Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Things Trump Is Doing Right
#21
(04-10-2017, 12:10 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:
(04-08-2017, 06:56 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(04-07-2017, 11:24 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Nominating Gorsuch.

No, that's one of the worst things he done. The biggest step yet toward oligarchic dictatorship. Wrong thread.

You are just bummed out to see one of us "Slacker X" stepping up to the USSC.

Beavisbutthead

I sure wish that's all it was!

Scalia clone-- more like a Silent Zombie.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#22
The United States has concluded Russia knew in advance of Syria's chemical weapons attack last week, a senior U.S. official said Monday.

The official said a drone operated by Russians was flying over a hospital as victims of the attack were rushing to get treatment. Hours after the drone left, a Russian-made fighter jet bombed the hospital in what American officials believe was an attempt to cover up the usage of chemical weapons.

The official said the presence of the surveillance drone over the hospital couldn't have been a coincidence, and that Russia must have known the chemical weapons attack was coming and that victims were seeking treatment.

The official, who wasn't authorized to speak publicly on intelligence matters and demanded anonymity, didn't give precise timing for when the drone was above the town of Khan Sheikhtoun, where more than 80 people were killed. He also didn't provide all the details for the military and intelligence information that form the basis of what he said the Pentagon has now concluded.

The allegation is grave, even by the standards of the currently dismal U.S.-Russian relations.

Although Russia has steadfastly supported Syrian President Bashar Assad's government, and they've coordinated military attacks together, Washington has never previously accused Moscow of complicity in any attack that involved the gassing of innocent civilians, including children.

© 2017 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#23
From my point of view as a Green liberal, Gorsuch is about the worst thing Drump and his Goppers have done.

But, if you're not a Green liberal, you might not agree.

From my point of view, Gorsuch could stop the suits against gerrymandering and voter suppression, and will maintain Citizens United, thus cementing Republican thugs and thieves in office and ruining our democracy. He will uphold the interests of corporations over suits against their injurious and dangerous behavior, seriously hurting or killing the environment, lives and fortunes of many beings around the world as well as in America. He will take the side of the bosses over the workers and consumers. He will take the side of authorities who want to clamp down on human rights and injustice. He will maintain the unjust and deadly regime of allowing nuts to have guns and denying the right of localities to restrict them. He will uphold the actions of Drump to violate the constitution and civil liberties. He will uphold restrictive drug laws and the Federal right to overturn state laws. In every possible way, Gorsuck will act to make our country something that belongs only to the rich and powerful and which makes life worse for the rest of us.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#24
So what would a President Hillary Clinton have done?  I am not sure that she would have successfully deterred butcher Assad from using chemical weapons -- but she would have been in a better position to isolate the Demon of Damascus. She would likely have told President Putin and Iranian leadership that they might want to pull their citizens away from anything that might be involved in the gassing of helpless people, and that we would give all logistical support necessary for extraction of their own people. Just because Saddam Hussein got away with the al-Anfal campaign when he did it. does not mean that Bashir Assad gets to do so this time. Iraqi officials such as "Chemical Ali" were hanged for gassing the Kurds, which should be a fair warning.

...Before anyone thinks that as a physician Bashir Assad is somehow above this...


Quote:(Doctor Claus) Schilling returned to Germany after a meeting with Leonardo Conti, the Nazis' Health Chief, in 1941, and by early 1942 he was provided with a special malaria research station at Dachau's concentration camp by Heinrich Himmler, the leader of the SS. Despite negative assessments from colleagues, Schilling would remain in charge of the malaria station for the duration of the war.[1]

Although in the 1930s Schilling had stressed the point that malaria research on human subjects could be performed in an entirely harmless fashion, the Dachau subjects included experimentees who were injected with synthetic drugs at doses ranging from high to lethal. Of the more than 1,000 prisoners used in the malaria experiments at Dachau during the war, between 300 and 400 died as a result; among survivors, a substantial number remained permanently damaged afterward.[1]

In the course of the Dachau Trials following the liberation of the camp at the close of the war, Schilling was tried by an American tribunal, with an October 1945 affidavit from Schilling being presented in the proceedings.[2]
 
The tribunal sentenced Schilling to death by hanging on December 13, 1945. His execution took place at Landsberg Prison in Landsberg am Lech on May 28, 1946.



http://military.wikia.com/wiki/Claus_Schilling
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.


