You've seen my videos, I take it, Takascar?Originally Posted by takascar2
I dislike Alex Jones very much.
My video just shows that my correct predictions are not just my claim here. Supporting evidence. So the point is, takascar, pay attention to them!
So much stupid so little time....
Yes and that is about it. Sexual scandals are so 3T. Xers and Millies don't care provided no one was actually raped. Also Monica was just nasty. Bitch take your damn dress to the cleaners!.
Again, the Estalbishment GOP can't recognize that. If they did, it would mean that their governing ideology since Reagan is at least flawed--though reality shows that it is mostly just stupid.I know of nobody in the GOP leadership who recognizes Dubya for the failed President that he was. The demagogic right-wingers cannot win if the Establishment Republicans lose enthusiasm for the Republican nominee who is not theirs, let alone go Third Party. I have no idea of what that would do to Senate and Hose races.
No it isn't. Seventy is still Seventy, Fifty is still Fifty. Do I have to drag out George Carlin on this?Seventy is the New Fifty these days;
Only on average, which incidentally the average life expectancy for a female is in the 75 years range. Furthermore it should be noted that average life expectancy gains came primarily from reducing infant/child mortality rather than actually lengthening the geriatric stage of life. The reason this is the case is how averages work, PBR. I'm sorry but math says you're wrong. I'm disappointed, unlike my expectations of Eric, I kind of expected you to understand fifth grade math.life expectancy is much longer today than it was in the middle of the nineteenth century.
True. However, one has to take into account the governmental structure we use. Unless, Hillary can drag the house left she will accomplish less than BHO has. Add to that the fact that she's been the GOP's whipping girl for the last 20+ years, and that they know exactly how to get under her skin it will make her at best ineffective. Unlike Merkle or Thatcher the US does not use a Parliamentary system where the leadership is selected from which party controls the lower house.Also -- James Buchanan was an Artist/Adaptive, the sort of leader who needs a large number of colleagues of like age lest others simply get their agenda while acceding only the formality of symbolic power. Elderly Artist/Adaptive types as leaders succumb to the King Lear scenario in old age. They keep the kingship while the Crown princes, ministers, and parliamentarians gut the real power.
Hillary Clinton is no Churchill. Furthermore Churchill was selected as PM because the Tories held the majority of the governing coalition (1935 General Election resulted in a hung parliament) and Viscount Halifax essentially refused to be PM (also there was the matter of no lord being PM for some 70+ years at the time). Churchill was selected out of desperation (he was incredibly unpopular even amongst the tories)--the US in 2016 baring the outbreak of a 4T war or the start of a world wide depression of biblical proportions simply will not be that desperate.Hillary Clinton will be about the same age as Sir Winston Churchill was when he saved Western Christian Civilization from its own worst tendencies. I'm not saying that she will be that strong a leader -- let alone that America will need a leader that strong!
Except for that little matter of diplomats getting killed by mobs and secret servers. If you think that won't be put under a microscope by even the left-leaning media you are delusional.Got a key cabinet post and handled it well by almost all accounts.
The problem with that is the vast majority of what Boom suggests is in fact not useful, not desirable, is polarizing and is destructive. I'm sorry but I can't bring myself to vote for anyone born before 1959 (technically Boom I know but I rather like Representative Greyson).What America gets between now and about 2025 will be to no small part what Boom suggestions X and Millennial adults will find useful and desirable without being polarizing and destructive.
Not quite. Churchill was considered to be a war monger and a military adventurist. While Hillary has been accused of that (and probably everything else under the sun too). To compare her to Churchill is to do Churchill a disservice--and for the record I really really hate Churchill.Much the same was said of Churchill -- not that it is appropriate to compare her to Churchill.
Irrelevant since I've never claimed that a woman could not be a world leader. I've said a particular woman should not be a world leader. As for Eva Peron, you may find it interesting but she is one of my favorites to play as when I'm oppressing Tropican masses. Of course I'm also somewhat fascinated by Justicalism. In Argentina's last presidential election of the 9 candidates 8 of them claimed to be some form of Peronist, and the Evita Cult is still alive and well to this day.By the way -- women have generally gotten better results as top political leaders. The most blatant exceptions have been tyrants' molls (Poppaea, Magda Goebbels, Chiang Ching, Madame Nhu, Evita Peron, Elena Ceausescu, Imelda Marcos) which we certainly won't get with Hillary Clinton. Testosterone can make people more reckless.
