Trump's latest plan is to get Pence to just announce that he won instead of Biden tomorrow. Pretend he can't count. That'll work. — Baden

Think so?

Vice President Mike Pence on Tuesday told President Donald Trump that he does not have the authority to block certification of President-elect Joe Biden's win when Congress meets to count electoral votes, sources told CNN.

I think that Pence isn't in the crazy crowd. We'll see soon.

Interesting that ALL living former secretaries of defense issued a joint statement, both democrat and republican ones:

As former secretaries of defense, we hold a common view of the solemn obligations of the U.S. armed forces and the Defense Department. Each of us swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. We did not swear it to an individual or a party.

American elections and the peaceful transfers of power that result are hallmarks of our democracy. With one singular and tragic exception that cost the lives of more Americans than all of our other wars combined, the United States has had an unbroken record of such transitions since 1789, including in times of partisan strife, war, epidemics and economic depression. This year should be no exception.

Our elections have occurred. Recounts and audits have been conducted. Appropriate challenges have been addressed by the courts. Governors have certified the results. And the electoral college has voted. The time for questioning the results has passed; the time for the formal counting of the electoral college votes, as prescribed in the Constitution and statute, has arrived.

As senior Defense Department leaders have noted, “there’s no role for the U.S. military in determining the outcome of a U.S. election.” Efforts to involve the U.S. armed forces in resolving election disputes would take us into dangerous, unlawful and unconstitutional territory. Civilian and military officials who direct or carry out such measures would be accountable, including potentially facing criminal penalties, for the grave consequences of their actions on our republic.

Transitions, which all of us have experienced, are a crucial part of the successful transfer of power. They often occur at times of international uncertainty about U.S. national security policy and posture. They can be a moment when the nation is vulnerable to actions by adversaries seeking to take advantage of the situation.

Given these factors, particularly at a time when U.S. forces are engaged in active operations around the world, it is all the more imperative that the transition at the Defense Department be carried out fully, cooperatively and transparently. Acting defense secretary Christopher C. Miller and his subordinates — political appointees, officers and civil servants — are each bound by oath, law and precedent to facilitate the entry into office of the incoming administration, and to do so wholeheartedly. They must also refrain from any political actions that undermine the results of the election or hinder the success of the new team.

We call upon them, in the strongest terms, to do as so many generations of Americans have done before them. This final action is in keeping with the highest traditions and professionalism of the U.S. armed forces, and the history of democratic transition in our great country.

So, can we blame these losses on Trump? — Benkei

I think so, actually.

What was predictable was that such an inept leader as Trump would make his last days a total farce and that he would not bother much about what happens to a crucial election to the GOP.

I would hope that the GOP would break into two. It would be the best thing what could happen to the party, actually. The prevailing stupidity and cynicism of Republican politicians thinking of Trump as a "Kingmaker" is simply mind blowing. Q-anon people are simply lunatics, and it's not a coherent strategy to go with the lunatic fringe. Why people opt for failure is beyond my reasoning. Perhaps they just rely that people forget what happened 6 to 12 months ago or something.

Of course the biggest reason for Trump's utter failure was his Covid-19 response, in which he failed from the start by going with the Rush Limbaugh line that it was a "common cold" and all was just democratic humbug. And of course, it the pandemic wouldn't have emerged to be a pandemic, but your average "swine-flu scare", that line would have been great. Unfortunately Covid-19 was the real deal, a pandemic. And since Trump is as inept as he is, he couldn't turn around ever from his first reactions.

I think it would have only taken for Trump closest aides and supporters to portray Trump himself to understand that Covid-19 was his "9/11"-moment, to change policy, be the serious "Crisis-President" and basically win the elections last year. The GOP could have milked the safety issue easily as they did during the 9/11 and following War on Terror era. Only the libertarian fringe would cried about the restrictions, but who cares about them, actually.

And something he pretty much prepared for in 2016. And then totally against his own reasoning and expectations, he actually won the election back then.

Now he's playing the tune he was so ready and eager to play in 2016, then with that TV program/channel in mind.

Bitcoin's gone up a good bit since this thread was last active, mostly because of institutional hoovering-up of what's available on exchanges. But on a macroscale that might be a bad sign. — csalisbury

This might be so.

In fact that stocks are going up, gold is going up, bitcoin is going up, all seem to be a sign of one thing:

Asset price inflantion

And that may be the result of the Zombification of the economy where huge quantities are put to support financial institutions, large corporations (air lines etc.) and now even consumers.

Strange times indeed...

