Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

I thought doing nothing about it would be foolish.

But you think it is foolish to do anything to mitigate climate change.

What I do not understand is why you think terrorism can be "solved" in so straightforward and inexpensive a way as to make it foolish not to try, while you see action on climate change as so difficult and expensive as to be hopeless.

Just what did you think would be the consequences of doing nothing about terrorism. Did you think your life or that of your family was at risk?

What do you think are the consequences of ignoring climate change?

Originally Posted by Mikebert

But you think it is foolish to do anything to mitigate climate change.

What I do not understand is why you think terrorism can be "solved" in so straightforward and inexpensive a way as to make it foolish not to try, while you see action on climate change as so difficult and expensive as to be hopeless.

Just what did you think would be the consequences of doing nothing about terrorism. Did you think your life or that of your family was at risk?

What do you think are the consequences of ignoring climate change?

I thought it was pretty straightforward for Islamic terrorism to be addressed with larger scale military actions within the Middle East. To me, addressing climate change isn't as straightforward as Islamic terrorism.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

So you are a fatalist at heart? That seems at odds with the entrepreneurial, build-a-business ethic.

I'm a realist. If I attacked you, you'd fight back.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

I thought it was pretty straightforward for Islamic terrorism to be addressed with larger scale military actions within the Middle East. To me, addressing climate change isn't as straightforward as Islamic terrorism.

The United States is strong enough militarily that any direct military attack upon us is suicidal and unproductive. Terrorism, which is not conventional warfare, requires different responses. It implies a need for international cooperation even to the extent of deeds that on the surface imply violations of the sovereignty of countries with which our country is not at war. It implies a need to gather information in unexpected ways -- like tracking couriers (which is how the US closed in on Osama bin Laden).

Terrorists are not warriors; they are criminals. They may firmly believe some agenda -- but so might some gangster or pervert.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

... Terrorists are not warriors; they are criminals. They may firmly believe some agenda -- but so might some gangster or pervert.

This is interesting, strikes me as a critical area of examination.

The urge to be a part of something larger than oneself appears to be a universal tendency. A hole in one's middle with the wind blowing through; a sense of emptiness, of wanting something larger ... maybe what drives humans to religion in the first place?

Then, heck I can remember being 16-18 years old, not having a firm supervisory hand on me, becoming violent, irresponsible, responding more to my equally crazy peer group, trying to be the "most of the most" within that group ... how many "terrorists" are like that? Packs of more or less wild animals, young men without direction who come under the influence of older, charismatic men WITH an agenda.

REAL criminals, it seems to me, have a fairly immediate purpose. They want ill-gotten gains, money, sex, recognition, power within their own immediate community? But terrorists in addition must have an over-arching political/religious agenda that probably includes acquiring significant power over something - a country, a population subgroup, whatever?

Warriors, at least in antiquity, wanted power, food, land, unfettered behavior getting them whatever they wanted from the "locals." Nowadays warriors are much more disconnected from the purposes. And we seem to have forgotten the principle that there needs to be at least some political solution visible on the horizon before engaging in warfare. The terrorists likely still have a utopian vision of a future political solution consisting of their own fever-brained structure. I'm not sure what the heck we think we can forge on this Mideast anvil of insanity.

In any case, it seems to me to be a valuable area of inquiry - that of figuring out what makes a bunch of human beings want to simply bring destruction, vandalism, random violence down on relatively innocent folks.

Originally Posted by TnT

This is interesting, strikes me as a critical area of examination.

The urge to be a part of something larger than oneself appears to be a universal tendency. A hole in one's middle with the wind blowing through; a sense of emptiness, of wanting something larger ... maybe what drives humans to religion in the first place?

