I don't share your optimism that a more progressive society will continue to, inevitably, emerge. This implies that we should just be patient and sit back and watch. That approach may result in waiting a long time indeed.I don't know what to tell you. It takes time. I don't know how you are getting the idea that I am implying that we should sit back and wait. I said the measures that are in place and new measures take time. I stand out in the cold and picket for workers rights. I sit one on one with people I think I can change and rationally try to explain the ideas behind progressive politics. I turn news channels off in rooms and turn others on. I have gone on door to door petition drives for recycling efforts, political elections etc. I am one of the most vocal persons at Union Meetings(of which I have never missed one.) and get in real heated arguments therein. I am a Union Steward at my place of employment. Everybody does their part. The social dynamics of the US are changing. This is inevitably going to lead to a more left leaning polity. Kudos to you. Thank you for your service.
I do share your optimism that the "Right" (IMO, they would be more accurately called the "Wrong") has overreached in their unending, ubiquitous, irrational, prevaricating attacks on Obamacare. It is amazing that in spite of their efforts Obamacare currently appears to be working as well as it is.Right and the longer it works the more intractable it will become. And it will be improved.
But even though I believe that Obamacare is the best solution that was possible, considering the opposition, it is a complex, and imperfect, effort at addressing an extraordinarily difficult issue, that will have problems (as would have any possible solution).Oh yeah. It was resisted ferociously. For all of the reasons I have already enumerated.(that's the key.)
The KBLP supporters will continue to seize on any problems that occur, and they have the advantage of only needing to undermine Obamacare, while not having to try to develop any genuine, functional alternative solutions.Achh...so what? I view their resistance as a reaction, not a solution. Anytime someone can only react, but cannot make proactive progress they are losing. Simple.
So the success of Obamacare, while I am optimistic, is not assured. And even if it is ultimately, successful, I don't believe that its success alone will usher in a new era of progressivism. And it is clear to me that the development of Obamacare, itself, would never have occurred, were it not for massive efforts of progressive activists. Even the election of Obama, himself, would not have been possible without the massive efforts of grass roots activists.Well things take time. Anyone who is looking for quick or instant results is just banging their heads against the wall.
I think I've said about all I can to VYAZMA.WTF have you said? WTF have you actually said here? This sums up what you have said here in 3-4 pages: The uberwealthy are sociopaths and the wealth divide is immoral. Congrats!
I think I've said about all I can to VYAZMA.WTF have you said? WTF have you actually said here? What I said is, I believe the right thing to do is the compassionate thing. Whether its giving a dollar to a kid on the street or voting for the liberal candidate or finding work with a less exploitative org. It may seem like you are helping a drug addict or increasing the population problem in the short run, but history has shown that when infrastructure that supports health is built, people make better decisions for themselves and thus for the future. Compassion is learned the same way selfishness is. You build the middle class to eliminate the problems of the lower class. This requires having the upper class on board with the idea, which usually means regulating them. Which part of this do you disagree with? The part where I care about others? Where I appreciate those who got beat up standing in picket lines to change the laws for the better? The part where starving children get fed? Or is it the part where 99% of the people think they have the right to restrict the freedoms of a few who want to exploit people and extract resources from the earth with little concern for the future?
... How to organize has not changed that much over the centuries, just new tools. Music is certainly a good tool, and I support my local folk singer, but not sure what else I can do there. Writing your congressman has always seemed futile to me, but I do it anyway. We have Al Franken here, so I feel good about that. Also, just doing good things, acting locally, has an impact. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.That sounds right. Also, I agree with Vyazma about the impact of entertainers like, Bill Maher, Colbert, and Stewart, using comedy to put forth a more rational perspective. (It was amusing to see the "Wrong" in a tizzy, recently, about the announcement that Colbert will be hosting the Tonight Show, next year. It will be interesting to see how that plays out.)
I don't share your optimism that a more progressive society will continue to, inevitably, emerge. This implies that we should just be patient and sit back and watch. That approach may result in waiting a long time indeed.I don't know what to tell you. It takes time. I don't know how you are getting the idea that I am implying that we should sit back and wait. I said the measures that are in place and new measures take time. I stand out in the cold and picket for workers rights. I sit one on one with people I think I can change and rationally try to explain the ideas behind progressive politics. I turn news channels off in rooms and turn others on. I have gone on door to door petition drives for recycling efforts, political elections etc. I am one of the most vocal persons at Union Meetings(of which I have never missed one.) and get in real heated arguments therein. I am a Union Steward at my place of employment. Everybody does their part. The social dynamics of the US are changing. This is inevitably going to lead to a more left leaning polity. The only part of this that DIDN'T surprise me is that you get in arguments. I am surprised that you are surprised that Tim got the idea you were implying we sit back and wait. You said "that's just how things are" and I explained twice what I don't like about that, but you skimmed over it. You made other statements about how this is a dog eat dog world and morals don't matter in politics. Progressive politics only makes sense to me if you base them on some sort of moral foundation. Otherwise, what's the point in getting health care for everybody, so they can work longer hours for less pay? Anyway, thanks for clearing this up. I don't think your evil anymore. But I'm glad I'm not in your union.
