Congratulations!

[Valid Atom 1.0] This is a valid Atom 1.0 feed.

Recommendations

This feed is valid, but interoperability with the widest range of feed readers could be improved by implementing the following recommendations.

Source: https://radgeek.com/comments/feed/

  1. <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?><feed
  2. xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
  3. xml:lang="en-US"
  4. xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0"
  5. >
  6. <title type="text">Comments for Rad Geek People&#039;s Daily</title>
  7. <subtitle type="text">official state media for a secessionist republic of one</subtitle>
  8.  
  9. <updated>2018-08-13T19:11:04Z</updated>
  10.  
  11. <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://radgeek.com" />
  12. <link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="https://radgeek.com/comments/feed/" />
  13. <id>https://radgeek.com/comments/feed/</id>
  14. <generator uri="https://wordpress.org/" version="4.9.8">WordPress</generator>
  15. <entry>
  16. <title>Comment on The &#8220;Would Have Banned&#8221; Label by Rad Geek</title>
  17. <link rel="alternate" href="https://radgeek.com/gt/2018/08/12/the-would-have-banned-label/#comment-736453" type="text/html" />
  18.  
  19. <author>
  20. <name>Rad Geek</name>
  21. <uri>http://radgeek.com/</uri>
  22. </author>
  23.  
  24. <id>https://radgeek.com/?p=9344#comment-736453</id>
  25. <updated>2018-08-13T19:11:04Z</updated>
  26. <published>2018-08-13T19:11:04Z</published>
  27. <content type="html" xml:base="https://radgeek.com/gt/2018/08/12/the-would-have-banned-label/#comment-736453"><![CDATA[<p>[*] This might well turn out to be true in some cases &#8212; it might sometimes be true if an outside expert or tester has determined something important about your product that some prospective buyers ought to know about, then maybe it would be an act of culpable negligence not to inform them. But if this is true, then I would insist that it comes from the finding itself, and cannot depend on the political position of the person who made the finding.</p>
  28. ]]></content>
  29. <thr:in-reply-to ref="https://radgeek.com/?p=9344#comment-736448" href="https://radgeek.com/gt/2018/08/12/the-would-have-banned-label/#comment-736448" type="text/html" />
  30. </entry>
  31. <entry>
  32. <title>Comment on The &#8220;Would Have Banned&#8221; Label by Rad Geek</title>
  33. <link rel="alternate" href="https://radgeek.com/gt/2018/08/12/the-would-have-banned-label/#comment-736452" type="text/html" />
  34.  
  35. <author>
  36. <name>Rad Geek</name>
  37. <uri>http://radgeek.com/</uri>
  38. </author>
  39.  
  40. <id>https://radgeek.com/?p=9344#comment-736452</id>
  41. <updated>2018-08-13T19:10:52Z</updated>
  42. <published>2018-08-13T19:10:52Z</published>
  43. <content type="html" xml:base="https://radgeek.com/gt/2018/08/12/the-would-have-banned-label/#comment-736452"><![CDATA[<blockquote>
  44.  <p>But that’s a role for <q>trust but verify,</q> not <q>deregulate even further.</q></p>
  45. </blockquote>
  46.  
  47. <p>O.K.</p>
  48.  
  49. <p>But:</p>
  50.  
  51. <p>(1) I don&#8217;t see how this is responsive to anything in the original article I linked to. The argument of that article isn&#8217;t to get rid of an attitude of <q>trust but verify</q> towards vendors; the point Hanson made, specifically, was that you can get the <em>informative</em> function of verification without the <em>police</em> function of prohibition. So the suggestion (his suggestion) was to expand labeling requirements, not to contract them.</p>
  52.  
  53. <p>(2) I don&#8217;t see how this is responsive to my brief side commentary on palookas and their opinions on products. My point was that <em>if</em> government agencies are entitled to demand that producers stick labels on their products, <em>then</em> any independent body, in government or out of it, is equally entitled on the same grounds to require posting of the same kinds of information, warnings, or assessments.[*]</p>
  54.  
