Thought for the Day [Archive] - HungAngels - Guide to TGirls and Transsexuals

hippifried

04-30-2016, 04:14 AM

How'd this meme that gender & sex are interchangable terms get started? & when? & why?

"Gender" is the name given to the sexual bias of our perceptions. Perceptions of anything really. Shapes, sounds, words, traits & aspects of thoughts & attitudes or objects (animate or not) etc..., get gender assigned to them through how we sense them. Especially traits, when it comes to people. Who we are, is a complex mix of a multitude of aspects, made up of various traits, that have their own traits & aspects. Every little piece has an assigned gender, whether masculine, feminine, or neuter.

So SRS is now GRS? Doctors physically alter the sex organs to transform someone from one sex to another. There's hormone therapy involved. Male to female or vise versa is "SEX" reassignment. Gender is perception.

We're using "gender" as a euphemism? It isn't working. Sex is still sex, whether the word is a noun verb or adjective. Suddenly rewriting the dictionary confuses the issue, confounds the dialog, & is counterproductive when attempting to converse with anyone outside your own clique.

What we're really talking about is sexual self identity & orientation. That too long for twitter? Gender is part of the discussion, but masculine, feminine, or neuter really doesn't address whether someone is male, female, transforming, or transformed. Doesn't cover orientation or sexuality either. None of the really important physical &/or psychological aspects of the dialog.

Anyway: I could go on, but I think that should be enough to get some shit going. I think it's a poor choice of terminology, & I refuse to use it in this context. Make up a new word that actually means what you're trying to say. Just sayin'...

Stavros

04-30-2016, 03:17 PM

The questions asked about Gender and Sexuality, like the answers, have become a minefield of contested ideas because there is a confusion between nature and social role that cannot be reconciled. Anne Phillips in an academic but very readable and accessible paper on essentialism and constructionism, writes:

Essentialism is a way of thinking not always so easily distinguished from more innocent forms of generalisation, and what is wrong with it is often a matter of degree rather than categorical embargo. It should be clear, however, that we cannot hope to draw the line between an acceptable and indefensible essentialism in a distinction between the natural and the social.
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/30900/1/What's%20wrong%20with%20essentialism%20%28LSERO%29 .pdf

Essentialism argues that nature has produced fixed categories, for example Male, and Female, while Constructionism argues that meaning is in fact contingent on social construction and that meaning may be endowed through social role. It is often seen at its clearest in the distinctions people make between human behaviour that is considered to be 'Manly' or 'Effeminate' or in the belief that Men can naturally do things Women cannot do, but where nature is extended to construct a social argument that there are things which a man ought to do which a Woman ought not to do. One example of this is fighting on the front line of a battlefield in uniform.

An obvious problem with essentialism is that it is not itself secure or fixed: nature has created Men and Women who are the building blocks of life through their ability to unite together to procreate and perpetuate the species. Yet nature also produces men and women who are infertile, just as nature produces humans with physical deficiencies -harelip, one lung, blind,etc, or more obviously for HA, intersexed. Nature is thus at one and the same time fixed and contingent. But does this mean gender categories have no meaning? Not at all, because it is only in opposition to the binary concept that a non-binary person can claim their individual identity, otherwise being non-binary would be meaningless, just as the term cisgender only has real meaning when contrasted with transgender. Otherwise, this side and the other side could just as well be the same sides of the same thing, and I don't think that is what is intended.

The confusion arises from the need to argue that a social construction is itself natural, when it can only be contingent- the language of morality steps in to separate and conflict with a concept of rights to give this dilemma political clout even though the distinctions cannot always be resolved. For example, an infertile man is not just a fact of nature, in social terms he can be described, even condemned as 'a failure' because even if married he has produced no children. Thus one man can say to another 'You are not a man in my estimation' even though on all natural markers other than procreation, he is clearly a man. For some, a major weakness of religion is the way in which it attached moral distinctions to natural life, to condemn as an abomination same-sex activities and masturbation (in men) when clearly for those who engage in it, it is natural behaviour -although the shame and guilt associated with masturbation is part of that discourse of 'failure'. This stems from ancient views that men stored semen in their bodies and that it was too precious a liquid to be spilled for nothing. It is also related to the social phobias people have over smells and bodily fluids where white liquids -semen and breast milk- are associated with life, and red liquids -blood shed in anger and menstrual blood- are linked to death and shame and anxiety, with obnoxious odours to match.

A denial of essence can be seen at the core of the concept of Race. The Nazis manipulated the concept of nature to use Race as a measurement of nature in which the Aryans became a Master Race, and the Jews were entirely stripped of nature to become Sub-human. It was, and remains an insult to humanity because Race not only denied the natural reality of being a Jew (or an Aryan, for that matter), but attached a moral judgement to nature and in doing so begged the question which has emerged to produce a narrative in which 'we are all the same', hence the ease with which we condemn the Nazi theory of Race morally, as well as scientifically and politically.

But it is also clear that humans group themselves into apparently identifiable categories, of which 'the nation' is the most obvious, even though it is a social construction as it is surely impossible to be 'naturally' an American, when the history argues every American at some point arrived on the continent from somewhere else. As it happens, I think most Americans would accept that they are a construct, but probably argue that the sense of being American is the natural consequence of centuries of settlement and a sharing of the language, behaviour, values, beliefs, etc that we are told comprise a 'nation'. More specific to the American experience is the fact that the USA was founded on the basis that human beings have Rights. The Constitution thus has become a vibrant document that has never aged, and is to be contrasted to the Magna Carta of 1215 and the 1689 Bill of Rights, both of which were signed in Britain by privileged elites whose primary interests were their own, at a time when the broad mass of people were considered 'subjects' rather than 'citizens'. Even if you follow Charles Beard's famous interpretation of the Constitution as a passport for the privileged, the broad mass of population, with the stunning exception of slaves, were all equally identifiable as citizens, no such fortune for the Brits at the time -indeed, we have only been described as citizens since 1983, before that we were subjects.

This has given issues around identity politics more traction in the USA than in other countries, because the Constitution is open to the view that everyone has Rights, only it remains to be argued precisely what those rights are, and it is in the precision that some have become confused as to what gender rights are, what rights of sexual identity might be, or not be. The paradox also remains that in attempting to replace Nature with Social Role, many of those people arguing for their Rights do so on the basis that their identity is in fact endowed, not by social role or a constructed identity, but -yes you guessed it, by Nature. And from this binary love-hate relationship I see no liberation. It remains for the legislators of the USA to decide what Rights are guaranteed by the Constitution, and for the rest of us to use Human Rights legislation to at least give rights to very very small groups of people, even individuals, because in the grand scheme of things, it really is not that important -however many 'Gay' people there are, they will not prevent the human race from reproducing.

hippifried

04-30-2016, 11:28 PM

Viva la difference!
Or is it "le" difference?
All this word gender in the Romance languages gets me discumbobulated.

Stavros

05-02-2016, 03:27 PM

"He's a little idiot from Molenbeek with a petty criminal background - a follower rather than a leader. He has the intellect of an ashtray, his vacuousness is abyssal."

He added: "He is the perfect example of the GTA generation who think they're living in a video game. He and his mates have managed to give an entire religion a bad name. I asked him if he'd read the Koran, which I have, and he replied that he'd read its interpretation on the Internet. For simple minds, it's perfect the Web, it's the most they can grasp."

-The surviving suspect in the attacks in Paris, Salah Abdeslam as described by Belgium's Federal Prosecutor. It puts me in mind of Andreas Baader of the notorious 'Baader-Meinhof' gang that morphed into the 'Red Army Faction' which sent West Germany into a political tailspin of media hysterics and very real arson, murder and fear. The extent to which the Federal Republic and the East German 'socialists' were in fact engaged in a proxy war has been hinted at by the late Christopher Hitchens in the article linked below.

Out of this one understands that just as Baader was a petty criminal with no strong family ties, and that both his partner Gudrun Ensslin and Ulrike Meinhof harboured an incendiary rage with their parents and 'that generation' -ie of the Third Reich- so many of the young men and women who have gone to fight for Daesh in Syria or Iraq appear to have catastrophic relations with their parents whom they see as having rejected an imaginary, pure Islamic way of life to live in the corrupt, infidel West.

In neither case does Marxism or Islam give much of an explanation -Marx was opposed to the violent seizure of state power because his view of socialism as a transition, even a revolutionary transition, was shaped by the conditions in which the working class found themselves and the state in which they lived, hence he knew he was wrong about the Paris Commune of 1871 when he defended it, even if he criticized the 'worker's actions in his notorious pamphlet The Civil War in France. But it is partly on this basis that Rosa Luxemburg attacked Lenin and the Bolsheviks as leaping over a stage of history in 1917, with what we now know were hideous results for Russia. And yet the 'romantic' view of revolutionary violence has been -or was- a key element of the avant garde believing they are -or were- changing history.

In the Baader-Meinhof case, although subsequent analyses added Ulrike Meinhof's Marxist intellectual to Baader's 'man of action' to produce the 'Marxism' of the Red Army Faction, it relies on the view that they took Herbert Marcuse's view that the masses had been co-opted and neutered by capitalism through consumer benefits, to leave only feral youth, hippies and drop-outs as the only free agency left to galvanize the working class to action through attacks on the state. Thus young Muslims believe they are on the fringes of their own society because their parents have sold out, but that by taking the revolutionary road they are paving the way for the 'true Caliphate' that every Muslims will endorse and support, just as the young revolutionaries sacrificing their lives for 'the struggle' will in the end have paved the way for the socialist transition.

Every generation has its cause, and believes its cause to be noble and right, however feeble the ideas that inform it, however unpopular it is, and in spite of the grief it delivers and the damage that it leaves behind. But as Kant once put it, out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing can be made.

Links:
Hitchens on Baader-Menhof
http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2009/08/hitchens-guerrillas200908

Karl Marx and the Paris Commune
http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1970s/1971/no-799-march-1971/karl-marx-and-paris-commune

Source of quotes on Salah Abdeslam
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/27/paris-attacks-suspect-salah-abdeslam-handed-to-france/
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/isis-terror-suspect-salah-abdeslam-called-an-arsehole-by-his-lawyer-a7004536.html

Laphroaig

05-10-2016, 07:45 AM

As it's exam season.

933075

Stavros

05-15-2016, 05:27 PM

He's dead but he won't lie down. I refer to one Adolf Hitler, who yet again has become the means by which politicians measure good and evil, or rather, just evil. Ken Livingstone has been pilloried in the press for claiming that Hitler was a Zionist, now former Mayor of London Boris Johnson, lead spokesman of the LEAVE (the EU) campaign and potential leader of the Conservative Party has claimed in an interview with the Sunday Telegraph-
The European Union is pursuing a similar goal to Hitler in trying to create a powerful superstate, Boris Johnson says.
-The article states:
The former mayor of London, who is a keen classical scholar, argues that the past 2,000 years of European history have been characterised by repeated attempts to unify Europe under a single government in order to recover the continent’s lost “golden age” under the Romans.

“Napoleon, Hitler, various people tried this out, and it ends tragically,” he says.
“The EU is an attempt to do this by different methods.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/14/boris-johnson-the-eu-wants-a-superstate-just-as-hitler-did/

As if this were not bad enough, a group of like-minded Tory politicians have backed Johnson's point of view.
I find it hard to believe that people who not only read books, but write them should play such cavalier games with the facts of history. The claim that Hitler was a Zionist is meaningless without a context in which the Zionism of Theodor Herzl and the 'Zionism' of Hitler cannot be distinguished, with one advocating a policy for the survival of the Jews while the other advocated a policy to destroy them, you can't find two more opposed positions than life or death.
As for Napoleon, what evidence is there that he wanted to unite Europe under the Tricoleur? At the outset Napoleon fought defensive wars against those European Empires that wanted to destroy the French Revolution, and though Napoleon claimed to be fighting for the freedom of the common man when he did defeat and create new governments in places like Italy they were run by his Generals or members of his family with mixed results, usually poor ones, rather than the 'liberated' people. The invasion of Russia was not designed to unify Russia under one European flag, but a response to Russia's violation of the Treaty of Tilsit and Napoleon's fear that Russia was about to invade and subjugate Poland and threaten French influence in central Europe.

Nor did Hitler want to unite Europe, as Hitler's aim was to create a Thousand Year Old Reich that would stretch far to the East incorporating the Slav people who, being unnecessary for planet Earth were to be exterminated to make way for the Aryans fulfilling the destiny Hitler had decreed for them (and after 'cleansing' the Reich of Jews, Communists, Homosexuals, Gypsies, the Disabled, the mentally challenged, and many more)...I can't think of a project more opposed to the European Union in scope and execution, execution being the operative word.

The analogy with Hitler at least gets these people out of the difficulty of explaining what capitalism is, and why, if they want the UK to operate in a world of free markets, they don't improve their odds in a free market called the -wait for it- European Union, not least because it was their blessed Margaret Thatcher who signed the Single Market Act in 1986.

By all means do not forget the lessons of history, but there are times when Hitler's charred remains are best left where they were found in May 1945 and not whisked up as a warning by those too lazy to think of an alternative. Or it could just be that Boris Johnson has, yet again offered the proof that he is not fit to lead anything other than his dog, if he has one.

broncofan

05-15-2016, 08:53 PM

Very informative post Stavros. I did not know before reading your post how good or bad the Napoleon analogy was, but anyone who thinks Hitler had a vision of a unified Europe is delusional for all the reasons you say. He considered most European groups to be untermensch and expendable. History can be valuable for drawing parallels, but they have to be carefully drawn out and the distinctions should be pointed out and then reconciled.

When Iran has a Holocaust Cartoon contest pretty soon I am sure Netanyahu will compare the Iranians to the Nazis...and while having such a contest is beneath human dignity, it does not make the Iranian regime like Hitler or the Nazis and Netanyahu will not be able to make a strong appeal to the conscience of others while using such rhetoric. I know this post was not about the Israelis or Netanyahu, but I think it's a reasonable instruction to draw out a principle for universal application.

I frequently tell anti-zionists that they are correct to take Netanyahu and others to task for trying to use the Holocaust in emotionally exploitative ways or for political cover, but ask that they pay attention to that rule as well. It does not mean that there needs to be some sort of rigid moratorium on that era, but only that when someone wants to draw the analogy they do it without evoking toxic emotions and stoking personal prejudice. They must be responsible and cautious, which many politicians and pundits fail to be.

Stavros

05-16-2016, 01:43 AM

I would add, Broncofan that while it might make more sense for an Israeli to use Hitler as a yardstick when judging the enemies of Israel, the irony is that Netanyahu's politics are rooted in the revisionism of Jabotinsky whose movement had a difficult and not always sympathetic relationship with survivors of the Holocaust, and that some historians and commentators claim it was only after 1967 that both Likud and Labour politicians began using the Third Reich as a reference point in their conflict with the Palestinians.

For me the point is that we don't usually need an analogy with Hitler to establish whether or not a contemporary politician is good or bad, unless of course he or she is a fascist or as close as one can get in which case they invite the challenge. Donald Trump has been labelled a fascist by some silly people, it is nonsense, and annoying because there are plenty of Americans to whom Donald Trump can be compared for better or worse, and it would make more sense too. Just as daft as comparing Trump to Ronald Reagan because the latter was once an actor, whereas Reagan was elected Governor of California and thus had experience of high office before becoming President.

Stavros

05-17-2016, 10:32 AM

This concluded last night's BBC-2 Newsnight debate on the UK's financial contribution to the EU...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJWUmSbt0Ms

Stavros

05-21-2016, 01:37 PM

What is more important to you, owning a firearm, or breathing? And who in the US needs a weapon that can kill someone 2 miles away?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36345290

trish

05-21-2016, 03:41 PM

According to the gun policy at Trump Towers (the Chicago manager says, "...we don't allow firearms in the hotel") breathing is more important. I'm down with that.

martin48

05-22-2016, 03:16 PM

So you start a thread to cover all burning/non-burning issues, and you come back to guns.

Stavros

05-23-2016, 01:35 AM

Thought for the day: if Justin Trudeau can explain quantum computing in a sentence, can Donald Trump explain quantum accounting for businessmen in a sentence?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36061712

Stavros

05-23-2016, 04:58 PM

Timothy Garton Ash’s 10 Principles of Free Speech
-6. We respect the believer but not necessarily the content of the belief.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/23/books/timothy-garton-ash-puts-forth-a-free-speech-manifesto.html?hpw&rref=books&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=well-region&region=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well&_r=0

-Why should I respect someone who believes Jews, Homosexuals, Slavs, Communists and the Disabled should be exterminated? We have equality before the law, and a Nazi or a murderous Islamic fanatic has the same human rights that I have, but why should I respect him, or her?

broncofan

05-23-2016, 08:21 PM

I've heard others say that; "Respect the person but not their views." It does not make sense to me except to respect them in the most basic sense. Respect their human and civil rights even if you don't respect their views....but not respect in the commonly used sense I hope (that you hold them in the same esteem that you would before they expressed repellent views).

But it's almost a pointless admonition if it means that since even people who have committed crimes have not forfeited all of their rights.

fred41

05-24-2016, 01:43 AM

I can agree on most of what he says, but I'll have to admit that #6 is a bit iffy.
Not only is his definition of respect important, but perhaps his definition of 'believer' also...as used in content.

sukumvit boy

05-28-2016, 11:50 PM

Nobody fucking cares...
Humor from ''The onion".
http://www.theonion.com/article/report-nobody-fucking-cares-52974

Stavros

05-29-2016, 12:51 PM

Nobody fucking cares...
Humor from ''The onion".
http://www.theonion.com/article/report-nobody-fucking-cares-52974

I don't think much thought went into that...

sukumvit boy

06-10-2016, 08:04 AM

I don't think much thought went into that...

:joke: I didn't intend to appear to cast aspersions on this thread , I just wanted to interject some humor .
Actually , I liked the idea of this thread the moment I saw it , and I was hoping it would take off.
Sort of a daily dose of brain candy , without the dick picks.
To that end I want to bring up the debate about transgender bathrooms which was in the news here in the States this week.
It seems to me that all sides in this debate have some legitimate concerns and I was wondering what some of you thought.
Also , what's the solution in terms of existing and future infrastructure especially in places like stadiums and airports . Do we go with 3 bathrooms , or 4 or perhaps one with many 'private1 enclosures.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-obama-lgbt-idUSKCN0YO03Y
940949940950940951

Stavros

06-10-2016, 01:46 PM

A few thoughts on it:
a) many coffee shops, including well-known chains in the UK have only the one toilet which is used by customers, some have two, one for men one for women, usually if they are larger; aeroplanes and trains just have the one toilet used by all.

b) airports and also some (large) railway stations have toilet facilities for men, women and a third which has a small table to make it easy to change a baby's nappy- a transexual I was travelling instantly chose the baby-changer unit when she needed the loo -and many/most in large facilities also have large stalls for the disabled, so in a sense we already have a 'toilet culture' that can adapt to diverse users.

c) While I can understand why some women would object to a male-to-female transexual using their facilities, assuming they took any notice of it, I am more concerned by those men who seem to think a public toilet is an all-hours sex club where they can jerk off in public and invite another man to share a cubicle.

d) a solution would be for there to be public toilets which are large enough to accommodate diverse users with the essential part being staff who not only keep the place clean but also monitor users, and may also be trained if the user is disabled, an elderly person with dementia or some other manageable issue. The problem is one of the law -should it be a legal requirement on local councils to provide public toilet facilities?- and financial -the UK has lost something like 40% of its public toilets in recent years.

This is an interesting article on it, with additional references to the US situation -
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/07/politics-sanitation-why-we-urgently-need-more-public-toilets

Kojak

06-10-2016, 01:57 PM

The Mile High Club on a commercial plane, is it a myth or does it really happen ?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mile_high_club

sukumvit boy

06-11-2016, 01:52 AM

Thanks Stavros , for the neat summation of some of the essential issues and the entertaining /informative article from The Statesman on the history and future of the WC.
I agree with the article and Stavros that the answer seems to be a unisex ,multiuse and semi private unit . Also , as Stavros noted , monitoring is a critical issue that could be better addressed , especially in places like airports and stadiums by unisex toilet spaces that can be maintained and monitored with minimal personnel.

trish

06-15-2016, 04:55 PM

I didn’t want to politicize the Pulse thread in general discussion anymore I already have; so for lack of a better place I thought I’d make these remarks here.

I haven’t been right since the shooting in Orlando. I haven’t been sleeping well and I feel nauseous whenever I dwell on the topic. My mind wanders and I can’t focus on my work. I am not afraid. But I am deeply disturbed. There is so much hatred in the air right night I can almost touch it. A third of nation is ecstatic about building a wall and having Mexico pay for it! Another third, good and loving people, applaud businesses that refuse to serve gays, or State workers who refuse to issue marriage licenses, or institutions that refuse to let transgender people use a stall in a public restroom.

As it turns out Omar Mateen was less of a radical Islamist than he was a self-hating gay man. Why are so many gay men driven to hate themselves and other gays? When there is so much general animus directed at the LGBT community by self-promoting politicians, religious zealots, bigots and ignorant sectarians, who can be surprised that some young and confused gay men turn that hatred inward?

Just to dispel the illusion that this sort of violence against gays is confined to persons of one faith or one ethnic group only take a look at these guys:

Pastor Steven Anderson
http://www.towleroad.com/2016/06/steven-anderson-orlando/

Pastor Roger Jimenez
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WO0j5pgrcUM

I haven’t watched either of these links all the way through, because I get sick viewing them.

I don’t think religion is the problem here. Certainly banning Muslims from entering the country is probably the weakest and most ineffective approach to the problem of violence against gays that anyone has ever suggested - not to mention religious tests are anathema the First Amendment.

What would be an effective curb on all gun violence of this type is a serious assault weapons ban or at least some serious regulation on who can legally buy and own an assault weapon. Perhaps we should allow the FBI to automate their current gun registry. By law it’s all on sheaves and sheaves of paper, because the NRA lobbied against allowing the registry to be computerized. The NRA claims only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun. There was an armed off-duty police officer at the Pulse, but he was not able save forty-nine people from slaughter. My question is, “Why do we let bad guys have guns in the first place?”

The saw Trump the other day accuse Hillary of wanting to get rid of the Second Amendment entirely. Of course neither Hillary nor any other Democrat in office is suggesting any such thing. On the other hand, it seems to me Trump is out to totally gut the First Amendment. He wants a religious test on immigration. He bans news organizations he doesn’t like (most recently the Washington Post) from attending his rallies and press conferences. He wants to open up libel laws against news organizations.

First Amendment, Second Amendment - these are asides. The issue is ignorance and hatred. I know most people here don’t need to be reminded. I just writing for my own peace of mind. But still, I just want to remind people to be open-hearted and open-minded. With others, and with themselves.

trish

06-15-2016, 06:01 PM

P.S. Sorry for the typos.

broncofan

06-15-2016, 08:42 PM

As far as defamation laws go, most people only know the standard courts apply for public figures who are suing. The only reason this standard is more exacting than the common law standard is because of the first amendment. The precedent is over fifty years old and was set our in New York Times v. Sullivan. It is unconstitutional for a public figure to be able to successfully sue for defamation unless they show the defamatory (meaning harmful to reputation) statement about them was false and the defendant either knew it was false or was reckless regarding its falsity. I don't even think our courts recognize foreign defamation judgments unless they comply with our first amendment standards.

So good luck for Donald Trump...he does not even know by which branch of government our libel laws are determined. It would be unbelievable if he could appoint someone to the Supreme Court nuts enough to change this precedent. I don't even think any of the current guys on the court would go for it.

broncofan

06-15-2016, 08:44 PM

It would be unbelievable if he could appoint someone to the Supreme Court nuts enough to change this precedent. I don't even think any of the current guys on the court would go for it.
I guess I mean there really isn't a bipartisan split regarding this precedent. I have not heard of too many jurists who think it's controversial or at all inconsistent with their reading of the first amendment.

Stavros

06-18-2016, 08:55 AM

If killing people was the solution to our problems, we would not have any.

flabbybody

06-18-2016, 04:10 PM

Courageous Republicans won't allow guns at their convention.
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/03/27/3763744/republican-convention-guns/

sukumvit boy

06-20-2016, 06:12 AM

That is some crazy shit ! Imagine 'open carry' at a national political convention !?

sukumvit boy

06-20-2016, 07:19 AM

And now , for something completely different , or maybe not .
Personality disorders.
I am amazed by the number of people I have known over the years,and now know with severe personality disorders . This includes friends, people in the workplace and extended family.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/hide-and-seek/201205/the-10-personality-disorders
But what really disturbs me is the abysmal lack of understanding on the part of the friends , family and coworkers in identifying and dealing with such people.
A 2007 National Institutes of Mental Health study found that roughly 9 percent of US adults have a personality disorder.
http://www.nimh.nih.gov/news/science-news/2007/national-survey-tracks-prevalence-of-personality-disorders-in-us-population.shtml
I have seen families and careers severely damaged or ruined and friends and families permanently scarred .This due largely to the general inability of most people to identify and understand personality disorders in the people they encounter in everyday life.
Sure , our 'instinct' may tell us that "so and so " is difficult or unpleasant or unreliable and warn us away from more intimate personal or professional association with that person. But what do you do if that person is your boss or girlfriend ,wife or father?
Fortunately , they are easy to spot with a little knowledge.
Take a look at the 10 personality disorders outlined above and perhaps you will see someone you know.