Why that indicator of excess deaths is important as obviously the statistics are just a rough estimate. Yet the differences in the statistics do come up...like this:

Excess deaths are the difference between the total number of deaths registered and the average over the previous years for the same period. Official figures say 55,827 people have died with Covid-19 in Russia. The deputy prime minister said excess deaths would take that to 186,000. Countries use different methods when reporting deaths related to the virus, which makes international comparisons difficult.

Russia has been criticised for calculating its official deaths from Covid-19 based on the number of post-mortem examinations that list coronavirus as the main cause of death. However, this means that other deaths linked to Covid-19, which did not list it as the main cause of death, will not have been included.

The new numbers mean Russia's coronavirus death toll could be the world's third-highest, after the US with 335,000 deaths and Brazil, which has had 192,000, according to a tally by Johns Hopkins University.

Hence the argument that Covid-19 deaths would be inflated seems at least that in Russia have been deflated. Which would be typical to Soviet Russian authorities.

When people say Western culture is decaying, they're talking about youths diverging from the incumbent culture, abandoning the things that were thought of as important by the older generation. They're absolutely not talking about an existential crisis like ww3 or a disease which wipes them out. They're talking about reality television or sexual liberation and the like. — Judaka

This is actually one thing I commented earlier as one of the separate discourses in the subject:

Many likely aren't implying that our culture would end up for archaeologists to dig up and with nobody speaking English, but likely that we lose some crucial parts of our culture. If we don't hold up values that once were important, many will see it as cultural decay. — ssu

And of course, it is those values and norms they hold important. Yet wasn't Sokrates convicted of spoiling the youth? So I guess this idea of youth diverging from the incumbent culture may be older than you think.

The "collapse of the Roman Empire" was a slow-motion event requiring centuries to be complete. — Bitter Crank

Especially if we consider Eastern Roman Empire as also representing the Roman Empire. Of course it's an interesting question just how Greek were the eastern parts of the Roman Empire right from the start (as the Romans conquered an area dominated by Hellenistic Culture). Byzantine Greek language is still used in liturgy in the Orthodox Church, btw.

Trump was probably not involved in the painstaking negotiations — NOS4A2

Well, he probably hasn't been involved in any painstaking negotiations as the President (negotiations with Trump might be painstaking to others).

At least he takes care of his health by driving a golf cart.

You talked about cultural decay but you give examples of people just totally converting to a new culture or genocide. — Judaka

And your problem? Decay is something different from the ordinary evolution and transformation of a culture.

I think that language is at the heart of your understanding regardless of what anyone else says. — Judaka

What you have said is that 1960's is totally different from today because... I guess you didn't live then.

To avoid a cultural collapse in Australia we've got to

1. Call ourselves Australians
2. Speak English
3. Be mostly white? If we become 90% ethnically Asian does that still count?
4. Not let Australia be destroyed or something — Judaka

I don't know where people get this obsession with race (and racism). Or you think that Australian culture is inherently white and ethnically Asians cannot nurture/promote/enjoy/advance Australian culture? And with the point of 4. Yes, it might be a good thing not to let happen. Or something.

Trump listened to Americans instead of his party and administration, and raised a stink about it. — NOS4A2

And shouldn't this be done perhaps well before before an agreement was made, right?

What would it make you feel if me and you first made an agreement and only after making that agreement I would publicly attack on how baseless and wrong your demands, NOS4A2, are in this proposal and I'm now defending people from the excesses of NOS4A2.

And I think this is the general pattern how budget deals are made in the US: they aren't done with every one being agreed separately (who would have that time), but in lumps. And of course, when you have lumps, there's always some issue that doesn't sound good, which can then be compared to something very dramatic or deemed important. The classic way is to compare military spending to health care of children and infants. My favorite (from my country) was when people compared the expense that members of parliament use on driving taxis and comparing that huge amount to (fill in the blank) government aid to some benign cause.

Pandemic relief to Americans compared to nearly anything else is simply 100% pure populism.

The real villain here is McConnell, not Trump. The Democratic house quickly agreed to Trump’s demands to increase the stimulus check, but of course the Republican senate wouldn’t agree to that. — Pfhorrest

This all just shows the ineptness of Trump. If anyone thinks this is a great way to get "the deal" to made to be done is crazy. This all could have been done without people failing to get the one weeks benefits, it was all ready to be for Trump to be signed before Christmas. Someone else could think that the CEO of the country, the POTUS, would get his own party to back with the 2000$ before during the deal is made prior than an agreement is announced.