  55. <p>In any case, the interesting debate here is whether or not the <q>verify</q> bit depends on the <q>regulate</q> bit here, or whether you can get just as much or better verification without the regulatory scaffolding around it. If you <em>need</em> the regulation to get the verification, then we could argue about the trade-offs involved. But first you&#8217;d need to show that the regulation actually is a prerequisite; that&#8217;s not a premise that you can get for free. If you <em>don&#8217;t</em> need the regulation to get the verification, if it can be achieved through some other means (e.g. grassroots monitoring and activism) then it seems like that&#8217;s a perfectly good reason to give up on the regulation without too much worry. Isn&#8217;t it?</p>
  56. ]]></content>
  57. <thr:in-reply-to ref="https://radgeek.com/?p=9344#comment-736448" href="https://radgeek.com/gt/2018/08/12/the-would-have-banned-label/#comment-736448" type="text/html" />
  58. </entry>
  59. <entry>
  60. <title>Comment on The &#8220;Would Have Banned&#8221; Label by Rad Geek</title>
  61. <link rel="alternate" href="https://radgeek.com/gt/2018/08/12/the-would-have-banned-label/#comment-736451" type="text/html" />
  62.  
  63. <author>
  64. <name>Rad Geek</name>
  65. <uri>http://radgeek.com/</uri>
  66. </author>
  67.  
  68. <id>https://radgeek.com/?p=9344#comment-736451</id>
  69. <updated>2018-08-13T19:06:02Z</updated>
  70. <published>2018-08-13T19:06:02Z</published>
  71. <content type="html" xml:base="https://radgeek.com/gt/2018/08/12/the-would-have-banned-label/#comment-736451"><![CDATA[<blockquote>
  72.  <p>More valuable to me than an ingredients list would be a laboratory assay describing in detail the chemical composition of a product; </p>
  73. </blockquote>
  74.  
  75. <p>I think that would be great.</p>
  76.  
  77. <blockquote>
  78.  <p>I suppose free marketeers such as yourself are fine with that so long as the entities publishing the reports are in the private sector.</p>
  79. </blockquote>
  80.  
  81. <p>Yes, I think this is a job either for existing independent watchdog groups, testing labs, certification boards and professional associations (there are lots), or else new groups custom built for the purpose.</p>
  82.  
  83. <p>I think it&#8217;s a problem for government agencies to be tasked with it, (1) because of <em>moral</em> problems with government assuming this kind of investigatory and regulatory role, (2) because of <em>practical</em> problems with entrusting government agencies to maintain produce reliably accurate results and useful information, and especially with entrusting them to maintain independence from industry, in the absence of open market competition, and (3) because of <em>political</em> problems with entrusting government agencies to stick to the job of testing and writing up results, without the usual bureaucratic problems of mission creep, expanding fiefdoms, etc. I don&#8217;t think it should be a surprise to find that some people think government agencies are really kind of piss poor at maintaining independence from industry or performing socially useful tasks without these kind of predictable failure modes; if that be <q>Reaganism,</q> well then let us make the best of it.</p>
  84. ]]></content>
  85. <thr:in-reply-to ref="https://radgeek.com/?p=9344#comment-736448" href="https://radgeek.com/gt/2018/08/12/the-would-have-banned-label/#comment-736448" type="text/html" />
  86. </entry>
  87. <entry>
  88. <title>Comment on The &#8220;Would Have Banned&#8221; Label by Lori</title>
  89. <link rel="alternate" href="https://radgeek.com/gt/2018/08/12/the-would-have-banned-label/#comment-736448" type="text/html" />
  90.  
  91. <author>
  92. <name>Lori</name>
  93. <uri>https://anagory.wordpress.com/</uri>
  94. </author>
  95.  
  96. <id>https://radgeek.com/?p=9344#comment-736448</id>
  97. <updated>2018-08-13T15:00:42Z</updated>
  98. <published>2018-08-13T15:00:42Z</published>
