The Maelstrom of Violence

[pbrower2a]

(10-02-2017, 11:20 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(09-30-2017, 11:53 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(09-30-2017, 02:59 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: It's just the facts, not stereotypes, as far as I know. Welfare was restricted to 5 years during the Clinton/Gingrich years, so the person you know receiving freebees for 20 years, isn't getting federal welfare. Maybe something from the state. No, I don't think many people are out there who receive all the expensive freebees you mention. It doesn't matter if welfare recipients feel entitled to it; welfare is still not an entitlement program.

I did claim a reduced energy bill, but it's a small deduction, and I feel entitled to take it considering the inflated prices which big companies charge the people. If others have to pay more than I do with my small discount, then that's on the companies that charge too much, not on people like me. Our big corporations are extremely greedy, and most of what we pay goes for inflated salaries and stock market speculation by the rich owners and investors. In California, we have a non-profit activist group called TURN (Toward Utility Rate Normalization) which tries to keep the inflated energy prices down to reasonable rates. It's a constant battle, and the Public Utility Commission only sometimes listens to the people, and only when we have a Democratic governor are PUC members appointed who might sometimes represent the peoples' interests. That has long been one of Gov. Brown's promises. Even so, they often do the bidding of the company. I got some free energy-saving devices too, but as far as I know, that was a program of the energy company, not something received from taxpayers. The energy companies are not entirely wrong about everything; they do some things right once in a while

You vote against the welfare state, I understand that. That's your right and your point of view. What you don't understand, though, is that you are voting against your own interests when you do that. Government spending has never gone down because of Republican or anti-welfare politicians. There's just not enough in welfare to cut that would benefit you in your tax bill. What they give you instead, is debt that is passed on to future generations. Meanwhile, if you pay taxes for things like higher education, then you are merely paying for what benefits you. It is merely a libertarian philosophy that counts against it, not any actual cost or benefit you may receive or endure. Opposition to the public sphere is merely an ideology that has no relationship to anything in reality. It is just a dog whistle to appeal to your dislike of welfare and your resentment against people who receive it.

You feel entitled to take advantage of it because it's there for you to take advantage of if you so choose. You can thank corporate welfare for your electrical subsidy via funding from some federal program associated with the welfare state that you clearly support. Californian's aren't paying for your subsidy. Americans from the other states are most likely paying for it.  

It's not an entitlement, though. I chose to take advantage of the discount, yes. There may be a federal program associated with it. I don't know if this is federal taxpayer-funded corporate welfare for sure, but am pretty sure it's not. Our electric company has its progressive aspects, since it serves northern CA, so it feels the need to appeal to the predominant attitudes here in the region that does more energy conservation than any other region in America. And CA is also the #1 welfare state in America.

Quote:I have no personal or financial stake in the welfare state. I am not a life long Democrat and I have no personal or financial stake in the future of the Democratic party. So, you're going to have to tell me what my interest is in the welfare state. I can tell that you never embraced the American way of life. That's to bad. I pop in and out of here as time/schedule permits. I pop in to see if the blues are still stuck on stereotypes, still bouncing around stereotypes and still limited by stereotypes and lend a little support to the new guys who are doing a fine job taking my place.

My opinion is, that welfare and the social-insurance state serves your interest, but you don't realize it, since you think you can be self-reliant enough to avoid using it, and others should be too. Self-reliance is a key value for you, rather than reliance on the state. You consider it "the American way of life." Liberals and the majority within the blue states and the urban and many suburban regions do not consider self-reliance to be exclusively "the American way of life," as opposed also to the value of mutual help and interdependence as the need arises. Liberals and Democrats consider state welfare a prudent social insurance system which any of us may need at any time. These needs were not satisfied before the New Deal and Great Society, and so people suffered. So, it's a "blue" and "red" disagreement as to what constitutes "the American way of life." We liberals think we ought to catch up to the rest of the developed world in regard to such things as social insurance and green values, and not remain in a regressive condition as we have now for 40 years. And subject to the counter-awakening that dates from 1964, and triumphed in 1980.

btw I have as you know been a self-employed business owner for a number of years, although it's not the kind of business you might like. But it supports many independent businesses.

A hint: Air conditioning is part of his business. In Minnesota, air conditioning is still a luxury for most people. Interstate 90 between Sioux Falls and Toledo is a rough boundary of where central air conditioning becomes the norm (to the south). I-90 goes just north of the Minnesota-Iowa state line and just south of the Michigan state lines with Indiana and Ohio. In South Dakota or to the west, "it's a dry heat". From Toledo to the east, lakes, the Atlantic Ocean, or altitude might modify the heat. I-90 goes through Chicago.

Central  air conditioning is a norm for well-educated people with high incomes on a line between I-94 and Wisconsin 29 between the Twin Cities and Green Bay and north of Interstates 96 and 69 from about Muskegon to Port Huron in Michigan. If one owns one's own home in a place like Kalamazoo, an above-ground swimming pool is every bit as effective for a satisfying cool-down... and probably less expensive to pay for and maintain. But around Des Moines or Indianapolis... you will need air conditioning.

But guess who else installs air conditioning? That's right -- the public sector. Many of the clients of Classic X'er are Big Bad Government or the parts of the private sector (physician's clinics, nursing homes and hospitals) that require air conditioning. Think also of the places where people spend their food aid -- grocery stores.

[Eric the Green]

(10-02-2017, 11:46 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(10-02-2017, 11:20 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: We liberals think we ought to catch up to the rest of the developed world in regard to such things as social insurance and green values, and not remain in a regressive condition as we have now for 40 years. And subject to the counter-awakening that dates from 1964, and triumphed in 1980.

Good post overall.

A nitpick on dates.  1964 feels just a bit early.  What event(s) of 1964 do you consider important?  You are likely just picking up the early turn of the tide, not waiting on the flow being obvious.

