| Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
| Online Users |
There are currently 280 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 280 Guest(s)
|
|
|
| Australia |
|
Posted by: Teejay - 09-02-2018, 05:10 AM - Forum: Beyond America
- Replies (20)
|
 |
My name is Tristan and I used to be involved on the old Fourth Turning forum back in the day. I was born in 1983 and currently live in Hobart, which is in the Island state of Tasmania. I have been busy with my life in recent years, however the saeculum still remains on my mind. I have to admit William Strauss and Neil Howe's predictions have been extremely accurate so far and my faith in the saeculum is stronger than ever. I am a short to medium term pessimist, however a longer term optimism since winter will end eventually and spring will come.
Generationally I would see myself as a late wave Reactive or Nomad, since Australia is about 4 years behind North America when it comes to turnings. I do see people a few years younger than me in a different generation, which I find hard to relate to.
Personally, I do feel I have become a “young fogey”, which Strauss and Howe did predict that for Generation X as they entered midlife. I am concerned about the appetite for authoritarianism which the Millennial generation I have observed certainly have. Especially when it comes to the curtailing of free speech which is considered offensive. This is a concern I share with some X’er and X’er peers have including Jordan Peterson (b.1962). Because once the financial crisis hits Australia, authoritarianism will certainly emerge, especially given the failure of our political class to address the concerns of voters so far.
I am not sure when the Fourth Turning started in Australia anytime between 2008 and 2012 roughly, there was no bang like there was in Europe with the Global Financial Crisis (which we escaped so far). What has happened political since then, at least federally has been shambolic to put it.
We have had in eight years, five separate prime ministers and six changes of Prime Minister. Also there has been hyper-partisanship which has characterized federal politics, this has led to an unprecedented apathy towards our political class. I do believe this has to do with the Boomer peers in their elder stage having dominated the legislatures for quite a while and the country having four Boomer Prime Ministers from 2007 to just a week ago (Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard, Tony Abbott and Malcolm Turnbull). However, their political power has definitely peaked, For example the current Prime Minister (Scott Morrison) and every state premier is a Generation X peer and that generation definitely have the majority in Federal and State parliaments. Our Silent generation peers have been gone from public life for quite a while now and sorely missed.
There pessimism in society about the future, there are concerns about climate change, cost of living and increasing inequality in the economy. Also there is a lot of frustration at our political leaders about not addressing their concerns. The last couple of decades has been characterized by a housing boom of epic proportions which has led to the Millennial generation so far being shut out (unless their parents can assist them financially) of the housing market because of unaffordable prices. While the economy has been growing for nearly three decades now. Since the GFC wage growth has been pretty much non-existent in real terms and unemployment (especially youth unemployment) has been high. Public opinion in recent years have been incredibly concerned about the opportunities (or lack therefore) of the Millennial generation in both the labor and housing markets.
All a while in this time, Australia has been running very high levels of immigration (as an attempt to keep house prices rising by stimulating more demand), which has fueled significant anti-immigration sentiment among the public. Also, we had a commodities boom during the earlier part of this decade, which lead to an over-inflated currency and hollowing out of our manufacturing base. Once the housing market crashes, Australia I predict will undergo an economic depression on the scale of what Greece has suffered. Right now, I am predicting our current party system is going to collapse (along with the economy) like it did in Italy and new political parties rise up in the place of the former ones. Authoritarianism and demise of our liberal democracy with an ‘illiberal’ one like that current in Hungary could happen, if the Millennials believe it is price worth paying for seriously addressing the country’s issues. There has been a increasing amount of what I see as authoritarianism through limits on free speech which has occurred in Australia in recent years and it will probably get worse in my opinion.
So far, the Millennial generation have not been engaged very much in politics like they have in the United States (Obama and Sanders), also in the United Kingdom (with Jeremy Corbyn). No political figure or party so far has managed to tap into the power of the Millennial vote and people I speak to are very dismissive of my opinions. However, their activism has certainly been in evidence. For example; a left-wing activist group GetUp has more members than either of our major political parties (Labor or Liberal). Also, Millennial activism little doubt played a part in a high turnout (80%) and success of (61.8% voting Yes) a plebiscite last year to allow for same sex marriage to be legalized federally. However, I do believe the Millennials here are very politically radical, however I don't know which politician or party will tap into their power.
|
|
|
| Western Europe |
|
Posted by: Teejay - 09-02-2018, 03:37 AM - Forum: Beyond America
- Replies (5)
|
|
As I see the Global Financial Crisis triggered the Fourth Turning for the whole of Europe. Since then it has been crazy, I am going to do a bit of a survey of the major countries in Europe to give you an idea of how the Fourth Turning has affected each major nation. This is going to be over several posts and over a few days at least, because there is a lot I am planning to write.