This brings up the question that for which absolutely everyone not an outright idiot must seek an answer: what, if any, is the meaning of life? No shortage of wrong answers exist. Ethnic, national, and 'racial' identity are among the weakest of answers, but often with the ugliest of consequences. We know where "I am a German and not some 'filthy' Jew" went. Others include the more primal delights, terribly evanescent and terribly self-destructive. Drunkenness, gluttony, drug highs, impulse spending, danger-dodging, and reckless spending all get tiresome fast and do nothing to make one a desirable person. Material gain and indulgence? Such is far more precarious than most of us would like to believe.

Some of us find the search for the answer an unending quest with the quest satisfying in itself. Some people quit searching once they find a satisfying answer for the moment. I doubt that there is a final answer. The most that I can do is rule out the failures.

Fascism failed. Marxism-Leninism failed. Ba'athism has failed. So some people find a huge gaping hole where what they were brainwashed to believed no longer exists. For many Ba'athists, ISIS offers much the same meaning in life as totalitarian Ba'athism ever had.

Then, heck I can remember being 16-18 years old, not having a firm supervisory hand on me, becoming violent, irresponsible, responding more to my equally crazy peer group, trying to be the "most of the most" within that group ... how many "terrorists" are like that? Packs of more or less wild animals, young men without direction who come under the influence of older, charismatic men WITH an agenda.

I can't tell you what makes a terrorist. Gross failure at love? Hate always awaits to offer itself as a strong emotion. Impotence? Firearms are as phallic as any object. Sociopathy and mental illness are obvious in leaders of pathological causes; syphilis can destroy much of what is humane and decent in people. If people know that the Leninist part of Marxism-Leninism is really the syphilis of Vladimir Lenin talking they would find Marxism-Leninism suspect. Having been abused and neglected as a child? I only wonder.

REAL criminals, it seems to me, have a fairly immediate purpose. They want ill-gotten gains, money, sex, recognition, power within their own immediate community? But terrorists in addition must have an over-arching political/religious agenda that probably includes acquiring significant power over something - a country, a population subgroup, whatever?

A gangster like the late and unlamented Henry Hill found the Mafia perfect for his laziness, greed, materialism, and contempt for learning. He had no political agenda. Steal, do contract killings, deal drugs -- what a life! All that one needs is no conscience. With a conscience one might have to put out a real effort in life and accept some limitations to the personal indulgences.

The Mafia-like groups have no apparent political agenda. Terrorists usually do. But when terrorists take over a state, gangsterism may prevail. The Nazi Party operated much like a criminal syndicate, and after it was defeated the victorious Allies treated prosecuted it largely on the model established in the United States for convicting and condemning gangsters. It is telling that Churchill asked (however facetiously) about getting an electric chair for dealing with Hitler as the United States dealt with gangsters like Lepke Buchalter.

Warriors, at least in antiquity, wanted power, food, land, unfettered behavior getting them whatever they wanted from the "locals." Nowadays warriors are much more disconnected from the purposes.

We now have professional armies, navies, and air forces. Most countries have military academies intended to shape most of the prospective officers, especially those on the apparent fast track for the highest ranks. The academies put much emphasis not only on 'practical' military activity and creating an esprit de corps but also to eliminate the worst traits of soldiers in the past. Although it may still be possible to make the officer corps from within the ranks, those soldiers so promoted go through a thorough socialization.

And we seem to have forgotten the principle that there needs to be at least some political solution visible on the horizon before engaging in warfare.

Civilian control of the military has validity to the extent that the civilian leadership is itself rational, humane, and decent. Such is the difference between Abraham Lincoln -- and George W. Bush. The best wartime leaders need not relish war to be competent wartime leaders.

The terrorists likely still have a utopian vision of a future political solution consisting of their own fever-brained structure. I'm not sure what the heck we think we can forge on this Mideast anvil of insanity.

I have no delusion: the United States will end up at war with ISIS if ISIS becomes a menace to America's friends -- especially Israel. I fully understand why President Obama seeks to end the diplomatic isolation of Iran. I can even imagine Iran seeking to cut deals with Israel. The Zionists aren't murdering Shi'ites, much unlike ISIS. Necessity has created some unlikely allies in the past.