Reply
#25
(04-11-2017, 12:31 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:
(04-10-2017, 10:44 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: From my point of view as a Green liberal, Gorsuch is about the worst thing Drump and his Goppers have done.

But, if you're not a Green liberal, you might not agree.

From my point of view, Gorsuch could stop the suits against gerrymandering and voter suppression, and will maintain Citizens United, thus cementing Republican thugs and thieves in office and ruining our democracy. He will uphold the interests of corporations over suits against their injurious and dangerous behavior, seriously hurting or killing the environment, lives and fortunes of many beings around the world as well as in America. He will take the side of the bosses over the workers and consumers. He will take the side of authorities who want to clamp down on human rights and injustice. He will maintain the unjust and deadly regime of allowing nuts to have guns and denying the right of localities to restrict them. He will uphold the actions of Drump to violate the constitution and civil liberties. He will uphold restrictive drug laws and the Federal right to overturn state laws. In every possible way, Gorsuck will act to make our country something that belongs only to the rich and powerful and which makes life worse for the rest of us.

If Gorsuch is a good American he'll realize that Citizens United had unintended consequences such as giving Unions cover to promote candidates doing their bidding, and, allowing clandestine foreign interference in our elections.

Sure; but he's not, so he won't.

http://endcitizensunited.org/rejectgorsuch/

A conservative view:

"the Supreme Court has had a series of cases in recent years involving restrictions on campaign financing and speech that the liberal justices on the Court have refused to recognize as violating the First Amendment right to freely associate and engage in political activity. Justice Scalia was the needed fifth vote in these cases, such as Citizens United v. FEC, so it is vital that the new justice be someone like Gorsuch who has shown a firm commitment to upholding the First Amendment in the area of political speech and political activity. - See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/comme...c9cc4.dpuf"


https://www.conservativereview.com/comme...-for-trump


"Citizens United v. FEC was a controversial Supreme Court case dealing with the regulation of campaign expenditures by organizations. The Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that laws restricting independent political spending by corporations and unions were unconstitutional because they prohibited free speech.

Critics of the ruling believe corporations should not be granted the same rights to free speech as individuals and that it has given a larger voice to the rich. The decision has led to the rampant rise of super PACs and political non-profits.

When it comes to where Gorsuch stands on Citizens United, Shapiro thinks he will “explain the importance of protecting the right to political speech,” which would indicate he is in favor of upholding the ruling."

http://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/2017...ssues.html

His evasive testimony on the issue:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2...nited.html

Is a Scalia-clone "a good American?" Trump voters think so; some others might. I don't. I think Scalia and his clones are guardians of the wealthy elite. This is very bad for America, and is the 3T decay into our 4T.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#26
(04-10-2017, 12:09 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:
(04-08-2017, 07:25 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:
(04-07-2017, 11:24 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Nominating Gorsuch.

If he upholds the Constitution as written and intended, yes.  If he legislates the Republican agenda from the bench, no.  I'm in wait and see mode.

In spite of Eric's many protestations about Gorsuch (I'm guessing a lot of them due to that surname and memories of Reagan hatred of 30+ years ago), I'm hopeful that being a 1967 cohort Xer, Gorsuch will be less prone to Judicial Activism. Only time will tell.

Your hopes as stated here concern "judicial activism." From my point of view, and my protestations, the question is not so much about judicial activism, but about what sort of actions are taken. The justification matters less than the justice. Granted that the constitution is a guarantee of justice, but the Court is there to interpret it to meet the needs of the people, which the constitution was written by "we the people" to serve, and to form a more-perfect union.

Reagan "30-plus years ago" does not represent "memories," but the lingering influence and power of the neo-liberal elite, which he empowered from then until today, and which is boosted by his false slogans of freedom. And which now (mis-)rules the White House, Congress, Courts and Statehouses across most of the land. And which is the very substance and essence of the Crisis we face.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#27
(04-11-2017, 01:50 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Your hopes as stated here concern "judicial activism." From my point of view, and my protestations, the question is not so much about judicial activism, but about what sort of actions are taken. The justification matters less than the justice. Granted that the constitution is a guarantee of justice, but the Court is there to interpret it to meet the needs of the people, which the constitution was written by "we the people" to serve, and to form a more-perfect union.

