5 ms·

I wouldn't read anything from this think tank.... http://www.naomiklein.org/articles/2010/01/haiti-disaster-capitalism-alert-stop-them-they-shock-again http://w

I wouldn't read anything from this think tank.... http://www.naomiklein.org/articles/2010/01/haiti-disaster-capitalism-alert-stop-them-they-shock-again http://www.naomiklein.org/articles/2010/01/haiti-disaster-ca... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VLiqgm2ma0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VLiqgm2ma0

chasingsparks 17y ago
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. Heritage exists to offer arguments in favor of a certain ideology. Naomi Klein writes to offer arguments in favor of a certain ideology. Neither offers all the data when presenting their arguments, because doing so would weaken their arguments. However, I still read things from both Heritage and Naomi Klein because buried in their bias, you can still find interesting viewpoints and truths.
- dantheman 17y ago
  I lost what little respect I had for Naomi Klein when she started bashing on Milton Friedman, and proved she had no idea what she was talking about.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
  - chasingsparks 17y ago
    I can agree with you given your context. For me, I am interested in political systems in general. Klein and Heritage are both actors in that system, so I find them both interesting. For people who do not want to expend their time thinking about political systems (i.e. rational people) following Klein and Heritage is not a worthwhile investment. However, my main objection to myth_drannon's comment, was that he was quoting Klein. She is hardly different from Heritage. Moreover, in this specific instance, the report in question is quantitative with a well-defined ranking system. Obviously, Heritage's underlying qualitative claim was the impetus for the report, but that does not preclude the veracity of the data.
    - deleted 17y ago
      [deleted]
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
  - chasingsparks 17y ago
    I did not mean to imply that he was uneducated. I was merely quoting Aristotle to frame my argument: that there is merit in reading both. If he believes it was meant as an insult -- straight-forward or backhanded -- then I apologize to him. Otherwise, I do not find fault in the way I framed my argument. However, I wont add any more to this thread, as this is EXACTLY what no one wants to read on HN.

chasingsparks 17y ago

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. Heritage exists to offer arguments in favor of a certain ideology. Naomi Klein writes to offer arguments in favor of a certain ideology. Neither offers all the data when presenting their arguments, because doing so would weaken their arguments. However, I still read things from both Heritage and Naomi Klein because buried in their bias, you can still find interesting viewpoints and truths.

dantheman 17y ago
I lost what little respect I had for Naomi Klein when she started bashing on Milton Friedman, and proved she had no idea what she was talking about.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
- chasingsparks 17y ago
  I can agree with you given your context. For me, I am interested in political systems in general. Klein and Heritage are both actors in that system, so I find them both interesting. For people who do not want to expend their time thinking about political systems (i.e. rational people) following Klein and Heritage is not a worthwhile investment. However, my main objection to myth_drannon's comment, was that he was quoting Klein. She is hardly different from Heritage. Moreover, in this specific instance, the report in question is quantitative with a well-defined ranking system. Obviously, Heritage's underlying qualitative claim was the impetus for the report, but that does not preclude the veracity of the data.
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
- chasingsparks 17y ago
  I did not mean to imply that he was uneducated. I was merely quoting Aristotle to frame my argument: that there is merit in reading both. If he believes it was meant as an insult -- straight-forward or backhanded -- then I apologize to him. Otherwise, I do not find fault in the way I framed my argument. However, I wont add any more to this thread, as this is EXACTLY what no one wants to read on HN.