I would argue that considering that the business cycle is pretty much hard wired into capitalism a recession is going to happen. If a Democrat let alone a liberal one were to be president when that happens they will clearly be blamed for it, rightly or wrongly. I can hear it now if Hillary is President and there is a stock market crash in October (when stock market crashes usually happen) of 2017. The GOP will go on the rampage about every single bit of progress made since 2009 and Hillary simply doesn't have Obama's cool to rise above it. She'll start to shriek and shrill like the Boomer she is. That she is female will make the matter worse.Have just about any of the Republican nominees as President and the major recession might become a full-blown meltdown with the magnitude of the start of the Great Depression.
Given the choice between the GOP crowing "See we told you so", or the repudiation of the GOP in 2018 and 2020 which would you rather have?
I see the Kinser is disagreeing with you (to put it politely) though I only glanced at his nonsense, so I was thinking of responding to this post anyway, so now I will.
You are right; the GOP establishment has nowhere to go if their party nominates Trump or Cruz, and they in turn will go nowhere without their party bosses and wealthy bigwigs. The only thing that has been suggested, is that if Trump goes third party, it could tilt the senate Republican because it brings out more conservative voters.
Absolutely. A total materialist like Kinser, who has no conception of human motivation or health, cannot understand the idea that lifespans can expand. The scientific facts are clear that life expectancy is longer now, however. Hillary Clinton or for that matter Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders are perfectly capable of at least one term and maybe more. I'm predicting a change in 2020, likely a retirement. But I think despite everything that Hillary has the potential to be a good president. It's the last hope we boomers have too. So we're kind of stuck with her. Many years ago, when she was still first lady, I predicted Hillary would be the "gray champion" (back when that was a popular idea here). I think it was a poll question. Who knows, it might come true.Seventy is the New Fifty these days; life expectancy is much longer today than it was in the middle of the nineteenth century. Also -- James Buchanan was an Artist/Adaptive, the sort of leader who needs a large number of colleagues of like age lest others simply get their agenda while acceding only the formality of symbolic power. Elderly Artist/Adaptive types as leaders succumb to the King Lear scenario in old age. They keep the kingship while the Crown princes, ministers, and parliamentarians gut the real power.
Hillary Clinton will be about the same age as Sir Winston Churchill was when he saved Western Christian Civilization from its own worst tendencies. I'm not saying that she will be that strong a leader -- let alone that America will need a leader that strong!
She did, and she's a policy wonk and a good communicator. If some people don't like her, just because, I say learn to like her, or get used to her. "Everybody should!"Got a key cabinet post and handled it well by almost all accounts.
I made that point some time ago here as well. I mentioned that the best English kings were women queens. It's time for a woman president of the USA. I won't quote your exceptions.Much the same was said of Churchill -- not that it is appropriate to compare her to Churchill.
By the way -- women have generally gotten better results as top political leaders.....Testosterone can make people more reckless.
Hillary has been a wipping girl. But that's just because she's a powerful Democrat. The Republicans whip anybody who gets in their way, and they drudge up any excuse. She ran a very strong race against Obama and almost won it. There were two strong candidates and it was a crap shoot who would win. Given that luck factor, it's not unreasonable to say that Obama won because he had a better horoscope score.
That may be a good basis for predicting a Democratic win, because there ain't going to be another meltdown!Have just about any of the Republican nominees as President and the major recession might become a full-blown meltdown with the magnitude of the start of the Great Depression.
Last edited by Eric the Green; 12-30-2015 at 02:50 AM.
If sex scandals are totally 80s-90s, why are such things as "rape culture" and "sexual micro-aggressions" such big issues on college campuses? Why is there Millennial (or is it Homeland Generation by now?) pressure to impose Sweden-like rules (the same rules as law in Sweden that Julian Assange ran afoul of) on "affirmative consent" on college campuses? While this may not be the case with the entire Millennial-Homeland Generation, there is a major segment of the university population for which these issues are resonating. They will not be happy with the idea of Hillary standing by Bill Clinton while he a) forcibly raped Juanita Broadderick while Governor of Arkansas b) trashed Paula Jones while running for President in 1992 and c) fired Kathleen Willey for refusing his advances. The media buried a lot of it when it first came out (by amongst other things scheduling a 20/20 interview on ABC with Juanita Broaderick opposite the Toni Awards to make sure as few people as possible saw it) but social media will make this a lot harder to dismiss this time around. And a lot of Americans, not just Millennials who are, to paraphrase Bernie Sanders, sick to death of hearing about Clinton Scandals and realising that the Republicans will be dogging Hillary and weakening her with these scandals throughout a Hillary Clinton Administration may well decide "No thanks" and vote for Bernie or even Trump.