Right now, in Europe the Silent generation peers have long left politics and Generation 68' (Boomer peers) have peaked in power and the Generation X peers have risen. I am going to allot the major European leaders into their generations to give you an better idea of generational dynamics. European generations are about four years behind North America, since the last Awakening started off with a bang in 1968. Hence the name of the Boomer peers in Europe, the generation of 68'.
Generation 68':
Theresa May – Current Prime Minister of the United Kingdom
Jeremy Corbyn – Leader of the opposition Labour Party in the United Kingdom.
Angela Merkel – Chancellor of Germany
Viktor Orbán – Prime Minister of Hungary
Geert Wilders – Leader of the anti-Islam Freedom Party in the Netherlands
Vladimir Putin – President of Russia
Francois Hollande and Nicholas Sarkozy former Presidents of France.
Jean-Claude Juncker - current president of the European Commission.
Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero and Mariano Rajoy - former Prime Ministers of Spain who led it during the GFC
Generation X Peers:
Matteo Salvini (Italian deputy Prime Minister, interior minister and leader of the Lega Nord) Emmanuel Macron – Current President of France
David Cameron – Former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom
Marine Le Pen – Leader of the National Rally (formerly: National Front) in France
Pedro Sánchez – Prime Minister of Spain
Alexis Tsipras – Prime Minister of Greece
A couple of British public figures you might be familiar with is activist and Journalist Tommy Robinson (b.1982) and Milo Yiannopoulos (b.1984). Both these men I know to an extent and they are Reactives, although late wave ones.
Millennial: Sebastian Kurz (Austrian Chancellor), Luigi Di Maio (Italian deputy Prime Minister and leader of the Five Star Movement). Both are first wave European Millennials both being born in 1986.
There is a massive struggle currently going on between the Pro-European and Eurospetic parties across the European Union. Brexit is only one manifestation of it and the Eurosceptic are far from united. The hard variety are like the UK Independence Party who out of the EU completely, while the "soft" variety (which Viktor Orban is an example) is an example prefer to reform it and give more powers to the individual member states especially over areas such as immigration.
The "soft" variety of Eurospceptic dominates in the relatively poorer Eastern and Southern European countries, while the "hard" variety dominates in wealthier Western Europe countries. Ireland is a exception to this general rule, the voting public there is pro-European Union in contrast with the Eurosceptic United Kingdom.
The whole migrant crisis I believe has been that moment that the Fourth Turning has crystallized, and the issue will be the future of the European Union. There is a reasonable chance that the European Union will collapse, however I believe the Millennials in the European Union could very well be for 'European project' (they certainly are in the United Kingdom). While the older generations (especially X'er peers) that are driving a lot of opposition to the European Union. The migrant crisis which was triggered by the wars in Libya and Syria have seen hundreds of thousands of migrants crossing into Europe and fueling the rise of populist, Eurosceptic and anti-immigration parties.
Also, since a large proportion of these immigrants are Muslims, there has been rising anti-Muslim sentiment across Europe. This sentiment has been helped by the Muslim populations in Western European countries mostly living in ethnic enclaves in the cities, being not very well integrated into the broader societies even for the second and third generation and a large proportion subsiding off government benefits.
This sense of alienation from the general society groups among the Millennial peers in the Muslim communities in Europe has been fertile ground for Islamist groups which have been behind committed terrorist acts in many Western European countries. These attacks have further fueled these populist, Eurosceptic nationalist parties which have anti-Muslim views.
Given what I have described above what has happened Western Europe with the Muslim immigrant countries. The countries of Eastern Europe such Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary have refused to accept any Muslim immigrants or agree to “asylum seeker” distribution among the member nations as proposed by the European Union. I believe it is because of fears that if large Muslim immigrant populations were established in their nations, the same could happen to them.
The GFC and the migrant crisis have also meant in a rise in authoritarianism across the continent with Liberal Democracy under serious threat or already have disappeared in some European Union nations. Hungary for example under the rule of Viktor Orban’s government is a illiberal democracy. It is also notable for a very hard-line attitude against any Muslim migration and build a fence inside it's border during the migrant crisis to keep Muslim immigrants out.
|
|
|
|
| Man arrested for a threat to the Boston Globe |
|
Posted by: pbrower2a - 08-30-2018, 11:54 AM - Forum: General Political Discussion
- No Replies
|
|
https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/nationa...83191.html
A California man was arrested Thursday and charged with making threats against The Boston Globe over the newspaper's campaign to defend the free press, authorities said.