But of course, there's the Trump way of doing things. Now people correct me if I got this wrong (I may have), but it looks like to me like this:

a) Trump's administration + GOP make a budget deal with the Dems
b) Trump has to sign this, but he doesn't
c) Trump makes waves that the budget deal has pork afterwards and wants to raise the benefits, which his party wasn't for.
d) Trump drags his feet until the government is on the verge of shutdown... to make it more dramatic.
e) then Trump signs what he had already on b).
f) in reality, the overall checks are a bit smaller as the payments cannot be done for the past days that Trump dragged his feet. And we'll see if the Senate will go along with Trump's 2000$.

Art of the deal. Or then I got it wrong and Trump is playing 4D chess!

By your definition, a culture "declines" by being annihilated, pretty much and really only that. — Judaka

No. That's the most simple, most obvious way where there is hardly any disagreement on what happened. But there are other ways.

Another thing is simply assimilation. Several conquering people have simply assimilated to the population that they have conquered and their language and beliefs have disappeared. The people might have been excellent horsemen and warriors, but usually the tribal nomad culture etc. is simply no match against a so-called "high-culture" with all the lures and prestige they have.

Let's take (just as a random example) the Langobards, a Germanic people (possibly from Northern Europe) who ruled most of the Italian Peninsula from 568 to 774. They did have their language, an own religion, a Norse god Vanir that they worshipped, and an own culture. And then they hadn't. They became Christians and basically Romanized before Charlemagne conquered their lands. Hence the language isn't spoken, there's just some artifacts that may possibly be in Langobardic texts. Italian does have words from the Langobardian language (so there's that Cultural heritage) and there is Lombardy in Italy, yet I don't think modern Milanese think of themselves as being Langobards (I don't know any, so maybe I'm wrong).

And this is what has happened to many cultures that have been victorious on the battlefield and carved up their kingdoms yet have assimilated to the culture they have taken over (and not the other way around): Huns, Vandals and so on.

Oh but there are these reenactor guys roaming around as langobards! Culture saved?

Well, with the previous Republican President (Bush the younger), there was one of the greatest conspiracy theories AGAINST the Republicans. And of course conspiracy theories have been part of American political culture since the JFK assassination, at least.

I think now the reason is simply that you have a POTUS that himself is promoting wild conspiracy theories. And conspiracy buffs like Alex Jones were part of his base. Nothing gets better I guess for conspiracy buffs. Just think of from that point of view: "Well if the President of the US of A himself believes..."

(And without giving any thought just who this President is.)

Cultural / Societal / Civilizational collapse could be defined as:

the fall of a complex human society characterized by the loss of cultural identity and of socioeconomic complexity, the downfall of government, and the rise of violence.

Notice the "loss of cultural identity". Societies can fall to environmental disasters they cannot cope with, and such genocidal occupations from foreign invaders or mass migrations that the society cannot heal from. Either this can happen dramatically quickly or then it will take a very long time usually by cultural assimilation. The political system, a nation, can quickly collapse, but likely a specific culture doesn't. And I would argue that one of the last things to die is language.

If so, what are people then talking about cultural decay of our time? Especially about the still quite dominant Western Culture decaying or even collapsing.

Here I think people have simply another things in mind. There are simply many discourses that people follow when they talk about cultural collapse or cultural decay.

Many likely aren't implying that our culture would end up for archaeologists to dig up and with nobody speaking English, but likely that we lose some crucial parts of our culture. If we don't hold up values that once were important, many will see it as cultural decay. Decadence as I earlier posted, is seen as one reason. Yet for example Arnold Toynbee believed that there are no laws that explain the phenomenon of the rise and fall of civilizations. Every civilization passes through its own stages and eventually declines after reaching its heights according to Toynbee.

What then is the decline of a culture? With the language dying away I am talking about a quite literal death, yet likely many will make an argument of decline in some other manner. Of course, this begs the question about what culture is about.

We could discuss this on a more general level on the status of the autonomy of Scotland versus a sovereign state.

The Scottish Parliament can decide on matters as:

agriculture, forestry and fisheries
education and training
environment
health and social services
housing
law and order
local government
sport and the arts
tourism and economic development
many aspects of transport

While the UK Parliament is responsible for matters like:

benefits and social security
immigration
defence
foreign policy
employment
broadcasting
trade and industry
nuclear energy, oil, coal, gas and electricity
consumer rights
data protection
the Constitution

And looking at the list, while "health and social services" and also "law and order" are under Scottish Paliament rule, I would assume that the Scottish Parliament / Scottish leadership can decide on issues concerning a pandemic. Hence the actions of Nicola Sturgeon seem from my point of view be totally in line with Scottish autonomy.