I disagree. The court's role is to insure the law is executed properly. It's role is not to figure out what utopia is like, and try to make it so.
Reply
#28
(04-11-2017, 01:54 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:
(04-11-2017, 01:50 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Your hopes as stated here concern "judicial activism." From my point of view, and my protestations, the question is not so much about judicial activism, but about what sort of actions are taken. The justification matters less than the justice. Granted that the constitution is a guarantee of justice, but the Court is there to interpret it to meet the needs of the people, which the constitution was written by "we the people" to serve, and to form a more-perfect union.

I disagree.  The court's role is to insure the law is executed properly.  It's role is not to figure out what utopia is like, and try to make it so.

Yes, I am a Green liberal. So I disagree with originalism, but also disagree with utopianism. The law is intended to protect a higher ethical law, which is unwritten. The Court must interpret the written law in order to uphold the unwritten law. Social evolution and change did not stop in 1787; therefore the Constitution must be interpreted to fit the needs of the time. These days, in fact, the "originalists" interpret the constitution to "legislate the Republican agenda," which is always to turn the clock back to a nation under the authority of a wealthy white male elite, as it was in 1787. 

The most common utopian of today is a libertarian originalist, who thinks we can turn the clock back to the "enumerated powers" in order to shrink government in such a way that it cannot meet the needs of the people, and would not operate in the public interest. Gorsuch, Alito, Scalia and Thomas fit this mold.

Utopia does not exist; what is needed is justices who know and understand both the law and the needs of today's society. And of course, the Constitution was not entirely written in 1787, because the framers installed an amendment process; recognizing that society and its needs changes.

Congress can try to "figure out what utopia is like, and try to make it so." The Court must see to it that this law does not violate the Constitution, and take account of precedent. (It is not to see that the laws are executed properly; that's the role of the executive branch). Liberals understand that the Constitution itself is flexible enough to allow for progress toward utopia. Conservatives think that such things as civil rights and social programs did not exist in 1787, so they should not exist now. They think the Constitution is rigid enough to impose their restrictive goals upon us.

Considering whom the utopians ARE today, however, it's a question which side is the "liberal" side (or "neo-liberal"), and which the rigid one.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#29
(04-10-2017, 02:35 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: You are just bummed out to see one of us "Slacker X" stepping up to the USSC.

Beavisbutthead

I sure wish that's all it was!

Scalia clone-- more like a Silent Zombie.

And.... Remember the Warren court?   A bunch of attempts to herd Nomad folks just don't work! Cool   Eric, herding Nomadic cats doesn't work. Nomads are like a box of chocolates. You never know what you'll end up with. He's a core X'er, so we shall see...
---Value Added Cool
Reply
#30
(04-11-2017, 02:04 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Yes, I am a Green liberal. So I disagree with originalism, but also disagree with utopianism. The law is intended to protect a higher ethical law, which is unwritten. The Court must interpret the written law in order to uphold the unwritten law. Social evolution and change did not stop in 1787; therefore the Constitution must be interpreted to fit the needs of the time. These days, in fact, the "originalists" interpret the constitution to "legislate the Republican agenda," which is always to turn the clock back to a nation under the authority of a wealthy white male elite, as it was in 1787. 

The most common utopian of today is a libertarian originalist, who thinks we can turn the clock back to the "enumerated powers" in order to shrink government in such a way that it cannot meet the needs of the people, and would not operate in the public interest. Gorsuch, Alito, Scalia and Thomas fit this mold.

Utopia does not exist; what is needed is justices who know and understand both the law and the needs of today's society. And of course, the Constitution was not entirely written in 1787, because the framers installed an amendment process; recognizing that society and its needs changes.

Congress can try to "figure out what utopia is like, and try to make it so." The Court must see to it that this law does not violate the Constitution, and take account of precedent. (It is not to see that the laws are executed properly; that's the role of the executive branch). Liberals understand that the Constitution itself is flexible enough to allow for progress toward utopia. Conservatives think that such things as civil rights and social programs did not exist in 1787, so they should not exist now. They think the Constitution is rigid enough to impose their restrictive goals upon us.

Considering whom the utopians ARE today, however, it's a question which side is the "liberal" side (or "neo-liberal"), and which the rigid one.

