Help me - I'm confused by racial labels by pizmobeach

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Frem

I can't even remember the number of times when you have straw-manned me about my supposed belief that human nature is evil and needs laws to keep it in check.

But when DT was making that very argument and I was arguing against it ---- where were you ? Giving DT hell for it ? FINALLY agreeing that maybe I DON'T believe what you keep claiming I do ?

No -- YOU WERE SILENT !

Dude, your BS doesn't fly. YOU are the most egregious holder of double-standards, not replying to the post but to your biases about the poster.

JUST exactly the same way Wulf, who claims to not be biased, is the greatest slinger here of demeaning group stereotypes, caricatures, and slurs ... and not just racial ones, either.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 23, 2009 2:11 PM

Quote:
Frem

I can't even remember the number of times when you have straw-manned me about my supposed belief that human nature is evil and needs laws to keep it in check.

But when DT was making that very argument and I was arguing against it ---- where were you ? Giving DT hell for it ? FINALLY agreeing that maybe I DON'T believe what you keep claiming I do ?

No -- YOU WERE SILENT !

Dude, your BS doesn't fly. YOU are the most egregious holder of double-standards, not replying to the post but to your biases about the poster.

JUST exactly the same way Wulf, who claims to not be biased, is the greatest slinger here of demeaning group stereotypes, caricatures, and slurs ... and not just racial ones, either.

Excuse me, but first, before I just say WTF?!?!?
Seriously, Kathy, did you just overdose on cobra venom, 'cause we might have a cure for that.

Quote:
human nature is evil and needs laws to keep it in check.

Um. Have I ever supported either idea? No, I don't think so. I don't believe in law. I think that it gives power over many to few. I believe in individual intervention, which is why I applauded Pirate News' twitter story.

Why do I believe in individual intervention? Because the vast majority of the people will do the right thing.

Furthermore, I've consistently maintained that people who do *evil* on a large scale are overwhelmingly convinced that it is *necessary* for a greater *good*, they just happen to be mistaken.

The problem, IMHO, with our society, is that we have an overarching legal structure which prevents the majority of people from intervening and doing the right thing.

Like the issue with the destruction of black neighborhoods. The overwhelming population opposes the idea, especially the overwhelming population at the site of demolition, that being the black people whose homes or neighbors homes are being destroyed. This is identical to how palestinians feel in Gaza, and rightly so.

But what stops them from intervening is the law.

No, I disagree with your premise. Humans are by nature animals, and they will act in a survival based manner, but they are far more likely to help one another out than to screw each other over, and if they do the latter, then someone will get their comeuppance.

Yes, I said "Cats eat mice." People need to understand that life is NOT a fluffy flowers and bunnyrabbits peaceable kingdom. But that is a very long distance from the position that humans are innately evil and need laws of an overarching authority to keep them in place.

Here's another little example. Brazilian ranchers went into the rainforest and started clearing trees. The indians killed them, with poison darts. This was effective. Then the law came in with machine guns, and stopped this, because murder was a crime, and deforestation was not. The ranchers were after profit. Do you think that citizens would become soldiers to protect the profits of the ranchers at the risk of their own life (some of them died too) I don't. Do you think that the Indians were wrong? I don't. Those darts, by the way, are incredibly potent. Ranchers had to resort to setting fires.

I don't know why you're dragging me into this one.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 23, 2009 3:02 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

DT_ Your quote formatting is garbled. In that last post portion, are you quoting? If so, who?

KPO_ Thanks for that comment on so-called "left-wing" racism. Good to hear from real-life experience.

WULF_ I'm still wondering... WHAT freedoms, exactly, am I taking from you and everybody?

RUE_ Yes, as best as I recall, Frem has consistently misrepresented - or misunderstood- your argument on human nature.

Not to take the thread TOO far off-course... Well, how 'bout a quick detour?... I see laws as not necessary to keep human nature in place as to keep human societies in check. The one thing that Frem and DT have not seem to have grasped (yet) is that human societies are MORE THAN the average -or even the sum -of their parts. 100 people do not behave like a thousand people, or a million people. The levels of interaction, the feedback loops which are possible, the types of structures which can be maintained, the achievable technology, living standards, effect on the environment, potential levels of inequality and height of heirarchies... all vastly different. Expecting "monkeysphere" politics to effect feedback in a system where the vast majority of people never even SEE each other...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 23, 2009 4:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
DT_ Your quote formatting is garbled. In that last post portion, are you quoting? If so, who?

KPO_ Thanks for that comment on so-called "left-wing" racism. Good to hear from real-life experience.

WULF_ I'm still wondering... WHAT freedoms, exactly, am I taking from you and everybody?

RUE_ Yes, as best as I recall, Frem has consistently misrepresented - or misunderstood- your argument on human nature.

Not to take the thread TOO far off-course... Well, how 'bout a quick detour?... I see laws as not necessary to keep human nature in place as to keep human societies in check. The one thing that Frem and DT have not seem to have grasped (yet) is that human societies are MORE THAN the average -or even the sum -of their parts. 100 people do not behave like a thousand people, or a million people. The levels of interaction, the feedback loops which are possible, the types of structures which can be maintained, the achievable technology, living standards, effect on the environment, potential levels of inequality and height of heirarchies... all vastly different. Expecting "monkeysphere" politics to effect feedback in a system where the vast majority of people never even SEE each other...

Two words. Linux Community. Many people operating in small groups semi-independently, but still communicating and impressive amounts of progress being made because there is no organizational bureaucracy.

But, I'll give you one thing. It is very difficult to meet people and to organize, I think, and small scale politics probably have difficulty affecting anything but small-scale issues.

One thing that myself, Frem, and I think Dream have in common is that we LIKE the small scale as a standard mode of operation. Everything is easier to manage. That's the social system we like to propose.

Or at least I think so with DT, I've talked with him over e-mail some about various ideas, he's said something about trying to promote small, self-sufficient communities. Even tried to establish some, but a problem he keeps running into is that many of the people he's gotten to join in have been encumbered having to still work jobs, pay bills.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 23, 2009 5:23 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

DT

Just to refresh your memory:

There was more than one thread where I addressed the changeable 'nature' of 'human nature', citing bonobos, chimpanzees, peaceful baboons, courtly dolphins, civilizations without wars or slums like Caral - and you countered:

People coerced the baboons to behave that way and/ or fraudulently reported their behavior b/c it could never happen.

Caral never existed and never could exist in the way described b/c your cousin studied a different culture and it ALWAYS turns out to be the way you say it does.

http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=39771
"People will always vie for power."

http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=39866
"There are interesting conclusions that you can come to from the actual data, but they don't support that human nature is egalitarian or peaceful ..."

