Who else would like politics to be humdrum?

[pbrower2a]

Donald Trump has shown the seams of our system. In the old days those who knew of those seams recognized the danger of exploiting those seams even if such was temporarily advantageous because finding shady way to do good would encourage someone else to find such a shady way for doing bad. We may need to rewrite much of the Constitution just to close those seams. I have long dreaded the prospect of another Constitutional Convention because such might enshrine special-interest policies that we might regret in a short time, or even allow one of the Parties to declare itself the "Leading Force in American politics", which is how Soviet constitutions enshrined the Communist Party.

[David Horn]

(02-03-2022, 12:31 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I like your first paragraph David above that begins "I'm sure Eric will respond too".... I think unless reforms are made in the 2020s the correction in the next 2T would be made by mother nature, and it will not be to our benefit. As for "we are already there," yes we are already approaching tipping points toward destruction. But whether some tech has changed is very-much beside the point. That is not real change. Real change is what has been resisted for 40 years: political change, social reform. Such has not been made yet.

I was thinking about that watching a Perry Mason episode, filmed in about 1960. Sure, people had to pick up a telephone when it rang, or dial numbers to make a call. Now we put a mobile phone up to our ear. And I think, big fu*king deal. Just a little change to how we operate physically, but this is not a change in the way we live or in our real conditions. Some things changed in the 1960s and 70s; less restrictions on diverse groups and more opportunity for them, and in the 1980s, when inequality started moving back to what it was in the 1920s. And all the good actors I saw on Perry Mason are gone and none have replaced them. Beyond that, not much change at all.

The real problem is a VR World, and it's coming.  VR was shown quite vividly in the movie Ready Player One.  VR World can be anything we can imagine, and living there can be glorious, but it's still a vicarious experience.  At the same time, reality can suck, but too many may decide they don't care.  It's Zuckerberg's wet dream: owning the real world and leaving the vicarious one to the proles.

I'm not sure there's a way back from that kind of insanity.

[pbrower2a]

(02-04-2022, 10:20 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(02-03-2022, 12:31 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I like your first paragraph David above that begins "I'm sure Eric will respond too".... I think unless reforms are made in the 2020s the correction in the next 2T would be made by mother nature, and it will not be to our benefit. As for "we are already there," yes we are already approaching tipping points toward destruction. But whether some tech has changed is very-much beside the point. That is not real change. Real change is what has been resisted for 40 years: political change, social reform. Such has not been made yet.

I was thinking about that watching a Perry Mason episode, filmed in about 1960. Sure, people had to pick up a telephone when it rang, or dial numbers to make a call. Now we put a mobile phone up to our ear. And I think, big fu*king deal. Just a little change to how we operate physically, but this is not a change in the way we live or in our real conditions. Some things changed in the 1960s and 70s; less restrictions on diverse groups and more opportunity for them, and in the 1980s, when inequality started moving back to what it was in the 1920s. And all the good actors I saw on Perry Mason are gone and none have replaced them. Beyond that, not much change at all.

The real problem is a VR World, and it's coming.  VR was shown quite vividly in the movie Ready Player One.  VR World can be anything we can imagine, and living there can be glorious, but it's still a vicarious experience.  At the same time, reality can suck, but too many may decide they don't care.  It's Zuckerberg's wet dream: owning the real world and leaving the vicarious one to the proles.

I'm not sure there's a way back from that kind of insanity.

It is up to people to recognize that the Real World is far more satisfying for peak experiences. Sure, it is possible to simulate riding the Big Wave off Waikiki while stuck in a wheelchair in Kansas City, but it is obviously not the same thing.  That may be one's only possibility of experiencing surfing if one is a paraplegic. A video tour of the Louvre is not the same as visiting it in person, and a live performance of the Met is not the same as seeing it in a movie house. Virtual Reality (VR) is at best a substitute. Maybe we will be stuck with substitutes due to disappearance or scarcity. Maybe we will have to satisfy ourselves with fake 'surf and turf' as a dinner. We still watch war movies in the knowledge that watching The Longest Day is far preferable to storming Omaha Beach in person. D-Day is long ago and it is unlikely to be done again in reality for a very long time. 

