We Need Militant Nationalism

[Warren Dew]

(07-15-2017, 08:32 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(07-15-2017, 07:22 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: To clarify, there are people on both sides willing to read and understand, including Eric.  They just don't include you, who invariably substitutes straw men, probably because you don't even realize they are straw men.

For the last several pages on this thread, I have openly stated that I'm not the best person to state the red perspective.  I've been trying to invite red people to state it.

As Eric has pointed out, the red folks have stated their perspective(s) repeatedly.  The problem is, every time, you ignore us and repeat your strawmen, which you've done as recently as the last page of this thread.  It's pointless to engage with you.

[Bob Butler 54]

Well, giving up on approaches that aren't accepted isn't a bad notion... I'm finding it amusing to try to convince you to speak, and Eric to listen...

I don't know that this is what you are talking about, but I don't consider your economics arguments to be main stream red. Yours is a decent perspective. I gave up on rebutting it though, letting Mikebert take it. He is better at detailed mathematical economics than I. He's been on the board for a long long time, and I've learned that when he occasionally starts throwing numbers and math about to get out of his way and watch the show. Yours is just a separate argument seldom used by main stream red to the red base. As you have likely figured out, my more basic approach is based on performance rather than theory. Bush 43 nearly took down the world economy. His father was somewhat better, but still lost his second term to 'It's the economy, stupid.' It's too soon to judge Trump on economics, but his team has looked dysfunctional over all.

From my perspective, economics is the most important driver in the unraveling pendulum. Since Nixon, the White House has been swinging back and forth between the major parties. The Republicans nigh on break the economy, but the country becomes dissatisfied with the slow Democratic recovery, thus the red get back in power based on the unraveling memes. The culture war issues (guns, abortion, the environment, etc...) aren't totally irrelevant, but it's the economy, stupid.

Prior American crises peaked with a revolution, a civil war, and a world war. This has a lot of turning fans anticipating a violent climax to our current problems. Thus, I watch the spiral of violence. I'm not seeing a critical escalation. Both the red and blue cultures have been rejecting violence as a method for changing the country. After major provocations such as OKC or September 11th, red and blue politicians get together to suggest that bombs are not how patriots resolve differences within the culture. That seems to be sticking, and, of course, revolution or civil war is not in the establishment's interests.

Not so long ago, driving a red extreme partisan into silence would count for me as a victory. That's one way of keeping score. In case you haven't noticed, I've shifted score keeping methods. If we aren't going into a decisive violent climax, the two cultures have to learn to live with each other. Each has to learn what the other truly considers precious, and find a middle ground where both factions get most of what they want. The alternative is to continue the unraveling pendulum, for each faction to be dominant for a term or two, for each culture to try to attempt to push its values on the other.

[Eric the Green]

Decisive victory for one side does not need to be violent, as you imply above. As I mentioned, 4T electoral victories have happened, although in one case (Lincoln), the decisive electoral victory itself triggered the civil war. That's possible too.

So the two cultures may not be able to live with each other, but one can win electorally and force the loser to stuff it and go along. That's what needs to happen. They cannot find middle ground, especially one in which "both factions get most of what they want." Compromise is not possible. One culture will need to succeed in pushing its values on the other, at least to the extent that the country moves on into a 1T in which further conflict is put on the back burner for a while. It's happened before in every 4T; why not this time?

I suppose if guns and the environment are "culture war issues," then "culture war issues" consist of every issue not obviously an economic issue-- which boils down to how it's doing, or at least (in Reagan's case) to convincing people they are doing well when they are not doing well.

Trump could pull the opposite case: his bumbling could convince people the country is suffering from his presidency, even though the economy is doing well for most people (which I'm not convinced that it is anyway). I don't expect the economy to continue doing well during his term, but especially not if he gets his way on anything in the congress.

I don't get your classification of Warren. His perspective is pretty-straight red, especially on the economic issue-- even if articulate and thoughtful.

[pbrower2a]

I'm beginning to see conservatives ditch President Trump. We must all recognize that most conservatives are patriots, and they are beginning to distrust the President's preferences for a dictatorship to America's democratic allies. When disapproval of the President is in the high fifties, then the disapproval is getting into the realm of people who ordinarily vote Republican.

