Generational Theory Forum: The Fourth Turning Forum: A message board discussing generations and the Strauss Howe generational theory
The Maelstrom of Violence - Printable Version

+- Generational Theory Forum: The Fourth Turning Forum: A message board discussing generations and the Strauss Howe generational theory (http://generational-theory.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Fourth Turning Forums (http://generational-theory.com/forum/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: Current Events (http://generational-theory.com/forum/forum-34.html)
+---- Forum: General Political Discussion (http://generational-theory.com/forum/forum-15.html)
+---- Thread: The Maelstrom of Violence (/thread-824.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37


RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - pbrower2a - 09-05-2017

(09-04-2017, 02:50 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: Also I would respond to PBR but it looks like Rags beat me to it. Let me just say that I don't want the US to Emulate even Germany or Canada or the UK when it comes to free speech.  But I think I'll leave this little ditty here:

First they came for the National Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a National Socialist.

It's for innocent people -- and not for pirates, drug traffickers, murderers, rapists, thieves, and child abusers. Or Nazis or Stalinists. It's for people who never did anything wrong.



.


RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - Bob Butler 54 - 09-05-2017

Kinser

I guess two points. To some extent most everyone will generalize or stereotype. To a degree they are just different degrees of the same thing. I call myself ‘leaning blue’ often, but I see myself looking deeper into the past and guessing further into the future than most. Also, if anyone thinks I lean blue on gun policy, they will find the errors of the ways real fast. While I generalize, and see that as unavoidable dealing with huge numbers of people, vile stereotyping and expecting people to live up to the stereotypes is another level. That is highly problematic if altogether common.

You? Anyone who jumps from Marx to Trump isn’t going to fit cleanly into the obvious pidgin holes. I find myself agreeing a lot with what you say about health care. However, it would seem you favor sharing risks and costs, which puts you quite some distance from many reds. One of many blindnesses you have is in expecting your chosen father and party to be with you on health care. I’m doubtful. Not vital. I’ll wait and see.

What does it mean to be black? I don’t mean skin pigmentation. It’s more about the culture. Many share a good deal of culture and life experience. Some diverge strongly. I don’t think I’d nominate Obama, Carson or yourself as being particularly close to any pattern or stereotype. Anyone who jumped from Marx to Trump likely shouldn’t center any pattern or stereotype. You’re you, which is nothing to be ashamed of, but means a lot of your opinions fit only those in your pattern or stereotype.

Which aren’t exactly numerous. I’m not saying main line black is significantly better or worse than main line red, main line blue, or any other color combination. I just don’t see you as main line anything, which is in may ways a good thing. Who wants to be boring? But, if you shun the main lines, you aren’t the pope.

I do know the civil rights movement shifted a lot of party allegiances. You seem to be trying to deny this and the logic behind it. I don’t think your beliefs change reality.

I do have a perceived problem with extreme partisans. Ideally I’d favor a scientific world view. One looks at reality and build a descriptive method for analyzing and understanding the world. The extreme partisan approach is in many ways the opposite. One decides on a method for analyzing and understanding the world, then closes one’s mind to anything that conflicts with the analysis. A nigh on religious faith in the value of the analysis is common. My fate seems to be to feud with the many extreme partisans that contribute to these forums, whose world views are many if linked to the individual, varied, and often extremely narrow. Your tendency seems to be to latch onto a particular partisan world view and ignore any faults it may have.

You have lately given your loyalty to one guy. Any reason to question this loyalty gets value locked out of your personal variation of existence. This isn’t apt to change. You’ll just issue a papal bull claiming what you don’t want to be so isn’t so. Not much to be done about it. However. not much from that perspective is to be taken seriously.

Meanwhile, if your basic loyalty isn’t that of a typical black guy, you’re not much help in building up black generalizations or stereotype. I might not be an expert in saying what makes someone culturally ‘black’, but if building a culture or stereotype were my goal, I wouldn’t start with you. I don’t count that as a big deal insult. Being kinda unique can be a good thing. It just doesn’t make you representative.

Sifting to Trump and the see saw...

Given an apparent extreme partisan worldview which gives loyalty to Trump, expecting to open your eyes seems futile. The only reason for hope is the ability to leap away from Marx.

Trump preempted the Republican base by adapting the unraveling memes and enabling the old racism. You won’t want to see this. I feel a papal bull coming on. “I don’t like it, thus it mustn’t be so!” Anyway, I don’t see the culture being transformed by a rehash of obsolete ideas. That makes me dubious on one level. Then I look at the dysfunctional White House, narcism, vindictiveness, a failed agenda, ignored promises, sexism, a split dysfunctional party, impulsiveness… Well, part of my judgement comes from leaning blue, and that part is to be considered dubious, but I still really can’t see Trump building a policy and personality capable of shifting a culture. While you’ve a world view that seems designed to allow you not to see it, I’m anticipating another bounce of the see saw. What this see saw bounce will lead to, I don’t know. Ask a blue extreme partisan. I’m guessing they’ll tell you. It’s all very clear in the stars, I’m sure.

Oh. And this piece isn’t so much about shifting an extreme partisan world view. That is unlikely. It is more about the nature of extreme partisanship.


RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - Kinser79 - 09-05-2017

(09-05-2017, 05:40 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:
(09-04-2017, 02:50 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: Also I would respond to PBR but it looks like Rags beat me to it. Let me just say that I don't want the US to Emulate even Germany or Canada or the UK when it comes to free speech.  But I think I'll leave this little ditty here:

First they came for the National Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a National Socialist.

It's for innocent people -- and not for pirates, drug traffickers, murderers, rapists, thieves, and child abusers. Or Nazis or Stalinists. It's for people who never did anything wrong.



.

PBR, it is hilarious and sad that you are so profoundly ignorant.  Freedom of speech does not exist to protect popular speech.  Anyone in the world can say that kittens are cute or that the sky is blue with no repercussions whatsoever.  Rather freedom of speech is designed for unpopular speech.

An attack on someone's unpopular speech today is an attack on everyone's speech, popular or unpopular, tomorrow. 

Therefore since I value the freedom of speech so highly, it am required like Voltaire to defend it.  I spent six years in the country's military doing so, have you?


RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - Bob Butler 54 - 09-05-2017

(09-05-2017, 08:37 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: An attack on someone's unpopular speech today is an attack on everyone's speech, popular or unpopular, tomorrow. 

One could reword that. "An attack on someone's hurtful speech today is an attack on everyone's hurtful speech tomorrow."

If one doesn't consider any speech to be hurtful, the conclusion is rather obvious. If one does, you get to a different place.

If one is the pope, and can write a papal bull settling the hurtful question, one can create a world where the question is obvious and answered.

The question seems to be who is the pope.


RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - Kinser79 - 09-05-2017

(09-05-2017, 07:50 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Kinser

I guess two points.

You posted a novel for two points.  I strongly suspect that one of the two situations has arisen.  (A) you have have more than two points, or (B) you're not very efficent in expounding on so few points.

Quote:Also, if anyone thinks I lean blue on gun policy, they will find the errors of the ways real fast.

That only demonstrates that you either have no desire to have a permanent blue ruling class or you have realized that their position on having an unarmed population is extremely dangerous.

Quote:While I generalize, and see that as unavoidable dealing with huge numbers of people, vile stereotyping and expecting people to live up to the stereotypes is another level.

And yet you still do it.  After all how can it not be anything but sterotyping of the vilest type to say such things as I or Ben Carson are not black when we clearly have black skin.

Quote:You?  Anyone who jumps from Marx to Trump isn’t going to fit cleanly into the obvious pidgin holes.  I find myself agreeing a lot with what you say about health care.  However, it would seem you favor sharing risks and costs, which puts you quite some distance from many reds.  One of many blindnesses you have is in expecting your chosen father and party to be with you on health care.  I’m doubtful.  Not vital.  I’ll wait and see.

A bit to unpack here, so it seems you've already gone over your two point limit already.

1.  Daddy has stated publicly that he wants real healthcare reform, that it will cover everyone and that it will do so in a way that is cheaper and less onerous than Obamacare.  I already know he more or less agrees with my view on health care.  He may or may not agree as to details, but I'm not overly concerned with details at the moment.
2.  The GOP has several competing factions.  The Evangelo-Cons as I call them, they would be the remnant of the social issues Republicans and are largely aging out.  You have the Neo-Cons (which are indistinguishable from the Neo-Liberals in the Dimocrat party--and often referred to as the Uniparty in some circles), the Trumpists which is a motley collection of numerious strains of political thought united only by the fact that the Dimocrat party is hostile to their view points entirely.
3.  I'm not blind to the limitations that Trump has.  Fortunately or unfortunately a constitutional system of government is quite messy, however, he's already taken action where he can take action.  The President cannot be held to be responsible for when Congress fails to do its job.  Though I do have a couple ideas how to get Congress back into working order without having a revolution.

Since the Neo-Con remnant holds most of the leadership in the House and Senate I don't expect much out of them, but the Party is already rapidly reforming itself.  I don't foresee the Dimocrats even being able to mount a serious challenge to GOP domination until 2022 at the earliest.  As it stands if the Wall gets started either this year, or early 2018 the GOP will retain the House and Senate even though it is likely that the Neo-Con faction of the party will be taken out.

America does not have ideologically driven parties like Europe does so that makes government even messier than it otherwise would be.  Personally I'd like to get rid of both parties but I doubt that is ever going to happen.  The formations of political factions didn't even wait until after Washington's Administration.

Quote:What does it mean to be black?  I don’t mean skin pigmentation.

What does it mean to be white?  And I also don't mean skin pigmentation.


Quote:It’s more about the culture.

If you expect there to be a black American culture that is actually different from American culture generally you'd be sorely mistaken.  Culturally speaking in the US there are only two main groups, and I'll give you a hint they aren't split on racial lines.  Those groups are Americans and Non-Americans.


Quote:I don’t think I’d nominate Obama, Carson or yourself as being particularly close to any pattern or stereotype.

I wouldn't either, but I wouldn't because of their race.  Rather I would say that the commonalities between myself, Obama and Carson begin and end in having above average intelligence and sharing the American culture.  I would like to think, Bob, that these are also commonalities that are shared between myself and you.  Unfortunately you're making that view difficult to maintain because if you do have above average intelligence you should be able to step back and coldly observe that the cultural differences between black and white are not present apart from propaganda pushed by various race hustlers.  

There is a reason why I put Al Sharpton in the same category as David Duke.  And it isn't because both are nominally Christian.

 
Quote:Anyone who jumped from Marx to Trump likely shouldn’t center any pattern or stereotype.

It wasn't exactly a jump.  Honestly I wanted Sanders to win the Dimocratic nomination, it was for me the last chance for that party to prove to me that it was worth staying around in.  They failed that test.  And no Sanders wouldn't have beat Trump either, but he wouldn't have alienated half the Millennial generation in the process of not winning the election.  In short the DNC shot itself in the foot and all they have now is Russians under every bed and attempting to stir up racial discontent.


Quote:You’re you, which is nothing to be ashamed of, but means a lot if your opinions fit only those in your pattern or stereotype.

In other words: I cannot possibly be black because I dare to think for myself and don't blindly adhere to whatever nonsense so-called black leaders push.  Yeah, that's not racist at all, Bob.

Quote:Which aren’t exactly numerous.  I’m not saying main line black is significantly better or worse than main line red, main line blue, or any other color combination.  I just don’t see you as main line anything, which is in may ways a good thing.  Who wants to be boring?  But, if you shun the main lines,  you aren’t the pope.

I'm not sure what the Pope has to do with anything, but I'm kinda glad I'm not him seeing as how he's running the Catholic Church into the ground.  But true, I'm not mainline anything, I also never claimed to be.  But I do have many serious criticisms of what black people do, particularly in the name of people who are black.  That of course starts from an understanding that there are only two groups in the US:  Americans and Not-Americans.  As I've said previously I have no use for hyphenated Americans.

Quote:I do know the civil rights movement shifted a lot of party allegiances.  You seem to be trying to deny this and the logic behind it.  I don’t think your beliefs change reality.

I don't deny that the civil rights movement was significant and significantly altered the political landscape.  However, in not denying that, I also don't have to drink the "But the racists switched parties" kool aid when historical facts indicate otherwise.  I strongly recommend that you watch Hillary's America by Dinesh D'Souza (indeed what a terribly white name he has).  The only cure for your blue pilled mentality is to take a red pill.  