In a similar way here the Capital region and Southern Finland was closed for a while from the rest of Finland. The Police and also the Armed Forces were deployed to oversee any traffic. Doesn't mean that there's a border between Southern Finland and the rest of Finland.

Not sure about the figures re shifting assets though. — Tim3003

I would think similar. I assume that it gives just a figure in the ballpark of the amount of assets now transferred to be managed under EU jurisdiction. London was such a convenient place for asset management, you know. Likely it's about portfolio's of institutional or private investors. You see, a hedge fund has still to have a home place.

Yes. The importance of language is obvious in that anthropology, the study of human societies and cultures and their development, has as one of it's main fields linguistic anthropology:

There are periods of decline and then periods reform and renaissance. — frank

To note that renaissances can happen is important as it's not obviously only a story of a culture emerging, enjoying it's apogee, decaying and then dying out and having only remnants in museums and possibly giving cultural heritage to newer cultures. That breaks the doom & gloom attitude towards existing cultures.

What was up with the fish? I gather the image of a sovereign nation with deep historical links to the sea and to the times when territory was most important. Fishing is a rather small venue for the British economy.

Well, at least Dublin, Frankfurt and other smaller financial centers are very happy about Brexit, if we look for those who are the winners.

From 1st of October this year:

Financial services firms operating in the U.K. have shifted about 7,500 employees and more than 1.2 trillion pounds ($1.6 trillion) of assets to the European Union ahead of Brexit -- with more likely to follow in coming weeks, according to EY.

About 400 relocations were announced in the past month alone, the consulting firm said in a report on Thursday that tracks 222 of the largest financial firms with significant operations in the U.K. Since Britain voted to leave the bloc in 2016, the finance industry has added 2,850 positions in the EU, with Dublin, Luxembourg and Frankfurt seeing the biggest gains.

That's something like 1/10 of the assets managed in the City of London. Wonder how that impacts the economy of greater London.

Yes, a picture from a Hollywood blockbuster film with an American actor with ties to Australia obviously makes the point. At least the film was filmed PARTLY in Scotland. :roll:

Can the Scots legally control their own borders? (I recognize my question may have built-in ignorance.) — tim wood

More like built-in contempt for the Scots. Because today they don't have any border to England as they are part of the UK.

However,

Scotland has been an independent country for a long time in history. It has institutions and infrastructure that are at par with others West European countries. Needless to say that they (the Scotts) are totally capable of handling every area of independence and perfectly capable of handling an independent Scotland as a sovereign state. And likely they would get into the EU quite easily after already having been there. The only nut to crack would be their southern neighbor, which wouldn't like it. The border with Ireland and Northern Ireland gives people a hint of the future problems if Scotland opts for independence.

Interesting to see how the English handle Scottish independence movement now. Or then the Scottish Independence Party fucks up it again. Because the UK government is smart enough not to be a bully and send Challenger tanks to roam the streets of Edinburgh. I would think that London's hope is just to drag it's feet, not to give coverage to the topic and hope the economy recovers so much that people are OK with their present union.

No independence for them in 2014:


Or then things go to the worse and you won't have the issue solved with polite political dialogue and peaceful elections, but with far dismal outcomes, which actually is the norm for humanity.

Interesting to see what happens to Northern Ireland also.

. It seems likely that people gradually drifted into settled agriculture because there were some advantages to that kind of lifestyle, compared to exclusive hunting and gathering. — Bitter Crank

Or simply there wasn't enough wildlife to hunt. Hunter gatherers simply have to be few, while agriculture can support far larger populations. And of course the domestication of sheep, pigs and cattle happened only some couple thousand years later than agriculture (8 000 BC or so). Once you start "farming" animals, not so much need for wild game.

That might be the case. I wasn't there, but it seems quite possible that some sort of early cabal roped a bunch of dopes into farming. — Bitter Crank

Would that cabal be called "the aristocracy"? I think that is a bit too conspirational. Farming and cities emerging because of their utility (and necessity) is likely more closer to the truth. Yet notice that hunting has been something that the ruling class has enjoyed privileges over others. The natural framework is to both farm and hunt, yet hunting can only support a limited population.

But if the two are distinct, does the death of language lead to the decay of culture, or is it the other way about? The Rosetta Stone, for instance, the “language”, persists to the present day, much longer than the cultures that it is derived from. — NOS4A2

You tell me the example of a culture, not a sub-culture, that isn't linked to a language. Things like the literature and songs are obviously part of a culture. If a culture has made advances in science and technology, which have become universal, that obviously is then a part of that culture persists today, yet as part of other cultures. Yet that would be more of cultural heritage, which we usually are totally ignorant of.

