This nation is in real trouble. I am saddened, deeply saddened.
Printable View
This nation is in real trouble. I am saddened, deeply saddened.
Yes. "The best lack all conviction and the worst are full of passionate intensity".Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraliteAngler
I'm not sure this problem has a law or policy solution. It feels more like a cultural thing.
Policy involves culture. Culture involves policy.
They are intertwined. As complicated as it may be, I think both need to be addressed.
The truth is that I am rather depressed about the state of things -- our policies and our culture. So, so many problems...
I see policy as being downstream of culture. You can pass all the laws you like to limit drugs, guns, or your particular concept of "hate", but if the greater culture isn't buying it, they'll either be ignored or circumvented.
I'm not sure our problems are so much worse than they've ever been. I think, for instance, you'd be hard put saying we're in a worse situation than the 60s/70s.
I think one of the big reasons Bernie was/is such a hit, especially among young people is because he has a LOT of commitment and passion. Otherwise, I think you're right. There's passion in all the wrong places.Quote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL
There is also passion in the right places, and massive amounts of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by catherine
I think Bernie was a hit among young people because he listened to us. But also because we have not been fully hoodwinked by the corporate oligarchs who tell us socialism "doesn't work."
Many of us have been to socialist nations and seen how it works quite well in Sweden, Finland, Norway, Costa Rica, etc.
I agree.. I meant there's lots of passion among his Bernistas and Bernistos. And thankfully I see groundswells of passion in countercultural/eco/permaculture movements, like Joanna Macy's The Great Turning and as described in Paul Hawken's Blessed Unrest.Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraliteAngler
Well, his "passionate intensity" has certainly seemed to shift HRC's lack of all conviction more toward the entitlement state, as witness her "Free College, Dude" proposal.Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraliteAngler
Lots of developed nations with high standards of living have free college, dude.
They just don't have any freedom.
Norwegians have to wear white or gray -- no bright colors are allowed by law. Costa Ricans are not permitted to go to their own beaches for fear they might meet American tourists and suddenly yearn to be free. And the people of Denmark are not allowed to be sad, ever.
Since Bernie began spinning his tales of the magical Nordic kingdoms, some (including the Danish Prime Minister) have taken exception to his Utopian claims. I'm sure we will always have something to learn from Finland or Singapore, but I have to assume their value as benchmarks require a good measure of qualification.
http://www.investors.com/denmark-tel...g-it-socialist
/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ers-describes/
I know I sound like a broken record, but I have to wonder if all cultures are not supposed to meld. Some cultures have behavior that other cultures find inappropriate/offensive. But in our country especially, we're supposed to deny all those feelings.
It really irks me that all I'm hearing on the news is "We have to come together!" Well, some people don't want to come together......which is a problem. Of course there are many in each culture who CAN come together. But some cannot. And it can only lead to these types of unrest all the time. But we keep insisting that we all have to be alike, or accepting of most all behaviors. Some behaviors can't ever be accepted. We all have had different pasts and experiences, so we can't really tell each other to believe what we believe, because reality may have led us to a different place.
How would this go over: If we had group discussion with blacks and whites, where people actually said what they really felt? And I'm not talking just about educated people. I fear it would turn into violence.........
Some people just don't want to get along or "conform".
No, you don't sound like a broken record. You sound like something else entirely...Quote:
Originally Posted by CathyA
Go on...Quote:
Originally Posted by bae
I wonder if there are any black people on this forum...
So what is the solution if all cultures can't meld? In my fantasy sometimes it's for white people to leave the country, GO BACK HOME, go back to Europe already (white Sander's supports may not have a problem with this :)). It's the native american's country of course, but what to do with people brought over here in chains. Yea I know there are lot of other much more voluntary immigrant groups (not to mention people of mixed race, should have told them cultures "don't meld" before the parents got in bed I guess).
Quote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL
I think other people are more likely to brand Bernie as a socialist (oh horrors!! A Socialist! Where's McCarthy when you need him??) than Bernie is--he describes himself as a Democratic socialist and there is a big difference--democratic socialists support capitalism, for one thing. So there is no disconnect between Democratic socialism and what the prime minister calls his own country: a market economy.