In any case, it seems to me to be a valuable area of inquiry - that of figuring out what makes a bunch of human beings want to simply bring destruction, vandalism, random violence down on relatively innocent folks.

I remember hearing an incident in which some real estate speculator looking to keep a farm along a major highway in a rapidly-urbanizing area in use while waiting for some developer to pay the maximum price to redevelop the farm into something truly urban. He kept a pair of llamas that were veritable landmarks. They trusted everything but dogs, which was their fatal mistake. Someone shot them as a lark. The property owner put up a reward of $1000 for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the scoundrel who killed the llamas.

The llama-killer blurted out to a friend that he killed the llamas. "I was on drugs and I thought it would be fun".

His friend turned the llama-killer in. $1000 could buy a nice stereo in those days.

Originally Posted by TnT

This is interesting, strikes me as a critical area of examination.

The urge to be a part of something larger than oneself appears to be a universal tendency. A hole in one's middle with the wind blowing through; a sense of emptiness, of wanting something larger ... maybe what drives humans to religion in the first place?

Then, heck I can remember being 16-18 years old, not having a firm supervisory hand on me, becoming violent, irresponsible, responding more to my equally crazy peer group, trying to be the "most of the most" within that group ... how many "terrorists" are like that? Packs of more or less wild animals, young men without direction who come under the influence of older, charismatic men WITH an agenda.

REAL criminals, it seems to me, have a fairly immediate purpose. They want ill-gotten gains, money, sex, recognition, power within their own immediate community? But terrorists in addition must have an over-arching political/religious agenda that probably includes acquiring significant power over something - a country, a population subgroup, whatever?

Warriors, at least in antiquity, wanted power, food, land, unfettered behavior getting them whatever they wanted from the "locals." Nowadays warriors are much more disconnected from the purposes. And we seem to have forgotten the principle that there needs to be at least some political solution visible on the horizon before engaging in warfare. The terrorists likely still have a utopian vision of a future political solution consisting of their own fever-brained structure. I'm not sure what the heck we think we can forge on this Mideast anvil of insanity.

In any case, it seems to me to be a valuable area of inquiry - that of figuring out what makes a bunch of human beings want to simply bring destruction, vandalism, random violence down on relatively innocent folks.

Good points throughout. This last item is the tough one. Apostates are never "innocent", having rejected the true path. It's better to have never been inside the tent than it is to have left. Perhaps it's nothing more than the rejection; like a violent mob of jilted lovers. It's all emotion. No rational thought required.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

I thought it was pretty straightforward for Islamic terrorism to be addressed with larger scale military actions within the Middle East. To me, addressing climate change isn't as straightforward as Islamic terrorism.

It's quite the reverse.

Although the tech will improve and a few environmental problems will be dealt with, climate change can at least be stopped and eventually reversed simply by not using fossil fuels anymore and switching to solar and wind power, with batteries; plus ending deforestation and replanting trees. It is a simple problem of physical cause and effect; quite straightforward.

On the other hand, we've seen how "straightforward" our larger-scale military actions turned out to be in the Middle East with our invasion of Iraq. Our support for the Libyan revolution meant that we also had to help Libya establish law and order, which we didn't do. In both cases, the result was more terrorism and the rise of the Islamic State. No, it's not straightforward at all. We don't have much choice but to be involved and sometimes support with arms those who represent a better future, and apply sanctions and negotiate when needed (as with Iran: "straightforward"???). But this may not work. Our support for Israel makes us the enemy there too. Addressing the motives of terrorists is another whole can of worms, as M&L and TnT and Brower have pointed out. And in general, adding to the violence that has existed in the Middle East for millennia will not stop it.

Why is it so hard for conservatives today to see these facts?

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

I don't think a few fossil barons contribute enough to make the situation worse for all of us. China's industries are having a much greater impact than our industries are having on the environment.