This is certainly enough to flip Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. NBC News and the Wall Street Journal had a poll of counties that either flipped from Obama to Trump or surged from Romney to Trump... and in those, the approval rating for the President is 44% in the counties that flipped and 50% in those that surged.

[Bob Butler 54]

(07-17-2017, 11:20 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Decisive victory for one side does not need to be violent, as you imply above. As I mentioned, 4T electoral victories have happened, although in one case (Lincoln), the decisive electoral victory itself triggered the civil war. That's possible too.

I'm not even sure the cycles are on track just now.  We may be stuck in the unraveling pendulum.

I do find an echo in Lincoln.  He proposed slavery continue where it exist, but it should be allowed to expand.  The slave owning territory didn't believe it, and treated his comment as if he promised to abolish slavery, which he eventually did do.  In a similar way, Hilary promised to allow folks to keep their guns, but that she would close loopholes much as we often agree.  The reds portrayed that as her advocating a big deal prohibition.

Any way, from another perspective, we may be moving past the Industrial Age.  We might be finding an post scarcity or Information Age pattern.  I kind of like Toynbee's A Study of History, but don't trust that the patterns he found in the Agricultural Age work well in the Industrial Age.  Civilization shifted.  Something similar may be happening now.

(07-17-2017, 11:20 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: So the two cultures may not be able to live with each other, but one can win electorally and force the loser to stuff it and go along. That's what needs to happen. They cannot find middle ground, especially one in which "both factions get most of what they want."  Compromise is not possible. One culture will need to succeed in pushing its values on the other, at least to the extent that the country moves on into a 1T in which further conflict is put on the back burner for a while. It's happened before in every 4T; why not this time?

I don't feel the pushing of cultures on other cultures wise.  I've certainly seen lots of evidence / examples of folk who don't want to be pushed and others who want to push.  I see 1T highs occurring when one culture has proven its new memes in a crisis, when the culture and government are firmly in the hands of victors.  The way the pendulum is swinging, it is not clear we will have the clear victor.

(07-17-2017, 11:20 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: I suppose if guns and the environment are "culture war issues," then "culture war issues" consist of every issue not obviously an economic issue-- which boils down to how it's doing, or at least (in Reagan's case) to convincing people they are doing well when they are not doing well.

I'm not hung up on what a culture war issue is or is not, though I've got the impression that the economy isn't culture war.  (Is that true?  Is the rural desire for independence, self reliance and freedom part of their values, their culture?)  I'd have no problem with people discussing whether issues are culture war or not.  I perceive guns, abortion and the environment as culture war issues as they involve strong regional values and morality...  culture.  However, I am not apt to get intense if someone has an alternate list of culture war issues.

(07-17-2017, 11:20 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Trump could pull the opposite case: his bumbling could convince people the country is suffering from his presidency, even though the economy is doing well for most people (which I'm not convinced that it is anyway). I don't expect the economy to continue doing well during his term, but especially not if he gets his way on anything in the congress.

I can sympathize with the above.  

(07-17-2017, 11:20 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: I don't get your classification of Warren. His perspective is pretty-straight red, especially on the economic issue-- even if articulate and thoughtful.

Oh, he is broadly pretty straight red, but his economic arguments are not common.  What red politicians say to the red base is quite different from what Warren says here.  It's not that he shouldn't say what he is saying, assuming Mike is still around to rebut, but that his giving one perspective should not suggest that one can't argue against the primary red perspective.

[Bob Butler 54]

(07-17-2017, 11:51 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: I'm beginning to see conservatives ditch President Trump. We must all recognize that most conservatives are patriots, and they are beginning to distrust the President's preferences for a dictatorship to America's democratic allies. When disapproval of the President is in the high fifties, then the disapproval is getting into the realm of people who ordinarily vote Republican.

This is certainly enough to flip Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.  NBC News and the Wall Street Journal had a poll of counties that either flipped from Obama to Trump or surged from Romney to Trump... and in those, the approval rating for the President is 44% in the counties that flipped and  50% in those that surged.

