Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
03-25-2022, 04:04 PM
(This post was last modified: 03-25-2022, 04:10 PM by Eric the Green.)
Liberal versus Neoliberal! An interesting old video and debate hosted by the late, great Gwen Ifill:
Should young people of color employed by McDonald's be paid decent middle-class wages to serve lousy fast food?
Should we even have such lousy fast-food restaurants? I say no.
Maybe if we required them to pay fair wages, that might encourage them to improve their product too. Or feel real competition from other restaurants that actually serve decent food, instead of carrying on a race to the bottom by big money CEOs making huge profits by offering lousy but cheap products and paying people poverty wages.
Consumers who have no money to spend cannot support small business. If people have no money, who will buy the stuff? The conservative bosses want taxpayers to pay these poor people, instead of paying their workers themselves. Neoliberals shift all their costs onto the rest of us. Trickle-down doesn't trickle. I say, no more McJobs. If Walmart goes out of business, hooray!
And $15 an hour is no longer enough in places like the Bay Area, where an apartment costs $3000 a month. I don't want to live in a city composed only of priviliged rich people who prey on others and think only about money. But that's what San Jose and San Francisco and New York are becoming. Feudalism is being brought back by such unfair high prices caused by speculators and corporate ownership too. Feudalism and the end of democracy is what the Republicans and other conservatives who support low pay and high prices are trying to create.
Posts: 505
Threads: 52
Joined: Feb 2022
(03-25-2022, 03:41 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Time to post that Nick Hanauer video again here 
will take a look
Quote:Time limits forget that unemployment is usually determined by the economy, not the unemployed person. So how do we make sure that unemployed people do something in exchange for their coverage, and not just fake it? I don't know, but your solution needs some work.
contingencies for particularly high rates of unemployment are not unreasonable
Quote:Quote:Maybe so, but how do we create this kind of standard?
The same way individuals already draw up contracts. Default models drawn up by lawyers would pop up quickly on their own. It's not something policy makers need to design themselves
Quote:Would such marriage contracts pop up quickly on their own, how? Why aren't they already popping up now, then?
They already do. They're just less common because they often aren't respected in court like they should be.
Quote:And salaried people too. Giving someone a title should not entitle the employer to extract 12-hour days without overtime from the employee.
it's not the title which does, it's the money. they make $100,000+ precisely because they're willing to work overtime on the regular.
ammosexual
reluctant millennial
Posts: 505
Threads: 52
Joined: Feb 2022
This one is going after pretty much all of American culture, from boomer to Gen Z and from socialist to Randian: being a "rebel without a cause" is the height of immaturity, and a desire to be aggressive for no reason.
It's okay to question authority. It's okay to think for yourself, express yourself and generally do what you want, but rebelling to just to rebel isn't much different from throwing a tantrum. What? You think we can build a society just be constantly "rebelling"? You think that's ever going to foster a sense of community? structure? rationality? If you don't like the system then
1) work to change it through legitimate channels
2) debate people in earnest without grandiose provocations
3) become a leader yourself...and accept the responsibilities that come with it
American society overall needs to grow up. It needs to stop rebelling against the authority and instead become the authority you wish to see in the world. Otherwise, you're just throwing a fit and picking fights with people who didn't do anything to do.
ammosexual
reluctant millennial
Posts: 4,336
Threads: 7
Joined: Jul 2016
(03-26-2022, 08:57 PM)JasonBlack Wrote: This one is going after pretty much all of American culture, from boomer to Gen Z and from socialist to Randian: being a "rebel without a cause" is the height of immaturity, and a desire to be aggressive for no reason.
It's okay to question authority. It's okay to think for yourself, express yourself and generally do what you want, but rebelling to just to rebel isn't much different from throwing a tantrum. What? You think we can build a society just be constantly "rebelling"? You think that's ever going to foster a sense of community? structure? rationality? If you don't like the system then
1) work to change it through legitimate channels
2) debate people in earnest without grandiose provocations
3) become a leader yourself...and accept the responsibilities that come with it
American society overall needs to grow up. It needs to stop rebelling against the authority and instead become the authority you wish to see in the world. Otherwise, you're just throwing a fit and picking fights with people who didn't do anything to do.