Sixty-eight-year-old Robert Chain of Encino, California, was arrested by FBI agents on a charge of making threatening communications in interstate commerce.
Chain allegedly called the Globe "the enemy of the people" in phone calls and threatened to travel to Boston to kill newspaper employees. He made approximately 14 threatening phone calls to the Globe from Aug. 10, when the Globe announced its campaign, to Aug. 22, according to court documents.
Chain is due in federal court in Los Angeles Thursday. It was not immediately clear if Chain had an attorney who could answer to the charge, which would carry a sentence of up to five years in prison and a fine of $250,000.
Court documents state on the day the coordinated editorial was to publish, which was Aug. 16, Chain allegedly threatened to shoot Globe employees "later today, at 4 o'clock."
As a result of the threat, law enforcement responded to the newspaper's building to ensure employees were safe.
"Everyone has a right to express their opinion, but threatening to kill people, takes it over the line and will not be tolerated," said Harold H. Shaw, Special Agent in Charge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Boston Division, in a statement.
The Globe led hundreds of newspapers around the country this month in a campaign to push back against President Donald Trump's cries of "fake news" that is an “enemy of the people."
The newspaper’s editorial on the campaign concluded: "The greatness of America is dependent on the role of a free press to speak the truth to the powerful. To label the press 'the enemy of the people' is as un-American as it is dangerous to the civic compact we have shared for more than two centuries."
While some news outlets opted out of joining the campaign, ones that did included The New York Times, Miami Herald and Houston Chronicle.
The campaign prompted Trump to lash out against the Globe on Twitter, saying it was "in COLLUSION with other papers on free press."
|
|
|
|
| The modern credo of the American worker |
|
Posted by: sbarrera - 08-30-2018, 07:01 AM - Forum: Society and Culture
- Replies (1)
|
 |
In response to the trends of these times, the modern credo of the American worker is:
Be loyal to yourself, not your company.
Switch jobs every few years for maximum career growth.
Stick it to “the man.”
You can see it all here on this reddit thread on a story about layoffs by AT&T. Also found in this thread: mid-life Gen-Xers giving life tips to rising young Millennials.
https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/9...ayoffs_and
The MAGA spirit comes in part from a desire to revert to the more stable time of 60 years or so ago. But is that possible with all the evolution in the corporate realm, and with a new global regime?
|
|
|
|
| Bilateral trade deals, or MexicaFTA & CanadaFTA |
|
Posted by: sbarrera - 08-29-2018, 07:52 PM - Forum: Theory Related Political Discussions
- Replies (5)
|
|
I've posted elsewhere on this forum that one motif of this Fourth Turning is the end of the U.S.-led post-WWII international order. In a new age of every Great Power for itself trade deals are strictly one-on-one.
https://www.vox.com/2018/8/29/17791430/t...afta-labor
The White House is finalizing details of a new free trade deal with Mexico to replace the North American Free Trade Agreement — with or without Canada.
Scrapping NAFTA was one of President Trump’s central promises during his presidential campaign. He blamed the 24-year-old trade pact for decimating the US manufacturing industry and the loss of thousands of factory jobs (NAFTA only played a small role in the decline of American manufacturing, but that’s another story). The 1994 trade deal allows North American goods to cross the US, Canadian, and Mexican borders tax-free, adding up to about $1.2 trillion in annual trade.
So far, the new United States-Mexico Trade Agreement seems a lot like NAFTA, though Canada has yet to opt in as it continues negotiations. Agricultural products would remain tariff-free under the new deal, and there is still no required renegotiation every five years (which Trump wanted). It would be harder, however, for businesses to claim harm from unfair trade practices.
But there is one striking difference from NAFTA: The new pact includes several labor rules meant to benefit workers on both sides of the border. For example, Mexico has agreed to pass a law giving workers the right to real union representation, and to adopt other labor laws that meet international standards set forth by the United Nations. American auto companies that assemble their cars in Mexico would also need to use more US-made car parts to avoid tariffs, which would help US factory workers. And about 40 percent of those cars would need to be made by workers earning at least $16 an hour — three times more than Mexico’s minimum wage.