Your last remark is brilliant. Frankly, we might well have avoided the Tea Party and be well on our way to a new New Deal if John McCain had won the 2008 election and allowed banks that lived by deregulation to perish by deregulation. We likely would have seen a Democratic sweep in 2012 and be well on our way to a Regeneracy by now, perhaps under Obama, perhaps under Martin O'Malley or Jim Webb all of whom would be a shoo-in for a second term. The Recession would have been a lot worse but the Bankers and other plutocrats would have been held accountable.
Hillary read Bill the riot act when she found out about Monica. She is not tarred by Bill's scandals. SHE didn't do those things. " Standing by her man like Tammy Wynette " is not a moral failing either. There is nothing to the other scandals either. Any Democratic president or nominee is going to be pilloried by the Republicans, just because that's what they do. Republicans will screw themselves if they keep harping on them, just like what happened with Kevin McCarthy when he told the truth about the Screw Hillary Committee. Those politicians who attacked Bill in the 1990s were even more guilty themselves. That fact is not lost on people either.
Except for your first 5 words, you do have a point. However, it could never have happened. John McCain was not a winning candidate, whatever was going on, and he could never have defeated Obama.Your last remark is brilliant. Frankly, we might well have avoided the Tea Party and be well on our way to a new New Deal if John McCain had won the 2008 election and allowed banks that lived by deregulation to perish by deregulation. We likely would have seen a Democratic sweep in 2012 and be well on our way to a Regeneracy by now, perhaps under Obama, perhaps under Martin O'Malley or Jim Webb all of whom would be a shoo-in for a second term. The Recession would have been a lot worse but the Bankers and other plutocrats would have been held accountable.
Last edited by Eric the Green; 12-30-2015 at 03:16 AM.
Because you have a small minority of very priviliged and very noisy neo-progressives making it an issue. Both "rape culture" (IE a culture wherein rape is both common place and not a crime) does not exist in the west, and microagression theory is absolute bullshit.
Again you have a small minority of very privliged and very noisy neo-progressives making it an issue. Ultimately they will end up getting a huge backlash in the next 2T.Why is there Millennial (or is it Homeland Generation by now?) pressure to impose Sweden-like rules (the same rules as law in Sweden that Julian Assange ran afoul of) on "affirmative consent" on college campuses?
It isn't the case once you leave the bubble where the neo-progressives live.While this may not be the case with the entire Millennial-Homeland Generation,
Actually no there isn't. Most students are at university to study and many think that these professional activists are stupid.there is a major segment of the university population for which these issues are resonating.
I honestly think that there isn't a cultural component of any strength that will weaken Hillary on the basis of Bill's dalliances. The vast majority of Millies will not care--because they are not involved with Neo-Progressivism and internet based activism be it of the feminist variety or the variety of hashtag-movements. That being said, the GOP knows exactly how to aggrivate Hilliary and as such Sanders or Trump would be a better pick than her--but then again I've already said I'm voting "Not Hillary".They will not be happy with the idea of Hillary standing by Bill Clinton while he a) forcibly raped Juanita Broadderick while Governor of Arkansas b) trashed Paula Jones while running for President in 1992 and c) fired Kathleen Willey for refusing his advances. The media buried a lot of it when it first came out (by amongst other things scheduling a 20/20 interview on ABC with Juanita Broaderick opposite the Toni Awards to make sure as few people as possible saw it) but social media will make this a lot harder to dismiss this time around. And a lot of Americans, not just Millennials who are, to paraphrase Bernie Sanders, sick to death of hearing about Clinton Scandals and realising that the Republicans will be dogging Hillary and weakening her with these scandals throughout a Hillary Clinton Administration may well decide "No thanks" and vote for Bernie or even Trump.
I ultimately blame Sarah Palin for that. Had McCain picked someone who had the presence of mind to say she read Cosmo and didn't tell people she could see Russia from her house he would have been elected. Obama could have come back 4 years later to run in 2012 (IL has a LBJ law) and would have likely won. Ultimately I think Obama won because McCain screwed up his VP pick (seriously having that woman a 72 y/o's heartbeat away from the presidency scared even some of the die hard Republicans I know).Your last remark is brilliant. Frankly, we might well have avoided the Tea Party and be well on our way to a new New Deal if John McCain had won the 2008 election and allowed banks that lived by deregulation to perish by deregulation. We likely would have seen a Democratic sweep in 2012 and be well on our way to a Regeneracy by now, perhaps under Obama, perhaps under Martin O'Malley or Jim Webb all of whom would be a shoo-in for a second term. The Recession would have been a lot worse but the Bankers and other plutocrats would have been held accountable.