Stavros

06-20-2016, 12:07 PM

The problem may be that ever since it became 'normal' to describe other people as 'mad' the stigma has got in the way of understanding. Yes, it is the case that we try to analyse the reasons behind the most terrible crimes, and produce a reasoned explanation, but the lingering thought for many is that the criminal was 'mad' because this helps to separate them out from the rest of us and measure that distance as a way of feeling safe. And yet at any one time in the Mall we may be passing someone who is convinced that he is being followed by a secret army of people who communicate with each other by whistling. Every time he hears someone whistle, he knows they are watching him. Or the person who believes her sister is plotting with another sister to sell their parent's home whe they die and not tell her. Or those who think the world economy is run by a secret government made up of the Illuminati, the Bilderberg Group, the Bohemian Grove and, of course 'the Jews'.

The real problem is that helping people with behavioural and psychological problems so that they can fit into the social structures we have, and work and enjoy a reasonable degree of interaction with others, and not feel isolated, alone or alienated, is that it costs money -a lot of money, and the creation of social services across the country. And mental health has been the Cinderalla of social services for as long as I can recall, and has yet to make it to the Ball.

Stavros

07-11-2016, 01:10 PM

buttslinger

07-11-2016, 03:42 PM

Let's see....when it comes to rating this chick...I would give her,....oh,.....an EIGHT.

https://s31.postimg.org/3pbsnrcdn/image.jpg (https://postimg.org/image/54ddchdgn/)free image hosting (https://postimage.org/)

If I told you the stories about working with black guys in their twenties in Washington DC I'd be branded a racist, for sure. When it comes to blacks and whites, we are talking two completely different races, and two completely different realities.

Guiliani is fishing for a paying gig on Fox News, plain and simple.
Everybody is imperfect, and the TRUTH is decided by adding up five different people's opinions and dividing by five.
What it is is what it is and it's a curse or a blessing, all depending on the way you look at it.

trish

07-11-2016, 05:55 PM

Rudolph Giuliani has offered the citizens of the USA the following insight into crime in the USA-
“If I were a black father and I was concerned about the safety of my child – really concerned about it and not in a politically activist sense – I would say, ‘Be very respectful to the police, most of them are good, some can be very bad and just be very careful’,” Mr Giuliani explained.

“I'd also say, ‘Be very careful of those kids in the neighbourhood, don't get involved with them because son, there's a 99 per cent chance they're going to kill you, not the police’.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/rudy-giuliani-black-people-kill-each-other-99-percent-nyc-mayor-black-lives-matter-a7129926.html

As a large proportion of women in the US are murdered or raped by their husbands, partners or men known to them, would Rudolph Giuliani suggest that women not get involved -let alone consider marriage and the family- with 'the kids in the neighbourhood' who are more likely to rape and kill them than the police? But I guess in the long term it would help reduce overcrowding in neglected urban neighbourhoods...

Have we not moved on from the 'fascinating sociology' of Daniel Moynihan and Charles Murray?

Black mothers and fathers DO instruct sons and daughters on how to behave when pull over by the police. Don’t be confrontational. Keep your hands in sight. Ask permission to reach for the registration, etc. Mr. Giuliani is more interested, with his remarks, in propagating old stereotypes than passing on advice. Where does he advise police officers to be respectful as well?

Children are color are warned of all sorts of things. Stay away from gangs, stay away from drugs. Should urban children stay indoors all day? Children become socialized by their interactions with other children and young children, whether in the city or the suburbs usually find their playmates in the neighborhood. Instead of addressing the question of what Black families presumably aren’t telling their children, Giuliani should be addressing the economic and institutional reasons why urban neighborhoods have become such difficult places for raising kids.

I thank you for your analogy with women and marriage.
__________________________________________________ _

If I told you the stories about working with black guys in their twenties in Washington DC I'd be branded a racist, for sure. When it comes to blacks and whites, we are talking two completely different races, and two completely different realities.

If I told you the stories about working with white guys when I worked as a part time janitor in the summers for aluminum foundry, you’d brand them racist, crude and homophobic. I think factories, foundries, construction etc. aren’t conducive to polite behaviors. Manual labor was a hard way to make a living half a century ago and even more so today. Working men are often frustrated, trying to impress each other and bolster their own egos. There are no races - we’re just people and we live in the same world. The problem is that we perceive each other as different and often as in competition with each other.

buttslinger

07-11-2016, 09:24 PM

....The problem is that we perceive each other as different and often as in competition with each other.

That's a job interview!!!

Stavros

07-11-2016, 10:36 PM

[QUOTE=buttslinger;1704670]
If I told you the stories about working with black guys in their twenties in Washington DC I'd be branded a racist, for sure. When it comes to blacks and whites, we are talking two completely different races, and two completely different realities.
/QUOTE]

I also worked with Black people and can't say I noticed any substantial differences between us, other than their repertoire of swear words, and a tendency to prefer Rum over Whisky, perhaps due to their Caribbean heritage.

trish

07-12-2016, 12:07 AM

That's a job interview!!!There's one guy interviewing these days for the job of President of the United States, and he's certainly pushing the idea that we belong to distinct races and tribes and that we are all in competition with each other for jobs, for housing, for health care, for education etc. We could all compete individually, or by tribe for these things; or we could cooperate and provide these things for ourselves and each other. Some of us might make better deals for ourselves if we go it alone - but then there's the other 99.9% where you and I by happenstance fall.

BTW: I give that woman a ten, just for being able to hold that many huge juggs - I mean beer MUGS - without a tray. She can be my friend any day.

buttslinger

07-12-2016, 04:32 AM

Stavros

07-12-2016, 05:57 AM

I'd say poor people in general focus on social interests, while more affluent people cultivate their own personal interests.
I would add that the Republican Party steers legislature toward the interests of the rich, while the Democrats legislate towards the interests of the middle class. Nobody wants to carry poor people. Poor people have each other, and neither Stavros nor Trish would be welcomed into their circle.

I think you will find that the poor spend most of their time trying to survive, and that it was the depression of the 1930s that established the Democrats as the party of the poor as well as the middle class. But just as with 'New Labour' under Tony Blair, the Clinton era had to confront a declining blue collar base as heavy industry in the US declined as a major source of work for the working class who graduated from High School but did not go on to university. As with 'New Labour' the Democrats recruited local government white collar workers and high tech graduates with a working class background as a substitute for the declining blue collar base, but in the US case the obsession with 'working people' and the 'Middle Class' makes one wonder if the Democrats have in fact turned away from the poor and the unemployed, and this is where I see the sharp difference between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders.
Mrs Clinton's economic programme looks to me like an expansion of Federal agency jobs funded by the tax-payer, which is fine for many middle class people, including the Black Middle Class, but there are too many Americans in poor neighborhoods or regions of the country leaving school unable to read or write to the level required to push paper around an office or filter a thousand emails a day. This is one reason why education is critical for the future of the USA, and why it beggars belief that it does not have a whole section to itself on Donald Trump's website where it doesn't even rank as a 'Position'. A country that does not invest in education is not investing in the future and causing more problems with high cost consequences than it needs or should want.

buttslinger

07-12-2016, 12:28 PM

Trump doesn't even mention education!!
Every kid in school costs the taxpayer close to ten grand, that's why the Republican fatcats don't like it. Why teach Shakespeare to a car mechanic or garbageman?
Bernie, on the other hand, is ultra pro education, maybe gene scientists of the future can filter out all the troublesome chromosomes and make a perfect race of Humanoids. Through Science.
People look at Teaching as a calling rather than a job,
My brother went to College with lots of rich white guys who were schooled in Expensive Private Schools, he said they were no better in general than anybody else, but when an important exam was coming up, they went into the ZONE, they would disappear into their rooms.
As dire as the situation seems with Donald Trump, this is a fantastic time to be a Democrat in the USA.
A Woman and Commie on the steps of the White House???
The Republican Convention is going to expose the real Donald Trump.
Reality is going to set in.
Reality is the test.
I give my main man Obama an A+
Racism is a can of worms that's been fermenting in the can for 200 years, the stench is unbelievable.
It's an American Dish.
Rent THE WIRE, Stavros. It's Obama's favorite TV show.

trish

07-12-2016, 04:04 PM

Just a riff on your post, nothing more:
I look at teaching as my day job; research my night job (and calling). In larger universities it's the other way around. I love to teach, though. I can spend hours thinking through and breaking down the material into digestible chunks and arranging it into a logical and pedagogically natural sequence. I'm a bit old fashioned in my approach. Rather than lead an meandering discussion where the students explore on their own, I still prefer to present a well planned lecture and answer the questions that arise as I go. Home and study groups are the places for exploring ideas.
Most of my students will probably never apply, in a direct way, the subjects I teach. Why teach a garbageman Shakespeare, or Nabokov? You don't really. You expose him to human values well expressed, as well as to the process of reading and thinking questioningly and how to be critical and open at the same time. I know a meat packer who reads Kazuo Ishiguro. He remembers he had a crush on his old high school English teacher.

Living in exciting times, I believe, is an ancient Chinese curse. I do hope you're right about reality setting in (as opposed to reality TV).

martin48

07-16-2016, 03:15 PM

Welcome back, Martin. Gee, thanks! That’s got that bit over. Currently educational theory and practice demotes the lecture and promotes problem-based learning and self-discovery. I like to call it FOFO learning (for Fuck Off and Find Out). There is little better than a well-presented lecture given by an enthusiastic expert. I used to teach quite complicated engineering math(s) without notes. Occasionally, I’d mess up a problem – but it showed the students that could make a mistake and how I argued my way back.

I’m all for active learning and being lectured to can be active.

I don’t teach now, just research (my calling). If that is what Trish meant, ‘cos she’s never called me.

sukumvit boy

07-19-2016, 03:36 AM

Hats off to our teachers.:Bowdown:
My thought for the day ,... I just wanted to share some excellent video coverage of todays' successful SpaceX launch and first stage recovery in the resupply mission to the International Space Station.
http://www.spacex.com/webcast

sukumvit boy

07-23-2016, 04:18 AM

Wow . now that was some convention ...951776

buttslinger

07-27-2016, 09:58 PM

Here's my thought for the day:
Donald Trump has been getting a PASS on everything from the Conservative Media, and really, the media at large, really,...but if Novembertime starts approaching and it looks like Trump has any real chance of getting into the White House,.........(which would have to mean a Republican House, Senate, and Supreme Court in Donald Trump's little hands)
...............

trish

07-28-2016, 12:17 AM

His hands be too small to steer the ship of state!

chupapau

07-29-2016, 10:17 AM

His hands be too small to steer the ship of state!

His greed though big enough.

Laphroaig

07-29-2016, 11:59 AM

His hands be too small to steer the ship of state!

953162

That sail will need a steady hand on the tiller to steer straight...

sukumvit boy

07-29-2016, 10:40 PM

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/07/25/donald-trumps-ghostwriter-tells-all
Excellent New Yorker article.
Tony Schwartz who ghostwrite "The Art of the Deal" felt compelled to speak out about the "sociopath , compulsive liar and bully" he came to know.

chupapau

07-30-2016, 09:59 AM

buttslinger

07-30-2016, 05:30 PM

They're rewriting the history books on the American Election process, EVERYBODY with a lick of sense laughed at Trump, yet here we are.
The new history books will not be printed, they will be downloaded onto apps, or Applephones, or whatever it is you kids are linked into these days.

...See?.... This crazy shit is what happens when you put a jig in the White House!!!
The World is upside down, and traveling a thousand miles an hour below your feats.
Feel it now?
VOTE!!!!!!!!!!

And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there;
O! say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the freeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
and the home of the brave?

https://s31.postimg.org/hyr88l3y3/usa_american_flag_waving_animated_gif_32.gif (https://postimg.org/image/xwzxypy5z/)image hosting 30 mb (https://postimage.org/)

Yvonne183

07-31-2016, 02:18 AM

trish

07-31-2016, 07:11 AM

You can't always get what you want.
No, you can't always get what you want.
You can whine and stomp,
And act like a chump,
And that's just what you'll be,
~you're a chump~
Yeah, that's just what you'll be,
~what a chump~
Yeah, Trump made a chump out of thee.
~ooohh yeaaah~

Stavros

07-31-2016, 10:55 AM

My thought for the day.

Roses are redish
Violets are Bluish,
If it wasn't for Jesus,
We'd all be Jewish

One thing about Trump some might not understand. What everyone says on this group is quite correct about him being a liar, a bully and whatever else bad that was mentioned,, but what you guys don't understand is we don't care. People who like Trump don't care whatever bad things is said about him even if it's true. We just don't care what is said, Trump is who we/they want.

On one level, Yvonne you are right, because most people do not think intellectually or analyse what candidates say, they vote with their gut -in the UK people voted Labour in 1997 not because they knew or cared what Tony Blair and the Labour Party said they would do, but because they were fed up with Tories holding office for 13 years and arguing among themselves. Again, many voters in the UK voted to leave the EU because they took the view there were too many immigrants in the country, the EU was responsible and voting to leave would 'solve' the problem -no amount of evidence or argument showing the argument to be wrong was needed, one wonders if the tv debates were a waste of time.

On the other hand, in the US election, it is not clear if there are enough 'angry white men' in the US, or anyone else who supports Trump, to swing it his way. And whereas in the UK we have a 'first past the post' system which means one vote is enough, in the US Presidential election the Electoral College makes the final decision. Unless there is some extraordinary event that fells Mrs Clinton's campaign, I don't see how she can lose. But who knows what will happen, could Trump just walk away from the campaign some time between now and November? He is already trying to duck out of the tv debates with Mrs Clinton.
But yes I think a lot of people have made up their minds already, but the 'unknown unknowns' remain a potent part of the electorate.

Yvonne183

07-31-2016, 03:56 PM

On one level, Yvonne you are right, because most people do not think intellectually or analyse what candidates say, they vote with their gut -in the UK people voted Labour in 1997 not because they knew or cared what Tony Blair and the Labour Party said they would do, but because they were fed up with Tories holding office for 13 years and arguing among themselves. Again, many voters in the UK voted to leave the EU because they took the view there were too many immigrants in the country, the EU was responsible and voting to leave would 'solve' the problem -no amount of evidence or argument showing the argument to be wrong was needed, one wonders if the tv debates were a waste of time.

On the other hand, in the US election, it is not clear if there are enough 'angry white men' in the US, or anyone else who supports Trump, to swing it his way. And whereas in the UK we have a 'first past the post' system which means one vote is enough, in the US Presidential election the Electoral College makes the final decision. Unless there is some extraordinary event that fells Mrs Clinton's campaign, I don't see how she can lose. But who knows what will happen, could Trump just walk away from the campaign some time between now and November? He is already trying to duck out of the tv debates with Mrs Clinton.
But yes I think a lot of people have made up their minds already, but the 'unknown unknowns' remain a potent part of the electorate.

Whether there is enough of any type of person to get Trump elected remains to be seen.

What I tried to say in my comment is people seem to say bad things about Trump as if their words will change the minds of people who support him. Even if the words are true about Trump, people won't be swayed by what others say about Trump.

I first came to this group thinking that my words could sway people to see things my way, all I learned is people are set in their ways and no amount of rhetoric will change their minds. Also I woke up and realized I don't know anyone here from Adam and why waste my time responding to people I honestly don't give two craps for,, but you are cool Starvos, I kinda like you.

In a way people who like Trump won't be swayed just as people will vote for Hillary who is clearly a criminal. And just cause she wasn't indicted doesn't mean anything, Al Capone was never charged with being a murdering gangster. People are basically sheep and will follow a few certain candidates, just look at the web sites including this site, most people are aligned with one of two groups dems or repubs, very few independently thinking people out there.

One reason I like Trump is cause of his stand against big business that want to close up shop and move out of the country. Whether he is actually able to do something remains to be seen but at least he talks about it, while Hillary takes as much money from said companies. Bernie Sanders comes close to this but he seems to just want to tax companies for the sake of getting money from them. Trump is a nationalist but I feel he might do something good, we've tried all the rest of the bozo's and none seem to have worked, maybe I have faith that Trump will be different. Also he is a New Yorker and for some reason people don't fully understand when a true New Yorker talks, there is a lot of grain of salt to be taken, one can't take everything said literally word for word. I just hope he's right on the things that matter.

Also I am tired of the dynasties, like the Clintons, the Bushes, the Kennedys, the Coumos. I am tired of politics seeming like it's a royalty thing.

Good day to you Starvos

trish

07-31-2016, 04:30 PM

...people seem to say bad things about Trump as if their words will change the minds of people who support him.One rarely engages in discussion to persuade an 'opponent', but rather to sway reasonable onlookers. On the other hand memes are generally used to reinforce the already decided or troll the 'opponent.'

I am tired of politics seeming like it's a royalty thing.Difficult to believe of any Trump supporter.

buttslinger

07-31-2016, 05:40 PM

Oh Boy, A fight!!!
Yvonne, if I'm ever on trial for Murder, I hope you're on the Jury
(wink wink)
As long as it was a black man I killed, I'm golden.

I have mixed feelings that the Republicans are running Trump, and not a Lincoln or an Eisenhower,
one the one hand Trump is going to be easy to beat, but on the other hand, it proves what a fucked up undercurrent is going on beneath the scum covered surface that is the Congressional Pond.

"There is no security, only opportunity" -Gen Douglas MacArthur

This would be a fantastic time to destroy the Republican Party and send Hot Yvonne out into the Wilderness for eight years, just like I was when THE BIG W was in the Oval Office.
I love you Yvonne, and I want you to loosen your monkey grip on the insanity you crave so much.
President Trump WILL NOT HAPPEN.
The Republican Fund Raising Division has metastacized into a cancer that is murdering the Country.
Time to start cutting.

https://s31.postimg.org/b1emppm8r/donald_trump_1951.jpg (https://postimg.org/image/wntn6qkt3/)free upload pictures (https://postimage.org/)

trish

07-31-2016, 07:09 PM

Trump will, and already has, hurt the GOP - deeply. But he won’t kill it. The death of the Republican Party has been proclaimed many time before. It lives because it has its Congressional seats sewn up and neatly packaged into oddly shaped, little gerrymandered pieces. It’ll take one lucky shot to slay that Goliath.

Here’s my conspiracy theory: Once he’s in office, the GOP is planning to impeach Trump at the earliest opportunity (Trump will provide them with plenty of impeachable offenses in just his first 100 days). Donald ousted, Pence will take office, a fiscal and social conservative. Problem solved.
You don’t have to tell me - I know it’s malarkey - I just right now made it up - but it is a fun thought for the day.

buttslinger

07-31-2016, 08:14 PM

Those red states you see on the electoral map will always be Republican, with Senators and inbred House members,
my conspiracy theory is that the Russians have the best hacked Hillary emails waiting for a Nov 7 release.
Ummnggghhh!
The BIG MONEY side of Republican Politics might cozy up under the sheets with Hillary. Career Politician Hillary will spread her legs for cash. Obama has had Big Business sitting on their hands for eight years. (God, I'll miss Obama.) Wooing Republican Investors would take the fangs out of the Republican Party, just like taking ISIS' oil bucks is what will fatally kill them. Karl Rove is having a hard time making an impassioned speech to Donors when Trump spends the money on Miralago parties.

Trump voters don't have much of an explanation as to why they would vote for Trump except for "He's one of us"
I'm going to have to sit down some time when I have a calm moment and figure out why that makes sense, or why that makes absolutely no sense, yet it must make sense and I can't figure it out, or why it makes absolutely no sense on one level but perfect sense on another level...... I kinda get it, but politics is all about blind spots. I'm getting a headache.

I just started Blood Meridian, thanks Trish, cool book, I also bought a book on 1/43 scale model cars, it was cheaper to buy it from England, even with shipping charges, because of Brexit's devaluation of the Pound......
Maybe Putin really is behind all this craziness!

fred41

07-31-2016, 10:39 PM

...since laptops, kindles and tablets came out...I can't remember the last time I bought an actual book. I think it was a Home Depot DIY book...definitely more than eight years ago.

Stavros

08-01-2016, 12:40 AM

Whether there is enough of any type of person to get Trump elected remains to be seen.

What I tried to say in my comment is people seem to say bad things about Trump as if their words will change the minds of people who support him. Even if the words are true about Trump, people won't be swayed by what others say about Trump.

I first came to this group thinking that my words could sway people to see things my way, all I learned is people are set in their ways and no amount of rhetoric will change their minds. Also I woke up and realized I don't know anyone here from Adam and why waste my time responding to people I honestly don't give two craps for,, but you are cool Starvos, I kinda like you.

In a way people who like Trump won't be swayed just as people will vote for Hillary who is clearly a criminal. And just cause she wasn't indicted doesn't mean anything, Al Capone was never charged with being a murdering gangster. People are basically sheep and will follow a few certain candidates, just look at the web sites including this site, most people are aligned with one of two groups dems or repubs, very few independently thinking people out there.

One reason I like Trump is cause of his stand against big business that want to close up shop and move out of the country. Whether he is actually able to do something remains to be seen but at least he talks about it, while Hillary takes as much money from said companies. Bernie Sanders comes close to this but he seems to just want to tax companies for the sake of getting money from them. Trump is a nationalist but I feel he might do something good, we've tried all the rest of the bozo's and none seem to have worked, maybe I have faith that Trump will be different. Also he is a New Yorker and for some reason people don't fully understand when a true New Yorker talks, there is a lot of grain of salt to be taken, one can't take everything said literally word for word. I just hope he's right on the things that matter.

Also I am tired of the dynasties, like the Clintons, the Bushes, the Kennedys, the Coumos. I am tired of politics seeming like it's a royalty thing.

Good day to you Starvos

Yvonne, hundreds of people browse the forum and never post, so you might in fact say things people do agree with, only they don't post an acknowledgement to you. Your punk political anarchy apppeals to a lot of people who think all politicians are as you say in the US, 'Assholes'. And I think there are a lot of people who have opinions liberals don't like but feel timid in expressing themselves.

In the matter of argument and changing what people think because of something said, I think Trump himself is such a liability he is more likely than Mrs Clinton to lose actual or potential voters because of something he says, even if he then claims he didn't mean it. Hillary Clinton probably clears all her public statements with her team before they are released, it is a machine and if it sounds like politics by photocopier, that is probably what it often is. I don't know about New Yorkers but I have found many Americans do not often understand the self-deprecating humour or sarcasm common in the UK, but I do think Trump too often lacks sincerity when forced to apologise or explain for something he said.

Trump's position on business -which Mrs Clinton suggested she shared in her Convention speech- is a non-starter unless the Chinese and other states make it harder or less profitable for US firms to make things in their countries, and after all Trump himself off-shores production so he lacks sincerity on that issue. It is also too true that Presidents have to work with Congress, and when you have such a bitterly divided Congress real change is hard if not impossible.

Real change tends to happen slowly and in small ways, not with grand gestures of the sort Trump talks about, which sound good on tv but are close to impossible to implement in reality. Trump may be expressing frustration with the way the system works, but you may need to change the system and a President cannot do that.

Dynasties are not good, but in the age of social media and a MacDonaldized society, brand recognition is often seen as an instant entry into the field. Nobody needed to ask Who is Hillary? Who is this Trump guy? They have facial and name recognition worth, say, a million votes just by being seen and named. I think this is why candidates with no experience of politics can do better than in the past -would George Clooney had done as well as Trump if he had made a serious bid for the job? This begs the question, is there nobody else? This in turn raises the question do the best people choose politics as a career? I think we are coming to an end to dynasties in the US (but not abroad), from the Daley family in Chicago to those you mentioned and it may be in particular that the Republican Party is facing a major crisis of identity that they need to sort out over the next 4 years because otherwise you will have Democrats in the White House into the third decade of the century and that cannot be a good thing for democracy or the USA.

