While I am repeating one of Rutabaga's objections, I would extend the criticism to his use of the principle of sufficient reason as a measure of how the concept of determination is used in quantum mechanics. The different theories that are advanced are done under the assumption that there is a reason why these things happen the way they do. (But Rutabaga does earn extra points for quoting Heraclitus in accurate Ancient Greek format on the internet).

What I understood from reading Wittgenstein is that the only way to escape the circle drawn by Kant is to find other ways to talk about what representation is. I don't think we have gotten there yet.

The whole "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here" statement has always struck me as an incredibly weak thing to say.

It is odd that a group, who put so much value in the idea of "expressive violence" of the sort "shock and awe" was supposed to demonstrate, would be so blind to the rhetoric of fragility represented in accepting, even for a moment, of the possibility that the U.S. itself might fall apart if it suffered too many casualties here at home because of what they did in the world.

On some fundamental level, the idea of such a sanitary world is the most oppressive aspect of our foreign policy.

Oh well, you snooze, you lose :-}

OTOH, perhaps there really is no limit to the extent to which financial and economic elites, no matter how coddled by the political elites terrified of incurring their wrath, are capable of feeling sorry for themselves and channeling that wrath into what are ultimately self as well as societally destructive efforts. And we've seen, over a period of decades now, just how destructive those efforts have been.

Conversely, the middle class dream of taking a rightfully earned place in a system of production has worked for enough people for long enough that it seems (seemed?) natural. Proving the rightness was based on the experience of the workplace. Things like the organizational hazards of the Peter Principle were the exceptions that proved the rule. Being competent assured one of a place in the workplace. When this measure doesn't work because of great upheavals in the marketplace, the first impulse of those who grew up in such an environment is to wonder if they are now incompetent on some level.

So, American Dreamer, when I think of a way forward, I think there is a source of mutual interest in regaining what has been lost across many boundaries of class. But if everyone believes that a mutual interest is no longer possible, then we will arrive in a place we haven't experienced and where little can be proved. The call for progressive groups to focus on how we work is necessary. But as Mr. Reid put it once, without a partner, there is no dance.

When you hit the big time, don't forget those people who knew you when your shirt collar flickered like a neon sign for a strip club.

Then I hired on to a company. I became a supervisor and learned things that I hadn't on my own. After a number of years of this, I figured out what work I liked to do and what work I would prefer somebody else to do.

With the present recession, it looks like history is repeating itself. A lot of companies are already wiped out, many others are on the ropes. I am applying to the remaining survivors but they aren't hiring just yet and they are being overwhelmed by applicants. So it looks like I might have to slip back into the 1099 jacket and go get some work.

The prospect is not scary. I am certainly better equipped to do it than I was before. But like cmaukonen, I find the business of business to be incredibly boring. All the contractors I know that have done well over the years like having their own shop and cutting deals.

I would rather work in a taffy factory than spend all my time doing that sort of thing.

The Pentagon arrived at its much lower estimate by dividing its war funding request by the number of troops throughout the region: 68,000 in Afghanistan and up to 95,000 in supporting roles elsewhere, such as on nearby ships or in surrounding countries.

The Pentagon cost includes higher combat wages, extra aircraft hours and other operations and maintenance costs, but omits such items as new weapons purchases -- one-time costs that vary by year -- and support equipment like spy satellites and anti-roadside-bomb technology.
The Pentagon also does not try to estimate costs of new bases for additional soldiers.
But in a memo early this month, obtained by The Times' Washington bureau, the Pentagon's own comptroller produced an estimate that broke with the customary Defense formula and did include construction and equipment.
That memo said the yearly cost of a 40,000-troop increase would be $30 billion to $35 billion -- at least $750,000 a person. An increase of 20,000 would cost $20 billion to $25 billion annually, it said -- a per-soldier cost equal to or greater than the White House estimate.

Under questioning by the House Armed Services Committee this month, a Congressional Budget Office expert couldn't say how much it costs to run the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"I find it astonishing that, eight years into this, we haven't nailed it down with precision," another witness at the table, David Berteau, director of the Defense Industrial Initiatives Group of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said later.