Quote:I do have a perceived problem with extreme partisans.  Ideally I’d favor a scientific world view.  You look at reality and build a descriptive method for analyzing and understanding the world.  The extreme partisan approach is in many ways the opposite.  One decides on a method for analyzing and understanding the world, then closes one’s mind to anything that conflicts with the analysis.  A nigh on religious faith in the value of the analysis is common.  My fate seems to be to feud with the many extreme partisans that contribute to these forums, whose world views are many if linked to the individual, varied, and often extremely narrow.  Your tendency seems to be to latch onto a particular partisan world view and ignore any faults it may have.

There are several problems with this.

1.  Generally speaking people are terrible at looking at the world, analysing it logically and developing an ideology from it.  I think both of us try to do this but it is strictly speaking not scientific.
2.  There are a great many partisans on this board, there always were.  To a certain extent I would say that cyclical theories of history allow partisans of whatever stripe assurance that their world view will come back into dominance at some point.
3.  I have many faults, but there is a problem with your assessment.  Civic Nationalism doesn't require me to hold any particular view other than that the Union, and Constitutional government must be preserved.  Any other views I hold besides those two is incidental to the main one of Civic Nationalism.

Quote:You have lately given your loyalty to one guy.

Not really.  If he decides to not follow through on his program I'll abandon him in a heart beat unless it is a Congressional-ly or Judicially induced delay in the long string of winning we need.


Quote:Any reason to question this loyalty gets value locked out of your personal variation of existence.  This isn’t apt to change.  You’ll just issue a papal bull claiming what you don’t want to be so isn’t so.  Not much to be done about it.  However. not much from that perspective is to be taken seriously.

This is an odd position for someone who claims that racism has increased in recent years but has yet failed to produce actual evidence of this happening apart from BLM and Antifa.  I conclude this is a matter of a pot informing a kettle that he is indeed black.  

I find this action amusing since you seem to have assumed that because I don't follow your preconceptions of what a black man is supposed to be like I cannot possibly be black.  It makes me wonder if your head starts to hurt if you have to use doublethink too often.

Quote:Meanwhile, if your basic loyalty isn’t that of a typical black guy,

I'm loyal to the President because he's doing what he needs to do.  He's doing the job I hired him to do.  The fact that some other black people are not loyal to him, dislike him, or whatever is meaningless.   After all about half the population voted for $hillary.

Quote:you’re not much help in building up black generalizations or stereotype.

Skin pigmentation is a  poor method by which to build up generalizations or stereotypes, unless of course your goal is to make racist generalizations.  

 
Quote:I might not be an expert in saying what makes someone culturally ‘black’,

You aren't an expert because for you to be such an expert would require expertise in something that does not exist.  What does Tyrone down the block have in common with a Bushman in deepest darkest Africa?  Pigmentation.  

Black Americans have a culture, it is the same as White Americans or Asian Americans and on and on.  

Quote:Sifting to Trump and the see saw...

Yes lets since you so want to convince me of something for which there is no evidence.

Quote:Trump preempted the Republican base by adapting the unraveling memes and enabling the old racism.

1.  What old racism?  You mean the old GOP which is the reason the voting rights acts and civil rights acts passed.  If LBJ had to rely on the Democrats it would have never been done.
2.  What unraveling memes?  Reagan spoke of "Morning in America" indicating that America is at its greatest point.  The slogan "Make America Great Again" indicates that America was great at some point in the past but is not now great.
3.  Trump did not preempt the Republican base--he preempted the Republican Leadership all of which was at the time Neo-Con in nature.  Trump brought his own base into the GOP which is why he got more blacks, latinos and gays into the party than ever before and why he breeched the blue wall in the Rust Belt and nearly picked up New Hampshire too.

Everything about that sentence is wrong and this is the first point in your see-saw hypothesis.

Quote:Then I look at the dysfunctional White House,

I think that you want the White House to be dysfunctional because "your girl" didn't get into it.  There is no evidence that the White House is dysfunctional at all for reasons I will get to later.

Quote:narcism,

I'm not sure what "narcism" is, I'm assuming you mean narcissism.  I actually expected that.  Honestly I'm surprised that the President has spent so much time at the White House, considering his usual digs the place is a dump.  But lets take a look at the 40+ years that Donald Trump has been in the public eye.  He built his business and brand on not just having a real estate business, he built it on having the best real estate business.  He doesn't want just sinks he wants gold sinks.  He doesn't want a casino he wants the best casino and so on and so on.  He didn't want a tee-vee show he wanted to have the best tee-vee show.

Anyone that expected Donald Trump to get elected and to magically stop being Donald Trump is, to put it mildly, delusional.

Quote:vindictiveness,

His catch phrase isn't "Kumbaya", it is "You're Fired".  He came in and I made the prediction that he would hire a number of people and that before the end of his 1st year most of them would be gone.  Running a business as a manager myself I can tell you that the hardest part of the job is not hiring people, it is firing them.


Quote:a failed agenda, ignored promises,

This failed agenda and ignored promises?

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/04/draft-complete-list-of-president-trumps-accomplishments-in-his-first-100-days/

That list is a bit dated, but those things he can do he does, those things he has to get Congress to do are a little more troublesome but the President can't be held responsible for the failings of the Congress.  


Quote:sexism,

Citation needed.


Quote:a split dysfunctional party,

The GOP is under going a major restructuring.  The Trumpist faction of the party essentially did a hostile take over of the GOP.  At present there are three factions fighting for dominance and the Neo-Cons are losing big time.


Quote:impulsiveness…

This likely manifests itself in the President throwing bombs on Twitter.  Yeah it probably looks impulsive to those who are beholden to the legacy media and older ways of thinking.  Part of it is him directly throwing red meat to his base, the rest of it is playing the legacy media for the fools that they are and they fall for it every time.

Quote:I still really can’t see Trump building a policy and personality capable of shifting a culture.

Have you been living in a cave for the past two years?  

There is a reason why Google and etc are moving to censor their platforms and the legacy media is seeking to silence alternative media--it is that they are losing.  Did Trump build that?  Probably not, but he certainly has tapped into it.