Movies have existed for over 120 years, and books (and especially historical legends such as the Iliad and the Odyssey)  far longer. Obviously if one is a poor and pathetic schmuck and wastes huge amounts of money on VR one is still a poor and pathetic schmuck after the session. But I can say the same about people who bet against a computer connected to a slot machine and typically spend a big chunk of their Social Security or retirement income. Maybe VR can be used for learning experiences, as is done in flight simulations. Because I no longer live in either the Dallas or San Francisco areas I can no longer reasonably expect to take the flight that gives me a view of Yosemite, Vegas (it is impressive at night), and the Grand Canyon. VR could offer me that nostalgia as I may be stuck for the rest of my life in a farming community in which I am a misfit even if I was born there. 

Spending real money on Candy Crush while neglecting things more important is pitiable.

[Mikebert]

(02-04-2022, 10:20 AM)David Horn Wrote: The real problem is a VR World, and it's coming.  VR was shown quite vividly in the movie Ready Player One.  VR World can be anything we can imagine, and living there can be glorious, but it's still a vicarious experience.  At the same time, reality can suck, but too many may decide they don't care.  It's Zuckerberg's wet dream: owning the real world and leaving the vicarious one to the proles.

I'm not sure there's a way back from that kind of insanity.

I see you had the same thoughts as I about the horror depicted in that film.

[JasonBlack]

(02-03-2022, 04:30 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Donald Trump has shown the seams of our system. In the old days those who knew of those seams recognized the danger of exploiting those seams even if such was temporarily advantageous because finding shady way to do good would encourage someone else to find such a shady way for doing bad. We may need to rewrite much of the Constitution just to close those seams. I have long dreaded the prospect of another Constitutional Convention because such might enshrine special-interest policies that we might regret in a short time, or even allow one of the Parties to declare itself the "Leading Force in American politics", which is how Soviet constitutions enshrined the Communist Party.

From what I've gleaned so far of your other posts, you seem like someone I would hold some pretty different views on, but I share your sentiments here wholeheartedly. When politics is "humdrum", people are free to just be....left the ___ alone and focus on their own lives, their own meaning and their own mission. Unfortunately, times us crisis force everyone to think about politics more than is ideal.

In spite of our differences, we appear to have a shared sense that checks and balances are one of the most (if not the most) important aspects of a functioning free society. When a special interest group can swoop in and change everything by force, that's just about the worse possible scenario for anyone, left or right, who holds basically liberal views on things.

[David Horn]

(02-10-2022, 12:52 AM)JasonBlack Wrote:

(02-03-2022, 04:30 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Donald Trump has shown the seams of our system. In the old days those who knew of those seams recognized the danger of exploiting those seams even if such was temporarily advantageous because finding shady way to do good would encourage someone else to find such a shady way for doing bad. We may need to rewrite much of the Constitution just to close those seams. I have long dreaded the prospect of another Constitutional Convention because such might enshrine special-interest policies  that we might regret in a short time, or even allow one of the Parties to declare itself the "Leading Force in American politics", which is how Soviet constitutions enshrined the Communist Party.

From what I've gleaned so far of your other posts, you seem like someone I would hold some pretty different views on, but I share your sentiments here wholeheartedly. When politics is "humdrum", people are free to just be....left the ___ alone and focus on their own lives, their own meaning and their own mission. Unfortunately, times us crisis force everyone to think about politics more than is ideal.

In spite of our differences, we appear to have a shared sense that checks and balances are one of the most (if not the most) important aspects of a functioning free society. When a special interest group can swoop in and change everything by force, that's just about the worse possible scenario for anyone, left or right, who holds basically liberal views on things.

As bad, if not worse, is the exact opposite: no one can change anything ever.  Eventually, stasis becomes rot and whatever sense of community and polity that may have existed simply disappears.  Of the two, my disaster scenario is a lot closer to reality today.

Be careful what you wish for.

[pbrower2a]

(02-10-2022, 12:52 AM)JasonBlack Wrote:

(02-03-2022, 04:30 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Donald Trump has shown the seams of our system. In the old days those who knew of those seams recognized the danger of exploiting those seams even if such was temporarily advantageous because finding shady way to do good would encourage someone else to find such a shady way for doing bad. We may need to rewrite much of the Constitution just to close those seams. I have long dreaded the prospect of another Constitutional Convention because such might enshrine special-interest policies  that we might regret in a short time, or even allow one of the Parties to declare itself the "Leading Force in American politics", which is how Soviet constitutions enshrined the Communist Party.

From what I've gleaned so far of your other posts, you seem like someone I would hold some pretty different views on, but I share your sentiments here wholeheartedly. When politics is "humdrum", people are free to just be....left the ___ alone and focus on their own lives, their own meaning and their own mission. Unfortunately, times us crisis force everyone to think about politics more than is ideal.