The Goldwater campaign and the "backlash" it spoke to was very successful in taking over the Republican Party and shifting it far to the right. Goldwater's followers and fellow travelers became the heart of the Republican Party from then onward. The backlash was a huge part of American discourse through the sixties as it defended the Vietnam War, "stood up for America," and railed against cultural "permissiveness" and "immorality," "hippies," "drugs," welfare, taxes and government spending, black activism, and lawless disorder and black riots. The 1964 Goldwater campaign was the signature event that shifted the South into the GOP, forming the early basis of today's red and blue states. 1968 continued the shift further. This was one of those major political realignments that happen in every 4T and 2T (so far). 1964 also well and truly launched the political career of Ronald Reagan, who became the counter-awakening's chief spokesman and patron saint to this day. No, the backlash aka the counter-awakening was very obvious from 1964 onward through the 2T to today, and was more successful than the Awakening itself.

A preview of the PBS doc on 1964:
https://youtu.be/3hLHAX68ZKA

Entire program:
https://youtu.be/aOkwpqlOQgo

bootleg copy: https://youtu.be/XkA2Nys7WGA

AIRED JANUARY 14, 2014
1964
THE YEAR THAT CHANGED AMERICA
Film Description
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/films/1964/

It was the year the Beatles came to America, Cassius Clay became Muhammad Ali, and three civil rights workers were murdered in Mississippi. It was the year when Berkeley students rose up in protest, African Americans fought back against injustice in Harlem, and Barry Goldwater’s conservative revolution took over the Republican Party. In myriad ways, 1964 was the year when Americans faced choices: between the liberalism of Lyndon Johnson or Barry Goldwater’s grassroots conservatism, between support or opposition to the civil rights movement, between an embrace of the emerging counterculture or a defense of traditional values.

As champagne popped on December 31, 1963, America’s optimism was tinged with a deep anxiety. Just five weeks earlier, President John F. Kennedy had been assassinated, leaving Americans shaken and vulnerable. Eight days into the new year, the new President, Lyndon B. Johnson, gave his first State of the Union address, demanding an end to racial injustice and an “unconditional war on poverty in America.” Only a few days earlier, Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater had announced his intention to seek the Republican nomination for president, igniting a conservative movement that would reshape the politics of 1964 and transform the American political landscape for generations to come.

Based in part on The Last Innocent Year: America in 1964 by Jon Margolis, 1964 follows some of the most influential figures of the time -- Lyndon Johnson, Barry Goldwater, Betty Friedan -- but also brings out from the shadows the stories of ordinary Americans whose principled stands would set the country onto a new and different course.

[David Horn]

(10-01-2017, 09:03 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(09-30-2017, 02:02 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I can understand his issues with understanding me, my views, what I'm saying and so forth. I have piss poor writing skills, obvious issues with grammar and I'm not nearly as well read. I can't understand his issues with understanding you, your views and so forth.

I don’t think the problem is writing skills.  You are quite adequate, while Kinser has a ‘style’.  Both are quite comprehensible.

I’ll try to keep is simple, but it is hard to cross a values divide.

There is a blue perspective that many need help which is being provided.

There is a red perspective that there are many cheaters (predators / liars).

Both factions will present first hand real world accounts for what they believe, sources for their own perspectives.

I can well believe most of the first hand accounts.  I have personally seen cheaters who know and game the system for personal advantage.  I have also personally seen people who truly need help.

To me, this is a problem of balance, of providing much needed help while making it as hard as one can on the cheaters.

My problem is with how people discredit or throw away what the other guy has seen.   Because one has seen some cheaters, does one assume that all are cheaters?  Because one has seen those who genuinely need help, should one assume all those seeking help do so honestly and genuinely?

A while ago, some red folk were complaining that the blue were not listening.  In this I tried to listen.  I am finding that no one is listening.  One’s own perspective is assumed true and over rides any other.  This fits well what I’ve always believed.

The welfare ‘debate’ above may be representative of many.  Neither faction is capable or willing to accept that the other faction has a point.

Meanwhile, in one direction at least, on one issue at least, it seems impossible to start a conversation on the assumption that there are basic and important points on both sides that have much pertinent truth in them.  And sometimes the ‘truth’ one side sees is pure stereotype.  One side will try to tell the other what the other really saw in the real world.

Sorry.  I tried to keep it simple.  I don’t think it is a grammar problem, but in thinking in a way one is not used to.

I left your response intact, though it misses a major point.  The plural of anecdote is not data.  Anecdotes are always self selected to make a point, but the point may be lost in making it. 

Welfare rarely works the way either side thinks it does, because the economy is not a morality play.  It's a numbers game.  Welfare works best where it provides benefits to the community in general.  It tends to fail when it doesn't.  Cultures that harbor resentment tend to see it as a morality play, so the likelihood that a general benefit is achieved is very low.  If the society tends to be less judgmental, then benefits tend to be greater.

Appalachia is uniformly poor with a culture high on resentment.  Welfare has done poorly there.  Yet poor areas in Greece, for example, see net gains since resentment is low. 

It's the hardest obstacle to overcome, since changing culture is nearly impossible from the outside, and rarely popular from the inside.

[Bob Butler 54]

(10-02-2017, 01:59 PM)David Horn Wrote: I left your response intact, though it misses a major point.  The plural of anecdote is not data.  Anecdotes are always self selected to make a point, but the point may be lost in making it. 

Welfare rarely works the way either side thinks it does, because the economy is not a morality play.  It's a numbers game.  Welfare works best where it provides benefits to the community in general.  It tends to fail when it doesn't.  Cultures that harbor resentment tend to see it as a morality play, so the likelihood that a general benefit is achieved is very low.  If the society tends to be less judgmental, then benefits tend to be greater.

Appalachia is uniformly poor with a culture high on resentment.  Welfare has done poorly there.  Yet poor areas in Greece, for example, see net gains since resentment is low. 

It's the hardest obstacle to overcome, since changing culture is nearly impossible from the outside, and rarely popular from the inside.

That's an interesting perspective, but people who need help still need help, and those resentful will just resent something else.  I'm from a blue place where the community seems helped overall.  I can see how you'd get greed and manipulation sometimes.  Resentment?  At what point does one refuse to feed the mouth that bites you?

[pbrower2a]

(10-01-2017, 09:03 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(09-30-2017, 02:02 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I can understand his issues with understanding me, my views, what I'm saying and so forth. I have piss poor writing skills, obvious issues with grammar and I'm not nearly as well read. I can't understand his issues with understanding you, your views and so forth.

I don’t think the problem is writing skills.  You are quite adequate, while Kinser has a ‘style’.  Both are quite comprehensible.