This is the aspect of conservative thought that has real value. I can't buy-in 100%, but I do value the ideas. The small amount of naivete present keeps the ideas unencumbered with unnecessary complexity. I'm OK with that.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Posts: 10,465
Threads: 197
Joined: May 2016
(03-26-2022, 08:57 PM)JasonBlack Wrote: This one is going after pretty much all of American culture, from boomer to Gen Z and from socialist to Randian: being a "rebel without a cause" is the height of immaturity, and a desire to be aggressive for no reason.
If you have never seen the movie Rebel Without a Cause, then do so. It was very good. Although playing a very immature character, James Dean played the role with some very mature acting. One rarely sees that, and just seeing his unique style is worth the price of the video.
Quote:It's okay to question authority. It's okay to think for yourself, express yourself and generally do what you want, but rebelling to just to rebel isn't much different from throwing a tantrum. What? You think we can build a society just be constantly "rebelling"? You think that's ever going to foster a sense of community? structure? rationality? If you don't like the system then
1) work to change it through legitimate channels
2) debate people in earnest without grandiose provocations
3) become a leader yourself...and accept the responsibilities that come with it
Challenges to corrupt norms are a necessary part of causing a society itself to grow up. So it was with the voting rights and economic opportunities for African-Americans, and more recently with LGBT rights.. Rottenness tends to consolidate itself and then insinuate into every imaginable institution. Rottenness is usually wise enough to committing society to putting up an impressive front... but underneath the foundation deteriorates. In political rottenness such appears as a political cult of personality.In economics it is cronyism in a pay-to-play system.
1. Rebellion against evil is noble, necessary, and inevitable -- even if futile. Healthy societies have room for healthy communities within them, societies that may insulate them from some attributes that those communities reject or to protect traits that others can rarely adopt. On the other hand, successful commerce can transcend culture; so can outright fun and tasty food. This is one defense of a part of libertarian theory -- the benign part in which people are free to choose an innocuous identity. (The not-so-benign side of libertarianism leads to a hierarchy based upon wealth or bureaucratic power within for-profit institutions that leads to the denial of opportunity including competition, and that merits rebellion!) Question: what do we do when "legitimate" channels when those disappear?
2. Some people will not debate in earnest. "White power" cultists are not open to recognizing the validity of any challenge to white supremacy. Human solidarity across ethnic lines violates the one thing precious to themselves -- their "whiteness". It is hard to imagine a serious debate with someone convinced in the validity of young-earth creationism, with Mafia groupies, the Taliban or Daesh, or the New Black Panther Party. "Believe it or burn", whether at the stake, in a crematorium after breathing Zyklon-B, or enduring eternal fire and brimstone, is unacceptable. (OK, I once got into an argument with a Nazi on the Web, and I suggested that the eternal abode of Nazis and Stalinists, the most egregious sinners of all time, would be extremely unpleasant even if the climate and scenery were like those of San Francisco. The real horror of Hell would be the company).
Grandiose provocations induce a ferocious crackdown. Even here, prosecutors know enough to never let a defendant use the defense stand as a forum for pushing his cause.
3. One can be a leader at various levels, from creating an affront to establishing a reform group. Do so too late and you will at worst be futile and at best will be a martyr.
Quote:American society overall needs to grow up. It needs to stop rebelling against the authority and instead become the authority you wish to see in the world. Otherwise, you're just throwing a fit and picking fights with people who didn't do anything to do.
Some authority is valid (scientific truth tends to entrench itself with neither terror, deceit, nor corruption). Would that the rest of us meet that standard!
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
03-27-2022, 03:34 PM
(This post was last modified: 03-27-2022, 03:38 PM by Eric the Green.)
(03-26-2022, 08:57 PM)JasonBlack Wrote: This one is going after pretty much all of American culture, from boomer to Gen Z and from socialist to Randian: being a "rebel without a cause" is the height of immaturity, and a desire to be aggressive for no reason.
It's okay to question authority. It's okay to think for yourself, express yourself and generally do what you want, but rebelling to just to rebel isn't much different from throwing a tantrum. What? You think we can build a society just be constantly "rebelling"? You think that's ever going to foster a sense of community? structure? rationality? If you don't like the system then
1) work to change it through legitimate channels
2) debate people in earnest without grandiose provocations
3) become a leader yourself...and accept the responsibilities that come with it
American society overall needs to grow up. It needs to stop rebelling against the authority and instead become the authority you wish to see in the world. Otherwise, you're just throwing a fit and picking fights with people who didn't do anything to do.