And we know there is NO utopia, but Bernie has to point out to people who lack imagination that these crazy ideas just might work. And even Michael Booth says the in the Washington Post article:
Yes, one of Bernie's chief issues: rising economic inequality. So let's start there. [And to keep on topic: how about racial inequality?]Quote:
Interviewer: You emphasize, in the end, that there is a lot that we can learn from the Nordic countries. What is one of the best lessons?
MB: At least aim for economic and gender equality. Everyone benefits, so it’s worth a shot, no?
According to Scientific American:
Quote:
We may not want to believe it, but the United States is now the most unequal of all Western nations. To make matters worse, America has considerably less social mobility than Canada and Europe.
As the sociologists Stephen McNamee and Robert Miller Jr. point out in their book, “The Meritocracy Myth,” Americans widely believe that success is due to individual talent and effort. Ironically, when the term "meritocracy” was first used by Michael Young (in his 1958 book “The Rise of the Meritocracy”) it was meant to criticize a society ruled by the talent elite. “It is good sense to appoint individual people to jobs on their merit,” wrote Young in a 2001 essay for the Guardian. “It is the opposite when those who are judged to have merit of a particular kind harden into a new social class without room in it for others.” The creator of the phrase wishes we would stop using it because it underwrites the myth that those who have money and power must deserve it (and the more sinister belief that the less fortunate don’t deserve better).
Catherine... I am not sure you got the memo. This is a sign of success to the GOP. This inequality of wealth and lack of social mobility is what they wanted and they want it to go even further.Quote:
Originally Posted by catherine
My Hopi friends want the Navajo to go back home.Quote:
Originally Posted by ApatheticNoMore
My Navajo friends want the Spanish out of their hair.
My Spanish friends want the Anglos to leave.
Me, I live on land that wasn't ever used significantly by any predecessor culture, so my side of the canoe is dry....
I am like 2 or 3 percent Portuguese. Can I go back to Portugal?
He likes to call himself a socialist, why, who knows, he does have a somewhat activist past so maybe he likes identifying with radicalism. Maybe it's pre-emptive, oh well they're just going to call me a pinko anyway (no matter how politically illiterate this may be and when a guy is going off blabbing about national socialism being socialism like in that article you know they are utterly political illterate). But I think he just likes the label. He's a social Democrat, he's also much like an FDR Democrat. Does anyone anywhere use "Democratic socialist" that way as opposed to "social Democrat?". "Democratic socialist" isn't a term in common use I don't think, but I'd tend to think it means something like worker co-ops, which are socialist, and democratic (or aim to be).Quote:
I think other people are more likely to brand Bernie as a socialist (oh horrors!! A Socialist! Where's McCarthy when you need him??) than Bernie is--he describes himself as a Democratic socialist and there is a big difference--democratic socialists support capitalism, for one thing. So there is no disconnect between Democratic socialism and what the prime minister calls his own country: a market economy.
I find your speciesist attitude inappropriate for the enlightened 21st century. Why should the heirs to the perpetrators of the Woolly Mammoth genocide be granted special privilege? They didn't build the Western Hemisphere.Quote:
Originally Posted by ApatheticNoMore
I've got enough Neanderthal genes that I feel quite comfortable asking you all to get off my lawn!Quote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL
Quote:
Originally Posted by CathyA
Can you explain this a little more? Perhaps give a few more real-life examples?
Bae..........go ahead and imply I'm a racist. I do a lot of thinking as to why things become the way they do, but it doesn't mean those thoughts come from hatred or unacceptance. I like trying to figure out the root of some problems. I find it curious when some people are so offended by anyone questioning anything. You are one of the first on this forum to jump on anyone who has feelings other than you about gender identity, race, etc.......and yet, at the same time, you come across as quite arrogant/condescending. Those are 2 qualities that I find hard to explain in one person. I'm not trying to insult you......it's just the way I see it.