That's fine. Nobody learns much from listening to or reading solely to those who share one's beliefs. There will be difference or there will be no progress. The Hegelian dialectic of conflict and resolution is the sole means that can get intellectual progress. On the other hand, it is impossible to find common ground on significant issues with people diametric opposites on all things.   
 

Quote:In spite of our differences, we appear to have a shared sense that checks and balances are one of the most (if not the most) important aspects of a functioning free society. When a special interest group can swoop in and change everything by force, that's just about the worse possible scenario for anyone, left or right, who holds basically liberal views on things.

Undeniably true. The few exceptions that I can imagine involve emancipation.

[Skabungus]

Abolish the Senate.

Merge it into the house. Let them keep their extended terms thus preserving the so called "long sight" of the senator, but put them on equal voting terms with the members of the house. A unicameral body would be infinitely more effective.

Make the Supreme Court a rotating assignment drawing from the federal courts. You want to be a federal judge, then you are going to serve a stint on the Supreme Court as well. Draw them by lottery and make the term doable. Under a decade.

Once the Boomers have "aged out" of the political process, I'm thinking politics wont become boring, but will become less an arena for holy warriors and more the home of problem solvers.

[David Horn]

(02-11-2022, 12:27 PM)Skabungus Wrote: Abolish the Senate.

Merge it into the house.  Let them keep their extended terms thus preserving the so called "long sight" of the senator, but put them on equal voting terms with the members of the house.  A unicameral body would be infinitely more effective.

Make the Supreme Court a rotating assignment drawing from the federal courts.  You want to be a federal judge, then you are going to serve a stint on the Supreme Court as well.  Draw them by lottery and make the term doable.  Under a decade.

Once the Boomers have "aged out" of the political process, I'm thinking politics wont become boring, but will become less an arena for holy warriors and more the home of problem solvers.

If the Senate remains in the future, it will a very different body.  If ...

Your idea of mixed terms is a good one I've never heard before.

The SCOTUS is just bad.  It has been a political branch most of its total existence, while remaining unaccountable to anything but impeachment. That has to change.  One suggestion that I prefer: long but defined terms.  18-year terms with each President getting two picks (one every two years), and a super majority to block them will generate turnover and prevent meddling by a body that must confirm.

As an early Boomer myself, I have to agree.  We have been an internally contentious lot since we came of age.  I can't see anything good we've done in the political arena and plenty of harm.  We need to 'move on'.

[pbrower2a]

(02-12-2022, 08:35 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(02-11-2022, 12:27 PM)Skabungus Wrote: Abolish the Senate.

Merge it into the house.  Let them keep their extended terms thus preserving the so called "long sight" of the senator, but put them on equal voting terms with the members of the house.  A unicameral body would be infinitely more effective.

Make the Supreme Court a rotating assignment drawing from the federal courts.  You want to be a federal judge, then you are going to serve a stint on the Supreme Court as well.  Draw them by lottery and make the term doable.  Under a decade.

Once the Boomers have "aged out" of the political process, I'm thinking politics wont become boring, but will become less an arena for holy warriors and more the home of problem solvers.

If the Senate remains in the future, it will a very different body.  If ...

Your idea of mixed terms is a good one I've never heard before.

The SCOTUS is just bad.  It has been a political branch most of its total existence, while remaining unaccountable to anything but impeachment. That has to change.  One suggestion that I prefer: long but defined terms.  18-year terms with each President getting two picks (one every two years), and a super majority to block them will generate turnover and prevent meddling by a body that must confirm.

As an early Boomer myself, I have to agree.  We have been an internally contentious lot since we came of age.  I can't see anything good we've done in the political arena and plenty of harm.  We need to 'move on'.

We would fare just as well by merging some states (the Dakotas and Montana, Nebraska and Kansas, maybe Arkansas and Oklahoma) while splitting some others (California, Florida, New York, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas). The only states mentioned in the Constitution are the Original 13. Maybe western Tennessee could be grafted onto Mississippi, which would be an improvement for both states. The Senate would be more representative. 

That the worst President in American history got three picks on the US Supreme Court will be one of the most  tragic oddities in American history. We are stuck with three "Justices" who firmly believe that no human suffering can ever be excessive in the name of all-holy Profit and Class Privilege.

