1. Looks like Robert Reich's "The Rebirth of Social Darwinism" has not opened our eyes yet. We are still misguided by the myth of "Big government lover Democrats vs Big Government hater Republicans." We are so much misguided that we are calling Obama a socialist despite the fact that Obama paid billions of dollars to giant companies as bail-out money meaning that capitalism is getting protection from the government. We need to realize that corporate greed is not a myth. That's why check and balance is a must to keep that greed to a minimum. And that can be achieved by appropriate policies and regulations, not by appealing to the good sense or conscience of the corporations. There will be still problems. Who will formulate these policies and regulatios and in whose interest? If I look at the different steps taken by the Obama administration, as a layman I will say that he is not a socialist at all although he is more sensitive to the needs of those at lower income levels.
2. Let me take an extreme example. What would a big government hater Republican president ideally do with the school systems in America? Probably she will stop funding them. Every thing will be in private hand and private schools will flourish. No more free books, free transport, free meals, free tuition, free coaching. No new immigrant would be able to send her kids to school, forget about the poor families.
3. Now let me say a word about another myth that Americans are lazy and not motivated enough to get education and try to get better earnings. Obviously the immigrants are more desperate to be properly settled in a new land. Many immigrants come here from the cream of the society of their native country. That is an advantage for them. If any one has had an opportunity to visit a poor area, she will know in what difficult conditions the people live there. Many of them are trapped in a vicious circle of poverty, illiteracy, hunger, disease, drug, crime, divorce, and what not. That makes it very difficult for them to go to school or get a job. They need extra help from government and social workers who will work with them and motivate them like missionaries to get them out of that 'hell'. The horrible situation has been historically created more by the unkind system than by the victims themselves. I don't think enough has been done or is being done to help them. Even under a black president, conditions of the blacks have deteriorated!
From: Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com>
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 6, 2011 5:37 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Re: The Rebirth of Social Darwinism
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 6, 2011 5:37 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Re: The Rebirth of Social Darwinism
Thank you, Harun, for your response. You have mentioned - underprivileged kids are not getting good education and some people are working hard but still cannot make ends meet. These are practical issues. These are not the republican or the democratic issues. The question is – what's the solution? American government spends twice as much per student in education than any other developed countries in the world, yet America ranks somewhere around 28th (if I remember correctly) in the world. Also, under privileged people are there forever. If government could solve all these problems, it would have been solved by now. Historically, American government is shared between republican and democratic parties, still those problems remain. These are some of the considerations behind my thoughts.
If you divide Americans into two groups - 1) recent immigrants and 2) older generations of Americans, you will be surprised to see that - most of those people you have referred to belong to the second group. Why? Definitely, the system is not biased towards the recent immigrants. Is it? Then what's making the difference? Only thing I can think of is - the 'drive' to succeed. Those kids you have seen at schools need motivation to regain self-confidence. When I was a student, I used to work as a security guard after my classes, to maintain a 3 member family. I had a colleague who happened to be African American. He used to say – Roy , you will be fine, but for me I have no hope. I am going to be discriminated no matter what. I told him not to think that way. There are many African Americans success stories and role models to look for. In stead, he was looking at a stereotyped notion that was instilled in him by his family/society/politicians. It's the lack of self-confidence that is so prevalent in the older generations of African Americans in the country. The good news is that - the recent immigrants from other African countries are not affected by this despair, and they succeed, which leads me to believe that political brain-washing may have something to do with such thinking in the older generations of African Americans in the country.
You may say white families are also suffering now. That is true; they are suffering for different reasons. It's the economic recession. Government's power to change the situation is limited. US government have poured truckloads of borrowed money (debt is now 15T) to improve the situation. The interest alone on the debt is now more than 4 billion a month. How much more can we borrow? The healing power will have to come from country's economy; government has very little influence in that regard. If government cannot improve economy - who can? It's the 1% (corporations and millionaires/billionaires) that can change the economy with pro-growth and favorable government policies. If that happens, the 99% will benefit. That's the reality.
This morning I saw a guy on TV at CNBC. He is the owner of the Marquis Corporate Jet Company; Obama despise this company. This guy is in the Obama's millionaire/billionaire target list. He said something that stuck in my mind. He said - he came from the 99%. Now, should we demonize him for being so successful or be inspired by his success and strive to be like him? I know - I will not be like him, for sure, but others will; to those who will, I extend my advance congratulations. That's my way, not the class warfare.