1. Utopia cannot exist given than mankind is just a tacky, tacky species.  Just look at the summation of history for that one.


2. The "Green Agenda".  Eric, you know this, right? 

a. We need to restrict illegal aliens because they can lead to unwanted population increases in the confines of US territory wrt sustainability, right? There ARE limits, and the US needs to figure out quick how much the territory of the US can support. I'm at one with Paul Ehrlich and the Population Time Bomb. Look, I don't want that bomb going off in the US. So, that's why we need the "wall". Otherwise, what do you support? Minefields to secure the border? Next, we need to fine the fuck out of companies that hire illegal aliens. That's demand side economics, just like "liberals" agree with.
b. All states need to end fossil fuel subsidies and keep renewable subsidies. Here's why: Fossil fuels always have an externalities of CO2 emissions.  Likewise, any Mideast war needs to be paid for with some sort of oil import fee, so the real costs of intervention are realized in assorted balance sheets. Fair is fair, after all.
c. Here's the camel in the tent.  US empire costs too much for the [destitute,working poor, working class, middle class] to subsidize.  So... US out of the MidEast!.  If you want green energy to hit the launch pad, make sure the true costs of Mideast oil are reflected in the market place.
---Value Added Cool
Reply
#31
(04-11-2017, 04:50 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:
(04-10-2017, 02:35 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: You are just bummed out to see one of us "Slacker X" stepping up to the USSC.

Beavisbutthead

I sure wish that's all it was!

Scalia clone-- more like a Silent Zombie.

And.... Remember the Warren court?   A bunch of attempts to herd Nomad folks just don't work! Cool   Eric, herding Nomadic cats doesn't work. Nomads are like a box of chocolates. You never know what you'll end up with. He's a core X'er, so we shall see...

I dunno; so far we've "ended up with" Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, Chris Christie, Paul Ryan, Rand Paul, Scott Walker; a bunch of creepy Reagan clones. Not to mention the abundance of Reagan Xer clones around here. We know what Gorsuch is.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#32
Is he taking his medicines properly?
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.


Reply
#33
(04-12-2017, 11:40 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:
(04-11-2017, 04:50 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:
(04-10-2017, 02:35 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: You are just bummed out to see one of us "Slacker X" stepping up to the USSC.

Beavisbutthead

I sure wish that's all it was!

Scalia clone-- more like a Silent Zombie.

And.... Remember the Warren court?   A bunch of attempts to herd Nomad folks just don't work! Cool   Eric, herding Nomadic cats doesn't work. Nomads are like a box of chocolates. You never know what you'll end up with. He's a core X'er, so we shall see...

When the time comes to replace Ginsburg: Keeping it fair and balanced, Trump or someone should nominate Theo Chuang. He's a '69er.

Hopes that Drump and the GOPFERS can ever be "fair and balanced" may well be misplaced.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#34
(04-12-2017, 11:47 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:
(04-11-2017, 05:00 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:
(04-11-2017, 02:04 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Yes, I am a Green liberal. So I disagree with originalism, but also disagree with utopianism. The law is intended to protect a higher ethical law, which is unwritten. The Court must interpret the written law in order to uphold the unwritten law. Social evolution and change did not stop in 1787; therefore the Constitution must be interpreted to fit the needs of the time. These days, in fact, the "originalists" interpret the constitution to "legislate the Republican agenda," which is always to turn the clock back to a nation under the authority of a wealthy white male elite, as it was in 1787. 

The most common utopian of today is a libertarian originalist, who thinks we can turn the clock back to the "enumerated powers" in order to shrink government in such a way that it cannot meet the needs of the people, and would not operate in the public interest. Gorsuch, Alito, Scalia and Thomas fit this mold.

Utopia does not exist; what is needed is justices who know and understand both the law and the needs of today's society. And of course, the Constitution was not entirely written in 1787, because the framers installed an amendment process; recognizing that society and its needs changes.

Congress can try to "figure out what utopia is like, and try to make it so." The Court must see to it that this law does not violate the Constitution, and take account of precedent. (It is not to see that the laws are executed properly; that's the role of the executive branch). Liberals understand that the Constitution itself is flexible enough to allow for progress toward utopia. Conservatives think that such things as civil rights and social programs did not exist in 1787, so they should not exist now. They think the Constitution is rigid enough to impose their restrictive goals upon us.