[David Horn]

(02-12-2022, 02:31 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: That the worst President in American history got three picks on the US Supreme Court will be one of the most tragic oddities in American history. We are stuck with three "Justices" who firmly believe that no human suffering can ever be excessive in the name of all-holy Profit and Class Privilege.

The best-guess analysis of how long the impact of Trump's three picks will be is 30 years -- assuming a continuous changing of the guard in our elected branches.  As the elder members leave, they will typically be replaced by likeminded Presidents.  Turnover will require luck or a long succession of Democrats as POTUS.  In other words, demographics will have to play exactly as expected -- and that will still be long haul.

I don't see how that can be tolerable.

[Eric the Green]

(02-11-2022, 12:27 PM)Skabungus Wrote: Abolish the Senate.

Merge it into the house.  Let them keep their extended terms thus preserving the so called "long sight" of the senator, but put them on equal voting terms with the members of the house.  A unicameral body would be infinitely more effective.

Make the Supreme Court a rotating assignment drawing from the federal courts.  You want to be a federal judge, then you are going to serve a stint on the Supreme Court as well.  Draw them by lottery and make the term doable.  Under a decade.

Once the Boomers have "aged out" of the political process, I'm thinking politics wont become boring, but will become less an arena for holy warriors and more the home of problem solvers.

I agree with your first paragraph, but noticing the strong tendency among Gen Xers (especially early and middle cohorts) to support the retrograde reaganoid ideas, and the fact that the "freedom caucus" in the House is half X and half Boomer, I don't think Boomers aging out by itself will allow more problem solvers to reign. Some Xers will have to go too. But in general, the older generations (including Silent, early and late Boomer, and early and middle Xer) are holding us back-- and will succeed until Millennials step up to their civic role and vote in midterm elections. 

But Boomers will still play a strong role in the political process through the 4T, and maybe part way into the 1T, though they are no longer a voting majority. It will be a question of WHICH boomers have the power: the blue boomers or the red boomers. Because we are in a political (not a generational) conflict, not a holy war, and it calls for bold leadership from the archetype that can provide it. And that means problem solving leadership, which Democrats currently now offer to the virtual exclusion of Republicans (although that has not always been the case, and perhaps by some miracle a few Republicans could assist in solving at least a few problems, and have on occasion already).

Those who accuse blue boomer Democrats of just being holy warriors, forget that they say "God Bless America" as often as Republicans do, and are mostly engaged in seeking to solve problems, not wage holy wars. It's just that the electorate has not yet given them adequate support (and sadly that looks now to continue). That is largely due to the tempting allure of neoliberal Reaganomics ideology that handicaps government action for the people. We need to support the problem solving efforts being made, such as in the build back better bill, and not handicap the leaders pushing it forward just by calling them boomer holy warriors.

Drastic institutional changes are supposed to be possible in a 4T toward the end. The blue Boomers will still need to be leaders to enact such changes. Other generations do not have the leadership ability nor the vision to do so. That is the Boomer Idealist/Prophet role. But such big changes as you suggest are not even on the horizon yet. It will take a veto-proof progressive majority and presidency for this to happen, perhaps made possible by the secession by some southern and/or mountain red states as happened in the previous civil war era (they were gray states then of course).

[pbrower2a]

(02-13-2022, 10:14 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(02-12-2022, 02:31 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: That the worst President in American history got three picks on the US Supreme Court will be one of the most tragic oddities in American history. We are stuck with three "Justices" who firmly believe that no human suffering can ever be excessive in the name of all-holy Profit and Class Privilege.

The best-guess analysis of how long the impact of Trump's three picks will be is 30 years -- assuming a continuous changing of the guard in our elected branches.  As the elder members leave, they will typically be replaced by likeminded Presidents.  Turnover will require luck or a long succession of Democrats as POTUS.  In other words, demographics will have to play exactly as expected -- and that will still be long haul.

I don't see how that can be tolerable.

Alito and Thomas are old. Kavanaugh is a heavy drinker, and that ages one's body fast. 

As I see it the big right-wing donors of dark money want the Biden Presidency to fail, and they will stop at nothing to achieve such failure. I see nothing to contradict my bleak depiction of their ethical position that Humanity exists solely for their gain, and that the rest of us are obliged to accept the pain that they inflict as a great benefice.