Another question would be, if you are the last person that can speak a language, then how much is there left of that culture linked to that language when you die? Is it some recordings in a databank in some university computer done by a linguist that interviewed you and others before you died? The local school that desperately wants to get the youth interested in learning the language? If there aren't any, what can be said about the culture in general? When it comes down to a few old people, how much do they have to carry? Today usually when a language dies, there's a record of the last person that spoke the language.

I think about that when I watch Korean movies and TV shows. If the west disappeared tomorrow, its culture would still be alive as part of Korea.

Or maybe I'm not interpreting "culture" correctly? — frank

I think you are interpreting it correctly.

Especially in our time of globalization there is a huge interaction between cultures, which things like the internet and social media just enforce this unification. I remember one history book putting it aptly by talking about an era of "New Hellenism". Even if a bit of hyperbole, Fukuyama's "End of History" shows just how far spread Western Culture has become. As you said, if the West or the US dissappeared tomorrow, the cultural influences would continue. The only exception would then be naturally that nothing new would develop from Western Culture. And this creativity is absolutely essential for a culture to exist: otherwise it becomes just old traditions and old songs, that people don't listen to anymore. Yet Korean and Japanese cultures are perfect examples of being very Western, yet obviously being very different and surely cultures that will continue to exist even with the Western influence. Perhaps the question is that once something is truly universal, is it something that it specifically part of a certain culture anymore. Should we be talking about a global culture?

(It is very fitting that across the Roman Pantheon, earlier the temple to the gods of ancient Rome and from the 7th Century AD a Catholic Church) there is a McDonalds. In other places that wouldn't have been tolerated, yet Rome is different.)

Trumps most recent pardons; can any sane person doubt the viciousness of the man? — tim wood

Quite easily, as you can see from Trump supporters.

Simply just make up your mind that the media is utterly corrupt and evil and will try telling everything about Trump in a bad light and will make up fake news about Trump. The Russia thing was a total hoax, remember, so naturally those that stood by Trump ought to be pardoned. It goes very easily, as you won't believe anything reported that is critical about Trump. Hence you will believe Trump which more an issue of faith than reason.

It's going to be a while before Americans will truly see how lousy Trump was. I assume later they will have difficulties in understanding that why would Trump have been so popular.

Trump is an intriguing mystery because while he is clearly a pathological compulsive liar, he lies so incredibly blatantly that he is perceived to be an honest liar. — Hippyhead

Or when the assumption is that everybody lies and especially the Democrats and the liberal media lies, why would you then think that it would be bad to "fight the enemy" with similar tactics? The support on Trump is based on faith, not reasoning.

As the topic is cultural decay that ends in a cultural collapse and what are the reason how this happens, it should be obvious that the focus is on dramatic long-term changes, not on how cultures evolve and subcultures emerge and change in one person's lifespan. The perspective has to be far more than one year, decade or even a generation.

People living in Northern America talking English (and Spanish) and celebrating Christmas are indeed those kind of things that are a part of culture. How English is spoken and how Christmas is celebrated has and will change over the years, yet it is obvious that we can and do talk about these issues on a more long term perspective.

For example, Modern English is defined to have emerged in the 15th Century and has been around at least since 1550. Naturally that Elizabethian English would be harder to understand, I guess, than the English used in the 1960's, but still understandable. The English of William Shakespeare is understandable even today.

Do you really think that between 2013 and 2020, there's been insignificant cultural and technological changes? — Judaka

Let's first remind ourselves what the term culture encompasses.

One often used definition is by Edward Tylor and is the following: "that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, law, morals, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society." It is constantly changing and easily lost because it exists only in our minds. Culture being those customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group naturally evolves. It would be a problem if culture would be stagnant and wouldn't change even if the World around us is changing, yet it is totally possible to talk about cultures.

The way you see it is rather difficult, meaning that let's say American Culture (add race/ethnicity/place if you want) of 2013 is so different of American Culture of 2020, because those customs and beliefs have somewhat changed (12%?). Well, if you cannot see ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING similar in the beliefs, arts, norms, morals, laws and customs in the 60's America and the present, then it's hard to talk about cultures. What you are talking about seems more proper to talk about a sub-culture.

Yet historians do use these broad complex terms and look at longer timelines. And many WOULD see a connection between America of 2013 and 2020, starting from things like people talk the same language, the nation states have not changed (still there is the US, Canada and Mexico...) and the people celebrate the same festivals like the Holiday season etc.