Fussiness about grammar is one of my quirks. I have a didactic purpose: using bad grammar is like putting a placard that says
"Kick me!" on the back of one's coat. On the other side, Kinser is a fanatic, which shows in his lack of empathy -- which is even worse.

Quote:I’ll try to keep is simple, but it is hard to cross a values divide.

There is a blue perspective that many need help which is being provided.

There is a red perspective that there are many cheaters (predators / liars).

We have a divide between a 'red' value that people are responsible above all else to the economic elites from whom all economic blessings allegedly flow. Truth be told, those elites insist that those blessings flow as sparingly as possible to any people other than themselves. It is easy to see that slavery and labor camps (Gulags for profit and prison 'farms' like the Tucker Prison in Arkansas) can be exceedingly profitable for those who exploit captive labor, and that people who have profit and indulgence for themselves as an even higher virtue than personal liberty and a consumer society could easily resort to such despicable means of organizing a society and an economy. l have little faith in selfish greed at its crudest and its rawest, as I have seen enough literature about such -- from Dickens to Solzhenitsyn.

Most people who need help are literally helpless (like small children), are likely to be hurt by commercial exploitation (which explains why we do not rely upon child labor), became disabled through no fault of their own (military casualties, industrial accidents, congenital deformities) or were mishandled. Yes, there are hustlers, like teenagers who would rather bear a baby and get welfare and not need to attend school or go to work... but even some of these recognize the big mistake that they made and decide that it is better to work two jobs at minimum wage than rely upon welfare. There are social wrecks who might as well collect welfare as revert to crime.
 

Quote:Both factions will present first hand real world accounts for what they believe, sources for their own perspectives.

I can well believe most of the first hand accounts.  I have personally seen cheaters who know and game the system for personal advantage.  I have also personally seen people who truly need help.

To me, this is a problem of balance, of providing much needed help while making it as hard as one can on the cheaters.

If the personal advantage gets people into productive employment, then maybe welfare isn't such a bad thing.  But I would squeal on a cheater. In Michigan one can get sodas on SNAP, and SNAP covers the bottle deposit. People have bought sodas, dumped the soda cans, and taken the cans back for the deposits. I'd report that fraud.

Quote:My problem is with how people discredit or throw away what the other guy has seen.   Because one has seen some cheaters, does one assume that all are cheaters?  Because one has seen those who genuinely need help, should one assume all those seeking help do so honestly and genuinely?

American capitalism does a poor job of offering opportunity. Someone in good shape can again (after the eight-year Obama bull market) get a job in retail, restaurant, food-processing, or foundry work around here. The welfare system encourages people to do at least part-time paid work to supplement the slight benefits. At my age I might be a reject due to the monstrous cost of medical insurance solely due to my age.

A while ago, some red folk were complaining that the blue were not listening.  In this I tried to listen.  I am finding that no one is listening.  One’s own perspective is assumed true and over rides any other.  This fits well what I’ve always believed.

Quote:The welfare ‘debate’ above may be representative of many.  Neither faction is capable or willing to accept that the other faction has a point.

Both sides have a point. The guaranteed income is originally a conservative idea. After all, whatever the poor get typically goes back into the economy. Wal*Mart, Kroger, Safeway, Meijer, Spartan-Nash, Dollar General, and Family Dollar end up with customers instead of shoplifters. I would feel sorry about someone stealing a box of saltine crackers for survival, but not about someone stealing pre-recorded video (the latter a luxury).

Quote:Meanwhile, in one direction at least, on one issue at least, it seems impossible to start a conversation on the assumption that there are basic and important points on both sides that have much pertinent truth in them.  And sometimes the ‘truth’ one side sees is pure stereotype.  One side will try to tell the other what the other really saw in the real world.

Sorry.  I tried to keep it simple.  I don’t think it is a grammar problem, but in thinking in a way one is not used to.

The big issue is the post-industrial economy in which productivity outstrips employment, and in which economic rent is a huge share of the economy.

[Classic-Xer]

(10-02-2017, 12:33 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: A hint: Air conditioning is part of his business. In Minnesota, air conditioning is still a luxury for most people. Interstate 90 between Sioux Falls and Toledo is a rough boundary of where central air conditioning becomes the norm (to the south). I-90 goes just north of the Minnesota-Iowa state line and just south of the Michigan state lines with Indiana and Ohio. In South Dakota or to the west, "it's a dry heat". From Toledo to the east, lakes, the Atlantic Ocean, or altitude might modify the heat. I-90 goes through Chicago.

Central  air conditioning is a norm for well-educated people with high incomes on a line between I-94 and Wisconsin 29 between the Twin Cities and Green Bay and north of Interstates 96 and 69 from about Muskegon to Port Huron in Michigan. If one owns one's own home in a place like Kalamazoo, an above-ground swimming pool is every bit as effective for a satisfying cool-down... and probably less expensive to pay for and maintain. But around Des Moines or Indianapolis... you will need air conditioning.

But guess who else installs air conditioning? That's right -- the public sector. Many of the clients of Classic X'er are Big Bad Government or the parts of the private sector (physician's clinics, nursing homes and hospitals) that require air conditioning. Think also of the places where people spend their food aid -- grocery stores.

Actually, air conditioning is pretty much the norm for most of Minnesota these days. I don't have many big government customers ( a few here and there) and I don't involved in government work for low income people ( there's little to no money in that kind of work).

[pbrower2a]

(10-03-2017, 11:12 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(10-02-2017, 12:33 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: A hint: Air conditioning is part of his business. In Minnesota, air conditioning is still a luxury for most people. Interstate 90 between Sioux Falls and Toledo is a rough boundary of where central air conditioning becomes the norm (to the south). I-90 goes just north of the Minnesota-Iowa state line and just south of the Michigan state lines with Indiana and Ohio. In South Dakota or to the west, "it's a dry heat". From Toledo to the east, lakes, the Atlantic Ocean, or altitude might modify the heat. I-90 goes through Chicago.

Central  air conditioning is a norm for well-educated people with high incomes on a line between I-94 and Wisconsin 29 between the Twin Cities and Green Bay and north of Interstates 96 and 69 from about Muskegon to Port Huron in Michigan. If one owns one's own home in a place like Kalamazoo, an above-ground swimming pool is every bit as effective for a satisfying cool-down... and probably less expensive to pay for and maintain. But around Des Moines or Indianapolis... you will need air conditioning.

