Originally Posted by Odin

The GOP is doubling down on both the racism and the stupidity.

I don't see it this way. The Reagan Unraveling values and Nixon's southern strategy are fading. Some within the GOP are very aware of it and are looking to rebuild and reinvigorate. Others believe. They are in values lock mode. Whether their world view is fading or not, it's their world view, and they aren't going to change.

But while it will be increasingly difficult for Republicans to challenge for the presidency using Nixon-Reagan values, in many parts of the country Nixon-Reagan might still be the cleanest route to state office or the US House. If Nixon-Reagan won't win as many general elections as it once did, it will still win Republican primaries. As long as that remains true, what seems like racism and stupidity from the distant perspective of a blue state might still be good politics in a red state. A lot of Nixon-Reagan politicians aren't going to fade away or flip flop into a new calculated to win position. They will hold true to themselves and America as they perceive it.

They will just become less and less electable as the demographics slowly shift.

Well, sorta good politics. It might be good for individual politicians, true believers, who will continue to play the game using the only play book they have ever used.

Doesn't look as good for the GOP party as a whole going into the future, at least in the short term.

I look back to the GOP resurgence after FDR. They took the strong military position after the Democrats allowed Mao to take power in China. Eisenhower and Goldwater might have shaped the new post John Birch Society GOP. The new GOP is apt to be a response to the new Democrats. As the Regeneracy hasn't hit yet, we haven't seen what the new Democrats are really apt to be. Only after the flaws in the new Democrats become obvious will a new GOP truly take form.

In short, the GOP might be approaching the sip tea and cuss that man in the White House phase. This might last well into the 1T.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

It's a claim that gets repeated over and over, but which is easy enough to disprove with even only a cursory examination of real events. Cooperation scales quite a long way up in the real world.

The claim you're making, however, isn't "voluntary cooperation exists," but "voluntary cooperation is sufficient." That requires different evidence.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

It's a claim that gets repeated over and over, but which is easy enough to disprove with even only a cursory examination of real events. Cooperation scales quite a long way up in the real world.

I gave a solid example that was untainted by modern politics. If we're going to take your comment seriously, you need to provide at least one of your own.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Absolutely.

"Well, Mitt, you told everyone this wasn't your cat; you had never seen her before in your life. So we adopted her. Isn't she sweet?"

Hey, if you don't have a cat of your own with any legs to win a contest and you need a cat with legs to win the contest, you take another persons cat who the legs to win, place your name on it, call it Democrat and use it. Doesn't say much about the Democrats as far as their abilities to get anything done on their own? But, the accomplishment sure looks good to their clueless voters! Yahoo!

Originally Posted by Justin '77

It's a claim that gets repeated over and over, but which is easy enough to disprove with even only a cursory examination of real events. Cooperation scales quite a long way up in the real world.

In my cursory examination of real events, corporations scale up a lot more and a lot more frequently than cooperation. This doesn't even count governments and military organizations. I see humans as having a drive for status, power and resources. I see in many recent crises, one major theme is some elite few have gathered to much wealth and power, which the many must strive to check.

But then we are both values locked into our own perspectives on the world. When dealing with you, I have found it difficult to force you to make anything more than a cursory examination of selective events that support what you want to believe.

In the 19th century, thinkers as diverse as Marx and Thoreau thought humankind basically benign, that if one could just sweep away certain aspects of civilization that man would return to nature. No more wars, divisions of wealth, stifling hierarchies or knocks on the door in the middle of the night. Such thinking seems to me incredibly naive. To defeat those in power, one needs to create some sort of alliance of the many with more power. Pretending otherwise is not productive.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Hey, if you don't have a cat of your own with any legs to win a contest and you need a cat with legs to win the contest, you take another persons cat who the legs to win, place your name on it, call it Democrat and use it. Doesn't say much about the Democrats as far as their abilities to get anything done on their own? But, the accomplishment sure looks good to their clueless voters! Yahoo!

As much as I hate the corporate baggage attached to the ACA, Obama did accomplish what Teddy Rosevelt, Harry Truman, Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton couldn't. He got something passed.

Originally Posted by B Butler

In my cursory examination of real events, corporations scale up a lot more and a lot more frequently than cooperation. This doesn't even count governments and military organizations. I see humans as having a drive for status, power and resources. I see in many recent crises, one major theme is some elite few have gathered to much wealth and power, which the many must strive to check.

But then we are both values locked into our own perspectives on the world. When dealing with you, I have found it difficult to force you to make anything more than a cursory examination of selective events that support what you want to believe.

In the 19th century, thinkers as diverse as Marx and Thoreau thought humankind basically benign, that if one could just sweep away certain aspects of civilization that man would return to nature. No more wars, divisions of wealth, stifling hierarchies or knocks on the door in the middle of the night. Such thinking seems to me incredibly naive. To defeat those in power, one needs to create some sort of alliance of the many with more power. Pretending otherwise is not productive.