Ah yes, the bubble where 1 in 4 women in the US will be sexually assaulted in their lifetime? That bubble?
And yes, this is personal to me, given my friend that was raped several years ago and was dragged through the mud, had people calling her a liar, and had her character assassinated by the defense. That is how I learned how rape victims are treated like shit in our society in every case except the rare "pervert who abducts women off the street" cases.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.
-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism
I agree with you, Odin. And the segment of the university population that is concerned about sexual assault is large enough to where it is not being shouted down or run out of campuses. If sexual assault isn't an issue for Millenials, why are Millenials (or Homeland) doing the Civic thing about it and attempting to formulate rules about it? Time will tell just how potent an issue in the campaign Bill's perversions and Hillary's toleration of those perversions will turn out to be. Some of these incidents are post Clinton Administration and potentially quite serious. See http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-...lawsuit-210065 , http://www.examiner.com/article/new-...ein-sex-orgiesAh yes, the bubble where 1 in 4 women in the US will be sexually assaulted in their lifetime? That bubble?
And yes, this is personal to me, given my friend that was raped several years ago and was dragged through the mud, had people calling her a liar, and had her character assassinated by the defense. That is how I learned how rape victims are treated like shit in our society in every case except the rare "pervert who abducts women off the street" cases.
Looks like some smoke, but no fire there.
What was Hillary supposed to do about Bill's perversions?
Last edited by Eric the Green; 12-30-2015 at 04:31 AM.
The New Deal did not end the deflationary spiral. Going off the gold standard did. FDR was able to do this (by presidential order) in his first week in office because this had been on the Democratic menu since 1896. There was built-in Democratic support for this.
For Republicans this was anathema. It was not on Hoover's menu. Thirty years later Milton Friedman (economic godfather to the conservative moment) pronounced that this (money creation) was what should have been done and a version of it was done after 2008 to prevent a deflationary spiral was getting started. As a result unemployment only went to 10% instead of a lot higher. Had money creation during downturns been on the GOP menu in 1929, Hoover would have won re-election and his party not banished to the wilderness for decades.
It was certainly on the Republican menu, the party contained pretty much all of the abolitionists of the time. Can you see a Democratic president doing this?The Emancipation Proclamation was not on Lincoln's menu either yet he did that.
It won't occur to the president, he is also a member of the party. If he believed in the other parties belief system then he would be with them.It gets chosen if the President wants to choose it.
In times of crisis presidents have even more power, as you alluded to above with the EP.Even if a problem is on the menu, and his solution is also on the menu, Congress has to go along with it. Executive power only goes so far in this country.
Democrats were the socially conservative party. In economics they were more open to ideas from the left than the GOP. I will note that large chunks of FDR's New Deal benefits were denied to blacks and that it was FDR and the Democrats who sent Japanese Americans (but not German Americans) to concentration camps.Again this is usually the case. Again though in 4Ts things not on the menu can and sometimes are selected and implemented. It should be noted that in 1932 FDR ran to the right of Hoover, yet once in he swung hard left. Furthermore the Democrats at the time were the "conservative" party.
--I did not know this. Of all the alternative parties (I hate saying "3rd" party since there are so many of them) the Greens are the most well known, I figured they were on the ballot in most states
-- agreed that voter turnout will be low if Bernie is not the nominee. He's got ppl all jazzed up about voting who aren't gonna vote if they can't vote for him. But a good chunk of his supporters are alternative voters & we will simply vote alternative (or write Bernie in) if he's not on the ballot. I'm not saying the Greens will get their 10%, just ynk. This is a 4t aftrerallSanders not getting the nomination, and the way the DNC has treated him thus far would likely suppress votes for the Democratic candidate. As I said Hillary is only really popular with Silent and Boomer white women, outside of that demographic even the most liberal of people don't trust her as far as they could throw her.
Last edited by marypoza; 12-30-2015 at 09:18 AM.
I'm sure that Trump will be making Bill's penis an issue in the campaign sooner or later. It will be interesting to see the traditional liberal/conservative roles reversed on that one.
At the time I thought Monica was just an idiot. Now that I'm older I can sympathize with the idea that he took advantage of her. Funny how age changes things.
Nobody ever got to a single truth without talking nonsense fourteen times first.
- Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment
That is true. But then there are things that can be done unilaterally (think of what Obama has done on global warming with the EPA). And this is at a time of calm. Now imagine the economy in full collapse. Will the Republican congress have the balls to stand up against the Democratic president's rescue plan? These guys do not strike me as having profiles in courage. I think when the times are scary legislation will get passed by all Democrats and a minority of Republicans. Either Ryan will make a deal and let it come to a vote or GOP congressmen in non-blood red districts facing near-certain defeat if they allow the economy to collapse will vote for the discharge petition. Clinton has 12 years of White House experience and 8 years in the Senate. She knows where the levers are.
Yes it does, but this effect is not symmetrical (and this is where you are making your mistake). If a GOP president gets elected in 2016 it will prove that George Bush's administration strengthened the GOP, by giving the GOP control of more of the levers of power (Federal and State) than they had at their previous high point of 2003-2006. What this will mean to political observers is no matter how badly the GOP fucks up they will come back, because of white identity politics and voter suppression.Which would be bad time for a Democrat to be in office should it happen after the election and they win. Typically when recessions happen the President's party suffers.
This means if the economy collapses on the GOP watch, and they do nothing, they will lose the next election. The new guy will be totally unable to do anything about it because the GOP will block him (its a lot easier to prevent disaster than fixing it) and then GOP will be back, as if nothing had happened. There will be no "regeneracy", the 4T will come to an end and an austere 1T begin.
In contrast the reward for even a fairly successful Democratic president (e.g. Bill Clinton) is defeat. Clinton's great achievement (the surplus) which is supposedly something conservatives approve of, was thrown away with glee.
After being handed the shit sandwich Bush left them and fixing what they could (unemployment is down to 5% and the deficit is no longer worrisome) the Democrats have been soundly rejected. It should be clear to even the most obtuse Democratic professional that if the Democrats screw it up just a little, it will be curtains for them, just like it was for them in 1860.
In 2008 this imbalance was not yet clear (many thought the GOP had been severely damaged by Bush). Democrats were not yet radicalized; Obama did not try to play hardball (note there was no "platinum coin" discussion in 2011, Obama just caved). I do think Clinton, the recipient of decades of Republican hatred, will decide she welcomes their hatred. What other attitude can she take?
Last edited by Mikebert; 12-30-2015 at 10:02 AM.
--OH wil go red if Kasich's on the ballot (if only to get him outta here)
-- I would leave Evita off that list. The Argentinians of the time loved her. At any rate, she's the only one who has her very own musical, & with Madonna playing her to boot!
Oh yes he is. That's the whole point of his running. He talks about it all the time. Sanders cannot win the nomination, much less the general election. he knows this. However, shit happens. If Sanders somehow wins the nomination, then something very, very strange will be going on. If Sanders then goes on the win the general then something even more unusual will be going on since such an outcome is flatly impossible.
But if this happens it could only be because of a Democratic wave. This is what Sanders calls a political revolution. If he somehow wins (which ain't going to happen) then there will be the Congress he needs.
But it is not going to happen; it never was in the cards in the first place.
How well is Sander's doing outside of his core demographic (guys like me). Very poorly. Paying attention to the left is stupid, they have no clout. Heck, you are playing concern troll yourself
Do what? Every prez candidate I've voted for has been dem or independent. Starting with that shithead in the helmet Dukakis.How well is Sander's doing outside of his core demographic (guys like me). Very poorly. Paying attention to the left is stupid, they have no clout. Heck, you are playing concern troll yourself
Nobody ever got to a single truth without talking nonsense fourteen times first.
- Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment
There's a fine line between consensual and non-consensual sex, and nobody really knows where it is. Some people take huge chances for some ephemeral bliss. Condoms and birth-control pills have largely negated some of the consequences of sexuality -- babies and STDs. They can't change the emotional consequences. Sex is still not a trivial deed.
"Not with you", "not now", and "not that way" are still variants of "no". "I'm not sure" might as well be a "no".
The next Awakening Era could be a sharp reaction to a culture that has enshrined the sexual license of recent years as freedom. That is how the generational cycle can work.Again you have a small minority of very privileged and very noisy neo-progressives making it an issue. Ultimately they will end up getting a huge backlash in the next 2T.