But guess who else installs air conditioning? That's right -- the public sector. Many of the clients of Classic X'er are Big Bad Government or the parts of the private sector (physician's clinics, nursing homes and hospitals) that require air conditioning. Think also of the places where people spend their food aid -- grocery stores.

Actually, air conditioning is pretty much the norm for most of Minnesota these days. I don't have many big government customers ( a few here and there) and I don't involved in government work for low income people ( there's little to no money in that kind of work).

Government includes government offices of any kind, K-12 schools, state university buildings, penal institutions, and public housing. Government-sponsored housing includes the infamous Section 8 housing.

[Classic-Xer]

(10-02-2017, 11:20 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: It's not an entitlement, though. I chose to take advantage of the discount, yes. There may be a federal program associated with it. I don't know if this is federal taxpayer-funded corporate welfare for sure, but am pretty sure it's not. Our electric company has its progressive aspects, since it serves northern CA, so it feels the need to appeal to the predominant attitudes here in the region that does more energy conservation than any other region in America. And CA is also the #1 welfare state in America.

My opinion is, that welfare and the social-insurance state serves your interest, but you don't realize it, since you think you can be self-reliant enough to avoid using it, and others should be too. Self-reliance is a key value for you, rather than reliance on the state. You consider it "the American way of life." Liberals and the majority within the blue states and the urban and many suburban regions do not consider self-reliance to be exclusively "the American way of life," as opposed also to the value of mutual help and interdependence as the need arises. Liberals and Democrats consider state welfare a prudent social insurance system which any of us may need at any time. These needs were not satisfied before the New Deal and Great Society, and so people suffered. So, it's a "blue" and "red" disagreement as to what constitutes "the American way of life." We liberals think we ought to catch up to the rest of the developed world in regard to such things as social insurance and green values, and not remain in a regressive condition as we have now for 40 years. And subject to the counter-awakening that dates from 1964, and triumphed in 1980.

btw I have as you know been a self-employed business owner for a number of years, although it's not the kind of business you might like. But it supports many independent businesses.

Would you vote to keep your subsidy if you were able to vote to keep it? Would you be upset if you lost it (it was taken away from you) or go broke if it were no longer available? The only interest that I have in the welfare state is the tax dollars that come from me to fund your interests and the interest of blues in general. Just so you are clear, I don't mind some welfare being available as a temporary safety net as it was intended at the time it was passed. I can see where an urban dweller like yourself would view it as social insurance or a means of social pacification to keep the beasts at bay. The blacks who rioted and burned down portions of blue cities acted like they were mean, uncaring, unlawful and largely uncivilized people.

[Classic-Xer]

(10-03-2017, 11:53 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(10-03-2017, 11:12 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(10-02-2017, 12:33 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: A hint: Air conditioning is part of his business. In Minnesota, air conditioning is still a luxury for most people. Interstate 90 between Sioux Falls and Toledo is a rough boundary of where central air conditioning becomes the norm (to the south). I-90 goes just north of the Minnesota-Iowa state line and just south of the Michigan state lines with Indiana and Ohio. In South Dakota or to the west, "it's a dry heat". From Toledo to the east, lakes, the Atlantic Ocean, or altitude might modify the heat. I-90 goes through Chicago.

Central  air conditioning is a norm for well-educated people with high incomes on a line between I-94 and Wisconsin 29 between the Twin Cities and Green Bay and north of Interstates 96 and 69 from about Muskegon to Port Huron in Michigan. If one owns one's own home in a place like Kalamazoo, an above-ground swimming pool is every bit as effective for a satisfying cool-down... and probably less expensive to pay for and maintain. But around Des Moines or Indianapolis... you will need air conditioning.

But guess who else installs air conditioning? That's right -- the public sector. Many of the clients of Classic X'er are Big Bad Government or the parts of the private sector (physician's clinics, nursing homes and hospitals) that require air conditioning. Think also of the places where people spend their food aid -- grocery stores.

Actually, air conditioning is pretty much the norm for most of Minnesota these days. I don't have many big government customers ( a few here and there) and I don't involved in government work for low income people ( there's little to no money in that kind of work).

Government includes government offices of any kind, K-12 schools, state university buildings, penal institutions, and public housing. Government-sponsored housing includes the infamous Section 8 housing.

I don't see public schooling and the public schooling jobs or the prisons and the prison jobs or the government and the government jobs going away or the police and law enforcement jobs or the military and the jobs associated with it going away. America would eliminate all welfare funding before we'd sacrifice any of them. Dude, you ain't seen anything yet as far as what's yet come when the looming national debt crisis begins to sink in.

[pbrower2a]

(10-04-2017, 12:31 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Would you vote to keep your subsidy if you were able to vote to keep it? Would you be upset if you lost it (it was taken away from you) or go broke if it were no longer available? The only interest that I have in the welfare state is the tax dollars that come from me to fund your interests and the interest of blues in general. Just so you are clear, I don't mind some welfare being available as a temporary safety net as it was intended at the time it was passed. I can see where an urban dweller like yourself would view it as social insurance or a means of social pacification to keep the beasts at bay. The blacks who rioted and burned down portions of blue cities acted like they were mean, uncaring, unlawful and largely uncivilized people.

Hurricane Maria is beginning to show what is possible when the political, social, and technological orders break down at once, as in the wake of  a large-scale bombing raid. The most vulnerable people (such as those who need insulin or dialysis) die. Public health is at the peril of the germs, heat stress, or cold that a well-functioning social order normally suppresses. Government might even break down. This may not be a matter of 'culture'. An intact social order might foster some social norms.

Truth be told, government spending typically goes back into the economy. So it is with Social Security, welfare, military expenditures, or infrastructure spending -- or the usual payments to government employees from school janitors to judges.

People will usually do what they must do to survive. They will scavenge, if necessary. We are not trained for heroism or sainthood. But I expect Puerto Rico to rebuild, if with different infrastructure. That probably means with less reliance upon fossil fuels (ergo, solar panels and electric vehicles) and probably without landline telecommunications. You will see highways rebuilt to have more resiliency at places of vulnerability, especially bridges. Political institutions will likely be what they were before the Hurricane struck.