[David Horn]

(02-14-2022, 06:08 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(02-13-2022, 10:14 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(02-12-2022, 02:31 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: That the worst President in American history got three picks on the US Supreme Court will be one of the most tragic oddities in American history. We are stuck with three "Justices" who firmly believe that no human suffering can ever be excessive in the name of all-holy Profit and Class Privilege.

The best-guess analysis of how long the impact of Trump's three picks will be is 30 years -- assuming a continuous changing of the guard in our elected branches.  As the elder members leave, they will typically be replaced by likeminded Presidents.  Turnover will require luck or a long succession of Democrats as POTUS.  In other words, demographics will have to play exactly as expected -- and that will still be long haul.

I don't see how that can be tolerable.

Alito and Thomas are old. Kavanaugh is a heavy drinker, and that ages one's body fast. 

As I see it the big right-wing donors of dark money want the Biden Presidency to fail, and they will stop at nothing to achieve such failure. I see nothing to contradict my bleak depiction of their ethical position that Humanity exists solely for their gain, and that the rest of us are obliged to accept the pain that they inflict as a great benefice.

Thomas is 73.  Alito is 71.  Kavanaugh is only 57.  All can wait for a Republican President and Senate before they retire.

[pbrower2a]

73 is old for an obese black male even if he has known great privilege for half his life. 57 is old for a heavy drinker.

[JasonBlack]

imo, Trump's biggest sin was being kind of a dick on twitter. A few items on his civil rights record were unacceptable (ex: trans military ban. wtf....), and his spending was abhorrently high even before the 'rona, but as far as tangible damages are concerned, Woodrow Wilson, Andrew Jackson all rank as much, much worse than Trump when you look at policy rather than just rhetoric. Of those three, the only one I can say something redeeming about is FDR, who, in spite of policies which could only be called evil, played his social role well as the self-assured patriarch who kept everyone's spirits strong through a crisis.

tbh, that's really what we need now. There is a shortage of true patriarchal figures in the west. Conservative men today are mostly rebellious bad boy types, internet trolls or business types who are too libertarian to want to lead much. As for women or liberal men...no, that's just nonsense. A patriarch needs to have intense conviction, but combined with self-restraint and external calm, less "macho" and more severe. We're talking more the Charlton Heston "speak softly and carry a big stick" kind of strength (think Charlton Heston or Liam Neeson, with a touch more aggressive edge) Ironically, it was the socially conservative GIs, a generation which produced patriarchs in abundance, which did the most to undermine raising strong, well-adjusted men with dawn of the welfare state in the 60s: an era that also sparked widespread births out of wedlock, crime, fatherless homes and child poverty even as overall income inequality was at low points (the boomers are also partly to blame here. They really acted a fool and screwed up a lot for the then-child Gen Xers).

This is the biggest reason I'm fairly pessimistic about this crisis. We've failed to teach boys to be men over several generations, to the point where mature masculinity is unrecognized at best and vilified at worst. Feminism doesn't last through crises, but when they cave and turn to men to rescue them, the men won't know how. They were never either properly instructed, nor offered any rewards or respect for being so, and as a result, I have my doubts that they will be able to properly wield real authority when it is most needed.

[JasonBlack]

(02-11-2022, 08:59 AM)David Horn Wrote: As bad, if not worse, is the exact opposite: no one can change anything ever.  Eventually, stasis becomes rot and whatever sense of community and polity that may have existed simply disappears.  Of the two, my disaster scenario is a lot closer to reality today.
Be careful what you wish for.

I hope we're in agreement that we don't want either of these, but frankly, I'll take "rotten stasis and anarchy" over "top-down continual surveillance and micro-management" without a second thought. For example, I'd take the life of a violent Somali pirate over pretty much any citizen of North Korea any day of the week. In either event, morality tends to break down at either the extreme of order or the extreme of chaos.

[David Horn]

(02-15-2022, 01:19 AM)JasonBlack Wrote:

(02-11-2022, 08:59 AM)David Horn Wrote: As bad, if not worse, is the exact opposite: no one can change anything ever.  Eventually, stasis becomes rot and whatever sense of community and polity that may have existed simply disappears.  Of the two, my disaster scenario is a lot closer to reality today.
Be careful what you wish for.

I hope we're in agreement that we don't want either of these, but frankly, I'll take "rotten stasis and anarchy" over "top-down continual surveillance and micro-management" without a second thought. For example, I'd take the life of a violent Somali pirate over pretty much any citizen of North Korea any day of the week. In either event, morality tends to break down at either the extreme of order or the extreme of chaos.

