There are three parts to "Media". Which part are you talking about?

1. The first part are the businesses of publishing and broadcasting (including digital platforms). The business sell entertainment, music, and information in various formats. One hopes that the entertainment divisions are not running the news content divisions -- but it's hard to tell, sometimes, that they are not.

2. The second part are the advertisers who buy time and space from media companies to promote their products and services. They have no formal connection to media businesses, but they share a great deal of... "harmonic convergence" shall we say?

3. The third (sometimes last and/or least, depending) are media professionals. These are the people who majored in journalism in college, learned how to write, illustrate, produce, edit, interview, etc. They are the content producers. They are not necessarily employed by your favorite newspaper, television, radio station, or web site, but somebody employs them to produce THE NEWS -- the content.

We can carp and bitch about all three, but really, our bitching and carping should be differentiated.

As a commie pinko faggot, I disapprove of the raison d'être, motives, and methods of the media businesses and advertisers. The people I find a lot of fault with are the journalists--not because they work for money-grubbing capitalists, but because they can be so obtuse, at times.

All the great journalists of the past who produced the gold standards of their field worked for money grubbing capitalists who were at least as philistine as contemporary capitalists are. Sometimes the companies are the same. The Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS) used to be called "tiffany network". The reference was to the distinguished high quality products of the Tiffany jewelry and furnishings business. They may not be up to Tiffany standards today, but it is the same company.

My new pal Heidegger (well I've read 'Being and Time' a second time and seem to understand it) argues we begin with ourselves, our own being, Dasein, and stuff that's present or ready. — mcdoodle

I think that's right. Some research into early childhood experience (the first few months) indicates that babies come armed with some built in assumptions about the world. There is no reason to be horrified by this -- we are, presumably, the product of evolution and it some skills seem to wired into the very young of a number of species.

So, one of the built in assumptions seems to be an understanding of a basic fact of gravity: dropped things fall. Here's a lovely nursery rhyme, introducing the baby to gravity and death.

Rock a-bye baby in the tree top
when the wind blows the cradle will rock
if the bough breaks, the cradle will fall
and down will come cradle, baby, and all.

Lovely. Telling babies about dying is dirty work but somebody has to do it. Who else but Mommy? Anyway, when you show a baby something (like a bright red ball) and drop it, the baby expects it to fall--judging by his eye movements and reaction. If you show the baby a bright red balloon filled with helium and let go, the ball rises to the ceiling. According to the researchers, the babies were "shocked". Shocked! Rising objects did not conform to their experience.

Babies come with personality and intellectual predispositions, and a few dozen blank slates just waiting to be written on in a certain way--like picking up all of the languages, social cues, and so on that they are and will be surrounded with.

It is often the case that the better use of the land (which includes how its people are treated) is in the hands of others. — Hanover

This doesn't solve much. Who decides what a better use is?

I am in favor of the state of Israel, even if their existence was an imposition on the Palestinians. I like the UK, too, even though they were the colonial imperialists par excellence. Germany -- two thumbs up, despite their ghastly history. Sweden? Don't much care for Swedes, even though they haven't done anything to anybody recently (ever?). Finland? Norway? Bah, humbug! to the lands of the Frozen North. Macadamia? Madagascar? Mongolia? Good-bad-indifferent? Don't know.

The problem I am trying to get at (not to anyone's satisfaction, apparently) is how do nations become "good" or "bad"? Nations are collectives which, with respect to other national collectives, pursue interests. Individuals make moral decisions (or not) but when you speak of the collective of millions, "good" or "evil" do not seem quite the right terms.

There were many individuals belonging to the ruling German Nazi Party who made horrendously evil decisions and a few million individuals who executed the orders--all and each responsible. The state of Germany, representing the German people, can't be held guilty the same way that individual Nazis can. The State is an abstraction, as are "a people" to some extent. "The State" can not be taken out and shot after being found guilty of crimes against humanity. But individuals--responsible actors--can be tried, convicted, and executed.

We can locate individuals who are good or bad actors, like those Israeli's who choose to build houses and barns on land where just previously Palestinians had lived, or Palestinians who choose to commit suicide aboard a bus used mostly by Israelis. The Israeli settlers are causing a slow death of Palestinians, as opposed to the much quicker death of Israeli's on the bus. We can locate a source of goodness or badness in particular policies written by particular persons, like a policy of tacit support for boundary-crossing settlers or explosives-bearing bus riders. We can locate goodness and badness in the behavior or directives of leaders, from David Ben-Gurion (1886-1973) or Chaim Weizmann (1914-1952), or Golda Meir (1898-1978) on to Benjamin Netanyahu. We should include Harry Truman and Prime Minister Arthur Balfour.***

Perhaps the most prominent designer of Zionism, Theodor Herzl also known in Hebrew as Chozeh HaMedinah (lit. "Visionary of the State") should be named as a responsible agent.

There are Israeli individuals and Israeli political parties who oppose the expansionary settlers, oppose the military policies of the Israeli defense ministry, and wish to bring about a lasting peaceful arrangement.

"Israel" contains them all.

The existence of Israel, as a state -- whether a 'Jewish' state or not, can not be undone at this point, except by some monstrous act of invasion or nuclear detonation, which would also harm Israel's neighbors.

States, whether imposed by declaration and war, or created by partition of territories (Pakistan, Bangladesh, and India), are self- and other- justified. South Sudan was created by partition but it is unclear at the moment whether they have sufficient recognition and self justification to persist.

Israel, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, et al all have arbitrary boundaries. Much of Africa has equally arbitrary boundaries--the British and French (mainly) drew them to suit themselves, just like they did in the Middle East. Israel isn't unique in having a wandering border. Europe has lots of erasures and redrawn lines; so does the United States (mostly at somebody else's expense).