  99. <content type="html" xml:base="https://radgeek.com/gt/2018/08/12/the-would-have-banned-label/#comment-736448"><![CDATA[<p>Par for the pro-market course, I guess, whenever it&#8217;s businesspeople whose ox gets gored, they&#8217;re being &#8220;forced&#8221; into something or other.  I don&#8217;t like to imagine a consumer marketplace without ingredients lists, or the low-res approximation of macronutrient profile under the heading &#8220;Nutrition Facts.&#8221; I don&#8217;t consider facts of this type to be some palooka&#8217;s opinions, although I don&#8217;t entirely trust them to be facts, either.  But that&#8217;s a role for &#8220;trust but verify,&#8221; not &#8220;deregulate even further.&#8221;  The food vendors, when they&#8217;re not crying bloody murder about how expensive one square inch of paper is (capitalists are such victims!) they&#8217;re claiming that the identity of their ingredients is some kind of trade secret.  If there&#8217;s one good thing about laissez-faire free market dogma, at least it&#8217;d be a wild west of &#8220;trade secrets are what you can get away with.&#8221;  More valuable to me than an ingredients list would be a laboratory assay describing in detail the chemical composition of a product; ideally a very detailed report based on a large number of samples.  I suppose free marketeers such as yourself are fine with that so long as the entities publishing the reports are in the private sector.  Whatever.  Sector fetishism, I think, addresses mostly non-central questions.  Glorifying the private sector is basically Reaganism.  While I&#8217;m still nominally a &#8220;left libertarian,&#8221; I&#8217;ve definitely reached a point where I&#8217;m far more interested in grand alliances of the left half of the political compass to defeat the right half, than bottom half against top half.  The fourth quadrant can go eff itself, they were always a bunch of social darwinist asshats anyway.</p>
  100. ]]></content>
  101. <thr:in-reply-to ref="https://radgeek.com/?p=9344" href="https://radgeek.com/gt/2018/08/12/the-would-have-banned-label/" type="text/html" />
  102. </entry>
  103. <entry>
  104. <title>Comment on 8:15am. 73 years, 140,000 souls. by Rad Geek People&#039;s Daily 2018-08-09 &#8211; 11:02AM, August 9, 1945, Nagasaki Japan</title>
  105. <link rel="alternate" href="https://radgeek.com/gt/2018/08/06/815am-73-years-140000-souls/#comment-736388" type="text/html" />
  106.  
  107. <author>
  108. <name>Rad Geek People&#039;s Daily 2018-08-09 &#8211; 11:02AM, August 9, 1945, Nagasaki Japan</name>
  109. <uri>https://radgeek.com/gt/2018/08/09/1102am-august-9-1945-nagasaki-japan/</uri>
  110. </author>
  111.  
  112. <id>https://radgeek.com/?p=9320#comment-736388</id>
  113. <updated>2018-08-09T12:18:49Z</updated>
  114. <published>2018-08-09T12:18:49Z</published>
  115. <content type="html" xml:base="https://radgeek.com/gt/2018/08/06/815am-73-years-140000-souls/#comment-736388"><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] GT 2018-08-06: 8:15am. 73 years. 140,000 souls. [&#8230;]</p>
  116. ]]></content>
  117. <thr:in-reply-to ref="https://radgeek.com/?p=9320" href="https://radgeek.com/gt/2018/08/06/815am-73-years-140000-souls/" type="text/html" />
  118. </entry>
  119. <entry>
  120. <title>Comment on What I&#8217;m Reading: Barbara Carnevali, &#8220;Against &#8216;Theory&#039;&#8221; by Rad Geek</title>
  121. <link rel="alternate" href="https://radgeek.com/gt/2018/08/04/what-im-reading-barbara-carnevali-against-theory/#comment-736343" type="text/html" />
  122.  
  123. <author>
  124. <name>Rad Geek</name>
  125. <uri>http://radgeek.com/</uri>
  126. </author>
  127.  
  128. <id>https://radgeek.com/?p=9316#comment-736343</id>
  129. <updated>2018-08-06T14:51:18Z</updated>
  130. <published>2018-08-06T14:51:18Z</published>
  131. <content type="html" xml:base="https://radgeek.com/gt/2018/08/04/what-im-reading-barbara-carnevali-against-theory/#comment-736343"><![CDATA[<p>Re: bashing &#8212; Well, the way that the author of the piece (not myself) describes their target, <q><em>Theory</em></q> isn&#8217;t a matter of a particular philosophical school, but of a way of engaging with intellectual problems, often using quotes or themes from the works of people who the author explicitly considers to be doing genuine philosophy.*</p>