 
Quote:While you’ve a world view that seems designed to allow your not to see it, I’m anticipating another bounce of the see saw.  What this see saw bounce will lead to, I don’t know.  Ask a blue extreme partisan.  I’m guessing they’ll tell you.  It’s all very clear in the stars, I’m sure.  

I'm not because I correctly recognized the GC.  I expect the Trump's Trumpist base to primary the Neo-Cons in the mid-terms which means that the Democrats may pick up some seats in the House but not enough to take it over, the Senate will be safely Republican but many Neo-Cons will be replaced with Trumpist Civic Nationalists.  And baring the President dying in office or being assassinated he will easily win re-election should he seek a second term which he's likely to do.

As for what the stars say, well they told me that the particular blue partisan you're referring to rarely has contact with reality.  Besides, he's on conceptual ignore anyway unless he invokes my name.


RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - Kinser79 - 09-05-2017

(09-05-2017, 10:06 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:
(09-05-2017, 08:37 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: An attack on someone's unpopular speech today is an attack on everyone's speech, popular or unpopular, tomorrow. 

One could reword that.  "An attack on someone's hurtful speech today is an attack on everyone's hurtful speech tomorrow."

If one doesn't consider any speech to be hurtful, the conclusion is rather obvious.  If one does, you get to a different place.

If one is the pope, and can write a papal bull settling the hurtful question, one can create a world where the question is obvious and answered.

The question seems to be who is the pope.

Words are not violence, Bob.  And no amount of sophistry will change that fact.


RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - pbrower2a - 09-05-2017

(09-05-2017, 07:50 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Kinser

I guess two points.  To some extent most everyone will generalize or stereotype.  To a degree they are just different degrees of the same thing.  I call myself ‘leaning blue’ often, but I see myself looking deeper into the past and guessing further into the future than most.  Also, if anyone thinks I lean blue on gun policy, they will find the errors of the ways real fast.  While I generalize, and see that as unavoidable dealing with huge numbers of people, vile stereotyping and expecting people to live up to the stereotypes is another level.  That is highly problematic if altogether common.

I can think of more important rights than the right to bear a gun, like the right to travel, the right to change jobs, the right to refuse to do certain work, the right to make investments.... and the right to have consensual sex.

Quote:You (kinser)?  Anyone who jumps from Marx to Trump isn’t going to fit cleanly into the obvious pigeon holes.  I find myself agreeing a lot with what you say about health care.  However, it would seem you favor sharing risks and costs, which puts you quite some distance from many reds.  One of many blindnesses you have is in expecting your chosen father and party to be with you on health care.  I’m doubtful.  Not vital.  I’ll wait and see.

I see Eric Hoffer's True Believer, the sort of person who goes from one fanatical cause to another. Weak on principles and empathy?


Quote:What does it mean to be black?  I don’t mean skin pigmentation.  It’s more about the culture.  Many share a good deal of culture and life experience.  Some diverge strongly.  I don’t think I’d nominate Obama, Carson or yourself as being particularly close to any pattern or stereotype.  Anyone who jumped from Marx to Trump likely shouldn’t center any pattern or stereotype.  You’re you, which is nothing to be ashamed of, but means a lot of your opinions fit only those in your pattern or stereotype.

Black? It is too broad a category for facile stereotypes except appearance. Certain characteristics identify one as black in America, and there is nothing that one can do to not be black in America. There's some vagueness about the validity of the one-drop rule. There may be more secret and unknown African ancestry among people who think themselves white than most of us realize. It need not be obvious, but the one-drop rule has been in effect. For example, the one-drop rule establishes that the late mother of Barack Obama was black -- about 1/16. Maybe that explains some mysteries in family trees.

People have passed -- people who have won the genetic lottery that conceals any obvious African ancestry in outer appearance. I have yet to take one of those genetic tests, and if I ever do I will disclose the results. I do genealogy, and there are some mysteries... and a couple of ancestors who might have had something to hide. So what happens if I find that I am 1/16? I will still consider myself white because I have the typical ties that someone whose grandparents were English, Swiss, German, and Welsh to the 'black' culture of the American South: none at all. I can have empathy for the Civil Rights struggle, recognize the validity of black culture in America, and know that white privilege hurts most black people and see white privilege as something to do away with. But I listen to the wrong music...  

Quote:I do know the civil rights movement shifted a lot of party allegiances.  You seem to be trying to deny this and the logic behind it.  I don’t think your beliefs change reality.

Until the New Deal, blacks were heavily Republican -- Party of Lincoln, get it? In the 1930s, where blacks could vote, they went Democratic. The New Deal was not about keeping blacks in line. Most Southern states were effectively single-Party states, and the white Establishment kept blacks from voting through sundry chicanery. White and black industrial workers chose to work together to get union representation and union wages where the industry was -- up North -- and by the 1960s they agreed that the subjection of the cousins of their black co-workers who had not left the South was wrong.  

Until 1964 the Democratic Party was the party of white privilege at its most blatant in the South.

Quote:I do have a perceived problem with extreme partisans.  Ideally I’d favor a scientific world view.  One looks at reality and build a descriptive method for analyzing and understanding the world.  The extreme partisan approach is in many ways the opposite.  One decides on a method for analyzing and understanding the world, then closes one’s mind to anything that conflicts with the analysis.  A nigh on religious faith in the value of the analysis is common.  My fate seems to be to feud with the many extreme partisans that contribute to these forums, whose world views are many if linked to the individual, varied, and often extremely narrow.  Your tendency seems to be to latch onto a particular partisan world view and ignore any faults it may have.

Show the stats, and except for those that purport to claim that people are in bulk, superior or inferior because of their ethnic origins (unless there is some selection creating such), I will go with the statistics. Many liberals used to believe that poverty and slum-like conditions created crime, probably because such was a pretext for anti-poverty programs. We have found that criminal activity is a choice that most poor people avoid. Incarcerate the one-person crime waves , and street crime plummets. But the idea that poverty created crime neglected that there are good people in the nastiest slums. Do such people deserve better? Probably. Poverty is as raw deal in a culture that values only ostentatious display and not character.

I would like to see the next President treat poverty as something to address with coherent programs (Barack Obama, regrettably, could not address American poverty because he is... you know) instead of treating it as a Third Rail of politics.