Oh! yes, don't be a stranger.
Jiten Roy
From: mharun61 <mharun61@yahoo.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 6, 2011 12:55 AM
Subject: [mukto-mona] Re: The Rebirth of Social Darwinism
--- In mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com, Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@...> wrote:
>
> Free systems (political, social, economic, education, etc.) need to take care of our problems. This country has abundant opportunities and resources for everybody in this country. Those who do not want to avail them, nobody can help them. I know a recent immigrant young man from Bangladesh, who works in a restaurant as a waiter/delivery boy. He bought a one bedroom co-op house at Bronx, which he shares with a renter. I have visited his house recently. In contrast, I see many people here, who are second/third generations in this country, but have no place to live, and need government help to feed their families. Who can help them?
>
Jiten, it seems you have bought into one of the fallacious arguments made by the Republicans/conservatives. When Democrats/liberals talk about the poor, they are mainly talking about the *working* poor, not the "lazy people on welfare." They are talking about people, who, inspite of working very hard at useful jobs, still cannot make ends meet. They are also talking about providing good opportunities to the *children* of both the working poor and the people on welfare, because these innocent souls should not be handicapped at the beginning of their lives just because they happen to have been born to the wrong kind of parents. Yet, when Republicans talk about the same issue, they always focus on people on welfare, neither the working poor nor the underprivileged children. This is an example of changing the subject, either deliberately or because of ignorance.
Also, although you may find it hard to believe, many citizens of this country have fewer opportunities than your example of the Bangladeshi immigrant. I happen to know that first hand because I worked sometime in a black neighborhood school. As I looked at those totally shiftless children in a shabby and run down school, I had the distressing premonition that probably only one or two exceptional (or lucky) ones will make it to the middle class and have a minimally decent life.
I agree with Republicans that we must rid the country of the culture of dependency and entitlement, that we need to reward effort and merit. Liberals do need to understand that purely "do-gooder" policies may have an adverse impact on the very people they are supposed to help. It, however, does not mean that a dogmatic belief in low taxes and minimal government is the answer to those problems.
Harun uz Zaman
> ________________________________
> From: Sukhamaya Bain <subain1@...>
> To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, December 5, 2011 6:49 PM
> Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] The Rebirth of Social Darwinism
>
>
> Â
> While Dr. Roy and I disagree on the political awareness of the American people, I can see some of his points, although with some different interpretations.
> Â
> I can understand the apprehension that the earlier generation Americans may have against the recent immigrants from failed and backward countries. When I say that the average American is very poor in politics, I mean they are poor in foreign as well as domestic political affairs.
> Â
> The way I see it, in a developed country, if a couple honestly works 40+40 hours a week, they should have a guarantee of the basic needs of life, such as food, clothing, a reasonable place to live, basic healthcare, and education for their minor children. That should happen no matter what kind of work they do; even flipping hamburger in a fast food restaurant is essential work for the system. That should happen without the couple needing help from any kind of charity, and feeling like beggars. I am sure the USA is capable of doing that without stopping the exponential capitalistic rewards for great innovators such as Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. I am sure the USA has the overall financial strength to do that without lowering the living standards of the middle class. The problem is, the big money players in politics are good in manipulating the politically unaware population, which is mostly middle class, to fulfill their greed through getting their cronies
> elected to power.
> Â
> In spite of what I wrote above, I agree with Dr. Roy that the USA is still a far better nation than most of the others in the world. For people like Dr. Roy and me, the USA is probably the best.
> Â
> Indeed there were many visionary leaders in the USA. However, many of them were as liberal as, or more so than, Barak Obama. If Obama were a socialist, I wonder what we should call FDR or LBJ!! I would not call even Robert Reich a socialist; he is a decent capitalist, similar to many of the past great visionary leaders of this country.
> Â
> While I criticize the excessive corporate and executive greed, I am also optimistic about the USA. To me, following are some of the reasons why the USA is most powerful, and will continue to be so for a long time:
> Â
> 1)Â Â Â Â Â The countryâs ability to attract and keep foreign talents through respecting and rewarding people based upon their talent and upon the contents of their character. This would allow the country to maintain its scientific and technological lead.
> 2)Â Â Â Â Â The population of this country is generally honest, decent, caring, and devoid of the nonsensical prejudices that prevail in many parts of the world.
> 3)Â Â Â Â Â The country has a great political system (which would have worked better if the population as a whole were more politically educated).