How many examples of "naive cooperation" would you like?

Originally Posted by Ghost Echo

I've voted for the wrong guy, clearly this is the future of America!
http://www.dolekemp96.org/main.htm

"More opportunities. Smaller government. Stronger and safer families"
Not much has changed from that side of the aisle, has it?

Originally Posted by Copperfield

How many examples of "naive cooperation" would you like?

This one looks pretty good

"INEQUALITY FOR ALL looks at the topic of widening income inequality through the lens of noted economist Robert Reich. At the heart of the film is a simple proposition: what is a good society, and what role does the widening income gap play in the deterioration of our nation’s economic health?

Reich explains the urgency of this issue: economic imbalances are now at a level that is almost historically unprecedented. Income inequality is rising in America and the resulting consequences are both real and significant. In fact, the two years of the widest economic inequality of the last century were 1928 and 2007 - the two years just before the greatest economic crashes of modern times.

With Reich, we explore the cause-and-effect dynamic of unequal wealth distribution and methodically portray how widening income inequality affects us all. Unequal societies are increasingly subject to booms and busts; crime rates go up and political polarization becomes more extreme as economic inequality widens. The social fabric of our nation begins to fray and pull apart. Even America’s wealthiest individuals would become more prosperous with a smaller share of a more equal, stable and growing economy. INEQUALITY FOR ALL makes the argument that it is clearly possible, if not necessary, for a healthy capitalist economy to simultaneously have low inequality and be vibrant, innovative, and wealthy as a whole."

Originally Posted by playwrite

You just knew it was coming; only a matter of time -



The dub overs of this have become passe, but it still can hold you mezmerized.

That's because the origninal is some of the best damn acting on film ever. They turned the heat up to make everyone sweat in this shot but some of the actors really go beyond and look completely scared s-less. Makes one feel that is exactly what happen in that bunker.

What a great summary of the election!

Originally Posted by Copperfield

How many examples of "naive cooperation" would you like?

Did you read my post? "In my cursory examination of real events, corporations scale up a lot more and a lot more frequently than cooperation." Your examples don't "scale up" in size to, say, General Motors or the US Army.

In theory, the net should allow a path for the small maker or service provider to connect directly to the customer. In practice, organizations like Wal Mart, Amazon or Home Depot are still swallowing up the little guys. The big guys can afford to buy the government, and the little guys flail around hopefully.

In theory I'd like to see an environment where naive cooperation could work, but I don't anticipate it happening while those cooperating remain naive. They'll have to organize and twist arms.

Which is why myself and others will from time to time ask the anarchist types if they have any practical plans to connect the current situation to their naive daydreams. I remain disappointed in hearing no response.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Did you read my post? "In my cursory examination of real events, corporations scale up a lot more and a lot more frequently than cooperation." Your examples don't "scale up" in size to, say, General Motors or the US Army.

In theory, the net should allow a path for the small maker or service provider to connect directly to the customer. In practice, organizations like Wal Mart, Amazon or Home Depot are still swallowing up the little guys. The big guys can afford to buy the government, and the little guys flail around hopefully.

In theory I'd like to see an environment where naive cooperation could work, but I don't anticipate it happening while those cooperating remain naive. They'll have to organize and twist arms.

Which is why myself and others will from time to time ask the anarchist types if they have any practical plans to connect the current situation to their naive daydreams. I remain disappointed in hearing no response.

The response to project proposals scale as much as they need to, which is to say it corresponds directly to the desire and willingness of the investors balanced against the quality of the pitch being made. If one wants, one can even show projects funded by enough people to fill a small city (the product in question is also open source). Ideas start small of course. Good ideas (and people with the means to communicate the good ideas) tend to scale right up to the point that they bump against areas dominated by force-of-government (laws, regulations, etc.). Crowd funding being a relatively new thing will no doubt follow this same trend. So I guess we have to ask you Bob; what is your threshold? When does voluntary cooperation stop being "naive" and start being a sign of an intelligent person? What's the number necessary for you to overcome your values lock? 50,000? 100,000? A million? I just want to know the number so it can be pointed out to you as an example when it happens (and it will).

Please note that I know such an example won't change your mind on the matter. I expect your own naivety will be particularly hard to overcome.

If we think that our country can't be a heck of a lot more sane and just, or we are still making excuses for Obama, then we just might be part of the problem.

Election Over, Time For Progressive Dems to Face the Truth

by Jeff Faux

If this time is to be different, progressive Democrats must start mobilizing their own agenda now. And the first step is to face the truth about the record of the president we have just re-elected. Here’s an initial reality check:

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/11/16-10

We've officially launched the Represent.US movement - a nationwide effort by everyday Americans to combat the corrupting influence of money, and demand that our politicians represent all voters, not just donors.

