Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

There has always been a certain amount of passive involvement here. Just look at the number of people on the forum, and the number actually posting. The passive many must be here for something.

The "Passive Many" are likely here to watch the political wrangling between the bourgeois left and bourgeois right (and primarily Boomers doing that anyway) as a form of sick infotainment. Of course then again there are going to be a number of people who join the forum in the hopes of learning about generational theory but are scared away by said political wrangling.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

The "Passive Many" are likely here to watch the political wrangling between the bourgeois left and bourgeois right (and primarily Boomers doing that anyway) as a form of sick infotainment. Of course then again there are going to be a number of people who join the forum in the hopes of learning about generational theory but are scared away by said political wrangling.

Well there isn't much Generational theory offered by S&H and what they did offer does not work. That doesn't mean that their observations are useless, I believe they are not, but the theoretical framework they constructed to explain their observations pretty much is useless.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

To call this forum, much less this particular thread a conversation is a stretch of the word conversion. Generally speaking I would say that here there are three types of people. 1. People who know what they are talking about generally. I include those I agree with as well as disagree with. My agreement is not relevant to the person in question knowing their stuff in a general way. I find that many fall into this category though they stumble on particular topics. 2. Those who know their stuff on one or two topics but otherwise don't know what they are talking about. And finally 3. Those who don't know anything at all of any significance to the human species but pretend that they actually know things. In my example above Eric is a classic example of the third type--which is why I find him so annoying in particular (even if I would probably help him out here politically if he'd just shut his trap about things he just doesn't know--which is well most everything excluding woo-woo nonsense). Brower falls into category 2 for me. He knows some things about society, politics and history, his application is however often wrong.

Give me some credit for knowing the limits of my knowledge. It is impossible to derive all truth from some basic knowledge and a few rules of law (mathematics, physics, and the logical dialectic). Ask Socrates about the source of genuine wisdom, which is the recognition of one's own ignorance; ask Heisenberg, whose Uncertainty Principle allows me to conclude (1) that one cannot measure anything without using a finer measuring device, and (2) one can't measure anything with complete exactitude without altering the object that one measures.

OK -- I don't pretend to be Socrates or Heisenberg.

Marx had a few things to teach us, mostly the consequences of pathological methods of running an economy. I think we can all see things wrong with the hunter-gatherer world (it could never create wealth), the agrarian slave systems from antiquity to the Confederate States of America (wealth was created, but few people could enjoy it), feudalism (the distinction between serf and slave is practically a quibble), early capitalism as Marx knew it (it could create far more wealth than slave or serf orders but afford no economic certainty that makes a good life possible for any but the capitalists).

Marx had no idea of how technology would create a need for markets, and that those markets would require the transformation of the proletariat into a class of consumers. But that would require education that would require the removal of children from mines and factories to the schools.

I can learn more from Freud than from Marx. Indeed one can hardly discuss contemporary reality without discussing something derived from Freud. At times Freud contradicts Marx. After all, human nature is far more complicated than any economic or political model, including dialectical materialism, can tell us. Dialectical materialism can't explain the sex drive. It cannot tell one why I (and I mean myself here) prefer the recording of Carlos Kleiber conducting the Fifth Symphony of Beethoven to what I consider the awful disco mangling as "A Fifth of Beethoven". It can't explain why I consider San Francisco more beautiful than Saginaw, Michigan.

And, yes, dialectical materialism can't explain something so ugly and indefensible as racism or homophobia.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Well there isn't much Generational theory offered by S&H and what they did offer does not work. That doesn't mean that their observations are useless, I believe they are not, but the theoretical framework they constructed to explain their observations pretty much is useless.

Generational theory cannot explain the difference between Pablo Picasso and Joan Miro in art. (Both are Catalans, which is far more important). It can't explain the difference between George Bizet and Claude Debussy in composition. It figures that there would be a difference between Stanley Kubrick and Steven Spielberg as directors. On the other side, I think that the musical language of Igor Stravinsky is much closer to that of Sergei Prokofiev than to that of Sergei Rachmaninoff.

Now try conflating Francisco Goya with Katsushika Hokusai. Those two were contemporaries...

Ideology? Probably not. Can someone tell me how Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity differ? One is a Boomer, and one is X. If the truth is known, Michelle Bachman and Joni Ernst probably agree well over 95% of the time -- but just try figuring where Michelle Bachmann and Hillary Clinton agree.