> 4)Â Â Â Â Â The country has an advanced judicial and law enforcement system.
> 5)Â Â Â Â Â The country is rich in many natural resources.
> 6)Â Â Â Â Â The country would not be overburdened by population any time soon.
> Â
> Well, so long for now,
> Â
> Sukhamaya Bain
>
> ________________________________
> From: Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@...>
> To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, December 4, 2011 1:52 PM
> Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] The Rebirth of Social Darwinism
>
>
> Â
> Dr. Bain: When it comes to politics, American people are probably the most idiotic in the developed world.
> Â
> JR: I respectfully disagree with the above statement. Yes, it is true - American people do not care much about the outside world as people from other countries do. And, yes, Americans are not as political as recent immigrants, like me, from other countries. Why would previous generation of Americans listen to our opinion? Many of these immigrants came from failed countries anyway. In fact they donât. Thatâs a good news.
> Â
> When I analyze, I see the following. Apart from foreign affairs, previous generation of Americans have done pretty well in the domestic front. They have made pretty good decisions when it comes to internal politics. The proof is everywhere, if we care to look around sincerely with open mind, not biased by religious and political biases/interests.
> Â
> While most of the developed European world was almost devoured by communism, Americans fended this beautiful land from it, and built their country a superpower in the world. It became so because of their right social policies and structures. I always get amazed by the subway system in the New York City - that was built more than 100 years ago, when it was totally unnecessary. You can easily imagine - what type of visionary leaders is needed to make that decision. I love and appreciate everything these people have achieved; I am grateful to them for allowing me to share their wealth and opportunity, which no other country in the world will do. I cannot call them âpolitically most idiotic in the developed world.â I just canât prove it.
> Â
> It is true - the political system is not perfect, but it is better than anywhere else. I can't find any other polical system that will be better than this. The system is so fair that a socialist (Obama) can also raise billion dollars for the election.
> Â
> Many people say â better days of America are behind; I donât think so. I believe American people will make correct decision in 2012 to elect social conservatives, as they always do. Usually, they balance power towards center-right. American academicians are hell-bent to indoctrinate young generations to social liberalism. The good news is - they have been doing so forever with little success; once Americans grow up - they revert to social conservatism. My worry now with many more social liberals in the recent immigrant communities in the country.
>
> Jiten Roy
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Arif Tuhin <etothepowerpi@...>
> To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, December 3, 2011 1:12 PM
> Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] The Rebirth of Social Darwinism
>
>
> Â
> The other day i saw republican debate i was pretty disgusted by their ideas. They will never change and will try to feed the same crap about how anything related to wealth distribution is socialism and hence evil. Another frenzy was about who was better christian. I think Thomas Jefferson would roll over in his grave if he heard this argument. And that female candidate, i forgot her names already told in a Q/A that she will push for teaching intelligent design in school text books. I guess in coming days as liberals are not taking the country anywhere I'm afraid a far right orgy is in place.
>
> With Best Regards
> Ariful Hossain Tuhin
> email: etothepowerpi@... , etothepowerpi@..., etothepowerpi@...
> skype: freeburn1986
> phone: 8801673301175
> facebook: http://www.facebook.com/etothepowerpi
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Sukhamaya Bain <subain1@...>
> To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, December 2, 2011 8:04 AM
> Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] The Rebirth of Social Darwinism
>
>
> Â
> When it comes to politics, American people are probably the most idiotic in the developed world. I remember the then Vice-President Dick Cheney was once asked about what he thought about the fact that a majority of the American people thought Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11. His answer was that he was not surprised. Of course, he was not surprised, because he was smart enough to know that the average Americans were only-the-sports-page-reader idiots, and that they had no real idea why the USA had to go for a war in Iraq.
> Â
> Talking about the American people taking the initial step of electing some clowns in 2010, I think in this country the elections are controlled by big money doing big propaganda, not by the consciousness of the American people. Even Obama was a billion dollar fund-raiser.
> Â
> I think people like Dr. Roy should make informative counter-arguments against Dr. Reich's comments, as opposed to just calling him an ultra-liberal democrat.