Israel obtained its West Bank opportunity and its West Bank problem when it captured the territory from Jordan in 1967.

*** "The Balfour Declaration essentially states the endorsement of his fellow Cabinet ministers of the partition of a separate land for Israel in the Palestinian region then under British rule. It read, in part, "His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to faciliate the achievement of this object..." This is particularly significant because it has been popular to suggest a Jewish national home in Uganda up to this point."

I hate saying this, but it seems like might makes right--later if not sooner.
— Bitter Crank

I don't agree with this. Stronger nations are wrong all the time. — Hanover

Of course nations are wrong all the time. But if they can make their evil, unjust, illegal, wrongful, and just plain rude decisions stick, eventually it becomes their honored history. Like the US and the Native Americans... We seized their land, drove them off of it, killed them systematically or haphazardly, starved them, and finally gave the remaining remnant some scraps of land, and found new ways to treat them badly. We seized a huge hunk of northern Mexico. It became our southwest instead of their northwest. All actions we would condemn somebody else doing.

These events were not taught to us in school as moral outrages, they were taught to us as our sacred and honorable history. How could that be? Because we won the wars and got to write the school history books. Not too many questioned all that stuff.

Same with slavery. It was presented as a mere fact in the beginning of the year -- ships went back and forth between Africa, the Caribbean, and New England carrying slaves. Also molasses from which rum was made. Later in the year we learned about the Civil War. Then we went on to corruption in government in the 1870s - 90s. Facts, not moral outrage.

I don't suppose that most people in the UK, Belgium, Holland, France, Germany, Italy and Russia feel inordinately guilty about their colonial/imperialistic history. It paid off pretty well, in most cases.

Israel has been in existence 68 years, long enough to establish the "rightness" of their imposition of a Jewish state on a province of the recently liquidated Ottoman empire (or an old province of the Roman Empire, if you want to go back that far). 68 years after the US managed to win the war of independence, it was 1849--time for the Gold Rush.

Does anyone at this point think that Russia will be forced to return Crimea to Ukraine?

I hate saying this, but it seems like might makes right--later if not sooner. Israel has more might than the neighboring states have--when you add in the United States as the guaranteeing power. Had several million unarmed, Quaker-type Jews arrived in Israel in 1948, Israel probably wouldn't exist now--in Palestine, or anywhere else.

They were not pacifistic--there was combat from the get go. There were various efforts to keep a lid on the inevitable conflict, which we are aware were not successful.

Gaza is only 41 kilometers (25 mi) long, and from 6 to 12 kilometers (3.7 to 7.5 mi) wide. With almost 2 million Palestinians on 362 square kilometers, "Gaza ranks as the 6th most densely populated polity in the world." Wikipedia (The only difference between Manhattan and Gaza is that one is about a billion times richer than the other one.) Israel is bigger than New Jersey (not by much) and could be drowned in Lake Michigan. Taiwan and Sardinia are about the same size.

The Jewish population of Israel grew by 1.7% over the past year, and the Israeli-Arab population grew by 2.2%. There is a demographic problem, too.

Is it possible that "might" could shift at some point in the future, and a new "right" be established? Iran hopes so--at least I think the government there is at least somewhat serious about wanting to get rid of Israel. Should they obtain (or build) a few atomic weapons and a few reliable missiles, and should they be reckless enough to use them...

My guess is that more than 95% of Arab people have more than enough to worry about every day without becoming overly agitated about the existence of the State of Israel. If Arab leaders were doing their job, they would be taking better care of their own populations. Some of them are doing better than others, of course.

What agitates people the most is being trapped. People in Gaza are certainly trapped; lots of the people on the West Bank are trapped. Bethlehem, for instance, is a city walled in from without. If they can't move freely, their economic and educational opportunities -- their futures -- are very limited.

Anybody know why a Palestinian State wasn't established on the West Bank when Israel's initial boundaries were established?

If you want better regulation, write to your congress unit. Or, better yet, chain yourself to his or her ankle.

The FDA doesn't regulate supplements because congress deemed it inappropriate for qualified people to regulate all this OTC stuff.

Not only are a lot of the claims bogus, but a lot of the stuff on the shelves doesn't contain what it claims to contain. For instance, vitamin pills may give you more, less, or none of the nutrients claimed. Some bottles are supposed to contain some ground up plant, and when they tested it there was nothing there but ground up indifferent plant matter. It is up to the manufacturer to put it there, in the quantity on the label.

Most people do not need vitamin supplementation -- or wouldn't if they ate a more varied diet. Most of the vitamins people take are excreted in the urine or feces.

To repeat: nobody is getting B12 from the soil or water. Cobalt (an element) has to be in the soil for the plants to take it up, and for it to then be available in the synthesis of B12 by bacteria. (Similarly, a few molecules of molybdenum are required for certain vitamin synthesis. Ditto for phosphorus, potassium, iron, calcium, etc.

BTW, I recently learned why platinum is used in cancer chemotherapy. When DNA unwinds and rewinds itself, there are a few molecules of potassium in every DNA strand to help this process along. Platinum is taken up by rapidly dividing cells (cancerous and normal) and the platinum takes the place of the potassium and screws up the DNA so the cell dies. Great -- that kills cancer cells; not so great, it also kills any other cells that are dividing a lot, like epithelial cells.

Platinum isn't part of the biological molecule. Oddly, molybdenum and cobalt are.