Would you ever confuse Chester Nimitz with Al Capone? I think not. Or me with serial killers Ted Bundy or Geoffrey Dahmer? I should hope not!

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Give me some credit for knowing the limits of my knowledge.

Actually I did give you credit in my previous post. Did you not read it before quote replying? I said you knew some things (IE you knew what you were talking about about half to three-quarters of the time) on society, politics and history. Where we usually differ and I call you wrong is in the application of that knowledge. Seriously dude, I don't like you much, but I would never include you in the likes of the speaks much-knows little category where I place Eric.

It is impossible to derive all truth from some basic knowledge and a few rules of law (mathematics, physics, and the logical dialectic). Ask Socrates about the source of genuine wisdom, which is the recognition of one's own ignorance; ask Heisenberg, whose Uncertainty Principle allows me to conclude (1) that one cannot measure anything without using a finer measuring device, and (2) one can't measure anything with complete exactitude without altering the object that one measures.

OK -- I don't pretend to be Socrates or Heisenberg.

I never said that it was possible to derive all truth from the basic knowledge of a few rules of law. I would argue that the historical dialectic is far more powerful as a tool for examining history than any other yet devised but that is neither here or there. I quite honestly can't determine if this is a non sequiter or a strawman.

Marx had a few things to teach us, mostly the consequences of pathological methods of running an economy. I think we can all see things wrong with the hunter-gatherer world (it could never create wealth), the agrarian slave systems from antiquity to the Confederate States of America (wealth was created, but few people could enjoy it), feudalism (the distinction between serf and slave is practically a quibble), early capitalism as Marx knew it (it could create far more wealth than slave or serf orders but afford no economic certainty that makes a good life possible for any but the capitalists).

Marx had no idea of how technology would create a need for markets, and that those markets would require the transformation of the proletariat into a class of consumers. But that would require education that would require the removal of children from mines and factories to the schools.

You know that we've had this argument before. Karl Marx was no mysitic. He offered no predictions except those that could be derived from using the dialectic and making educated guesses given the knowledge at the time. In short he made no predictions other than what would be the logical conclusions of the conditions of his time. So no he did not predict the rise of consumerism. That said, neither did anyone else, and neither could anyone else.

That said the rise of consumerism has less to do with technology and the need for markets from the proletariat and more from a need on the part of the bourgeoisie to preserve its own power in those countries where capitalism was long established (IE those Marx himself viewed as most likely to have a socialist revolution and not backward Russia and Albania--I do not include China, Vietnam or Korea as those were more nationalist than socialist revolutions and the socialism of Cuba is primarily a result of the Cold War anyway). Consumerism is primarily a result of the New Deal and the Post War agreement among organized labor and the bourgeoisie. That is the proletariat gets some toys and the bourgeoisie doesn't have to worry about a revolution. It is pretty basic and simple--no magic at all. Of course one would have to know the dialectic, and use the dialectic to see that consumerism is no magic panacea to capitalism's nature. That nature being to revert back to the more primitive form of control via fear of starvation for the masses when there is no credible socialist threat.

Furthermore, as per the dialectic, once the threat of a socialist revolution is viewed as passed (from revisionism and internal rot in the USSR and satellite countries, and overthrow from outside in Albania as Alia was a weak leader [and from what I can tell probably of the Adaptive archetype]) the need for consumerism changed to one of using said toys to enslave the proletariat further. One cannot join a union or push for one if one is likely to get fired and must also service a large amount of personal debt (it matters not how said debt was incurred). For the user of a currency debt is slavery (for the issuer of a currency debt is a different matter--see Playwrite's works on MMT please).

I can learn more from Freud than from Marx. Indeed one can hardly discuss contemporary reality without discussing something derived from Freud. At times Freud contradicts Marx. After all, human nature is far more complicated than any economic or political model, including dialectical materialism, can tell us. Dialectical materialism can't explain the sex drive. It cannot tell one why I (and I mean myself here) prefer the recording of Carlos Kleiber conducting the Fifth Symphony of Beethoven to what I consider the awful disco mangling as "A Fifth of Beethoven". It can't explain why I consider San Francisco more beautiful than Saginaw, Michigan.