> Â
> Sukhamaya Bain
> Â
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@...>
> To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, December 1, 2011 8:15 PM
> Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] The Rebirth of Social Darwinism
>
>
> Â
> Â
> After getting tired of ceaseless empty promises and rhetoric from Obama and other democratic liberals during 2008 - 2010, American people took the initial step at the end of 2010 â by electing conservative Republicans in the Congress. That's step one. Now, step 2 is coming at the end of 2012. In the mean time, the national debt has surpassed unthinkable 15T, without the prospect of economic recovery. If liberal policies could revive the economy and create jobs, it would have happened by now. Robert Reich is an ultra-liberal democrat; what else can he say, except bunch of liberal blathering, when he has nothing to show?
> To understand the consequence of liberalism, please look at the EC, especially Greece and Italy.
> Jiten Roy
> Â
> Â
>
> ________________________________
> From: Farida Majid <farida_majid@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, December 1, 2011 2:36 PM
> Subject: [mukto-mona] The Rebirth of Social Darwinism
>
>
> Â
>
> What kind of society, exactly, do modern Republicans want? I've been listening to Republican candidates in an effort to discern an overall philosophy, a broadly-shared vision, an ideal picture of America. They say they want a smaller government but that can't be it."
>
>
>
> Portrait, Robert Reich, 08/16/09. (photo: Perian Flaherty)
>
>
>
> The Rebirth of Social Darwinism
> By Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Blog
> 01 December 11Â
> hat kind of society, exactly, do modern Republicans want? I've been listening to Republican candidates in an effort to discern an overall philosophy, a broadly-shared vision, an ideal picture of America.
>
>
>
> They say they want a smaller government but that can't be it. Most seek a larger national defense and more muscular homeland security. Almost all want to widen the government's powers of search and surveillance inside the United States - eradicating possible terrorists, expunging undocumented immigrants, "securing" the nation's borders. They want stiffer criminal sentences, including broader application of the death penalty. Many also want government to intrude on the most intimate aspects of private life.
>
> They call themselves conservatives but that's not it, either. They don't want to conserve what we now have. They'd rather take the country backwards - before the 1960s and 1970s, and the Environmental Protection Act, Medicare, and Medicaid; before the New Deal, and its provision for Social Security, unemployment insurance, the forty-hour workweek, and official recognition of trade unions; even before the Progressive Era, and the first national income tax, antitrust laws, and Federal Reserve.
>
> They're not conservatives. They're regressives. And the America they seek is the one we had in the Gilded Age of the late nineteenth century.
>
> It was an era when the nation was mesmerized by the doctrine of free enterprise, but few Americans actually enjoyed much freedom. Robber barons like the financier Jay Gould, the railroad magnate Cornelius Vanderbilt, and the oil tycoon John D. Rockefeller, controlled much of American industry; the gap between rich and poor had turned into a chasm; urban slums festered; women couldn't vote and black Americans were subject to Jim Crow; and the lackeys of rich literally deposited sacks of money on desks of pliant legislators.
> Most tellingly, it was a time when the ideas of William Graham Sumner, a professor of political and social science at Yale, dominated American social thought. Sumner brought Charles Darwin to America and twisted him into a theory to fit the times.
> Few Americans living today have read any of Sumner's writings but they had an electrifying effect on America during the last three decades of the 19th century.
>
> To Sumner and his followers, life was a competitive struggle in which only the fittest could survive - and through this struggle societies became stronger over time. A correlate of this principle was that government should do little or nothing to help those in need because that would interfere with natural selection.
>
> Listen to today's Republican debates and you hear a continuous regurgitation of Sumner. "Civilization has a simple choice," Sumner wrote in the 1880s. It's either "liberty, inequality, survival of the fittest," or "not-liberty, equality, survival of the unfittest. The former carries society forward and favors all its best members; the latter carries society downwards and favors all its worst members."
> Sound familiar?
>
> Newt Gingrich not only echoes Sumner's thoughts but mimics Sumner's reputed arrogance. Gingrich says we must reward "entrepreneurs" (by which he means anyone who has made a pile of money) and warns us not to "coddle" people in need. He opposes extending unemployment insurance because, he says, "I'm opposed to giving people money for doing nothing."
>
> Sumner, likewise, warned against handouts to people he termed "negligent, shiftless, inefficient, silly, and imprudent."
> Mitt Romney doesn't want the government to do much of anything about unemployment. And he's dead set against raising taxes on millionaires, relying on the standard Republican rationale millionaires create jobs.