These are much-needed reforms, and they address a lot of concerns that US labor unions had about NAFTA. The problem is that they seem impossible to enforce. It’s one thing to make trading partners adopt strict labor laws, but making sure they enforce those laws has proven much, much harder. Unless the White House comes up with a dramatically different plan to sanction Mexico if it doesn’t keep up its end of the deal, companies on both sides of the border will continue to reap all the benefits of free trade at the expense of their workers.
NAFTA was not good for low-wage workers in Mexico or the United States
First of all, it’s important to note that free trade between the United States, Canada, and Mexico has had a small, but positive, impact on all three economies. That is something most economists can agree on. The controversy over NAFTA, which was enacted in 1994, involves its impact on workers. American labor unions worried at the time that allowing goods to cross the border untaxed would give US manufacturers too much incentive to move factories and jobs to Mexico, where wages were super low and environmental standards more relaxed.
Proponents of NAFTA pushed back against that idea, saying that boosting trade would raise wages for low-skilled Mexican workers, pulling millions out of poverty and making it less attractive for companies to move factories to Mexico. That definitely didn’t happen. Competition from US farms was largely responsible for putting more than 1 million farmworkers in Mexico out of work, and the unemployment rate in Mexico is higher today than it was back then.
On top of that, wages for workers in Mexico have hardly budged. Just look at this chart:
Center for Economic and Policy Research
In the United States, NAFTA didn’t lower overall US wages, as some feared, but it was linked to lower wages in some manufacturing jobs. The trade deal was also directly responsible for the loss of more than 840,000 US factory jobs, most of which were moved to Mexico. Just last year, Ford announced it was closing one of its auto factories and opening another one in Mexico.
US companies are still doing this because factory workers in Mexico are still making poverty wages. And one reason workers in Mexico are still living in poverty is because NAFTA’s labor protections have not been enforced.
NAFTA was also supposed to protect workers, but it didn’t
When NAFTA was signed, it included labor protections for workers in all three countries. Basically, each country agreed to enforce its own labor laws and follow standards set by the UN’s International Labor Organization. But labor complaints filed through the NAFTA labor dispute process have led nowhere.
About two dozen complaints of workers’ rights violations were filed against all three countries in NAFTA’s first decade — the vast majority in Mexico, according to Human Rights Watch. Companies accused of violating local labor laws include General Electric, Honeywell, Sony, General Motors, McDonald’s, Sprint, and the Washington state apple industry.
In Mexico, those complaints included allegations of retaliation against workers who tried to unionize, denial of collective bargaining rights, forced pregnancy testing, mistreatment of migrant workers, and life-threatening health and safety conditions. None have led to any type of sanctions, which workers’ rights groups say is because there are no rules about how to resolve these disputes and government mediators have chosen to take a hands-off approach.
“Our research shows that agreements on labor will never work without the active support of the countries involved. In the case of NAFTA, these three countries have actually worked to minimize the impact of the labor provisions,” the report stated.
One of the biggest complaints against Mexico right now is that labor unions are largely controlled by employers, and workers are not even part of contract negotiations. So it’s no wonder why Mexican factory workers are earning so little. The average hourly wage for factory workers in Mexico is just over $2 an hour — and the country’s minimum wage is roughly $4.15 for a full day’s work. These low wages attract US companies to operate in Mexico.
The new labor rules in Trump’s pact with Mexico are supposed to remove the incentive to keep Mexican workers living in poverty. But it’s hard to picture how those rules would ever be enforced.
Mexico can pass new labor laws, but who will enforce them?
As part of the United States-Mexico Trade Deal, Mexico has promised to pass laws that will guarantee workers the right to form unions and negotiate their own labor contracts. If Mexican workers could do this without fear of losing their jobs, they would certainly negotiate better wages and working conditions.
Right now, workers in Mexico have the right to unionize, but they are often left out of the negotiating process. US manufacturers — and most other companies — end up dictating the terms of the contract with labor unions to their own benefit. Workers have also reported retaliation from employers when they try to create a labor union.
But even if Mexico does guarantee workers more union rights, the government does not have a great track record when it comes to enforcing its own laws. Bribing government officials to look the other way is common practice — even among US companies that operate there. Government employees in Mexico often earn poverty wages themselves, so slipping them money to bend the rules is considered part of the cost of doing business, as a 2012 New York Times investigation of Walmart’s operations there showed.