"Reality is that we're a pack of rats, and we just can't bring ourselves to face up to it."

I'm not taking these out of context. That is the whole sum of your argument - you know what primate nature is, and what human nature is, and nothing different from what you think could EVER happen ... therefore, it never did anywhere, at any time, despite what the evidence shows. You made the argument that it is human nature to never be any different that whan we are now.

Meanwhile, I was the one arguing that intelligently chosen social inputs would lead to thriving, peaceful societies, and people.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 23, 2009 5:28 PM

KPO

I would agree with you among the voting block, though I think it depends which group you're a member of. Particularly the right has been shepherded unto racism against arabs and latinos recently.

I think that the Democratic Party, as an institution in power, is probably responsible for more institutional racism, a problem I had with many of the democrats I mentioned. I think Clinton was more racist than Bush.

But mostly, this isn't very partisan an issue: Most people view the other side more negatively because they get their information from filtered sources:

We read news sites, go to blogs, and communicate with peers, who share our political viewpoints, and this gives us a filter. Nik recently made a comment about land project corruption being a republican or conservative thing, when I was talking about the NY dems and their new anti-black plan. If you get your news from the left, then you probably heard less about Kelo vs the city of New London, probably the biggest land corruption scam ever to come out of the supreme court, and it was definitely a party line issue.

This isn't new: Republicans were up in arms about the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki decades before the left picked it up with the ban the bomb movement.

It's just that we don't scrutinize our own side. People talk about media bias, has anyone noticed that the media has been consistently biased against asians for decades? Our wars in asia have always had this quality to them... It's all over this society.

So sure, racist groups against someone might gravitate towards one side because they think it will protect them, or someone might stir up attitudes against latinos.

But things are definitely not what they seem. The left attitude of pick up the white man's burden is racist, as is their view of the third world. A lot of people on the right seem to me to have a more open mind about things like outsourcing.

I used to live in Kentucky, and the NY attitude about KY was that this was a bastion of racism, and it wasn't. In fact, the real racism I saw came from NYers who were there, made me embarrassed. These people probably were racist in NY, they came down to KY, and thought that their racist ideas would be accepted. So, it's really hard to generalize. I live in a rural, once all white community, and people of various ethnic groups moved in, I don't think anyone batted an eyelash, there are a fair number of black people here now, some phillipinos and some iranians. There's so little discrimination that the only time I think I've ever evidence that people were different races was one black guy who came in assuming that people who discriminate against him, as if he was perpetually on the lookout.

Populations are just different. I think there's an culture, environment, and attitude that develops over time that effects the way people react. If this place were like where Wulf grew up, where it was black against white, you would see something different. But this place was monoethnic and relaxed, and people started moving in from the city, (there was more reaction to that then race actually, but people got over it.)

Anyway, I probably come across as a defender of Ahmedinejad on this forum. Part of that is probably that I see Iranians every day. They're not some little enclave, they're an integral part of the social environment, in fact I have an email right now. Interesting perspectives too that you get, this from a Kurd living here in town: "I think Khameni is a good guy. He tries, he has such radicals to deal with, he may be the only thing keeping the lid on extremism in Iran." <--- not an attitude I ever heard in our press, and this coming from someone who had fought for the islamic revolution, and then against it, for kurdish independents. We also have non kurds, it's a relaxed environment. To me, when I see these attitudes towards Iran in the press, or from people of either party, it just strikes me as totally absurd, on the level of the "french fry/freedom fry" thing.

Oh, and yes, we have rabinical Jews. They hang out with the Iranian shiia. They don't care, or even notice, I think it doesn't cross their minds, while the politicians talk up a storm. So I gotta wonder how much of all of this racism is just created by TPTB stirring people up. If anyone here had a TV, there might be a different attitude.

I guess this is a long rant to say "It's not as simple as it seems." Are there republicans out there making conservatives look bad by being xenophobically racist? Sure. Do I ever see one in my day to day life here? No. I don't. I didn't in Kentucky either. But, yes, I've seen them. If anything, I think the GOP and FOX NEWS pundits don't help. There *is* one guy in town who listens to Rush Limbaugh, but I don't know what his views are on other people because he never talks to anyone else.

Sorry for the long rant, I'm sort of half conscious. I guess this is a great text for an editing exercise ;)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 23, 2009 5:46 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Rue

Firstoff, don't try to shine me, lady - time and time again your arguments for Government acting as a check against abuses, Religious, Corporate or what have you (and not completely without merit) DO wander into that territory.

As for DT making that argument, there's many a time I don't comprehend the essence of his posts enough to even comment intelligently, and I have had a bit less time to waste on such things as of late, I'm human and my time and mental efforts are finite, a defense you seem to reserve exclusively for yourself and have been called on by others as well.

And now you really misinterpret my entire concern because of YOUR own biases.

What I said, and you didn't hear, is that because your recent posts contained a level of bitterness and resignation I feel to be out of character for you, that I was concerned about you, Rue the person, not Rue the poster or political entity, cause something like that is usually indicative of an offboard or personal situation someone is struggling with - which ain't my business and I was trying to respect your privacy while hinting that it was showing, ok ?

Remember, I backed offa even Rappy when I saw the signs of impending breakdown, and when I see fracture lines in someones pysche I *DO* become concerned, no matter what you fervently wish to think of me personally, true or not.

You wanna flame me, flame me for what I *DID*, not what you would rather believe I did.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 23, 2009 5:53 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

The answer is pretty simple: severe, unrelenting back pain which has escalated over the last few months into stratospheric levels.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 23, 2009 6:16 PM

Kathy,

My world view is pretty consistent. Sometimes I'm more down on humans than others, but I was reacting to this liberal fantasy that human nature was all fluffy granola bars.

I think they're right on the granola bars, that's a pretty decent example of a natural human diet. But people do fight wars, and so do apes.

I never said that humans were evil, or that they needed supervision, or laws. I think that people, sure, look out for #1, it's a survival instinct. But they also look out for each other.

It's just a dumb idea to ignore that humans are also going to look out for each other in groups, or themselves, or that there are people who will always be looking to angle to get power over others, and usually such people have a deep biding trust in the greater good, and in themselves, and their teachings, and this is the recipe for the greatest evil...

BUT, and this is important, it is those most structured societies that let these people with the machiavellian structure I just outlined, the ones who think they know better, and believe in the greater good, and then find that such good is so essential that almost any measure is acceptable if it provides for this, it's THESE people who profit by a rigid power structure.