If you really believe that, then you should examine a few real-world examples: Somalia at its most chaotic, Afghanistan under similar circumstances, Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge.  Chaos is exactly that.  It can happen under a maniacal dictatorship that no one wishes to follow or under a benevolent non-leader who refuses to control anything.  The last is exemplified by Nero who ignored his duties in Rome.  We know how that went.

[Eric the Green]

(02-15-2022, 12:55 AM)JasonBlack Wrote: imo, Trump's biggest sin was being kind of a dick on twitter. A few items on his civil rights record were unacceptable (ex: trans military ban. wtf....), and his spending was abhorrently high even before the 'rona, but as far as tangible damages are concerned, Woodrow Wilson, Andrew Jackson all rank as much, much worse than Trump when you look at policy rather than just rhetoric. Of those three, the only one I can say something redeeming about is FDR, who, in spite of policies which could only be called evil, played his social role well as the self-assured patriarch who kept everyone's spirits strong through a crisis.

Ha ha, I wish! Welcome to T4T forum, but we are adversaries according to this post of yours.

Trump was a dick in his policies; his twitter remarks mean nothing by comparison. Trump and GW Bush were the worst ever on policy, and that's what counts. Trump unleashed total war on the environment from which we may never recover. Whoever ignores climate breakdown and the urgent need to force businesses to change their products is fiddling while the USA burns and floods away. Such attitudes are unacceptable in my opinion. They are symptoms of the fact that willingness to take needed action by a government has been brainwashed out of the people by 40 years of Reaganomics. Next to Bush and Trump, Reagan was the worst president ever. Trump just continued his absurd tax breaks and deregulation and kept inequality and racism going. His was a government of, by and for the billionaire class only, and a growing tyranny and total assault on democracy and a war on truth, built on demagogic appeals to himself as the only man who can fix things; a would-be Mussolini. As for FDR, Wilson and Jackson, it's a mixed bag I admit, but those who criticize them might be criticizing what they did right; it all depends. FDR was the best of a bad lot (along with Lincoln probably) among US presidents. He did some evil, but I wonder if what you are calling his evil decisions, are what I would choose to call his evil decisions. You seem to be a free-market conservative, a stance with which I disagree.

Quote:tbh, that's really what we need now. There is a shortage of true patriarchal figures in the west. Conservative men today are mostly rebellious bad boy types, internet trolls or business types who are too libertarian to want to lead much. As for women or liberal men...no, that's just nonsense. A patriarch needs to have intense conviction, but combined with self-restraint and external calm, less "macho" and more severe. We're talking more the Charlton Heston "speak softly and carry a big stick" kind of strength (think Charlton Heston or Liam Neeson, with a touch more aggressive edge) Ironically, it was the socially conservative GIs, a generation which produced patriarchs in abundance, which did the most to undermine raising strong, well-adjusted men with dawn of the welfare state in the 60s: an era that also sparked widespread births out of wedlock, crime, fatherless homes and child poverty even as overall income inequality was at low points (the boomers are also partly to blame here. They really acted a fool and screwed up a lot for the then-child Gen Xers).

Nah, we don't need Patriarchy anymore. Women are much wiser rulers, as we can see in history. We need more women in charge, as Obama said. We needed Hillary Clinton, not Donald big daddy Trump. He examplified everything wrong with patriarchy; sole interest in money and abuse of women. Charlton Heston was an excellent example of bad patriarchy, waving his stupid gun around and shouting "from my cold dead hands!" What a creep he was! And a very bad actor too.

We don't need men shoving their weight around and dominating an abused and restricted wife and children seen but not heard in stupid and unhistorical un-traditional alienated suburban nuclear families that limit human potential for caring and have only an economic purpose and the desire to keep women and children restricted and narrow-minded and a community culturally impoverished and lonely.

And the welfare state was what we needed; not the neoliberal trampling of peoples government in favor business abuse of the people unleashed by Reagan for no reason whatever, which has created horrific and unnecessary income inequality, the resulting social problems and lack of health care, and economic stagnation for young people today. Welfare scapegoating was never correct, and never to blame for family breakdown. This was largely due to destruction and neglect in black communities and a youth culture of disregard for education. And Gen X should get over its resentment of boomers, largely misplaced, and start contributing their role as managers and servers as we restart progress in the 2020s.