>
> Here's Sumner, more than a century ago: "Millionaires are the product of natural selection, acting on the whole body of men to pick out those who can meet the requirement of certain work to be done⌠It is because they are thus selected that wealth aggregates under their hands - both their own and that intrusted to them ⌠They may fairly be regarded as the naturally selected agents of society." Although they live in luxury, "the bargain is a good one for society."
>
> Other Republican hopefuls also fit Sumner's mold. Ron Paul, who favors repeal of Obama's healthcare plan, was asked at a Republican debate in September what medical response he'd recommend if a young man who had decided not to buy health insurance were to go into a coma. Paul's response: "That's what freedom is all about: taking your own risks." The Republican crowd cheered.
> In other words, if the young man died for lack of health insurance, he was responsible. Survival of the fittest.
>
> Social Darwinism offered a moral justification for the wild inequities and social cruelties of the late nineteenth century. It allowed John D. Rockefeller, for example, to claim the fortune he accumulated through his giant Standard Oil Trust was "merely a survival of the fittest." It was, he insisted "the working out of a law of nature and of God."
>
> Social Darwinism also undermined all efforts at the time to build a nation of broadly-based prosperity and rescue our democracy from the tight grip of a very few at the top. It was used by the privileged and powerful to convince everyone else that government shouldn't do much of anything.
>
> Not until the twentieth century did America reject Social Darwinism. We created the large middle class that became the core of our economy and democracy. We built safety nets to catch Americans who fell downward through no fault of their own. We designed regulations to protect against the inevitable excesses of free-market greed. We taxed the rich and invested in public goods - public schools, public universities, public transportation, public parks, public health - that made us all better off.
>
> In short, we rejected the notion that each of us is on his or her own in a competitive contest for survival.
>
> But make no mistake: If one of the current crop of Republican hopefuls becomes president, and if regressive Republicans take over the House or Senate, or both, Social Darwinism is back.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Â
>
------------------------------------
****************************************************
Mukto Mona plans for a Grand Darwin Day Celebration:
Call For Articles:
http://mukto-mona.com/wordpress/?p=68
http://mukto-mona.com/banga_blog/?p=585
****************************************************
VISIT MUKTO-MONA WEB-SITE : http://www.mukto-mona.com/
****************************************************
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
-Beatrice Hall [pseudonym: S.G. Tallentyre], 190Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mukto-mona-digest@yahoogroups.com
mukto-mona-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
mukto-mona-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 6, 2011 12:55 AM
Subject: [mukto-mona] Re: The Rebirth of Social Darwinism
--- In mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com, Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@...> wrote:
>
> Free systems (political, social, economic, education, etc.) need to take care of our problems. This country has abundant opportunities and resources for everybody in this country. Those who do not want to avail them, nobody can help them. I know a recent immigrant young man from Bangladesh, who works in a restaurant as a waiter/delivery boy. He bought a one bedroom co-op house at Bronx, which he shares with a renter. I have visited his house recently. In contrast, I see many people here, who are second/third generations in this country, but have no place to live, and need government help to feed their families. Who can help them?
>
Jiten, it seems you have bought into one of the fallacious arguments made by the Republicans/conservatives. When Democrats/liberals talk about the poor, they are mainly talking about the *working* poor, not the "lazy people on welfare." They are talking about people, who, inspite of working very hard at useful jobs, still cannot make ends meet. They are also talking about providing good opportunities to the *children* of both the working poor and the people on welfare, because these innocent souls should not be handicapped at the beginning of their lives just because they happen to have been born to the wrong kind of parents. Yet, when Republicans talk about the same issue, they always focus on people on welfare, neither the working poor nor the underprivileged children. This is an example of changing the subject, either deliberately or because of ignorance.
Also, although you may find it hard to believe, many citizens of this country have fewer opportunities than your example of the Bangladeshi immigrant. I happen to know that first hand because I worked sometime in a black neighborhood school. As I looked at those totally shiftless children in a shabby and run down school, I had the distressing premonition that probably only one or two exceptional (or lucky) ones will make it to the middle class and have a minimally decent life.
I agree with Republicans that we must rid the country of the culture of dependency and entitlement, that we need to reward effort and merit. Liberals do need to understand that purely "do-gooder" policies may have an adverse impact on the very people they are supposed to help. It, however, does not mean that a dogmatic belief in low taxes and minimal government is the answer to those problems.
Harun uz Zaman
> ________________________________
> From: Sukhamaya Bain <subain1@...>
> To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, December 5, 2011 6:49 PM
> Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] The Rebirth of Social Darwinism
>
>
> Â
> While Dr. Roy and I disagree on the political awareness of the American people, I can see some of his points, although with some different interpretations.