My question is whether disapproval of Trump carries over into disapproval of the unraveling memes.  You would hope that continued failures by unraveling meme presidents would eventually teach some sort of lesson, but can they shift us from pendulum mode into a long term culture changing mode?

I see much of the country still dedicated to the unraveling memes, looking for a leader who will implement them properly, after which they suppose all will be well.  Many unraveling meme believers seem to be attracted to somewhat off the wall personalities such as Trump and Palin.  Trump demonstrated that a lot of people were willing to go with the eccentric character rather than an establishment Republican.

Can someone else go off the wall in the right way to steal the red base?  Without Hillary as the lead candidate, can the blue make something vaguely Sanders like work?  I find it too soon to tell.

[Eric the Green]

(07-17-2017, 01:49 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(07-17-2017, 11:51 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: I'm beginning to see conservatives ditch President Trump. We must all recognize that most conservatives are patriots, and they are beginning to distrust the President's preferences for a dictatorship to America's democratic allies. When disapproval of the President is in the high fifties, then the disapproval is getting into the realm of people who ordinarily vote Republican.

This is certainly enough to flip Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.  NBC News and the Wall Street Journal had a poll of counties that either flipped from Obama to Trump or surged from Romney to Trump... and in those, the approval rating for the President is 44% in the counties that flipped and  50% in those that surged.

My question is whether disapproval of Trump carries over into disapproval of the unraveling memes.  You would hope that continued failures by unraveling meme presidents would eventually teach some sort of lesson, but can they shift us from pendulum mode into a long term culture changing mode?

I see much of the country still dedicated to the unraveling memes, looking for a leader who will implement them properly, after which they suppose all will be well.  Many unraveling meme believers seem to be attracted to somewhat off the wall personalities such as Trump and Palin.  Trump demonstrated that a lot of people were willing to go with the eccentric character rather than an establishment Republican.

Can someone else go off the wall in the right way to steal the red base?  Without Hillary as the lead candidate, can the blue make something vaguely Sanders like work?  I find it too soon to tell.

You have lurched uncontrollably into the truth, as TV pundit and moderator John McLaughlin used to say, in that post above. I am touting Terry McAuliffe as having the right stuff and the right indicators to "go off the wall in the right way" and steal enough of the wavering and wandering independents to win. If he gets those, he doesn't even need any of the red base. There's also Mitch Landrieu, who may not be in a position, or have the inclination, to run in 2020.

[Eric the Green]

(07-17-2017, 01:36 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I'm not even sure the cycles are on track just now.  We may be stuck in the unraveling pendulum......
I don't feel the pushing of cultures on other cultures wise.  I've certainly seen lots of evidence / examples of folk who don't want to be pushed and others who want to push.  I see 1T highs occurring when one culture has proven its new memes in a crisis, when the culture and government are firmly in the hands of victors.  The way the pendulum is swinging, it is not clear we will have the clear victor.

It is never clear during a 4T if we will have a clear victor. That's why it's a crisis. Only after the "regeneracy" and the climax does a resolution occur; usually at the very end of the 4T. It is likely this time that a clear victor will emerge only after the mid-2020s.
Remember too that our times are most like the 1850s, than like any S&H-recognized crisis years. The 1850s featured indecisive presidents and failed attempts at compromise, with increasing tension and violence without any resolution. I consider the 1850s to be the early 4T years of the Civil War Crisis, and that we are in a similar position as then in a double-rhythm saeculum cycle. 
I also note that the 1850s were going pretty well economically, powered by the virtual dawn of the industrial age in several advanced countries including the USA, with Britain and Belgium having been the pioneers starting in the 1780s. This industrial boom continued during and right after the Civil War. The next 8 years or so may see a similar economic boom powered by green energy as well as by the advancing information age, although the latter was pioneered in the USA in the 1960s and expanded in the 80s and 90s. In other words, the Civil War did not break out due to an economic crisis, despite a short panic in 1857; and we can expect the same regarding whatever breaks out in the mid-2020s.