Quote:This is the biggest reason I'm fairly pessimistic about this crisis. We've failed to teach boys to be men over several generations, to the point where mature masculinity is unrecognized at best and vilified at worst. Feminism doesn't last through crises, but when they cave and turn to men to rescue them, the men won't know how. They were never either properly instructed, nor offered any rewards or respect for being so, and as a result, I have my doubts that they will be able to properly wield real authority when it is most needed.

I have my doubts about your diagnosis. I am not sure what training you have in mind, and why men should get it and not women. I don't see any diminution of respect for athletics in our society, for example. On the contrary, it is too highly venerated, and those who study are still considered nerds, although perhaps less so than decades ago. If you doubt masculinity is highly valued, perhaps you didn't watch the national obsession on TV this Sunday? And look at the characters involved?

What we have been uninstructed to do in the last 40-50 years is have any sense of civic responsibility beyond your respect for just having some stuff and being left alone. We don't even have civic classes in schools anymore. Is it any wonder that young people don't get the government they want, when they never learned how to vote and be involved and participate in citizens' government to deal with real issues? This is the real breakdown that has happened, and it is the direct result of the tax revolt and neoliberal Reaganomics and the excessive veneration for "free enterprise" which is really slavery to bosses. The owners of our society are not interested in a well-informed and well-educated citizenry; it's against their interests.

[JasonBlack]

(02-15-2022, 12:43 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Trump was a dick in his policies; his twitter remarks mean nothing by comparison. Trump and GW Bush were the worst ever on policy, and that's what counts. Trump unleashed total war on the environment from which we may never recover. Whoever ignores climate breakdown and the urgent need to force businesses to change their products is fiddling while the USA burns and floods away. Such attitudes are unacceptable in my opinion. They are symptoms of the fact that willingness to take needed action by a government has been brainwashed out of the people by 40 years of Reaganomics. Next to Bush and Trump, Reagan was the worst president ever. Trump just continued his absurd tax breaks and deregulation and kept inequality and racism going. His was a government of, by and for the billionaire class only, and a growing tyranny and total assault on democracy and a war on truth, built on demagogic appeals to himself as the only man who can fix things; a would-be Mussolini. As for FDR, Wilson and Jackson, it's a mixed bag I admit, but those who criticize them might be criticizing what they did right; it all depends. FDR was the best of a bad lot (along with Lincoln probably) among US presidents. He did some evil, but I wonder if what you are calling his evil decisions, are what I would choose to call his evil decisions. You seem to be a free-market conservative, a stance with which I disagree.

some of this is getting a little buzzword-y, I'll break down a few of my thoughts on these topics
1) Even as a capitalist, Reagan was honestly kind of a cunt.  Less so because he cut taxes (they were ridiculous, I'm glad he did), and more because he intentionally spread the AIDS epidemic because he wanted the gay people to die and pushed illegal drugs into the streets so he could have an excuse to arrest more inner city blacks.
2) As a conservative, I like the basic idea of environmentalism. The idea of "you have the responsibility to fix/pay for something you damaged" is a concept I can understand readily. What I hate about environmentalism is the culture of misanthropy that so often comes along with it. How all they do is try to guilt trip humans for being so "materialistic", even for basic shit like having to drive to work (you know...so they can eat and pay bills), using electricity to run the refrigerator and/or watch TV after a stressful day of work. There are also a lot of intellectually dishonest claims made about it, but I won't go into those because that's not really the point (ie, I'm not a climate change denier).
3) The majority of the reason I hate the welfare state isn't because "capitalism" or "it gives money to lazy people", but, as Thomas Sowell put it "the black family unit survived 300 years of slavery only to be destroyed in a single generation by the welfare state". Families are much more functional when they have to actually work together and aren't completely dependent on government.  
4) No one ever explains what they mean by racism. Does it exist? Yes, I've seen at least a few examples, but generally people either provide no evidence, or provide claims which are bloody ridiculous hasty deductions that often contradict each other (mundane example: I heard being called "racist" for not wanting to see Black Panther, and other people being called "racist" for seeing it on opening night because they should have left that time for the black people to see it). It's the ultimate "boy who cried wolf" of the modern age, where the examples of actual racism slip through the cracks because people's attention is so readily diverted to fake examples or they've just tuned it out entirely due to compassion fatigue or rhetoric that never matches their observations. 

Quote:Nah, we don't need Patriarchy anymore. Women are much wiser rulers, as we can see in history. We need more women in charge, as Obama said. We needed Hillary Clinton, not Donald big daddy Trump. He examplified everything wrong with patriarchy; sole interest in money and abuse of women. Charlton Heston was an excellent example of bad patriarchy, waving his stupid gun around and shouting "from my cold dead hands!" What a creep he was! And a very bad actor too.