Quote:You  (kinser) have lately given your loyalty to one guy.  Any reason to question this loyalty gets value locked out of your personal variation of existence.  This isn’t apt to change.  You’ll just issue a papal bull claiming what you don’t want to be so isn’t so.  Not much to be done about it.  However. not much from that perspective is to be taken seriously.

The Republicans are stuck with Donald Trump and the consequences of his mercurial style of government. We are beginning to see those consequences. I need not go into the details here. Polls that have shown a disapproval rating of 60% even if there are yet no military disasters and the economy has yet to tank indicate that he is touching multitudes the wrong way. About 45% of the American population is decidedly conservative, and some of those seeing something terribly wrong with President Trump are conservatives.

Quote:Meanwhile, if your basic loyalty isn’t that of a typical black guy, you’re not much help in building up black generalizations or stereotype.  I might not be an expert in saying what makes someone culturally ‘black’, but if building a culture or stereotype were my goal, I wouldn’t start with you.  I don’t count that as a big deal insult.  Being kinda unique can be a good thing.  It just doesn’t make you representative.


White people have been able to adopt 'blackness' in culture and appearance. The rewards are small and the difficulties are great.  



Quote:Sifting to Trump and the see saw...

Given an apparent extreme partisan worldview which gives loyalty to Trump, expecting to open your (kinser) eyes seems futile.  The only reason for hope is the ability to leap away from Marx.


But Kinser is still an extremist. The ideology may change, but the arrogance, ruthlessness, and contempt for restraints remains. I have gone from conservative to liberal, but

(1) I have always recognized the rule of law as essential to human rights. The alternative to law and order is lynchings.
(2) I have tried to avoid judging people on their origins. Melanin does not build or destroy character as might exposure to environmental lead and mercury
(3) rational processes work better than anything else, but even they have their limits.
(4) old ethical values are not to be discarded cheaply. They had reason for existence, and one challenges them with due care.
(5) as long as my country is right I am a patriot.
(6) most people have good cause for believing what they do even if such seems wrong.
(7) nobody can prove esthetics.



Quote:Trump preempted the Republican base by adapting the unraveling memes and enabling the old racism.  You won’t want to see this.  I feel a papal bull coming on.  “I don’t like it, thus it mustn’t be so!”  Anyway, I don’t see the culture being transformed by a rehash of obsolete ideas.  That makes me dubious on one level.  Then I look at the dysfunctional White House, narcissism, vindictiveness, a failed agenda, ignored promises, sexism, a split dysfunctional party, impulsiveness…  Well, part of my judgement comes from leaning blue, and that part is to be considered dubious, but I still really can’t see Trump building a policy and personality capable of shifting a culture.  While you’ve a world view that seems designed to allow you not to see it, I’m anticipating another bounce of the see saw.  What this see saw bounce will lead to, I don’t know.  Ask a blue extreme partisan.  I’m guessing they’ll tell you.  It’s all very clear in the stars, I’m sure.
 
We shall see with the electoral results. We do not need a Man on a White Horse promising to solve every problem. I see much evidence of people wondering how they could have voted for him. We have the reality of Sinclair Lewis' fictional President "Berzelius Windrip" about eighty years after he wrote It Can't Happen Here. But it did happen eighty years later, which fits the generational cycle practically a saeculum later. I can't tell you who will be the Lincoln or FDR who gets us out of this mess -- maybe it could be someone more like Barack Obama because the leadership of the Boom Generation has yet to come up with someone who offers the usual strengths of an Idealist generation and rejects the worst.  Maybe the Man on the White Horse is what we least need. We wil need an intelligent, principled leader capable of telling us what we need to do to be the people who deserve what4eveer we need but is then lacking -- victory, civil peace, widespread opportunity, or even coming to terms with an end of the industrial era. Donald Trump is simply not that person.  

Quote:Oh.  And this piece isn’t so much about shifting an extreme partisan world view.  That is unlikely.  It is more about the nature of extreme partisanship.

Reality will crush some extreme positions of partisanship.


RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - Kinser79 - 09-05-2017

(09-05-2017, 11:20 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: I can think of more important rights than the right to bear a gun, like the right to travel, the right to change jobs, the right to refuse to do certain work, the right to make investments.... and the right to have consensual sex.

The right to bear arms secures all those other rights. If you disbelieve me, what is the first thing any dictator does to his population before he starts shipping them off to Konzentrationslager or Gulag? He disarms them.

Quote:People have passed -- people who have won the genetic lottery that conceals any obvious African ancestry in outer appearance.

Of course because there are no millionaires with African ancestry, no scientists with African ancestry and naturally no Presidents with African ancestry. Or could it be that in America a man who applies himself can accomplish anything he sets his mind to and is actually able to accomplish.

Winning a genetic lottery is being tall enough to compete in the NBA, I don't see many short fat Jewish guys in the NBA. Sorry. Getting rich, or getting power, or getting fame do not require winning such a lottery though. At least not in this country.

White privilege is a myth.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/431393/white-privilege-myth-reality

Quote:I would like to see the next President treat poverty as something to address with coherent programs (Barack Obama, regrettably, could not address American poverty because he is... you know) instead of treating it as a Third Rail of politics.

There have been anti-poverty programs since the 1960s. The number of people actually in poverty has not decreased one iota. The only conclusion that can be realistically drawn from that information is that anti-poverty programs do not work, or do not work as intended. I would say that they do work precisely as intended, it creates a dependent class that can be threatened with welfare cuts if the Republican gets in. It is somewhat of a masterstroke from Dimocrats.

If the goal is to address poverty then there is only one way to do that. Jobs, and jobs that pay enough that someone can support themselves and their family. In order to acheive this the US has to do several things:

1. Address trade. Service sector jobs simply will never be high paying enough to provide the majority of people who don't have the ability to be doctors and lawyers and so on with a living wage. As such it is prudent to put those people into making things. This means the base is and must be industry, agriculture and construction.
2. Restrict the labor pool. Since labor is a commodity it is subject to supply and demand like all other commodities. Wages too low? Restrict immigration and tightness in the job market will in short order bring rising wages.
3. People with rising wages will desire more services which will soak up the remainder of the unemployed. There should be no immigration into the country allowed unless the US already has full employment (and I mean the real numbers not the cooked numbers).