You said "that's just how things are" and I explained twice what I don't like about that, but you skimmed over it.Well maybe you should go back and try to read the statement in the context of the material surrounding it.
But I'm glad I'm not in your union.How do you know? You might be real glad to be in The Teamsters. We can always use more folks like you. Hopefully if possible, you are in a Union anyways.
You said "that's just how things are" and I explained twice what I don't like about that, but you skimmed over it.Well maybe you should go back and try to read the statement in the context of the material surrounding it. "re-read my post" is almost as bad as invoking Hitler. It indicates we're reaching an end.
But I'm glad I'm not in your union.AFSCME. We successfully fought for an even change to accumulated sick time last year. We only had to threaten strike. They (management) have been doing this all over the country. They reduce a benefit for new employees only. That results in bad feelings in the union as those new employees come in and after a few years, it is very easy for them (management) to get the benefit reduced for everyone. Unfortunately we had to negotiate a lesser drop in that benefit for all, but we maintained the solidarity. That's a victory in these days of union busting. What I'm glad about is that I don't have to argue with you in your meetings. We have a union president here who makes long winded speeches about how things used to be but contributes very little to the discussion. There seems to be some recognition that the old leadership is out of touch, but until they sit down, shut and listen, I'm not convinced that they have changed.How do you know? You might be real glad to be in The Teamsters. We can always use more folks like you. Hopefully if possible, you are in a Union anyways.
Obsessive compulsive disorder. It's the same disorder that leads people to be hoarders and to engage in extremely risky behavior. And it IS named and recognized in the DSM as a disorder. LoisYou can't make that claim..on so many different levels. I'm past the name calling bit Lois. I guess it's cheeky. But it bores me. Of course it does. If someone makea a point you disagree with you become bored. Got it. Lois
Obsessive compulsive disorder. It's the same disorder that leads people to be hoarders and to engage in extremely risky behavior. And it IS named and recognized in the DSM as a disorder. LoisYou can't make that claim..on so many different levels. I'm past the name calling bit Lois. I guess it's cheeky. But it bores me. Of course it does. If someome makea a point you disagree with you become bored. Got it. Lois CEOs are psychopaths] This is just one of the many hits I got from "CEOs diagnosed as psychopaths". So apparently Lois and I aren't the only two people in the world who think we can do what you so flippantly call "name calling". From the article (my bold)
There was his reputation that he was a man who seemed to enjoy firing people, not to mention the stories from his first marriage — telling his first wife he wanted to know what human flesh tastes like, not going to his parents’ funerals. Then you realize that because of this dysfunctional capitalistic society we live in those things were positives. He was hailed and given high-powered jobs, and the more ruthlessly his administration behaved, the more his share price shot up.
Obsessive compulsive disorder. It's the same disorder that leads people to be hoarders and to engage in extremely risky behavior. And it IS named and recognized in the DSM as a disorder. LoisYou can't make that claim..on so many different levels. I'm past the name calling bit Lois. I guess it's cheeky. But it bores me. Of course it does. If someome makea a point you disagree with you become bored. Got it. Lois CEOs are psychopaths] This is just one of the many hits I got from "CEOs diagnosed as psychopaths". So apparently Lois and I aren't the only two people in the world who think we can do what you so flippantly call "name calling". From the article (my bold)
There was his reputation that he was a man who seemed to enjoy firing people, not to mention the stories from his first marriage — telling his first wife he wanted to know what human flesh tastes like, not going to his parents’ funerals. Then you realize that because of this dysfunctional capitalistic society we live in those things were positives. He was hailed and given high-powered jobs, and the more ruthlessly his administration behaved, the more his share price shot up.Thanks. I was unable to access the article you included here, but here's one that originally appeared in Forbes Magazine. (Apologies if it's the same article). dailykos.com/story/2013/02/27/1190266/-Are-Psychopaths-Good-for-Business-Society# You'll have to copy and paste it into your address bar. I was unable to include the link. I still can't figure out why some links work and others are identified spam on this forum.