That’s why another labor rule in the new trade deal also seems too good to be true. It mandates that 40 percent of a car’s parts must be made by workers who earn at least $16 an hour to avoid tariffs. That means that many Mexican factories that make parts for US car manufacturers would have to pay eight times what they currently pay the average factory worker. And the trade deal does not mention how such a rule could be enforced. It’s not clear how the Mexican government, the US government, or even an independent council would be able to keep track of wages without an army of regulators.
“I don’t think it’s plausible at all,” says Monica de Bolle, an economist at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. “At the moment, because there is no such legislation, enforceability is all but impossible.”
|
|
|
|
| Here It Comes? |
|
Posted by: TheNomad - 08-29-2018, 11:44 AM - Forum: The Future
- Replies (22)
|
 |
I've been waiting for this for a while now.
https://freebeacon.com/national-security...ker-warns/
All that is required now is to shift the "Terror" plot from Afghani-bin-Laden-esque figures (which then shifted to Iraq) to Iran.
Recent stories report Iran and Syria warning they control the Persian Gulf and the U.S. should leave.
It seems this 4th Turning scenario might be inevitable. I came to this forum I think last year? I thought perhaps the Turning might be already in motion and a SOFT reboot, but I must say the wind is not swaying my way on that, sadly.
If we look into this, it is clear the Straw Man was created in 2001, it redefined "enemy" and completely redefined what it means to "attack". I am still unsure WHERE exactly 911 fits into this Turning scenario.... many have said "911 was not the game-changer" or whatever, but I would call a total overhaul on what it means to be AT WAR and WHO EXACTLY is the enemy was redefined in 2001 like nothing before it....... the WWII - Korea - Vietnam - Persian Gulf were all the same: a fixed enemy in theater of a fixed place. Clearly-drawn ideology/boundaries.
911 broke the mold on all that.
Now, all need do is say "Terror" then point to anyone or any PLACE on a map and then war has suddenly appeared. I mean, can anyone else confirm? After 2001, FBI and Homeland were breaking down doors in BUFFALO NEW YORK to bust Terror Cells. I say Buffalo because there exists no reason for anyone to be IN Buffalo (the most random place) and if FEDS are searching there, they could be searching Omaha or Pittsburgh and anywhere.
So, this whole thing is still playing on ignorance and racial profiling and the fact hardly anyone can point to "Arabia" on a map to know what countries/religions/cultures are there................. they only know "Arab" means "Terror". Anyone under the age of 20yo has been trained by association with planes flying into buildings that "Arab People" hate us and want to kill us because we are free  But by very definition, Israel is Arab. Go figure.
Really. Can anyone say that is untrue? Seriously. Are we being real right now?
So, to many, there is no difference between Iran and Syria......... it's all "Terror" so we have to rip it down. The one difference is now Iran has powerful capabilities and possible global alliance with northern Asia (Russia) since Iran is southern Asia. I mean, to not know that in this circumstance is like saying Canada would not ally with America when invaded by ................ Wakanda.
Anyway, I sense a mad blow off that is just waiting to pop. When it does, the president will receive salvation in the form of The Great Distraction --- a foreign menace --- where he is able to maneuver out of her personal problems to focus on some real devastation. He is going to make an excellent war president. War presidents need a lot of posturing and quick words of atrophied dogma.
I'm sad this has to happen.   
|
|
|
|
| Signal? TEENS OFF SOCIALS |
|
Posted by: TheNomad - 08-29-2018, 08:51 AM - Forum: Society and Culture
- Replies (10)
|
|
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018...cial-media
In my experience, "social" trends always seem to happen in Europe, to GB, then to New York, then California and then spread out to America to reverberate the same "ripples" again.
A small side note, either I am exceptionally insightful (which is definitely true) or there are just many uninformed people out there (also true), one half of the anagram for NAZI is SOCIAL. National Socialist. That is what forms the anagram NAZI. Two words. National & Social. Now back to regularly-scheduled blah blah
It is shocking the trend coming out of GB is to turn off social media. I have never believed that phrase (social media) accurately describes the things depicted in the article such as platforms or ways of interacting. It is a marketing employment, and turned out to be a really effective one. Forcing a whole generation to believe that to not exist in "Social Media" is to not exist at all. This is definitely a large wave in "national mood" even though no evidence like this is produced as referring to the United States. But to beat the curve, we can look at what's coming to see when it will or IF it will manifest here.
If any consolation, the Kardashians (I use that as a baseline for the modern "connected" generation) they received much public renouncing with the Kanye MAGA backwash and a lot of other things. It was not one thing or another, it seemed like this plastic "family" had been melting for at least the last half decade. If we are here to study a 4th Turning situation, it is important to remember we should not expect anything we have seen before. It won't look the way we might expect. The reality is probably going to be reactionary and very large AGAINST things that have been hugely popular previously.