One thing I notice is that when I write or speak out or make points as clearly as I can, I am usually ignored.
That seems to be the condition of humanity. What we've got here is, failure to communicate. So, we get it. We get beat.
It seems like what we've got in America is not rebellion so much as authoritarian fanaticism. It is this that supports the outsized right-wing in the USA, and THEY are the source of our problems as far as I can see. The Left "rebels" in this country are mostly center-left, and they offer constructive policies that solve problems and concerns and support constructive institutions. Yelling about a few extreme or immature rebels on the Left who are marginal in numbers seems to be the irresponsible thing to me.
Posts: 505
Threads: 52
Joined: Feb 2022
(03-27-2022, 03:34 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: (03-26-2022, 08:57 PM)JasonBlack Wrote: This one is going after pretty much all of American culture, from boomer to Gen Z and from socialist to Randian: being a "rebel without a cause" is the height of immaturity, and a desire to be aggressive for no reason.
It's okay to question authority. It's okay to think for yourself, express yourself and generally do what you want, but rebelling to just to rebel isn't much different from throwing a tantrum. What? You think we can build a society just be constantly "rebelling"? You think that's ever going to foster a sense of community? structure? rationality? If you don't like the system then
1) work to change it through legitimate channels
2) debate people in earnest without grandiose provocations
3) become a leader yourself...and accept the responsibilities that come with it
American society overall needs to grow up. It needs to stop rebelling against the authority and instead become the authority you wish to see in the world. Otherwise, you're just throwing a fit and picking fights with people who didn't do anything to do.
One thing I notice is that when I write or speak out or make points as clearly as I can, I am usually ignored.
That seems to be the condition of humanity. What we've got here is, failure to communicate. So, we get it. We get beat.
It seems like what we've got in America is not rebellion so much as authoritarian fanaticism. It is this that supports the outsized right-wing in the USA, and THEY are the source of our problems as far as I can see. The Left "rebels" in this country are mostly center-left, and they offer constructive policies that solve problems and concerns and support constructive institutions. Yelling about a few extreme or immature rebels on the Left who are marginal in numbers seems to be the irresponsible thing to me.
It's more than a few extremist on the left. In fact, it's more than the left (though I'd argue they're generally worse). Look at any major media network where two people are debating (anything from The View, Fox News or anything in between)....now look at some clips of people debating 40-60 years ago. Notice how much more calm they are, how their passions, though readily obvious, are reigned in for the sake of civility.
counter example: Tulsi Gabbard. regardless of your views on her politics (which, to be honest, are usually pretty reasonable in my opinion)the way she manages to be passionate and assertive and maintain composure...that bitch has class. This is what a leader looks like, and hopefully, she is closer to the future of what communication in America looks like.
ammosexual
reluctant millennial
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
(03-27-2022, 11:03 PM)JasonBlack Wrote: (03-27-2022, 03:34 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: (03-26-2022, 08:57 PM)JasonBlack Wrote: This one is going after pretty much all of American culture, from boomer to Gen Z and from socialist to Randian: being a "rebel without a cause" is the height of immaturity, and a desire to be aggressive for no reason.
It's okay to question authority. It's okay to think for yourself, express yourself and generally do what you want, but rebelling to just to rebel isn't much different from throwing a tantrum. What? You think we can build a society just be constantly "rebelling"? You think that's ever going to foster a sense of community? structure? rationality? If you don't like the system then
1) work to change it through legitimate channels
2) debate people in earnest without grandiose provocations
3) become a leader yourself...and accept the responsibilities that come with it
American society overall needs to grow up. It needs to stop rebelling against the authority and instead become the authority you wish to see in the world. Otherwise, you're just throwing a fit and picking fights with people who didn't do anything to do.
One thing I notice is that when I write or speak out or make points as clearly as I can, I am usually ignored.
That seems to be the condition of humanity. What we've got here is, failure to communicate. So, we get it. We get beat.