The neocons never, in half a century of actively trying, were ever able to get decent numbers to support their agenda, and those few hundred thousand that did support them, did so because they sincerely believed that they were *helping* people.

But your attack is pointless, since I had already just posted above my own most vicious comment about humanity from one of those threads:
The truth of the world is cats eat mice.

As for your fantasies of mezoamerica, no. That's it. This is fantasy. My cousin is an expert in the subject, and not the only one I've ever met, and I had studied the whole field in some detail myself. This is not the mezoamerican story. The story is at times very brutal. The absurd fantasy is that Caral fell to random natural disasters, and not their own practices and the devastating effect that had on the local environment. I'm not attacking Mezoamerica, I have a lot of respect for it, like ancient egypt. I would never build such a society. It simply did not have enough respect for its own environment, and neither do we.

The fact is that liberals have a fantasy that something in human past is going to justify their social engineering. It won't. This is never ever going to happen, unless you lie to yourself, or continue to lie to yourself, in this case.

But that doesn't make humanity evil. It just makes large mechanized societies a bad idea.

The reason is that the masses really can't do a damn thing about it. What we know about the city states that directly descend from Caral is that they were oppressive, imperialistic, and very similar. All that happened was they destroyed their environment and had to move on, and the same people started many other civilizations over the next couple thousand years and we have a detailed recorded history of it. Yes, we owe a lot to these civilizations, they made a lot of advances in food. They also left large deserts is latin america.

You simply can't socially engineer. The story you're telling is not one of peace and bunnyrabbits, sure they had peace, because they were the first advanced society in the area, there was no competition. But that doesn't mean that the people were all a hippie commune.

I'm sorry, this is a silly idea, and no, it has nothing to do with the the Maya, who were really quite eco-friendly, and much more intellectually minded and less imperial. Not a judgment call, but I'm tired, and this is another post that needs editing.

Caral is a story of cats eating mice, and mice eating cheese until there was no more cheese the end.

Or would be if their descendants didn't then go make the near-identical error a hundred or so more times.

This is why people need individual liberty, and group organization, and the right to do so, and secure this *for* *themselves* and not be handed it from some overarching society of social engineering.

Mother Nature didn't kill Caral. Caral killed Mother Nature:

Same ecosystem, where they didn't build a city:

Ditto for the bonobo and all of it. We have amazing tools as humans, with which we have to be very very careful. Caral was not utopia, it was a disaster. Don't believe me? Ask them, or any of their neighbors. Oh, that's right, there's not a living thing on god's not so green earth left to tell the tale.

Footnote. This is a very different story from that of Tikal:

Tikal never became a desert, and stands to this day, surrounded by what might be the world's only man made jungle. A change of govt. in 900 ad resulted in a change of policy. The old Mayan 1/10 rule (One farm plant for every ten natural plants) was broken in the interests of supporting a larger population (Tikal was a city in the center of a province supporting 250,000 people) The Result was a decline in yield, and a more oppressive political situation, and the people just left, into the jungle, where their descendants live today. (except some now live here;) )

Tikal, like most of the best societies every built by humans, is almost completely lost under the jungle. We all know the reality, that if you live at peace with nature, nature will overrun you, and nothing you build will truly outlast you. Thus, the greatest society of humankind is probably lost forever.

The distasters will always be with us, staring out as stark monuments over the world that they destroyed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 23, 2009 6:33 PM

Rue: Is it a herniated disk? I have (had? don't feel it too much now) one. That's not fun.

Although could be worse things too.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 23, 2009 6:37 PM

Hey DT, I think I saw an article somewhere on the fall of the Mayan Empire. You want a go at it? I could find it in short order.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 23, 2009 6:42 PM

Byte,

You're very on target with the Linux Open Source community. This is the sort of society that will evolutionarily defeat the current top down govt'l structure, regardless of how the smaller units are internally structured, or who they are made up of.

I personally think it's best if those separate small societies are radically different from one another in the way they operate and/or the fields they study, as it would lead them to different thought processes and create a greater diversity of ideas. I support maintaining a wide variety of cultures for the same reason.

Also I've noticed a critical mass for nations, around a few million. past that, social efforts become too self absorbed and concerned with maintaining empire and running state affairs. Me and a friend did some studies of various societies and we came up with a fairly consistent 140,000 or so were contributing towards progress. Of course, a nation would have to be larger than this because it couldn't be 100% scientists, someone has to provide it with food, etc, but a couple million people running a decent percent would do it.

I'm intrigued by Pirate News' twitter story. I think that a society that is its own rescue and defense force would be interesting too. I'm beginning to think that the last need for overarching power structure is gone...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 23, 2009 6:47 PM

It's all thanks to the internet.

Here's the article, if you're interested: http://www.postchronicle.com/news/science/article_212257742.shtml

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 23, 2009 6:48 PM

Byte,

Sure

Kathy,

A couple of thoughts, one is glucosamine with either chondrointin or a chondrointinase, the latter being probably more effective.

Next, there's a nerve cluster under your armpit that's involved in this, and you can damage it if you get stabbed in the underarm, this just happened to my sister, she slipped and the crutch went through her armpit

slipped disc is always a possibility

Another one is pulled muscled. This usually is notable as a knot when it happens, and bengay is the only thing that i've found that helps.

other than that, there are stretching exercises, physical therapy, but don't do that until your doc determines that it's not a slipped disc or something that could be exacerbated by exercise

oh, a herniated muscle also, caught in the spine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 23, 2009 7:03 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
The answer is pretty simple: severe, unrelenting back pain which has escalated over the last few months into stratospheric levels.

Oh.

Oh dear, ouch - being in constant, chronic pain myself, although thankfully not often of that level, I can imagine your frustration right now, especially what with most doctors being so terrified of the DEA and the "War on (some) Drugs" that they dare not use all methods to treat pain due to a justified fear of the jackboots.

Lemme think on this a bit...

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 23, 2009 7:09 PM

I'm going to advise against pain killers. The pain is telling you where the problem is, and if there's something delicately out of balance, and you exacerbate it you could end up with a far more serious problem. I'd hold off any pain medication until I had concluded that it was purely neuropathic.

Certainly if it's arthritic, herniated, a sliped disc, or a fractured vertebrae, something physical, you want to treat it directly, and not the symptom.

It could be a parasite of some sort, but statistically, the most likely thing is probable arthritis, but check all options.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 23, 2009 7:14 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
One thing that myself, Frem, and I think Dream have in common is that we LIKE the small scale as a standard mode of operation. Everything is easier to manage. That's the social system we like to propose.