And, yes, dialectical materialism can't explain something so ugly and indefensible as racism or homophobia.

.

I would argue that Freud is even less relevant today than he was in the 1950s when the US was obsessed with his crackpot theories. Freud has been largely debunked as a psychological theorist and replaced by people with better ideas. That is how science works and psychology is a science even if it is not a "hard science".

As to human nature I would contend that no such thing exists. If it did there would be a single global culture (and I don't mean the imposed imperialist American "culture" of crass consumption).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NAM3rIBG5k

(Amerika by Rammstein, a good song about American Cultural Imperialism)
There is not such a single global culture but hundreds if not thousands of cultures all over the world, each with its own mores, morals, and ways of doing things including sex and the sex drive. Though I should note that the sex drive is more easily explained by the biological need for procreation (and yes that included gays as well, in gay men the hypothalamus resembles the hypothalamus of a straight woman) than by any psychobabble that Freud came up with.

Dialectical materialism needs not explain your personal tastes. That is beyond the scope of dialectical materialism quite frankly as personal taste is a matter of personal taste and not the gears and wheels of a society.

Dialectical materialism cannot explain homophobia because quite honestly it cannot explain the irrational fears of anyone. Dialectical materialism also cannot explain arachnophobia. Does that mean that this tool is useless? No. It means that attempting to use DM for the purpose of explaining a phobia is much like attempting to chop down a tree with a paint brush--it isn't going to work.

DM can explain fascism though. Fascism is an attempt of a decaying capitalist order to prevent socialist revolution without resorting to consumerism. It has been tried and has failed.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Well there isn't much Generational theory offered by S&H and what they did offer does not work. That doesn't mean that their observations are useless, I believe they are not, but the theoretical framework they constructed to explain their observations pretty much is useless.

Actually I agree. I have found generational theory as S&H have explained it, plus the inclusions of theories proposed by others as well as myself as more useful particularly when paired with Dialectical Materialism. That being said, I would imagine that those people who have read the books would eventually find their way here with a google search. That's how you people got stuck with me after all.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Well there isn't much Generational theory offered by S&H and what they did offer does not work. That doesn't mean that their observations are useless, I believe they are not, but the theoretical framework they constructed to explain their observations pretty much is useless.

If by useless you mean lacking in predictability, then yes, it's not that. At most, it's a generic model of the variability society experiences over a saeculum. It's not a guide to the future, except in the most non-specific sense of the term. It may be of more use to the PTB, who might try to manipulate the rising generations to their own benefit. Even there, its not all that useful. So far, no one has determined how to motivate the Millenials. Then again, maybe that was the plan.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

I never said that it was possible to derive all truth from the basic knowledge of a few rules of law. I would argue that the historical dialectic is far more powerful as a tool for examining history than any other yet devised but that is neither here or there. I quite honestly can't determine if this is a non sequiter or a strawman.

OK. So we cannot establish by the historical dialectic can explain that Bach or Tchaikovsky is a product of a doomed semi-feudal political order. I can't ascribe Impressionism to 19th-century capitalism. Paradoxically the Soviet Union after Lenin (who had much respect for the modern art of his time) was advanced in its esthetic but became extremely conservative under Stalin and remained so until Gorbachev. It is ironic that the strongest support for the music of Shostakovich was in the USA. Maybe people read into great music what they want to.Extreme: the Nazis, of all people, loved Beethoven's Ninth Symphony... probably for all the wrong reasons.

You know that we've had this argument before. Karl Marx was no mystic. He offered no predictions except those that could be derived from using the dialectic and making educated guesses given the knowledge at the time. In short he made no predictions other than what would be the logical conclusions of the conditions of his time. So no he did not predict the rise of consumerism. That said, neither did anyone else, and neither could anyone else.

OK -- but the conditions of his time changed drastically due to new technologies that pitted a set of new capitalists against an older and more primitive set. Automobiles, radios, electrical power, refrigeration, phonographs, and electric lights required a more even distribution of income. I see a distinction between early capitalism (the sweatshop order) and the more modern consumer society. Technology has economic consequences if it is successful. Marx missed that. That is not his fault.