Let me guess, that s.o.b. Scott Ritter got to you? Me too. After that fiasco, I adopted the law of contrary public opinion as a personal maxim. So then, you see why I am like I am with the covid hysteria? — Merkwurdichliebe

I can understand you perfectly.

Yes, his little book was published before the invasion of Iraq. He was dutifully also publicly smeared later and made a persona-non-grata, but usually I think that US marines are honest people. And what he said was later shown to be true.

I would just say that do notice that one really has to notice that not everything is a conspiracy theory, even if many things are. The thing is that if people have first trusted the authorities and then find them lying, there is this natural urge to dismiss everything they say or what is said later. Yet that's going a bit too far. The basic way is just a) to inform oneself and have a good general awareness of history, economics and politics prior for those issues become hot topics, b) look for various sources that aren't linked to each other and c) understand just what are the facts and what part is the interpretation of the facts, that can be biased by a political or other agenda. Most easiest way for c) is to listen directly what politicians and professionals themselves say, and not only refer to what some reporters says they said or did. Look how opposing sides comment the same issue and use your own thinking.

It's simply far too easy to get trapped in your own bubble now days. Those fucking algorithms are so hard to change when looking for information. If one bothers to look for that. Yet notice that these things are real.

Just to give an example, I traveled last year with my family to the States and we visited Washington DC & New York (which were great, btw). We visited Capitol Hill and after a lengthy que we went to listen to the House of Representatives. The voting had just finished and there were just some unknown Republican members speaking to basically to an empty audience and few of us of the public. But the conspiracy theory he laid on and how startling accusations he made of the FBI just made me quite clear what Trump has done to US politics and especially the Republican party. It has gone to the absurd.

And the pandemic has huge effects and is real, even if people can criticize of the effectiveness and reasonability of the taken policies against pandemic. The policy issue is totally different from the virus existing.

Anyway, Merry Christmas to you!

. Covid-19's effect is bad but hopefully only short-term — Tim3003

You think this is short-term?

Why?

Just when do think the global economy will roar back to a state that nothing has happened? All those service sector jobs just magically reappear back again? This year is lost, totally lost. The US has unemployment levels only similar seen in the Great Depression. You think Americans are going to rush to consume in six months or so?

In a situation where 40 countries have banned arrivals from the UK (and think vice versa how it affects tourism to the UK), I find it odd to worry about Brexit implications. But I'm open to change my mind on this view. Perhaps more convincing argument is a combo of Covid+Brexit. That's a whammy!

Perhaps you should take a real time machine and sit down and have a discussion with healthy and sharp people who are in the age range of 70 to 80 years old. Those are people who were similar to you in the 1960s. Can you understand each other or is there such a huge void that it's impossible for you to understand them and for them to understand you? Many times we think that people especially before our time were totally different. Yet you can see documentaries, movies from the sixties and see how different it was. Or as I purposed, talk to people that have lived during the time.

Once a person reaches adulthood he or she is quite the same person for a long while. I assume you will be yourself, quite the same, even after five or ten years. Likely your friends will be the same and your family will be around and they will be the same. Or you think that you will talk differently, think differently and behave totally differently with people around you in the year 2030? Change from 20's something to 30's something isn't so radical as becoming a young adult from a teen.

I did notice similar thinking to yours (and this is no offense) with some social history students in the university back in the 1990's. They thought that especially the 1950's (and earlier times) were a time that they would not have been able even to breathe, so conservative and archaic they pictured the 50's to be (compared to the sixties, were they saw everything transforming to modernity). One student girl portrayed such hideous environment of the 1950's that our professor finally couldn't remain silent and she said: "Hey wait a minute! It wasn't like that. I lived in the 50's."

So 1960s to 2020, there's 99% changed, 1% the same, there's no objective answer I guess. — Judaka

Of course the matter is subjective. But notice what you say about 99% changing in 60 years. That means in seven years roughly 12% has changed, if the change happens in a steady pace. Meaning that 12% of everything you have or do would have not been existing or possible in the year 2013. Yes it was the Iphone 5C and not the Iphone 12, it was 4G and not 5G broadband back then. Yet some could argue that the difference isn't so radical.

Changes of course happen. Something obvious when we are enjoying our lives during a ravaging global pandemic (love it when you truly know that you are living through historical times).