Yvonne183

08-01-2016, 01:17 AM

Stavros

08-01-2016, 08:34 AM

Thanks Starvos for your thoughts, I appreciate you taking time to write back.
Well, time for me to go now, maybe I'll come back next year,,,, maybe not, I fear the reaper is near.
Take care Starvos, I can't help but think of Kojak when I hear your name. bye

The 'reaper' comes for us all, that is certain, we do not need to dwell upon it much as we do not constantly yearn for the bathroom until the moment comes. Or to paraphrase Proust, tell people you will be travelling abroad but don't know when you will return. And as long as your name is mentioned, you will always be alive.

sukumvit boy

08-20-2016, 02:13 AM

Prussian Blue : when art ,science and medicine intersect.Ain't it nice when things sort of come together. In 1706 it was Prussian Blue . The first synthetic pigment ; influenced Japanese Ukiyo-e wood block prints , Vincent Van Gogh , was later discovered to be an antidote in radiation poisoning and found a host of uses in science and industry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussian_blue
958132958133958134

Stavros

08-26-2016, 01:04 PM

What might a 'post-political correctness' Britain allow? What would it look like?
Bill Etheridge, who is campaigning to succeed Nigel Farage as the leader of the United Kingdom Independence Party [UKIP] published this pamphlet in 2011, indicating, perhaps, the direction in which he would like to take the UK.

959674

trish

08-26-2016, 04:23 PM

I’ve been following the recent discussion at http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showthread.php?99826-Feeling-the-impact-of-Brexit-on-TS-Girls-in-London . I am not a British Citizen, nor a citizen of an EU nation, nor do I feel adequate to add much of significance to that discussion. I do notice quite a number of references there to Political Correctness, which may mean something different in Britain than it does here.

Most of the definitions I have found, though, comport with my understanding: the avoidance of language that offends or excludes minority or disadvantaged social, ethnic or religious groups. When applied in ordinary speech it sounds to me like nothing more than a self-imposed species of etiquette; political politeness - ordinary politeness exhibited toward the otherwise habitually disenfranchised.

It puzzles me how a self-imposed politeness could be the cause of so much political distress, except to those who take its widespread practice to be indicative of a decline in their particular monocultural advantage.

It is, I think, a term invented by the right to denigrate such practices. Why is the right so offended by political politeness? It could be that they dislike the social pressure they feel these days when they themselves speak disrespectfully of their fellow citizens; i.e. they can’t say what they feel about minorities in public without getting called out for the inappropriateness of those feelings. Of course those who ‘disrespect’ and those who ‘call out’ (in the USA) are both within their legal rights, protected by the First Amendment. I do not see how Trump (for example) is going to end the practice of political politeness and not stray from our First Amendment liberties.

The right is of course more upset when political politeness gets codified. For example, many businesses (from the small shops to large corporations) will fire workers, managers, executives etc. who use offensive language when at work or while representing the company. This is not because CEOs are radical ‘libtards’, but because it’s simply good business practice not to offend clientele, or others with whom the company needs to deal. In the same way colleges and universities have codified certain aspects of political politeness in order to maintain a public face and to stay scandals that would push away the best minority students, athletes, coaches and professors. For some strange reason, what the right finds scandalous is the existence of such codes of conduct.

The right is more upset with the notion of Hate Crime which they sometimes conflate with political correctness. In the US intent has always been a large consideration when deciding how to charge a criminal wrongdoer. An assault resulting in injury committed out of, say to be specific, hatred for Mormons will get you more time than an assault and an injury that resulted from flaring tempers over, say, a traffic accident. This I think is an appropriate use of intent that, first and foremost, justly serves the victim and secondly serves to protect religious groups in locales where they are not readily accepted.

Whether a person is polite or not is their choice. In the US, there is no law forcing right wingers to remain quiet and inoffensive in the presence of minorities or their supporters. The only restriction they feel is the judgment against them in the eyes of the public, and constriction of their own guilty consciences. Against that they whine, complain and applaud demagogues who have no consciences.

Stavros

08-26-2016, 08:40 PM

Trish, I think that re-labelling political correctness as a form of political politeness sidesteps some of the important issues as they have arisen here in the UK, that concern multi-culturalism, Islamophobia, and the 'white male anxiety' over the 'ascendancy' of women in positions of authority. All three have their counterparts in the US but have a different context here, at least in part.

If you begin with the concept of 'diversity and inclusion' PC is a response in the media, and also in business, to what used to be a predominantly white, male visual and employment culture. For example, women on tv were there for decoration unless they were skilled, which usually meant tv cooks, entertainers, or sportswomen. When the first women were given the job of reading the news, newspapers -Rupert Murdoch's The Sun, for example- judged them not by their skills as journalists but whether or not they were attractive to men. When tv began to break down this wall it did so by being more inclusive, of Black people in particular but in the 1970s Black people were on tv either to make people laugh in situation comedies, because they could sing and dance, or were good at sport.

It has taken over 40 years for television in the UK to give jobs to ethnic minorities and women on the basis of their ability to do those jobs, but has also been part of a deliberate policy by the BBC and other broadcasters to reflect the reality of multi-cultural Britain, and this is where the rage sets in for those who see the most common forms of news and entertainment being 'taken over' by non-white people.
To people such as Bill Etheridge, the BBC's promotion of diversity and inclusion means by default that as more and more Black and Asian, and assertive women and gay people appear on tv, so they see a demotion of the white man. Add in to that a view that behind this 'diversity and inclusion' is a form of Marxism that is associated with Antonio Gramsci and a deliberate 'culture' campaign that aims to feed 'leftist' ideas into the public mind through education and the media, sometimes called Common Purpose.

Political correctness thus becomes transformed from something passive, to something active. What began as the censorship of offensive words used to describe Black people, homosexuals and the disabled, has become part of a conspiracy to degrade the 'British' by 'ramming multi-culturalism down our throats' in spite of the fact that visibility for minorities actually reflects the fact that 'they' are 'here' and 'they' (or we) are going to stay.

If there is a difference between the UK and the US it rests on immigration which is not seen as a fundamental part of what has shaped this country over the last 950 years (ie, since the Battle of Hastings in 1066) in the way that it has shaped the US.

For many white people who identify themselves as 'British' or 'English' their version of national pride finds it hard to accept that Black people truly belong here. These feelings at various times have also extended to the Irish, the Italians, the Jews and most recently Afro-Caribbeans and the various religious groups from the Indian sub-continent. Whatever role immigrants have played in the positive development of British society and the economy is not accepted by a hard core who see multi-culturalism as literally 'the death of Britain'.

A cogent example was provided recently by the former editor of The Sun, Kelvin Mackenzie. He believes the BBC and Channel 4 news are left-wing broadcasters, and 'unusually' for him he watched a broadcast of Channel 4 News in which one of their journalists (Fatima Manji) reported on the massacre in Nice. He wrote:
Was it appropriate for her to be on camera when there had been yet another shocking slaughter by a Muslim? “Was it done to stick one in the eye of the ordinary viewer who looks at the hijab as a sign of the slavery of Muslim women by a male- dominated and clearly violent religion?”
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/channel-4-news-calls-kelvin-mackenzies-comments-about-fatima-manji-tantamount-to-inciting-religious-hatred_uk_578d073fe4b019ee5fd82da0

This is the kind of Un-PC language and narrative that some 'white British' feel they must own in order to fight against what they see as a conspiracy to demote and degrade 'our heritage' in favour of a multi-cultural fantasy which has the effect of replacing what is British with something else, and if you believe that Muslims are breeding more children than anyone else and at heart are all yearning for Shari'a law, the argument is set for a 'clash of civilizations' based, in fact, on little more than paranoia and prejudice. It is the kind of language that Nigel Farage sought to reclaim for the political sphere during both the General Election and the EU Referendum campaigns, so it goes far beyond being 'polite' and is in my view a campaign to make respectable what amounts to a form of loathing that itself comes from a crisis of identity and resentment, a feeling that the white British have a 'birthright' that is being taken away from them and being 'given' to Muslims. I think this is also part of the Trump campaign that believes it is 'finally' saying in public what many Americans have been saying in private or were too afraid to say in public for fear of being ostracised by the 'multi-culturalist elite'.

It is also part of the narrative of the 'white male' who no longer walks into a job from school that enables him to become the main breadwinner of the family, to be the head man, as it were. Because the decline of labour-intensive heavy industry has hit the working class hardest, there is a view that men have not only lost their place at the head of the economic unit at the heart of capitalist society -the family- but they have lost their virility. That men must now temper their language and behaviour and be deferential to minorities adds to the anxiety complex that feeds the theory that Marxism -which is what this all is- is destroying the family. On top of this as work changes many more women not only work theyhave become the main breadwinner, it is as if men have become useless and redundant. Perhaps the greatest irony of this argument is that it forms one part of the critique of western society provided by a guru to violent Salafist Muslims. In Signposts, Sayed Qutb says that capitalism is a 'Jewish plot' to 'destroy the family', thus as arguments go, members of UKIP and the English Defence League have an unusual ally on their side, if they only knew it.

Political Correctness thus sets itself against all of the major trends that have taken place in our society but does so with a language that is angry and resentful, and whose political hostility to dominant political parties and institutions has created divisions which are exploited by financial crises, acts of terrorism and most recently the immigration crisis in Europe. The problem is that either the proposed solutions to 'the crisis' are not popular enough to attract votes -in the case of UKIP- or they have in the EU Referendum vote established an as yet incoherent agenda of change that is unlikely to address the alternative to Political Correctness for its opponents, who want an end to immigration as a first step to be followed by repatriation (initially of Muslims) and one assumes the return to the days when A can refuse services to B if B is Black, Gay, Muslim, Jewish -whatever.

Political correctness is anything but polite, it is an aggressive attack on the multi-cultural reality of modern Britain and with its language of fear and violence, is a threat to our way of life.

trish

08-26-2016, 09:27 PM

I realized after the fact that political politeness doesn’t characterize all aspects of what I want to capture. But in the US, I don’t see PC as being as active a force as the anti-equalitarian reaction against it. Early on recording studios and then later radio and then even later television networks provided diverse products and programming, yes...but I think only in response to sells and ratings for that kind product. It wasn’t a political decision on the part of the record industry or radio and television networks.

I do think diversity in television and in television ads (I want to teach the world the sing) had a great deal of influence on the American mindset, but again I have to think it was more marketing than politics.

I need to take the time to reread your post more carefully before I respond more fully. Thanks for the response and thanks for the thoughtful dialog in the Brexit thread.

Stavros

08-27-2016, 09:50 AM

"Political Correctness thus sets itself against all of the major trends that have taken place in our society.."
-Just to clarify I mean, of course, the campaign against political correctness, although I think the argument overall was clear enough.

nitron

08-27-2016, 08:46 PM

nitron

08-27-2016, 09:05 PM

One other things, just to put a finer point on this. I fear the Muslim conservatives are worse for our community than the, "get out of my store", born agains, because of demographics. I don't like this...https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fheavyeditorial.files.wordpress.co m%2F2015%2F11%2Fisis-gay-homosexual.jpg%3Fquality%3D65%26strip%3Dall&f=1...this is worse than ,"get out of my bake shop , I don't want to serve you". And the apologists, and sjw regressives, need to be taken to task . You folks give an excellent dressing down of the right all over this forum, and you will get no argument from me on that score. But COME ON, face it, this is soooo much worse , and if you don't think so , you've lost touch.

nitron

08-27-2016, 09:18 PM

Stavro..θα μας φάνε!

sukumvit boy

08-28-2016, 01:34 AM

Yes , I too have noticed the more strident British grousing about political correctness , as I watch a few British TV and comedy shows regularly , and found it puzzling. My impression has been that the British felt like it was being "shoved down their throat " and I could see that I was missing something with regard to context since I don't live there.
Thanks Stavros for such a robust explanation , but it's still a very nuanced difference which is difficult for us Yanks to understand.

trish

08-28-2016, 06:13 AM

θα μας φάνε!They can eat me!

I had to look up sjw. I never met one. But I got a hand to you paranoid anti-eqalitarians, you know how to invent pejoratives that don't sound at all pejorative. But yeah, ya gotta really hate the Bill of Rights, the First Amendment and especially the whole notion of social justice or anyone who might support it. Can't have any sort of justice messin' up our cultural values and endangerin' our way of life.

Stavros

08-28-2016, 10:11 AM

Economically(plutocratic oligarchy) ,both the Dems and Reps,Labs and Cons, are on the same page, so culture wars(identity politics, political correctness ,islamophobia,blm,diversity, blah , blah ,)are the only fireworks that are going off, on both of sides of the pond.
Demographics however will take care of these problems in the not so distant future.I believe the West, and the other rich countries,who's having the kids will take care of the Culture wars. The sjw's ? No! The alt-right?No!
Demographics ,and AI will frame the next set of global problems . On a personal note, the sjw's(I have to tolerate sharia's intolarance towards faggits) and western religious conservatives(I have to tolerate,"get out of my store faggit, I don't have to serve you") equally dangerous.

You did not mention the elephant in this room -nationalism. The critics of political correctness one associates with Bill Etheridge, UKIP, some elements in the Conservative and Labour parties, and the English Defence League are not just angry with their perception that 'minorities' are protected and defended, they are arguing for a concept of what it means to be 'British' and 'English' that is reluctant to admit anyone whose colour and religious belief does not conform to their definition of what those terms mean.

This whole argument about 'the death of Britain' is at its nationalist core wholly in synch with the belief that a nation is defined by people who share the same geography (territory), language, religious belief and cultural practice. In some but not all cases, those who make claims to the 'British identity' cite 'Race' as a factor, but as far as the current discourse is concerned, 'the Islamic threat' in the 21st century has merely replaced the 'threat' of 'the Blacks' in the late 20th and 'the Jews' in the early 20th century. The material impact of the EU's single market has been expressed in the influx of EU migrants since the 1990s, adding an additional layer of anxiety for those 'white British' who feel 'their country' is being 'taken over' by foreigners, even though the extent to which immigration was a decisive factor in the EU referendum is hard to ascertain, it might have been in some parts of the country rather than others.

From this point of view, demographics have always been a key issue for nationalists (just as religion has become so today) because the obsession with 'outsiders' is that they breed more, so that ten children in one family will each have another ten, and another -until the minority becomes the majority. And if you say today that the predictions made about Jewish immigrants from the Russian Empire never happened, it will of course be said that 'Muslims are different', yet the argument is the same.

The question is thus the fundamental question nationalism poses: Do you Belong Here?

Lauren_prado

08-28-2016, 04:56 PM

More islamist apologist bs, living in propaganda machine Islamic Republic of Sweden has completely obliterated your ability to think critically.

ALL respected research centers on the planet, including die hard left political correct ones like Pew Research are projecting Muslim majority in the next century in almost all European countries.

People like you, who side with islamism are destroying our world and needs to be held accountable.

Sane people who don't want to live under a Muslim state and sharia law are called racist and Islamophobic by regressive leftists illiberal people like you.

Your persistence in help Islam trying to conquer Europe for the third time (but this time from within) is driving divisions and the destruction of the European Union, the majority of the people, including non white immigrants, are voting for the far right, because they are our last hope to stop people insane people like you. Austria far right elections is practically won, Lepen is twice as popular and will be France next prime minister, same with Wilders in the Netherlands. Trump will be a silent winning majority. Just sit and watch while we crush islamism in our secular societies that you brought here and held you accountable.

Get your "muslims won't make it" Russian roulette insane prediction and take it to another planet, move to the middle east where you can share sharia law with them.

.

'Muslims are different', yet the argument is the same.

The question is thus the fundamental question nationalism poses: Do you Belong Here?

buttslinger

08-28-2016, 06:58 PM

Sure, King George I was crazy, but I'll bet the Founding Fathers were LOLROTF when they put that little part in the Constitution that it was their considered opinion that once every four years the people would get to decide who would speak for them by all getting together once every four years and everybody who's anybody would write their vote on that new social phenom known as a piece of paper. I mean, it's perfect: when everything goes to shit you can blame it on the voters.
That's an ironclad contract. The Supreme Court decided: 5-4.
The only Arabs I saw in Europe wore fifty thousand dollar suits made from oil. Of course, as a tourist, I didn't go to the slums of Paris.
I don't think you have to be a racist to know in your Heart that if you got stuck an entire workday with the average Palestinian or Egyptian Woman that would be a day nailed to Hell.
And I apologize for that statement.
I assure you, the Democrats believe every bit as much in WHITE POWER as the Republicans.

TEAM TRUMP has ascended higher than ever before into the Political Stratosphere with it's incorporation of Ailes, Guiliani, Breitbart, and that white hot foxcunt Laura Ingraham.
Oooooh, I gotta stop right there........

trish

08-29-2016, 12:16 AM

I don’t see anyone here apologizing for ISIS or any other Islamist group. What I do see is a poster or two offering vague threats and making excuses for their ugly religious bigotries by spreading fear and pointing to islamist radicalism as if its existence justified their phobia of all Muslims.

buttslinger

08-29-2016, 01:28 AM

Whining is considered ammo in some fighting styles, OK if that ISIS tank down your street is fictional.

https://s14.postimg.org/nr39a4wxt/Sean_Hannity.jpg (https://postimg.org/image/kk8pqichp/)free photo upload (https://postimage.org/)

hippifried

08-29-2016, 05:57 PM

"I don't think there are any Russians
There ain't no Yanks
Just corporate criminals
Playing with tanks
~ The Call ~ The Walls Came Down ('80s)

Still poignant. Just shuffle the antagonists.

buttslinger

08-30-2016, 03:29 AM

I read today that WALL STREET has set the clock on a Republican House, and a Democratic Senate and Presidincessity. and go ahead and villianize them all you want, you haters, Wall Street has more visionaries than a Buddhist fan magazine. Wall Street earns its living by seeing the future a bit ahead of everyone else, good and bad.
Democrats like to be right and Republicans like to win, but trust me, Hillary is a Politician and a Lawyer and she is zeroed in on win.
We'll have Wall Street, Government, and Business.
Wall Street will play itself.
The part of Government will be played by the Democrats.
The part of Business will be played by the GOP.
Many people reading this may never have had a discussion with themselves about being a winner or a loser, but I'll bet every one of your bosses decided at some point they were going to be a winner.

https://s18.postimg.org/b29szcmu1/545409997.jpg (https://postimg.org/image/5quwen0r9/)image url (https://postimage.org/)

nitron

08-30-2016, 05:28 PM

Let's come to some common ground.
It's a terrible gamble, to think ,"Oh no, don't worry about it, just like the Jewish people in Russian empire,or the outsiders that always existed in older times in Europe or the West, they've always been absorbed". Maybe this time ,just once , the demographics in the west are actually making the situation worse. Maybe , with multiculturalists willful blindness to intolerance(Islam) through the mechanism of cultural relativism,coinciding with reduced population numbers are the perfect storm? Why not take some percussion while it's time? And yes, I don't like multinational oil companies, or arm's manufacturers ,doing the buidness with corrupt weasels in oil rich countries.(Sure , I don't like unregulated markets) . But that's a separate fight though .
Maybe the west should focus on limiting the trade with them ,thereby gaining the moral high ground for a change. But, also limit migration from cultures that are truly intolerant.If you are right wing, or left wing , here at least let's come to some common ground. .
Why should we be fighting (our community) for tolerance all over again, why should we even put our self's in a potential danger situation? Look around the world and see how intolerant to the gays the world actually is! For fuck's sake's!How long has it taken our community to even be tolerated in the West? ha, how long? And now to side with a bunch of fool's so that we run the risk of fighting all over again? For our vary existence ? No I say .

Surely, can't you folk's see the simple idea that for us at least , culturally wear our interests should lye . Preservation, simple naked survival?
Other countries limit there immigration/migration, now ,and in the past. Why can't we in the West do it now?And deal with demographic decline other than immigration from backward conservative- valued hell holes, is a good start.

buttslinger

08-30-2016, 07:29 PM

https://s22.postimg.org/wvf8hexlt/image.gif (https://postimg.org/image/blrm6khb1/)
photo upload (https://postimage.org/)

https://s18.postimg.org/wbsibknyx/image.gif (https://postimg.org/image/hslda5utx/)

windows 7 screen shot (https://postimage.org/app.php)

https://s10.postimg.org/liaxwk93t/image.gif (https://postimg.org/image/peo9sju39/)
screen shot on windows (https://postimage.org/app.php)

https://s15.postimg.org/75md8wzej/image.gif (https://postimg.org/image/5qksk6ybb/)capture (https://postimage.org/app.php)

https://s12.postimg.org/ua6l6ddjh/image.gif (https://postimg.org/image/8b06j5wp5/)
screen shot windows 7 (https://postimage.org/app.php)

buttslinger

08-30-2016, 09:51 PM

I said once that the black race is the only race that did not melt in the Great American melting pot, and Giovanni Hotel jumped on me for blaming blacks for racism.
My Mom grew up on a Mississippi farm during the Great Depression, and I'm not positive PROGRESS is going to take us to a brighter sun than the 1930s, but progress is all we have to work with.
My Mom's cook Leila had 10 times more soul than these Beyoncé wannabes they have now, black people have to lose their soul, and white people have to lose their pride.
There is common ground, yet people always want to own it.
Nobody owns common ground.

hippifried

08-30-2016, 11:32 PM

Hmmmm...
A common ground commie who follows the immortal philosophy of Mel Brooks & thinks the Oracle moved from Delphi to Wall St.
Wow!

trish

08-31-2016, 12:09 AM

Surely, can't you folk's see the simple idea that for us at least , culturally wear our interests should lye . Preservation, simple naked survival?

So what is it you recommend? End religious tolerance? Politically disenfranchise all Muslims? Return to the prejudicial practices that discriminated against certain races and ethnicities? It’s a terrible risk to offer up for sacrifice our religious and political liberties and our protections against racial inequality in lieu of your recently gained sexual freedom, don’t you think? If it weren’t for enlightened and principled toleration we ‘faggots’ would not have gained the social and political progress toward equality that you and I now enjoy. We do not trade away our neighbor’s liberty to save our own. We stand for both.

Other countries limit there immigration/migration, now ,and in the past. Why can't we in the West do it now?And deal with demographic decline other than immigration from backward conservative- valued hell holes, is a good start..

I’m not certain what nation you are a citizen in of, but I would be very surprised if there are not already policies in place that limit immigration/migration that take country of origin into consideration.

In the U.S. the annual influx of permanent immigrants from a single country cannot exceed 7% of the total influx. A brief synopsis of the U.S. immigration policies can be found here https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/how-united-states-immigration-system-works .

hippifried

08-31-2016, 05:14 AM

Butt butt butt...
It's just no fun if you can't be as fucked up as the people you're griping about. Being discourteous (or worse) is how we show our loyalty to mono cultural superiority. After all, they/those/them must be inherently inferior to we/us, irrespective ("irregardless" if you're a Trumpeteer) of who anyone is. Gotta have that "vs" between us and them or nobody will want to play the game. Think we'd be able to tolerate ourselves if we become tolerant of others? Is it possible to drop enough acid to figure all this out without going catatonic?

martin48

08-31-2016, 04:03 PM

I love immigration debates as they are a prime example of arguing without recourse to any evidence.

Immigrants flood across borders, steal jobs, are a burden on taxpayers and threaten indigenous culture. Or is it the opposite, that immigration boosts economic growth, meets skill shortages, and helps create a more dynamic society.
Evidence shows that immigrants provide significant economic benefits. But, there are local and short-term economic and social costs. As with debates on trade, where protectionist instincts tend to overwhelm the longer term need for more open societies, the core role that immigrants play in economic development is often overwhelmed by defensive measures to keep immigrants out.

Around the world, there are an estimated 230 million migrants, making up about 3% of the global population. This share has not changed much in the past 100 years. But as the world’s population has quadrupled, so too has the number of migrants. And since the early 1900s, the number of countries has increased from 50 to over 200. More borders mean more migrants.

Of the global annual flow of around 15 million migrants, most fit into one of four categories: economic (6 million), student (4 million), family (2 million), and refugee/asylum (3 million). There are about 20 million officially recognized refugees worldwide, with 86% of them hosted by neighbouring countries, up from 70% 10 years ago.

In the US, over a third of documented immigrants are skilled. Similar trends exist in Europe. These percentages reflect the needs of those economies. Governments that are more open to immigration assist their country’s businesses, which become more agile, adaptive and profitable in the war for talent. Governments in turn receive more revenue and citizens thrive on the dynamism that highly-skilled migrants bring.

Yet it is not only higher-skilled migrants who are vital. In the USA and elsewhere, unskilled immigrants are an essential part of the construction, agriculture and services sector.
If immigrants play such a vital role, why is there so much concern?

Some believe that immigrants take jobs and destroy economies. Evidence proves this wrong. In the United States, immigrants have been founders of companies such as Google, Intel, PayPal, eBay, and Yahoo! In fact, skilled immigrants account for over half of Silicon Valley start-ups and over half of patents, even though they make up less than 15% of the population. There have been three times as many immigrant Nobel Laureates, National Academy of Science members, and Academy Award film directors than the immigrant share of the population would predict.

Research on the net fiscal impact of immigration shows that immigrants contribute significantly more in taxes than the benefits and services they receive in return. According to the World Bank, increasing immigration by a margin equal to 3% of the workforce in developed countries would generate global economic gains of $356 billion. Some economists predict that if borders were completely open and workers were allowed to go where they pleased, it would produce gains as high as $39 trillion for the world economy over 25 years.