But -- if technologies of the late 19th and early 20th century created a need for more material productivity, those of recent years allow people to do more with less. Love or revile television, you must admit that the thin flat-screen televisions of today are far better than those that required a CRT tube and likely a cabinet to protect the vulnerable and cantankerous tube. That one can carry a TV with a 40" screen but could not carry a CRT tube RV that had a 25" screen indicates that the newer TV requires fewer inputs. The postmodern technology requires much less of a material base for its realization.

For those who must make the adaptations to adjust, things can be rough. Good things come with bad. Love your digital camera? Think again. Would you rather have a well-paying job with Kodak or Polaroid, two once-large corporations that used to be among the better employers (by American standards)?
Love your e-reader for making accessible any great book from before 1923 for free? You get your copy of Capital without having had it bound by some well-paid blue-collar book binder.

That said the rise of consumerism has less to do with technology and the need for markets from the proletariat and more from a need on the part of the bourgeoisie to preserve its own power in those countries where capitalism was long established (IE those Marx himself viewed as most likely to have a socialist revolution and not backward Russia and Albania--I do not include China, Vietnam or Korea as those were more nationalist than socialist revolutions and the socialism of Cuba is primarily a result of the Cold War anyway). Consumerism is primarily a result of the New Deal and the Post War agreement among organized labor and the bourgeoisie. That is the proletariat gets some toys and the bourgeoisie doesn't have to worry about a revolution. It is pretty basic and simple--no magic at all. Of course one would have to know the dialectic, and use the dialectic to see that consumerism is no magic panacea to capitalism's nature. That nature being to revert back to the more primitive form of control via fear of starvation for the masses when there is no credible socialist threat.

I thoroughly despise our loan-shark economy. Much of the economy depends upon ensuring that more people pay far more for what they get than what they would pay if their employers would pay them in cash instead of credit. Yes, capitalists behaved better when they saw the Soviet Union as a threat to their privileged positions.

Capitalists at their worst define progress as "You eat or starve by my choice, so suffer for my greed, you peon!" That sort of plutocracy conflicts with much more than socialism. I'm not a Catholic, but I am far closer to Pope Francis on economics than I am to the majority of America's elected politicians. The loan-shark economy runs afoul not only of the socialist dream, but also humanism and liberalism. Most of the politicians that I despise are at the least nominal Christians, and I would suggest that they test what they believe against the Sermon on the Mount of Olives should they find Marx too much of an anathema... The right-wing American Jesus tells people to suffer for their masters even more intensely and subserviently, giving up everything to the rich so that people can enjoy Pie in the Sky When They Die.

The Cult of Greed and sybaritic indulgence for a few is more heretical than is Islam.

DM can explain fascism though. Fascism is an attempt of a decaying capitalist order to prevent socialist revolution without resorting to consumerism. It has been tried and has failed.

Fascism is an attempt to adopt Bolshevik methods of terror in the service of a reactionary agenda, the attempt to impose feudal inequity and inequality upon technological modernity. The Hegelian model of contradictions destroying an absurdity explains why fascism eventually fails -- whether Nazism or Ku Kluxism. Feudal inequity denies any possibility of workers having any stake in the system. Fascism is deader in Germany than in the United States.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Ideology? Probably not. Can someone tell me how Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity differ? One is a Boomer, and one is X.

Limbaugh is a well born college drop out who hailed from the St. Louis upper crust. In typical Boomer form he rebelled against his parents in his own way, becoming a DJ first and foremost and screw respectability. Got a second life in talk radio after DJing started to wane as a good career, and the rest is history.

Hannity is a classic Irish-American New Yorker born into a solid blue collar background. Although, like Limbaugh, he ultimately dropped out of college, he gave it more of a go than Limbaugh. He worked in construction eventually landing in Santa Barbara - Goleta and started dabbling with radio at KCSB (UCSB's station). Career change ensued. That is more Xer-like overall. Constant reinvention.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

OK. So we cannot establish by the historical dialectic can explain that Bach or Tchaikovsky is a product of a doomed semi-feudal political order. I can't ascribe Impressionism to 19th-century capitalism. Paradoxically the Soviet Union after Lenin (who had much respect for the modern art of his time) was advanced in its esthetic but became extremely conservative under Stalin and remained so until Gorbachev. It is ironic that the strongest support for the music of Shostakovich was in the USA. Maybe people read into great music what they want to.Extreme: the Nazis, of all people, loved Beethoven's Ninth Symphony... probably for all the wrong reasons.