Certainly not because it would be irresponsible and morally reprehensible? — Benkei

The UK administration isn't similar to the Trump tirade. I think managing a country through a pandemic has been a burden for Johnson and if he earlier could be a "reckless" person in the conservative party, he as prime minister isn't one now. A true sociopath like Trump can (and will) stay the same, because Trump is utterly incapable of feeling responsibility. Putting a country again to a lock-down and dealing with the Brexit talks likely is overwhelming as just one would take all the focus of the administration to handle.

Of course any administration will try to portray the deal, any deal, that they in the end get as the best one possible. Yet there's no way now to take back all the rosy Brexit talk when the whole thing was just political discourse and not impending reality.

Yet the thing is, thanks to the pandemic the Global economy is already in the gutter, hence the feared "Brexit recession" felt only by the UK, which would have been the worst thing for Boris, will not happen. So might be a great time to do the Brexit, already thanks to the new pandemic strain UK is quarantined. So, what's a Brexit in all of this hassle?

Let's finally get over with it!

You mean like Professor Sir David Spiegelhalter from Cambridge University who called comparing countries' performances a "completely fatuous exercise"? — Isaac

You think so? Well, here is Professor Sir David Speigelhalter himself saying the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you are saying. You can make country comparisons, of course you have to understand how rough those comparison are, which I DO understand. Please listen the following interview to the end.

It's like you're immune to any contrary evidence. — Isaac

Where did you give the contrary evidence? I and you have not discussed or if you have given it earlier, so could you give a link to what you are referring to. It's an informative way would give links or simply to give the exact reason why and what is wrong.

Just referring to Spiegelhalter saying completely fatous exercise doesn't give much, but at least I did get the name and the professor has interesting points. What I can find from the net is the statistician Spiegelhalter talking sense about statistics, but I've not gotten the stuff you refer to, that governments can make statistics just what they want. If you can be more specific, I am open to other viewpoints. In my view Spiegelhalter isn't refuting or contradicting the pandemic.

Merky, talking about slave morality you're definitely starting to rant like a 9/11 truther, because we aren't discussing Nietzsche.

Building WTC 7 you sheeple!!!

And btw, I remember very well on the old PF the 2003 invasion, the time of Freedom Fries. There were those who saw it as their duty to defend the invasion on PF, yet a lot of people here were totally against it. I made my mind when reading a small memoir of a Iraqi weapons inspector that convinced me the whole thing was bogus and that the war was quite similar to the Spanish-American war. Many people thought here that the US would fabricate the WMD's later, but no, who cares.

Quite the usual stuff similar to the stimulus packages during Obama, actually. And of course, it's his administration, but seems like he is already commenting on a Biden administration.

Also there is the possibility that they are using the new variant as a pawn in a high risk negotiation tactic in the trade deal negotiations. — Punshhh

Sorry, but this seems a bit too far fetched. But that's just my opinion.

If true, it would be the mother of all distractions or yelling "LOOK, A SQUIRREL!!!"

Did you ever think that the heterogeneous mortality rates (caused by covid) are due to the various ways in which various countries report causes of death? Of course you haven't, you just accept what you are told and run with it. — Merkwurdichliebe

Yeah, there aren't statisticians in the World who would notice the differences in the reporting fatalities, Merky. And of course, hundreds of thousands of deaths can be simply reported just how the powers that be want them to be reported as so. As if those doctors don't care what they write down as the cause of death, or those who gather these statistics cannot be relied upon.

How's that tinfoil hat of yours fitting? A bit tight?

Sorry Merky, but I have to say it, either you are just trolling and getting a laugh from it or you are an example of the cultural decadence of our times. Or then you are both.

A great commentary, thanks Rafaella. :up:

Language, religion and high culture are the only components of a nation that can survive when it reaches the end of its historical duration. — Rafaella Leon

Or reaches a point of evolution that we cannot see other similarities between the past and the present (the example of ancient Japan and modern Japan, for example).

I like it very much when people quote Thomas Sowell, one of those great living American economists and social theorists, who likely will be cherished only after his death (he is now 90). Unfortunately now he is viewed as politically incorrect by some.

the difference, as demonstrated by Thomas Sowell in Conquests and Cultures, lies mainly in “cultural capital”, in the accumulated intellectual capacity that the mere struggle for life does not give, which only develops in the practice of language, religion and high culture. No people ascended to the economic and political primacy only to later dedicate themselves to higher interests. The reverse is true: the affirmation of national capabilities in those three domains predates political and economic achievements. — Rafaella Leon

This is a great point as the idea of "cultural capital" might seem today vague and old fashioned, and we might focus on the measurable, like economic or social indicators that are easy to compile in statistics. That sounds a lot more scientific and is simply more easy to do. Narrative history is so unacademic these days.