Business as usual is the norm until some harsh, unforeseen crisis disrupts it completely. Just do not expect revolutionary changes in human nature. Not even nuclear warfare will bring about some libertarian or Marxist-Leninist utopia. Ideologies inconsistent with human nature typically die suddenly and vanish forever.

[Classic-Xer]

(10-04-2017, 10:21 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(10-04-2017, 12:31 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Would you vote to keep your subsidy if you were able to vote to keep it? Would you be upset if you lost it (it was taken away from you) or go broke if it were no longer available? The only interest that I have in the welfare state is the tax dollars that come from me to fund your interests and the interest of blues in general. Just so you are clear, I don't mind some welfare being available as a temporary safety net as it was intended at the time it was passed. I can see where an urban dweller like yourself would view it as social insurance or a means of social pacification to keep the beasts at bay. The blacks who rioted and burned down portions of blue cities acted like they were mean, uncaring, unlawful and largely uncivilized people.

Hurricane Maria is beginning to show what is possible when the political, social, and technological orders break down at once, as in the wake of  a large-scale bombing raid. The most vulnerable people (such as those who need insulin or dialysis) die. Public health is at the peril of the germs, heat stress, or cold that a well-functioning social order normally suppresses. Government might even break down. This may not be a matter of 'culture'. An intact social order might foster some social norms.

Truth be told, government spending typically goes back into the economy. So it is with Social Security, welfare, military expenditures, or infrastructure spending -- or the usual payments to government employees from school janitors to judges.

People will usually do what they must do to survive. They will scavenge, if necessary. We are not trained for heroism or sainthood. But I expect Puerto Rico to rebuild, if with different infrastructure. That probably means with less reliance upon fossil fuels (ergo, solar panels and electric vehicles) and probably without landline telecommunications. You will see highways rebuilt to have more resiliency at places of vulnerability, especially bridges. Political institutions will likely be what they were before the Hurricane struck.

Business as usual is the norm until some harsh, unforeseen crisis disrupts it completely. Just do not expect revolutionary changes in human nature. Not even nuclear warfare will bring about some libertarian or Marxist-Leninist utopia. Ideologies inconsistent with human nature typically die suddenly and vanish forever.

The blue ideology isn't very consistent with human nature. I don't live in a heavenly world. I doubt there are very many people who believe that they do either.

[pbrower2a]

(10-04-2017, 07:48 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(10-04-2017, 10:21 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(10-04-2017, 12:31 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Would you vote to keep your subsidy if you were able to vote to keep it? Would you be upset if you lost it (it was taken away from you) or go broke if it were no longer available? The only interest that I have in the welfare state is the tax dollars that come from me to fund your interests and the interest of blues in general. Just so you are clear, I don't mind some welfare being available as a temporary safety net as it was intended at the time it was passed. I can see where an urban dweller like yourself would view it as social insurance or a means of social pacification to keep the beasts at bay. The blacks who rioted and burned down portions of blue cities acted like they were mean, uncaring, unlawful and largely uncivilized people.

Hurricane Maria is beginning to show what is possible when the political, social, and technological orders break down at once, as in the wake of  a large-scale bombing raid. The most vulnerable people (such as those who need insulin or dialysis) die. Public health is at the peril of the germs, heat stress, or cold that a well-functioning social order normally suppresses. Government might even break down. This may not be a matter of 'culture'. An intact social order might foster some social norms.

Truth be told, government spending typically goes back into the economy. So it is with Social Security, welfare, military expenditures, or infrastructure spending -- or the usual payments to government employees from school janitors to judges.

People will usually do what they must do to survive. They will scavenge, if necessary. We are not trained for heroism or sainthood. But I expect Puerto Rico to rebuild, if with different infrastructure. That probably means with less reliance upon fossil fuels (ergo, solar panels and electric vehicles) and probably without landline telecommunications. You will see highways rebuilt to have more resiliency at places of vulnerability, especially bridges. Political institutions will likely be what they were before the Hurricane struck.

Business as usual is the norm until some harsh, unforeseen crisis disrupts it completely. Just do not expect revolutionary changes in human nature. Not even nuclear warfare will bring about some libertarian or Marxist-Leninist utopia. Ideologies inconsistent with human nature typically die suddenly and vanish forever.

The blue ideology isn't very consistent with human nature. I don't live in a heavenly world. I doubt there are very many people who believe that they do either.

It's practically impossible to predict human nature. It is so difficult that the people who come closest are those who study literature practically as case studies. Such reflects  the complexity of human behavior. For simplicity of animal nature look at a cat, a fairly intelligent animal with very rigid behavior except for manipulating us -- and dispatching prey. 

It is no wonder that utopias fail. Unintended consequences are the norm of human behavior. Human nature overpowers Jesus, Marx, and even Freud.

[Bob Butler 54]

(10-04-2017, 07:48 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(10-04-2017, 10:21 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(10-04-2017, 12:31 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Would you vote to keep your subsidy if you were able to vote to keep it? Would you be upset if you lost it (it was taken away from you) or go broke if it were no longer available? The only interest that I have in the welfare state is the tax dollars that come from me to fund your interests and the interest of blues in general. Just so you are clear, I don't mind some welfare being available as a temporary safety net as it was intended at the time it was passed. I can see where an urban dweller like yourself would view it as social insurance or a means of social pacification to keep the beasts at bay. The blacks who rioted and burned down portions of blue cities acted like they were mean, uncaring, unlawful and largely uncivilized people.

Hurricane Maria is beginning to show what is possible when the political, social, and technological orders break down at once, as in the wake of  a large-scale bombing raid. The most vulnerable people (such as those who need insulin or dialysis) die. Public health is at the peril of the germs, heat stress, or cold that a well-functioning social order normally suppresses. Government might even break down. This may not be a matter of 'culture'. An intact social order might foster some social norms.

Truth be told, government spending typically goes back into the economy. So it is with Social Security, welfare, military expenditures, or infrastructure spending -- or the usual payments to government employees from school janitors to judges.

People will usually do what they must do to survive. They will scavenge, if necessary. We are not trained for heroism or sainthood. But I expect Puerto Rico to rebuild, if with different infrastructure. That probably means with less reliance upon fossil fuels (ergo, solar panels and electric vehicles) and probably without landline telecommunications. You will see highways rebuilt to have more resiliency at places of vulnerability, especially bridges. Political institutions will likely be what they were before the Hurricane struck.