The Dialectic can explain the conditions that lead them to create the music they did, but it offers no explanation as to if Tchaikovsky or Bach are "good music" or "bad music". Likewise the Dialectic can explain how capitalism lead to the impressionist movement (more canvas, better pigmants, and so on) it does not and cannot explain the impressionist obsession with light and how it plays on a scene. The Dialectic has no determination as to one's personal tastes. I'm sure that some works of music I like, you would despise, and vice versa. That being said, I think that personal taste is of little interest to anyone who is serious about socialist revolution (like myself). Propaganda that works (and all art is propaganda) is what is appropriate and one's personal like or dislike of the form of that propaganda is irrelevant. For example I have comrades who use hardcore punk rock to broadcast our message, while personally I dislike said hardcore punk rock (preferring hip-hop instead) the fact that it reaches an audience that hip-hop cannot makes it useful.

As to the Soviet Union, I would argue that the people's aesthetics were themselves conservative and that Stalin had little if anything to do with it, though Stalin himself viewed modern "art" that represented nothing (such as surrealism, or cubism) to be degenerate. I happen to agree with Stalin on that.

OK -- but the conditions of his time changed drastically due to new technologies that pitted a set of new capitalists against an older and more primitive set. Automobiles, radios, electrical power, refrigeration, phonographs, and electric lights required a more even distribution of income. I see a distinction between early capitalism (the sweatshop order) and the more modern consumer society. Technology has economic consequences if it is successful. Marx missed that. That is not his fault.

Actually those technologies are largely from the time period just before and immediately after Marx's death. He could not have forseen their impact, nor could anyone else at that time foreseen their impact. Indeed most of those technologies didn't even really become anything other than play things for the rich before the 1920s in the advanced countries. As such not even Lenin could have foreseen their impact and he was much more contemporary with that time period than Marx.

That being said, there being contradictions within the bourgeoisie is nothing new. Marx clearly saw that over time one set of bourgeoisie would replace the previous set. Capitalism itself is a consistent revolution of production and technology. However, I would contend that the "sweatshop" format of capitalism is its default setting.

But -- if technologies of the late 19th and early 20th century created a need for more material productivity, those of recent years allow people to do more with less. Love or revile television, you must admit that the thin flat-screen televisions of today are far better than those that required a CRT tube and likely a cabinet to protect the vulnerable and cantankerous tube. That one can carry a TV with a 40" screen but could not carry a CRT tube RV that had a 25" screen indicates that the newer TV requires fewer inputs. The postmodern technology requires much less of a material base for its realization.

Overall I would agree with this paragraph. I do have one quibble in that such technology is not "postmodern". It has nothing to do with the post-modern philosophy which is ideaism taken to its highest (and therefore most degenerate) level. It is merely modern technology.

Originally Posted by Dictionary

Modern: Adjective
1.
of or relating to present and recent time; not ancient or remote: modern city life.

2. characteristic of present and recent time; contemporary; not antiquated or obsolete: modern viewpoints.


3. of or relating to the historical period following the Middle Ages: modern European history.


4. of, relating to, or characteristic of contemporary styles of art, literature, music, etc., that reject traditionally accepted or sanctioned forms and emphasize individual experimentation and sensibility.

5. (initial capital letter) new (def 12).

6. Typography. noting or descriptive of a font of numerals in which the body aligns on the baseline, as 1234567890. Compare old style (def 3).

Noun
7. a person of modern times.

8. a person whose views and tastes are modern.

9. Printing. a type style differentiated from old style by heavy vertical strokes and straight serifs.

Words have meanings PB.

For those who must make the adaptations to adjust, things can be rough. Good things come with bad. Love your digital camera? Think again. Would you rather have a well-paying job with Kodak or Polaroid, two once-large corporations that used to be among the better employers (by American standards)?
Love your e-reader for making accessible any great book from before 1923 for free? You get your copy of Capital without having had it bound by some well-paid blue-collar book binder.

I don't necessariy love my car, but I do not pitty the buggy whip makers. New technology usually creates new jobs. However, lately these new technologies are mostly automating replication rather than creation of goods. As such, eventually labor will cease to be the determining factor of value (at which point the universe will cease to function) or a new order requiring a garunteed income to consume the replicated goods must arise.