I'd like to see more evidence for that. There are a few examples like Elizabeth I, but overall, I think that claim is unsubstantiated. 
but...yes, he shouted "from my cold dead hands" to people who wanted to take his guns. Being willing to fight for your freedom is...the essence of what being an American is, and when that essence is under attack, we should be up in arms about it. In a crisis in particular, you need fighters, people who thrive on the necessary conflict that is required to bring back peace. Women who are up to and desirous of this task are few and far between. 

Quote:We don't need men shoving their weight around and dominating an abused and restricted wife and children seen but not heard in stupid and unhistorical un-traditional alienated suburban nuclear families that limit human potential for caring and have only an economic purpose and the desire to keep women and children restricted and narrow-minded and a community culturally impoverished and lonely.

Boomers have a very different memory of what was, for the other generations during that time, often the best period of their lives ("The High" is generally remembered fondly for a reason). Women reported much higher levels of happiness during this era, probably because they strongly dislike their current existence where they're expected to live exactly the same lifestyle as a man in spite of 1/17 the levels of testosterone and being markedly higher on both trait neuroticism and trait agreeableness 

Quote:And the welfare state was what we needed; not the neoliberal trampling of peoples government in favor business abuse of the people unleashed by Reagan for no reason whatever, which has created horrific and unnecessary income inequality, the resulting social problems and lack of health care, and economic stagnation for young people today. Welfare scapegoating was never correct, and never to blame for family breakdown. This was largely due to destruction and neglect in black communities and a youth culture of disregard for education.

see above

Quote:And Gen X should get over its resentment of boomers, largely misplaced, and start contributing their role as managers and servers as we restart progress in the 2020s.

In order for that to happen, boomers need to quit speaking in terms of abstract platitudes and start caring more about results than moral crusades. It's one thing to get over something that has already happened to you, it's another to ask someone to get over something which is currently happening. Gen X are not all as selfish as you think they are. Sure, they want privacy, they want to have a higher standard of living, but they're also the generation most invested in childcare and generally willing to make a lot of sacrifices for people they care about. Why are Gen X and Millennials so much more "externally focused" than boomers? ...because most of us have been poor. You have to be externally focused when you want to feed yourself. You have to be externally focused when systems that were supposed to work aren't reliable and you need to do it yourself. If you're constantly railing against the system because you don't like concepts like materialism, selfishness, etc, you never get around to focusing on the real world, focusing on the less sexy, often mundane task of actually building the systems to bring about what you want.

Serving as "managers and servers" is precisely what Gen X are already doing for the most part, and largely, they get ignored for it, or worse, seen as "too materialistic" in spite of doing the work which is most needed as both boomers and millennials go on about "calling", "consciousness" and other words that help them maintain a feeling of specialness (again, I say this as a millennial, it's kind of our Achilles heel as a generation).

Quote:I have my doubts about your diagnosis. I am not sure what training you have in mind, and why men should get it and not women. I don't see any diminution of respect for athletics in our society, for example. On the contrary, it is too highly venerated, and those who study are still considered nerds, although perhaps less so than decades ago. If you doubt masculinity is highly valued, perhaps you didn't watch the national obsession on TV this Sunday? And look at the characters involved?

Frankly, the Superbowl is a bunch of tribal nonsense. I can understand it's appeal from the standpoint of creating some level of social cohesion, but it has taught men that masculinity is about screaming and drama, rather than quiet strength and exercising authority over your domain. Imo, sports are primarily games for boys, and men should be focused more on industry and raising strong, well-educated children.

Quote:What we have been uninstructed to do in the last 40-50 years is have any sense of civic responsibility beyond your respect for just having some stuff and being left alone. We don't even have civic classes in schools anymore. Is it any wonder that young people don't get the government they want, when they never learned how to vote and be involved and participate in citizens' government to deal with real issues? This is the real breakdown that has happened, and it is the direct result of the tax revolt and neoliberal Reaganomics and the excessive veneration for "free enterprise" which is really slavery to bosses. The owners of our society are not interested in a well-informed and well-educated citizenry; it's against their interests.

first part: yes
second part: no. keep in mind there is only one period of history where taxes have been that high, and that most periods of greater civic participation throughout human history occurred under conditions of much lower taxes