> Â
> I can understand the apprehension that the earlier generation Americans may have against the recent immigrants from failed and backward countries. When I say that the average American is very poor in politics, I mean they are poor in foreign as well as domestic political affairs.
> Â
> The way I see it, in a developed country, if a couple honestly works 40+40 hours a week, they should have a guarantee of the basic needs of life, such as food, clothing, a reasonable place to live, basic healthcare, and education for their minor children. That should happen no matter what kind of work they do; even flipping hamburger in a fast food restaurant is essential work for the system. That should happen without the couple needing help from any kind of charity, and feeling like beggars. I am sure the USA is capable of doing that without stopping the exponential capitalistic rewards for great innovators such as Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. I am sure the USA has the overall financial strength to do that without lowering the living standards of the middle class. The problem is, the big money players in politics are good in manipulating the politically unaware population, which is mostly middle class, to fulfill their greed through getting their cronies
> elected to power.
> Â
> In spite of what I wrote above, I agree with Dr. Roy that the USA is still a far better nation than most of the others in the world. For people like Dr. Roy and me, the USA is probably the best.
> Â
> Indeed there were many visionary leaders in the USA. However, many of them were as liberal as, or more so than, Barak Obama. If Obama were a socialist, I wonder what we should call FDR or LBJ!! I would not call even Robert Reich a socialist; he is a decent capitalist, similar to many of the past great visionary leaders of this country.
> Â
> While I criticize the excessive corporate and executive greed, I am also optimistic about the USA. To me, following are some of the reasons why the USA is most powerful, and will continue to be so for a long time:
> Â
> 1)Â Â Â Â Â The countryâs ability to attract and keep foreign talents through respecting and rewarding people based upon their talent and upon the contents of their character. This would allow the country to maintain its scientific and technological lead.
> 2)Â Â Â Â Â The population of this country is generally honest, decent, caring, and devoid of the nonsensical prejudices that prevail in many parts of the world.
> 3)Â Â Â Â Â The country has a great political system (which would have worked better if the population as a whole were more politically educated).
> 4)Â Â Â Â Â The country has an advanced judicial and law enforcement system.
> 5)Â Â Â Â Â The country is rich in many natural resources.
> 6)Â Â Â Â Â The country would not be overburdened by population any time soon.
> Â
> Well, so long for now,
> Â
> Sukhamaya Bain
>
> ________________________________
> From: Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@...>
> To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, December 4, 2011 1:52 PM
> Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] The Rebirth of Social Darwinism
>
>
> Â
> Dr. Bain: When it comes to politics, American people are probably the most idiotic in the developed world.
> Â
> JR: I respectfully disagree with the above statement. Yes, it is true - American people do not care much about the outside world as people from other countries do. And, yes, Americans are not as political as recent immigrants, like me, from other countries. Why would previous generation of Americans listen to our opinion? Many of these immigrants came from failed countries anyway. In fact they donât. Thatâs a good news.
> Â
> When I analyze, I see the following. Apart from foreign affairs, previous generation of Americans have done pretty well in the domestic front. They have made pretty good decisions when it comes to internal politics. The proof is everywhere, if we care to look around sincerely with open mind, not biased by religious and political biases/interests.
> Â
> While most of the developed European world was almost devoured by communism, Americans fended this beautiful land from it, and built their country a superpower in the world. It became so because of their right social policies and structures. I always get amazed by the subway system in the New York City - that was built more than 100 years ago, when it was totally unnecessary. You can easily imagine - what type of visionary leaders is needed to make that decision. I love and appreciate everything these people have achieved; I am grateful to them for allowing me to share their wealth and opportunity, which no other country in the world will do. I cannot call them âpolitically most idiotic in the developed world.â I just canât prove it.
> Â
> It is true - the political system is not perfect, but it is better than anywhere else. I can't find any other polical system that will be better than this. The system is so fair that a socialist (Obama) can also raise billion dollars for the election.
> Â
> Many people say â better days of America are behind; I donât think so. I believe American people will make correct decision in 2012 to elect social conservatives, as they always do. Usually, they balance power towards center-right. American academicians are hell-bent to indoctrinate young generations to social liberalism. The good news is - they have been doing so forever with little success; once Americans grow up - they revert to social conservatism. My worry now with many more social liberals in the recent immigrant communities in the country.