[Classic-Xer]

(07-14-2017, 09:50 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(07-14-2017, 08:23 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: But hey, I did find one last illustration of the conflict between positive and negative rights which I just have to share:

Which is, naturally, a straw man.  Political signs are not mentioned in UDHR 25's guarantees, as food, shelter and medical care are mentioned.  It seems to suggest a right to equality rather than access to basic survival necessities.  What positive right covers political signs?  The above entirely misrepresents the progressive idea that the People ought to have access to the minimums.

There is a notion floating around that internet access ought to be a right in this day and age.  It is part of a notion that there ought to be public computer terminals for such access in public libraries.  That could likely be turned into a positive right, and as close as I can think or to what the image above suggests.  To my knowledge, the right to internet access is not a big deal talking point for most progressives, though it is worth talking about.

But the above seems more a denial of the negative rights of speech and/or press.

It might also be distantly akin to the late night TV 'humor'.  If one is trying for a 'joke', one can freely ignore truth in favor of 'humor' and a greater misrepresentation of what the other guys are saying.  I certainly can't claim that blue folks don't do it too.  I'm just sick of it.

Bob, not all straw mans are simply "straw man" as you say. There are so-called "Straw Man" like the one you referred to and discredited as a "straw man" that are actually earned and therefore accurate views/perceptions/portrayal that have been formed over many years of observation and participation in the political process. I've never called a blue voter a Bolshevik without enough evidence to use/apply to make the label stick. I assume you know your sides politics/political make up as well as I've come to know your sides politics/political make up over the years. I doubt Bernie would be as generous with his own money/resources as he appears to be with OUR money/resources.

[Bob Butler 54]

(07-17-2017, 04:10 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Bob, not all straw mans are simply "straw man" as you say. There are so-called "Straw Man" like the one you referred to and discredited as a "straw man" that are actually earned and therefore accurate views/perceptions/portrayal that have been formed over many years of observation and participation in the political process. I've never called a blue voter a Bolshevik without enough evidence to use/apply to make the label stick. I assume you know your sides politics/political make up as well as I've come to know your sides politics/political make up over the years. I doubt Bernie would be as generous with his own money/resources as he appears to be with OUR money/resources.

There are a lot of very rich politicians in Congress, and lots of them will advocate for spending large amounts of money on this favored project or that. How many change their family's financial status to complement the federal budget? I for one wouldn't mind if the Congress weren't so much a rich man's club, but we've got what we've got. It seems to be the job of Congressmen to set the budget rather than run the government out of their personal wallets.

Sure, cut their salaries, set extra taxes on politicians or set up some standard that applies to everybody. Make every rich guy who advocates increased spending for the military buy the Army a tank? Just hold everyone to the same standard. Going just after Bernie seem wonky.

[Bob Butler 54]

(07-17-2017, 02:36 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(07-17-2017, 01:36 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I'm not even sure the cycles are on track just now.  We may be stuck in the unraveling pendulum......
I don't feel the pushing of cultures on other cultures wise.  I've certainly seen lots of evidence / examples of folk who don't want to be pushed and others who want to push.  I see 1T highs occurring when one culture has proven its new memes in a crisis, when the culture and government are firmly in the hands of victors.  The way the pendulum is swinging, it is not clear we will have the clear victor.

It is never clear during a 4T if we will have a clear victor. That's why it's a crisis. Only after the "regeneracy" and the climax does a resolution occur; usually at the very end of the 4T. It is likely this time that a clear victor will emerge only after the mid-2020s.
Remember too that our times are most like the 1850s, than like any S&H-recognized crisis years. The 1850s featured indecisive presidents and failed attempts at compromise, with increasing tension and violence without any resolution. I consider the 1850s to be the early 4T years of the Civil War Crisis, and that we are in a similar position as then in a double-rhythm saeculum cycle. 
I also note that the 1850s were going pretty well economically, powered by the virtual dawn of the industrial age in several advanced countries including the USA, with Britain and Belgium having been the pioneers starting in the 1780s. This industrial boom continued during and right after the Civil War. The next 8 years or so may see a similar economic boom powered by green energy as well as by the advancing information age, although the latter was pioneered in the USA in the 1960s and expanded in the 80s and 90s. In other words, the Civil War did not break out due to an economic crisis, despite a short panic in 1857; and we can expect the same regarding whatever breaks out in the mid-2020s.