Quote:
I personally think it's best if those separate small societies are radically different from one another in the way they operate and/or the fields they study, as it would lead them to different thought processes and create a greater diversity of ideas. I support maintaining a wide variety of cultures for the same reason.

Good luck on that. Given that bigger systems tend to be more efficient, the general "drive" will be towards larger and larger systems. History is a good indicator of this trend. There ARE countering forces... primarily, disasters which force systems into smaller, self-sufficient units (with large loss if life, given our history of breeding past environmental/ technological carrying point!) but that kind of corrective factor is intermittent and stochastic.

So, in sum: I don't think it's gonna work. It's not economically favorable.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 23, 2009 8:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Mangolo:
I take it from a brief skimming that none of you are African American or any minority group?

Racial labels are comprised of two components:

1. Self Identification

2. How society looks at you and judges you (prejudice)

1. I am Arab American by most definitions of the label, but I don't identify with Arabs. My family is from Syria originally, spoke Arabic originally, but now we have no connection to Arab culture. My family is also Jewish and though we are not religious Jews, I do identify with our culture and history, so I call myself Jewish American. So, that's self identification.

2. Here in Hawai'i, I'm a ha'ole. It literally means "a person who cannot chant their genealogy", but locals use it as a catch all for anyone with lighter skin color and non-Asian features. They don't differentiate between light skinned people. We are lumped together. Irish, Italian, Greek, Anglo, Swedes, Slavs, etc- any background that might have a cultural or racial separation on the mainland all are 'ha'ole', everyone else is either 'local' or 'Hawaiian' except the Portuguese. They've been here so long they are separate.

Another example of #2 is some of my Hawaiian friends went to university in California and Oregon. There, many of them were seen as Mexican by both people of color and whites. Latinos would come up to them and immediately speak Spanish to them and whites would sometimes ask them about Mexico or say disparaging things about Mexicans at them.

The third most disturbing aspect of #2 is racial profiling. Because of our name (Hajim), my family was harassed after 9/11. You ever been pulled into second or tertiary inspection by the TSA/DHS? For three years, every single flight we went on, we were searched. My kids too. Six flights a year. Six times to secondary. You ever had to watch a stranger take your little kids most treasured items and have to watch your kids cry while a bunch of strangers in uniform take apart their favorite stuffed animal? Try going through that kind of thing 20 times or more. Once we had our luggage pulled off the plane by these guys. Missed the flight. The reason? No reason given 'cept our Arab sounding name is kind of like some on the extended terrorism list.

Racial profiling is much worse for other people than we've ever experienced.

Hope this helps.

I like this post and agree with Mangolo 100%

I'd also like to add that as an outsider, Obama just seems like an american. As a descendant from a Kenyan, and a member of a racial, once (still?) persecuted minority, it was very exciting that he be running for president, let alone elected. Symbolically, that felt important for a lot of people. A bit like (but not quite as exciting) when Thatcher came to power. Now I hate Thatchers guts, but I still found it significant when she was elected.

Now he's in office, he just has to do the job - nothing else matters.

I'm horrified that the concept of 'lower blood' is still kicking around - where are we, Europe 1930?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 24, 2009 3:28 AM

Quote:
Given that bigger systems tend to be more efficient

Sig, you gotta give me the coordinates of your planet sometime, I'd like to visit ;)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 24, 2009 3:32 AM

I was baffled by this comment

Quote:
Obama...once (still?) persecuted minority

Until I read this one.

Quote:
Thatcher

My actual thought was "wait we persecuted Kenyans? When? I thought that was Britain." but then you made a decidedly british comment.

I like Thatcher btw, soft ice cream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 24, 2009 3:51 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Given that bigger systems tend to be more efficient-SIGNY

Sig, you gotta give me the coordinates of your planet sometime, I'd like to visit ;)-DT

[snark] I'm here on this planet, DT. Where are YOU?

[/snark]

Larger systems...

Population size_ Larger population allows division of labor, greater technical advances, and a higher standard of living. Many papers on the topic. Technological level reversibly depends on population size; once population falls below a certain threshold the technology can no longer be sustained.

Geographic area_ Larger geographic area means higher likelihood of obtaining specific resources or being resilient to local disaster. Examples: tantalum, the floods in Georgia. Yes, you can get this by trade, but that means disparate groups have to have safe trade routes and common currency or common trading practices, common language and clock or calendar. Look at how far the 24-hour day has spread, and the seven-day week! In effect, they ARE tied together in a larger system, which rewards greater internal efficiencies.

Bulk handling_ Producing and handling items in bulk is much more efficient than producing and handling piecemeal. It doesn't make much sense to set up a production unit, make one or two items, and then retool for something else. Far more efficient to run the unit 24-7 until it wears down ... this is simply a ratio of the investment you made in your production capacity versus the output.

I could go on with several other factors, but... you get the point?

So, YES, larger systems ARE more efficient. Less labor is used to produce more goods. It is an obvious economic and historic fact.

You might be confusing that with being more resilient. Larger units are NOT more resilient, particularly if they have been tweaked to maximum efficiency. A maximally-efficient system is highly interdependent, with no internal redundancy, "spare parts", or resources laying idle. In that case, the system is subject to the slightest disruption in trade, power sources, internal dissent etc.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 24, 2009 4:17 AM

Sig, NONE of those necessarily imply an overarching organizational system... Or a requirement for one.

Remember my linux example? It's a bunch of small groups but well connected, each of them contributing to an end product, and that's actually highly efficient and streamlined. There's more than one way to do things. Some of us don't like bureaucracy.

Heck, you yourself once posted an equation in regards to energy for success/production where the organization factor seems to have a component of exponential decay associated with it. Either that or I'm still confused whether the energy represented the AMOUNT of energy to accomplish a task, or whether it was the amount of energy AVAILABLE from the factors together.

The current system is the spawn of industrialization, which took over from the old form of the artisan system. The industrialization won out because AT THE TIME, it was more productive to get many less skilled workers doing small parts of a greater task than it was for someone to do the entire task from start to finish. The reason for this is first the technology, greater numbers, as you said, and a better means of connection for each step of the progress (inter-exchangeable parts: the hallmark of mass production).

With the advent of the internet, the groups don't even have to be in the same factory working on the parts of the process. But because of the separation, it's becoming necessary for workers to be skilled in ALL the parts of the process again. One thousand workers or groups of workers all able to perform a task from start to finish WILL be ultimately more efficient and produce more than one thousand workers only able to do a section of the process before passing it along to the next person in the chain.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 24, 2009 5:33 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

BYTE: I like Linux. I use Linux. I like the way Linux is developed. But I'm not sure how far the Linux paradigm can be extended to the production of physical goods, like cars or electricity. And even if it could, I'm not talking about "bureaucracy", I'm talking about systems. Even the Linux paradigm requires such a system: It requires a centralized yeah-sayer (what parts get incorporated into the kernel and what don't make the cut), version control, it requires a common language, and it requires a robust physical connection... which requires telcoms of some sort!