>
> Jiten Roy
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Arif Tuhin <etothepowerpi@...>
> To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, December 3, 2011 1:12 PM
> Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] The Rebirth of Social Darwinism
>
>
> Â
> The other day i saw republican debate i was pretty disgusted by their ideas. They will never change and will try to feed the same crap about how anything related to wealth distribution is socialism and hence evil. Another frenzy was about who was better christian. I think Thomas Jefferson would roll over in his grave if he heard this argument. And that female candidate, i forgot her names already told in a Q/A that she will push for teaching intelligent design in school text books. I guess in coming days as liberals are not taking the country anywhere I'm afraid a far right orgy is in place.
>
> With Best Regards
> Ariful Hossain Tuhin
> email: etothepowerpi@... , etothepowerpi@..., etothepowerpi@...
> skype: freeburn1986
> phone: 8801673301175
> facebook: http://www.facebook.com/etothepowerpi
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Sukhamaya Bain <subain1@...>
> To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, December 2, 2011 8:04 AM
> Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] The Rebirth of Social Darwinism
>
>
> Â
> When it comes to politics, American people are probably the most idiotic in the developed world. I remember the then Vice-President Dick Cheney was once asked about what he thought about the fact that a majority of the American people thought Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11. His answer was that he was not surprised. Of course, he was not surprised, because he was smart enough to know that the average Americans were only-the-sports-page-reader idiots, and that they had no real idea why the USA had to go for a war in Iraq.
> Â
> Talking about the American people taking the initial step of electing some clowns in 2010, I think in this country the elections are controlled by big money doing big propaganda, not by the consciousness of the American people. Even Obama was a billion dollar fund-raiser.
> Â
> I think people like Dr. Roy should make informative counter-arguments against Dr. Reich's comments, as opposed to just calling him an ultra-liberal democrat.
> Â
> Sukhamaya Bain
> Â
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@...>
> To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, December 1, 2011 8:15 PM
> Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] The Rebirth of Social Darwinism
>
>
> Â
> Â
> After getting tired of ceaseless empty promises and rhetoric from Obama and other democratic liberals during 2008 - 2010, American people took the initial step at the end of 2010 â by electing conservative Republicans in the Congress. That's step one. Now, step 2 is coming at the end of 2012. In the mean time, the national debt has surpassed unthinkable 15T, without the prospect of economic recovery. If liberal policies could revive the economy and create jobs, it would have happened by now. Robert Reich is an ultra-liberal democrat; what else can he say, except bunch of liberal blathering, when he has nothing to show?
> To understand the consequence of liberalism, please look at the EC, especially Greece and Italy.
> Jiten Roy
> Â
> Â
>
> ________________________________
> From: Farida Majid <farida_majid@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, December 1, 2011 2:36 PM
> Subject: [mukto-mona] The Rebirth of Social Darwinism
>
>
> Â
>
> What kind of society, exactly, do modern Republicans want? I've been listening to Republican candidates in an effort to discern an overall philosophy, a broadly-shared vision, an ideal picture of America. They say they want a smaller government but that can't be it."
>
>
>
> Portrait, Robert Reich, 08/16/09. (photo: Perian Flaherty)
>
>
>
> The Rebirth of Social Darwinism
> By Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Blog
> 01 December 11Â
> hat kind of society, exactly, do modern Republicans want? I've been listening to Republican candidates in an effort to discern an overall philosophy, a broadly-shared vision, an ideal picture of America.
>
>
>
> They say they want a smaller government but that can't be it. Most seek a larger national defense and more muscular homeland security. Almost all want to widen the government's powers of search and surveillance inside the United States - eradicating possible terrorists, expunging undocumented immigrants, "securing" the nation's borders. They want stiffer criminal sentences, including broader application of the death penalty. Many also want government to intrude on the most intimate aspects of private life.
>
> They call themselves conservatives but that's not it, either. They don't want to conserve what we now have. They'd rather take the country backwards - before the 1960s and 1970s, and the Environmental Protection Act, Medicare, and Medicaid; before the New Deal, and its provision for Social Security, unemployment insurance, the forty-hour workweek, and official recognition of trade unions; even before the Progressive Era, and the first national income tax, antitrust laws, and Federal Reserve.
>
> They're not conservatives. They're regressives. And the America they seek is the one we had in the Gilded Age of the late nineteenth century.