Business as usual is the norm until some harsh, unforeseen crisis disrupts it completely. Just do not expect revolutionary changes in human nature. Not even nuclear warfare will bring about some libertarian or Marxist-Leninist utopia. Ideologies inconsistent with human nature typically die suddenly and vanish forever.

The blue ideology isn't very consistent with human nature. I don't live in a heavenly world. I doubt there are very many people who believe that they do either.

There are varied visions of the failed future.  The red distrust the government and anticipate a failed government policy.  The blue distrusts the economic elites, and anticipate the problems of putting too much wealth in the hands of too few who care little for the many.  The red can ignore problems which have not gone critical in the past.  Some blue fear problems like global warming and a hypothetical post scarcity economy which haven't developed yet.

The other side, sometimes, has a point. 

Judging from the past, a lot will be surprised by the future.  If the problem is to be too great a production, is the answer to seek ever higher productivity?

As an alleged Whig, I do not anticipate perfection.  You might take out one problem at a time though.  For America, it has been Royalty, a land and people owning elite in the south, and robber barons too close to fascism.  There are some who have not studied where man came from who allege we might return to Utopia.  I'll leave that to the Marxist Leninist contingent.  I anticipate going forward, not back.  The answer lies with figuring out the post scarcity pattern, not daydreams of a past which never existed.

I do see the problem being an elite class wielding too much influence through both economic a political means.  They have fooled the people by various means.  A general distrust of the establishment by populists is a good sign.  The readiness of the blue to fight the red and vice versa is less good.

[Eric the Green]

(10-04-2017, 12:31 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(10-02-2017, 11:20 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: It's not an entitlement, though. I chose to take advantage of the discount, yes. There may be a federal program associated with it. I don't know if this is federal taxpayer-funded corporate welfare for sure, but am pretty sure it's not. Our electric company has its progressive aspects, since it serves northern CA, so it feels the need to appeal to the predominant attitudes here in the region that does more energy conservation than any other region in America. And CA is also the #1 welfare state in America.

My opinion is, that welfare and the social-insurance state serves your interest, but you don't realize it, since you think you can be self-reliant enough to avoid using it, and others should be too. Self-reliance is a key value for you, rather than reliance on the state. You consider it "the American way of life." Liberals and the majority within the blue states and the urban and many suburban regions do not consider self-reliance to be exclusively "the American way of life," as opposed also to the value of mutual help and interdependence as the need arises. Liberals and Democrats consider state welfare a prudent social insurance system which any of us may need at any time. These needs were not satisfied before the New Deal and Great Society, and so people suffered. So, it's a "blue" and "red" disagreement as to what constitutes "the American way of life." We liberals think we ought to catch up to the rest of the developed world in regard to such things as social insurance and green values, and not remain in a regressive condition as we have now for 40 years. And subject to the counter-awakening that dates from 1964, and triumphed in 1980.

btw I have as you know been a self-employed business owner for a number of years, although it's not the kind of business you might like. But it supports many independent businesses.

Would you vote to keep your subsidy if you were able to vote to keep it? Would you be upset if you lost it (it was taken away from you) or go broke if it were no longer available? The only interest that I have in the welfare state is the tax dollars that come from me to fund your interests and the interest of blues in general. Just so you are clear, I don't mind some welfare being available as a temporary safety net as it was intended at the time it was passed. I can see where an urban dweller like yourself would view it as social insurance or a means of social pacification to keep the beasts at bay. The blacks who rioted and burned down portions of blue cities acted like they were mean, uncaring, unlawful and largely uncivilized people.

The blacks who rioted in the sixties are not a suitable scapegoat for the problems of today. These things happened when you were a child or earlier. I don't fear the black rioters. I don't now, and never did. I don't agree with riots. I also think that riots might happen if centuries of oppression and slavery leave their mark on a people, as they have on African Americans.

If you don't mind some welfare as a temporary safety net, that is fine. I agree, and although I don't like time limits, since depressions can come at any time, welfare is not meant to be a permanent way of life for most people. But I do not consider welfare as a pacification program to keep the blacks from rioting. A prudent welfare program is in the best interests of everyone as social insurance, and to some extent it helps keep the economy flowing OK by putting money in the hands of people who spend it on necessities. There may be some who become dependent on it, and that may not be a good thing, but this is exaggerated by politicians who want your vote.

I don't know if I would vote to keep a subsidy I get, or not. Greed is not something from which anyone is totally immune, including me. I think that I tend to vote in the general interest rather than my own narrow interests alone, but that is not always the case. It can be wise to vote in your own interest, rather than in propaganda nostrums of culture wars and outdated values, IF you truly understand how things work, and what is really in your interest. Ultimately, it often tends to be the case that what is in the best interests for all, is in the best interests for me and each individual too. That seems contrary to the libertarian or classic liberal/neo-liberal ideology, which says that people pursuing their own economic self-interest creates an invisible hand that supports the economy for everyone. But, it depends on how you define your interest.

I am not interested in an economy of most people struggling to make ends meet and a few getting rich. That society is not fun, innovative or creative, but sullen instead, and it tends to lead to people into being preoccupied with working and making enough money, which is not in my interest, and it often leads to drug dependency for many depressed and hopeless people today. My interest is in a society of attractive, fun, creative, inspired, spiritually-aware, healthy people interested in progress and renewal, and in the health of life on Earth; a renaissance in our time.

[David Horn]

(10-04-2017, 09:45 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: ... Judging from the past, a lot will be surprised by the future.  If the problem is to be too great a production, is the answer to seek ever higher productivity?

As an alleged Whig, I do not anticipate perfection.  You might take out one problem at a time though.  For America, it has bee Royalty, a land and people owning elite in the south, and robber barons too close to fascism.  There are some who have not studied where man came from who allege we might return to Utopia.  I'll leave that to the Marxist Leninist contingent.  I anticipate going forward, not back.  The answer lies with figuring out the post scarcity pattern, not daydreams of a past which never existed.

I do see the problem being an elite class wielding too much influence through both economic a political means.  They have fooled the people by various means.  A general distrust of the establishment by populists is a good sign.  The readiness of the blue to fight the red and vice versa is less good.