Considering whom the utopians ARE today, however, it's a question which side is the "liberal" side (or "neo-liberal"), and which the rigid one.

1. Utopia cannot exist given than mankind is just a tacky, tacky species.  Just look at the summation of history for that one.


2. The "Green Agenda".  Eric, you know this, right? 

a. We need to restrict illegal aliens because they can lead to unwanted population increases in the confines of US territory wrt sustainability, right? There ARE limits, and the US needs to figure out quick how much the territory of the US can support. I'm at one with Paul Ehrlich and the Population Time Bomb. Look, I don't want that bomb going off in the US. So, that's why we need the "wall". Otherwise, what do you support? Minefields to secure the border? Next, we need to fine the fuck out of companies that hire illegal aliens. That's demand side economics, just like "liberals" agree with.
b. All states need to end fossil fuel subsidies and keep renewable subsidies. Here's why: Fossil fuels always have an externalities of CO2 emissions.  Likewise, any Mideast war needs to be paid for with some sort of oil import fee, so the real costs of intervention are realized in assorted balance sheets. Fair is fair, after all.
c. Here's the camel in the tent.  US empire costs too much for the [destitute,working poor, working class, middle class] to subsidize.  So... US out of the MidEast!.  If you want green energy to hit the launch pad, make sure the true costs of Mideast oil are reflected in the market place.

"The Population Bomb" - that's yesterday's war. Already, the advanced countries are below replacement and even to remain stable, need immigration. But the immigration stream is nearly tapped out. World population will peak sometime between now and 2050, probably closer to now. The forecast population inflection point has gotten earlier and earlier with each run of the numbers.

No it isn't yesterday's war.  Look, robots will take the jobs that so called immigrants would be taken.  No immigration is needed to keep the production lines going.  Then you just ignore the point made about the cost of defending MIdeast Oil.  I want Mideast politics/religion/crackpots banished from my life. Here's the real deal, I don't give a rat's ass if some part of the world chooses some backward looking religion.  If said religion dooms its adherents to death, let it rip.   Finally, yup, the inflection date will be sooner and sooner. Zika/Aids/Malaria/starvation/wars will see to that.
---Value Added Cool
Reply
#35
(04-12-2017, 05:33 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:
(04-12-2017, 05:17 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:
(04-12-2017, 11:47 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:
(04-11-2017, 05:00 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:
(04-11-2017, 02:04 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Yes, I am a Green liberal. So I disagree with originalism, but also disagree with utopianism. The law is intended to protect a higher ethical law, which is unwritten. The Court must interpret the written law in order to uphold the unwritten law. Social evolution and change did not stop in 1787; therefore the Constitution must be interpreted to fit the needs of the time. These days, in fact, the "originalists" interpret the constitution to "legislate the Republican agenda," which is always to turn the clock back to a nation under the authority of a wealthy white male elite, as it was in 1787. 

The most common utopian of today is a libertarian originalist, who thinks we can turn the clock back to the "enumerated powers" in order to shrink government in such a way that it cannot meet the needs of the people, and would not operate in the public interest. Gorsuch, Alito, Scalia and Thomas fit this mold.

Utopia does not exist; what is needed is justices who know and understand both the law and the needs of today's society. And of course, the Constitution was not entirely written in 1787, because the framers installed an amendment process; recognizing that society and its needs changes.

Congress can try to "figure out what utopia is like, and try to make it so." The Court must see to it that this law does not violate the Constitution, and take account of precedent. (It is not to see that the laws are executed properly; that's the role of the executive branch). Liberals understand that the Constitution itself is flexible enough to allow for progress toward utopia. Conservatives think that such things as civil rights and social programs did not exist in 1787, so they should not exist now. They think the Constitution is rigid enough to impose their restrictive goals upon us.

Considering whom the utopians ARE today, however, it's a question which side is the "liberal" side (or "neo-liberal"), and which the rigid one.

1. Utopia cannot exist given than mankind is just a tacky, tacky species.  Just look at the summation of history for that one.