AFA that equation- what I intended to show was that an organized system is more efficient than a disorganized one.

DT, BYTE_We might look to ecology for our paradigms. A monoculture is efficient but fragile.

ETA: I'm gonna hive this thread off.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 24, 2009 5:42 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
The answer is pretty simple: severe, unrelenting back pain which has escalated over the last few months into stratospheric levels.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

Have a go at a chiropracter. I tried traditional "medicine", which did no good whatsoever, and out of desperation I went to a "chiroquacker" as I called him. He did a few simple things, cracked by back just so, and it was not just like the pain wasn't there any more - it was like it NEVER HAD BEEN THERE. Simply amazing.

My problem is a subpluxation of one of the vertebrae in my lower back, just above the pelvic cage. It slips out to the side a bit, and then forward, which pinches off the nerves that run down my leg. I've actually had it happen in mid-stride, and just gone down like a sack of hammers, because my legs just don't respond the way they should when it happens. What finally got me to the chiropracter was when I was essentialy bed-ridden for three months with it, and traditional docs couldn't do shit for it, except offer to fuse that vertebrae, which only moves the problem exactly one vertebrae up the chain, and so they have to fuse that one next, etc.

And yes, there WAS a time when I seriously wondered if I'd ever have just one more "good day" left to me. That's where unending pain can take you, and it's not a pretty place.

Now, while I may not be as good as I once was, I'm as good once as I ever was. :)

Seriously, there's still pain, but it's manageable with nothing more than aspirin or ibuprofin. I'm stiff when I get up in the morning, so I do stretches, and repetitive motion brings it on quick, so I have to be careful about that. I lift things for a living, which most people would think WOULD be a concern, but I've had worse things happen just twisting to put a 15-pound box on a cart than I ever have lifting a 120-pound carton. It ain't the weight, it's the motion.

Try chiropractic. It's not for everyone, and I'm still not sure I even believe in it, but damned if it didn't do wonders for me.

Mike

Old friend charity
Cruel twisted smile
And the smile signals emptiness
For me
Starless and Bible black

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 24, 2009 5:58 AM

Scary scary scary. I'm glad it worked for you.

I didn't go to a chiropractor, I just let my herniated disk heal for six months. Yeah it hurt, and it kept me bedridden for that long. People thought I was crazy, thought I should get medicine and get surgery. I'm a big believer in people's natural ability to heal, and the popping my spine thing scared me off from a chiropractic solution.

I probably have an underlying back problem that caused the herniated disk, but right now, if it's not broken, I'm not going to try to fix it.

But, I wouldn't recommend that for everyone. Mostly because I was and probably am taking a pretty substantial risk in my back eventually getting worse. But if it's pain versus even the slightest possibility of paralysis, I'm going to go with pain.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 24, 2009 7:34 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

FWIW - of five discs, two are bulging and two are badly ruptured - and those are just the ones they looked at. I also have scoliosis. And I'm old, not producing as much HGH as before, which normally helps with inflamation and recovery. I would really like to have a healthy, straight spine ! Or to be young again, or ... both !

I don't use pain meds or anti-inflamatories because they mostly don't work, and they have negatives of their own.

***************************************************************

ETA: Mike

I think you have to find a good chiropractor. I had a neighbor who went to one and the chiropractor actually ruptured two discs by aggressively manipulating the spine ! He (the neighbor, whose name is also Mike) ended up needing a back fusion just below his shoulder blades b/c of it in his early 30's. That high up - it's scary ! Perhaps word of mouth is the best advertising. I'll ask around to see who I might find.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 24, 2009 7:48 AM

Eeek. What treatment options are you exploring?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 24, 2009 7:55 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I've been taking vitamins and anti-oxidants to help with the inflammation. I've had spinal decompreSSion. It worked well. Then I lost a lot of weight to help even more.

But we got a project going at work that required me to work on and haul around a lot of equipment in awkward positions. That's why it got as bad lately as it got. And then I was working irregular and long hours and not getting enough good rest just to keep my end of the project on track. The project ends next week, I'm hoping a few weeks without the physical stresses will help heal. If that doesn't work ... I'm going to need to do some thinking ... perhaps, see above ...

I'm open to suggestions !

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 24, 2009 8:34 AM

Hmm, so I'm not sure if a ruptured disk is the same as a herniated disk, I looked it up and was redirected. A bulge is an almost herniated disk. But ouch, I can imagine why that would hurt.

Well, I'd do whatever you can. I didn't take any pain medication, though a friend of mine did for hers, it's all about how you respond to it. Also, part of my problem was sitting at a desk for ten hours, I got an ergonomic chair with lumbar support to help with that. Then, when I went home, it was bedrest, bedrest, bedrest.

I found that laying on my side with the mattress/cushion supporting the side my spine curves to to seems to have been the least painful position, and the one I've had the best recovery with. Make sure the mattress or cushion has a lot of support, but not too firm, you want to sink in just a bit. If that's not a good position, lying flat on your back also seems at least to help with the pain.

Towards the end of the period where I would say the pain was pretty constant, my back started popping and adjusting by itself alot, which was alarming, but my back started to feel better then, too, so I think that was part of the healing process.

And even though chiropractors and surgeons may make me nervous, it may be worth it for you to talk to some.

As for physical therapy, I definitely deteriorated in my lung capacity and muscle strength over the six months. So I would also look into that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 24, 2009 1:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I was baffled by this comment
Quote:
Obama...once (still?) persecuted minority

Until I read this one.
Quote:
Thatcher

My actual thought was "wait we persecuted Kenyans? When? I thought that was Britain." but then you made a decidedly british comment.

I like Thatcher btw, soft ice cream.

I'm not British - I just hate Thatcher - lived under her 'reign' for quite awhile and it sucked.

Sorry I worded badly - I meant that African Americans were persecuted in North America and the (still?) sort of implying that perhaps they still were (I don't live in the US so I'm throwing the question out there)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 24, 2009 4:50 PM

Magonsdaughter,

Oh, by soft ice cream I meant soft ice cream, a product, that sells well here, good stuff, invented by Ms. Thatcher and a team of fellow scientists. Good work :) I spend a lot of time in the UK, the consensus there is nothing compares to the Blair. Tony has set a new bar on a Vlad Putin level, and my British friends are all Labor, so... Oh, Labour, with a u, sorry.