In the future, it will become even more imperative to ensure a strong labour supply augmented by foreign workers. Globally, the population is ageing. There were only 14 million people over the age of 80 living in 1950. There are well over 100 million today and current projections indicate there will be nearly 400 million people over 80 by 2050. With fertility collapsing to below replacement levels in all regions except Africa, experts are predicting rapidly rising dependency ratios and a decline in the OECD workforce from around 800 million to close to 600 million by 2050. The problem is particularly acute in North America, Europe and Japan.

There are, however, legitimate concerns about large-scale migration. The possibility of social dislocation is real. Just like globalization – a strong force for good in the world – the positive aspects are diffuse and often intangible, while the negative aspects bite hard for a small group of people.

Yes, those negative aspects must be managed. But that management must come with the recognition that migration has always been one of the most important drivers of human progress and dynamism. In the age of globalization, barriers to migration pose a threat to economic growth and sustainability. Free migration, like totally free trade, remains a utopian prospect, even though within regions (such as Europe) this has proved workable.

As John Stuart Mill forcefully argued, we need to ensure that the local and short-term social costs of immigration do not detract from their role “as one of the primary sources of progress”.

buttslinger

08-31-2016, 09:52 PM

Hmmmm...
A common ground commie who follows the immortal philosophy of Mel Brooks & thinks the Oracle moved from Delphi to Wall St.
Wow!
Hats off to the great Gene Wilder, he was a funny man.
HippieFried, if you don't think the wisemen on Wall St have you figured out, you're still living in the sixties.
You think what they want you to think. My proof is your checkbook.

trish

08-31-2016, 10:31 PM

Those 'wisemen' on Wall Street be jumpin' out of windows the next time I take a step in an unexpected direction.

blackchubby38

09-01-2016, 12:04 AM

I just want the Hispanic immigrants to clean up after themselves when they are done having a party in a public park. Is that too much to ask.

trish

09-01-2016, 01:35 AM

No it's not too much to ask. I'd like everyone to clean up after themselves.

"People generally litter when they don’t feel a sense of ownership of an area, like along roads, in parks, and in abandoned areas. Research has shown that the most likely person to litter, regardless of race, income, and education level is a male between the ages of 18-25." ( http://www.gwinnettcb.org/resources/facts-figures/littering-facts-figures/ ).

"Who litters?

Young people are more likely to litter when they are in a group.
Older people are more likely to litter when alone.
Men litter more than women.
Women use bins more than men.
In a group of ten people in a public place, three will litter and seven will do the right thing.
More smokers will litter their butts than use a bin.
People are more likely to litter in an already littered or unkempt location.
The most common reasons for littering are "too lazy" (24%), "no ashtray" (23%) or "no bin" (21%).
Less than one third of older people who were seen littering admitted their behaviour when questioned.

Why they litter

Unaware - Littering is not always a deliberate act, and may result from uncertainty as to who is responsible for disposal, or just viewing their littering as an inconsequential thing to do. For instance, householders and businesses may dump at the front of their property, thinking it is the council's responsibility to clean it up.
Careless - Some people litter because it is too much trouble for them to do otherwise, or litter is something they simply don't think about.
Convenience is often the driving factor here, hence well located and designed disposal units and bins have a good chance of improving behaviours.
Premeditated - Individuals may be well aware that littering and dumping are illegal, but find it more convenient (and cheaper if not caught) to find a hidden dumping spot, or simply dispose of smaller litter items irresponsibly. Here, the thinking is that they are unlikely to be caught or shamed. Enforcement and education play a primary role in improving these behaviours." ( http://www.litter.vic.gov.au/about-litter/littering-behaviour )

hippifried

09-01-2016, 04:25 AM

Oh yeah. Them Wall Streeters saw the last bank panic coming a mile away, didn't they? That's why nobody lost any money in the crash. Right? Oh wait... There wasn't any crash because the prognosticators saw it coming and headed it off. Everyone was fully insured anyway, so AIG was able to cover all bets with no problems. Same thing with ENRON. And the dot com bubble didn't swell and burst because the market soothsayers knew it was all just a bunch of bullshit.

So now we can all rest assured that the same seers and sibyls will be able to predict the obvious when it comes to politics. Or maybe consumer trends too.

The exchange gamblers haven't got me figured out at all. Or anybody else really, outside their own clique. The reality is that for the most part, they can't see past the current quarter. They just follow whatever trend is happening at the moment. Like a flock of sheep or a school of fish. Ooooh, shiney!

I don't even have a checkbook. When I changed banks a few years ago, I didn't even bother to order any. I'm retired. Completely paperless. No debt. Just plastic and a phone. I can do all my banking by text messages nowadays. I don't live large, but I get by okay, despite losing a pension and mutual funds to the so called wise men of Wall Street who couldn't find their asshole with a funnel.

Don't try to blow smoke up my ass, Buttslinger, unless it's laced with something real good. I've been around a little. Mostly, I think you're alright though. I have plenty of salt. Help yourself to as many grains as you need when reading my shit.

buttslinger

09-01-2016, 05:45 AM

Look West Coast.......
I will step back and admit that I do not understand the 1% that own 50% of everything.
It's like a maze that includes my eyes.
I really don't even know where to go to find out about it.
Every one you ask will give you a different answer.
I do know that a billion dollar corporation can hire people that know more about me than I do. What I'll buy, what I won't.
Trash me all you want Hippifried, but don't give Wall Street the benefit of the doubt because they sure don't deserve it. Their blatant stealing of everything that wasn't chained down before an election they knew they were going to lose was a winner for them, they dropped everything they were set to lose anyway. They see the bad and the good. And Profit from both.

Stavros

09-02-2016, 03:25 PM

[QUOTE=nitron;1715605]

A brief comment to follow Martin's brilliantly argued post.

Let's come to some common ground.
It's a terrible gamble, to think ,"Oh no, don't worry about it, just like the Jewish people in Russian empire,or the outsiders that always existed in older times in Europe or the West, they've always been absorbed". Maybe this time ,just once , the demographics in the west are actually making the situation worse. Maybe , with multiculturalists willful blindness to intolerance(Islam) through the mechanism of cultural relativism,coinciding with reduced population numbers are the perfect storm?
--It may be natural to predict the future on the basis of what we know now, but history shows this to be the gamble that does not pay off if the terms of the bet change to make it meaningless.

For example, the UK passed the Aliens Act in 1905 in an attempt to halt the immigration of Jews from Eastern Europe, and the US passed the Immigration Act of 1924, again to put a halt to -mostly Jewish- immigration from Eastern Europe, and also immigration from 'southern Europe' -code for Italy. In addition, in both the 1905 Act and the 1924 Act the 'fear' was that a) too many people were coming, b) they were 'not assimilating', c) they were the direct cause of crime in the areas where they lived, and d) that they tended to work for low pay depressing wages for other workers. In the British case, Jews arriving in Britain were expected to 'assimilate' and told how to do it, for example, by not speaking Yiddish or German in public, a harsh task for those living in small areas of London like Bethnal Green and Shoreditch where most of their neighbours would have spoken Yiddish, Russian and some German.

It is also worth pointing out that when the British Brothers League was campaigning against the Jews in London all the arguments against the Jews were there -their abundance, their uncontrolled breeding, their criminal tendencies and the 'fact' that they were dirty. At rallies when speeches raised the temperature crowds would chant 'Wipe them out!'. The League did not survive long after the Aliens Act, but many of its members remained fixated on the Jews and migrated into Oswald Mosley's British Union of Fascists by which the time the Protocols of the Elders of Zion had added to the mix a co-ordinated conspiracy of world domination, of which the Bolshevik Revolution was just one part. Finally note too that then as now there was an obsession with the way Jews dressed, just as that moment in Vienna when Hitler saw an Orthodox Jew in his frock coat, the Hat and the curls and asked himself 'Is this a Jew' and then 'Is this a German?'. We have this today with the desperate attempt of the French to 'protect' their secular constitution that makes it illegal for a Jewish male to wear a Yarmulka in school, ditto a Sikh male with his Turban (some Sikh males have also been told to remove their Turbans when having a passport photo taken) and Christians not being allowed to wear a crucifix if others can see it. And this in a country where the Roman Catholic faith never dissipated that much in rural areas in spite or because of the Revolution.

But neither those two laws cited above nor the politics behind them could predict that up to 70% of the Jews living in Europe at the time would not be there in 1945 because most of them -approx 67%- were murdered, the rest surviving to leave the continent for somewhere else. All of the fears generated by 'mass immigration' in Britain and the USA turned out to be false. And just as the trend in the first half of the 20th century was for migration within the US to be dominated by south-to-north flows, in the second half the trend reversed with migration moving from north to south and south-west, and I could predict a new wave of south-west to north-west over the next 25 years as the south-west runs out of water, but it is just a prediction. And predictions have a tendency to be wrong.

buttslinger

09-02-2016, 08:27 PM

I do have a limp grasp on why Martin and Stavros applaud clear thinking and facts over my dogfight mentality, but when it comes to immigration, bile is the motivator, not clarity of thought.
My fore-fathers that died in the Revolutionary War, and the Civil War, and WWII where all WHITE.
Mostly WASP.
American Indians and Mexican immigrants can't say that.
When you see a gorgeous front lawn, subconsciously you have to account for the extermination of countless species of flora whose only crime was they wanted to live.
If, ....in the USA, .....White, Black, and Hispanic Americans ever all get on the same page and see a clear path to Glory as One, I guarantee you it will come at the expense of Middle Easterners and Asians everywhere.
I think it is possible that in my lifetime you have a President that makes the WHITEMAN wait outside his office.
That's the way these things work.
Romans attack Gaul.
Gaul attacks Romans.
Gauls get named "Barbarians" just because of the way they dress......
People get power by strength of number and they lose power by strength of number.
Clarity of thought and Wise Decisions will be the death of us all.
Personally.
Everything has an expiration date.

https://s18.postimg.org/qb4sabf55/Exterior_Beautiful_Landscape_Design_for_Front_Ya.j pg (https://postimg.org/image/y3vg2al45/)picture sharing (https://postimage.org/)

buttslinger

09-14-2016, 04:47 PM

My thought for today is that the 20 richest Americans own as much wealth as the bottom 160 million people.

Did they all get together over martinis and decide what percentage crosses the line from rich to gawdy?

martin48

09-16-2016, 10:52 AM

Bet the 160 million pay more tax than the 20

Erika1487

09-16-2016, 08:15 PM

I miss W.............. at least he had balls..........too much pussyfooting around the issues with the Republicans these days

buttslinger

10-04-2016, 07:25 PM

My sermon, I mean,.......my thought for the day is........
If the top 600 people in the Government of the USA......
I'm talking Prez, vice-Prez, Supreme Court, House ..Senate, and 65 top bananas from the military, CIA. NSA, ETC..........
Were forced by LAW to be sworn in under oath every 60 days and answer any questions the FBI and Justice Dept have concerns about......
while in one of those MRI lie detectors............
no lawyers.......

I'm not really sure if I would vote for that law or not.

It would most certainly cure the CORRUPTION of American Politics......
but I think as Erika was trying to say,
The glandular testicular "no gloves" side of politics...
that we've all cum to no and love,......
would be replaced with the election of tiny dick/clit civil servants....
Making for a very boring election process.
Like a high school test, or something.

xhakaboom

10-05-2016, 10:29 AM

bệnh hoàn vl @@

trish

10-05-2016, 04:24 PM

Hello and welcome to the boards xhakaboom, the accountant from Vietnam who's first post and thought of the day is something on the order of, "full of disease."

martin48

10-05-2016, 05:32 PM

Hello and welcome to the boards xhakaboom, the accountant from Vietnam who's first post and thought of the day is something on the order of, "full of disease."

Could some one have another thought, please?

buttslinger

10-05-2016, 05:43 PM

bệnh hoàn vl @@

First reasonable thing I've heard mentioned on this thread.

buttslinger

10-08-2016, 08:49 AM

uh....I don't know.......
maybe it was when the two NYC Hoboes found a terrorist bomb in a suitcase................
and stole the suitcase.....

buttslinger

10-08-2016, 07:40 PM

Now that Trump has turned the GOP into a bad Richard Dawson Family Feud episode.......
Maybe Hillary can Use her Up-cumming Juice to destroy Conservative Talk Media.
C'mon....that shit they pull can't be legal in an NYC courtroom, can it?
I think even Trump was amazed at how many of them there are!!!!!!!
They've been getting spoon fed Trump-like Bullshit for the past twenty years...
then THAR GENERAL showed up!!!
They would follow that guy into a Hamlin Mountain!!!!
I don't doubt Hillary has the next 8 years storyboarded already,
but I hope she sics the FCC on these Rush Limbaugh shows that are ten times sleezier than a Billie Bush busride.
Did you know that little vagina billie bush is Jeb Bush's first cousin?
Don't discount the power of FAMILY.
Trump is toast.
Who could relish a vote for trump's dick??@#~!!!
If Trump wants to fight this all the way to the bunker we can start finding lots of other access Hollywood outtakes, they tell me.
As Winnie said,
"we should bomb them until the rubble bounces"
ha ha ha

blackchubby38

10-09-2016, 02:24 AM

Somewhere John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson are laughing about how much of a joke the 2016 Presidential Election is.

holzz

10-12-2016, 08:45 AM

person of colour......dopeyarse pC term.

is this how the spanish and portuguese first enslaved black people, since they could nab them since they were invisible and didn't have any colour? is any human being "colourless"?

holzz

10-12-2016, 08:49 AM

when arsene wenger leaves, the perfect scenario:

- beat Tottenham to the league on the last day, with an Aguero-esque ending
- beat the "specialist in success" to win the champions league vs. Man United

trish

10-12-2016, 04:51 PM

"Colored" was a common term for a "black person" going all the way back to the U.S. Civil War. It's usage as such is even older. It can be found with this meaning in the 1796 Oxford Dictionary. At the time the French actually used the term "gen de couleur" which translates "people of color". In the US the meaning of the phrase in was expanded in the mid-twentieth century to include anyone who wasn't considered "white." It's usage competed with the hyphenated word "non-white." Words move to reflecting the habits and thoughts of those who use them. Eventually "non-white" fell out of usage and today we have "people of color."

It would be interesting to know if there will ever be a time or a place when (or where) we need make no distinction. But currently, we need to demarcate those we're allowed to jail and shoot without cause from those we're not.

holzz

10-13-2016, 10:23 PM

how guilt by association is Trump's major campaign tactic...."oh, i groped women? what about slick Willy? he's not running for POTUS and constitutionally never can again, but it's her husband, it makes Hillary look bad!"

holzz

10-13-2016, 10:24 PM

How some old woman thinks her story of Trump putting her hand up her skirt on an aeroplane, without any real evidence to back her up, is newsworthy.

Trump should sue her arse in bankruptcy.

holzz

10-13-2016, 10:25 PM

Stavros

10-17-2016, 03:56 AM

I have been wondering what it is that some people, apparently quite a lot of people, find so attractive in the 'strong leader'. Two of my Ts friends from the Philippines, neither of whom live there now, have defended the Presidency of Rodrigo Duterte on the grounds that the drug problem in the Philippines is now so out of control that only desperate measures can deal with it, and Duterte is the 'strong man' who will deliver results.

I have also noted the volume of people writing comments on the grim reports from Aleppo in the press, and they can't all be Russian trolls, who extol the virtues of strong man Vladimir Putin, who they seem to think is 'getting results' by doing what strong men do in power - making bold decisions that are executed without compromise.

Typically, these strong men are contrasted with the weak ones, where the strong man is individual and decisive, the weak man a hostage to his liberal faith and a collegiate decision-making process. Or to put it another way -Dictators produce results, Democrats produce problems. I wonder if in fact it is the other way round. The short-to-medium impact of Napoleon's dictatorship of France was war and its ruin, not least in France itself, following as it did a destructive revolution that retarded the development of the French economy.
Bismarck may have been a strong leader and a major force in the creation of the German Empire, yet he left a unified Germany whose ambitions when transferred to another strong man, Caesar William II led that Empire to ruin through the catastrophe of the First World War, and one need hardly debate the truly dismal impact of Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Mao Zedong, Mobutu, Saddam Hussein and Mu'ammar Qadhafi.

And yet, whether it is 'the Iron Lady', or the 'Great Communicator', that is, leaders operating in democracies or dictatorships, the end result does not appear to confirm that only strong leaders can get things done. And that is because in most cases, what they 'got done' was either a disaster or less radical change than their supporters like to think.

And still people want to believe in the strong man, as if he were a redeemer, a messiah whose entry into office will end the pain, and make everything great again. And no matter how hard I try to convince people that Duterte is one such disaster, the support for him is solid, and I am unable to persuade them to change their minds.

sukumvit boy

10-17-2016, 05:34 AM

sukumvit boy

10-17-2016, 05:47 AM

Than there is Evolutionary Leadership Theory:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_leadership_theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_leadership_theory)

martin48

10-17-2016, 01:03 PM

Than there is Evolutionary Leadership Theory:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_leadership_theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_leadership_theory)

Here it is ....

Stavros

10-17-2016, 01:47 PM

"And still people want to believe in the strong man, as if he were a redeemer, a messiah..."
Alas , when will we ever learn... these very same issues have been much on my mind lately . Prompted , no doubt , by the US and Philippine elections .
I am not prepared at this time to address the first issue , that being where this need for a redeemer is coming from . It would be glib to blame our Judo-Christian mind set since history shows that it predates that and is seen across many cultures even tribal hunter-gatherers. Good subject for further reading.
However , with regard to the psychology that drives these 'strong men' to me the answer is plain.They are text book psychopaths. I addressed the issue of these personality in post # 31 of this thread . So rather than getting back on that soap box here are a few interesting links.
Perhaps by the time we are all dead and gone governments will require a personality test for office holders.

I re-read post#31 but I do not agree that all political leaders are psychopaths.
If we set aside the kinds of 'strong men' I named in my earlier post, I do think that there have been political leaders who may be classified as liberal and collegiate, in the sense that they canvassed opinion from advisers and others before making decisions, who did not make rash or risky decisions involving life or death for thousands if not millions, and who entered public office out of a genuine belief that public service for the good of all is a positive thing for humans to do. It may relate to the comment Aristotle makes somewhere about the meaning of being a 'citizen' where by definition it means someone who acts in the public good, bearing in mind that in his day, a 'citizen' was someone distinct from others in Athenian society, such as women, slaves and 'barbarians'.

For example, however flawed he might have been, I don't think most people would class Nelson Mandela as a psychopath, and I don't think the label applies to the assassinated Swedish Prime Minister, Olaf Palme; President Jimmy Carter; the former President of the Irish Republic, Mary Robinson; or the Labour leader and Prime Minister Clement Attlee -to name a few politicians of note. Indeed, I would suggest that in politics these individuals offer a counter-example to those supreme egos who cannot be wrong no matter what damage they cause. And consider Ronald Reagan who, for all his Cold War rhetoric, was pragmatic enough to see that a deal could be done with Gorbachev that would make real, and positive changes to international politics. By contrast, in 2001 when John Bolton was the USA's Ambassador to the UN he rejected out of hand an appeal by Iranian President Khatami for a rapprochement between the USA and Iran, indeed in 2003 supported a proposal by Israel to bomb Iran's emerging nuclear facilities.

I don't think Obama is a psychopath, he inherited a long-established policy on the Middle East that dates back at least to the Johnson administration, or that murky period between the intervention in Lebanon in 1958 and the support for the Saudi Arabians in their war in the Yemen in the early 1960s; and until the US engages in a deep and serious review of its policy and in particular, asks who its allies in the region are and what they can achieve together, the military option whether it is overt or covert will always be on the agenda. I don't see psychopathology being an element in this so much as politics.

Trump is just a foul-mouthed jerk who has no business being in politics, and is lucky to still be in business.

sukumvit boy

10-18-2016, 03:18 AM

Yes , I whole-heartedly agree that not all political leaders are psychopaths . And thank you for that excellent enumeration of counter -examples.
No , I don't think Obama is a psychopath . I did notice that the first link I posted in post # 116 above suggested that Obama was and using that link was a mistake . I went ahead and used it anyway because I liked it's scholarly approach to the subject and wanted to "stir the pot" a bit . Must be my psychopathology showing through.
However , based on what I have been able to gather from various sources , I still think Trump is a text-book psychopath.
Those sources include the excellent New Yorker article / interview with Tony Schwartz who was the ghostwriter for Trump's "The Art of the Deal" and spent 18 months with trump starting in 1985 . Schwartz opined that the prospect of a President Trump terrified him. He said that it wasn't because of Trump's ideology , he doubted that Trump even had one, the problem was Trump's personality which he considered pathologically impulsive and self-centered.
Schwartz said that if he were to write "The Art of the Deal" today it would be a very different book with a very different title. Asked what he would call it, he answered, "The Sociopath" .

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/07/25/donald-trumps-ghostwriter-tells-all

Stavros

10-18-2016, 11:13 AM

...I still think Trump is a text-book psychopath.
Those sources include the excellent New Yorker article / interview with Tony Schwartz who was the ghostwriter for Trump's "The Art of the Deal" and spent 18 months with trump starting in 1985 . Schwartz opined that the prospect of a President Trump terrified him. He said that it wasn't because of Trump's ideology , he doubted that Trump even had one, the problem was Trump's personality which he considered pathologically impulsive and self-centered.
Schwartz said that if he were to write "The Art of the Deal" today it would be a very different book with a very different title. Asked what he would call it, he answered, "The Sociopath" .

Jonathan Freedland has written a perceptive piece in The Guardian which starts-

The thing you need to know about Donald Trump (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/donaldtrump) is that he never loses. Never. Whether it’s in business or politics, Trump either wins outright or he was going to win until victory was stolen from him, usually through a crooked conspiracy of his enemies.
That’s why his assorted bankruptcies and collapses were never his fault, why even his multimillion-dollar failures were actually successes (https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/trumps-bad-bet-how-too-much-debt-drove-his-biggest-casino-aground/2016/01/18/f67cedc2-9ac8-11e5-8917-653b65c809eb_story.html). It’s why, when his TV show, The Apprentice, failed to win an Emmy, it was proof not that the programme was lacking but that the Emmys themselves were unfair, “all politics” and “horrendous (https://twitter.com/ezlusztig/status/787761549855199232)”.

More here-
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/17/man-who-cried-rigged-problem-with-trump-election-claims

Stavros

10-21-2016, 10:53 AM

The world's largest taxi service, Uber, doesn't own a taxi. The world's largest retailer, Amazon, doesn't own a shop. Rolls-Royce has opened a new factory in Britain covering 150,000 square feet to produce engine parts for airliners and other things, but employs just 150 people. But as John Harris in the interesting article (linked below) today points out, in the UK two of the flagship policies of the Conservative and Labour Parties -resurrecting Grammar Schools and the re-nationalisation of the railways- are policies from the mid-20th century, as if neither Theresa May nor Jeremy Corbyn can see what is happening in today's world that is shaping the world we will live in tomorrow. He the cites comments -quoted below- made by Barack Obama after a visit to MIT which I do think capture the challenge for Presidents, Prime Ministers and Policy-Makers, not least of all, citizens. But will this be part of the debate in politics any time soon?

“As AI gets further incorporated, and the society potentially gets wealthier, the link between production and distribution, how much you work and how much you make, gets further and further attenuated – the computers are doing a lot of the work,” says Obama. “As a consequence, we have to make some tougher decisions.” One is whether it is time to consider a universal basic income (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/13/should-we-scrap-benefits-and-pay-everyone-100-a-week-whether-they-work-or-not), “a debate that we’ll be having over the next 10 or 20 years”. Within all this are the implicit stirrings of some very interesting stuff indeed, focused on “what we are collectively willing to pay for”. Increasingly, the state will presumably have to assume a much greater role in redistributing money from the digital economy’s winners to its losers. That, Obama seems to suggest, might open space for a long-overdue look at how we reward people whose contribution cannot be reduced to an instant financial return, and who we are going to need more and more of – “whether it’s teachers, nurses, caregivers, [or] moms or dads who stay at home”.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/21/modernisers-politics-barack-obama-technology-britain

Stavros

11-16-2016, 09:35 AM

I am puzzled why people who have a publicly accountable position -elected officials, directors of offices at any level from county to State to the Fed in the USA, for example, are either not told that their comments on social media should reflect their public position, or they are and ignore the advice, or they don't care. Although I suppose they could just be dim but that begs the question of their credentials and how they were appointed, (the flaw in English grammar could be a typo-?).

I offer this thought because yet again someone in a public position, albeit an obscure one when viewed from the UK, has posted a shocking comment which has been deleted following an apology, but is the person responsible sorry about the comment, or sorry they caused offence, or sorry it became a news event? And how can anyone make such a comment and not think people would not be offended by it?

Because language does matter, and in public life it establishes a tone and the parameters of what is decent and what is not. With our Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson using the word 'bollocks' in an interview in the Czech Republic I wonder if we are not in danger of replacing reasoned debate with emotional tantrums.

