends.


Pete: i hope the acticle is coming along famously.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

it was "Flavor-Aide", not Kool Aide--it was the cheap knock-off brand.

You must have read that on Wikipedia. The world's worse source of information. There was video of Jones showing his food supply to the cameras and in a chest was a carton of Flavor-Aide he referred to as Kool Aid. However, both were used in Jones town and on the big day, they broke out the good stuff and went for the Kool Aid.

Socialism and Communism are on a different axis. They are not mutually exclusive of each other. On his last day alive he referred to himself as socialist. As he always had.

enjoy!