Black, discrimination. Yes and no. There's not a lot of popular anti-black feeling, outside of Wulf (/snark) No, I never see any of this, maybe I'm not in the sort of place where it happens, but there is definitely within the halls of power a racism. It's now top down, and not coming from the people. My recent thread on Schumer and gentrification is all about his genocidal anti-black policies, leveling their homes and kicking them out to build either white settlements or businesses, which is to me exactly the policy that Schumer supported in Israel under Ohlmert with the palestinians, so yes, that sort of thing exists.

Obama's not a member of the ethnic group, I'm not sure whether or not that matters. He's a Luo, and they're an unrelated African group. African-American slaves were basically exclusively Niger-River based or Sengal-River based prisoners captured in Dahomey's slave wars, funded by western purchases (though they had been running for some time, since 900ish) the point being, this is the ethnic group that american blacks, such as Michelle Obama is from. It would be like calling an Australian Aborigine "black." Additionally, with a Hawaii/Indonesia white/asian upbringing, he doesn't have a black upbringing, culturally.

The things that do make him black are:

1. He has dark skin, of african descent, and is *percieved* as black, a member of the black community, which means that Obama does effect attitudes, in a positive way

2. He's from Hyde park which is an upscale black neighborhood in Chicago, where I used to live, and frequently visit. It's had its share of problems over the years, and goes up and down, but is decidedly part of "black america" the way Harlem is.

So, in that sense, yes, Obama *is* black, African American, but *not* related genetically or culturally to black americans, and so it *would* be fair to say that Obama *didn't* have the same level of disadvantages that a typical black american might have. I'm not sure that a black politician would have been able to do what he did. His ability to talk culturally to the broader American spectrum, white, asian and latino, rather than just the black community, helped him immensely vs. previous African-American candidates

The significance of the genetic background is this:

The President

Previous presidential contenders:

Jesse Jackson:

Al Sharpton:

General wisdom is that Jackson and Sharpton were unable to reach non-black audiences on a cultural level, but if the question is, "is there, deep down, a racial discrimination that triggers on some non-blacks when they see 'black' features?" Then my answer is "I don't know." I can see that yes, on facial recognition, Jackson and Sharpton would appear black to other American in a way that Obama would not because he's of a different genetic background, and whether or not this recognition could prompt a subconscious rejection from some non-black voters, I don't know. It's possible.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 24, 2009 9:03 PM

I didn't mind Blair, but he was in power too long and Labour became a kind of Torylite in the end - really nothing compared to the hell that was Thatcher, IMO of course.

Re: Obama's ethnicity - I doubt whether racists would care about it - they would just see him 'black' and label him with the appropriate stereotypes.

Australian Aboriginals are often referred to as black - and it's one of those terms that threads in and out of favour with the community themselves, sometimes seen as racist sometimes seen as an appropriate desciption - there are mobs who have often traditionally referred to themselves as 'Blackfellas'. Current term of appropriateness here where I live is 'Koori'.

It is often Koories themselves who wish to distinguish themselves from the Anglo population here - because of the history of forced integration, where people hid their ancestry if at all possible because of racism and the shame surrounding it. Now people are open and proud of that heritage and tend to proclaim it loudly - sort of a backlash, I'd imagine

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 25, 2009 8:32 AM

Magonsdaughter,

First, a political line, just so we don't get into any partisan disagreements, because I think in general, those are pointless (no one is going to change anyone else's right/left perspective, but maybe on individual issues.) I support the Tories, and wish that we had a party like them here in the US. I can't support the republicans anymore, they're ridiculous. I hope every election that the democrats have changed and will live up to their message, but they always let me down, and it looks like it's going to happen again. I think Cameron looks good for 2010.

Thatcher didn't strike me as that bad, but I didn't live under her. She seemed like "Reagan lite." But Thatcherism isn't the only kind of Tory. Blair struck me as "Bush with a Brain" which doesn't help when you look at what they're *trying* to do, which seems to be start a WWIII, I'd rather have an incompetent moron like Bush than someone actually capable of doing it. But Obama is still definitely better than Bush or Clinton.

Quote:
e: Obama's ethnicity - I doubt whether racists would care about it - they would just see him 'black' and label him with the appropriate stereotypes.

Oh, that's not what I meant. Overt racists would never vote for a democrat anyway, because of the civil rights platform, so I feel safe to say that there are very very few votes among the left that Obama would lose to open racism.

I was implying the possibility of a "subconscious" racism, that saw a black face, and didn't think "President." Presidents have to "Look Presidential." There's a lot of stuff that goes into that image. Someone who "looks black" on a facial recognition level might trigger "not president" in the subconscious of people who do not think of themselves as racist. The only reason this idea occurs is that candidates of west african descent have done very poorly in primaries. It may be entirely cultural though, I was just admitting that it might be possible for some americans.

Quote:

Australian Aboriginals are often referred to as black - and it's one of those terms that threads in and out of favour with the community themselves, sometimes seen as racist sometimes seen as an appropriate desciption - there are mobs who have often traditionally referred to themselves as 'Blackfellas'. Current term of appropriateness here where I live is 'Koori'.

It is often Koories themselves who wish to distinguish themselves from the Anglo population here - because of the history of forced integration, where people hid their ancestry if at all possible because of racism and the shame surrounding it. Now people are open and proud of that heritage and tend to proclaim it loudly - sort of a backlash, I'd imagine

Interesting. Sounds like the 1960s black pride here. I just meant they wouldn't be mistaken for (west african)black in the US, I don't think. South asians have dark skin, but would never be confused with african americans by anyone here, I don't think, I've never seen it happen anyway.

people hid ancestry of mixed white/aboriginal? I'm not sure I follow you ...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 25, 2009 8:50 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I grew up in an all-white neighborhood. I didn't see a black face in the flesh until I was about 16. But I heard about "them". Oh, yes. "They" were poor, shiftless, ignorant, violent, and smelly. "They" spoke badly. "They" felt entitled, embittered, and dragged race into every conceivable excuse for the way "their" lives turned out. Needless to say, I have very deeply rooted prejudices. When a black person did something stupid or violent, I would (mentally) snort and think Typical ghetto trash! What do you expect?.

But I noticed something funny. As the MEDIA changed to portray blacks in something other than stupid sitcoms... as doctors, surgeons, scientists, pilots, presidents, bosses of the Warehouse 13 crew (

) and yes- even Shepherds- I started reacting positively to certain faces ... Why, he looks just like the surgeon character on ER! or Hey, SHE looks just like the lady on Warehouse 13!.