979664

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/michelle-obama-ape-in-heels-racist-facebook-a7418181.html

martin48

11-16-2016, 04:02 PM

Interesting points. The future of industry is not so much driven my fundamental advances in AI but the lowering of the cost base. Computing power is so cheap - think what you paid for your first PC (corrected for inflation) and what you get now. Cheap labour helps as well. The rise of populist and right-wing ideas always hark back to better days so politicians encourage these views. Will they actively debate new ideas? I doubt it. Where is the power - for votes, it is in the older generation. For driving the economy, it is global businesses.

The world's largest taxi service, Uber, doesn't own a taxi. The world's largest retailer, Amazon, doesn't own a shop. Rolls-Royce has opened a new factory in Britain covering 150,000 square feet to produce engine parts for airliners and other things, but employs just 150 people. But as John Harris in the interesting article (linked below) today points out, in the UK two of the flagship policies of the Conservative and Labour Parties -resurrecting Grammar Schools and the re-nationalisation of the railways- are policies from the mid-20th century, as if neither Theresa May nor Jeremy Corbyn can see what is happening in today's world that is shaping the world we will live in tomorrow. He the cites comments -quoted below- made by Barack Obama after a visit to MIT which I do think capture the challenge for Presidents, Prime Ministers and Policy-Makers, not least of all, citizens. But will this be part of the debate in politics any time soon?

“As AI gets further incorporated, and the society potentially gets wealthier, the link between production and distribution, how much you work and how much you make, gets further and further attenuated – the computers are doing a lot of the work,” says Obama. “As a consequence, we have to make some tougher decisions.” One is whether it is time to consider a universal basic income (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/13/should-we-scrap-benefits-and-pay-everyone-100-a-week-whether-they-work-or-not), “a debate that we’ll be having over the next 10 or 20 years”. Within all this are the implicit stirrings of some very interesting stuff indeed, focused on “what we are collectively willing to pay for”. Increasingly, the state will presumably have to assume a much greater role in redistributing money from the digital economy’s winners to its losers. That, Obama seems to suggest, might open space for a long-overdue look at how we reward people whose contribution cannot be reduced to an instant financial return, and who we are going to need more and more of – “whether it’s teachers, nurses, caregivers, [or] moms or dads who stay at home”.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/21/modernisers-politics-barack-obama-technology-britain

martin48

11-16-2016, 04:04 PM

Rational argument are so 20th century. Michael Gove today asked for experts to tell him why we can't have a quick Brexit. Well, all us experts have pissed off 'cos nobody wants us anymore.

I am puzzled why people who have a publicly accountable position -elected officials, directors of offices at any level from county to State to the Fed in the USA, for example, are either not told that their comments on social media should reflect their public position, or they are and ignore the advice, or they don't care. Although I suppose they could just be dim but that begs the question of their credentials and how they were appointed, (the flaw in English grammar could be a typo-?).

I offer this thought because yet again someone in a public position, albeit an obscure one when viewed from the UK, has posted a shocking comment which has been deleted following an apology, but is the person responsible sorry about the comment, or sorry they caused offence, or sorry it became a news event? And how can anyone make such a comment and not think people would not be offended by it?

Because language does matter, and in public life it establishes a tone and the parameters of what is decent and what is not. With our Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson using the word 'bollocks' in an interview in the Czech Republic I wonder if we are not in danger of replacing reasoned debate with emotional tantrums.

979664

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/michelle-obama-ape-in-heels-racist-facebook-a7418181.html

Stavros

11-16-2016, 05:00 PM

Rational argument are so 20th century.

I think it might have something to do with the unedited content of social media, where before our public conversations were mediated by press and broadcasting over which we had no control indeed, no input other than writing a letter to the paper or maybe phoning in to a radio programme. Newspapers do mediate readers comments, but there is a furious debate now raging about whether Facebook should be 'taking action' against 'fake news' stories which, it is claimed are being generated by a small group in Macedonia who use them to generate advertising revenue -click on an outrageous story and you get the story plus some ad for face cream or whatever. Facebook doesn't want to censor its own members, and they have a point. It is surely the members of Facebook who should watch what they say, unless it is their objective to arouse passions for political purposes.

However, the social media outlet someone uses may be in his or her bedroom or lounge, and where they once used to shout abuse at the tv now they post it online for all to see. That is infantile and can be ignored; but when a public official who has both a legal and a moral responsibility to the people they represent or work for, uses social media with language that has been chosen for a purpose, it is naive to then think the apology for the content is sincere. I think people who uses derogatory terms about others because of their religion, the colour of their skin or their sexuality know at the time what it is they are saying, they only apologise because they have to. I understand the Mayor in the town in the post above has now resigned, but one wonders why she sought election if she was not prepared to accept the responsibility that goes with the office, something at a higher level President-elect Trump should be aware of.

Stavros

11-16-2016, 05:10 PM

Stavros

11-23-2016, 07:02 PM

Today in the UK a man called Thomas Mair was found guilty of murdering the MP Jo Cox. At the time he shot and stabbed her to death he was heard shouting 'This is for Britain' and when asked to identify himself on arrest at the local police station replied 'Death to traitors, freedom for Britain'. The evidence presented in court shows that Mair purchased literature from the now-defunct Nazi organisation in the US called the 'National Alliance' and that he chose Jo Cox as his victim precisely because he identified 'liberals, the left and the media' as 'collaborators' in the dilution of the power of the 'White Race' through immigration and other actions such as 'political correctness'.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/nov/23/thomas-mair-slow-burning-hatred-led-to-jo-cox-murder

And this week video emerged of a conference of another white supremacist organisation in the US called the 'National Policy Institute' whose leader, Richard Spencer applauded the election of Donald Trump and led his supporters in chants of 'Sieg Heil' accompanied by Nazi salutes, having given a speech containing this:
"To be white is to be a creator, an explorer, a conqueror," Spencer said of white people, whom he also described as "a race that travels forever on an upward path." Of America, Spencer said, "It is our creation, it is our inheritance, and it belongs to us."
http://uk.complex.com/life/2016/11/white-nationalists-quote-nazis-salute-trump-heil-victory

The problem is that it was Richard Spencer who coined the term 'alt-right', so does this mean that anyone else who either uses or identified with 'alt-right' is by definition a supporter of and believer in White Supremacist ideology and its groups? As we have seen in Europe, the connections that people make, even if they are 'lone wolves' like Thomas Mair and Anders Breivik gives them a sense of solidarity with an international movement dedicated to 'preserving' the 'White Race', even if this means murdering the 'collaborators'.

Words matter, and my view is that 'alt-right' must be seen for what it represents and where it comes from, just as France pour les Francais or La France d'Abord (France First) casually or meaningfully tossed around these days by the Front National and others, are slogans that have no innocence having been coined by the explicitly anti-Jewish newspapers and political groups of the 1880s in France. Richard Spencer, proud to be a Nazi, does not hide behind 'alt-right', he freely express his opinions because he believes he is right, regardless of what history tells us or what most Americans, indeed, most people believe. I see no reason why any decent person should give this term 'alt-right' or its meaning the respectability its adherents crave, by admitting it into everyday speech as if it were merely an ID like 'Goth' or 'Hippy' or 'alt.trans' for that matter.

Stavros

11-30-2016, 07:46 PM

For those of you interested in the origins and development of the concept of Political Correctness, this long read in today's Guardian is a useful place to start.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/30/political-correctness-how-the-right-invented-phantom-enemy-donald-trump

Stavros

12-18-2016, 04:59 PM

How does a state respond to an act of war? It used to be the case that State A would use its military against State B (and allies) in disputes over territory, to deter acts of territorial acquisition or ambitions to take over the world, or a part of it. This meant using troops on the ground, sea power, air power, sabotage, intelligence and diplomacy.
Now we have something called 'Hybrid Warfare' which means, for example (it is not a clearly defined concept), planting fake stories in the media of one's opponent so that people doubt the honesty of their politicians; it means using cybercrime to penetrate secret communications which are then published to weaken or smear a political opponent; or it could be the deliberate use of people in human trafficking on a large scale that undermines the government of a state having to accept a large number of refugee/migrants in a short space of time.

Thus it is argued that the Russians successfully organised the hacking of the Democratic Party's email server to smear Mrs Clinton's campaign through an arrangement with the (pro-Russian) Wikileaks organisation, just as fake stories about her being part of a paedophile ring were intended to sow doubt in the public mind over her (ad her husband's) commitment to the safety of children, and that is it is curious how in one year nearly a million refugees and migrants most of them originating in Turkey and ending up in Europe, became close to zero a year later after the EU agreed a billion dollar package with the Turkish government.

Thing is, what does retaliation mean in this context? Does this mean in effect that cybercrime will become an act of war? Can the law be used to prevent news feeds and websites from publishing fake stories which cast doubt on Obama's birth certificate or Donald Trump's tax affairs? I don't know is the answer right now, but I do think we already have enough information with which to judge where Barack Obama was born, to judge the President of Russia by the actions he has already approved that Russia has taken, and if we are opposed to war, should we not also be opposed to hybrid warfare? Or am I exaggerating this aspect of conflict in our times?

fred41

12-18-2016, 08:54 PM

meh...I honestly don't think the DNC hack, and in so far what it might've (or not) accomplished, is really that big a deal. I'm sure we would've (and may even have tried) to do the same thing in Russian elections. But public opinion is a different animal in that country so something like that may not work anyway. I believe corporate, scientific and military info hacks are far more serious.
What info did the hacks expose that the average thinking person wouldn't already have assumed anyway?
The only voters that may have been affected, or at least used it as an excuse to not vote (or perhaps go with another party) would (maybe) be the Sanders voters. What could they have exposed that would kill a person's vote for Trump? - the man literally shared his thoughts out loud and even suggested he can say anything and still get elected by his followers...(not to mention the questionable last minute parade of women coming out of the woodwork to talk about inappropriate remarks or suggestions of 'touching'...only to disappear again after the election).

Just my opinion , as of this moment, on that particular hack only.

One can also argue that unfortunately the USA's foreign policy stances and decisions these last few years, have helped to put it in the position of very little worry for another country of any type of reprisal

flabbybody

12-18-2016, 08:55 PM

saw John Podestra this morning discuss election outcome. Of course front and center in his remarks were FBI Comey letter and Russia hacking his personal emails. When the moderator mentioned Hillary's total lack of personal appearances in Wisconsin for the entire 2 month period leading up to Election Day, he sort of visibility gaged. He stumbled on to say running mate Tim Kaine was there frequenly.
It's so typical of the Clinton folks to blame everything for thir loss except the total dysfunction of the candidate and her staff in managing electoral college stragedy.
They got "Trumped" by amateurs and will forever be too arrogant and elitist to admit it.

fred41

12-18-2016, 08:56 PM

broncofan

12-18-2016, 10:46 PM

People often don't make any assumptions about how things work behind the curtain. If you took someone behind the scenes of a late night talk show and showed them that some of the supposedly unscripted banter with the guests is choreographed some might express amazement; not because it contradicted their expectation but because they hadn't thought about it.

Likewise, people don't know what to expect from emails of situations they never contemplated and which they should not be privy to. But one thing they're not going to say is, "wow, these emails actually show a great citizen. No scandals. None of the corruption or backstabbing we expected to see." They could be looking at something completely benign or which is standard practice for political operatives and think it shows a character flaw..

It is an awful situation when a foreign adversary reveals all of the emails of one person hoping they will be damning because they think her opponent is a patsy. And that person responds with what can only be described as willful blindness to any attempt to ascertain what was done. The damage may have been negligible, but the fact that our election was manipulated externally is troubling.

fred41

12-18-2016, 11:05 PM

and what to do about it? Trump may not care , but the present administration hasn't shown any other inclination through previous action, that they'd do anything other than empty
verbal threats.

trish

12-18-2016, 11:22 PM

Retaliations invite escalation. The best thing to do find the holes and plug 'em up.

Whether the leaks influenced the election or not (I think they undeniably had influence - the real question is a quantitative one and difficult to answer), they do raise the question, "Why Trump?" How easy will it be for Putin to manipulate Trump and what does this mean for NATO, the Middle East and the U.S. economy?

blackchubby38

12-18-2016, 11:36 PM

trish

12-18-2016, 11:46 PM

...But it was all Russia and Comey's fault that she lost.No one I'm reading says "it was all..." The "all" is your own insertion. Truth for sarcasm: it's the new deal.

broncofan

12-18-2016, 11:55 PM

As a quantitative question, we will never know what effect any individual thing had on electoral preferences. But if Hillary didn't campaign in a state she thought she would win but didn't that's at most negligence. Interfering with our election is far worse than that...and what happened is not the category of thing one expects to be trivial.

Think about it. What if I suggested that in every future election one candidate should have his/her previous six months of emails dumped publicly? Is that the type of element we want to deal with in our federal elections?

blackchubby38

12-19-2016, 01:21 AM

No one I'm reading says "it was all..." The "all" is your own insertion. Truth for sarcasm: it's the new deal.

Yeah I was being sarcastic. Nothing wrong with finding a little humor in the situation this country finds itself in.

But if it helps, I have seen articles where the Clinton campaign has blamed President Obama and Huma Abedin for her losing.

Of course, you can also place blame on her for calling half of Trump's supporters "deplorable".

sukumvit boy

12-19-2016, 04:07 AM

fred41

12-19-2016, 05:20 AM

Although I too am alarmed about Russia meddling in our elections I can't help but have a good laugh when I consider that the US has been blatantly meddling in other country's elections all over the world for as long as anyone cares to remember.:roll::lol:

I'm sure there are folks around the globe saying -"What's good for the goose..."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/10/13/the-long-history-of-the-u-s-interfering-with-elections-elsewhere/?utm_term=.17552f19041f

That's why we can really only try to fix the holes and move on.

Stavros

12-19-2016, 06:06 AM

I think the point about 'Hybrid warfare' was that I am not sure if it is in fact a form of warfare, or just another version of the 'dirty tricks' that were used in the past. The difference may be that social media through the internet is global in a way that dirty tricks in the past were local.
There is a file in the National Archive in London that contains reports from Iran before the coup in 1953 one of which claims that Norman Schwarzkopf arrived in Tehran with a suitcase full of dollars which were used to pay wrestlers to break up demonstrations supporting nationalist leader Mosadeq, and do other things like beat up individuals, smash up National Front offices and create the sense of instability and chaos required to justify a coup. These days attacks can be done online, targeting individuals, creating fake stories, and so on, and may be even more effective if enough people believe the inflammatory material posted, for example the Washington Post has reported that in an online poll, 52% of Republican voters believe Trump won the popular vote, which seems incredible given that Hillary Clinton's margin of victory has been widely reported. It underlines the point that a lot of the time people believe what they want to believe.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/12/18/a-new-poll-shows-an-astonishing-52-of-republicans-think-trump-won-the-popular-vote/?utm_term=.642989714550

Thus the danger is that whether you call it 'dirty tricks' or 'hybrid warfare' we get used to extremes of behaviour becoming the norm, whether it is the kind of stuff 'we' used to do to 'banana republics' or 'them' giving it back to us. It might not work in the long term, but it can damage the process, and a lot now rests on the actuality of a Trump administration, which is going to be, shall we say, 'interesting'.

Yet what is also worrying is the complacency that politicians can slump into when they win one election after another, and how this can damage the party in the long term, Labour's collapse in Scotland being but one example. Hillary Clinton was easily a superior candidate to Donald Trump, but I do think the formality of her selection spoke volumes about an atrophy at the core of the party establishment, yet one wonders if there were better, younger candidates with a vision and the qualities needed to attract new as well as old voters. Like the Labour Party in the UK the line-up of leadership candidates in 2015 was depressing in its lack of intellectual quality as well as popular appeal. I can't think of a time when none of the major parties in the UK and the US were so lacking in people to believe in, and when external meddling may have had at least some influence, that puts domestic politics at risk in ways we may not be aware of now. The way in which the out-going Republican administration in North Carolina has used its powers to shape elections in that State also indicates how States Rights can put democracy at risk, but perhaps we also need now to re-define what we mean, or what it is that we want from democracy in the 21st century, or lose it by not doing so.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/17/north-carolina-roy-cooper-governor-republican-democrats

broncofan

12-19-2016, 10:07 AM

trish

12-19-2016, 05:14 PM

He doesn't like China, because he was never able to pronounce the name without looking like someone just shoved a dildo up his ass.

Stavros

12-19-2016, 06:40 PM

It may be time to stop griping about the election results and begin griping about the day to day stupidity that we will now be bombarded with based on the election.

Is it me or does Donald Trump talk about the Chinese as though their only purpose for existing is to antagonize us? That they have no independent aims that are not related to sabotaging us? This is what the foreign policy of a narcissist would look like. And believe me, I'm not defending the Chinese government on all counts. But it's similar to the difference between those who attack Russia because they're aging cold warriors and those who do so because of Russia's recent record. Trump's issues with the Chinese seem to based on some strange mental schema.

If you want a different perspective on Trump's difficulties with China, follow the money and Trump's so far unsuccessful attempt to develop 20-30 hotels in China on land owned by the State with companies owned or part-owned by the State, and that's before you start delving into who owes whom how much money...when it comes to a conflict of interest, in the case of Trump and China, you ain't seen nothin' yet...read on-
http://www.npr.org/2016/11/24/503236237/trumps-hotels-in-china-could-be-a-conflict-for-the-president-elect

broncofan

12-20-2016, 11:37 AM

If you want a different perspective on Trump's difficulties with China, follow the money and Trump's so far unsuccessful attempt to develop 20-30 hotels in China on land owned by the State with companies owned or part-owned by the State, and that's before you start delving into who owes whom how much money...when it comes to a conflict of interest, in the case of Trump and China, you ain't seen nothin' yet...read on-
http://www.npr.org/2016/11/24/503236237/trumps-hotels-in-china-could-be-a-conflict-for-the-president-elect
I don't understand why someone who can afford basically anything they want would be so motivated to expand their empire but then I probably don't understand what motivated him to get so rich to begin with. Thanks for the article, it seems like his financial interests are inseparable from any sense of duty.

Trump is already committing impeachable acts. The relevant constitutional clause is the emoluments clause, barring the purchasing of influence by foreign leaders. It apparently bars even fair market value transactions between the president and that leader. On this, I kind of sympathize with Trump a little bit, since avoiding any transaction, out of his very large holdings would be nearly impossible. It seems unreasonable to make someone with illiquid assets worth billions to divest of all their commercial holdings.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/19/donald-trump-violate-us-constitution-inauguration-day

broncofan

12-20-2016, 12:08 PM

http://www.forbes.com/donald-trump/#70eee37790be

This was published in September this year, but you can actually look at what he owns and where. It includes asset by asset breakdown, including debt (not to whom) and ownership stake. One reason he could never divest is that nobody would ever pay him what he thinks his properties are worth.

Stavros

12-20-2016, 12:50 PM

[QUOTE=broncofan;1738035]I don't understand why someone who can afford basically anything they want would be so motivated to expand their empire but then I probably don't understand what motivated him to get so rich to begin with...
--The rich can never have enough, and maybe at some point it is the power and influence that huge wealth brings that drives on Murdoch, Trump, Slim and so on as well as the private jets, the instant access to Popes and Kings, Sheikhs and Dictators. On the other hand, George Eastman gave away a substantial part of his fortune in charitable work, as did Rockefeller and Henry Wellcome, and to this day the work these foundations does is impressive indeed. Contrast Bill and Melinda Gates with Trump if you want a contemporary comparison. And bear in mind Gates actually created something that has transformed lives, he was not a speculator banking other people's money and using the interest to borrow more.

It seems unreasonable to make someone with illiquid assets worth billions to divest of all their commercial holdings.
--I can't accept this. It is reasonable if the man concerned wants to be the President of the USA, did nobody tell him that he can't have both at the same time? Did he not know himself? Did the Republican Party establishment -Priebus, Ryan, McConnell not point out to Trump what the rules are?

broncofan

12-20-2016, 01:04 PM

It seems unreasonable to make someone with illiquid assets worth billions to divest of all their commercial holdings.
--I can't accept this. It is reasonable if the man concerned wants to be the President of the USA, did nobody tell him that he can't have both at the same time? Did he not know himself? Did the Republican Party establishment -Priebus, Ryan, McConnell not point out to Trump what the rules are?
You're right. I agree with everything you say here. Not to be cynical but maybe they told him if he didn't divest it's a Republican Congress that would have to enforce these rules against him.

trish

12-20-2016, 05:13 PM

I think Trump IS his empire. It is his identity. He cannot separate himself from it, literally and psychologically. He has nothing else. It fills the black hole that is Donald Trump. I would be very surprised, for example, would he ever agree to any arrangement that amounts to a real blind trust. He can't do it. How can one separate one from oneself? His whole presidency will be about expanding Donald Trump. His self-praise will ring world.

So much ringing. He's the best world-ringer. My advice: Avoid tinnitus, buy earplugs.

blackchubby38

12-20-2016, 11:48 PM

Here is another thought for the day.

3 of the families of the victims in the Pulse night club terrorist attack/mass shooting are suing Google, FaceBook, and Twitter claiming all 3 companies are responsible for the spread of ISIS. That ISIS uses all three social media sites to spread their propaganda, recruit, and radicalize impressionable young Muslim men into committing terrorist attacks.

While I sympathize with all of the victims of that and other terrorist attacks, I don't think those three companies should be held responsible because their innovation is being used to commit heinous actions. Now I do think all three should have parameters in place to make sure that doesn't happen. But I think we are entering into dangerous territory when start you holding businesses accountable for the actions of some of their users of their product.

filghy2

12-21-2016, 08:51 AM

Why don't they sue the manufacturers of the guns that were used? That seems much more directly related to the crime. Or has that been tried already?

Stavros

12-21-2016, 09:01 AM

Why don't they sue the manufacturers of the guns that were used? That seems much more directly related to the crime. Or has that been tried already?

Has been tried in a feature film here-
Runaway Jury
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0313542/

broncofan

12-21-2016, 11:03 AM

In the Orlando shooting case, it will be very difficult to prove causation. Namely that but for the actions of those networks, the shooter would not have gone on a rampage. I think the plaintiffs, who I obviously sympathize with, should lose in that case.

But I do think causes of action should be upheld against networks that allow people to coordinate criminal acts. Doing so is just good public policy if the claim requires proof of negligence rather than strict liability. I don't think a search engine should be liable for the searches it returns. It is not promoting anything, it is not hosting anything, and only exists to narrow down vast amounts of information so that users can find what they're looking for. Sometimes people look for things they shouldn't.

But social networks like twitter and facebook have an obligation to make sure there aren't networks of people using their platform as a way to coordinate terrorist acts. If you host something, whether in person or digitally, you have some obligation to have procedures in place to ensure it is not used to plan crimes. Just my opinion.

broncofan

12-21-2016, 03:20 PM

I think the plaintiffs, who I obviously sympathize with, should lose in that case.
.Actually they'll probably lose because there's a federal law that provides immunity for websites for what third parties post. Article says it has been used to effectively block similar suits. And the suit against google is for youtube content and not for its searches.

blackchubby38

12-22-2016, 02:04 AM

Actually they'll probably lose because there's a federal law that provides immunity for websites for what third parties post. Article says it has been used to effectively block similar suits. And the suit against google is for youtube content and not for its searches.

Thanks for clarifying why Google was named in the suit. I couldn't figure out ISIS was using them to spread their message and recruit followers

sukumvit boy

12-31-2016, 07:27 AM

In what I think is a smart diplomatic move , that murderer and sociopath , Putin attempts to turn the tables on Obama and attain the moral high ground in response to Obama's sanctions .
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/12/30/507525510/russia-plans-to-expel-u-s-diplomats-in-response-to-u-s-sanctions

Additionally , hats off to Obama for his refusal to acquiesce to Israel's Palestinian resettlement policies.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/12/28/the-last-act-of-obamas-israel-drama-may-be-his-best-palestine-settlements-un-kerry/

fred41

12-31-2016, 11:50 PM

I'm sorry Sukumvit, but I mostly agree with Krauthammer on this one:
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/obama-damage-israel-article-1.2928147

broncofan

01-01-2017, 01:44 AM

My view is in between the two. Obama wanted to send the message that our diplomatic support depends upon the Israelis doing things that will lead to a negotiated peace rather than hinder it. Krauthammer is right that the creation of the Palestinian state should come with strings attached; namely that the leadership accepts the notion of two states and will not continue the fight Hamas lays out in their charter and a great many Palestinians support. On the other hand, how does continued expansion in the West Bank do anything but thwart an eventual agreement?

I do think the UN has shown bias regarding the significance of certain sites to Jewish people (note: acknowledging the significance of the Temple Mount to Jews would not necessarily be binding on any negotiated settlement). UNESCO, according to an article I read, backed a motion nullifying the connection of Jewish people to the Temple Mount. They did not say the same thing about the Al Aqsa Mosque which is the third holiest site in Islam but were happy to say as much about the holiest site in Judaism.