  132.  
  133. <p>Judging from the argument of the piece, I expect they&#8217;d say it&#8217;s true that a lot of people in the humanities academy now do what they&#8217;re describing with a bunch of the authors who get lumped under the awkward heading of <q>postmodernism</q> (especially in dime-a-dozen jeremiads against <q>postmodernism</q> of the sort you describe). But also that it&#8217;s perfectly possible to do it with other authors of other schools of thought. (Speaking for myself, I&#8217;ve certainly seen similar sorts of things done with hot takes from libertarian and anarchist texts, or with a certain kind of Catholic traditionalism using mishmashes of Chesterton, Mortimer Adler, popularizations of Scholastic authors, and etc. etc. I think I agree with you that the dime-a-dozen jeremiads against <q>postmodernism</q> have been pretty boring for many years now, even when they are intellectually acute. And I&#8217;d argue that they often aren&#8217;t that. But I think or hope that Carnevali is doing something a bit different, even if there&#8217;s some overlap in their targets.)</p>
  134.  
  135. <p>I agree with you about <q>DIY;</q> I think I know what the author is getting at,** but I found that jarring too, given my normal set of associations.</p>
  136.  
  137. <ul>
  138. <li>From the article: <a href="https://brooklynrail.org/2016/09/criticspage/against-theory" rel="nofollow"><q>We are not talking of the theories of some great author, since, among the most acclaimed <q>theorists</q> there are, too, philosophers in the proper sense, and even in the philosophical school, which has taken for itself the name of <q>Critical Theory:</q> but of a sort of collective thinking&#8230;</q></a></li>
  139. </ul>
  140.  
  141. <p>** They compare it to assembling Ikea furniture from instructions, not to pasting together a zine according to your own ideas.</p>
  142. ]]></content>
  143. <thr:in-reply-to ref="https://radgeek.com/?p=9316#comment-736341" href="https://radgeek.com/gt/2018/08/04/what-im-reading-barbara-carnevali-against-theory/#comment-736341" type="text/html" />
  144. </entry>
  145. <entry>
  146. <title>Comment on What I&#8217;m Reading: Barbara Carnevali, &#8220;Against &#8216;Theory&#039;&#8221; by Lori</title>
  147. <link rel="alternate" href="https://radgeek.com/gt/2018/08/04/what-im-reading-barbara-carnevali-against-theory/#comment-736341" type="text/html" />
  148.  
  149. <author>
  150. <name>Lori</name>
  151. <uri>https://gitlab.com/n8chz</uri>
  152. </author>
  153.  
  154. <id>https://radgeek.com/?p=9316#comment-736341</id>
  155. <updated>2018-08-06T14:02:26Z</updated>
  156. <published>2018-08-06T14:02:26Z</published>
  157. <content type="html" xml:base="https://radgeek.com/gt/2018/08/04/what-im-reading-barbara-carnevali-against-theory/#comment-736341"><![CDATA[<p>So is this supposed to be yet another exercise in postmodernism-bashing?  Not that I would complain if it were.  My only objections (if any) are aesthetic.  It&#8217;s just that the whole sport of postmodernism-bashing is getting to be pretty cliche, probably because they&#8217;re picking such an easy target.</p>
  158.  
  159. <p>The way you describe &#8220;theory&#8221; sounds very much like what I call &#8220;pat theory.&#8221; (not to be confused with &#8220;pet theory,&#8221; although there is considerable overlap)</p>
  160.  
  161. <p>Also, there&#8217;s certainly a punk element in me that approves of pretty much anything &#8220;formed in a DIY fashion.&#8221;</p>
  162. ]]></content>
  163. <thr:in-reply-to ref="https://radgeek.com/?p=9316" href="https://radgeek.com/gt/2018/08/04/what-im-reading-barbara-carnevali-against-theory/" type="text/html" />
  164. </entry>
  165. <entry>
  166. <title>Comment on How Robert E. Lee&#8217;s army treated black soldiers by Andy Bell</title>
  167. <link rel="alternate" href="https://radgeek.com/gt/2006/05/25/how_robert/#comment-720072" type="text/html" />
  168.  
  169. <author>