The USA and China (but only recently) are both the two largest contributors, about equally so. Fortunately, in this respect, China's government is more authoritarian-- a one-party state that can and IS just ordering changes. In the USA, by contrast, we have a political party (yours) that has enough power to allow the fossil fuel barons to continue screwing up our climate and environment as long as they like. And this is a horrible example set by the country that caused so much of the mess.

We made China what it is; both as a contributor to climate change and a producer of anxiety regarding our national security. We made it what it is by sending almost all of our manufacturing there to take advantage of cheap labor and lax environmental laws, and buying their products; thanks to libertarian "free trade."

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

... Apostates are never "innocent", having rejected the true path. It's better to have never been inside the tent than it is to have left. Perhaps it's nothing more than the rejection; like a violent mob of jilted lovers. It's all emotion. No rational thought required.

To a demanding sect or cult, an apostate is the worst form of traitor.

Baby boomers by not allowing millies and late-wave xers to forge their own paths and by selfishly clinging to outmoded "democratic" and "pacifist" principles, they are dending the younger generations a livable future. When people read history books on WW2 and it's aftermath , they instinctively admire the military exploits of the US, USSR, germany and Japan, even china; nobody admires France and Poland.

Internet Trolls Really Are Horrible People -- narcissistic, Machiavellian, psychopathic, and sadistic.

I may be a hypocrite for saying this, but don't feed the troll.

Originally Posted by Abstract

In two online studies (total N = 1215), respondents completed personality inventories and a survey of their Internet commenting styles. Overall, strong positive associations emerged among online commenting frequency, trolling enjoyment, and troll identity, pointing to a common construct underlying the measures. Both studies revealed similar patterns of relations between trolling and the Dark Tetrad of personality: trolling correlated positively with sadism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism, using both enjoyment ratings and identity scores. Of all personality measures, sadism showed the most robust associations with trolling and, importantly, the relationship was specific to trolling behavior. Enjoyment of other online activities, such as chatting and debating, was unrelated to sadism. Thus cyber-trolling appears to be an Internet manifestation of everyday sadism.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...91886914000324 (This is behind a pay wall).



...Anybody you know?

Yeah pbrower keep mocking these realistic principles just because it does not agree with boomer idealism. Pacifism was tried by the jews during the last crisis; it did not work well for them. There is a reason the Israelis have always believed in the right to preemptive war.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

... Pacifism was tried by the jews during the last crisis; it did not work well for them. There is a reason the Israelis have always believed in the right to preemptive war.

And yet, one wonders what would have happened if MLK, Jr. had instead armed, trained and inflamed a "Million Man March" of angry black folks into Alabama. Maybe he could have given a speech off the back of a Sherman Tank, "I have a Scheme."

Wonder how THAT would have turned out?

Originally Posted by TnT

And yet, one wonders what would have happened if MLK, Jr. had instead armed, trained and inflamed a "Million Man March" of angry black folks into Alabama. Maybe he could have given a speech off the back of a Sherman Tank, "I have a Scheme."

Wonder how THAT would have turned out?

It probably would have turned out well, if there wasn't a large military force and a large armed population available to oppose him.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

I thought it was pretty straightforward for Islamic terrorism to be addressed with larger scale military actions within the Middle East.

Well the action we have undertaken so far has cost us $3 trillion. What has been accomplished? The same sort of thinking that led to a war in Afghanistan and a bigger war in Iraq now leads us to a much bigger war in Iran. So far we have spent $3 trillion. Iran is 4X the size of Iraq. Scaling proportionally the total will come to $11 trillion (expended over a several decades). Seems to me dealing with Islamic terrorism is not at all straightforward. I would say its bloody impossible and think we should wash our hands of the whole damn thing.

To me, addressing climate change isn't as straightforward as Islamic terrorism.

Global warming is a physical phenomenon, well-explained by physical laws we understand well. This doesn't mean we can predict the exact behavior of the system. Hell we have been making antibiotics on my company for many decades and we still don't fully understand the processes we use to make them. But that doesn't prevent us from using this not-completely understood process to make quality product at a cost that made us a lot of money over the years.