Vitamin B12 is a water-soluble vitamin that is naturally present in some foods, added to others, and available as a dietary supplement and a prescription medication. Vitamin B12 exists in several forms and contains the mineral cobalt [1-4], so compounds with vitamin B12 activity are collectively called "cobalamins". Methylcobalamin and 5-deoxyadenosylcobalamin are the forms of vitamin B12 that are active in human metabolism [5].
Vitamin B12 is required for proper red blood cell formation, neurological function, and DNA synthesis [1-5].

Vegans are at risk for vitamin B12 deficiency, because it isn't found in plants; it is available through supplementation (breakfast food, your soy drink, etc). It doesn't come from spring water or the soil -- except that all biological activity more or less depends on soil and water -- but B12 is synthesized in the body (or the gut) of some animals--like pot roasts, chicken cacciatore, and pork chops. We don't. We can't synthesize vitamin C either, which a lot of animals do.

Animals get vitamin B12 from the anaerobic bacteria in their guts. We can't do it that way.

I eat yogurt. I like sauerkraut, but I doubt if commercial sauerkraut has anything alive in it. Also, the internal temperature of baking bread is about 200 F, so I doubt much is alive in that either. Probably take a bit of sourdough starter of every morning...

There is some good research that suggests that gut flora controls weight. Thin rats fed bits of fat rat shit (you can do this to rats) got fat, and fat rats fed bits of thin rat shit got slimmer. That's what we want: sleek, slim, svelte rats.

Whatever works.

I used to be 5'10" -- I'm a bit shorter now, and weighed around 160 pounds in 1986. I was kind of gaunt -- someone at the bar wanted to know if I had AIDS (didn't). I had been thin for quite a few years, then in 1990 (age 45) I started putting on weight, which wouldn't come off. Just wouldn't. And I got heavier, till I reached just about 225 one day. It's a lot of extra weight to haul around.

This morning I weighed 215. I'm just about 1 pant size smaller. (with about 9 sizes to go before I would be back at size 30/30.

If, if if if, I get down to 180 this year, the real trick will be keeping the weight off. I think I can. I'm not cutting out anything essential either in quality or quantity, so I should be able to keep this up. The thing is, sometime fairly soon after age 35, the body's metabolism starts a slow decline. My basal metabolic rate is now about a third of what it was 35 years ago, assuming that figure is valid.

I think we should remember, just for context, that quite a few nations/empires have had their fingers in the Middle Eastern pie. To start with...

The Babylonians, Greeks, Romans, Persians, Anatolians, Egyptians, (who did I leave out?) were overlords for various parts and pieces at different times and places. They all left an imprint. The Kingdom of Israel was run over several times, just like a lot of other kingdoms were. it was SOP.

Then there were the Jews and the Christians.

Then there were the Moslems which pretty much overran (or tried to overrun) the Mediterranean Basin, and more besides, heading east to the Pacific.

Then Ghengis Kahn over ran much of Eurasia, including the Middle East.

Then there were European Crusades.

Then there was the Ottoman Empire.

Then there was the British and French Empires.

The British and French redrew the map of the Middle East to their liking before Israel was created. There was nothing particularly rational about it. Their drawing room map exercise is the root of a lot of contemporary problems.

Israel was created finally by Declaration and force, just like all of the previous arrangements were. Nothing was done with democratic votes, plebiscites, public opinion polls, or so much as a fare-thee-well consideration of the local wishes anywhere. The Zionist movement was formally started by Theodor Herzl in 1896. It's just the latest oar in the water.

The United States stuck its oar into the water later than the British and the French, and we haven't contributed a whole lot of good either -- not because we are Islamophobic, antisemitic, or anti Arab. We were doing what every nation does, pursuing national interests, or at least trying to pursue national interests. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were astonishingly stupid endeavors but lots of other people have tried similar stupid endeavors and failed.

So, here we are, 2016, blaming a lot of ancient history on the modern state of Israel and the US and some (Discoli) valorizing the Arabs -- well really, colored folk and may or may not be oppressed at the moment.

Does Palestine belong to the people who lived there before Israel was created? Sure -- just like merry old England belonged to Celts before the Romans took over and belonged to the Romans before they left and the Anglo Saxons took over next. Just like North and South America didn't belong to Spain, Portugal, and England before they arrived and took over. Just like nobody invited the Romans, Christians, Moslems, and Turks, to do what they did.

Jews have always lived in Palestine. After the Romans left ancient Israel in tatters the Jewish people remaining (who were not part of the diaspora) devolved into peasants, just like the predecessors of the present day Palestinians were.

That's history for you: One damned thing after another.

Fitness isn't having the body that fashion decrees. Fitness is having a body capable of doing what you need to get done without feeling exhausted. At 70, my fitness goals are to be able to carry out everyday activities like cleaning, gardening, laundry, biking on errands and for pleasure, and a few other things like cleaning out the eaves troughs on the roof two or three times a year. Maintaining gaining some strength, maintaining balance and flexibility, enough stamina to go on a 20 mile ride, walk and stand for several hours--that level of fitness for maybe 10 to 20 more years, then the grave.

These goals are a lot different than what I worked toward 30 years ago. Then it was jogging for an hour and a half, swimming a half mile, biking 50-100 miles on a day. I met and maintained those goes for some time, but then Injuries, weight, arthritis, and time...

I'm decidedly over weight and need to lose at least 25 pounds, preferably 45.

I'm following a diet that is low on carbohydrates (not free of), with as few simple starches as possible--white potatoes, white bread, white rice, sugar (cookies, etc.). Instead, more complex carbohydrates--yams, whole grain. Along with that, lots of fruits and vegetables (which supply sugar and much else) not too much limitation on fat.

This is the third month and I've lost 10 pounds, so far. I'm not doing this for looks -- I'm way beyond the age of making a difference whether I look svelte or not. I hope to lose 25-45 pounds during the rest of the year.