It seems like what we've got in America is not rebellion so much as authoritarian fanaticism. It is this that supports the outsized right-wing in the USA, and THEY are the source of our problems as far as I can see. The Left "rebels" in this country are mostly center-left, and they offer constructive policies that solve problems and concerns and support constructive institutions. Yelling about a few extreme or immature rebels on the Left who are marginal in numbers seems to be the irresponsible thing to me.
It's more than a few extremist on the left. In fact, it's more than the left (though I'd argue they're generally worse). Look at any major media network where two people are debating (anything from The View, Fox News or anything in between)....now look at some clips of people debating 40-60 years ago. Notice how much more calm they are, how their passions, though readily obvious, are reigned in for the sake of civility.
counter example: Tulsi Gabbard. regardless of your views on her politics (which, to be honest, are usually pretty reasonable in my opinion)the way she manages to be passionate and assertive and maintain composure...that bitch has class. This is what a leader looks like, and hopefully, she is closer to the future of what communication in America looks like.....
I can't agree with your respect for Tulsi. She is a conspiracy theory trafficker. Especially in her views on Syria. I discussed her in this thread here: http://generational-theory.com/forum/thr...l#pid41380
Leaders need more than composure, I'm afraid. We need effective communication and leadership, but most of all we need good policy that moves the country forward toward prosperity and fulfillment for all. Those who uphold authority are generally blocking real solutions. The authorities are the problem. And as George Carlin would say, the real owners, the wealthy business interests who make all the important decisions.
Your point is well-taken regarding better communication. I don't think that is the same as "rebelling against authority", which in general is what people on the Left do. And I'd argue it's the pundits on the right who are the most outrageous and uncivil. The worst right now seems to be Tucker Carlson, but others on Fox News are naturally bad too.
If you want more civil discussion and punditry, slightly to the left notwithstanding, go PBS. The View I would categorize as very superficial celebrity stuff. We used to have many more news and panel shows than we have today. Now the ones on network TV are scheduled opposite each other on Sunday morning so that we see less of them. But I choose Meet the Press because my local station puts it on at 5 PM. The most uncivil discussion and failures to communicate are found between regular folks (and trolls) on social media and in person. Cable TV is probably worse than network media too, but I only watch it occasionally on youtube videos. The bosses who own the media want us either to argue with each other so they get our eyeballs (social media) or to keep us uninformed and focused on total trivia (like on The View and The Talk). An informed citizenry is not in the best interests of the bosses who want us to ignore what they are doing to us.
Posts: 505
Threads: 52
Joined: Feb 2022
The arts usually don't need more funding. It's not because they aren't important, but because getting exposure to the arts is usually extremely inexpensive.
1) You can go on youtube and find free videos of every genre from rap, to classic rock, to baroque opera to Mongolian Throat Singing
2) The library is free
3) The human voice is free
Sure, maybe you need a bit for paint supplies, instruments and the occasional class trip, but by and large, just because something is important doesn't mean it has to be expensive. Seriously though, do you know anyone around today who doesn't have near constant exposure to like 10 different genres of music? The idea that we need exorbitant school district spending to facilitate this is absurd and wasteful.
ammosexual
reluctant millennial
Posts: 4,336
Threads: 7
Joined: Jul 2016
(04-12-2022, 03:27 PM)JasonBlack Wrote: The arts usually don't need more funding. It's not because they aren't important, but because getting exposure to the arts is usually extremely inexpensive.
1) You can go on youtube and find free videos of every genre from rap, to classic rock, to baroque opera to Mongolian Throat Singing
2) The library is free
3) The human voice is free
Sure, maybe you need a bit for paint supplies, instruments and the occasional class trip, but by and large, just because something is important doesn't mean it has to be expensive. Seriously though, do you know anyone around today who doesn't have near constant exposure to like 10 different genres of music? The idea that we need exorbitant school district spending to facilitate this is absurd and wasteful.
Can I assume you have never trained in any of these fields? Take ballet. To be great, and that's what the target should be for serious dancers, lessons need to start in the preteen years, preferably before age 10. Lessons aren't expensive in the early years, but promising candidates (i.e. all the youth who will be part of serious companies, and certainly all principals) need to begin serious training in their early teens -- usually with noted teachers, typically in dedicated facilities far from home (not everyone lives in a major city). The same can be said for musicians, painters and sculptors, and writers, though writing can be studied more easily than the others.