  170. <name>Andy Bell</name>
  171. </author>
  172.  
  173. <id>tag:radgeek.com,2006://geekery_today.20060525024755#comment-720072</id>
  174. <updated>2017-09-13T14:13:44Z</updated>
  175. <published>2017-09-13T14:13:44Z</published>
  176. <content type="html" xml:base="https://radgeek.com/gt/2006/05/25/how_robert/#comment-720072"><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m responding to Tim&#8217;s claim above that the economy of the confederate States would have been ruined by the freeing of their slaves.  That&#8217;s utter nonsense!  The Olmsted book demonstrates that free men in Maryland who owned and worked their own land, or free men paid fair wages were much more productive than slave laborers exploited and abused by their prejudiced owners in the south.  If the &#8220;forty acres and a mule&#8221; idea  of Lincoln had been adopted, and African American families had been given land in recompense for 250 years of servitude, this would have been demonstrated to everyone in the southland.  Also, paying the former slaves a fair wage for their labor would also have improved the productivity of southern farms.</p>
  177. ]]></content>
  178. <thr:in-reply-to ref="tag:radgeek.com,2006://geekery_today.20060525024755" href="https://radgeek.com/gt/2006/05/25/how_robert/" type="text/html" />
  179. </entry>
  180. <entry>
  181. <title>Comment on Robert E. Lee owned slaves and defended slavery by Gary Adams</title>
  182. <link rel="alternate" href="https://radgeek.com/gt/2005/01/03/robert-e-lee-owned-slaves-and-defended-slavery/#comment-710823" type="text/html" />
  183.  
  184. <author>
  185. <name>Gary Adams</name>
  186. </author>
  187.  
  188. <id>tag:radgeek.com,2005://geekery_today.20050103223731#comment-710823</id>
  189. <updated>2017-08-21T22:18:55Z</updated>
  190. <published>2017-08-21T22:18:55Z</published>
  191. <content type="html" xml:base="https://radgeek.com/gt/2005/01/03/robert-e-lee-owned-slaves-and-defended-slavery/#comment-710823"><![CDATA[<p>Grant was not a slave owner having release his one slave before the war.  Nor did take slaves into the White House.</p>
  192. ]]></content>
  193. <thr:in-reply-to ref="tag:radgeek.com,2005://geekery_today.20050103223731#comment-49515" href="https://radgeek.com/gt/2005/01/03/robert-e-lee-owned-slaves-and-defended-slavery/#comment-49515" type="text/html" />
  194. </entry>
  195. <entry>
  196. <title>Comment on Robert E. Lee owned slaves and defended slavery by Gary Adams</title>
  197. <link rel="alternate" href="https://radgeek.com/gt/2005/01/03/robert-e-lee-owned-slaves-and-defended-slavery/#comment-710822" type="text/html" />
  198.  
  199. <author>
  200. <name>Gary Adams</name>
  201. </author>
  202.  
  203. <id>tag:radgeek.com,2005://geekery_today.20050103223731#comment-710822</id>
  204. <updated>2017-08-21T22:16:34Z</updated>
  205. <published>2017-08-21T22:16:34Z</published>
  206. <content type="html" xml:base="https://radgeek.com/gt/2005/01/03/robert-e-lee-owned-slaves-and-defended-slavery/#comment-710822"><![CDATA[<p>William Mack Lee was not Lee&#8217;s servant nor was he ever at Arlington.  Take a minute and research him he was like reporting and spreading false stories.</p>
  207. ]]></content>
  208. <thr:in-reply-to ref="tag:radgeek.com,2005://geekery_today.20050103223731#comment-902" href="https://radgeek.com/gt/2005/01/03/robert-e-lee-owned-slaves-and-defended-slavery/#comment-902" type="text/html" />
  209. </entry>
  210. </feed>
  211.  

If you would like to create a banner that links to this page (i.e. this validation result), do the following:

  1. Download the "valid Atom 1.0" banner.

  2. Upload the image to your own server. (This step is important. Please do not link directly to the image on this server.)

  3. Add this HTML to your page (change the image src attribute if necessary):

If you would like to create a text link instead, here is the URL you can use:

http://www.feedvalidator.org/check.cgi?url=https%3A//radgeek.com/comments/feed/

Copyright © 2002-9 Sam Ruby, Mark Pilgrim, Joseph Walton, and Phil Ringnalda