Yet Sowell's Cultural capital is in line with the views of the classic historians and what they have said earlier of the reasons for the rise of a culture. Cultural capital of that has then later given the societies economic wealth and political power is understandable. Nial Ferguson put this in a modern context of talking about "killer-aps" that are behind the dominance of a specific culture. These killer-aps still have a direct link to the ideologies and religion that the societies have cherished.

It isn't military of economic power itself. The greatest conquers of all time, the Mongols, have not given us much, even if everybody understands that they are good with horses and Mongolian ponies are very sturdy and tough animals. And with economics influence, not much that Spain got than the ability to fight wars and get inflation with all that gold looted from America.

I think things are moving way too fast to call it evolution. Go back or forward sixty years and there'll be no familiarity, you'll feel like a stranger in your own country. — Judaka

I assume you are well under 60 then. :wink:

60 Years? If we would be transported 60 years back to the year 1960, I think we would survive in the countries we live in (assuming we wouldn't be deported as illegal immigrants from nowhere). You see, you would understand the language spoken in 1960. You could drive a car that they had those days (there a lot of them still around). You would be familiar to cook a meal in a 1960 kitchen and familiar to what to buy from your local stores in 1960. You would know how your country works in 1960. You wouldn't have trouble adapting to that society, perhaps you would be missing only your smartphone. Likely you would have the ability to spend the next sixty years knowing that there won't be WW3 and things will improve. Yet make it the same place you live now in 1760 or the year 960 AD, then you would be clueless.

In fact our personal window to those times are our parents and grandparents, if we have the luxury to have them around still. I would always encourage people to ask their grandparents and especially their great grandparents, if they have them, to talk how thing we back then for them. How they personally felt during those times. It is history directly linked to you, as you have a bond to your grandparents. Those stories they tell are worth telling to your children later. As you said, it feels more than evolution, hence those stories are invaluable.

Now It is starting to ramp up, but an increase of 8%, while substantial, does not support the damage that the social and economic lockdown is doing. — Book273

Let's start with the fact that we agree on that an 8% increase is substantial.

There simply is nothing to deny this and this is the fact based on statistics. Mortality rates have little variance usually. There are I think about 3 000 to 4 000 suicides in Canada annually, while there have been over 14 000 deaths due to Covid-19 in Canada. Just to put that 14 000 in to context, it's in the same ballpark as how many Canadians die to drug overdoses annually. In all, about a bit less than 300 000 die in Canada annually, which should put the numbers in the right context (as we have had Covid-19 deaths only this year, basically).

Perhaps if the US would have been among the most successful countries in the prevention of the pandemic, then knowing the American debate the discourse could be on that the whole thing is a hoax (as people have not died). With now a figure that is over the number of all Canadians dying annually, the pandemic cannot be refuted as a hoax.

I myself have theorized that if the US would have been successful in it's pandemic response, the best example to relate to is Canada as the two countries are quite similar and Canada is also large and a very open country to foreigners coming and going especially on the start of the pandemic. The US simply isn't similar to Norway or Finland. Hence if the US would share similar percentages as Canada, it would have now only 125 000 deaths, not 330 000. Hence the simple fact is that policies taken DO MATTER.



To answer to your argument that the social and economic damage isn't worth wile the effort, we really have to look at credible policy alternatives and just how many lives are we are willing to sacrifice and for what. Sweden is the perfect example as it truly has had a different policy, yet people do naturally take voluntary precautions against the pandemic and the health care system in Sweden is advanced just like in Canada. Above all, Swedes are quite OK with their policies. So, just to give a rough estimate, if Canada would have similar amount of deaths than Sweden, about 30 000 Canadians would have died. Hence you would have a double amount of deaths.

Coronavirus disease: unfortunate, but mostly manageable.
Response to Covid: Much worse than the disease, last longer than the disease, affects more than the disease. Generally a terrible idea based on fear rather than logic or science. — Book273

So basically the question is how much better would it have been for Canada to have less of a hassle, because the global Covid-19 economic bust you could not have avoided. How much worth are 15 000 mainly elderly Canadians that are now with you at least for some years to come, yet you and the economy has had to suffer from the lock downs?

That's your question, to put it bluntly.

1) People are basically anonymous here.
2) Our income and jobs don't depend of what we talk here: people don't have a monetary incentive in the debate.
3) People's careers or reputations aren't on the line here.
4) This is a very small site, so you don't get publicity by commenting

All above reasons just why we indeed could keep a sense of humour, despite serious philosophy problems.