It makes sense to me that refined starch and sugars make people hungry -- you eat the cake, the white bread, get the insulin reaction, and soon you feel "hungry" again -- you're definitely not short on calories, but you feel like it. So you eat more. Round and round it goes, until one is too fat.

Fat in the diet produces satiety, and doesn't trigger the hunger/sugar/insulin/hunger merry go round. What the fat is doing to my previously low levels of cholesterol, we'll see in a couple of weeks.

There was a good editorial in the Guardian--I thought it was good, anyway--Why I am becoming a Jew and you should too by Nick Cohen.

So here's one more. I think this demonstrates the extreme better than A. S.

At least, if he needs a blood test or an IV, it won't be hard to find a vein.

I totally agree that capitalism fouls it up. I appreciate what you've said about 'fitness', diet, performance enhancing drugs, and so on.

If you look at classical sculpture, figurative (literal) paintings drawings, and the earliest photography, you see quite a few individuals who have nicely defined large muscle groups--6 packs, sinuous thighs, large biceps, thick neck, and so on. What you also see is that there is a 'ceiling' on the definition--the "articulate bulginess" displayed. The men of earlier times did not have performance enhancing drugs, and they weren't working out at Gold's Gym, either. They probably developed their muscles from work. There's a limit on the results they would get.

So, there is Gold's gym these days. You can thank Bernard McFadden 1868-1955 for the present situation. He boosted the idea of maximum masculine development. I'm not quite sure when steroids were discovered, much less used licitly or illicitly for enhancement, but it was in the 20th century.

Here are several pictures of men who, according to the notes, represented ideal men at different times: Roman era (after earlier classical Greek period, 17th, 18th, 19th, and 20th century

There is a distinct difference between the classic body builder type which Arnold Schwarzenegger represents and the other figures. I don't know whether A.S. used muscle exaggerating steroids or not -- but you are quite right, it is obvious that thousands of men are using them, and getting exaggerated results. It has become de regueur to be more than buffed, one needs to be downright chiseled to satisfy stylistic standards. Contemporary porn is saturated with photos of men who have maxed out muscle building for its own sake. They are very slim,fatless always, with extremely defined figures. It isn't unattractive, the same way nicely done chemical blond hair or breast enhancement isn't unattractive: It's aesthetics over nature. Its physical narcissism, or OCD, or some other variety of lunacy -- I mean, you have to be pretty obsessed to get and maintain these results. If you get fat, even somewhat, all the muscles will be softened and covered up.

Steroids and methamphetamine seem like a great pairing. The latter aids in the pursuit of whatever obsession get's you off, and the former produces more results.

People should not go to a rally meant to support a candidate in order to demean him. It's just rude. If you wanna protest, that's fine, but don't do it at a rally... the purpose of a rally is to support a candidate, not to have protests. — Agustino

If the rally was a private, ticketed event, not open to the public, fine. It would be rude to go and disrupt it. However, if it is a public rally with doors open to all comers, then disruption through normal protest activity is appropriate--but limited to normal protest -- holding signs, asking unpleasant questions, chanting, etc. Anything beyond that (hitting, shooting, kicking, stomping, beating on people) is wrong.

Would you have disrupted Hitler's rallies by appropriate protest actions, assuming you wouldn't have minded being taken out and shot afterwards?

It isn't against the law to BE psychopathic. Indeed, as I pointed out above, it might even be a socially acceptable advantage to be slightly psychopathic, in certain specific kinds of positions.

I presume Trump made his money the way most rich people do: it's a combination of inheritance, investment, and possibly some ingenuity. I also presume he earned it honestly. I don't happen to know the precise relationship Trump has with Trump Hotels -- whether he wholly owns them or is the principle in the business.

What is important to me is the tone of his comments. IF a potential candidate is willing to admit wanting to punch a protester in the face or urge his supporters to aggressively oust someone from a public meeting--when making debut appearances as a candidate--THEN it doesn't bode well for the sort of responses he might have to citizens who might object en masse to something he has done. It doesn't speak well for Trump to have rather casually insulted so many people.

I don't care that he's being politically crude, frank, honest, or incorrect. I have opinions that aren't politically correct too. What disturbs me is that his language suggests a leaning toward the style of fascism or gang politics. (Note, I didn't say he is a fascist; I said he leans toward the style of certain fascist dictators we have known and not loved. Maybe he is a fascist, but I don't have any evidence of that.)

Unless Congress excretes some sort of law, SCOTUS will have nothing to rule on. — Hanover

Are there no laws already on the books that can be taken to court and declared, or not declared, unconstitutional?

the mere existence of great men in oppressive societies means the stifling of millions of other great humans. — discoii

I see you've surmised that life really sucks. Quite right, it does. Sucky sucky sucky life. And I've spent decades stewing over it, like you are here. Keep stewing -- it's a necessary process. Just don't let it twist you too far out of shape. Twisted sisters aren't much good for anything.

Once again, for the last 500 years of human history, the least trustworthy and the most brutal of all people were rich white men — discoii

Been reading Chomsky lately?

Look, I'm well aware of the historical bloody mess we've left behind us, but Discoii, there are no human societies on earth who have not left a bloody mess behind them. I am not claiming that bloody messes are a necessary companion of civilization's triumphant progress. You've read Guns, Germs, and Steel -- there are reasons why the white devils in the Middle East flourished as they moved west out of the ME and into Europe. They happened to have material advantages granted by geography, botany, and their predecessors who domesticated wheat.