At least during the Industrial Era, once the regeneracy comes, once the government commits to a policy, the climax has followed in their favor.  The United States and Britain are rich and powerful nations.  It might take them years to accomplish their goals, but they tend to get there.  Yes, there were certainly bleak times in the Revolution, Civil War and World War II, but in those times we have pushed through.

That might have something to do with why the four stroke S&H cycles holds firmly for Industrial Age Western Anglo-American cultures, less so for everyone else.

I'm less convinced that the Civil War pattern will repeat.  In many ways that crisis manifested the triumph of the Industrial Age pattern.  I see lots of reasons to anticipate a shift to a post scarcity or information age pattern.  The implications may not all be clear yet.

[Eric the Green]

We may shift to that, but in our saeculum, scarity economics still rules the roost, and has recently taken over the country. The unravelling memes in power in the last (and current) 40 years period have seen to it that whatever prosperity may happen in a dawning information or green age is not distributed equally or fairly, but captured by the elites who run the system for their own benefit and wealth. So we are in an industrial age crisis this cycle, because it may be a crisis in which a transition to an information age saeculum takes place. That is, IF the progressive side wins because the millennials will have stepped up to the plate, as they haven't done yet.

The reason the saeculum cycles are less firm in other countries is that they have gradually blended with the anglo-american one, as the new world culture has developed. Other Western countries were already running almost parallel, since The West was a common culture going back millennia. Sometimes, when people forget or ignore that we are one world civilization now, as of the last 120 years or so, this confuses peoples' view of the cycles.

[Classic-Xer]

(07-17-2017, 08:29 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(07-17-2017, 02:36 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(07-17-2017, 01:36 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I'm not even sure the cycles are on track just now.  We may be stuck in the unraveling pendulum......
I don't feel the pushing of cultures on other cultures wise.  I've certainly seen lots of evidence / examples of folk who don't want to be pushed and others who want to push.  I see 1T highs occurring when one culture has proven its new memes in a crisis, when the culture and government are firmly in the hands of victors.  The way the pendulum is swinging, it is not clear we will have the clear victor.

It is never clear during a 4T if we will have a clear victor. That's why it's a crisis. Only after the "regeneracy" and the climax does a resolution occur; usually at the very end of the 4T. It is likely this time that a clear victor will emerge only after the mid-2020s.
Remember too that our times are most like the 1850s, than like any S&H-recognized crisis years. The 1850s featured indecisive presidents and failed attempts at compromise, with increasing tension and violence without any resolution. I consider the 1850s to be the early 4T years of the Civil War Crisis, and that we are in a similar position as then in a double-rhythm saeculum cycle. 
I also note that the 1850s were going pretty well economically, powered by the virtual dawn of the industrial age in several advanced countries including the USA, with Britain and Belgium having been the pioneers starting in the 1780s. This industrial boom continued during and right after the Civil War. The next 8 years or so may see a similar economic boom powered by green energy as well as by the advancing information age, although the latter was pioneered in the USA in the 1960s and expanded in the 80s and 90s. In other words, the Civil War did not break out due to an economic crisis, despite a short panic in 1857; and we can expect the same regarding whatever breaks out in the mid-2020s.

At least during the Industrial Era, once the regeneracy comes, once the government commits to a policy, the climax has followed in their favor.  The United States and Britain are rich and powerful nations.  It might take them years to accomplish their goals, but they tend to get there.  Yes, there were certainly bleak times in the Revolution, Civil War and World War II, but in those times we have pushed through.

That might have something to do with why the four stroke S&H cycles holds firmly for Industrial Age Western Anglo-American cultures, less so for everyone else.

I'm less convinced that the Civil War pattern will repeat.  In many ways that crisis manifested the triumph of the Industrial Age pattern.  I see lots of reasons to anticipate a shift to a post scarcity or information age pattern.  The implications may not all be clear yet.