Doctors do not understand exactly what they are doing when to treat disease. Yet that doesn't stop them from saving lives. Empiricism works. Science, engineering and medicine (all of which are based on empiricism) work. The "solution" chosen for terrorism had ZERO empirical basis. There was not much evidence that suggested it would work. There was little reason for believing that it would work. Unsurprisingly, it did not work.

Yet you believed that the scientific problem (global warming) is not straightforward (despite a century of experience that shows that science, engineering and medicine can solve hard problems). But at the same time you believe that solving terrorism (which is so poorly understood that the thing cannot even be defined) is straightforward.

It seems to me that there isn't any thinking involving in this assessment. I suspect the terrorism thing is pure reaction, an instinctive reaction to a threat. I know I felt that way for several weeks after 911.

As for global warming, I suspect you took your cues from trusted interpreters who reflect your worldview.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

You're purposely missing the point. Truth is the least important issue in an election. Perception is everything, and the Clintons have attracted intense and massive negative attention since Bill was governor. The GOP knows full well: you don't have to beat someone fairly; you just have to beat them. If he was still around, you could ask Lee Atwater.

I can understand the impulse. We all have amygdalas that can short-circuit our cerebral lobs, on occasion. The difference with most progressives is that the lobs eventually kick-in and we get back to our old logical selves.

Here's the logical counters to the impulse of just being tired of the "attracted intense and massive negative attention."

1. It doesn't matter who the Dem candidate is - the other side will heap on them just as much negative attention horseshit. It is who they are and it is how they operate. Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, or even Ron Ray-gun reincarnated as a Dem isn't going to change that. Anyone who hasn't learned that lesson with last six years of the constant 'Kenyan-born, Muslim, doesn't-love-America, anti-White racist Obama' harangue must of been in a coma. Is it possible that the candy ass early Obama supporters haven't learned that lesson? You remember them: the ones that become so dejected within months of his inauguration when he proved he wasn't the Savior that would have the GOP eating out of his hand? At least with Clinton, there will be no such childish illusions - she'll be operating like Obama is operating now, but with her it will be on her Day One not 6 years later.

2. Perceptions in this case is a two-edge sword - there's the accusers as well as the accused. There is not one shred of evidence that HC has done anything wrong - look at this latest 'scandal' of uranium for charity donations - just like Benghazi, read the facts and the Right wingnut horseshit is clear. So, sure, the first impulse is to just wish this would all go away by just having the accused go away. But, as time goes on, HC gets nominated, as the first woman nominated, perhaps the sword will cut the other way. Sure, the ones that will always blame the rape victim instead of her attackers will still hate her for just showing up, but everyone else? Women voters? Minorities? Youth voters? I don't think so.

3. And finally, its not a "how much I like you contest;" it is a choice. At some point, the cerebral lobes are going to kick in, and then the choice becomes clear - more inequity, more invasive wars, more economic contractions, more imposing religious beliefs on others.... or not. Pretty simple choice.

On Jeopardy today, they featured Mussolini's original definition of "fascism" as "opposed to pacifism." Seems to fit our cynic hero.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

You're purposely missing the point. Truth is the least important issue in an election. Perception is everything, and the Clintons have attracted intense and massive negative attention since Bill was governor. The GOP knows full well: you don't have to beat someone fairly; you just have to beat them. If he was still around, you could ask Lee Atwater.