Because college students must work to earn much of the inflated cost of college education, the college environment is no longer the playground that it was even as late as the 1980s. Such is the consequence of the decisions of the economic elites to make America a grimmer, drearier, and more joyless place in which consequences of any lapse of loyal and selfless subordination to them are catastrophic. This is a culture of economic rape, one in which debt is the means of force. Workers are compelled to take entrepreneurial risks for proletarian rewards, which is a gross perversion of any form of capitalism short of peonage. Activism contrary to the desires of America's economic elites is one way to get blacklisted from an economic order in which people have far fewer choices in life -- more responsibilities toward the economic elites and fewer rights. The right sort of activism for supporting any semblance of middle-class existence is Right activism.Actually no there isn't. Most students are at university to study and many think that these professional activists are stupid.
Except perhaps Christie and possibly Kasich, all the current seekers of the Republican nomination for President will be unmitigated disasters for America. The others would sponsor even greater polarization in economic results than existed in 2008. Maybe you, kinser, want American capitalism to fail so spectacularly that it makes possible a revolutionary situation as a hundred years ago in Russia or in the late 1940s in China. I don't. I prefer a humanization of capitalism which will be possible once America casts off the economic sadism that became fashionable in the last 3T. It's the economic sadism, and not capitalism itself, that must go. I have no use for mass death in revolution and revolutionary judgment, let alone the internecine purges that revolutionary socialists invariably have. The worst enemies of Marxist-Leninists are fellow Marxist-Leninists. Rajk. Kostov. Patrascanu. Slansky. Clementis. Zinoviev. Bukharin. That's before I even mention the murders and brutal sentences of non-Communists who really did nothing wrong. The arch-conservative Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoevsky got it right about the extremists of his time in "The Great Inquisitor" in The Brothers Karamazov. There's nothing wrong with capitalism that humanism and some basic human decency can't solve. There's just nothing good that capitalism can do under the libertarian purists (no mercy) or the crony capitalists (no conscience) who struggle for control of the Republican Party.I honestly think that there isn't a cultural component of any strength that will weaken Hillary on the basis of Bill's dalliances. The vast majority of Millies will not care--because they are not involved with Neo-Progressivism and internet based activism be it of the feminist variety or the variety of hashtag-movements. That being said, the GOP knows exactly how to aggravate Hilliary and as such Sanders or Trump would be a better pick than her--but then again I've already said I'm voting "Not Hillary".
In case you think that I believe that the Right is incapable of such perverse internal purges -- think of Ciano and de Bono in Italy; Roehm and Strasser in Germany; Ghotbzadeh in Iran. That's how extremism works -- those who get in the way get killed. Political extremists in power often become as vicious as gangsters who murder their rivals.
Dubya was a horrible President for reasons other than economic bumbling. Considering the results of the 2006 midterm elections, it is hard to see how any Republican nominee could have won in 2008. Sarah Palin was an unmitigated disaster, to be sure, as a VP pick because she was incompetent and offensive. Even her butchery of the English language appalled just about anyone with a college degree.I ultimately blame Sarah Palin for that. Had McCain picked someone who had the presence of mind to say she read Cosmo and didn't tell people she could see Russia from her house he would have been elected. Obama could have come back 4 years later to run in 2012 (IL has a LBJ law) and would have likely won. Ultimately I think Obama won because McCain screwed up his VP pick (seriously having that woman a 72 y/o's heartbeat away from the presidency scared even some of the die hard Republicans I know).
Maybe America needed a full-blown economic meltdown of the kind that sank America into a Great Depression that compelled people to learn the hard way the values of economic solidarity, trusting a benign government even if such was counter-intuitive, having tolerance for social experimentation, and looking at the long term with only survival as the current reward for doing things the hard way. Harsh as the Great Depression was it made Americans better. The quick recovery from the consequences of the follies of the Double-Zero Decade rescued the very people who made those follies possible.
The anthropomorphized aquatic life (carp, eels, pikes, crabs, turtles) from Des Knaben Wunderhorn (Brentano/Mahler) can catch human nature very well. This may be too subtle and dark for the stock in trade of Walt Disney, but it is very good nonetheless.
http://www.lieder.net/lieder/get_text.html?TextId=4462
The 'fish' went back to their old ways, but they certainly enjoyed the sermon.
Last edited by pbrower2a; 12-30-2015 at 11:00 AM.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."
― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters
Minor nit - Lord Salisbury was PM while presiding as PM from the Lords in 1902.
Pax,
Dave Krein '42
"The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on; nor all your Piety nor Wit shall lure it back to cancel half a line, Nor all your Tears wash out a word of it." - Omar Khayyam.
And it shouldn't, IMO.