This is a good analysis of the problem, but what then?  We can't know what the future will bring, since it will be a state that has never existed in the past.  In he past, humans have expanded to meet the available supplies, so a greater global population is virtually certain.  Beyond that, there is the issue of distribution.  How are future needs met, and what will determine how equitably that will occur?  We don't know. 

More to the point, the future will arrive much sooner than our systems of governance can easily adjust.  It would be nice to see forward looking leaders start to prepare, but I see zero evidence of that.  At most, the problems are being discussed and debated in academe and inside other non-academic think tanks.  If that breaks through to the general consciousness reasonably soon, we may find a non-violent path to a solution.  If not, then the future may well be bleak.  I see the window to that AH-HA moment as 50 years at most -- an eye-blink in history.

[David Horn]

(10-03-2017, 08:27 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(10-02-2017, 01:59 PM)David Horn Wrote: I left your response intact, though it misses a major point.  The plural of anecdote is not data.  Anecdotes are always self selected to make a point, but the point may be lost in making it. 

Welfare rarely works the way either side thinks it does, because the economy is not a morality play.  It's a numbers game.  Welfare works best where it provides benefits to the community in general.  It tends to fail when it doesn't.  Cultures that harbor resentment tend to see it as a morality play, so the likelihood that a general benefit is achieved is very low.  If the society tends to be less judgmental, then benefits tend to be greater.

Appalachia is uniformly poor with a culture high on resentment.  Welfare has done poorly there.  Yet poor areas in Greece, for example, see net gains since resentment is low. 

It's the hardest obstacle to overcome, since changing culture is nearly impossible from the outside, and rarely popular from the inside.

That's an interesting perspective, but people who need help still need help, and those resentful will just resent something else.  I'm from a blue place where the community seems helped overall.  I can see how you'd get greed and manipulation sometimes.  Resentment?  At what point does one refuse to feed the mouth that bites you?

I live on the edge of Appalachia.  We have a dual culture here with plenty of resentment of "the other", and a more open minded minority that tries to avoid judging.  The split doesn't fall along economic lines either.  In the resentment culture, the well-off resent the lazy poor and the poor resent the greedy rich.  All tend to vote Republican by wide margins.  It's a mystery how that can be, though religion plays a huge role.  Needless to say that welfare in any form is universally deemed unacceptable -- even by those who truly need it.

FWIW, I don't see the open minded culture growing into a majority.  Most of us that try to be less judgmental are imports from other places who brought our attitudes with us.

[Bob Butler 54]

(10-05-2017, 12:34 PM)David Horn Wrote: I live on the edge of Appalachia.  We have a dual culture here with plenty of resentment of "the other", and a more open minded minority that tries to avoid judging.  The split doesn't fall along economic lines either.  In the resentment culture, the well-off resent the lazy poor and the poor resent the greedy rich.  All tend to vote Republican by wide margins.  It's a mystery how that can be, though religion plays a huge role.  Needless to say that welfare in any form is universally deemed unacceptable -- even by those who truly need it.

FWIW, I don't see the open minded culture growing into a majority.  Most of us that try to be less judgmental are imports from other places who brought our attitudes with us.

I've seen reports on the above from Hillbilly Eulogy and my Aunt's Acron Ohio family. Hard to believe, but the reports are consistent enough to not ignore it. A culture based on resentment seems difficult.

[pbrower2a]

(10-04-2017, 09:45 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: There are varied visions of the failed future.  The red distrust the government and anticipate a failed government policy.  The blue distrusts the economic elites, and anticipate the problems of putting too much wealth in the hands of too few who care little for the many.  The red can ignore problems which have not gone critical in the past.  Some blue fear problems like global warming and a hypothetical post scarcity economy which haven't developed yet.

The other side, sometimes, has a point. 

Judging from the past, a lot will be surprised by the future.  If the problem is to be too great a production, is the answer to seek ever higher productivity?

As an alleged Whig, I do not anticipate perfection.  You might take out one problem at a time though.  For America, it has been Royalty, a land and people owning elite in the south, and robber barons too close to fascism.  There are some who have not studied where man came from who allege we might return to Utopia.  I'll leave that to the Marxist Leninist contingent.  I anticipate going forward, not back.  The answer lies with figuring out the post scarcity pattern, not daydreams of a past which never existed.

I do see the problem being an elite class wielding too much influence through both economic a political means.  They have fooled the people by various means.  A general distrust of the establishment by populists is a good sign.  The readiness of the blue to fight the red and vice versa is less good.

The generational theory itself suggests that what one generation sees as an ideal, its kids will loathe. The Puritans thought that they were establishing a Heaven on Earth in Plymouth Colony, and their Cavalier kids wanted something more fun and material. It's usually the Reactive/Nomad generation who shows that the crusades and utopias of Idealists are terribly wrong, and Idealists who have trouble with the bland, materialist, and amoral world that the Civic generation sets up to the extent of falling for religious and political utopias.

As far as that goes, if the last act of Boomers should be Donald Trump and his cult, then I could see the Civic Millennial generation staging something analogous to the French Revolution. An economic order that dedicates itself to bleeding the masses for easy money for economic elites makes a revolution a near certainty in the wake of an economic meltdown, an ecological catastrophe (droughts, floods, plagues, crop failures), or military debacles. Just think of what went on in Russia as the whole social order imploded. Tsar Nicholas II would have been wise to surrender to the Central Powers when he had a chance.

Maybe Donald Trump is not the last act of my generation. Boomers born in the 'Fifties will still be in their sixties in the 2020s, and the ones that the corporate elites shut out might have some innovative and imaginative solutions to go with the principle that one did not dare show in corporate board rooms. But there is nothing like a Crisis Era to discredit recent dogma.

The other side often has a point. At the worst that could be the business end of a red-hot poker pointed at some delicate part of the human anatomy. It is easy to use straw-man constructions to vilify the Other Side, as with arguments that gay rights means the right to molest children. On the other hand, if God really does demand that we all suffer for economic elites that He favors above the entire remainder of Humanity so that we get to enjoy some insipid Paradise instead of enduring some eternal damnation, then I am extremely wrong. Arguments to force are the most fraudulent of all fallacies, but if one must choose between being logically and morally correct but dead, the heroic choice may ensure that the would-be hero can never do another heroic act).