Even if Krauthammer is right that settlements don't pose a permanent obstacle to peace because they can be dismantled, doesn't it send a very bad message to Palestinians who are concerned about being displaced in land that would comprise their state after a settlement? I don't think the UN has always been impartial, but I agree with Obama here. Israel is a recipient of a large amount of foreign aid, which traditionally has meant that a country has to at least advance our interests in exchange.

broncofan

01-01-2017, 02:23 AM

http://www.jpost.com/Breaking-News/Ban-Ki-Moon-says-UN-has-disproportionate-focus-on-Israel-475622
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_3379

As an add-on to that last post, I agree with Ban Ki-Moon's point here in the first article. I think evidence of this is in the second link of a UN resolution, whereby the UN declared Zionism a form of racism, which Kofi Annan said was a low point in the UN's history. Israel is a UN member state, and was created to fulfill the aims of Zionism. It was never an aim of Zionism to have a two tiered society, or to deny rights to non-Jewish citizens. The resolution by the UN suggests that the very existence of Israel (within any borders) is an act of racism, despite the fact that they created Israel!

Edit: Just to clarify, the resolution 3379 was not a statement against the occupation, but against Zionism without qualifications, which was to say that the state they created was not legitimate.

But I personally agree that the settlements are an obstacle in the way of peace, and even if we ignore their immediate effects, it leads to a coercive negotiation. So, I understand Obama's position on that...he expected the Israelis to freeze settlement activity.

holzz

01-02-2017, 10:28 AM

New Year's Resolutions are stupid.

Stavros

02-05-2017, 02:38 PM

What is Populism? I have been puzzled by this word for years because it never seems to have a single definition that everyone can accept. Google it and you find it defined as support for the concerns of ordinary people; or Populism is a political style of action that mobilizes a large alienated element of a population against a government which is seen as controlled by an out-of-touch closed elite that acts on behalf of its own interests.

Neither works for me. How does anyone know what the concerns of ordinary people are, other than an obvious response -their family, work and friends, their health and happiness, and so on? As for mobilizing 'a large alienated element of the population' -what about those people who do not see the problem as 'out-of-touch' elites?

Populism does not exist, nationalism does.
And what nationalism does is divide people into categories that suit the creators of that national identity. The so-called Populism has given us Brexit -17 million making a decision for a country of 64 million; and that it has put Trump in the White House is surely a contradiction -most Americans who voted chose Hillary Clinton- unless you redefine who 'the people' are to include White Americans and exclude most of the rest, or you could even fine tune it to be 'White Christian Americans'. The 'National Prayer Breakfast' that was held in Washington DC last week makes one wonder if Jews can be American, let alone atheists.

One wonders what it means to be part of the population yet be ignored, until one realises that is the whole point of nationalism.
Nationalism, not populism is at the root of Brexit, Trump, and the extremists in Poland and Hungary. But are you 'one of us'? And crucially, 'Do you belong here?'.

filghy2

02-06-2017, 11:33 AM

Populism is a bit of a nebulous concept, but I think it does exist. From my reading it seems to involve four main elements:

1. An appeal to the support of the common people, in opposition to an allegedly corrupt elite. Sometimes this involves implicit or explicit appeal to the idea that only certain groups comprise the 'real' people.

2. Rejection of pluralism: the idea that society comprises a range of different groups whose interests should be accommodated and balanced. Instead politics is seen in 'us' and 'them' terms.

3. Rejection of constraints on implementing the will of the people, such as legal checks and balances and minority rights. A good example is the Brexiteers reaction to the court ruling that parliament must approve the triggering of EU exit.

4. An emphasis on claimed simple solutions to identified problems, and rejection of expert opinion to the contrary. This often involves appealing to popular prejudices by identifying 'others' (eg foreigners/immigrants, ethnic/religious minorities, elites) as the source of problems.

Seen in this way, populism is more an approach to gaining power and governing, rather than a distinct ideology (populists can be left or right on the political spectrum). Hence, populism and nationalism are not alternatives - populists quite often appeal to nationalism.

Stavros

02-06-2017, 05:27 PM

Although I agree with a lot of the above, it does not clarify Populism, and thus I resort to my claim that nationalism is the core idea, and the separation of people into 'we and they'. In addition, there is a intriguing question and answer lurking in the 'appeal to the support of the common people', the rejection of pluralism and the rejection of experts: who is organising this? To which the answer is: not the common people!

Look at it this way -who led the campaigns against the EU which its victors claimed are the results of a 'populist backlash' against corruption, globalization etc etc -none other than the elites in the same system which alienated 'the people' and who stand to benefit most from 'populism' if it re-structures the global economy to give them commercial advantages: step forward Rupert Murdoch via The Sun and SKY; step forward Paul Dacre and the Daily Mail-and in the US Fox News, the Koch Brothers, etc. The same people who control a substantial slice of the media, and manipulate the news to depict the EU as useless, corrupt, expensive and the cause of 'our' loss sovereignty and 'uncontrolled immigration' -all lies- are not populists, but elitists with their own agenda who pump out fake news on a regular basis to create a different agenda from one that relates to economic reality and who recruit politicians to their cause even though, supposedly the same politicians entrusted with Brexit are distant from the real interests of the British people.

When you look more closely at what Populism is, the people disappear, to be replaced by competing interests whose agenda is clear: an end to international co-operation through integrated markets, such as NAFTA and the EU, and a revival of the confrontation between competing interests in a survival of the fittest. The national interest, ultimately, is not decided by 'the people', it is presented to them as an either/or dichotomy, which, if you begin from a morally compromised position, leads to a morally unsatisfactory conclusion, and does not solve the real problem of work, wages and a happy life.

filghy2

02-07-2017, 03:44 AM

I think you are making the mistake of thinking that populists are genuinely trying to represent the interests of the common people. Claims to be supporting 'the people' against 'the elites' are really just a rhetorical device for manipulating public opinion so that populists can get into power. In doing so they will try to tap into veins of thinking that already have support among the general public, but the primary purpose of 'the people' is to be manipulated for the populists ends. Populists will commonly claim that their ideas have mass support (whether or not this is true) but are being suppressed by elites, particularly the liberal media.

As you note, many of the key supporters of the populist/nationalist agenda are wealthy businessman whose primary agenda is to pay less tax and have less regulation of what they can do. They know that this agenda in itself is unlikely to attract majority support, but promoting nationalism serves as an effective device for shifting public support to the right, particularly among the working class who formerly supported mainstream left parties. I presume these people are in businesses that are unlikely to be affected by increased protectionism (eg media).

In the case of Trump, he was able to win by tapping into concerns about unequal distribution of economic gains and economic decline in the rust-belt states. The massive contradiction at the heart of his campaign is that he was proposing massive tax cuts for the rich, abolishing Obamacare, deregulation of finance etc but he was able to paper over this by emphasising illegal immigration and unfair foreign competition and promising tough measures to address these.

Interestingly, Charles Koch has recently made some very critical comments about Trump's immigration ban. It may be starting to dawn on some of these people that they've unleashed an unpredictable monster who they can't control.

filghy2

02-07-2017, 08:56 AM

A couple of articles that may be useful
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/24/donald-trumps-warning-sign-populism-authoritarianism-inauguration
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/book-party/wp/2016/10/27/donald-trumps-appeal-is-not-just-about-anger-and-resentment/?utm_term=.7a967319db6a

blackchubby38

02-07-2017, 11:55 PM

Before Trump, here is a list of the Presidential candidates that were considered "Populists":

Andrew Jackson
William Jennings Bryan
George Wallace
Pat Buchanan
John Edwards

If you look at their respective campaigns, they pretty much all had a running theme. They were advocates for the "common man" or "the working class". They were going to take on the establishment, be it big business, special interest groups or Washington D.C., who they saw as being responsible for the problems that those individuals faced. It wasn't until Wallace and Buchanan where you started seeing the word "white" inserted before "working class". Of course, this was due to backlash against the civil rights movement and later immigration.

I think Andrew Jackson was able to win because like Trump he was famous for his day and his message resonated with voters. Jennings is probably the most well known and somewhat likable of the candidates. But lost his best shot at winning the presidency (the election of 1896) when big business threw all their support behind his Republican opponent, William Mckinley.

When it comes to populism is seems the winning formula would be the man+the right message. John Edwards talked about a "rigged system". But his "rigged system" included oil, insurance, and drug companies. As we later found out, he was a bit of phony as he was getting expensive haircuts and cheating on his cancer stricken wife. If you want to try to take on those groups, you better make sure you are beyond reproach.

Its still early and since the only comparison we have is a guy who was president 180 years ago, we have to wait and see if one can run the country as a Populist.

Stavros

02-08-2017, 11:48 AM

Before Trump, here is a list of the Presidential candidates that were considered "Populists":

Andrew Jackson
William Jennings Bryan
George Wallace
Pat Buchanan
John Edwards

If you look at their respective campaigns, they pretty much all had a running theme. They were advocates for the "common man" or "the working class". They were going to take on the establishment, be it big business, special interest groups or Washington D.C., who they saw as being responsible for the problems that those individuals faced. It wasn't until Wallace and Buchanan where you started seeing the word "white" inserted before "working class". Of course, this was due to backlash against the civil rights movement and later immigration.
.

Thank you for the historical comparisons to remind us of the pedigree of this nonsense concept. If it is the case that 'white' was not inserted into the definition of populist in the past, I assume it is because non-white Americans were not really thought of as citizens. The rest of your post does rather illustrate my point that populism is a vacuous concept that is given 'shape and form' by the people who wish to manipulate public opinion for their own purposes rather than reflect it. Just as most Americans, other than the Government of the USA can spell words like 'attack', 'attacker', 'Denmark' and 'San Bernardino' so I believe most of them can tell the difference between a five year old boy and a terrorist, and don't need to be warned by their President or his press that the two are the same threat.

Another transient fact is that what 'interests' the people in one year might not be so interesting a year later. For example, Prohibition can be interpreted as a 'Populist' policy because it emerged from the agitation of religious groups who could summon the statistics to prove that alcohol was destroying the American family. It lasted from 1920 to 1933 and I will let you decide if and in what way it was effective or not -but by 1933 it was not a popular policy and the question remains -was this Populism in action if, on the one hand Prohibition emerged from 'the People' but not all of the people?

broncofan

02-09-2017, 04:18 AM

I am not sure to what extent this additional idea is covered by the word populism, but Trump is also a confidence man and a demagogue. The average informed viewer might watch a debate and be able to distinguish a few policy proposals between candidates, but the mass of uninformed viewers will listen to less tangible things like tone, confidence, and buzzwords. This allows someone with very little real knowledge about how the economy works, about our country's history, and about the constitutional scope of executive power to present himself as an attractive candidate.

Most confidence men who look to rip off the average Joe are trying to sell their mark on their trustworthiness or integrity. Trump sells people on his competence and acumen as a businessman by making outlandish claims about what he'll do or what he's capable of. Even his promises lack the remotest specificity. He's gonna make things "great", he's gonna prevent someone "bad" from getting into the country, or such and such is "yuge".

He appeals to people because he demonizes the entire educated class, whether they're journalists or scientists or artists. But this tactic would not work if a core of mindless resentment did not already exist among the public. Beyond these observations, any other criticisms I have are specific and cannot be summarized, beginning with who he has appointed to heads of agencies, his lack of respect for an independent judiciary, his lack of respect for freedom of the press, his lack of understanding about why he should not even appear to use his office to enrich himself or his family, and his general vindictiveness towards anyone who challenges the many stupid things he proposes and says. It's a cold day when I wish our president were an ideological conservative who believed in everything I find simple-minded but who respected our traditions and the rule of law.

broncofan

02-09-2017, 04:39 AM

He appeals to people because he demonizes the entire educated class, whether they're journalists or scientists or artists. But this tactic would not work if a core of mindless resentment did not already exist among the public.
This sentence of mine sounds a little Hernstein and Murrayish. What I mean is that his supporters seem to loathe anyone bold enough to point to a detail or explain a nuance. There are actual experts in every field a president is expected to consult with. Trump hates experts because they see through him. They can explain to him that it can't be great if it's not constitutional or if it destroys the ozone layer. They can laugh at him and point out his hypocrisy. These are the pencil-pushing pedants Trump and his supporters want to crush. Many of Trump's supporters are more filled with glee at the average liberal's horror than they are with any sort of optimism that Trump can deliver on his promises.

Stavros

02-09-2017, 10:50 AM

There may be people who sneer at the 'Expertariat' but take the advice their doctor gives them. What proportion of people now disregard science I do not know, currently economists and opinion poll organizations are being pounded, yet I do think people -even those so-called Trump voters who don't read the Washington Post or the New York Times (or read at all)- can tell when they are being lied to and when it matters. We have barely got through a month of Trump-drama, so it will be interesting to see how the year pans out, given that US business is broadly optimistic that it will be a good one, though the issue of tariffs and taxes has yet to be clarified. And there is only so much drama 'the people' can take, whoever they are.

trish

02-09-2017, 07:38 PM

Although jobs (or rather the lack thereof) played a significant role in this last U.S. election, I do not believe Trump won because the Democrats neglected to talk about jobs and the economy. Hillary’s campaign speeches continually harped on about jobs, the economy and new economic opportunities. She was truthful about the decline of coal (and that hurt her), and yet the Obama job numbers were on her side - unemployment was declining. What she lost was the media. Trump completely dominate the media coverage - his daily buffoonery, loud mouth, scandals and gaffs drowning out all discussion of policy. When the media did cover Hillary, Trump managed to keep the focus on (what we now regard as two non-issues) Benghazi and emails.

In my view the election was not about jobs and politics at all: it was about identity politics and showmanship.

By identity politics I don’t mean LGBT issues, or Black Lives Matter or any of that stuff. It was about a different tribe, namely white, Christian American men who are having (or never got over) their mid-life crisis. The familiar fears they suffer (loss of political, domestic and social dominance) were nicely amplified starting with Donald’s announcement that Mexicans were flooding across the borders (they weren’t). The deluge of Mexicans consisted of criminals, rapists and drug-dealer - although Donald was sure some of them were nice people. From there he moved on to ‘Islamic Terrorists’. Dividing us against ourselves, separating out tribe and another against the tribe white Christian males is the strategy that put Donald in the White House along with his ‘white supremacist’ friend, strategist, confidant and now trusted security advisor Steve Bannon.

We are now wasting time and taxpayer money fighting Steve Bannon’s ‘Muslim Ban’ in the courts. Trump says he’ll take it all the way to the Supreme Court if he has to (after he stacks it, of course). The litigants are arguing the intent of the ban. Was the intent to keep out Muslims or was the intent to keep out possible terrorists until we beef up our vetting process? The problem is that the answer is neither of these. The intent was pure showmanship. Donald’s putting on the reality show of his life. The ban is just a macguffin, or better, a device to gain attention in this opening segment of the show. It has no other purpose than to swell Donald’s ego and impress the viewer. It’s effect is to once again dominate the press, clog up the wheels of an opposing branch of governance and mystify the populace.

This is going to be a very tiresome four years. I hate reality shows. I never watched them. But now I’m in one.

On a separate topic that just arose in this thread: why does the tribe of white, Christian males hate the educated. (Remember Trump once said, “I love the uneducated.”) I think one can trace a thread anti-intellectualism all the way back to the Pilgrims. Science gained prominence when it proved itself in warfare. The invention of the Atomic Bomb, which was based on science laymen could barely understand, was a boon for physics. Federal dollars were necessary to maintain our military dominance throughout the world. Sputnik and the race for space was next. The populace was nearly one-hundred percent behind education and especially education in the sciences. Those heady times have waned. The satellites we’ve put into orbit are showing us depressing things we don’t want to see. Cracks in the Antarctic ice shelves. Diminishing rain forests. Rising atmospheric and ocean temperatures. Shrinking of the ozone layer. Rise in greenhouse gasses. The fixes are costly. Doing nothing is costlier.

Also, many - if not most- of our scientists, historians, sociologists, economists, english professors, classicists, philosophers etc. find employment in State Universities and are paid with State and Federal dollars (not factoring in the Grants from private corporations). Most taxpayers see these jobs as cushy. Professors are free-loaders who are being paid by ‘ordinary working class people.’

Besides, nobody likes a smarty-pants. Everybody hates having to admit they’re wrong about anything, and most won’t admit it. Experts are fine when they tell you what you want to hear, but otherwise we’re better off without them.

My rant’s too long to proofread, so I apologize ahead of time for the slips and typos.

(Welcome back broncofan, missed you).

Stavros

02-09-2017, 08:18 PM

[QUOTE=trish;1748214
By identity politics I don’t mean LGBT issues, or Black Lives Matter or any of that stuff. It was about a different tribe, namely white, Christian American men who are having (or never got over) their mid-life crisis. The familiar fears they suffer (loss of political, domestic and social dominance) were nicely amplified starting with Donald’s announcement that Mexicans were flooding across the borders (they weren’t). The deluge of Mexicans consisted of criminals, rapists and drug-dealer - although Donald was sure some of them were nice people. From there he moved on to ‘Islamic Terrorists’. Dividing us against ourselves, separating out tribe and another against the tribe white Christian males is the strategy that put Donald in the White House along with his ‘white supremacist’ friend, strategist, confidant and now trusted security advisor Steve Bannon.
[/QUOTE]

Identity is not only crucial to Steven Bannon's view of the 'crisis' the Christian world is in, it is his fundamental belief that the USA is a guardian of a 'Judeo-Christian' heritage that is under threat from secularization and Islam. This raises the question: Is the USA a secular state? To which the answer could be No, it is Christian state. I watched the Inauguration and was puzzled when prayers were said not once, but in two phases each with three readings, not to mention the emphatic way in which in his speech Trump argued that everything we are is due to Almighty God. The USA is a Christian country, it was made by Christians, and it belongs to them. I see that as the fundamental belief of the Republican Party, and also of Donald Trump, who is not a Republican. To what extent is it true of the USA? I cannot answer that and don't know how to either.

The link below is to the contribution Steven Bannon made to a conference held at the Vatican in 2014, where Bannon talks about wealth creation to defeat poverty as a free market capitalist enterprise shaped by Christian faith. He argues that when the Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated in Sarajevo in 1914 the world was at peace, yet within months millions were dead and he sees clearly, that it was due to Atheism as the greatest destroyer of the 20th century and that it is now allied with Islam to threaten the Christian world and the USA in particular. He argues, and he is right, that State Capitalism rather than free market capitalism is the standard model across the world, but doesn't say how free market capitalism will release new energy perhaps because across the world most people are not Christians, and cannot therefore embrace Capitalism like Americans can.

But Bannon is ignorant, the assassination in Bosnia-Hercegovina in 1914 followed three wars in the Balkans in the first two decades of the century that slaughtered hundreds of thousand of people for the Serbian national cause; and one wonders where Bannon thinks peace reigned when the British fought a war in South Africa at the turn of the 20th century not to mention the Jews being slaughtered in the Russian Empire in pogrom after pogrom. It is also simply not true that the First World War was connected to Atheism -Caesar William of Germany was not an atheist, Tsar Nicolas II was not an atheist, but ok France was a secular Republic and its leader Georges Clemenceau was anti-Catholic (and married to an American).

This 'Judeo-Christian' heritage is a curious American concoction that argues there is a seamless link between the Old and New Testaments as the foundation of the faith of the USA, which as de Tocqueville described it was Christianity as the living antidote to individualism and atheism, but oh dear, also to materialism. Bannon thus wants to merge his Roman Catholic faith with Capitalism without the exploitation of workers for individual gain, just as the Judeo part of the equation admits nothing in the history of the USA that was ever anti-Jewish, while carefully not pointing out that Christian Zionism in the USA is based fundamentally on support for Israel as long as the Jews admit their religion is wrong and that Jesus was the Messiah they deny.

Make your own mind up, Bannon's contribution, delivered to the Conference by Skype, is here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27joDucrCeM

broncofan

02-09-2017, 09:24 PM

That's a tremendous point Trish. Science is exciting when it's pushing new frontiers but not when it's cautionary. I'm afraid I am going to be posting a bit less often but am still going to read. I am not a big picture person and would only be posting a litany of complaints. I have no clue how the pieces fit together; the narcissism, the tribalism, the nationalism, the anti-intellectualism, the protectionism, the cronyism.

I have also used the phrase identity politics which has become a buzz word for people on the right. Many on the right think any particularized form of civil rights activism is identity politics. For instance, if the ADL focuses on anti-semitism or Black Lives Matter focus on racism against African-Americans, that's identity politics to them. But really what they are attempting is a form of dilution. One can focus on particular manifestations of bigotry without engaging in identity politics. The reason people focus on the particular is because often there aren't universals and because one cannot focus on everything at once. Besides one doesn't have to be Ayn Rand to acknowledge that Muslims have a special interest in anti-Muslim bigotry etc.

When I say identity politics, I think unprincipled tribalism, sometimes ethnic based but often based on other affiliations. So, Castro must be a good man because the West, responsible for awful atrocities dislikes him or because he represented a certain strain of leftist politics even when he violated the tenets on which it was grounded. Or this person has spoken the truth but I don't believe they are well placed to speak that truth.

In that sense, white supremacists are involved in identity politics. A white supremacist can call you a racial slur and in the same sentence swear you're trying to commit white genocide. These are deeply disgusting human beings and like anything they range in the degree of their pathology.

broncofan

02-09-2017, 09:34 PM

When I say identity politics, I think unprincipled tribalism, sometimes ethnic based but often based on other affiliations. Maybe this isn't how other people use the term, but I feel the linchpin is that attention to group affiliation becomes more important than the ideas upon which the group was originally formed. So then, isn't hyper-partisanship identity politics? If you're a Republican but don't care whether the party is militaristic or promotes isolationism, you're engaged in identity politics. But if you're a Republican only insofar as they promote some variant of the values you hold, then the affiliation is secondary.

filghy2

02-10-2017, 07:17 AM

I agree that white christian identity politics is the key factor for Trump's base, but I doubt this was critical in the election. The people for whom this is the primary motivator are unlikely to have voted for Obama previously. Elections are not generally determined by the base, but by swinging voters who don't have strong attachments.

Trump's victory hinged on just over 200,000 votes in Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. If less than 3% of Trump voters in these states had changed their minds the result would have gone the other way, and Trump would be just a curious historical footnote. They key factor for these people was probably the sense that the existing system was not working for them; that they were being left behind economically. Hillary Clinton's talk about jobs did not resonate because she was seen as a supporter of the existing system.

Stavros

02-12-2017, 05:03 PM

I think the time has come to put an end to these tedious comparison of Donald Trump to the Nazis. It diverts attention away from real issues, and distorts the argument by attempting to depict the Trump administration as something so bad the only evil regime it can be compared to is the Third Reich.

Trump is not much of an ideologue, he appears to believe in low taxes, small government, free markets and the Christian family, he does not have a theory of 'race', and he doesn't have a policy of 'lebensraum' as the Nazis did, intending to empty the east of its 'untermensch' so that the 'Aryan race' could expand in the living space it needed. Trump has yet to lay claim to Canada and Mexico, I doubt that he will.

If you want the most critical point of comparison, it is the USA itself. In Trump's case, his idol Ronald Reagan, in the case of the Republican Party and the alt-right, the 'golden age' of America, ie the 1950s before the country surrendered to women, queers, blacks and greens.

Reagan had an ideology of sorts -small government, low taxes, free markets, the Christian family and a strong America that could lead the world in a campaign against Communism. But Reagan was also a pragmatist more than he was an ideologue, he spent money the USA didn't have so that when he left the US had the highest deficit in the history of the USA -so much for 'small government'. Tax cuts that were supposed to 'trickle down' had no such effect, while financial and capital liberalization enabled American capital to invest overseas what it might have done at home, and crucially, the concessions to the USSR on arms reduction as a recognition that the Cold War was ending, split the President's men and gave rise to the 'Neo-Cons' who took an even more aggressive attitude to foreign policy than Reagan. I don't think Trump will get a second term, but one wonders on the basis of the Reagan comparison if his team will remain the same, with Steven Bannon and Steven Miller perhaps the most vulnerable.

The critical point of conflict now must surely be with those Republican States where there is no effective opposition and the State government is expanding existing programmes designed to shut down planned parenthood and lay so many limitations on abortion that it is impossible for a woman to receive one. The measures being taken to reject applications from citizens who want to vote, or to place numerous obstacles on registration and voting itself, underlines my point, for in over 20 States in the Union there appears to be a determination to return to a time when, to put it bluntly, Black people were not allowed to vote. Formal segregation may not be revived, but other forms of segregation are in place or being proposed whose sole purpose is to remove Black people from the public sphere, to deny women equal rights in the public spheres of health, and to deny LGBTQIAPN/B individuals rights in a wide variety of public spaces from schools to work to toilets.