The point about Senator Grumpy, is that he is genuine, and he is angry. In other words, he's a real fighter for the people. A Mars-in-Aries guy. He won't let up. This may put him too far out of the mainstream, and the odds still favor Hillary to be nominated and perhaps win narrowly in the Fall. On the other hand, Sanders won't back down if he's the nominee, and will compromise less in his campaign than Hillary or O'Malley would.
Sanders is courageous and has real heart. He is a whole and genuine person, and he's a strong and courageous fighter. Yet he can still compromise with opponents to get things achieved. So he's pragmatic too, while not abandoning his principles and fudging in his rhetoric. He says Wall Street will not like him, while Hillary says everyone should like her. Being a fighter with real heart and soul will appeal to the people. The stars are with him. Don't underestimate him, or Trump either. It could very well be Sanders vs. Trump in the Fall of 2016, and in that contest, Trump will meet his match in Sanders in energy, in fight, in confidence and in charisma, and far surpass him in honesty, wisdom, vision and knowledge of issues, and Trump will lose.
A Sanders vs. Trump campaign would be regenerating. I don't know if we're ready for it yet.
The Political Incorrectness Racket
Among Republicans, it has become politically correct to be politically incorrect. Actually that’s the most politically correct thing that you can possibly be. As soon as you announce that you’re politically incorrect, you’re guaranteed smiles and laughter, and probably thunderous applause. Proudly proclaiming your bravery, you’re pandering to the crowd.
A math-filled new paper, by economists Chia-Hui Chen at Kyoto University and Junichiro Ishida at Osaka University, helps to explain what’s going on. With a careful analysis of incentive structures, they show that if self-interested people want to show that they are independent, their best strategy is to be politically incorrect, and to proclaim loudly that’s what they are being. The trick is that this strategy has nothing at all to do with genuine independence; it’s just a matter of salesmanship, a way to get more popular.
Focusing on the role of experts rather than politicians, Chen and Ishida note that in many circles, political correctness is “associated with a negative connotation where people who express politically correct views are perceived as manipulative or even dishonest.” For that reason, the unbiased expert has a strong strategic incentive, which is to “deviate from the norm of political correctness” to demonstrate “that he is, at least, not manipulative.” Of course, the deviation is itself a form of manipulation, strategically designed to convince people that the expert can be trusted.
Chen and Ishida’s punchline is that whenever experts care about their reputations, “we cannot regard political incorrectness naively as a sign of blunt honesty since it can easily be an attempt to signal one’s hidden characteristics rather than the true state of the world. ” With respect to Republican candidates, that’s putting it much too gently. It’s the strategic go-to line when things get tough.
Consider the Republican chorus in this light. Donald Trump complains that we have “become so politically correct as a country that we can't even walk. We can't think properly. We can't do anything.” Ted Cruz is more concise: “Political correctness is killing people.” Ben Carson insists that the biggest threat to free speech comes from what he calls the “Political Correctness police,” who have “created fear in a large portion of our population, causing them to remain silent.” Mario Rubio says the “radical left” is using a “politically correct way to advocate Israel’s destruction.”
It’s true that in some left-wing circles, especially on college campuses, political correctness is doing serious damage, because it entrenches a particular ideological orthodoxy (and dampens necessary dissent). In some places, you reject that orthodoxy at your peril. If you say that you oppose affirmative action or an increase in the minimum wage, you incur a kind of reputational tax, and the price may be too high to be worth paying.
But those who deplore political correctness tend to entrench an orthodoxy of their own. And when they do so, they get an immediate reputational subsidy, in the form of a boost in popularity. Chen and Ishida show that when experts or politicians decry political correctness, they are engaging in what economists call “signaling."
One of their signals is that they are willing to poke a finger into the eye of left-wing orthodoxies. By embracing political incorrectness, Republican candidates proclaim that they will not be cowed by, or even compromise with, their political opponents.
The other signal, and the more important one, involves authenticity. If a politician makes some outrageous statement, and follows it with a suggestion that he deplores political correctness, you might well conclude that you can trust what he says. Whatever else they are, those who make outrageous statements seem honest and real rather than programmed or scripted. That’s what a lot of voters are demanding.
But there is a sham here, and it’s ironic. The very Republicans who proclaim their rejection of political correctness have committed themselves to a host of policy judgments that are, in their circles, politically correct. Those judgments help define the prevailing orthodoxy. If you want to survive, you had better not question any of them.
Here are some examples: Gun control is a terrible idea. The Affordable Care Act is a disaster. The United States shouldn’t be doing a lot to combat climate change. Affirmative action is bad. The Barack Obama administration is a dismal failure. Ronald Reagan was great. The minimum wage should not be increased.