I do not know how often I must repeat this, but the wonderful promise of a post-scarcity society comes with the potential of some harsh consequences. Entrenched elites will seek to use it as an excuse to consign others to gross poverty under harsh management so that those elites can extract as much of the productivity of a social order as is inhumanly possible. Elites incapable of feeling guilt or shame treat people badly as a strict rule. Maybe some of us will need to pick and choose such technologies, including productive methods, as we find compatible with our values. At which stage of industrial or even agrarian development does one wish to live?

Our technologies can numb us, as in Fahrenheit 451, or even enslave us as in Nineteen Eighty-Four. We need ask ourselves whether we have the wisdom and moral compass necessary for keeping out technological wonders from becoming Frankenstein monsters.

[pbrower2a]

A reminder: fascists love to use the real experts on the application of violence: violent criminals


Racist, Violent, Unpunished: A White Hate Group’s Campaign of Menace


They train to fight. They post their beatings online. And so far, they have little reason to fear the authorities.

Quote:It was about 10 a.m. on Aug. 12 when the melee erupted just north of Emancipation Park in Charlottesville, Virginia.
About two dozen white supremacists — many equipped with helmets and wooden shields — were battling with a handful of counter-protesters, most of them African American. One white man dove into the violence with particular zeal. Using his fists and feet, the man attacked one person after another.

The street fighter was in Virginia on that August morning for the “Unite the Right” rally, the largest public gathering of white supremacists in a generation, a chaotic and bloody event that would culminate, a few hours later, in the killing of 32-year-old Heather Heyer, who was there to protest the racist rally.

The violence in Charlottesville became national news. President Donald Trump’s response to it — he asserted there were “some very fine people on both sides” of the events that day — set off a wave of condemnations, from his allies as well as his critics.
But for many Americans, conservatives as well as liberals, there was shock and confusion at the sight of bands of white men bearing torches, chanting racist slogans and embracing the heroes of the Confederacy: Who were they? What are their numbers and aims?
There is, of course, no single answer. Some who were there that weekend in Charlottesville are hardened racists involved with long-running organizations like the League of the South. Many are fresh converts to white supremacist organizing, young people attracted to nativist and anti-Muslim ideas circulated on social media by leaders of the so-called alt-right, the newest branch of the white power movement. Some are paranoid characters thrilled to traffic in the symbols and coded language of vast global conspiracy theories. Others are sophisticated provocateurs who see the current political moment as a chance to push a “white agenda,” with angry positions on immigration, diversity and economic isolationism.

ProPublica spent weeks examining one distinctive group at the center of the violence in Charlottesville: an organization called the Rise Above Movement, one of whose members was the white man dispensing beatings near Emancipation Park Aug. 12.
The group, based in Southern California, claims more than 50 members and a singular purpose: physically attacking its ideological foes. RAM’s members spend weekends training in boxing and other martial arts, and they have boasted publicly of their violence during protests in Huntington Beach, San Bernardino and Berkeley. Many of the altercations have been captured on video, and its members are not hard to spot.

Indeed, ProPublica has identified the group’s core members and interviewed one of its leaders at length. The man in the Charlottesville attacks — filmed by a documentary crew working with ProPublica — is 24-year-old Ben Daley, who runs a Southern California tree-trimming business.

Many of the organization’s core members, including Daley, have serious criminal histories, according to interviews and a review of court records. Before joining RAM, several members spent time in jail or state prison on serious felony charges including assault, robbery, and gun and knife offenses. Daley did seven days in jail for carrying a concealed snub-nosed revolver. Another RAM member served a prison term for stabbing a Latino man five times in a 2009 gang assault.

“Fundamentally, RAM operates like an alt-right street-fighting club,” said Oren Segal, director of the Anti-Defamation League’s Center on Extremism.

Fascism is political criminality. The violent criminal, an anathema to any decent person, can be the teacher of political brawling. Note well that 'Aryan' groups in the American Northwest committed bank robberies (which to them was acceptable in view of the canard that the Jews own the banking system [they don't, but the ignoramuses don't realize that]) to finance their terrorist aspirations. (Such behavior is also commonplace in 'revolutionary expropriations' by Communists and other extreme leftists). 


[url=https://www.propublica.org/article/white-hate-group-campaign-of-menace-rise-above-movement][/url]

[pbrower2a]

Call it what it is -- a terrorist plot. Local law enforcement demonstrated its unqualified disapproval. So did someone who saw something wrong and reported the plot.

Quote:Four people were arrested on Friday over alleged plans to bomb a Muslim community in upstate New York, authorities announced Tuesday.

Investigators said they first heard of the plot after a student at Greece Odyssey Academy in Greece, New York, made an offhand remark during a lunch break, which prompted another student to report the comment to school officials. Greece Police Chief Patrick Phelan said authorities quickly responded to the report, conducting interviews and making arrests that same day.

The suspects allegedly planned to target the Muslim enclave of Islamberg, a small area in the Catskill Mountains about 150 miles from New York City, according to Reuters. Authorities later said they seized 23 weapons and three improvised explosive devices while carrying out search warrants. All of the firearms were legally owned by relatives of those arrested.

“If they had carried out this plot, which every indication is that they were going to, people would have died,” Phelan said. “I don’t know how many and who, but people would have died.”

The suspects were identified as Brian Colaneri, 20, Andrew Crysel, 18, and Vincent Vetromile, 19. They have each been charged with three felony counts of first-degree possession of a dangerous weapon and one felony count of fourth-degree conspiracy. An unidentified 16-year-old student was also charged with the same crimes but will be tried as a minor.

Phelan said school officials first became suspicious after a student reported the 16-year-old showing a photo on his phone to some friends in the school cafeteria. The student allegedly made a comment to the effect of “he looks like the next school shooter, doesn’t he?” which prompted the complaint.

“The kid who said something saved people’s lives,” the Greece police chief said. “Everything worked, and as a result, nobody’s dead, and that’s a good story.”

It’s unclear how the men and the student knew each other, but the three men were Boy Scouts together, according to the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle.

Islamberg has been targeted before. In 2017, a man from Tennessee was sentenced to nearly 20 years in prison for plotting to burn down a mosque and other buildings in the enclave.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bom...c46d6399ea