I thoroughly despise our loan-shark economy. Much of the economy depends upon ensuring that more people pay far more for what they get than what they would pay if their employers would pay them in cash instead of credit. Yes, capitalists behaved better when they saw the Soviet Union as a threat to their privileged positions.

Capitalists may behave better when a new socialist order arises, and it will arise. Perhaps this time in the good ol' US of A. I won't speak more on that due to security concerns.

Capitalists at their worst define progress as "You eat or starve by my choice, so suffer for my greed, you peon!"

Capitalists at their best define progress as "You eat or starve by my ability to extract surplus value from you peon!" Capitalism is itself inequitable and unequal. Much like feudalism is.

That sort of plutocracy conflicts with much more than socialism. I'm not a Catholic, but I am far closer to Pope Francis on economics than I am to the majority of America's elected politicians. The loan-shark economy runs afoul not only of the socialist dream, but also humanism and liberalism. Most of the politicians that I despise are at the least nominal Christians, and I would suggest that they test what they believe against the Sermon on the Mount of Olives should they find Marx too much of an anathema... The right-wing American Jesus tells people to suffer for their masters even more intensely and subserviently, giving up everything to the rich so that people can enjoy Pie in the Sky When They Die.

The Cult of Greed and sybaritic indulgence for a few is more heretical than is Islam.

My preacher father would agree with you. That said, religion also hitches its wagon to other reactionary ideas. Needless to say my sperm donor is convinced that I will be burning in hell for all eternity because I was born with a female's hypothalamus. Good thing the love of my life will be going there too should YHWH actually exist and be so cruel as to put his own creations in such a place for acting on their natures which he created himself.

Fortunately for me I'm an atheist (and an agnostic).

Fascism is an attempt to adopt Bolshevik methods of terror in the service of a reactionary agenda, the attempt to impose feudal inequity and inequality upon technological modernity. The Hegelian model of contradictions destroying an absurdity explains why fascism eventually fails -- whether Nazism or Ku Kluxism. Feudal inequity denies any possibility of workers having any stake in the system. Fascism is deader in Germany than in the United States.

The reactionary agenda is to maintain capitalism which itself is decaying in the face of a socialist alternative. Capitalism is decaying in the US now but the US is not a fascist state, indeed fascism itself would cause the decay of capitalism to accelerate. Terror to purge the society of undesirable elements is detrimental to profits after all.

Even were I to agree with this paragraph (which I don't and won't without through evidence presented--and stuff pulled out your ass does not count as evidence) fascism has only arisen in those times and places wherein there was a perceived (real or imagined) threat by actual Bolsheviks on the part of the Bourgeoisie.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

My preacher father would agree with you. That said, religion also hitches its wagon to other reactionary ideas. Needless to say my sperm donor is convinced that I will be burning in hell for all eternity because I was born with a female's hypothalamus. Good thing the love of my life will be going there too should YHWH actually exist and be so cruel as to put his own creations in such a place for acting on their natures which he created himself.

Fortunately for me I'm an atheist (and an agnostic).

I hope this question doesn't sound too nitpicky, but how can you be an atheist AND an agnostic? I understand agnostics to not have a belief one way or the other about God; indeed, in its purest form, agnostics may believe that it is unknowable. They are the undecided. An atheist believes there is no God and a theist believes there is a God. You are saying that you don't believe in God and that also you don't know if there is a God. That makes no sense.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

Limbaugh is a well born college drop out who hailed from the St. Louis upper crust. In typical Boomer form he rebelled against his parents in his own way, becoming a DJ first and foremost and screw respectability. Got a second life in talk radio after DJing started to wane as a good career, and the rest is history.

Hannity is a classic Irish-American New Yorker born into a solid blue collar background. Although, like Limbaugh, he ultimately dropped out of college, he gave it more of a go than Limbaugh. He worked in construction eventually landing in Santa Barbara - Goleta and started dabbling with radio at KCSB (UCSB's station). Career change ensued. That is more Xer-like overall. Constant reinvention.

It's most often subtle, but the times they are a-changin -

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/06...imbaugh/203898

More Bad News For Rush Limbaugh

Once-Dominant Talker Struggles To Maintain His Major-Market Base

...his humbling, red-state tumble is just the latest setback for the conservative talker who has seen his once-golden career suffer a steady series of losses recently.