>
> It was an era when the nation was mesmerized by the doctrine of free enterprise, but few Americans actually enjoyed much freedom. Robber barons like the financier Jay Gould, the railroad magnate Cornelius Vanderbilt, and the oil tycoon John D. Rockefeller, controlled much of American industry; the gap between rich and poor had turned into a chasm; urban slums festered; women couldn't vote and black Americans were subject to Jim Crow; and the lackeys of rich literally deposited sacks of money on desks of pliant legislators.
> Most tellingly, it was a time when the ideas of William Graham Sumner, a professor of political and social science at Yale, dominated American social thought. Sumner brought Charles Darwin to America and twisted him into a theory to fit the times.
> Few Americans living today have read any of Sumner's writings but they had an electrifying effect on America during the last three decades of the 19th century.
>
> To Sumner and his followers, life was a competitive struggle in which only the fittest could survive - and through this struggle societies became stronger over time. A correlate of this principle was that government should do little or nothing to help those in need because that would interfere with natural selection.
>
> Listen to today's Republican debates and you hear a continuous regurgitation of Sumner. "Civilization has a simple choice," Sumner wrote in the 1880s. It's either "liberty, inequality, survival of the fittest," or "not-liberty, equality, survival of the unfittest. The former carries society forward and favors all its best members; the latter carries society downwards and favors all its worst members."
> Sound familiar?
>
> Newt Gingrich not only echoes Sumner's thoughts but mimics Sumner's reputed arrogance. Gingrich says we must reward "entrepreneurs" (by which he means anyone who has made a pile of money) and warns us not to "coddle" people in need. He opposes extending unemployment insurance because, he says, "I'm opposed to giving people money for doing nothing."
>
> Sumner, likewise, warned against handouts to people he termed "negligent, shiftless, inefficient, silly, and imprudent."
> Mitt Romney doesn't want the government to do much of anything about unemployment. And he's dead set against raising taxes on millionaires, relying on the standard Republican rationale millionaires create jobs.
>
> Here's Sumner, more than a century ago: "Millionaires are the product of natural selection, acting on the whole body of men to pick out those who can meet the requirement of certain work to be done⌠It is because they are thus selected that wealth aggregates under their hands - both their own and that intrusted to them ⌠They may fairly be regarded as the naturally selected agents of society." Although they live in luxury, "the bargain is a good one for society."
>
> Other Republican hopefuls also fit Sumner's mold. Ron Paul, who favors repeal of Obama's healthcare plan, was asked at a Republican debate in September what medical response he'd recommend if a young man who had decided not to buy health insurance were to go into a coma. Paul's response: "That's what freedom is all about: taking your own risks." The Republican crowd cheered.
> In other words, if the young man died for lack of health insurance, he was responsible. Survival of the fittest.
>
> Social Darwinism offered a moral justification for the wild inequities and social cruelties of the late nineteenth century. It allowed John D. Rockefeller, for example, to claim the fortune he accumulated through his giant Standard Oil Trust was "merely a survival of the fittest." It was, he insisted "the working out of a law of nature and of God."
>
> Social Darwinism also undermined all efforts at the time to build a nation of broadly-based prosperity and rescue our democracy from the tight grip of a very few at the top. It was used by the privileged and powerful to convince everyone else that government shouldn't do much of anything.
>
> Not until the twentieth century did America reject Social Darwinism. We created the large middle class that became the core of our economy and democracy. We built safety nets to catch Americans who fell downward through no fault of their own. We designed regulations to protect against the inevitable excesses of free-market greed. We taxed the rich and invested in public goods - public schools, public universities, public transportation, public parks, public health - that made us all better off.
>
> In short, we rejected the notion that each of us is on his or her own in a competitive contest for survival.
>
> But make no mistake: If one of the current crop of Republican hopefuls becomes president, and if regressive Republicans take over the House or Senate, or both, Social Darwinism is back.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Â
>
------------------------------------
****************************************************
Mukto Mona plans for a Grand Darwin Day Celebration:
Call For Articles:
http://mukto-mona.com/wordpress/?p=68
http://mukto-mona.com/banga_blog/?p=585
****************************************************
VISIT MUKTO-MONA WEB-SITE : http://www.mukto-mona.com/
****************************************************
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
-Beatrice Hall [pseudonym: S.G. Tallentyre], 190Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mukto-mona-digest@yahoogroups.com
mukto-mona-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
mukto-mona-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
__._,_.___