2. The "Green Agenda".  Eric, you know this, right? 

a. We need to restrict illegal aliens because they can lead to unwanted population increases in the confines of US territory wrt sustainability, right? There ARE limits, and the US needs to figure out quick how much the territory of the US can support. I'm at one with Paul Ehrlich and the Population Time Bomb. Look, I don't want that bomb going off in the US. So, that's why we need the "wall". Otherwise, what do you support? Minefields to secure the border? Next, we need to fine the fuck out of companies that hire illegal aliens. That's demand side economics, just like "liberals" agree with.
b. All states need to end fossil fuel subsidies and keep renewable subsidies. Here's why: Fossil fuels always have an externalities of CO2 emissions.  Likewise, any Mideast war needs to be paid for with some sort of oil import fee, so the real costs of intervention are realized in assorted balance sheets. Fair is fair, after all.
c. Here's the camel in the tent.  US empire costs too much for the [destitute,working poor, working class, middle class] to subsidize.  So... US out of the MidEast!.  If you want green energy to hit the launch pad, make sure the true costs of Mideast oil are reflected in the market place.

"The Population Bomb" - that's yesterday's war. Already, the advanced countries are below replacement and even to remain stable, need immigration. But the immigration stream is nearly tapped out. World population will peak sometime between now and 2050, probably closer to now. The forecast population inflection point has gotten earlier and earlier with each run of the numbers.

No it isn't yesterday's war.  Look, robots will take the jobs that so called immigrants would (have) taken.  No immigration is needed to keep the production lines going.  Then you just ignore the point made about the cost of defending MIdeast Oil.  I want Mideast politics/religion/crackpots banished from my life. Here's the real deal, I don't give a rat's ass if some part of the world chooses some backward looking religion.  If said religion dooms its adherents to death, let it rip.   Finally, yup, the inflection date will be sooner and sooner. Zika/Aids/Malaria/starvation/wars will see to that.

Immigration is not needed for labor, per se. It's needed to supply future tax payers to pay for all the old farts who will create a completely top heavy age distribution 20 years from now. You raise a good point, where will all those younger folks work if automation killed the jobs? Maybe it will evolve to a bunch of boutique / artisinal thises and thats selling really cool shit to each other. Or, maybe the next CME will send us back 100 years and what is old will become new. Who knows?

I don't know what "CME" refers to (you guys and your acronyms.... )

But yes I think the economy will be more about the arts, as well as service, if we realize that "labor saving" machinery could actually save us labor.

But that will involve ditching and junking permanently the Republican meme.

(sorry Classic Xer, Warren, Some Guy, kinser, bronsin, Galen, Danilynn, et al)

Trickle-down, laissez faire, blame-the-welfare-recipients is out of date in an automated economy in which labor is less needed. Regulation and social welfare will be needed in this new economy, and so will better education that's not teaching to the test and not reserved to the rich and religious (vouchers, etc.). For the less-physical and more-intellectual labor that is still needed by industry, then (besides the service/professional work that's still needed too), hours should be reduced at no reduction in pay, so more people can be employed in these jobs. Who will pay for this? The owners and CEOs, of course, who now get over 300 times the salaries that their employees get. They would have to be required either to pay employees more for less work (restored unions could help with this), share ownership with the workers, or pay much more in taxes so the money could be redistributed to the workers who actually do the work, and who have just as much right to enjoy the benefits of automation as the owners do.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#36
(04-12-2017, 05:17 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: I want Mideast politics/religion/crackpots banished from my life. Here's the real deal, I don't give a rat's ass if some part of the world chooses some backward looking religion.  If said religion dooms its adherents to death, let it rip.

I hear and feel your pain, just as I feel the pain about South Sudan, Syria, etc. I understand that military action to resolve these "humanitarian concerns" you said we should ignore (in another post somewhere recently), frequently causes as much problem as doing nothing. When the USA gets involved and invades other countries in order to stop some regressed brutal crap going on, it frequently ends up as the USA imposing its imperialistic and corporate/financial interests on others for the benefit of the MIC and the wealthy, and it's often about resisting some ideology like communism or religious terrorism whose danger is exaggerated or extended to places it doesn't exist.