I don't see millions of Americans going to war & killing each other over a few large blue cities and wealthier blue areas. I've yet to see anything come from the lips of a so-called liberal that makes me believe that they're worth dying for or loosing a limb in order to retain as citizens. I don't see you leaving the United States or see you supporting a left wing war to over throw the American system either. You aren't quite as silly or dumb as people like Eric, Odin or whoever thinks ( Don't really think much in their case) and talks (Blurts out mindless liberal memes/ whatever liberal crap comes to mind) like them. As far as my values go, I'd  place more value on someone like you than I'd place on all of them combined.

[Eric the Green]

(07-14-2017, 09:50 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(07-14-2017, 08:23 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: But hey, I did find one last illustration of the conflict between positive and negative rights which I just have to share:

Which is, naturally, a straw man.  Political signs are not mentioned in UDHR 25's guarantees, as food, shelter and medical care are mentioned.  It seems to suggest a right to equality rather than access to basic survival necessities.  What positive right covers political signs?  The above entirely misrepresents the progressive idea that the People ought to have access to the minimums.

There is a notion floating around that internet access ought to be a right in this day and age.  It is part of a notion that there ought to be public computer terminals for such access in public libraries.  That could likely be turned into a positive right, and as close as I can think or to what the image above suggests.  To my knowledge, the right to internet access is not a big deal talking point for most progressives, though it is worth talking about.

But the above seems more a denial of the negative rights of speech and/or press.

It might also be distantly akin to the late night TV 'humor'.  If one is trying for a 'joke', one can freely ignore truth in favor of 'humor' and a greater misrepresentation of what the other guys are saying.  I certainly can't claim that blue folks don't do it too.  I'm just sick of it.

Why be sick of humor? It's one of the saving graces of a worn-out culture in crisis.

I find the Bernie joke funny, even though it's clear what the meme is and it's as obvious as it can be. So, our side can reply with something of our own. Now, let's see; I wonder what Stephen Colbert would say..... food for thought....

I guess something like, at least they didn't steal the whole sign, as the Republicans would have done......

I know I know. No, I'm no Stephen Colbert.....

[Eric the Green]

(07-17-2017, 10:22 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(07-17-2017, 08:29 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(07-17-2017, 02:36 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(07-17-2017, 01:36 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I'm not even sure the cycles are on track just now.  We may be stuck in the unraveling pendulum......
I don't feel the pushing of cultures on other cultures wise.  I've certainly seen lots of evidence / examples of folk who don't want to be pushed and others who want to push.  I see 1T highs occurring when one culture has proven its new memes in a crisis, when the culture and government are firmly in the hands of victors.  The way the pendulum is swinging, it is not clear we will have the clear victor.

It is never clear during a 4T if we will have a clear victor. That's why it's a crisis. Only after the "regeneracy" and the climax does a resolution occur; usually at the very end of the 4T. It is likely this time that a clear victor will emerge only after the mid-2020s.
Remember too that our times are most like the 1850s, than like any S&H-recognized crisis years. The 1850s featured indecisive presidents and failed attempts at compromise, with increasing tension and violence without any resolution. I consider the 1850s to be the early 4T years of the Civil War Crisis, and that we are in a similar position as then in a double-rhythm saeculum cycle. 
I also note that the 1850s were going pretty well economically, powered by the virtual dawn of the industrial age in several advanced countries including the USA, with Britain and Belgium having been the pioneers starting in the 1780s. This industrial boom continued during and right after the Civil War. The next 8 years or so may see a similar economic boom powered by green energy as well as by the advancing information age, although the latter was pioneered in the USA in the 1960s and expanded in the 80s and 90s. In other words, the Civil War did not break out due to an economic crisis, despite a short panic in 1857; and we can expect the same regarding whatever breaks out in the mid-2020s.

At least during the Industrial Era, once the regeneracy comes, once the government commits to a policy, the climax has followed in their favor.  The United States and Britain are rich and powerful nations.  It might take them years to accomplish their goals, but they tend to get there.  Yes, there were certainly bleak times in the Revolution, Civil War and World War II, but in those times we have pushed through.