Divorced from successful, longtime affiliates in places like New York, Los Angeles, Boston, and Indianapolis, Limbaugh's professional trajectory is heading downward. That's confirmed by the second and third-tier stations he now calls home in those important media markets, and the fact that when his show became available, general managers up and down the dial passed on it. Apparently turned off by the show's hefty price tag,sagging ratings, and disappearing advertisers, Limbaugh continues to be a very hard sell.

It's a precipitous fall from the glory days when the host posted huge ratings numbers, had affiliates clamoring to join his network, and dictated Republican politics. All of that seems increasingly distant now. With his comically inflated, $50 million-a-year syndication deal set to expire next year, Limbaugh's future seems uncertain. "Who would even want someone whose audience is aging and is considered toxic to many advertisers," askedRadioInsight last month.

...Now, rumors are still swirling in Chicago that talk radio powerhouse WLS is poised to drop Limbaugh. The move was first reported in March and quickly denied by WLS's owner, Cumulus Media. But Limbaugh's ratings are clearly down in the Windy Cindy. According to a March report in the Chicago Tribune, Limbaugh's WLS show ranks 24th in the market, drawing 121,000 listeners in a metropolitan area of roughly 10 million people.

"The Chicago rumors come as no surprise to me," wrote consultant Parks, "as three different Cumulus executives have told me on different occasions they wish they could get rid of Limbaugh's show and they can't sell it."

...Ratings and revenue. That's what the radio business has always revolved around. These days, Limbaugh's having trouble delivering either.

Just like the GOP, he'll still have regional appeal. But both are going away as a national political force. Tick, tick, tick

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

I hope this question doesn't sound too nitpicky, but how can you be an atheist AND an agnostic? I understand agnostics to not have a belief one way or the other about God; indeed, in its purest form, agnostics may believe that it is unknowable. They are the undecided. An atheist believes there is no God and a theist believes there is a God. You are saying that you don't believe in God and that also you don't know if there is a God. That makes no sense.

It's a good gamble for an agnostic to believe. No downside if belief is proven wrong; an eternity of downside if disbelief proves to have been the wrong choice.

A true agnostic is a very poor risk/benefit gambler.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

I hope this question doesn't sound too nitpicky, but how can you be an atheist AND an agnostic? I understand agnostics to not have a belief one way or the other about God; indeed, in its purest form, agnostics may believe that it is unknowable. They are the undecided. An atheist believes there is no God and a theist believes there is a God. You are saying that you don't believe in God and that also you don't know if there is a God. That makes no sense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

Wikipedia is your friend.

My position as an agnostic atheist is pretty simple.

I do not believe in any of the gods proposed by mankind to date. (I also don't believe in ghosts, the devil, haints, boogers [unless we're speaking of dried collections of mucus I sometimes remove from my nose], demons, spirit possession or any other supernatural phenomena). Or as you would put it atheism.

Furthermore, should a god(s) exist their existence is unknowable as a certain fact. Or more simply expressed agnosticism.

Originally Posted by Robert Flint

The atheist may however be, and not unfrequently is, an agnostic. There is an agnostic atheism or atheistic agnosticism, and the combination of atheism with agnosticism which may be so named is not an uncommon one.^[4]

If a man has failed to find any good reason for believing that there is a God, it is perfectly natural and rational that he should not believe that there is a God; and if so, he is an atheist... if he goes farther, and, after an investigation into the nature and reach of human knowledge, ending in the conclusion that the existence of God is incapable of proof, cease to believe in it on the ground that he cannot know it to be true, he is an agnostic and also an atheist – an agnostic-atheist – an atheist because an agnostic... while, then, it is erroneous to identify agnosticism and atheism, it is equally erroneous so to separate them as if the one were exclusive of the other

Originally Posted by Kinser79

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

Wikipedia is your friend.

My position as an agnostic atheist is pretty simple.

I do not believe in any of the gods proposed by mankind to date. (I also don't believe in ghosts, the devil, haints, boogers [unless we're speaking of dried collections of mucus I sometimes remove from my nose], demons, spirit possession or any other supernatural phenomena). Or as you would put it atheism.

Furthermore, should a god(s) exist their existence is unknowable as a certain fact. Or more simply expressed agnosticism.