Was the American constitution (the good parts) itself not drawn, in a huge part, from the Iroquois? — discoii

Well, no -- I don't think it was. Franklin was aware of the Iroquois political arrangements, and the Iroquois were aware of us, and there was some communication between the two. Do you think the founding genocidalistas would have looked to the people they were busy killing for political ideas? Seems unlikely. I think they probably looked to their own political documents (like the Magna Carta) for inspiration. There were many features of the matrilineal Iroquois that were quite dissimilar to Anglo-American political experience. Yes, the Iroquois had cooperative political institutions, but cooperative political institutions have been invented in many places and times all over the world.

Where did liberte, egalite, fraternite originate, if not from the poor of Europe, or the anarchic tribes of Africa, America, Arabia, and Asia? — discoii

Arabia! Africa? Asia? Surely you jest. It isn't racist or imperialist, or any number of nameable and unnameable sins to locate the 1700's leading proponents of Liberté, égalité, & fraternité in Paris rather than Timbuktu.

The Declaration of independence was written in 1776 (you know this, I know). The Constitution was wrapped up in 1788, after the clunky Articles of Confederation. The French Revolution ran from 1789 - 1799. We had finished the foundation work before the French blew up.

Once again, for the last 500 years of human history, the least trustworthy and the most brutal of all people were rich white men. Ideas that advanced humanity, brought humanity forward, were found among the poor and downtrodden, who conspired against them. They slowly incorporated these ideas, filtering out the good parts, and keeping them in name in legal form, while slowly forming an apparatus around them so that these human tendencies towards freedom can be controlled. — discoii

Locating the heart of brutality in white men (setting aside "rich" for now) seems quite racist. I'm surprised you would say such a thing. All men are brothers, all men are bastards, and their sisters are all bitches. We are all alike in our capacities for goodness and vileness, and whatever has been done in one corner of the world has been done in the other corners as well. You don't want to fall into the trap of supposing "the superior virtue of the oppressed" (Bertrand Russell--another privileged white male).

Well, yes: there has to be a relationship between the lives of ordinary people and the ideas of thinkers, writers, leaders. Take the civil rights, peace, gay liberation, union organizing, and women's equality movements: All of these movements had leaders, writers, organizers, thinkers... who developed and promulgated ideas. If they weren't picked up by the masses and put into practice, and if the masses' practices were not reflected in the thinking of leaders, the whole thing would be a sterile exercise.

Ordinary women, ordinary blacks, ordinary gays, ordinary working people, ordinary students both initiated, resonated to, and responded with the ideas that leaders, writers, thinkers, and organizers worked with. There has to be a continuous interplay between the rank and file and the leadership. An eloquent educated speaker may call for the right of blacks to vote in Alabama, but it is rather ordinary people who are going to walk into the polling sites. Academics may lay out why gay people should be free from discrimination, but it is ordinary gay men going about their gay business that forces the issue on the public. Housewives who don't read philosophy were the women who got jobs in mostly male factories and learned to operate machinery and tools. It is striking workers, not labor theorists, who are going to get canned.

Both sides are needed: the small coterie of idea mongers and the large rank and file of riff raff who shake the foundations by their choices made en masse.

We have a tendency to assign credit to these men, but the fact is that they drew from the work of others. Oh, these are great men, they say. They are brilliant men, one of a kind! Well, to hell with that, the mere existence of great men in oppressive societies means the stifling of millions of other great humans. I will take their ideas, and be rid of their names and association, because we are still living the rich white male hierarchy, and this sort of credit-giving continues the narrative that we are supposed to live, after systematic white-washing over generations. — discoii

For god's sake, of course they drew from the work of others. Culture is one big plagiarism racket, don't you know. Endless borrowing cum theft.

We can't help it that some of the people who have good ideas also have the considerable wherewithal it takes to get their ideas down on paper, published, reviewed favorably, and passed into the general stream of culture. You know what, I'm sure all three of us -- Discoli, Bittercrank, and Agustino have all had great ideas every now and then, but it wasn't within our power to get it down on paper, published, reviewed favorably, and passed into the cultural stream.

Some hot-shot go-getter who may not be as smart but is glib and can type fast will have the same idea (or more likely, steal it from us) and will become famous. Not rich if he steals my ideas -- I never think of good money making schemes, and have never recognized one when I saw it. But I've had good ideas. So have you two.

And sometimes, hate to admit it, people get their books written because they work harder at it than my esteemed self does, and maybe they don't even lead a life of quiet desperation, like me. SOBs.

What does the Vanderbilt/Carnegie family own in the US today? :) They're not even in the billionaire list :) ... — Agustino

It didn't disappear.

Your question is simple, but the answer is complex -- I'll just scratch at it. There is a lot of information out there about who earned the big piles of money, and how that fortune has flowed over the decades.

Even when there aren't any rich heirs, many of the rich people left behind large land holdings, urban real estate, and so forth that passed into the hands of the state, the church, universities, and so on. Frequently these properties have been preserved as state parks, museums, schools, etc. In New York, for instance, the Empire State Building was built on land owned by the Astor Family. (John Jacob Astor, et al) A couple of early New York City (hey -- New Amsterdam!) families still own quite a few parcels of land on which big buildings sit.

What happened to all their money?

Many of the very rich men of the late 19th early 20th century set up foundations into which a substantial portion of their filthy lucre was poured, then the income from the funds directed to be used for philanthropic, benevolent purposes. Ford Foundation is a good example. Over the generations since the death of the Original Accumulator, the fortunes have been diluted -- spread out over an ever larger number of heirs.

Rockefeller: (oil - Standard Oil) a large amount of Rockefeller went into buying the land for, and building Rockefeller Center. It was a huge outlay. Begum in 1929, about, it didn't make any money at all for the first 15 years. Now it is quite profitable. The rest of the money? Willed to successive generations of, reducing each descendent's share. Quite a bit of it went into the Rockefeller Foundation and The Rockefeller University (a graduate medicine research institution) and Rockefeller Hospital.