That might have something to do with why the four stroke S&H cycles holds firmly for Industrial Age Western Anglo-American cultures, less so for everyone else.

I'm less convinced that the Civil War pattern will repeat.  In many ways that crisis manifested the triumph of the Industrial Age pattern.  I see lots of reasons to anticipate a shift to a post scarcity or information age pattern.  The implications may not all be clear yet.

I don't see millions of Americans going to war & killing each other over a few large blue cities and wealthier blue areas. I've yet to see anything come from the lips of a so-called liberal that makes me believe that they're worth dying for or loosing a limb in order to retain as citizens. I don't see you leaving the United States or see you supporting a left wing war to over throw the American system either. You aren't quite as silly or dumb as people like Eric, Odin or whoever thinks ( Don't really think much in their case) and talks (Blurts out mindless liberal memes/ whatever liberal crap comes to mind) like them. As far as my values go, I'd  place more value on someone like you than I'd place on all of them combined.

Don't forget, I "believe" in "the presence of God" and Bob doesn't.

[Classic-Xer]

(07-17-2017, 10:16 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: We may shift to that, but in our saeculum, scarity economics still rules the roost, and has recently taken over the country. The unravelling memes in power the last (and current) 40 years period have seen to it that whatever prosperity may happen in a dawning information or green age is not distributed equally or fairly, but captured by the elites who run the system for their own benefit and wealth. So we are in an industrial age crisis this cycle, because it may be a crisis in which a transition to an information age saeculum takes place. That is, IF the progressive side wins because the millennials will have stepped up to the plate, as they haven't done yet.

The reason the saeculum cycles are less firm in other countries is that they have gradually blended with the anglo-american one, as the new world culture has developed. Other Western countries were already running almost parallel, since The West was a common culture going back millennia. Sometimes, when people forget or ignore that we are one world civilization now, as of the last 120 years or so, this confuses peoples' view of the cycles.

We aren't even close to being a one world civilization. How many belief systems still exist in the world? How many languages? How many religions? How many cultures? Are we down to just one or even close to one?????  I don't think so.

[Ragnarök_62]

(07-17-2017, 10:23 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(07-14-2017, 09:50 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(07-14-2017, 08:23 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: But hey, I did find one last illustration of the conflict between positive and negative rights which I just have to share:

<snip pic of Bernie sign.>

So, is access to health care a positive or negative right? I think it's a public good instead of a private one 'cause the current use of insurance doesn't work right. The need for health care does not match the ability to pay on an individual basis.

Which is, naturally, a straw man.  Political signs are not mentioned in UDHR 25's guarantees, as food, shelter and medical care are mentioned.  It seems to suggest a right to equality rather than access to basic survival necessities.  What positive right covers political signs?  The above entirely misrepresents the progressive idea that the People ought to have access to the minimums.

There is a notion floating around that internet access ought to be a right in this day and age.  It is part of a notion that there ought to be public computer terminals for such access in public libraries.  That could likely be turned into a positive right, and as close as I can think or to what the image above suggests.  To my knowledge, the right to internet access is not a big deal talking point for most progressives, though it is worth talking about.

But the above seems more a denial of the negative rights of speech and/or press.

It might also be distantly akin to the late night TV 'humor'.  If one is trying for a 'joke', one can freely ignore truth in favor of 'humor' and a greater misrepresentation of what the other guys are saying.  I certainly can't claim that blue folks don't do it too.  I'm just sick of it.

Why be sick of humor? It's one of the saving graces of a worn-out culture in crisis.

I find the Bernie joke funny, even though it's clear what the meme is and it's as obvious as it can be. So, our side can reply with something of our own. Now, let's see; I wonder what Stephen Colbert would say..... food for thought....

I guess something like, at least they didn't steal the whole sign, as the Republicans would have done......

I know I know. No, I'm no Stephen Colbert.....

1. Yes, Bob has become a fuddy duddy old dour  
sour puss.
2. Uh, it's mutual combat wrt blue/red.






:: ~::
Rags.................................... fair and balanced.