Conservatives in the Republican Party, and the alt-right believe the 1960s undermined the America they love, it was the decade of the environment, women, civil rights -indeed rights for any identity group to invent itself and demand them, and through these measures and the growth of welfare, an attack on the Christian family that must now be countered, to return American to the time when the family was the building block of a prosperous and peaceful society and there was a Republican in the White House.

So back off on the Third Reich, and when analysing the USA use the most effective comparison at your fingertips, the USA itself.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/11/us/state-republican-leaders-move-swiftly.html?_r=0

filghy2

02-13-2017, 05:35 AM

Rather than the Nazis, the more relevant comparators are current leaders like Viktor Orban in Hungary and Erodogan in Turkey, who came to power democratically on strong nationalist agendas and then progressively undermined independent institutions like the judiciary and the media and lilted the playing field against their political opponents. Fortunately, the US has stronger checks and balances (eg, a 60% parliamentary majority in Hungary allows the government to change the constitution). However, these don't just work automatically - they require people to stand up for them at the risk of retaliation.

I doubt that Trump truly believes in free markets in the sense that everyone competes on the same terms and businesses are free to make decisions based on the underlying economics. For starters, he's a protectionist, so no free markets for foreign producers. He also seems to be a believer in crony capitalism, in which well-connected firms receive special favours and in turn support the government's agenda. Much of Trump's business success in real estate was based on special favours from political connections. The model for Trump's economic policy is likely to be the Carrier deal announced last November, in which announcements of factories remaining or reopening in the US are secured through a mixture of bribes and threats. Uncooperative businesses will probably face punishment in various ways.

sukumvit boy

02-15-2017, 02:12 AM

Godwin's Law again,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
So ya don't think Trump has plans to annex Saskatchewan ?:dancing:

sukumvit boy

02-15-2017, 04:18 AM

Michael Flynn dismissal , "It's about trust".Sociopaths always demand 'loyalty' and 'trust'.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoReNGoCc-Q

Stavros

02-15-2017, 12:36 PM

If the Presidency of Donald Trump cannot secure a dinner table, how can it secure the United States of America?

broncofan

02-15-2017, 07:41 PM

There is a great paradox for liberals who hope that Donald Trump might be impeached and removed from office. The type of act he would have to commit in order for two thirds of the senate to vote to remove him from power would need to be such an egregious act of treason that we would not easily recover from it.

Jason Chaffetz, the chairman of the house oversight committee has said that he will not investigate Flynn's phone call to Russia in which he told them not to overreact to sanctions and implied they would be lifted by Trump. An investigation means that Republicans could learn something that would force them to act and it's better not to know. How likely is it that Trump knew about this phone call? In my view more likely than not. Would evidence of it emerge in an investigation and if so, how would the public respond to Trump's coordination with Russia to undermine a sitting president and possibly pay back Russia for hacking the DNC? Well that's anybody's guess, but if nothing that looks unethical is ever investigated, nobody can be held to account. What would it take for the Republicans to act? A catastrophe, so we should either hope it doesn't get that far or that some of them remember that their loyalty should be to our Constitution and not an individual or his administration.

Stavros

02-16-2017, 12:18 AM

"their loyalty should be to our Constitution and not an individual or his administration"

-The cynic in me would like to suggest on the evidence provided by those named individuals ridiculed and abused by Trump during the campaign who crawled on their hands and knees to beg for a job once he was elected, that their personal interest takes precedence over the Constitution of the United States of America, and will continue to do so until they feel their hold over their seat in Congress is threatened. Your Constitution is not a document that works for this crowd, and anyway I doubt Trump has ever read it, certainly not all of it, as he doesn't normally read more than a sheet of paper at one sitting, and not at all if it doesn't have pictures.

There was a song about this, I think it's called Stormy Weather.

broncofan

02-16-2017, 02:34 AM

I think that we don't make constitutional law very accessible in this country for those who would be interested in learning. Reading the document can be informative, but if you then read the cases interpreting it, it's amazing how much has been drawn out of so little. Single clauses have been expounded into volumes. There are the thousand plus page treatises, but I think a citizen's guide to the basic issues would take sixty or seventy pages. Powers of each branch, federalism or dual sovereignty, and civil rights (due process, equal protection, and first amendment). It should really be a required course for undergraduates, with an exemption for foreign exchange students who want to take another civics oriented course. It's a shame that we don't at least prepare students to be able to pick up a court decision and make sense of it, let alone look up statutes, regulations, and executive orders.

There's no hope for Trump but I bet there are at least some people who have been deterred by how arcane and barren the language is in the Constitution.

Sorry for the tedious post, but I've felt strongly about this for some time. I think it's important for our democracy, even if only a few would take the initiative to learn.

broncofan

02-16-2017, 03:18 AM

Of course, as you point out, this wouldn't help the people whose sense of duty is overpowered by self-interest. But since so many members of the public resent experts, maybe it's better we train people not to depend on intermediaries.

filghy2

02-16-2017, 03:19 AM

The main priority of the Republican Congress is to push through as much of their small government/social conservatism agenda as they can over the next two years. I doubt they'll do anything meaningful about Trump unless evidence of wrongdoing becomes too blatant to ignore.

Stavros

02-16-2017, 11:04 PM

A more intriguing question would be -is Donald Trump a Republican? I don't see him as being a 'party man' and wonder if he takes the view, one I assume is supported by his advisers, that the US system of government and indeed, society and the economy is so 'broken' that the drastic measures they think are needed to 'make America Great Again' will test the Constitution to its limits, but must be attempted. And, if they succeed, it could have important ramifications for the relationship between the Judiciary and the Executive, not least because I think Trump regards the Supreme Court with the same disdain as he does the media. If Gorsuch, as is possible, fails to endorse as a matter of law Trump's attempts to single out Muslims in a temporary ban on immigration, it will be interesting to hear Trump's response, as he must know that at the same time he criticizes the Supreme Court for making political judgements, you cannot get away from the political bias in his nomination. Ultimately, the law and the rule of law must prevail, yet Trump seems to regard every criticism, every set-back as some sort of treachery, but that again, reflects his lack of experience in public office which, other than getting rid of him, the Republican Party cannot do anything about.

filghy2

02-20-2017, 09:20 AM

I think you may be underestimating the extent which Trumpism has taken over the Republican party, or at least the party base. By Trumpism I mean a combination of hostility toward established institutions, rejection of norms regarding acceptable political behaviour, 'America First' nationalism/nativism, and white christian identity politics. This didn't start with Trump; much of it was embodied in the Tea Party movement. Trump simply latched onto the existing trend, attached his own personality cult, and took things further than others might have done.

While there are many Republican politicians who are not fans of Trumpism, most of them are afraid of pre-selection challenges if they step out of line too much. Even if Trump proves to be a political failure, it may be difficult for more moderate/establishment Republicans to take back control and move the party in a more moderate direction. This was widely expected to happen after the 2012 election, and there was some attempt to do so, but the party base reacted adversely, so the hard-liners ended up on top and the party if anything became more extreme.

Stavros

02-20-2017, 04:16 PM

I agree with your post filghy2, so the mid-term elections are going to be a real test, even if Trump has gone by then. I see your point given the position Mike Pence has taken on numerous issues, and this does appear to expose the division between Republicans and Democrats widening even further, but can the Democrats develop a credible leadership and programme to regain lost ground? I don't know enough about what is happening on the ground to comment further.

broncofan

03-01-2017, 01:33 AM

There have been a recent spate of hate crimes in this country, including a recent murder of an Indian man because their attacker thought he looked Middle Eastern (he wounded a second man. In addition, there have been 90 bomb threats to Jewish community centers and 2 very large Jewish cemeteries vandalized in a way that would take extraordinary time and effort, including sledge hammers etc.

There are now reports that Trump has said that he believes the threats on the Jewish community centers may have been made by the Jewish community or are in some way false flags by Democrats. This is the height of narcissism. A man thinks that it's more likely that people are going out of their way to attack a community and subject themselves to prosecution not because it will terrorize this community but because it will make him look bad. Of course, this is what you see from his supporters in droves online; pictures of Jewish caricatures tipping over graves with the caption "whatcha doing Rabbi?".

We've never had a conspiracy theorist in the white house; someone who thinks Obama is whipping up opposition to him, that Soros is paying protesters, that Democrats and/or Jews are desecrating graves. He did not and will not mention the shooting of the Indian men, but I only hope the Justice Department is looking into organized activities of neo-nazis as they seem to have proliferated. The man is plainly mad.

trish

03-02-2017, 07:12 AM

No worries Bronco. Last evening Donald read from the teleprompter and never strayed too far from the script. Everything's going to be okay now.

Stavros

03-02-2017, 09:16 AM

What would happen if the 'enemy of the people' stopped reporting what Trump says? How long would it take for him to beg them to show him some attention -even love? And what would he do to merit such attention?

martin48

03-02-2017, 12:02 PM

broncofan

03-04-2017, 09:26 PM

Trump is tweeting that Obama wiretapped his phones prior to the election. Assuming that the FBI or NSA applied for a warrant with the FISA court, the standard to obtain a warrant is that there must be probable cause to believe someone is an agent of a foreign power. It is questionable whether all of the FISA court's rulings are constitutional. Parties who have attempted to challenge find they do not have standing to challenge because they cannot prove as a pre-requisite that they were harmed by the activity they are challenging. This is of course, because the FISA court operates in secrecy. The court indicated that someone would only be able to challenge surveillance if the findings were proffered against them in a subsequent trial.

I am not sure if what Trump is saying is true as he is rambling. He spelled the word tap "tapp". Unfortunately, if true, it also means that tapping his phones did not yield a smoking gun.

broncofan

03-04-2017, 10:16 PM

Anyway, I'm sure more will be written about this. Obama denying he spied on any citizen, but of course he is really just explaining to Trump how our government works. It would be an intelligence agency or law enforcement agency acting based on their own mandate who would apply for the warrant.

I want to also add, in fairness, that if a FISA warrant was issued, it is not incriminating in itself. I am not sure what the numbers are but they are almost summarily issued and as I said not easy to challenge or subject to oversight.

sukumvit boy

03-05-2017, 03:45 AM

My thought for the day is section 4 of the 25th amendment which allows the removal of a president who can no longer discharge his duties but is unwilling or unable to say so .
This was considered in 1987 when Regan's mental capacity was called into question .
Does Trump's not being able to make it through an entire day without stepping on his dick count ?:pissed::banghead
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/02/03/the_25th_amendment_will_not_get_trump_out_of_offic e.html

filghy2

03-05-2017, 05:02 AM

As the Slate article notes, there's nothing about Trump's behaviour since taking office that should have come as a surprise given his previous behaviour. Unfortunately, too many people engaged in wishful thinking and continue to do so - witness the reaction to him making one speech without ranting.

The Republicans will be afraid to do anything because they know their supporter base would turn on them, just as they did to Paul Ryan when he stopped campaigning for Trump. It's like hitching a ride on the back of a tiger - once you're on there's no safe way to get off.

nitron

03-11-2017, 04:55 AM

Maybe....Got to get shemales pregnant!That would be so freaky, I suppose that's out there... hmm?Maybe the next step, or one of them.

nitron

03-11-2017, 05:30 AM

Maybe , through stems cells , placenta? Maybe wear the belly button is and underneath, on top of muscle but below the skin , hook up into blood vessels . Or maybe a synthetic placenta. Then even guys will/might get preggars. Oh , I would hate carrying all that weight for nine month's, no drugs, clean food ....I don't know .

filghy2

03-13-2017, 06:04 AM

I'm not sure what planet you are coming from, but if scientists found a way to rear a baby in an artificial womb why would would anyone need to be carrying the baby in their body?

martin48

03-13-2017, 05:37 PM

I think the pelvis might make a difference

Maybe , through stems cells , placenta? Maybe wear the belly button is and underneath, on top of muscle but below the skin , hook up into blood vessels . Or maybe a synthetic placenta. Then even guys will/might get preggars. Oh , I would hate carrying all that weight for nine month's, no drugs, clean food ....I don't know .

sukumvit boy

03-15-2017, 12:49 AM

filghy2

03-15-2017, 02:19 AM

Forgive me for restating the obvious , but I have been hearing the criticism of Obama health care insurance system that it makes people who don't require much care at this time pay for those people who do.Isn't that the basic principle behind any insurance system ?

Yes, any system of universal health insurance has to rely on the healthy subsidising the sick. If you allow people to opt out then the only people who take out insurance will be those who are more likely to be making claims, which means it will be very expensive (the adverse selection problem).

Almost every other advanced country addresses this problem through the government funding universal health care, so that the subsidy occurs through taxation. The only real alternative is something like Obamacare, ie a combination of requirements to cover existing conditions, mandatory insurance and subsidies for low-income earners. The claim that there was some alternative that could provide the same or better cover without compulsion and more cheaply was always complete nonsense.

This chart shows how poorly the US health system has performed to date http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2017/03/life-expectancy-and-health-expenditure.html The US spends 2-3 times as much per person on health care as other advanced countries, yet life expectancy in the US is significantly lower.

sukumvit boy

03-17-2017, 03:48 AM

Yes, any system of universal health insurance has to rely on the healthy subsidising the sick. If you allow people to opt out then the only people who take out insurance will be those who are more likely to be making claims, which means it will be very expensive (the adverse selection problem).

Almost every other advanced country addresses this problem through the government funding universal health care, so that the subsidy occurs through taxation. The only real alternative is something like Obamacare, ie a combination of requirements to cover existing conditions, mandatory insurance and subsidies for low-income earners. The claim that there was some alternative that could provide the same or better cover without compulsion and more cheaply was always complete nonsense.

This chart shows how poorly the US health system has performed to date http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2017/03/life-expectancy-and-health-expenditure.html The US spends 2-3 times as much per person on health care as other advanced countries, yet life expectancy in the US is significantly lower.
Excellent link flighty2 , thanks for that . Frightening evidence that the US is an 'outlier' in terms of life expectancy and health expenditure .
Further evidence of the importance of the need for universal health insurance coverage in the US that can provide basic life style counseling to reverse this trend.

sukumvit boy

03-17-2017, 04:04 AM

Meanwhile , more contradictory words and actions from the Trump White House in terms of North Korea .
On the one hand Tillerson begins his Asia tour in Japan with the statement that " North Korea and its people need not fear the United States or its neighbors in the region who only seek to live in peace with North Korea ".
Does that mean that we are now going to ignore the horrible human rights abuses in North Korea ?
Also , does he forget that the North Korean 'people' will never be able to hear his message ?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/16/tillerson-calls-new-approach-north-korea/
While on the other hand the US announces the deployment of missile carrying drones across the border in South Korea.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/14/us-to-deploy-missile-capable-drones-across-border-from-north-korea

broncofan

03-17-2017, 10:16 PM

http://europe.newsweek.com/kurt-eichenwald-twitter-seizure-arrest-569813?rm=eu

Thought this was an interesting piece. Have followed Kurt Eichenwald on twitter for a few months because he occasionally has useful things to say. He is a journalist who is known to suffer from epilepsy and has suffered dozens of debilitating seizures in his lifetime. Trump supporters have sent him seizure inducing images such as strobe lights to try to give him a seizure. Finally, one of the images did induce a seizure and he is moving to have the person prosecuted.

After he had a seizure, many on the right claimed they thought he was making it up for sympathy and continue to send him these images. Strange that someone would send a person a strobe image in order to induce a seizure, it does what they intend it to do, and then they would claim he must be lying. The FBI is now moving forward against twitter user jew_goldstein.....probably a lovely person who is not at all anti-semitic.

Just thought it a lovely illustration of what kind of human beings Trump supporters are.

sukumvit boy

03-20-2017, 03:09 AM

999889999890

hippifried

03-20-2017, 11:26 PM

The original Hillary Clinton report on health care, '94, came to the conclusion that it could only work as a single payer system.

filghy2

03-22-2017, 03:18 AM

They decided to work through private insurers in order to keep them onside. Obamacare was based broadly on the scheme introduced by Mitt Romney in Massachusetts, so they were hoping to get some bipartisan support. That didn't work because the Republican leadership decided to oppose everything Obama did for political reasons. Ironically, many of the problems with Obamacare that contributed to its lack of popularity were a result of the compromises involved in working through the private insurance market.

broncofan

03-22-2017, 07:53 PM

broncofan

03-22-2017, 09:26 PM

Let's say a statute imposes a life sentence for the use of a gun in a drug transaction. If someone trades a gun for cocaine, should they qualify for a life sentence even if the entire debate that took place in the senate and house before voting on the statute centered around shooting deaths during drug transactions?

trish

03-23-2017, 05:02 PM

Many conservatives are attracted to a philosophy of statutory interpretation called textualism. According to textualism, a statute has an unambiguous meaning based purely on the denotation of the words contained in it and a Judge should never consider the purpose of the statute as a whole when interpreting it. Although language can yield agreed upon meanings, legislators have often not contemplated the applications of the many generic words they use in statutes. It is an aspect of humility to understand that anything that is intended for broad based application is going to be tested by unusual circumstances and that the purpose of the statute is a better guide to its application than a literal rendering of the words.

This may not seem obvious until you see examples of textualism in action and realize that most things that are intended to be used as guideposts contain unintended ambiguities. It does not resolve the ambiguity to say let's simply take the statute as it is regardless of whether the result is counter-intuitive or incoherent. The best way to figure out what something means is to understand where a sentence or clause fits within a scheme and by asking why that scheme was constructed to begin with. I understand the concern of conservatives about the proper role of each branch and the fact that legislation is adopted by Congress as it is without implicit meanings appended to it. But if you assume that a legislative body really intends to prohibit activities or protect persons, then it's reasonable to use our native powers of inference and ask what is consistent with their meaning.

Just some thoughts:

I can understand someone arguing in the long run it’s better to force the legislature to amend a law that can at times be unjust, then for a judge to stretch it’s application in a single case to prevent a miscarriage of justice. This argument saves the judge from distinguishing just from unjust or right from wrong: his only job, according to this argument, is to read the letter of the law as written by the legislators and apply it to the case at hand. I understand the attraction here is that such a view of the law preserves (or rather attempts to preserve) a rigid boundary between the legislative and judicial branches of the government.

As a mathematician I appreciate rigorous, clear cut lines. As a physicist I realize they don’t exist in real life. I expect most judges have no problem applying the law as written to most of the cases that come before them. However, I expect that is almost never the case for Supreme Court Justices. It seems to me that one of the major functions of the Supreme Court is to interpret the law in cases where the letter of it out of joint with legislative intent, our sense of justice and our common sense of decency. The ‘frozen-trucker’ case is, I think, an excellent example of how this philosophy goes wrong. You may have noticed how uncomfortable Gorsuch was when Franken was addressing just this case.

Is it actually better to treat one man unjustly in the hope that legislators will rework the law so future injustices of that sort might be prevented? It seems to me that establishing a precedent will prevent those future injustices and at the same time prevent the current miscarriage.

Gorsuch claims he never brings politics to the bench. Yet it is his record on the bench that recommends him to conservatives and gives liberals pause. When a judged is faced with a decision upon which the law is ambiguous I expect him to bring to bear his own sense of what is just, his sense of what is right, his sense of human dignity etc. A libertarian, a moderate conservative, a liberal, a Christian, an atheist will naturally have divergent takes on all of these essential matters. That’s why courts, especially the Supreme Court, have majority and dissenting views on almost all of their decisions.

A Judge should of course always try to be objective, but (in my view) there is no judicial philosophy he can follow that guarantees his decision will not be influenced by his political or religious philosophy. I’m not even sure it’s advisable to keep those things entirely out of the mix. The only real way to keep the courts fair is to keep them diverse.

broncofan

03-23-2017, 09:39 PM

I agree with everything you say here. The ability of the legislature to "correct" what they see as a judicial error of interpretation goes both ways, as they can in effect repudiate a decision that interprets their intent too broadly. You're also right that if the court establishes a precedent, it applies to a very specific fact pattern and they can distinguish future cases or if the facts are consistent apply it. To wait for the legislature to codify the meaning that appears latent in the statute is to force them to admit they didn't express themselves perfectly and wait. If the precedent does justice in one case, if applied properly it will again.

I understand the obsession with purism when it comes to interpreting laws. I do think Judges should show some restraint when interpreting intent and only move beyond the text to legislative history (discussions on the floor of Congress) when there is an ambiguity. As we saw in the frozen trucker case, refuse to operate a vehicle was the contested language. A few people pointed out that even a literal translation could have yielded a just outcome; the vehicle could have been considered the truck and trailer, which meant leaving the trailer was a refusal to operate the vehicle as a whole. The difference is that Gorsuch interprets the language without respect to the purpose of the statute. He and Scalia would say, the best guide is the dictionary definition of vehicle and would quote the dictionary.

But for instance, I would not support a decision where a Judge basically says that since the statute is meant to avoid workplace harms, then there doesn't even have to be a vehicle because Congress really just wants to protect workers. Oftentimes the choice is between two tenable definitions and one makes sense given the purpose of the statute.

You are right that Judges are calling upon their values in interpreting statutes and the constitution. Scalia and other textual originalists claim that they are least likely to be political because they are bound by the text. A famous Judge named Richard Posner said that may seem true, but they promote small government by thwarting legislative intent. If one looks at the bare text of the Constitution and then looks at the jurisprudence of the court interpreting it, it becomes apparent that a workable system of government requires Judges to adapt to unforeseen eventualities.

In constitutional law, the entire area known as substantive due process is extrapolated from a section of the constitution (14th amendment) that says government cannot deprive someone of liberty without due process of law. From this, the court in Roe v. Wade said that the right to privacy is a fundamental right, and that a law prohibiting abortion infringes on that right to privacy. Scalia would say, where in the Constitution does it say anything about privacy and who are you as an unelected Judge to tell us what rights are fundamental to liberty? But really why should they abstain?

broncofan

03-23-2017, 10:47 PM

The ability of the legislature to "correct" what they see as a judicial error of interpretation goes both ways, as they can in effect repudiate a decision that interprets their intent too broadly. I was just thinking as an amusing idea, how would the legislature amend the statute to repudiate OSHA's interpretation in the frozen trucker case? They could add a section to the statute that says, "In order to receive the protection of the statute an employee must cease to operate any component of the vehicle. This includes using the vehicle or any component of it for the limited purpose of shuttling himself to a safe destination." Now given that the statute was meant to protect workers and encourage them to report unsafe work conditions, would they have done it? Even if they thought, we didn't consider this possibility to begin with I don't think they would.

trish

03-26-2017, 05:15 PM

There was a shooting in a Cincinnati nightclub this weekend killing one and wounding fourteen. But it's all okay, the shooter wasn't Muslim.

martin48

03-27-2017, 03:08 PM

Bet he was an immigrant though - some way back in his family line

There was a shooting in a Cincinnati nightclub this weekend killing one and wounding fourteen. But it's all okay, the shooter wasn't Muslim.

broncofan

03-27-2017, 08:24 PM

I'm hopeful that the Trump Russia story materializes into something but we have to be careful of the rumor mill. All sorts of rumors abound such as that Flynn has flipped and is talking to the FBI, that the FBI provided Nunes with the information about Trump being swept up in surveillance to test his loyalty, and that Christopher Steele is set to testify. Anything could be true, but these things are not confirmed and the slow pace of the investigation, or the fact that what's known is not public, is causing people to pretend that their speculation is grounded in something more. At least the first two have been repeated by reputable journalists before being walked back as mere speculation by the person who conceived them. I think there has been nothing new (both public and confirmed) since Nunes showed he would obstruct the house investigation.

trish

03-27-2017, 08:37 PM

https://nyti.ms/2nR56CO

blackchubby38

03-27-2017, 11:42 PM

sukumvit boy

03-28-2017, 01:52 AM

https://nyti.ms/2nR56CO
Nice link from the N Y Times Trish,thanks.

Here's a link to the Charlie Rose Show from 3-13-17 ,interview / discussion with N Y Times columnist David Brooks who I find exceptionally insightful yet compassionate regarding the Trump presidency as well as the philosophical underpinnings of our current mind set .
Regarding the "crisis of solidarity" plaguing our society he says that it is a sense of isolation that we all feel because our society followed the wrong philosophers : Rene Descartes rather than St. Augustine , Jeremy Bentham rather than Viktor Frankl and J G Milne rather than Martin Buber . That discussion begins at 29:50 in the clip.
http://charlierose.com/videos/30216

sukumvit boy

03-28-2017, 02:14 AM

Correction , that should be :" John Stuart Mill ( not J G Milne) rather than Martin Buber" . Sorry.

broncofan

03-28-2017, 02:56 AM

I think if the story doesn't materialize into something by the time we have reached Trump's 100 days in office, then the both Democrats and the media to need to put the story on the back burner for awhile. Just until they can find concrete evidence that can't be refuted by even the most irrational Trump supporter.I think you're right. I think the minority party does not have subpoena power for these investigations though I could be wrong. But if all the Democrats can do is complain and can't compel documents or testimony then we should wait. In the House it's obvious Nunes will do anything to stall and distract.