As for me, I've been sort of hiding in the corner waiting for this "social" mess to pass over, l'ange du mort, for years now. I have never had a personal fakebook account. Never had a personal twitter account either. And when ever using these things, I felt since the beginning it was some sort of Doom we all were swallowing as so much sticky ice cream in the heat because the power went out and why watch ice cream melt.
I truly did not see this until after posting -- Kardashian Ratings Freefall.
|
|
|
|
| Commandments? |
|
Posted by: Bob Butler 54 - 08-29-2018, 05:51 AM - Forum: General Political Discussion
- Replies (26)
|
 |
I am having a bit of trouble separating church and state. Let me draw a few lines. Are there those who disagree?
We have Ten Commandments…
1. You shall have no other Gods but me.
2. You shall not make for yourself any idol, nor bow down to it or worship it.
3. You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God.
4. You shall remember and keep the Sabbath day holy.
5. Respect your father and mother.
6. You must not commit murder.
7. You must not commit adultery.
8. You must not steal.
9. You must not give false evidence against your neighbor.
10. You must not be envious of your neighbor’s goods. You shall not be envious of his house nor his wife, nor anything that belongs to your neighbor.
Now, 1, 2 3, and 4 seem pure religious. Government seems to have no business enforcing them.
Wait? 4? Can we have blue laws? Weekends? Yes, we are allowed to, and they can correspond to various maybe religious traditions, but governments have no business leaning the blue laws to enforce a particular set of religious traditions. For practical reasons, the blue laws should be compatible with the majority, though.
Then we have 6, 7, 8 and 9, which describe civil crimes. Both churches and governments deal with crimes, one to preach against them, and the other to enforce and punish. I have no problem with the government enforcing and punishing crimes as long as the crimes are not religious ones, such as eating meat on a Friday.
Then we have 5 and 10, honoring parents and not envying your neighbors stuff. Honor and envy are emotions. I do not see the government enforcing that a citizen feel a certain way. At the same time, 5 and 10 seem like good ideas. I can quite seen the desire of a church to preach things like that. This seems to be a church issue, with each sect free to decide what to preach so long as there is no advocacy of committing a crime.
Does this result in any controversy?
|
|
|
|
| How Hard Is It To Honor The Dead? |
|
Posted by: TheNomad - 08-29-2018, 05:31 AM - Forum: Society and Culture
- Replies (3)
|
|
https://www.vox.com/2018/8/27/17786018/j...flag-tweet
He won't talk about McCain's legacy. Nor publicly honor or acknowledge him. AT BEST I think someone out there who is a parent would (not knowing who or what) would say whoever is acting this way needs a spanking and put to bed early. I'm not the first to make that analogy of course.
However, even my worse WORK frenemy or someone I really just do not enjoy in that environment, OMFG if they died, would I be able to stand in front of my co-workers and say something nice about them? Hot utterly horrible a person am I, how completely unhinged (I love that word, it is too bad Amor Osa used it for her book title) that I can't read a teleprompter with nice words for a career senator and war veteran? I mean, it's the duty as President to bear ritual and niceties - he is not CEO, although the whole thing brings me continually back to wondering if America went too far Capitalist in the previous Turning. Because he is acting like CEO in every single way that matters. CEOs are c*nts. That IS to only real word for them. And on top of that, beholden to no one and nothing except the balance sheet.
WE ARE THAT COUNTRY RIGHT NOW. There's no use pretending anymore. America IS the big box store of the world, trampling everyone without corporate lawyers and feeding monsters like fakebook.
I wouldn't work in an environment where the "leader" would act this way. It's patently filthy. Rather abominable, really. Lack of humanity or even a hint of grace. I have no knowledge of the Mrs in that group, but just looking at her, I cannot fathom what goes through her mind in all this. She was a model? She's lovely, she has a youngish child, she is originally from abroad which means she most-likely understands the hard realities of social grace and parlance... how horrified is she? If she is NOT a fembot, she must be under heavily-packed legal contract that she will .......................... I don't know.................. if she leaves or protests, somehow there's a video of her with 2 humans and a mule in Tijuana ..................... to be released as retribution. Evil is not a good word, I don't believe in that nor is it the right word. "Trash" is too tame. I'm the Wordsmith and struggle with the right phraseology for this person.
|
|
|
|
|