So yes, you can obtain the product of their work for little to nothing. That doesn't make it worth what you pay.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Posts: 505
Threads: 52
Joined: Feb 2022
04-16-2022, 03:14 PM
(This post was last modified: 04-16-2022, 03:14 PM by JasonBlack.)
(04-15-2022, 09:54 AM)David Horn Wrote: Can I assume you have never trained in any of these fields? Take ballet. To be great, and that's what the target should be for serious dancers, lessons need to start in the preteen years, preferably before age 10. Lessons aren't expensive in the early years, but promising candidates (i.e. all the youth who will be part of serious companies, and certainly all principals) need to begin serious training in their early teens -- usually with noted teachers, typically in dedicated facilities far from home (not everyone lives in a major city). The same can be said for musicians, painters and sculptors, and writers, though writing can be studied more easily than the others.
So yes, you can obtain the product of their work for little to nothing. That doesn't make it worth what you pay.
You assume incorrectly. I trained as an opera singer (baritone) for 5 years before switching career paths. My fees for voice lessons? Anywhere from $25-50 a week. Well within the reach of a teenager with even the most entry-level part time job (assuming their parents wouldn't pay for it, which the majority would, even among the working class). There are certain more niche fields like sculpture, opera, ballet and crafts that require more extensive training which might do well with better funding, but this should not be a blanket policy afforded to all forms of art. It takes extensive training to sing like Joan Sutherland or Robert Merrill. It takes a lot less to sound like Drake or Madonna.
ammosexual
reluctant millennial
Posts: 10,465
Threads: 197
Joined: May 2016
(04-12-2022, 03:27 PM)JasonBlack Wrote: The arts usually don't need more funding. It's not because they aren't important, but because getting exposure to the arts is usually extremely inexpensive.
1) You can go on youtube and find free videos of every genre from rap, to classic rock, to baroque opera to Mongolian Throat Singing
2) The library is free
3) The human voice is free
Sure, maybe you need a bit for paint supplies, instruments and the occasional class trip, but by and large, just because something is important doesn't mean it has to be expensive. Seriously though, do you know anyone around today who doesn't have near constant exposure to like 10 different genres of music? The idea that we need exorbitant school district spending to facilitate this is absurd and wasteful.
The arts can enrich life, offer insights into the complexity of life that academic studies offer, and define a culture. To be sure, the arts can serve as an anodyne (the Nazis still showed love for great music so long as it was "Aryan" and compatible with Nazi ideals). Still, I will take the extreme creativity of the profit-oriented movie moguls of America over any cultural innovation that the Nazis offered. To the embarrassment of the Nazis the British could exploit the humanity of great German music.
Visual arts must be seen to be appreciated, and an essential part of art education is in learning the conventions of form*, shading, color, and perspective. Music at its best is often so abstract that it has such generic titles as String Quartet No. 13 in G major, Op. 106 by Antonín Dvořák that one needs a certain measure in both literacy and knowledge of music to recognize that it merits a listen:
If one does not recognize that two violins, a viola, and a cello can offer rich, complete sound, that such music is too good to need eccentric costumes, and that music with such generic titles can be richer than music with colorful titles, then one misses this.
People can appreciate this music if they are in Baltimore or Bangalore (I chose these two places solely for the rhyme); Perth, Scotland or Perth, Australia; Odessa, Texas or Odessa, Ukraine. or San Jose, California or San Jose, Costa Rica. But only among people both learned in music and highly literate, in which case this music is highly accessible. Otherwise it might as well br on the dark side of the moon.
Then music like this is known to offend the sensibilities of juvenile delinquents -- enough that it has been used as a deterrent to hoodlums.
2. The library might be free and thus useful, but it generally lacks much appeal as might a sports bar.
3. Honing an operatic voice is fiendish, and although everyone can sing, far too few can carry a tune. In my case I can carry a tune, but my baritone voice is so weak that I would be buried in a chorus. Pop singers operate by different rules than do singers of opera or Lieder, but the really-good ones have trained their voices.