Quote:The Republicans are stuck with Donald Trump and the consequences of his mercurial style of government. We are beginning to see those consequences. I need not go into the details here. Polls that have shown a disapproval rating of 60%

National polls are meaningless for reasons I've addressed earlier. Polls that don't publish their methodology are worse than useless.

Quote:even if there are yet no military disasters and the economy has yet to tank

1. No one can predict the future of any military actions with any degree of accuracy. That being said, taking out the DPRK, which is necessary, should be a piece of cake if we can keep the PRC out of the peninsula.
2. The economy grew at 3% last quarter, the first time it did so in over 10 years! The leading indicators are all up, probably because the President is addressing the trade problem and the labor surplus.

Quote:About 45% of the American population is decidedly conservative, and some of those seeing something terribly wrong with President Trump are conservatives.

Citation needed. My experience indicates that, at least in Florida, the people who voted for Trump still support him. As such I'm going to require evidence otherwise this statement is just wishful thinking on your part.

Quote:White people have been able to adopt 'blackness' in culture and appearance. The rewards are small and the difficulties are great.  

Rachel Dolezal aside, most white people have no desire to be black. Most black people have no desire to be white. Let me illustrate it this way, and it applies to dick girls and vagina boys too.

I like cats, says person A.
I like dogs, says person B.
I am a cat trapped in a dog's body, says person C.

Person C is obviously mentally ill.

In the US there is only one nation, Americans, and one culture, American. You are either an American or you are not.



Quote:But Kinser is still an extremist.

Yes. Let me remind you: Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue.

Quote: I see much evidence of people wondering how they could have voted for him.

Then you surely have citations for when I say a citation is needed then. My experience indicates otherwise, and I deal with the public nearly daily. I'm not going to bother with the rest of your paragraph since it is just the same old canned nonsense you spout off with every other post. Get some new material PBR.

Quote:Reality will crush some extreme positions of partisanship.

Yes it will. I love seeing boomer ideologues getting crushed. Unfortunately it disconcerts my boyfriend when I start quoting labor statistics and GDP figures when we're fucking.


RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - Warren Dew - 09-05-2017

(09-04-2017, 07:28 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: You know, in a lot of ways it would be nice to have a black perspective.  Instead, we have a black guy who goes against the grain, fighting the usual black perspective.

Can't have those colored folk thinking for themselves, can we, eh, Bob?  Next thing you know, they'll be demanding to vote for the party of their choice, instead of the party that white Democrats choose for them.  They might even get it in their heads that they're smart enough to decide for themselves what's good for them, rather than trusting your superior white version of "the usual black perspective".

The sad thing is, you seem to be too clueless even to recognize the disgusting bigotry in your posts. You probably can't even see that even the idea that there's a "usual black perspective" is one of those "vile stereotypes" that you constantly complain about.


RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - Bob Butler 54 - 09-05-2017

(09-05-2017, 10:34 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:
(09-05-2017, 10:06 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:
(09-05-2017, 08:37 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: An attack on someone's unpopular speech today is an attack on everyone's speech, popular or unpopular, tomorrow. 

One could reword that.  "An attack on someone's hurtful speech today is an attack on everyone's hurtful speech tomorrow."

If one doesn't consider any speech to be hurtful, the conclusion is rather obvious.  If one does, you get to a different place.

If one is the pope, and can write a papal bull settling the hurtful question, one can create a world where the question is obvious and answered.

The question seems to be who is the pope.

Words are not violence, Bob.  And no amount of sophistry will change that fact.

Some feel controlling violence is not the only thing the government should do.  No confusing of your opinion with universal fact will change that.


RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - Bob Butler 54 - 09-05-2017

(09-05-2017, 04:22 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(09-04-2017, 07:28 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: You know, in a lot of ways it would be nice to have a black perspective.  Instead, we have a black guy who goes against the grain, fighting the usual black perspective.

Can't have those colored folk thinking for themselves, can we, eh, Bob?  Next thing you know, they'll be demanding to vote for the party of their choice, instead of the party that white Democrats choose for them.  They might even get it in their heads that they're smart enough to decide for themselves what's good for them, rather than trusting your superior white version of "the usual black perspective".

The sad thing is, you seem to be too clueless even to recognize the disgusting bigotry in your posts.  You probably can't even see that even the idea that there's a "usual black perspective" is one of those "vile stereotypes" that you constantly complain about.

I differentiate between a generalization and vile stereotype.  For black people, I'm no expert on what this might be, though in a forum dedicated to cyclical group behavior, I'll more favor the generalization. I do occasionally glance at polls showing how they voted.  I don't feel a need to repeat them.

I do believe there is culture, experience, history and more that shapes them and which they can share.  Not much my place to do so save by listening.  That you can associate this only with vile stereotypes is unfortunate.


RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - Classic-Xer - 09-05-2017

(09-05-2017, 11:20 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: I can think of more important rights than the right to bear a gun, like the right to travel, the right to change jobs, the right to refuse to do certain work, the right to make investments.... and the right to have consensual sex.
How many of those rights would you have or be able to keep without the right to bear arms?


RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - Bob Butler 54 - 09-05-2017

(09-05-2017, 10:32 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: That only demonstrates that you either have no desire to have a permanent blue ruling class or you have realized that their position on having an unarmed population is extremely dangerous.

Well, no. I see the country divided by two cultures who have embraced different solutions in different environments to different problems. Each seems certain enough that its own solutions are correct to attempt to force their culture on the other. This is unfortunate and problematic.

It is also a problem in Rule of Law. The Constitution means something. One should not throw it away lightly.

Of course, gun policy is a complex question. You can't bring up the above without leaving the door wide open for class and partisanship. You can try somewhat, but people's values are focused on different things. You have got to expect different arguments reflecting that. At one level I have no problems with a different angle and approach, while at another I regret how the problem gets more difficult.

But the key here is worlds being put into my mouth. Kinser's values are as good as any extreme partisan's, but they do not mesh well with mine. I see this as a general problem. Kinser projects values on others freely, often as universals. He just assumed the above must be true. It is just clearer in this case as the values are being projected on mine. Kinser's statement is just wrong and clearly so.