Vanderbilt: Their fortune was made in railroads like the New York Central -- now merged into some multiply successive corporation. However, they made a lot. The Vanderbilt's farm was the 146,000 acre Biltmore estate in North Carolina. They bought and built a lot of real estate. Some of it is still kicking around. The rest of the money? Willed to successive generations of, reducing each descendent's share.

Carnegie: (railroads, coal, shipping, and steel) Proportionately, Carnegie was richer than Bill Gates. He decided to give away his fortune when he retired and discovered it was difficult to give it away fast enough -- income kept coming in. Carnie funded all sorts of institutions -- the endowment still does -- like libraries in small towns across the country (2,508 libraries around the English speaking world); Carnegie Mellon University is a descendent. Numerous churches and colleges were beneficiaries. Carnegie Hall in NYC; Carnegie Library and Carnegie Museum of Pittsburgh; Carnegie Trust for the Universities of Scotland; Carnegie Institution of Washington, D.C.--contributing to, among other things, hybrid corn, radar, the technology that led to Pyrex® glass, and novel techniques to control genes called RNA interference; 2 of the big telescopes in Chile are Carnegie Institution beneficiaries; Carnegie Foundation in The Hague; The Carnegie Dunfermline Trust, Scotland; Carnegie Hero Fund Commission; The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (TIAA-CREF, professors retirement fund was started by this foundation; TIAA is now worth about $350,000,000,000--not from Carnegie, of course; Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; Carnegie Corporation of New York -- set up to distribute philanthropic funds. The United Kingdom Trust; Carnegie Council for Ethics on International Affairs;

Here are some large foundations:

1.
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (WA)
$44,320,862,806 (Microsoft)

2.
Ford Foundation (NY)
12,400,460,000 (cars)

3.
J. Paul Getty Trust (CA)
11,982,862,131 (oil)

4.
The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (NJ)
10,501,370,521

5.
Lilly Endowment Inc. (IN)
9,995,102,248 (pharmaceuticals)

6.
The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation (CA)
9,042,503,000 (technology)

7.
W. K. Kellogg Foundation (MI)
8,621,183,526 (breakfast foods)

8.
The David and Lucile Packard Foundation (CA)
7,084,903,284 (technology)

9.
Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation (CA)
6,559,384,939

10.
Bloomberg Philanthropies (NY)
6,550,282,874 (business data)

At the moment I can't decide which one of you is more annoying in this so-far brief discussion

it turns out that almost every idea rich white people had were bad ideas — discoii

There is no progressive tradition. Such a thing does not exist. — Agustino

These are not creditable views. Are you two conspiring to correct the errors of our ways by burning the library down?

"Conservatives" have no monopoly on legal traditions. There are, side by side, liberal traditions and conservative traditions. Conservative courts are as likely to abolish someone's preferred traditional interpretation as liberal courts are.

Yes, the SCOTUS is key, and it needs a couple more liberal judges, at least. By "liberal" i mean, understanding that the constitution was framed in 1776, the founders addressed the situation as they saw it in 1776 (figuratively speaking), and 200+ years later, possibly -- just possibly -- new circumstances abolish old certainties. By "liberal" I mean taking the position that corporations are not persons with rights to behave as they wish; that individuals and organizations who control a great deal of money shouldn't be able to sped any amount of money as they see fit on political campaigns. And so on...

The SCOTUS is key because we can't count on the bowels of congress moving in an orderly fashion in the next few terms, as long as the far right maintains enough strength in office. (People should not be predicting the demise of the Republican Party. It isn't going anywhere in the near future. Alas, alas O...)

Democrats and Republicans both have behaved in such a way to demoralize the active voting citizenry, so fewer and fewer people are participating in elections. That doesn't favor liberals, usually. The POTUS and SCOTUS are thus the bulwark holding back the corrosive reactionaries.

The USSR began from a very long tradition of authoritarian, sometimes savage, Czarist autocracy and the Communists continued the fine tradition. Did the United States "defeat" the USSR, leading up to it's collapse in 1989-1990, or did it collapse from within? I'm not sure.

Sanders may be a socialist, but he isn't proposing socialism as the theme of his highly unlikely (but not impossible yet) administration. Without a socialist movement--a party, experienced party personnel, a program, a history--there can be no socialist reform, and there is no socialist movement, personnel, program, or history.

Sanders is proposing certain democratic reforms--all to the good. But let's not go overboard on what he would wish to do or be able to do.

I would like to see a successful socialist movement, party, personnel, program, and history. Small groups of dedicated people have worked on trying to build such a movement over the last century and more, everybody from the early anarchists, the IWW, Socialist Party, SWP, Socialist Labor, New Union Party, CP-USA, and so on. I worked on one of these efforts for a couple of decades, on and off, and it is very tough going.

It isn't that socialist organizers get hostile responses, they don't get ANY response.

However, neither of us can know how things would have ended had you decided to get married to a woman and have children — Agustino

Heterosexual marriage was not a psychological possibility. It was out of the question from the get go, and some things one just has to accept, and that was one of them.

that's what the West has done for the last 100 years, and look where we are! We're more miserable than ever. — Agustino

It is certainly the case that the West (and much of the world) has been undergoing a large shift in the norms of social, sexual, marital, behavior and fulfillment. We know what we are shifting from (19th century ideas and earlier) and the old values have been breaking up and then crumbling. A new regime will eventually come into existence -- don't know when or what, sorry. One is either fortunate or unfortunate to live during periods of social upheaval. It is exciting, alarming, depressing, joyful, etc. The thing to remember is that promiscuity, gay liberation, high rates of single motherhood, unplanned pregnancies, all that and more are a consequence of upheaval, not the cause.