Such painting as I have done is more geometry than art.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
Posts: 4,336
Threads: 7
Joined: Jul 2016
(04-16-2022, 03:14 PM)JasonBlack Wrote: (04-15-2022, 09:54 AM)David Horn Wrote: Can I assume you have never trained in any of these fields? Take ballet. To be great, and that's what the target should be for serious dancers, lessons need to start in the preteen years, preferably before age 10. Lessons aren't expensive in the early years, but promising candidates (i.e. all the youth who will be part of serious companies, and certainly all principals) need to begin serious training in their early teens -- usually with noted teachers, typically in dedicated facilities far from home (not everyone lives in a major city). The same can be said for musicians, painters and sculptors, and writers, though writing can be studied more easily than the others.
So yes, you can obtain the product of their work for little to nothing. That doesn't make it worth what you pay.
You assume incorrectly. I trained as an opera singer (baritone) for 5 years before switching career paths. My fees for voice lessons? Anywhere from $25-50 a week. Well within the reach of a teenager with even the most entry-level part time job (assuming their parents wouldn't pay for it, which the majority would, even among the working class). There are certain more niche fields like sculpture, opera, ballet and crafts that require more extensive training which might do well with better funding, but this should not be a blanket policy afforded to all forms of art. It takes extensive training to sing like Joan Sutherland or Robert Merrill. It takes a lot less to sound like Drake or Madonna.
Fair enough, but I'll still stand on my previous post. The arts are a tough field under any circumstances. Making a living from your art may be easier in some areas (you used to be able to get a writing job pretty easily -- not so much anymore), but it's never considered "essential", so it's easily blown-off.
At the collegiate level, we spend vastly more on football teams than performance groups of all kinds combined. That's the state of our culture. We assume the entertainment we seek will just be there. Yes, popular artists can do exceedingly well, but how many are there really? You mentioned two; there may be 1 - 2,000 of so doing well if not dazzlingly so. Beyond that, it's a struggle. I come from a family full of performance artists of all types. I didn't get the gene, so I went into engineering. Of all the people in my family who really deserve to have made it, none really did. It's a feast or famine life.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Posts: 10,465
Threads: 197
Joined: May 2016
Good artists have often gone commercial. Advertising hires huge numbers of photographers and graphic artists... and writers of ad copy. Don't bother writing a novel; write ad copy that will get people into a dealership to buy some expensive car. An advertising jingle (Barry Manilow has made huge money off ad jingles for State Farm Insurance and McDonald's -- more than off concerts and records).
One must say of college football teams: they bring in the dough from people who last read a college-level text just before the last final exam and would never set foot on a college campus except to watch the Wolverines take on the Spartans. Heck, a few years back the Michigan State Police auctioned off some tickets for Michigan basketball games for the Final Four -- tickets seized from drug suspects whose only appearance at college might have been to deal some 'recreational substances' on or near campus.
It's up to people to decide where they take their entertainment dollars. The local little theater or a football game? Classical music or rap? Cinematic marvels of the Golden Age of American Cinema or hits to be forgotten ten years from now? I cannot judge.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
04-17-2022, 11:32 PM
(This post was last modified: 04-17-2022, 11:33 PM by Eric the Green.)
The earlier aristocratic and religious societies hired and supported artists. I suppose the rulers thought that art would be good propaganda and glorify them. But we today have benefited from what the artists and musicians of the past created.
It was good that we vested more rulership in the common people. But a society is most-of-all revered for the art it has produced. Our society today produces almost nothing of value. If rulership is to be vested in the people, that means that the people must invest in the arts. We need to value and elevate our tastes. That means peoples' governments helping in this education and support, not just the market. Leaving everything to the market to determine has been an abject and total failure. It is a ideology that urgently needs to be junked and debunked.
Posts: 4,336
Threads: 7
Joined: Jul 2016
(04-17-2022, 11:32 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The earlier aristocratic and religious societies hired and supported artists. I suppose the rulers thought that art would be good propaganda and glorify them. But we today have benefited from what the artists and musicians of the past created.
It was good that we vested more rulership in the common people. But a society is most-of-all revered for the art it has produced. Our society today produces almost nothing of value. If rulership is to be vested in the people, that means that the people must invest in the arts. We need to value and elevate our tastes. That means peoples' governments helping in this education and support, not just the market. Leaving everything to the market to determine has been an abject and total failure. It is a ideology that urgently needs to be junked and debunked.