The FBI investigation that Comey confirmed is taking place proceeds regardless and we have to have some faith that something will materialize. There are some legitimate pieces of the puzzle, but there's also a lot of noise. If even a fraction of what has been alleged is true, then at least a few people who have been associated with the campaign will probably be in trouble.

trish

03-28-2017, 06:11 AM

Nice link from the N Y Times Trish,thanks.

Here's a link to the Charlie Rose Show from 3-13-17 ,interview / discussion with N Y Times columnist David Brooks who I find exceptionally insightful yet compassionate regarding the Trump presidency as well as the philosophical underpinnings of our current mind set .
Regarding the "crisis of solidarity" plaguing our society he says that it is a sense of isolation that we all feel because our society followed the wrong philosophers : Rene Descartes rather than St. Augustine , Jeremy Bentham rather than Viktor Frankl and J G Milne rather than Martin Buber . That discussion begins at 29:50 in the clip.
http://charlierose.com/videos/30216Interesting clip, thanks. Not sure I agree with David’s perspective on the philosophers we chose to follow. For one, I’m not sure that as a group we chose to follow the philosophers he said we chose. did we really choose Descartes, the skeptic over Augustine, the man of faith? Did we really choose reason over emotion? Should we choose emotion over reason? Are David’s characterizations of these philosophies accurate?

I almost always read David’s weekly column in the NYT and I look forward to the spot he shares on PBS News Hour each Friday with Mark Shields. I usually find his point of view understandable, if sometimes over intellectualized.

sukumvit boy

03-29-2017, 07:38 AM

Very true Trish , however I find the whole idea very compelling. That as a society and as individuals we have lost the capacity to come together , compromise and make Democracy work . And that this is due , in part , to the sense of isolation that has resulted from our egotistical viewpoint ( Descartes " I think therefore I am" ) and utilitarianism ( Bentham and Mill) rather than humanism and compassion ( Buber) and morality and ethics (St. Augustine).
Furthermore , I find it interesting hearing David Brooks , an American Jew and Republican, citing R R Reno a Christian philosopher and Reno's ' crisis of solidarity'.

Brooks' parents were Jewish intellectuals. He relates a funny story about how growing up he was told to "think Yiddish , act British " and that his grandparents gave their children British names like Milton , Norman and Sidney in order to fit in ,which are now considered Jewish names.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._R._Reno
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2011/may/19/david-brooks-big-idea-society

broncofan

03-29-2017, 11:51 AM

In the Guardian article Brooks seems to be saying we rely on rationalism too much in policy decisions. The debate between rational v. intuitive thinking reminds me of the debate people have about nature and nurture, where they want one to clearly predominate. I have played enough games involving probability to know that intuition is indispensable, but if I had to choose between reason and intuition I would choose reason because when intuition goes wrong the errors are often systematic.

If you don't know explicitly why you've made a decision, it's difficult to calibrate the next decision when you make an error. This may be true even if one is less likely to make an error depending solely upon intuition. But thankfully it's not an either or question. Intuition operates best if the person using it starts with a certain base of knowledge...you can make a better intuitive decision once you've looked at all the data.

It sounds like an interesting book overall. I'd have to read it to know whether I agree with its thesis or not.

trish

03-29-2017, 04:18 PM

I do not believe the issue of reason vs intuition, or the issue of individuality vs community are issues of quantity.

Until we join the Borg, we ARE individuals (as Descartes showed, there is no way to avoid it) and we BELONG to and depend upon communities. That dependency gets us involved in questions about what we owe to each other. Religion, ethics, ideology and politics have evolved divergent approaches to these questions.

Reason has no desire or motive. It has no focus of it’s own. But it is indispensable when we are motivated to solve particularly complex problems. The ‘ah-ha’ moments in science are moments of intuition and exuberant creativity. Coming up with a hypothesis to be developed and tested is the work of intuition. Developing and testing those hypothesis is largely a work guided by reason.

What is dangerous about intuition is also what’s good about it: the hold it has on ego and imagination. When a hypothesis fails, has been tweaked and fails again - one has to be willing to give it up. This is difficult enough to do when the puzzle to be solved is one without a lot of political, religious or economic consequence. But when the puzzle involves governance, the urge to stick with your hypothesis come hell or high water can be insurmountable. There is way too much science denialism going around today, and it’s not because people are too reasonable. It might be argued that the GOP’s ideology is too individualistic, disposing them against imposing regulations on individuals like big oil and coal. I don’t really buy it - not only because big oil and coal aren’t persons: The real culprit here is the lure of high profits for those who have a lot to gain from relaxed governmental (read communal) interference and regulation.

bluesoul

04-01-2017, 01:03 AM

i remember that town hall meeting where farmer john stole the nation's heart. with tears in his eyes he said "i want you to sell my private information".

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/29/opinion/how-the-republicans-sold-your-privacy-to-internet-providers.html?_r=0

broncofan

04-01-2017, 03:19 PM

My thought for the day is that if Donald Trump is eventually impeached, and it's too early for me to tell if that will happen, it may actually improve confidence in the strength of our institutions to resist dangerous leaders, despite the increasing hyper-partisanship of both parties.

If Trump requested that the Russians hack the DNC then he should be removed from power. If it is the Justice Department that brings him down, it would do a lot to restore people's confidence in the efficacy of our system of government, if not the common sense of our electorate.

I have a feeling that enough people are entangled in this that if he did it we will find out about it. I have no idea what degree of complicity he has, and at first I was concerned about whether anyone would diligently investigate, but I am starting to believe it's being taken seriously. It will be an interesting six months to find out what shakes loose. As I'm sure some of you saw, it turns out that Flynn did ask for immunity. It's not clear what he wanted immunity for, but he was denied it. But there's much more we don't know, so we'll see.

filghy2

04-04-2017, 03:50 AM

Here's an amazing stat I came across recently. Since 1980 the share of US pre-tax income going to the top 1 per cent has increased from 11% to 20%, while the share going to the bottom 50% has fallen from 20% to 12%. http://voxeu.org/article/economic-growth-us-tale-two-countries

Given this it's not surprising that so many people are unhappy with the existing system. What I find hard to understand is why so many of them thought the answer was Trump - the classic 1 per center who was proposing big tax cuts for the rich.

sukumvit boy

04-06-2017, 03:03 AM

In response to the Saint Petersburg subway bombing Putin vows that those responsible for murdering Russian citizens will be hunted down and brought to justice , other than himself.
10029861002987

bluesoul

04-06-2017, 11:49 PM

In response to the Saint Petersburg subway bombing Putin vows that those responsible for murdering Russian citizens will be hunted down and brought to justice , other than himself.

supposedly he'll also be hunting down and bringing to justice whichever asswipe painted this lovely picture of him in drag. vlad keeps it all too real sometimes

https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2017-04-06/russia-bans-picture-of-vladimir-putin-in-drag

https://d.justpo.st/media/images/2015/04/078a59c7be0697a56611ca4d23719eb3.jpg

broncofan

04-08-2017, 06:30 PM

It's hard to imagine Russia behaving any worse than they are without launching WWIII. In 2013, in response to the Syrian regime using Sarin gas on civilians, the Russians promised they would make sure the Syrians did not retain chemical weapons capabilities. They failed in that endeavor as the Syrian government once again launched a deadly gas attack on civilians.

Trump's response was to strike the base from which the attack was likely launched. The military has said it was not their intent to destroy the base or prevent any operations from being launched from that base but to merely destroy some planes and munitions to let Syria know that chemical weapons attacks will not be tolerated. Trump did not have authorization to launch the attacks as the aumf covers attacks on Al Qaeda and possibly Isis, but can in no way be stretched to cover action against the Assad regime.

Russia's response to the attack has been to provide more support and weaponry to Assad. It is one thing to coordinate attacks against Jihadists with Syria, but quite another to bolster Syria's ability to do so when they've shown themselves so willing to use gas on civilians. In my view, Trump should have destroyed the entire base from which that attack was launched. Yes, that may seem extreme, but if the point was deterrence and this was not just some token action, that's the type of action that could deter Assad.

fred41

04-08-2017, 07:50 PM

fred41

04-08-2017, 07:52 PM

I also think this is a pretty balanced view on the Gorsuch nomination :
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/senate-filibuster-follies-article-1.3031486

broncofan

04-08-2017, 08:53 PM

I have to admit, the article makes sense on this point. Even without the Republicans invoking the so-called one year rule, they could have just run out the clock by voting down every nominee put before them because they controlled Congress. It's a purely political move, but one they could have plausibly done. But I do mind the Republicans pretending like there should not be a confirmation in an election year. I am willing to bet if there is an opening on the court in 2019 and the Republicans have a majority in Congress, that person will be confirmed. As for the filibuster....does it protect the minority political party or just allow obstructionism and slow the pace of legislation? A little of each. I'm willing to judge it by how it's been used...often as a lever rather than to protect against extreme policies. But we'll see what happens going forward.

blackchubby38

04-08-2017, 10:33 PM

I think it was an appropriate response by President Trump. We can quibble about his personal reasons for doing it, but I think in total it conveyed exactly what I believe the intent was. It's also interesting to see the responses on social media and news sites in the 'comments' area - both extreme ends of people's political views seem to have been against it...for different, but often predictable reasons.
...and I agree to a lot of what you have stated in your post Bronc.

I think it was an appropriate response as well. Although now the question becomes, what happens next and how much leverage is Congress and the American people going to give President Trump. As I see it, here are our options:

1. Regime change- Next.

2. Provide air support for the rebels so they have an fighting chance. The wrong fighter gets shot down and next thing you know its WW III.

3. Arm the rebels and provide them with logistical support. I would be for it we knew for 100% that the rebels would remain friendly to United States interests once they achieved victory. Or if we knew that those weapons wound't fall into the hands of terrorists.

4. Wait it out and just let Assad know that the use of chemical weapons won't be tolerated. That's great and all but then he is just going to kill the rebels with conventional weapons.

5. Wait it out and hope for the best possible outcome. The rebels themselves are able to overthrow Assad and then it doesn't turn into a failed state.

6. Try for a diplomatic solution. At this point, I don't see it happening.

So unless the United States is able to form a coalition of nations to go in and aid the rebels in overthrowing Assad, I think things will remain the same as they were before the chemical attack.

Stavros

04-09-2017, 02:40 PM

An alternative scenario, based on the prospect of the Russians deciding Asad is now too risky to be supported without looking to the end of the war and its aftermath without him, thus leading to a revival of the peace process in Geneva, but one that requires new thinking on all sides, much as happened with the peace process in Northern Ireland.

1. An end to the war -a commitment on all sides to stop fighting, possible with all except Daesh and fragmented groups, but violence that will have to be 'tolerated' while the main business continues.

2. A transitional arrangement that would see the Asad and Makhlouf families, and all current chiefs of staff in the military stripped of their official positions and denied any role in the transitional arrangement. To be replaced by a transitional government that would be representative of all the factions in Syria, including the Ba'ath Party, whose commitment would be over five years to draw up a new constitution for Syria and plan for the reconstruction of the worst affected areas of the country, a plan similar to that drawn up in the aftermath of the civil war in Lebanon, but guaranteed not to enrich current elites in the Syrian state.

3. These transitional arrangements to be endorsed by the Security Council of the UN with primary guarantors being the USA, Russia, Iran, Turkey and either France or China.

4. Syria to be reformed as a federal state with powers devolved to regions in order to prevent Damascus from making decisions that affect the whole of the country. This would in any case reflect existing divisions in Syria between the historically rebellious Hauran in the south, for example, the merchant expertise of Damascus and Aleppo, and the more religious interests of the north-west and so on. However much one disapproves of these divisions, they exist, much as there is a large swathe of the USA populated by fanatical 'Christians' who believe the Bible is the 'word of God' and should be the foundation of the nation's laws.

5. A bi-cameral parliament will adopt an American model -two representatives from each devolved province sit in the Senate, representatives elected from each province sit in a House of Representatives, a revival of the parliamentary system that existed in Syria before 1970. It will be illegal for any political party in Syria to accept or solicit donations from any foreign political party, donor or government. There will be an executive Prime Minister drawn from the House, and a ceremonial President, in order to ensure that one man can no longer enrich himself and his family at the expense of the state as has happened in recent times with Milosovic in Yugoslavia, Putin in Russia and the American currently raiding the US taxpayer from his branded establishments in the USA.

6. Justice and reconciliation. This may be the hardest part of the the new dispensation of power, but it may be necessary to heal the wounds opened up by the autocracy associated with the Ba'ath Party and the Asad family and their hangers on. Whether or not this means that Bashar al-Asad should be prosecuted for war crimes I don't know, finding hard evidence that would stand up in a court of law would be difficult, and after all, former members of the Provisional IRA involved with the worst atrocities in the UK were let out of prison.

7. The plan needs a commitment by the Syrian people, and by the guarantors who should place the priorities of Syria above their own.

What is clear, is that the worthless gesture politics of the American President have made the situation in Syria worse, yet the USA for the time being continues to sit on the Security Council even if it has no coherent policy on Syria, but not surprising when amateurs suddenly find themselves having to make real decisions that affect real people. What advance has been made when a five-year old Syrian boy is cast as a threat to the security of the USA, or manipulated by a shameless liar and a crook to justify a military action that achieved nothing? No advance, only headlines.

But one lives in hope that once that crooked liar has been cleaned out of the White House someone in the USA will step forward with a plan that makes sense. McMaster looks the best bet right now. In fact the only one with the brains to do the job.

broncofan

04-09-2017, 07:07 PM

My thought for the day is that a divide appears to be emerging (perhaps something that has been magnified on social media) between the "globalists" and "nationalists" who advise Donald Trump. The word globalist is used for anyone who does not want to shut down trade with the rest of the world and is not a Charles Lindbergh style America First-er on foreign policy. A nationalist is, in the style of Steve Bannon, for lack of a more charitable description, a xenophobic creep of the first order who's afraid of being displaced by a non-white person in the workplace and/or the bedroom.

Anyhow, the alt-righters believe Steve Bannon is the nationalist and Jared Kushner is the globalist. Now, in no narrative is Jared Kushner a hero or a stand-up guy or even minimally qualified to work in a lower level diplomatic position. But if it comes down to a choice between his view of the world, whatever that is, and Bannon's, I choose him. A choice between plutocracy and white supremacy. I can't imagine that Kushner is the bubbling cauldron of hate that Bannon is but I don't know very much about him except that like Bannon, he is not qualified to be a senior level adviser.

fred41

04-09-2017, 08:24 PM

agreed.
I wish they would get rid of that shit stain Bannon once and for all. Of course, once Trump does that, he will lose the Alt right, Alex Jones, extreme-isolationist , right conspiracy theorist kook vote..
But I don't really see that as a problem, at this point, since Trump should just try to get through/fulfill a decent one term presidency. I believe guys like Bannon, will continue to cause embarrassing distractions...the kind of weirdo crackpot shit any presidency should do with out.

(Hopefully that might happen very soon, since there is no way on this Earth Bannon would agree with an act such as the air strike). Hopefully, from now on, Trump will only take advice from his chosen foreign policy and security experts.

Stavros

04-10-2017, 12:05 PM

There was a time when the President of the USA was a politician backed by a political party, one thinks of FDR and the Democrats, Reagan and the Republicans. Since January 2017 it has become clear that the Presidency is now occupied by a brand management team that has no party affiliation, and whose dedicated cause is Promotion of the Brand for Commercial Gain. It looks like this:

Promotion of the Brand = Increased Brand recognition = increased market share =more paying customers = more profit.

Prior to 2017 the Brand relied on Joe Public and the rich, but particularly the super-rich to maintain its brand success, on the basis of which money could be borrowed from Banks for new investments. Capturing the Presidency gives the Brand its most phenomenal asset -the assets of the US public, and the determination to transfer those assets from the people to the Presidency and its family members. Because this is a Commercial, rather than a Political Presidency, everything is now about the Brand, not least the air strike in Syria, which had the primary intention of maintaining brand recognition. With over 2,500 troops on the ground in Syria, set to rise to over 5,000 over the rest of this year, the lack of any clear military objective other than assisting the Kurds in 'destroying Daesh' in Raqqa underlines the fact that these armed service personnel are in Syria to promote the Presidential brand, as it is against the interests of the USA to be involved in the war in Syria, whereas it would be in the USA's interest to be using diplomacy to bring the warring parties to the negotiating table. But, given that, with the exception of McMaster, the only expertise in the Presidential administration is making money, it is no surprise that on any given day since Janaury 2017 nobody has a clear idea of what policy is on a wide range of issues.

None of this matters, as the key purpose of the commercial Presidency is to make money, not policy. This was made clear when the divided Republican Party in Congress failed to agree on the amendments to health care. The reaction of the Presidency was simple, to walk away. 'Health care? Been there. Done that. Moved on'.

It is no longer surprising, but it is depressing to see intelligent Americans who should know better, crawling on their hands and knees to slurp at the Presidential piss, just because a few Tomahawks hit a runway and some buildings in Syria. If this is what it takes to get bright people on board the commercial express, where will they be when they are asked to pay for their tickets and find the cost is higher than they imagined? One can only hope that this administration falls to pieces before the 4th of July and that people with brains and a commitment to the USA as a respectable country bring the USA back from the brink of what looks like the weak position from which the last Civil War began for those who decided at that time they had nothing left to lose, and who seem to think only another civil war will restore the America of George Washington and his dogs Sweet Lips, Venus and Truelove.

trish

04-10-2017, 04:58 PM

I’ve been out of touch for the last week and got back this weekend to find the toddler in chief has aimed something like sixty cruise missiles at a Syrian air base and destroyed a number of installations there but not the runways. Shocking? Yes. Surprising? No. Donald loves the tough guy act, and it usually goes down really well with his base. This time the response from both right and left (with the exception of the alt-right) is a very Twilight Zonesque, “That’s a good thing you done there.”

The narrative being pushed by the White House is that Donald was overwhelmed (as we all were) by the images of children (“babies....BABIES”, says Donald) suffering and dead from a Syrian gas attack initiated by Assad. The U.S. strike was a punishment for this illegal and immoral behavior.

Did our bumbling idiot in chief actually do the right thing for once?

First of all, I don’t believe the narrative for one minute. Yes, the pictures of the suffering children were to most people graphic and gut wrenching. To Donald, I think, not so much. This was not the first gas attack launched by Assad on his own people and these weren’t the first pictures of dead and dying children. In 2013 Donald said nothing about screaming children or dead babies. When Obama went to Congress for approval to strike against Assad for the sarin gas attacks, Donald emphatically warned against any sort of U.S. interference saying we should step back let Assad and Russia take care of ISIS. Congress, by the way, refused to put Obama’s strike to a vote. So later they could say Obama was weak on Assad (because he followed the law that defers the initiation of violent attacks on foreign nations to the legislative branch). Given the obvious fact that The Donald is unmoved by anybody’s plight but his own, what DID motivate him to strike at Syria. In the eyes of unthinking Americans it puts distance between him and Putin, and it diverts attention from the investigations into Russia’s interference with our election. Wag the dog. “That’s a good thing you done there, Donny.”

Second. To answer the question “Did our bumbling orange haired troll doll actually do the right thing?” we have to narrow down a little on the meaning of “right thing.”

Was it legal? Strictly speaking I’d say no. I would think strict adherence to U.S. law would’ve required Donald to obtain Congressional approval before ordering the strike. But hey, who’s a strict constructionist anymore...right? The Constitution is a living document and Congress has been abdicating it’s right to wage war ever since the Korean conflict. (Speaking of Korea - did I hear Donald rattling his swords?) Did the strike adhere to international law? Who’s going to prosecute the U.S. for war crimes...right?

Was it strategically correct? No action in isolation can be judged to be strategically correct. First there must be a strategy. Before there can be a strategy there must be a set of goals. Regime change? Granted we all want to see the demise of ISIS. But do we want Syria to be a satellite nation of Putin’s envisioned empire? If we oust Assad, who fills in the vacuum if not ISIS? We have to remember that Donald’s goals are distinct from those of the U.S. Donald shares with us an interest in degrading ISIS, but he also has a yet to be delineated interest in keeping Putin happy as well a irrepressible interest in putting on a good show and looking like a tough guy. The strike still allows Assad to fight ISIS (the runways were untouched and planes were flying missions from that base within twenty-four hours of the strike), it doesn’t threaten Assad’s regime which should make Putin happy, but it does give Putin an excuse to excoriate Trump and create some perceptual distance between the two, which benefits Trump. So, “Yes the strike was strategic for Donald, but not necessarily with a aim toward benefiting Syrians nor the region in the long run.

Was our strike moral? This is a more difficult question. Given the praise Donald has been receiving the consensus seems to be, “Yes.” However, we all know he did it for the wrong reasons. This was a case where the Toddler in Chief tripped and fell in a puddle of mud and emerged gold plated. “That’s a good thing you did there.”

sukumvit boy

04-10-2017, 08:25 PM

The evening after the US cruise missile strike Charlie Rose interviewed two Syrian doctors who have been on the front lines there since the beginning . They confirmed that Syria bombed again less than an hour after the US strike and discussed Syria's strategy of targeting hospitals .
http://charlierose.com/videos/30354?autoplay=true

broncofan

04-12-2017, 12:49 AM

Sean Spicer is a buffoon and an inarticulate ass, but he's not a Holocaust denier like a few prominent people have said today. He's also not someone with a working knowledge of chemistry, or history, or the English language. I don't know, but I feel annoyed that people, including the Anne Frank Center said that his display of ignorance is Holocaust denial. Holocaust denial is intentional and dishonest; it does not occur because someone does not know that zyklon b, like sarin gas, is a chemical. Just my view...

Edit: I also want to know that I had not heard of the Anne Frank Center until recently. That may sound bizarre since everyone has heard of Anne Frank. But they really are not a well run organization. That's as charitable as I can be.

filghy2

04-12-2017, 03:48 AM

The focus on the Syrian missile strike has also distracted attention from the fact that the great negotiator Trump got absolutely nothing out of his recent meeting with the Chinese leader, notwithstanding all of his previous rhetoric about getting tough with China. No doubt the Chinese have figured out that Trump is all bluster with no strategy and a limited attention span, so they didn't feel the need to placate him with any concessions. They may also be thinking there is strong chance the US will again get itself bogged down in a messy situation in the Middle East. Whatever you think about the Chinese they are good at playing the long game - Trump probably thinks the long game is something to do with par 5 holes on the golf course.

sukumvit boy

04-14-2017, 02:27 AM

"Toddler in Chief " (thanks for that Trish) gets to use MOAB" mother of all bombs" just months into his presidency . Why am I not surprised.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-43/B_Massive_Ordnance_Air_Blast

I can only imagine his sociopathic glee as his 'Armada' steams towards North Korea .

broncofan

04-14-2017, 01:41 PM

I can only imagine his sociopathic glee as his 'Armada' steams towards North Korea .Everyone has been arguing about Bannon or Kushner and asking who has his ear. It could just be that campaign promises aside, he is someone who has been a bully his whole life, and finds himself with the most powerful military arsenal in human history. He wants to see things explode. He wants to shake insolent dictators to their core. I dare anyone to read this piece and not be upset about it. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u-s-may-launch-strike-if-north-korea-reaches-nuclear-n746366?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma

Stavros

04-15-2017, 07:42 AM

From yesterday's Guardian:
"Each Moab, or massive ordinance air blast – nicknamed the “mother of all bombs” – costs $16m (£13m) out of a total programme cost of $314m which produced about 20 of the bombs.

Crunched down – and in the most cold-blooded terms – that means the US military (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/us-military) has expended some 5% of its stockpile of Moabs to kill three dozen Isis members at a cost of almost $450,000 per individual.
In comparison, a typical, general-purpose 450kg (1,000lb) bomb like the MK-8 used in numerous airstrikes in Syria in Iraq costs about $12,000.

Another point of comparison is the 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles fired a week before at the Shayrat airbase (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/06/trump-syria-missiles-assad-chemical-weapons) in Syria, which Washington has claimed as the source of the chemical weapons strike on Khan Sheikhun (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/11/turkey-says-sarin-gas-was-used-at-syria-chemical-attack).
Those missiles will cost about $60m to replace, with each costing about $1m and delivering – combined – just over twice the tonnage of explosives of the single Moab.
Until now, the Moab had been something of a very costly white elephant."
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/apr/14/moab-attack-isis-baffling-choice-cold-blooded-terms-cost-afghanistan

-In addition, delivery-for-detonation of MOAB costs $450,000.

President Cashpoint - when he isn't charging the US taxpayer to visit his own branded properties with 200 security personnel in attendance, he is burning your dollars like fireworks. Why spend $16,450,000 on the poor of the USA when you can blow a hole in the ground in Afghanistan, as the US has been doing for 16 years?
Enjoy the show.