But Lee Atwater beat Michael Dukakis, one of the worst-performing and lowest horoscope-scoring candidates ever nominated. Another victim, John Kerry, was also not a very good candidate. Bill Clinton (whose horoscope score is stratospheric) won in two virtual landslides, in spite of everything they could throw at him both while in office and before. Hillary did quite well in 2008; barely losing to Obama not because of Obama's smear campaign, but because of Obama's better strategies. So, it depends on who you are trying to beat with your smear campaign. Smears will roll off the back of a competent and attractive candidate.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

But Lee Atwater beat Michael Dukakis, one of the worst-performing and lowest horoscope-scoring candidates ever nominated. Another victim, John Kerry, was also not a very good candidate. Bill Clinton (whose horoscope score is stratospheric) won in two virtual landslides, in spite of everything they could throw at him both while in office and before. Hillary did quite well in 2008; barely losing to Obama not because of Obama's smear campaign, but because of Obama's better strategies. So, it depends on who you are trying to beat with your smear campaign. Smears will roll off the back of a competent and attractive candidate.

Electing someone like Hillary will only mean at best a stopping of the bleeding, but with no real healing of the body politic. Hillary would grovel before the wealthy interest groups, her only benefit being that it would be less severe than with a GOP president. All the candidates from the current political class share the same ideology of government by bureaucrat, government by money, and government by weakling. What we need is government by the competent, government by the people, government by youthful leadership, and government by the strong. The baby boomers in my opinion have disqualified themselves from leading the people because of their greed, their naïve belief in pacifism, globalism, their nonsensical obsession with helping other countries before helping Americans, their obsession with nuclear disarmament, their ridiculous rules of engagement that they had us fight with in Afghanistan and Iraq, and last but certainly not least, their hostility to true freedom and their hostility to true virtues and hostility to entrepreneurial type acquisition.

What America needs is government by the worthy: a class of competent youthful leaders who would put the security and prosperity of America first before that of any other country. An America run by a meritocratic elite whose success would be measured in economic advances, military advances, entrepreneurial exploits and military exploits in war abroad. An America run by a class of meritocratic-entrepreneurs who would build up the nation and its infrastructure and accumulate holdings via conquests abroad. Only then would America be secure and firmly on the path to prosperity and renewal.

Originally Posted by playwrite

I can understand the impulse. We all have amygdalas that can short-circuit our cerebral lobs, on occasion. The difference with most progressives is that the lobs eventually kick-in and we get back to our old logical selves.

Here's the logical counters to the impulse of just being tired of the "attracted intense and massive negative attention."

1. It doesn't matter who the Dem candidate is - the other side will heap on them just as much negative attention horseshit. It is who they are and it is how they operate. Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, or even Ron Ray-gun reincarnated as a Dem isn't going to change that. Anyone who hasn't learned that lesson with last six years of the constant 'Kenyan-born, Muslim, doesn't-love-America, anti-White racist Obama' harangue must of been in a coma. Is it possible that the candy ass early Obama supporters haven't learned that lesson? You remember them: the ones that become so dejected within months of his inauguration when he proved he wasn't the Savior that would have the GOP eating out of his hand? At least with Clinton, there will be no such childish illusions - she'll be operating like Obama is operating now, but with her it will be on her Day One not 6 years later.

I don't see the evidence to back your conclusion that HC will be a deft fighter from day one. It's not in her history. The Clintons learned early that being opaque has its virtues. Unfortunately, they have not unlearned that lesson. She is deemed guilty by virtue of appearing guilty. The press doesn't help here. They have been in the he-said-she-said mode for so long, I don't think they know how to do honest journalism any more, so the candidate needs to be both Caesar's wife and Spartacus simultaneously. HC isn't a good fit for either and a piss-poor fit to be both at once.

Originally Posted by PW ...

2. Perceptions in this case is a two-edge sword - there's the accusers as well as the accused. There is not one shred of evidence that HC has done anything wrong - look at this latest 'scandal' of uranium for charity donations - just like Benghazi, read the facts and the Right wingnut horseshit is clear. So, sure, the first impulse is to just wish this would all go away by just having the accused go away. But, as time goes on, HC gets nominated, as the first woman nominated, perhaps the sword will cut the other way. Sure, the ones that will always blame the rape victim instead of her attackers will still hate her for just showing up, but everyone else? Women voters? Minorities? Youth voters? I don't think so.