Am I the only one?

I think Obama being shown AS PRESIDENT may not have a big effect on people who are rabidly racist, but on peeps like me, the exposure may leave a positive lasting change.

What do you think?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 25, 2009 9:39 AM

I don't think this is a common experience, but I also don't think it was the question. It was whether racism played a part in Barack Obama's election, I'm not sure that it did, except maybe on a subconscious level.

Edit: in answer to the original question, Obama is a Luo-American Islamo-Christian WASP whose is black, white, and read all over, and has spend more time with luaus then with luos. We're more worried about whether he's a 21st century globalist or and FDR social imperialist than what genetic or cultural group he belongs to or belonged to or will belong to...

He seems like a nice guy, but very slow to get a dog. He was only the third non-dog owning American to win a presidential election, though he did so with a campaign promise to get a dog.

There's another thing. Teddy Kennedy *gave* Obama the Labradoodle which is called a Portuguese Water Dog if you buy it from some pricey dog-breeder, which he did, which is nothing against the dog, but *did* break Obama's campaign promise that it would be a "pound puppy." Now, of course, there was a diplomatic way out of this: 2 dogs. Obama could have fulfilled the full promise and gotten an additional dog from an animal shelter, to keep a promise, send a positive message, and shake some of that "elitist" image that having millions of dollars, marrying a corporate executive and sending your kids to pricey private school tends to send. <-- interesting point Jimmy Carter made: Presidents who send their kids to private school have no incentive to improve the public education system.

Sorry, just adding to the huge infobase of "stuff written about the Obama's dog, Bo. In his first week, 17.5 million words were written about Bo, which gives you just a tiny glimpse into exactly how bad the information overload situation really is.

To me, Obama is a Hyde Parker, which makes him a brother. I can still have disagreements with him, like right now over foreign policy, which is the part of me that is from Upstate Iran, where the blind governor is expected to beat the President in a bowling match. ;)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 25, 2009 3:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Magonsdaughter,

Thatcher didn't strike me as that bad, but I didn't live under her. She seemed like "Reagan lite." But Thatcherism isn't the only kind of Tory. Blair struck me as "Bush with a Brain" which doesn't help when you look at what they're *trying* to do, which seems to be start a WWIII, I'd rather have an incompetent moron like Bush than someone actually capable of doing it. But Obama is still definitely better than Bush or Clinton.

Oh, if you support the Tories, then you would probably like Thatcher. I hated her 'there is no society, only individuals' policies, because I think that's bunk - lost of other reasons too. She supported Pinochet in Chile, brought it the poll tax, had some pretty heavy handed methods of dealing with dissent... but then I can't stand Reagan either. Especially galls me that he is considered some big hero by revising history - ack-

I would never vote Tory (if I still lived in the UK). I much too left of centre for that. In the US, I'd probably be branded a communist and booted out of the country but views are considered pretty mild here.

Quote:
people hid ancestry of mixed white/aboriginal? I'm not sure I follow you ...

Sure, well it was encouraged by the government in the worst possible way. Aboriginal children of mixed blood were taken from their families and brought up with white parents so they could integrate - these people are now referred to as the 'Stolen Generation' All in all it was considered so bad to be Aboriginal - they didn't even get the vote until 1967 - that people hid it if they could. A shameful part of our history. I'm not sure if you heard about our Prime Minister's apology when he was elected - but basically that's what it was about.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 25, 2009 3:47 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Black, discrimination. Yes and no. There's not a lot of popular anti-black feeling ..."

It depends on where you go and how comfortable people are talking in front of you. Since I am so white I just about glow in the dark, I've overheard stuff that a darker person would probably not have heard (imagine the speaker leaning forward and speaking soto voce as they make their comment) - and this is in Los Angeles, not some rural, historically redneck town. And it's not just in reference to blacks, it's also 'Mexicans', 'Asians' and 'libruls'.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 25, 2009 4:43 PM

Quote:
Oh, if you support the Tories, then you would probably like Thatcher. I hated her 'there is no society, only individuals' policies,

Yeah, I do. They're a lot better than our republicans. No political party is perfect, but I could vote for the tories, if they ran here. I couldn't vote for either party here, I voted Green.

Quote:
She supported Pinochet in Chile,

A lot of conservatives did. This was an error. I don't hold it against labour MPs who supported Saddam Hussein, I don't even hold it against people who supported the worst regimes of all time, because these were mistakes. People become politically blind. There are lots of leftists who supported the ANC here, even Mugabe right up until '99. The fact is, this is just willful ignorance: People like to see the pendulum swing their way, and so they support it. There are people right now supporting Chavez, who probably has nothing to redeem him. It's not that he's a leftist, it's that he's a lunatic like Kim Jong Il. Maybe not *that* looney, but pretty looney. The right is supporting people like Hamid Karzai. My take? People support their political stripe, and don't examine closely enough exactly what it is they're supporting. Reagan also supported Pinochet.

Quote:
but then I can't stand Reagan either. Especially galls me that he is considered some big hero by revising history - ack-

Reagan worship was always a little out of control and pointless. On the plus side, he was relatively prosperous and peaceful for the US, on the minus side, GHW Bush was running amok with Cheney and Rummy in the background starting wars overseas, etc. Reagan wouldn't be my first choice. Ironically, he's Obama's idol. I understand that, there are a lot of things that Reagan did domestically, even things that GHW Bush did, domestically, that helped level things out, lessen discrimination, remove taxes on the poor. It's really a mixed bag. I'd say Reagan/Bush on domestic social/economic issues, were okay, on foreign policy and the environment, they were pretty bad.

Quote:
I would never vote Tory (if I still lived in the UK). I much too left of centre for that. In the US, I'd probably be branded a communist and booted out of the country but views are considered pretty mild here.

Lol. The American left is far more radical than it lets on. The democratic party and the republican party are almost politically indistinguishable. This is an inevitable result of a two party system.

if 1 were lenin and 10 were pinochet, then the republicans would be sitting at 5.1 and the democrats at 4.9. The reason is, you only have to be one step to the left or right to capture the whole voting population on that side. It' like if I'm thinking of a number from 1 to 100, see who's closest, and I guess 50, your logical guess would be 51.

The american votership is very very different. There are a lot of people on the left who think Obama is way too far to the right. Then he has his devout admirers, and then moderate right who sort of tentatively support him but reserve judgment, like me (politically. Personally, he's one of the nicer presidents we've had, the guy you'd actually want to know. I'd never ever want to meet the Bushes or the Clintons.) To the right of that there are the free-market right who fear socialism, the christian right who think he's a secret muslim, and then the media-right, who fear he's a secret muslim and so won't support israel, and then there's the GOP who just oppose him because he's a democrat and make up reasons to oppose him.