If the reality is that we are where we are, then of course we have to figure out a way to get along. But not talking about the real issues that divide us isn't going to help at all. And just blanketly saying everyone should accept everyone has their head in the clouds. We deny so much in this country and cover it up with all sorts of platitudes and trying desperately to ignore what's really going on.
I, personally, will try to stay away from society as much as I can. Too many people are just living and acting in ways that just aren't for me.
Well, I paid a web site $29.95 for definitive proof that I am a direct descendant of the primordial soup, so I have complete grievance immunity and ethnic criticism rights!Quote:
Originally Posted by bae
Share some what what you think the roots of the problems are.Quote:
Originally Posted by CathyA
What do you see as the real issues?Quote:
Originally Posted by CathyA
I also disengage as much as I can. This culture has become so toxic... The whole Realty TV thing is a key example.Quote:
Originally Posted by CathyA
I wasn't implying it at all. I've said it quite explicitly before.Quote:
Originally Posted by CathyA
Racism doesn't require "hatred or unacceptance". And guess what, we're *all* racist. The key is to see that, and use that awareness in a useful manner.Quote:
I do a lot of thinking as to why things become the way they do, but it doesn't mean those thoughts come from hatred or unacceptance.
Why do you assume offense from a simple observation of fact?Quote:
I find it curious when some people are so offended by anyone questioning anything.
I actually have heard Bernie and others often say that he is a democratic socialist. Wikipedia defines it this way:Quote:
Originally Posted by ApatheticNoMore
andQuote:
Democratic socialism is a political ideology that advocates political democracy alongside social ownership of the means of production, often with an emphasis on democratic management of enterprises within a socialist economic system.
Quote:
The key difference between socialism and democratic socialism is that democratic socialists don't want the government to own the means of production and socialists do. They believe that certain general social goods like health care should be run by the government, but otherwise support capitalism.
What's the difference between "social ownership of the means of production" and government control of the means of production?Quote:
Originally Posted by catherine
This is no difference, really. It is just phrased to make it sound less Marxist. Call it re-branding.Quote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL
Social ownership is private ownership--at least that's how I understand it. Here's another good article on the difference from The Atlantic:Quote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL
Quote:
In a social democracy, individuals and corporations continue to own the capital and the means of production. Much of the wealth, in other words, is produced privately. That said, taxation, government spending, and regulation of the private sector are much heavier under social democracy than would be the case under pure capitalism.
Quote:
The debate over Senator Sanders’ socialism is rich with paradoxes. Senator Sanders is not a proponent of socialism, and that is a good thing, for true socialism, whenever and wherever it has been tried, ended in disaster. Nor is America the bastion of capitalism that some make it out to be. In fact, U.S. taxes, spending, and regulation are quite high when compared to truly economically free countries. America’s is a mixed economy and so are Scandinavian countries’. It is the mixture that differs.
So "If we control something then it really doesn't matter whose name is on the title"?Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraliteAngler
It does seem like a pretty fine distinction.
So if social ownership is private ownership then what is a social democrat? A private democrat?Quote:
Originally Posted by catherine
A social democrat believes in government control of some basic services and regulation of some private enterprises, but within a capitalist framework. The article can explain it much better than I can!Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraliteAngler
Seems mealy-mouthed.
I don't think the article is very good, ok I think everyone who reads the article is made stupider by reading it, the Atlantic has really jumped the shark.
Although I don't disagree with this, although it's very broad and so could apply to most ideologies (but not socialism):
A social democrat believes in government control of some basic services and regulation of some private enterprises, but within a capitalist framework.
Lack of social mobility? There are fewer households now in the middle class. Thats because 2/3 of those who moved out of the middle class moved up.Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraliteAngler
Yup, now the upper class in America is huge!Quote:
Originally Posted by iris lilies
I grew up in a single-wide in the woods. Now I have a mansion and a yacht. Well, several, actually.Quote:
Originally Posted by iris lilies
And here I thought the Right REv. UL would be the first to take us all to task on that issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by bae