[Classic-Xer]

(07-17-2017, 08:11 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(07-17-2017, 04:10 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Bob, not all straw mans are simply "straw man" as you say. There are so-called "Straw Man" like the one you referred to and discredited as a "straw man" that are actually earned and therefore accurate views/perceptions/portrayal that have been formed over many years of observation and participation in the political process. I've never called a blue voter a Bolshevik without enough evidence to use/apply to make the label stick. I assume you know your sides politics/political make up as well as I've come to know your sides politics/political make up over the years. I doubt Bernie would be as generous with his own money/resources as he appears to be with OUR money/resources.

There are a lot of very rich politicians in Congress, and lots of them will advocate for spending large amounts of money on this favored project or that.  How many change their family's financial status to complement the federal budget?  I for one wouldn't mind if the Congress weren't so much a rich man's club, but we've got what we've got.  It seems to be the job of Congressmen to set the budget rather than run the government out of their personal wallets.

Sure, cut their salaries, set extra taxes on politicians or set up some standard that applies to everybody.  Make every rich guy who advocates increased spending for the military buy the Army a tank?  Just hold everyone to the same standard.  Going just after Bernie seem wonky.

Tearing a sign of his in half and leaving a note with an acceptable explanation as to why which jives with the liberal belief system that Bernie clearly represents is more of an accurate interpretation of so-called liberal belief than just another "straw man" which deserves to be discredited/discarded as you said and did without giving it much thought.

[Eric the Green]

(07-17-2017, 10:39 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(07-17-2017, 10:16 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: We may shift to that, but in our saeculum, scarity economics still rules the roost, and has recently taken over the country. The unravelling memes in power the last (and current) 40 years period have seen to it that whatever prosperity may happen in a dawning information or green age is not distributed equally or fairly, but captured by the elites who run the system for their own benefit and wealth. So we are in an industrial age crisis this cycle, because it may be a crisis in which a transition to an information age saeculum takes place. That is, IF the progressive side wins because the millennials will have stepped up to the plate, as they haven't done yet.

The reason the saeculum cycles are less firm in other countries is that they have gradually blended with the anglo-american one, as the new world culture has developed. Other Western countries were already running almost parallel, since The West was a common culture going back millennia. Sometimes, when people forget or ignore that we are one world civilization now, as of the last 120 years or so, this confuses peoples' view of the cycles.

We aren't even close to being a one world civilization. How many belief systems still exist in the world? How many languages? How many religions? How many cultures? Are we down to just one or even close to one?????  I don't think so.

Ha ha! We have all of that just in our own country. All countries are becoming multi-national and multi-ethnic now. Borders are falling, no matter how upset you Trump voters are over this. No, we can't be separated. We trade with all the world, and so does everyone else. Media, culture, transportation, the internet, cross all boundaries. We in the USA learn from all the world's traditions and histories. Many of us are as fully influenced by Buddhism and Hinduism and its arts as we are by Christian and Jewish traditions. The world's nations are all moving toward freedom, democracy and socialism, slowly but surely. And toward green economics and technology too. The environmental crisis knows no boundaries. And neither do economic crises; nor markets. And wars elsewhere affect our lives here. No, we are one civilization, and have been for over a century; and you can feel it humming. We are one humanity, and we have passed the point of no return on that.

I know, Mr. X_84 says we need militant nationalism. And there's some truth in that; we don't want a one world nation without some good local representation and local interests too. The USA has some good ideals, although now they belong to everyone else too. And there are still bad guys, just as there are criminals, and security systems are needed to deal with them. One world civilization does not mean automatically that world peace has been achieved. Anymore than the existence of "Western Civilization" meant that western nations didn't fight each other.

[Bob Butler 54]

(07-17-2017, 10:44 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: 1. Yes, Bob has become a fuddy duddy old dour  
sour puss.
2. Uh, it's mutual combat wrt blue/red.

From late elementary school through early high school, the local boys decided I was the omega male.  It somehow increased their status to demean mine.  There is fun humor to be shared.  Then, there is demeaning humor intended to insult and drain status.  The latter, in my opinion, can be overdone.  If you'd care to do any listening at all, you can pick it up.