Quote:
Sure, well it was encouraged by the government in the worst possible way. Aboriginal children of mixed blood were taken from their families and brought up with white parents so they could integrate - these people are now referred to as the 'Stolen Generation' All in all it was considered so bad to be Aboriginal - they didn't even get the vote until 1967 - that people hid it if they could. A shameful part of our history. I'm not sure if you heard about our Prime Minister's apology when he was elected - but basically that's what it was about.

No, I missed this whole thing. That's pretty bad, but our country has tons of stories like this. Right wing individualism to me is about "This is what organized govt's do: They fuck with people." I have never really seen the point of the US federal govt. which does nothing at all other than fight wars. We also have state govts. which run schools, provide some limited welfare and healthcare (there's a federal govt. retirement program, but you pay into it, and get 3 cents on the dollar back, I think that could be cancelled with no real loss.) Still, I'd rather see everything private eventually. I think the tax burden on America chokes any possibility of our ability to compete, which is why we have virtually no industry now.

It's great for me, because I'm poor. Everything is collapsing, prices plummeting, wages soon to follow, which is just helping me out a lot, I can now get healthcare, I can buy a home, a car, and do things I could never do before, because I could never get the income base. It's going to suck for the middle class, because they have been credit eligible, which I never have, and so they carry these huge debts on the assumption that their wages and investments, assets, will pay for them, which they won't. I know people in this boat. I'd say at the moment, being poor is the next best thing to being rich.

Oops, long rant coming. Sorry about that:

But the middle class are definitely screwed. I know a lot of people who work, and this is the a very common picture:

Avg. income around 36k-39k. State tax 8%, FICA 7.65%, Fed Tax 25%, which is 40%, and then local taxes around 5%, and a 8% sales (VAT) tax on everything you buy. That doesn't leave a lot of disposible income, esp. when you consider that though there are flat deductions of 6k or so, that means you're only being taxed on the 30k, but taxes aren't deductable from each other, so they just add up, so you're paying 1/2 your income in tax, not including hidden taxes (1/2 of fuel is tax, etc.)

Then we have the "debt society" most people are in, or "debt slavery" as we call it sometimes.

Median mortgage payment is $1687/mo, which already exceeds median disposable income. Add to that $250 in student loans, $500 in electric and heat, add utilities, car, you're pushing 2500-3000, ouch.

Take the upper classes, around 100k, paying in as contractors, they pay an extra 8% tax, 7.5% fica, possibly 4% retirement, and they're pusing 70-75% tax, so their 25k remaining is about 2000 a month, and their student loan debt is usually 4 times the size. I know people who make over 100 thou a year and take home less money than I do.

So people say "being a poor conservative is dumb" but I disagree. I think it makes a lot of sense. I borrow nothing, spend within my means, because I have to, and don't need to put in 80 hours a week just to lose ground. I do support lower taxes, because I think these people who pay high taxes work hard, and deserve better. I actually fear for them what might come from our pending economic collapse.
[/rant]

I used to be a pretty hard and fast liberal, and I was just disillusioned. I didn't think the ideas played out well in reality like they did on paper, and I didn't noticed that liberal govts. were prone to peace, or equality, etc.

I think basically, people are mostly after the same things, they just have different methods.

My main concerns are

1. The environment
2. Peace
3. Civil Liberties
4. Free Trade
5. Everyone having an equal shot

I think about the ways to get this.

Another rant, sorry:

I'd say people I have very serious disagreements with:

Clinton, Bush, Blair, Putin, Yeltsin, Chirac, Hussein, KJI, Chavez, Ohlmert, whatever that thing that has sprung up in brussel is, Hu Jintao, though I can't blame him for his govt. overall, Mugabe, Mbeki/Zuma (I don't credit this as a real opposition) Whatever is going on in Saudi Arabia, not Abdullah himself so much.

Mostly, these are people who IMHO force their views and way of doing things on other people, I like a moderate with a light guiding hand. I'm not sure if that man will be Obama. Some days I think yes, some days no. Right now I'm a little irritated at him because he's sounding hawkish on Iran. If this leads to war... Also, We should be out of Afgh. and Pak, and we shouldn't be running nukes to Israel and India, or pointing them at anyone. Oh, and I wish the US would stop fucking with East Africa. I hate Clinton most of all for this, and thought that naturally Obama would sympathize with their plight, but so far, it's been politics as usual, very disappointed in that.

So far the only one Obama is strike a chord with me on the Environment and Net Neutrality. I think his weakest point is the Economy. The deregulation passed under clinton and continued under bush needs to be reverse. As ron paul says "this isn't lack of regulation, it *is* regulation, but just reverse-regulation, where artificial systems are put in place [like mark to market] where things that *wouldn't* be possible under normal economics now *are*." <-- These policies that are causing this collapse, like the deficit haven't been reversed, and are just getting worse.

Sorry, another rant

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 25, 2009 4:54 PM

Kathy

hope you're feeling better.

Yes, I think you hit one, not the liberals, that's the same on the other side: conservatives, epithets for rural people, and christians, they come in for a lot of verbal abuse from the left. The whole Palin attack thing was *extremely* offensive on a social level because at least 1/2 the attacks were class-based.

But you're right on with the Mexicans. This is absurd. 10 years ago no one cared about the mexican invasion except for hard core neonazis, and the media has played it up to the point where, good god, what is this nonsense? I even chastized Obama a couple weeks ago on this for not extending healthcare to Mexicans. Please... I mean, I would like the option of Canadian healthcare, and I certainly value the contributions of Mexicans to the US, and definitely don't want anyone to be the new second class citizen. No, I would kick anyone's ass over the Mexican thing. Again, I live in a multi-ethnic bubble where no one notices, not just blacks whites asians and indians... The last post master was a mexican, our preachers, ones philipino, another's nigerian, the current postmaster is norwegian, but no one even thinks this way, everyone knows each other by name, oh, and then there's persians and kurds, which brings me to another one:

The whole anti-muslim/anti-arab thing. WTF? I see no evidence of islamic terrorism, and even if I did, I wouldn't be ready to condemn a billion people for it. I mean, at this point, I take anything that comes our way as par for the course. I never see this here either, but I see it in the press, and I hear it from our politicians, again, even Barack Hussein Obama, on campaign, pledging undying support for Israel and vowing to strike down radical islam...

And why is it "radical islam" and "fundamentialist christianity"?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 25, 2009 5:01 PM