As I mentioned, right and wrong are immaterial. What's needed is a sense of virtue and bravery. When HC goes strong, she's abrasive. When she goes warm, she looks insincere and weak. You know the theater. This is a play, and we won't cheer for a cross between Hamlet and Lady Macbeth, with a little Othello thrown in for good measure.

Originally Posted by PW ...

3. And finally, its not a "how much I like you contest;" it is a choice. At some point, the cerebral lobes are going to kick in, and then the choice becomes clear - more inequity, more invasive wars, more economic contractions, more imposing religious beliefs on others.... or not. Pretty simple choice.

This is your strongest point. Yes, when it's down to a choice between a person I can't fully trust to do good and one I can fully trust to do evil, the result is obvious. I think the end-game argument may be premature. Let's actually go through the process. If HC stumbles even a little, the opponents will be there in force. I'm still not convinced that she will be the anointed candidate.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

But Lee Atwater beat Michael Dukakis, one of the worst-performing and lowest horoscope-scoring candidates ever nominated. Another victim, John Kerry, was also not a very good candidate. Bill Clinton (whose horoscope score is stratospheric) won in two virtual landslides, in spite of everything they could throw at him both while in office and before. Hillary did quite well in 2008; barely losing to Obama not because of Obama's smear campaign, but because of Obama's better strategies. So, it depends on who you are trying to beat with your smear campaign. Smears will roll off the back of a competent and attractive candidate.

HRC is not WJC. Bill has a way about him. People instinctively like him. Hillary, not so much.

I just wanted to point out that, generally it's not going to matter what generation the president is actually from as much as it will the general overall make up of people in government, both civil servants and elected officials.

People tend to look at, say, the Patriot Act as a Bush law. But it was introduced by a congressman from Wisconsin, went through a committee, and was passed by congress long before Bush had any say. And let's be clear here. This wasn't passed in a vacuum. It was only done because enough people threw a hissy fit about their own feelings of their security. If Gore had been in the White House, the Patriot Act would have been considered a Gore Law. But it wouldn't have changed the Patriot Act a bit.

And here's the critical point: there's no way that Xers would have passed this law. They'd have seen it for the public nuisance that it really is. I do think they would have done something, but prophets love drama, and when they succeed it's because drama is called for and when they fail it's because it's not and they're gonna do it anyway.

If an Xer had been in the white house for 911, however, they'd have done almost exactly the same thing that Bush had, not necessarily because they wanted to, because the place was so jam packed full of Boomers pushing for high drama that he'd have gone adding with it.

Even though the right solution was a no drama, no fuss, swing in on a helicopter and shot him solution and even though all the post 9-11 drama actually prolonged the situation, there's no way that would have been acceptable to us as a whole circa 2001. Changing one particular piece in the puzzle would have done nothing. You would have to have had a large enough Nomad presence in the public sector and a small enough Boomer population size to let that fly and... under those conditions, that would have made the whole affair a 1T event anyway, and that makes sense because if something is going to happen "the way it should" it's going to happen in the 1T.

Originally Posted by TnT

And yet, one wonders what would have happened if MLK, Jr. had instead armed, trained and inflamed a "Million Man March" of angry black folks into Alabama. Maybe he could have given a speech off the back of a Sherman Tank, "I have a Scheme."

Wonder how THAT would have turned out?

Civil disobedience works when those in power either (1) have their own claims to moral decency, (2) the political system has splits in power, or (3) those in power recognize how precarious their position is.

For the first one has Mohandas Gandhi. The British overlords of India could have mowed Gandhi and his protesters down easily... but such would have been contrary to their firm Christian beliefs. Gandhi knew the British well, and he knew their limits. The British would have put down any armed rebellion and treated any survivors who precipitated such a rebellion harshly. Non-violence does not provoke violence except among thugs.