Thank you for posting this. I'm tiring of people trying to use "agnostic" as some sort of middle ground between atheism and theism, when it's asking a different question altogether.

Originally Posted by Bronco80

Thank you for posting this. I'm tiring of people trying to use "agnostic" as some sort of middle ground between atheism and theism, when it's asking a different question altogether.

True enough. Gnosticism and theism are related but different. On the other hand, I do have a problem merely adding the prefix a- and thinking that creates the antithesis of the root word. the prefix a- indicates "not" rather than "opposite of". If you want to say "opposite of", you should use anti-.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

True enough. Gnosticism and theism are related but different. On the other hand, I do have a problem merely adding the prefix a- and thinking that creates the antithesis of the root word. the prefix a- indicates "not" rather than "opposite of". If you want to say "opposite of", you should use anti-.

Indeed, and this brings up another point in that there's a real difference between atheist and antitheist. Many, if not most atheists (this certainly includes me) don't really give a shit if other people practice religion. It's not for me, but if it's for others, great! Some atheists may also want to be antitheists and actively oppose religious practices, but not all atheists are antitheists. The problem arises when those who like to use atheist as a slur mistakenly use it to paint atheists as antitheists.

Heh-heh! The iron laws of economics (as he saw them) as means of beating down the 'feminazis' and similar 'trash' are now taking down Limbaugh. It's numbers, folks; when your show no longer attracts an audience that advertisers want your show vanishes from the airwaves. The pay disappears.

Of course Limbaugh has some horrible habits, so he might not have a long retirement.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Heh-heh! The iron laws of economics (as he saw them) as means of beating down the 'feminazis' and similar 'trash' are now taking down Limbaugh. It's numbers, folks; when your show no longer attracts an audience that advertisers want your show vanishes from the airwaves. The pay disappears.

Of course Limbaugh has some horrible habits, so he might not have a long retirement.

Limbaugh has a net worth of 350-400 million dollars. He can do whatever he wants to do, and not have to worry about it. He may not able to be vain-glorious, but he can be a player ... and I suspect he will.

Originally Posted by Bronco80

Indeed, and this brings up another point in that there's a real difference between atheist and antitheist. Many, if not most atheists (this certainly includes me) don't really give a shit if other people practice religion. It's not for me, but if it's for others, great! Some atheists may also want to be antitheists and actively oppose religious practices, but not all atheists are antitheists. The problem arises when those who like to use atheist as a slur mistakenly use it to paint atheists as antitheists.

Pretty much this.

In my household the BF is a Christian. He goes to his Catholic mass at least once a month. That stuff isn't for me. He knows it isn't and doesn't push it on me. Likewise, I think the Catholic Church is in the main pretty silly and at times down right dangerous. I don't push my views on him. That said I do resent the fact that if he does go to church on a Sunday I can't make love with him the Saturday night before. Some sort of confession nonsense.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Limbaugh has a net worth of 350-400 million dollars. He can do whatever he wants to do, and not have to worry about it. He may not able to be vain-glorious, but he can be a player ... and I suspect he will.

He is also grossly obese and he has a drug problem, neither of which will allow him to get really old in years, if not ideology.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

He is also grossly obese and he has a drug problem, neither of which will allow him to get really old in years, if not ideology.

It makes a better narrative to say that bad habits lead to bad results, but that isn't universal. Helmut Schmidt, former Chancellor of Germany, has smoked three packs of cigarettes a day since he was a teenager. He's 96, and in good health.

Limbaugh may surprise us.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Limbaugh has a net worth of 350-400 million dollars. He can do whatever he wants to do, and not have to worry about it. He may not able to be vain-glorious, but he can be a player ... and I suspect he will.

He can buy a few mediocre radio stations with that, but that doesn't mean people will listen. He could also get behind the line of actual billionaires buying GOP presidential candidates, but he would be second tier and not likely driving much of anything.

He's done as a national political force.

Originally Posted by playwrite

It's a good gamble for an agnostic to believe. No downside if belief is proven wrong; an eternity of downside if disbelief proves to have been the wrong choice.

A true agnostic is a very poor risk/benefit gambler.

You can't lie to God. He'll know.

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

You can't lie to God. He'll know.

Doesn't this level of omniscience imply a breach of privacy? Wouldn't that be immoral?