I agree in an off handed sort of way. No, we don't produce a lot of material that will outlive its producers. We're in a period of throwing-off the old to make way for the new. Of course, not all the old needs to go and most of the new is schlock. It goes with the territory, I'm afraid. There is little doubt that we need a major renewal; it's equally obvious that we don't have a clue how. Meanwhile, the forces of reaction know exactly what to do, how to do it and when. In this fable, we're the grasshoppers; they are the ants. The upside: the arts may be the needed segue to a new paradigm. They were for the Flower Children, so there is hope.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
04-20-2022, 12:55 PM
(This post was last modified: 04-20-2022, 02:45 PM by Eric the Green.)
Barack Obama tells it like it is magnificantly. The way to establish any kind of change, is for us to step up and do our part. Otherwise, our generations will fail and turnings will end. We have to show up! Especially, this is Obama's equivalent speech for today to FDR's that inspired Strauss and Howe by saying "there is a mysterious cycle in human events.....this generation of Americans have a rendezvous with destiny." This is not FDR's speech, but Obama's equivalent speech for OUR generation! Especially Millennials. Click on the link to be taken right to the heart of the matter at the end of his speech.
https://youtu.be/7hZgg_KjvDQ?t=3246
Posts: 4,336
Threads: 7
Joined: Jul 2016
(04-20-2022, 12:55 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Barack Obama tells it like it is magnificantly. The way to establish any kind of change, is for us to step up and do our part. Otherwise, our generations will fail and turnings will end. We have to show up! Especially, this is Obama's equivalent speech for today to FDR's that inspired Strauss and Howe by saying "there is a mysterious cycle in human events.....this generation of Americans have a rendezvous with destiny." This is not FDR's speech, but Obama's equivalent speech for OUR generation! Especially Millennials. Click on the link to be taken right to the heart of the matter at the end of his speech.
https://youtu.be/7hZgg_KjvDQ?t=3246
I'm glad he brought it, but it would have been better 5 or even 10 years ago. There's nothing here we didn't know then.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
04-20-2022, 08:33 PM
(This post was last modified: 04-20-2022, 08:57 PM by Eric the Green.)
And we especially need it this year. Share please.
What I have experienced these last 41 years has been depressing. We have lived in a declining society, with declining confidence in our society and its institutions. And as I diagnose this, it comes down to one fact. Once a Democratic president is elected, at the next midterm too many people withdraw for him. Then a Republican is installed by the Supreme Court and/or the electoral college. So we have years and years at a time without any progress. From 1994 to 2008, we had no progress, and from 2010 to 2020, again, no progress. At all other times, the country regressed. All progress was blocked.
There are other things besides politics and government that affect our nation. But it is a critical factor. Without it, the rich and powerful rule without restraint, and prejudice of various kinds grows.
So now, we seem about to rinse and repeat. Once again we seem on the verge of not supporting a Democratic president once elected, and allowing the powerful few to block all initiatives to help our society be available and open to others besides the rich and powerful and the prejudiced.
Obama's speech is a lesson in civics, and we need it. Just criticizing the messenger is a neat way to avoid the lesson.
Posts: 10,465
Threads: 197
Joined: May 2016
Crisis eras do not always go well. War is worse than a zero-sum game, and a Crisis that culminates in triumph for one side (Rome in the Second Punic War, the Union side in the American Civil War, the Allied Powers in WWII) can be great tragedy for the losing side (Carthage, the Confederacy, the Axis Powers). What looks like a Crisis triumph at the time because the winners write the histories may be a hidden calamity. Most of what we think we Americans know about Spartacus and the Servile War is a consequence of the writing of the American novelist Howard Fast. Classical civilization might have fared better had Spartacus overthrown the slave order that corrupted the latter century of the Roman Republic.
At least during the American Civil War we solved one problem that the Romans never did,and in our last completed Crisis we smashed two of the vilest social orders that ever existed. This time the key issue is the debasement of our social order. This Crisis can culminate in America becoming an Evil Empire in which the unlimited greed of rapacious elites gets dictatorial or despotic power to entrench its will. We could have the Orwellian nightmare of a boot grinding into a human face, but whose horror has the additional offense of the person grinding his boot insisting that the face being tortured smile in masochistic glee.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
|