None of the leading Republican candidates dares to challenge even one of these statements in public. If Trump, Cruz, Rubio, or Carson supported an aggressive effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, or called for a boost in the minimum wage, you might not agree with him -- but you’d know that he really was willing to be independent and to say what he thinks.
Condemning political correctness? That’s telling people just what they want to hear. It’s the furthest thing from brave.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.
-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism
We have a new political orthodoxy, one in which exploiters and abusers are to be seen as benefactors. Crony capitalism is the best way to organize an economy. The super-rich and the executive elites alone know what is best for us.
"Politically incorrect" has become another way of saying rude, heartless, and even sadistic. Some of us know what "politically correct" used to mean -- that East Germany was the 'better' Germany because it was Socialist, that Whittaker Chambers was a traitor to Humanity, that the Rosenberg spy ring was railroaded unjustly, the Vietcong was exactly what the Vietnamese people needed, that the Black Panthers are good guys, and that Marxism-Leninism was the wave of the future. All of that was wrong. But that is all in the past, and it is no longer relevant to contemporary life.
OK, so what was both politically correct and true? That Senator Joseph R. McCarthy was political scum, that racism pointlessly degraded the lives of most blacks, that segregationism was unconscionable, that Apartheid was unconscionable, and that pure plutocracy works well only for plutocrats and their retainers.
Saying what is counter-intuitive, offensive, and inconvenient can be true -- or false. It is reasonable for many of us to have believed that bigger triangles have bigger angles... until we actually took a high-school course in geometry. (That course is the typical divide between college material and non-college material in high school). To tell some lazy, overweight person that he would be wise to take a life not so gluttonous and sedentary might be offensive -- but it just might be undeniable. Telling some kid in K-12 that he needs to do well in school, and that such is worth watching much less television and using computers for recreational purposes to a far lesser degree may be harsh reality ... but it is also good advice. Misconceptions and bad habits are worth undoing. Such is progress or at least needful self improvement.
On the other side -- white privilege is real in America. I can imagine white people trying to latch onto African-American culture because it is fun or even sexuality because it is less likely to be repressed (the latter more likely the result of a Calvinist heritage completely unsuited to almost any African-American heritage). One would have to be escaping something to pose as black.
Anyone who denies that being anything other than black in America gives one an advantage is a fool. I hope that everyone saw the thread that I introduced on "27 things a black child must learn before age 12". One of the more trivial things is having to dress up to go to the grocery store or the mall so that you are not assumed to be a shoplifter. One of the worst is that black boys had better not play "cowboys and Indians" when a police car is nearby. Such reality troubles any decent person, but decent people cannot deny it unless they are fools.
We might want to believe that global warming is either a myth or innocuous -- so that we can burn fuel recklessly without concern for what such does to the climatic patterns of the world. Sure, it is two different years -- but after the unusually mild winter in southern Michigan in 2012 I saw drought-like conditions -- low water levels, grass yellow in the late summer, and low crop growth despite heavy use of irrigation; after the brutal winter of last year we had bumper crops. Where I live, farming is the big industry, and if your income depends upon farmers even as a source of tax revenues you had better pray for a harsh winter. Hate harsh winters? Florida, Texas, Arizona, and California welcome you. It was nice to pay smaller gas bills in 2012... but some people paid heavily for that.
(I have my projection of what southern Michigan will be like when global warming goers so far as to melt the Greenland Ice Sheet -- the Sacramento Valley of California. Winters will be mild, but summers will be brutal -- and crops will absolutely need irrigation. The Greenland Ice Sheet is for all practical purposes the Cold Pole of the Northern Hemisphere).
Has the Left been wrong in the recent past? Sure -- when it thought that crime was the result of bad social conditions and not of personal character. But that is over. Sure -- when it believed that there was no necessary canon of knowledge that makes one legitimately educated. (Unfortunately the Right has done little to push the old canon of 'dead white males'... OK, so the need for including some women or non-whites because of their relevance to an overall reality exists). The Right would be delighted to keep education an expensive muddle after K-12 education.
The old divide between truth and falsity remains the definitive relevance.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."
― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters
It's easy to forget these days that Obama only won a majority of 53%. McCain would very likely have won the White House if Lehman Brothers had waited until after the November election to fail. It was the timing of the tanking economy that doomed McCain. That and the poor judgement he showed on two occasions: Nominating Sarah Palin for VP instead of Mitt Romney or even Jeb Bush (Lindsay Graham was not acceptable to the Party) and his attempt in September to suspend the campaign and the debate one week.