You'll have to copy and paste it into your address bar. I was unable to include the link. I still can't figure out why some links work and others are identified spam on this forum.There are plenty of items out there, just about every major news outlet has one. I can't figure how VYAZMA missed these books and studies. This is not some Mother Jones only type of news. The OCD thing might be a little harder to make a case for. But I don't really care about getting actual data on this anyway. Psychiatry is only going to say what is abnormal, and VYAZMA is correct when he says that obeying the minimum letter of the law and ignoring the spirit of it is normal. That still doesn't make it right or sane. Unfortunately we can't go back in time and study how someone, like the wife of a slave owner really felt. We can read diaries, but it would just show a crass uncaring attitude that would be hard to understand. We have some sense that it is a safety mechanism of the mind to protect itself from the cognitive dissonance, but it would be great if we could really understand it. Really though, do we need scientists to tell us that if we raise children in a loving, caring environment they will grow up loving and caring?
... Really though, do we need scientists to tell us that if we raise children in a loving, caring environment they will grow up loving and caring?You probably don't, but some people apparently do. And you probably know that the first few years of a child's life is the most critical for having a safe, supportive, nurturing environment with an intimate emotional link with a primary caregiver or caregivers. And something that was not always obvious to me, if you want your child to be most likely to grow up to be more self-reliant, to be more likely to grow up to think for themselves, to be less likely to be overly-controlled by peer groups as they leave your sphere of influence, it is important to not be overly controlling in their rearing. That means parents would do better to not control their children when it is not truly necessary to do so, by either punishment or rigid systematic positive reinforcement. Rather it is better to help the child enjoy joining in to do non-critical everyday tasks (rather than requiring that they do so thru punishment or expected reward). So, since all of these things are not naturally obvious to all parents, I suggest that some aspects of child raising are better informed by science.
I think that those who have posted on this thread may be interested in this new study out of Princeton and Northwestern:
Just highlight the following and press your google search button:
Testing Theories of American Politics
or, for more casual reading, here is an article that talks about the study:
How many high school graduates know what NET WORTH is?
I don’t even know if my high school had an accounting course. I was just put into College Prep on the basis of entry exams and told what most of my courses would be.
http://toxicdrums.com/economic-wargames-by-dal-timgar.html
Getting people to spend their lives going into debt for junk designed to become obsolete is just the new way to enslave people. It is called FREEDOM! Now we have the planned obsolescence of smartphones even though the devices are powerful enough to do accounting. :lol:
psik
You need a certain gap between the best and worse off for people to be motivated to behave in certain ways and for people's happiness, they need to have hope for the future. But there is no reason to go beyond that and if we do some people simply have more than their fair share and others less. Being rich rarely makes people happy whilst not having enough does make people unhappy. The situation is sadly ridiculous.There will always be a gap between the best and worst off. We don't have to do anything to create and maintain that gap. We also don't have to assure that the people on the bottom have almost nothing. We can raise everyone up to a certain humanes standard and not take their motivation away. In fact having the basics motivates people to work rather than give up or turn to crime. It has nothing to do with happiness. People at the top should be able to be happy without assuring that the people at the bottom are devoid of basics and suffering. It depends on where they draw the line of human decency and what kind of society they want to live in. If they can't enjoy a good meal without knowing that someone is starving, they should join the Republican right wing. But don't assume anyone has to create and maintain poverty for a growing underclass. It will always be there without gargantuan efforts by the well-off strata to make sure they don't get their help to escape it. It's a sad fact of life that if a person can cut out all compassion and human feeling from his financial endeavors, he will succeed financially. Being a humane person does drag down one's potential financial net worth and that's all that matters to too many people. When it comes to social net worth they're bankrupt, but moral bankruptcy doesn't concern them. That's why they "succeed," Lois
...It's a sad fact of life that if a person can cut out all compassion and human feeling from his financial endeavors, he will succeed financially. Being a humane person does drag down one's potential financial net worth and that's all that matters to too many people. When it comes to social net worth they're bankrupt, but moral bankruptcy doesn't concern them. That's why they "succeed," LoisI think you are overstating and overgeneralizing, here. It may have some validity if you are referring solely to KBLPs (Koch-brothers-like-persons). But one could come up with many examples of financially successful people who have not abdicated their "humane and compassionate feelings" and are not morally or socially bankrupt. If all wealthy folks were KBLPs, we would truly be screwed, or would be in the midst of a revolution where we guillotine them, or both.
In fact, one might surmise that it is due to the benevolence of many of our “oligarchical masters” that we are as well off as we are (even though some of us are not well off at all).
Again, I suggest that “conniving capitalism” be a core course in grade school, so that all will have a better chance at becoming an “oligarchical master”. Then, perhaps, we could approach something like an actual democracy.
Again, I suggest that "conniving capitalism" be a core course in grade school, so that all will have a better chance at becoming an "oligarchical master". Then, perhaps, we could approach something like an actual democracy.http://www.spectacle.org/1199/wargame.html psik