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world

It need not be the prelude to the apocalypse. More likely it is only the prelude to the next rapprochement among competing views, interests, preferences, demands, concerns, commitments, and so on. A new morality will emerge, there will be new sinners, new saints, and so on. I have no idea how the chips will fall -- and nobody else, either, knows.

Keep breathing -- no telling how long this will take.

Intercourse is never a physical function, it is, first and foremost, a psychological one. — Agustino

Well, don't know about you, but intercourse has always been a physical function for me and my partners. Of course there is a critical psychological piece too.

Well, as all other socialists, you seem to think that the state, or a single parent, can provide adequate care for the child. I will say that it is possible for a single parent to (not for the state), but very difficult. Someone who, after having a child, does not marry that person, therefore commits himself to a very risky position, and thus threatens the well-being of the child. — Agustino

I din't say anything about the state raising the child. I think it is the parents' job (emphasis on the plural there) to raise their child(ren). I think the state should encourage procreation among married partners, because that objectively seems like the best setting for successful childrearing. It can do this by such things as mandating maternity leave, paternity leave, prenatal care, tax rebates, and the like. I'm not interested in having the state open up baby farms.

You have to be a self-serving snitch, looking only for personal interest and money not to. — Agustino

coincidentally, that's what a lot of people think Hillary is.

There's only 3 important topics which can make or break your life but not many in the West find it "polite" to discuss them. Sex, Politics and Spirituality. — Agustino

Oh come now! People talk about sex, politics, and religion all the time. What circles are you traveling in where all this isn't talked about?

That is why vice is dangerous - it blinds one to its effects until it is too late... — Agustino

That's what they said about masturbation. They lied.

Someone fulfilled is someone who fulfills the potential of his nature. So a homosexual according to this will satisfy his desire for pleasure by having homosexual sex but at the cost of neglecting his potential to have a family with a woman, have a child which is his own, and possibly at developing the kind of deep intimacy that can exist between loyal and faithful lovers. — Agustino

Being born homosexual (and later electing what to do with it) frequently carries with it the cost of not passing on one's genes. Of course, with technology or by a willing suspension of disbelief, a gay man can father children. Lots of gay men have--though probably many of them were actually bisexual. I've thought about that. It isn't necessary that everyone pass on their genes. With 7+ billion genetic donors, we will somehow have to survive without mine. Would I have made a good father? Now--with maturity and the settled mind of early old age, yes. But I was in way too much turmoil not related to sexuality at all when I was of the usual breeding age. Everyone was better off by me dealing with my own mishegas and not getting married. I didn't set up a happy gay home with Bob until I was 36, and that lasted for just about 30 happy years (cancer ended it).

I haven't been fulfilled a good share of my life -- I didn't fulfill the potential of my nature -- not my sexual nature (that got fulfilled in spades) -- which I think was to be a somewhat contemplative change agent who early on gravitated toward leftist politics. I didn't fulfill this feature because, putting it succinctly, I didn't know how. Now I know how, but am running out of steam. That's life, again.

There wasn't much missing my long term relationship. It was strictly voluntary (no marriage vows holding it together), it had the "deep intimacy that can exist between loyal and faithful lovers" per your description. I also had along the way quite a few short relationships which I would not want to have missed -- I would not want to have missed your dreaded promiscuous sex, either -- it was just great more often than not.

It should be obvious to you, but the thing that keeps most gay men from marrying women and having children is a near total lack of interest in the female body. Gay men having sex with often just doesn't work well.

You are not permissive toward sexual behavior. That isn't a crime, it's not a disgrace, it's not a social faux pas, it's not even politically incorrect. it's who you are, Agustino. You are a traditional Christian moralist committed to marriage, family, deep intimacy that can exist between loyal and faithful [heterosexual] lovers, and that is all fine by me. Stock with it. I have no complaints about your essential nature.

You, however, have not achieved the nonexistent ultimate in human existence. You just achieved your best.

We don't agree on the morality of promiscuity, of course. But we both favor a moral approach to sexuality. I think there is a proper, moral way to practice promiscuity: respectful, responsible (don't transmit diseases which you can avoid transmitting), generous -- give and receive both, non-predatory (leave partnered couples alone), practice with mutual consent.

How much promiscuity? Moderation in all things, of course. If one is obsessed with having sex, something has gone haywire in one's personality, and it should be dealt with promptly. One should not risk jail for sex -- therefore, don't decide to perform blowjobs on the capitol steps. It won't turn out well. (Far fetched example -- don't know anybody who did it.

Along with promiscuity, one should engage in politics in the gay community. The gay sexual community proceeded the gay political community (gay sex created both). If you you like being gay, then engage politically to protect yourself and your brothers from predatory legislators who have nothing better to do with their time in office but to harass homosexuals.

And don't forget to militate against the right wing preachers who think it is Christlike to specialize in denouncing gay sexual toothpick sins (which they presumably are not involved in) while ignoring the barked logs of corporate and individual sins -- greed, hypocrisy, predatory lending, environmental devastation, war, et al.

It is not sex that is bad, but the lack of virtue that underlies promiscuous sex that is bad. And if you think it's otherwise, then I think you are decieved and under the spell of an illusion, so I advise that you think carefully about this. — Agustino

The virtue of promiscuous sex, or the lack of it, is something I have spent decades thinking about.

Sexual activity, per se, is first a physical function without any moral implications. It gains moral reproach or approval as a result of additional considerations.

The morality of a given sexual act depends on the state of the participants, for one thing. Single people are not bound by a marriage contract, and single people can not gain practical experience in sexual behavior without having sex.