I suppose I should clarify more about the distinction between generalization and vile stereotype. Again, any forum dedicated to the behavior of large amounts of people is going to have to generalize somewhat. We might become boomers, blue leaning or aging hippies. A vile stereotype is something uglier. The target is generally being demeaned and insulted. The generalizations made are generally insulting and often inaccurate. I have also often seen partisans use vile stereotypes to build a straw man attack. If the extreme partisan is having problems defending his values, he will ignore what is said in favor of attacking an often beat up straw man.

Now, I have a great deal of respect for the Obamas. I have less, of course, for Carson and Kinser, not for their skin pigmentation, but for their world views. Somehow, some can't seem to avoid identity politics, and keep bringing it back to skin pigmentation. I'd rather not, but some are quite obsessed with it. Anyway, all of them are real enough and specific enough people that it seems a shame to lump them into a common generalization, let alone a vile stereotype.

Is it an insult to say the Obamas are a little different? I hope not. They are mighty fine people, with skin pigmentation not playing a part of anything. Some people can't seem to move off it being a vile stereotype. Where did that come from? How does any of their beliefs or actions fit in the ugliness of a vile stereotype?


RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - Classic-Xer - 09-05-2017

(09-05-2017, 05:06 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: These dudes are spouting many talking points I have heard on "Right Wing" talk radio and read on "Right Wing" forums.

The whole "Blacks voting mostly Dem means being on the Dem plantation" meme, for instance. Hey look, I'm happy to acknowledge Black Conservatives. But the fact is, most Blacks are not Conservatives. There are reasons.

The truth is, in the main, the GOP is the party of White Men. The stats are abundantly clear on this point.
True, I'd say that most blacks aren't Republican voters or Conservatives as you say and the stats are abundantly clear on that point. I was born a white American and there ain't much I'm able to do about that or able to change about that fact. I'm not going to darken my skin, discard my heritage or my values in order to relate and identify with you or any other black person. I'm sure the average black American's values aren't much different than my values.


RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - Classic-Xer - 09-05-2017

(09-05-2017, 07:08 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:
(09-05-2017, 10:32 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: That only demonstrates that you either have no desire to have a permanent blue ruling class or you have realized that their position on having an unarmed population is extremely dangerous.

Well, no.  I see the country divided by two cultures who have embraced different solutions in different environments to different problems.  Each seems certain enough that its own solutions are correct to attempt to force their culture on the other.  His is unfortunate and problematic.

It is also a problem in Rule of Law.  The Constitution means something.  One should not throw it away lightly.

Of course, gun policy is a complex question.  You can't bring up the above without leaving the door wide open for class and partisanship.  You can try somewhat, but people's values are focused on different things.  You have got to expect different arguments reflecting that.  At one level I have no problems with a different angle and approach, while at another I regret how the problem gets more difficult.

But the key here is worlds being put into my mouth.  Kinser's values are as good as any extreme partisan's, but they do not mesh well with mine.  I see this as a general problem.  Kinser project's values on others freely, often as universals.  He just assumed the above must be true.  It is just clearer in this case as the values are being projected on mine.  Kinser's statement is just wrong and clearly so.

I suppose I should clarify more about the distinction between generalization and vile stereotype.  Again, any forum dedicated to the behavior of large amounts of people is going to have to generalize somewhat.  We might become boomers, blue leaning or aging hippies.  A vile stereotype is something uglier.  The target is generally being demeaned and insulted.  The generalizations made are generally insulting and often inaccurate.  I have also often seen partisans use vile stereotypes to build a straw man attack.  If the extreme partisan is having problems defending his values, he will ignore what is said in favor of attacking an often beat up straw man.

Now, I have a great deal of respect for the Obamas. I have less, of course, for Carson and Kinser, not for their skin pigmentation, but for their world views.  Somehow, some can't seem to avoid identity politics, and keep bringing it back to skin pigmentation.  I'd rather not, but some are quite obsessed with it.  Anyway, all of them are real enough and specific enough that it seems a shame to lump them into a common generalization, let alone a vile stereotype.

Is it an insult to say the Obamas are a little different?  I hope not.  They are mighty fine people, with skin pigmentation not playing a part of anything.  Some people can't seem to move off it being a vile stereotype.  Where did that come from?  How does any of their beliefs or actions fit in the ugliness of a vile stereotype?
What's your (the liberal) view of the world? Is it realistic or dream like? As a general rule, I don't have issues defending my values because most people are able to identify them and share them and don't attack them. I spend more time brushing off liberal stereotypes (both vile and ignorant generalizations) than I do defending values.


RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - Ragnarök_62 - 09-05-2017

(09-05-2017, 07:11 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:
(09-05-2017, 05:06 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: These dudes are spouting many talking points I have heard on "Right Wing" talk radio and read on "Right Wing" forums.

The whole "Blacks voting mostly Dem means being on the Dem plantation" meme, for instance. Hey look, I'm happy to acknowledge Black Conservatives. But the fact is, most Blacks are not Conservatives. There are reasons.

The truth is, in the main, the GOP is the party of White Men. The stats are abundantly clear on this point.
True, I'd say that most blacks aren't Republican voters or Conservatives as you say and the stats are abundantly clear on that point. I was born a white American and there ain't much I'm able to do about that or able to change about that fact. I'm not going to darken my skin, discard my heritage or my values in order to relate and identify with you or any other black person. I'm sure  the average black American's values aren't much different than my values.

Uh,  some cream has hidden coffee.  Some coffee has hidden cream. Big Grin 







RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - Classic-Xer - 09-05-2017

(09-05-2017, 09:59 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:
(09-05-2017, 08:10 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:
(09-05-2017, 07:11 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:
(09-05-2017, 05:06 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: These dudes are spouting many talking points I have heard on "Right Wing" talk radio and read on "Right Wing" forums.

The whole "Blacks voting mostly Dem means being on the Dem plantation" meme, for instance. Hey look, I'm happy to acknowledge Black Conservatives. But the fact is, most Blacks are not Conservatives. There are reasons.

The truth is, in the main, the GOP is the party of White Men. The stats are abundantly clear on this point.
True, I'd say that most blacks aren't Republican voters or Conservatives as you say and the stats are abundantly clear on that point. I was born a white American and there ain't much I'm able to do about that or able to change about that fact. I'm not going to darken my skin, discard my heritage or my values in order to relate and identify with you or any other black person. I'm sure  the average black American's values aren't much different than my values.