This isn't about liberals vs. conservatives. It's about both sides coming together to solve the one problem that hurts us all - our government is broken, and Congress can't solve the country's problems anymore.

We have a solution. We will fix our broken government by passing a new law - the American Anti Corruption Act. But Congress won't enact this law unless we send them a strong message that Americans everywhere really want this. We want corruption out. We want our politicians to do their jobs. We want a government FOR the people.

To succeed, we need your active effort. It takes 2 simple steps:

1) Add your name in support of the new law.

2) Forward this email to 5 or more people, and ask for their support.

We know this is something every American wants. It's time for us to get together and fight for it.

Thanks,

Josh and the Represent.Us campaign team.

Mitt Romney's 'Victory' Website Offers a Frightening Glimpse of the Presidency That Never Was
Posted by Sasha Brown-Worsham on November 8, 2012 at 7:45 AM
http://www.cafemom.com/group/116830/...m_content=1684

Mitt Romney is the king of blind ambition. It may be bad form to kick a guy when he's down, but this is an important moment of self reflection for the Republican party. Romney's "transition website" was released to the public yesterday showing us an alternate world where Romney became the president-elect Tuesday night. Shiver.



The website in itself isn't so offensive as the notion itself. Romney was truly unprepared to lose, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The Right truly fooled itself for the last few weeks, believing victory was the only option. Romney is rumored to have only prepared a victory speech. Concession wasn't an option.

Until it was. The fact is Romney wasn't "narrowly beaten." He was shellacked. The entire Republican party was shellacked. On his website he said:

I'm excited about our prospects as a nation. My priority is putting people back to work in America.

Guess what: Americans didn't buy it. As a resident of Massachusetts I can unequivocally say that Mitt the governor wasn't the same person as Mitt the presidential candidate. Maybe if he'd stuck with his core (or even had one), he would have done better. But the American people saw through him and that's what makes me so proud of this country.

Tuesday night was a huge victory for love. Same-sex marriage referendums were on the ballot in Maine, Maryland, Washington, and Minnesota. So far it did well in three of them and Washington was looking good. Amazing. It was a huge victory for women and minorities and everyone who makes this country such an amazing melting pot.

It wasn't a victory for the Mitt Romneys of the world. And whether you know it or not, that's a good thing for all of us. This country needs to evolve. It needs to change. Open minds are a beautifulthing. Acceptance and rainbow colors are what makes countries strong. That's where we are headed.

Old Mr. Rich Blind Ambition had to go. His victory website is a sad testament to a presidency that would have put us back in 1950. But Americans saw through his anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-poor rhetoric. They saw him for the opportunistic cynic that he really is, a man who set his sights on the presidency and didn't care what he had to say to get there.

America saw through that. His loss is proof that this country is great and that democracy works, and his "victory website"? Is like a sad relic from 1952. If they'd had the Internet.

Do you understand why Mitt lost?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Mitt Romney's 'Victory' Website Offers a Frightening Glimpse of the Presidency That Never Was
Posted by Sasha Brown-Worsham on November 8, 2012 at 7:45 AM
http://www.cafemom.com/group/116830/...m_content=1684

Mitt Romney is the king of blind ambition. It may be bad form to kick a guy when he's down, but this is an important moment of self reflection for the Republican party. Romney's "transition website" was released to the public yesterday showing us an alternate world where Romney became the president-elect Tuesday night. Shiver.



The website in itself isn't so offensive as the notion itself. Romney was truly unprepared to lose, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The Right truly fooled itself for the last few weeks, believing victory was the only option. Romney is rumored to have only prepared a victory speech. Concession wasn't an option.

Until it was. The fact is Romney wasn't "narrowly beaten." He was shellacked. The entire Republican party was shellacked. On his website he said:



Guess what: Americans didn't buy it. As a resident of Massachusetts I can unequivocally say that Mitt the governor wasn't the same person as Mitt the presidential candidate. Maybe if he'd stuck with his core (or even had one), he would have done better. But the American people saw through him and that's what makes me so proud of this country.

Tuesday night was a huge victory for love. Same-sex marriage referendums were on the ballot in Maine, Maryland, Washington, and Minnesota. So far it did well in three of them and Washington was looking good. Amazing. It was a huge victory for women and minorities and everyone who makes this country such an amazing melting pot.

It wasn't a victory for the Mitt Romneys of the world. And whether you know it or not, that's a good thing for all of us. This country needs to evolve. It needs to change. Open minds are a beautifulthing. Acceptance and rainbow colors are what makes countries strong. That's where we are headed.