For the second one has Martin Luther King, who knew splits within the American Establishment and knew how to exploit them. Like Gandhi he knew how to get media attention. Television cameras would roll, and if anyone did something violent, such would discredit the side that initiated the violence. His side could take a punch or a thrown brick. The segregationist side would lose all credibility if it resorted to violence or even if groups sympathetic to segregationism (such as the KKK) open fire or detonated a bomb, as had happened in Birmingham, Alabama in 1963

For the third one has the non-violent revolutions against Commies in central and Balkan Europe. By 1989 the Commies had little popular support -- just weapons. Communist leaders found that if they did something stupid that they would get no support from the Soviet Union. The Warsaw Pact then existed entirely as a defense against an invasion by members of NATO. Not privy to what Mikhail Gorbachev said of destabilizing conditions behind the Iron Curtain, and unwilling to speculate on what would have happened in the event of any mass violence initiated by Commie leaders, the mere preservation of order was enough cause for most Communist leaders to not crack down with violence. Nicolae Ceausescu was the exception, and he did not last long.

Non-violence of course fails against a totalitarian order that sees any dissident as a traitor deserving of the worst. Non-violent resistance to Nazi Germany, Stalin's Soviet Union, Apartheid-era South Africa, or Iraq under Saddam Hussein was not only futile but suicidal.

Originally Posted by Kepi

I just wanted to point out that, generally it's not going to matter what generation the president is actually from as much as it will the general overall make up of people in government, both civil servants and elected officials.

People tend to look at, say, the Patriot Act as a Bush law. But it was introduced by a congressman from Wisconsin, went through a committee, and was passed by congress long before Bush had any say. And let's be clear here. This wasn't passed in a vacuum. It was only done because enough people threw a hissy fit about their own feelings of their security. If Gore had been in the White House, the Patriot Act would have been considered a Gore Law. But it wouldn't have changed the Patriot Act a bit.

You're on solid ground there.

And here's the critical point: there's no way that Xers would have passed this law. They'd have seen it for the public nuisance that it really is. I do think they would have done something, but prophets love drama, and when they succeed it's because drama is called for and when they fail it's because it's not and they're gonna do it anyway.

There's no empirical basis for saying this. Most Xers in congress today are right-wing fanatics and militarists. They would have been right behind all the drama. They want more drama with Iran today.

If an Xer had been in the white house for 911, however, they'd have done almost exactly the same thing that Bush had, not necessarily because they wanted to, because the place was so jam packed full of Boomers pushing for high drama that he'd have gone adding with it.

Probably the Afghan invasion would have happened, but I think it's possible an Xer or Boomer/X president, or in-fact a Democratic Boomer like Clinton or Gore, would have been more sensible about it. A Patriot Act of some kind would have been passed, regardless of generation or party. But Bush just screwed the war all up, because of the idiots he was listening to. There would have been no PNAC put into effect without Bush in the White House.

Even though the right solution was a no drama, no fuss, swing in on a helicopter and shot him solution and even though all the post 9-11 drama actually prolonged the situation, there's no way that would have been acceptable to us as a whole circa 2001. Changing one particular piece in the puzzle would have done nothing. You would have to have had a large enough Nomad presence in the public sector and a small enough Boomer population size to let that fly and... under those conditions, that would have made the whole affair a 1T event anyway, and that makes sense because if something is going to happen "the way it should" it's going to happen in the 1T.

Those such as yourself who attribute events mainly to a bad Boomer generation, or generations in general, are off track. The division, the cause, of good decisions and bad in this country today, is red and blue. Political Party and ideology, and not generation, are the main reason why things are going as they are. And certainly things don't happen "the way they should" in a 1T as opposed to a 4T. The great things that have been done in this country were done in 4Ts and 2Ts. Nothing much is done in 1Ts and 3Ts. Complacency and delay are "the way things are done" in those times.

But it's likely that had nomads been in charge in 2001, things would probably have gone more like they would in a 1T. But then, did the Korean War or the War of 1812 go "the way they should"?