Uh,  some cream has hidden coffee.  Some coffee has hidden cream. Big Grin 





Cream with hidden coffee here ...
It wouldn't/doesn't matter to me either way.


RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - Bob Butler 54 - 09-06-2017

(09-05-2017, 08:10 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:
(09-05-2017, 07:11 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:
(09-05-2017, 05:06 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: These dudes are spouting many talking points I have heard on "Right Wing" talk radio and read on "Right Wing" forums.

The whole "Blacks voting mostly Dem means being on the Dem plantation" meme, for instance. Hey look, I'm happy to acknowledge Black Conservatives. But the fact is, most Blacks are not Conservatives. There are reasons.

The truth is, in the main, the GOP is the party of White Men. The stats are abundantly clear on this point.
True, I'd say that most blacks aren't Republican voters or Conservatives as you say and the stats are abundantly clear on that point. I was born a white American and there ain't much I'm able to do about that or able to change about that fact. I'm not going to darken my skin, discard my heritage or my values in order to relate and identify with you or any other black person. I'm sure  the average black American's values aren't much different than my values.

Uh,  some cream has hidden coffee.  Some coffee has hidden cream. Big Grin 





Very amusing, but I remember a similar set of tests being done on identical European blonde female triplets.  The place of origin identifications came out entirely different.  Same genes?  Different test results?  Before taking this sort of test too seriously I'd want to send samples to different companies and get a converging result.


RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - Bob Butler 54 - 09-06-2017

(09-05-2017, 08:08 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: What's your (the liberal) view of the world? Is it realistic or dream like?

Good questions.

In many ways, I strive to be one of balance.  You have to be realistic, yet calling yourself a Whig you can't let the basic Enlightenment values go.  Democracy, human rights, sharing risks and costs, helping one's fellow man, all that fits in.  A government works for the common welfare, not for the few.

There is also a notion that there is always a rich elite, that no matter how much they have they want more, that they always strive to control the government, and that only occasionally will the many get upset enough to contest the rich getting richer.  Often in the sequence of S&H Anglo American crisis, a new elite favoring a new technology will align with the working guy to push Whig values.  This is not coming together well this time around, at least not yet.

Nast's vile stereotype of Tweed might stand as a base for how I am ready to view the rich and few as natural enemies of the working many.  I do remember when our high school band doing an exchange concert placing me with a richer family.  It was a tradition, giving members of one band and chorus an opportunity to meet their opposites.  "Oh, let's go visit my father's hanger, and tour his collection of historic airplanes."  No one was as fat as Nast portrayed them, or Marx explained them.  Still, there is an assumption that there are traditional historic bad guys, tempered by an impression of how ordinary the seemed to be, or at least how ordinary they could look on the surface.

I guess Reagan's vile stereotype of the black pregnant welfare queen, treating government generosity as a way of life, might stand opposite Nast's Boss Tweed.  Balance means not getting too obsessed with either, yet trying to take the precautions to prevent the worst abuses coming from anywhere.

Regarding war, I am personally concerned with Powell's questions.  If we are going to go in, let there be well identified goals, a way to achieve them, and a way out.  Bush 43's war demonstrated how much resistance a sole superpower and wannabe neo colonialist will meet, the problems with insurgent war, and how easily unintended consequences leak in.  In short, I am very dubious about foreign intervention.

And yet containment, the domino theory, isn't entirely bogus.  You don't want to give autocratic governments a free and easy expansionist path.  The choices aren't trivial and easy.

And there is the basic balance.  We have a huge division of wealth, which implies the ability to increase taxes.  One party pushes military spending, the other domestic.  Yet, if our military is to be of a certain size, shouldn't they be funded well enough for proper maintenance and training?  Do we want the rich getting richer?  Can we afford a floor, something like UDHR 25's protection so we won't let our own slip below a certain level of basic food, clothing, shelter and health care?  

I don't think I need explain or defend the basic liberal view on most of that.  For the most part, I'm leaning blue.

And the above is before getting into the urban - rural divide.  I’m afraid I can’t give you a short answer.  Please accept the basics, ask questions, and re-read a few of my old posts.

(09-05-2017, 08:08 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: As a general rule, I don't have issues defending my values because most people are able to identify them and share them and don't attack them. I spend more time brushing off liberal stereotypes (both vile and ignorant generalizations) than I do defending values.

I might go a step further.  As a liberal in Massachusetts, I seldom have to brush off stereotypes or defend values.

This forum seems to have different rules.  It seems you are supposed to test values, to push against others.  Conversations that involve strange values and vile stereotypes are far more common than in real world.

This almost makes me reluctant to answer your question.  I expect strawmen.  I half expect someone to come in and say no, I lie, all liberals believe (insert absurd vile easily defeated argument here) and (insert the defeat of the easily defeated argument.)  The idea that the opposition might have though things out and be fighting for worthy cause can seem strange to many people.

Do you (or does anyone else) have an equivalent set of opposing values?  Can you critique my values honestly without going into strawmen?

And then, the way you asked the question reminds me of...

Ted Kennedy Wrote:And someday, long after this convention, long after the signs come down and the crowds stop cheering, and the bands stop playing, may it be said of our campaign that we kept the faith. May it be said of our Party in 1980 that we found our faith again. And may it be said of us, both in dark passages and in bright days, in the words of Tennyson that my brothers quoted and loved, and that have special meaning for me now:

I am a part of all that I have met
Tho much is taken, much abides
That which we are, we are–
One equal temper of heroic hearts
Strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

For me, a few hours ago, this campaign came to an end. For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die.



RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - Bob Butler 54 - 09-06-2017

Another thought that falls out of the Boss Tweed / Welfare Queen dichotomy.  'The opportunities I exploit are just fine, but the stuff that people different from me exploits should be blocked and prevented.'  This trend may not be unique to any partisan group, but all too human.

Is every Republican a miniature reincarnation of Boss Tweed? No. Is every Democrat a pregnant welfare queen? No. Is our country perfect? No. Do both stereotypes reflect a problem in our country which shouldn't be allowed to get out of hand? Yes. Does one's position in society allow one to exploit one loophole rather than another? Yes. Can we outlaw self interest, prevent people from advocating what is best for them? No.

Anyway, seems worth saying.