Is it good for morality to have experience in sexual behavior? That would depend on what you expect of the performers. It might be the case that married partners without prior sexual experience will find each other totally satisfactory because they have nothing to compare. In which case ignorance is bliss. Or, it might mean that people with sexual experience should be franker about what they want in a partner and what they, themselves, can deliver BEFORE they marry. Or it might mean that a virtuous relationship will require agreement to one or both partners having sex outside of the relationship (practically this probably won't work well).

Promiscuous sex makes sense for gay men (in most parts of the world) because there is absolutely no support for declared gay partnerships--because many people think gay sex is, per se, immoral. The same people are likely to doubt the goodness of homosexuality as a state of being, tolerable only if there is no expression of the state of being -- something that is definitely harmful to the mind.

Single heterosexuals who can't find a suitable mate have little choice but to be promiscuous. If morality views unmarried heterosexuality the same way it views homosexuality -- OK as a state of being, but if not, don't express heterosexuality behaviorally -- then "morality" just adds to the sum-total of misery in the world.

People, whether married or not, are entitled as human beings to satisfying self-expression, including physical sexual expression (of course, as long as it isn't deliberately destructive to the partner). If satisfying physical sexual expression can be obtained within marriage, great. If not, then it is appropriate to seek it outside of marriage.

"Marriage" should not be morally fetishized. Marriage is a social arrangement; it isn't divinely ordained (nothing is). Marriage does not guarantee virtue; it may not even facilitate virtue (when it fails). Singleness is not a moral failing. Sex among single people is not a moral failing.

Sex becomes a moral failing when it is abusive (rape), when it is cruel and exploitative (human trafficking for sexual purposes), when it is destructive (for example, adult/pre-pubertal child sexual relationships), deceitful ("Yes, I have always used a condom in all previous sexual encounters" when in fact one wouldn't even think of using a condom; "Yes, I am taking birth control pills and I can not get pregnant" when in fact one wasn't on birth control and one intended to get pregnant) and so on.

...if I tell a man who enjoys promiscuity that he is harming his own mind... — Agustino

Except in the case of late stage syphilis--nothing to sneeze at--little sex or a lot of sex has no known effect on the mind. My guess is that plentiful sex (even among the boys) is probably as beneficial to mental health as a strong interest in morality is. Or, possibly, too much sex or too much interest in morality are equally unhealthy for the mind. If one spends ones days doing nothing but fucking OR doing nothing but contemplating morality, the results will be equally unfortunate. One of them will at least be more amusing.

Sanders and Hillary both have no character, and cannot build a great nation. Hell, they can't even build a family... one of them having an illegitimate child, and the other can't even keep her husband in control. What a sham... — Agustino

There does seem to be a belief among some heterosexuals that it is women's job to keep men under control. I don't recollect hearing that in traditional wedding ceremonies.

Whether Sanders has a child conceived while not married or not, and whether Bill behaved well or not, is scant evidence as to Sanders' and Hillary's qualifications to be president.

I think there is a moral issue in having children outside of marriage: "Will the child be adequately cared for by both partners for at least the first 18 years of life?" For women, I think it is poor morality to deliberately conceive children one doesn't have the means to support, and for men, it is poor morality to abandon children without adequate support. It tends to be difficult for a single woman to adequately care for children without a partner to contribute time, talent, and resources. Inadequate support can have quite negative consequences.

As far as I know, Sanders' child was not abandoned without support.

Discussions of sex and politics are always "on topic".

I simply think that ultimately homosexuality can't lead to flourishing and fulfillment, even though someone who feels homosexual urges may THINK otherwise. I believe someone's well-being is ultimately an objective matter, which does not depend on what one himself thinks. A miser is still miserable, even if he feels happy - the happier he feels in fact, the more miserable he is. — Agustino

I think this particular field was rather thoroughly plowed a while back here and elsewhere, nevertheless...

It is presumptuous for you to flatly claim that someone may think themselves fulfilled but actually not be fulfilled. "Feeling fulfilled" is a subjective experience. If I say I have fulfillment, you pretty much are obligated to accept the statement -- unless you have substantial evidence that I am self-deceived. Objectively, or at least less subjectively, psychiatrists, psychologists, sociologists, and not least--homosexuals themselves--think they achieve fulfillment in life and regularly perform various social roles with the same success as heterosexuals. NOTE: this formulation allows room for flat out failure, which a proportional percentage of people, both homosexual and heterosexual, achieve.

Honest self-examination reveals that I have experienced both success and fulfillment and flat-out failure in various aspects of life, at different times. That seems to be the case with most people. It is probably true for you too.

I think he was talking about Catholics in church, not catholics in concert.

Your question doesn't have a simple answer.

Generally, NO we don't want to grant power to psychopaths. But remember: psychopathy isn't an all or nothing condition. There are degrees. I said it might be an advantage in certain situations where people need to make difficult decisions and continue to function well afterwards. A limited amount of psychopathy might be helpful.

But there are other ways that people cope with needing to make one difficult painful decision after another. They rehearse for themselves why these difficult decisions are difficult and painful. They recognize that they are going to feel a lot of emotional pain and learn to live with it for as long as they can. They ventilate a lot. They pray. They do whatever it takes to keep functioning. Sometimes they crack under the strain -- have a heart attack, become suicidal, and so on. Generally, though, they cope.

Generally, we want power to be wielded by people who have consciences, are capable of feeling guilt for acting badly, have good judgement, and a few dozen other traits that may or may not come packaged together.

And your question presumes that we know who the psychopaths are. Most often, we don't know (because they aren't behaving in such a way that they will be confronted by a forensic psychiatrist).