It's an interesting and deadly dilemma, though. I saw The Great War last night on PBS (unfortunately we don't have PBS watchers here). And as horrible as Woodrow Wilson was, I think that the Great War was a great turn in history away from nationalism and toward internationalism. The UN and world involvement by all nations to keep the peace is what separates our era from the past. The Great War was a great Revolution, and was unprecedented both in its horror and scale and for how many ancient and outdated empires it toppled. And also for how it shoved us into a different world, and for which the millions who died gave their lives. It took another world war to get us closer to this new world, so it wasn't "the war to end war, to make the world safe for democracy," as Wilson claimed. But it was a huge deal; REALLY huge, as the astrological Neptune-Pluto cycle confirms. http://philosopherswheel.com/fortunes.htm

One civilization died; another was born in the Great War and in the 20 years that led up to it. We became from that point on a world civilization, not a tribal or national one. We are all part of one world, and our allegiance is to the Earth now, not "murica." And so, maybe American entry into World War One, which ended and decided the greatest war in history, was needed lest the European nations were to continue to bleed themselves to death with their outdated dynastic and national/imperial quarrels. Still, it did not end the problem; the war, in effect, continues.

So, maybe humanitarian concerns are valid if we are involved with and interested in humans in our world, to which we belong now rather than to a nation. And it's true, we DO so belong. So, when an outlaw regime or outdated religious empire actually does threaten us and our allies, as the IS and Assad actually DO today, then the whole world must take action in some hopefully-effective and thoughtful way. Because the new era has not made us into angels yet, there are still outlaws within and among nations.

On the other hand, one "superpower" nation as world policeman is just as outdated as nationhood in general. Such an international concern must be multi-lateral and global, and that's why the UN is NOT something to wish death to. It is the mark of our transition into the new era that began with the Great War and the 22 years that led up to it. And just as the soldiers at Gettysburg gave the last full measure of devotion to a cause for which they must not have died in vain, so the cause of international cooperation and responsibility is one for which millions fought and died for in trenches, and which they should not have died in vain either. Everything we have today, was given to us by folks who struggled and died for it over millions of years, and we need to respect that, and not be cynical and unmindful of our heritage.

Reasonable minds can differ, and I applaud your view Rags. And I know your mind is reasonable, at least when it's not bipolar Smile

End of today's essay.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#37
(04-08-2017, 09:34 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: And now a carrier group that was scheduled to make happy near Australia is going to be cruising in the general vicinity of North Korea.  Do the North Koreans need to be slapped down more than the Australian Navy needs training?  Has Trump discovered the joy of blowing stuff up?

North Korea has needed to be slapped down for decades.  They are now dangerously close to being able to hit the contiguous US with nuclear weapons.  If we keep letting this kind of stuff go, eventually everyone will have ICBMs, and that would make use of them inevitable.  If we can coordinate a slapdown with China and other affected states, we should do it.
Reply
#38
It would be dangerous. N Korea and its dictator can send missiles to S Korea and Japan and kill millions if we slap them down. If we try to take out all their missiles, they have hid them well in many locations so this may not be possible.

Mike Morell recommends just making sure to deter them with our threat to obliterate them if they use any nucs.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#39
(04-16-2017, 10:57 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: It would be dangerous. N Korea and its dictator can send missiles to S Korea and Japan and kill millions if we slap them down. If we try to take out all their missiles, they have hid them well in many locations so this may not be possible.

Mike Morell recommends just making sure to deter them with our threat to obliterate them if they use any nucs.

We need to test our ABM systems - THAAD and the Aegis cruisers - on their missile tests first.  One test may already have happened.
Reply
#40
(04-16-2017, 11:54 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(04-16-2017, 10:57 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: It would be dangerous. N Korea and its dictator can send missiles to S Korea and Japan and kill millions if we slap them down. If we try to take out all their missiles, they have hid them well in many locations so this may not be possible.

Mike Morell recommends just making sure to deter them with our threat to obliterate them if they use any nucs.

We need to test our ABM systems - THAAD and the Aegis cruisers - on their missile tests first.  One test may already have happened.

I agree; but we can't depend on them to stop every missile. So I say, provoking the Dear Leader is not a good option.

I hate North Korea and its Dear Leader. But we have to let his corrupt and decrepid state fall of its own weight, as the Soviets did, and meanwhile deter him from launching anything at us or our allies.

We let this nuc state "get away." But we can't let any more get away. That's why the Iran nuclear deal was good and necessary.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)