Old Mr. Rich Blind Ambition had to go. His victory website is a sad testament to a presidency that would have put us back in 1950. But Americans saw through his anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-poor rhetoric. They saw him for the opportunistic cynic that he really is, a man who set his sights on the presidency and didn't care what he had to say to get there.

America saw through that. His loss is proof that this country is great and that democracy works, and his "victory website"? Is like a sad relic from 1952. If they'd had the Internet.

Do you understand why Mitt lost?

Open minds are a wonderful thing so maybe it's time to open yours.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Open minds are a wonderful thing so maybe it's time to open yours.

Open it to what?

Originally Posted by Copperfield

The response to project proposals scale as much as they need to, which is to say it corresponds directly to the desire and willingness of the investors balanced against the quality of the pitch being made. If one wants, one can even show projects funded by enough people to fill a small city (the product in question is also open source). Ideas start small of course. Good ideas (and people with the means to communicate the good ideas) tend to scale right up to the point that they bump against areas dominated by force-of-government (laws, regulations, etc.). Crowd funding being a relatively new thing will no doubt follow this same trend. So I guess we have to ask you Bob; what is your threshold? When does voluntary cooperation stop being "naive" and start being a sign of an intelligent person? What's the number necessary for you to overcome your values lock? 50,000? 100,000? A million? I just want to know the number so it can be pointed out to you as an example when it happens (and it will).

Please note that I know such an example won't change your mind on the matter. I expect your own naivety will be particularly hard to overcome.

Unlike Eric, I believe that there are things that the private sector does well. They do things well that pay them well. Building basic infrastructure isn't on that list, unless we're stupid enough to put it there. Personally, I have no interest in private turnpikes as a replacement for the tax-funded roads and highways we have today. I also find that private security and fire protection only works for those with huge assets and the income need to secure them.

So your scalabality argument is corect, but full of essential holes. Pretending that they will be filled by charity or by the for-profit sector in pursiut of other goals is, frankly, laughable, and I've yet to see any other option given that even has the pretense of working.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

How many examples of "naive cooperation" would you like?

Ah Copp. But all those non-19th-century examples are no more than a "cursory examination of selective events that support what you want to believe."

The Voice From Within The Box has spoken.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Unlike Eric, I believe that there are things that the private sector does well. They do things well that pay them well. Building basic infrastructure isn't on that list...

Funny how basic infrastructure predates the state-sector by, like, all of human history up to the birth of the state-sector. Right? I mean, since it doesn't pay and isn't something that gets done without a state-sector?

I wonder where it all came from...

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Funny how basic infrastructure predates the state-sector by, like, all of human history up to the birth of the state-sector. Right? I mean, since it doesn't pay and isn't something that gets done without a state-sector?

I wonder where it all came from...

Yes, our Indian infrastucture was a wonder to behold: footpaths through the forest that lead to the stream (bring things to carry water) and the hunting ground (be preared to hump your game back to the village). But enough on that, how about Europe, where the same existed until the Romans arrived, or Asia ... oh forget it. You have you mind made up, so why bother.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Yes, our Indian infrastucture was a wonder to behold: footpaths through the forest that lead to the stream (bring things to carry water) and the hunting ground (be preared to hump your game back to the village)....

I'm not sure I follow you... Are you claiming now that all invention and technological advances are creatures of the state? Or only the ones after a certain point? Why would you make that claim? And what does any of it have to do with the claim you made that basic mass-public-use goods are things that cannot be created or maintained except by monopoly-force-wielders?

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Funny how basic infrastructure predates the state-sector by, like, all of human history up to the birth of the state-sector.

No it doesn't. Not on a scale or in a form usable by a civilized community. Roads and bridges have always, in civilized times, been state-built.

Before civilization and thus before the state, as M&L observed, infrastructure wasn't of a character, quality, and scale that could support civilized commerce.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Funny how basic infrastructure predates the state-sector by, like, all of human history up to the birth of the state-sector. Right? I mean, since it doesn't pay and isn't something that gets done without a state-sector?

I wonder where it all came from...

You and Coop should try to locate one of those hippie commune holdouts from the 60's

Let them know that -

You can talk the talk
Without even smokin their pot

I think you'll get rapid admission. Just wait awhile before bringing up the whole free love possibility.

Data, data, data!

http://warrington.ufl.edu/centers/pu...parison_of.pdf

Public utilities tended to be more efficient in smaller municipalities, and private ones were more efficient (and more common) in larger cities. The authors theorize that the relative power of the voter/customer to exert influence on public utilities declines as population increases. [That would, of course, also support the hypothesis that government is most effective and accountable at the local level]

It also looks like we're paying for different things with private & public utilities. Private utilities spent more for capital and fuel, but they spent less on labor. That might be nice when things are working well, but it can also leave them vulnerable to labor shortage when it comes to crisis response.

Further, because private utilities favor capital over labor, they may help contribute to economic inequality in a society.