How so? What exactly is so expensive about study that you need to be wealthy to do it? — Count Timothy von Icarus

True enough, Youtube videos, second-hand book stores, and the like are affordable, but that isn't the problem. There are a number of barriers: First is the average literacy level. Being literate enough to read a cookbook, a newspaper, or a catalog isn't sufficient to tackle Aristotle and Augustine, never mind Aquinas. Very good habits of study (excellent vocabulary, comprehension, memory, abstract organizational skills, note taking, etc.) are needed, but are not well developed in most high schools.

Time and quiet, unencumbered by working, commuting, chores, socializing, etc. is in short supply. The motivation to study classical materials is quite sensibly absent in most people. Earning a living, child care, household shopping, household chores, etc. come first for most people. Then there is fatigue.

Eating a healthy diet is, as a matter of fact, more expensive and more time consuming than satisfying hunger with highly processed foods. Depending on the retail stores available, starches and fats are cheaper than lean protein, fresh fruits, and vegetables (or frozen and canned). Quite a few people live in areas poorly served by affordable supermarkets. Yes, it's possible to eat an affordable quality diet, but it takes a certain amount of expertise, time, mobility, and just plain availability.

What's the assumption here, that in order to put Aristotle or Dante's teachings to work one must be wealthy? Why? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Get real. Wealth and quality of education are positively correlated. So are wealth and the details of life that allow for intense study while paying for the costs of a pleasant life.

the status and career concerns of the wealthy seem like they are often a barrier to spending time on the intellectual or spiritual life. — Count Timothy von Icarus

True enough -- look at Elon Musk and Donald Trump. On the other hand, the learnéd tend to come from the economically comfort class--about 10-15% of the population--not that everyone in comfortable 15% is even remotely learnéd.

I really understand the hostility towards 'woke culture' — Wayfarer

Ditto.

English stole "detto" from Italian in the 17th century (those damned cultural appropriators, rotten cultural imperialists, filthy cultural thieves) where it meant "said previously". By the 19th century it had become part of our family, a comfortable piece of furniture in the house. "Ditto" derives ultimately from Latin dicere, to say. Latin, of course, was the language of those arch-imperialists, rampant cultural appropriators, and world class cultural thieves of Rome.

waste and fraud — Wayfarer

Throw in abuse and you have the Trump program. Waste, because what is being tossed into the wood chipper are real assets providing real benefits to Americans and others. Fired talent is wasted. Employees and the public are abused. Undoubtedly something fraudulent is going on in Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (sic).

Of course there is waste, some fraud (DT knows all about that), and abuse in government. Spending trillions of dollars a year can't be done without at least some W, F, & A occurring. I can't keep track of the precise amount of spare change in my pocket over a month, and I try very hard to do so.

The fraud that exists is not in the payroll, and it isn't in entitlement spending. If it's anywhere, it's in military procurement where cost+++ seems to be the rule. Since the military feeds from such a deep trough, it can afford the jacked up retail prices it pays.

Outside of W, F, & A there is misdirected spending, ineffective spending, duplicate spending, and unnecessary spending (all subject to various definitions). That's harder to find than crude fraud. I've worked in several programs which received federal and state funds on a contract basis and sometimes we may not have delivered what we claimed to be delivering. We said we were reducing the incidence of AIDS. Were we? If the incidence of AIDS was reduced was that because of our efforts or some other factor--like intense news coverage? We all the condoms handed out used? Were needles always clean? Did the target population sign up for prophylactic medication? Did every AIDS patient take their meds all the time.

Our work was a small example, but the work we did was duplicated in thousands of locations across the US and in other countries. (Among at-risk groups where prevention projects are lacking, case loads go up.)

Slasher budget cuts ends up pulling the plug on excellent programs as often as only passable programs, whether it's in forestry, health care, education, agriculture, biomedical research, and so on.

You get this. (One of my sisters says I'm always stating the obvious. Probably true, but not everybody understands what's going on.)

You probably know this already, but one of the goals of USAID used to be "capacity building". It's the 'give a man a fishing pole' over giving him a fish'. It takes years -- decades -- to build capacity in developing countries. It's not like landing a plane load of food -- which is a good thing too, but for different purposes.

It could be a child-survival and maternal health project, for instance -- training local women in how to manage common diarrheal diseases in infants; setting up birth control programs; training in basic public health -- hand washing, using sunlight to improve water safety, etc. Setting up a district record keeping system for vaccinations might be done. It might be food security programs -- introducing easy to grow high-nutrient plants like passion fruit.

Introducing composting toilets can reduce disease transmission (resulting from helter-skelter outdoor defecation) and produces a safe and useful fertilizer. The toilets can be locally constructed, but the basic materials still need to be purchased which might be more than a poor family or community can manage.

Some efforts will fail: a program to distribute small concrete domes to cover toilet pits failed, because the local people didn't think the concrete shells were thick enough, and squatting on a thin cover over a shit hole was just not acceptable. The covers were thick enough, but they were not confidence inspiring.

A Norwegian project set up a fish processing plant at Lake Turkana in Kenya. It was unsuccessful because the usually competent Norwegian development program (Redd Barna) hadn't investigated the situation deeply enough. The beneficiaries were animal herders who didn't like fishing, didn't like fish processing, and didn't eat fish. Major flop!

It takes time for new practices to be taught, to be accepted, to become community-wide knowledge, and to last over the long run. Kill the program and gains may evaporate.

I've been looking for whether people like Land and Vance understand the population they're cozying up to. Do they understand that the alt-right is where Neo-Nazis go? Or are they just not afraid of that? — frank

That's a very good question.

I suspect that few of the conservatives who are doing the cozying up have thought through to the conclusion that they are flirting with ideas which are not part of the conservative tradition. If they did they would either take their warm blanket and cozy up with somebody else, or they would be in bed with the Neo-nazis.

Some have probably found Neo-nazis to be good in bed, and like it. I spend as little time as possible contemplating the far right, let alone Neo-nazis, so I don't know who's in and who's not.

I guess some of the things you've said in the past made me think you would agree that the progressive stance on race is like doctrine that can't be discussed, it just requires agreement — frank

Whatever I said in the past, this is what I think is true about Americans [other people have their own problems]:

Discrimination by the dominant group against people who are considered subordinate varies in form, intensity, duration, severity, and pervasiveness. There have been on-going efforts from the late 18th century going forward to ameliorate, soften, moderate, or eliminate discrimination. Battles have been won against most forms of discrimination--abolition of slavery, women's suffrage, labor organization, gay rights, and laws against religious and ethnic discrimination, and so on. Despite significant victories, discrimination continues.

There is a master-narrative that makes it difficult for Americans to see the various systems of discrimination: The master narrative holds that there is opportunity for any hard working American to a) get ahead b) be a success c) get rich. If you don't a) get ahead b) become a success c) get rich, that is a result of your own personal failure. You, individually, were evidently too lazy or too stupid to even get ahead, much less become a success or get rich.

As a result of very long periods of symbolic and material discrimination, some groups are less likely to "get ahead". Their collective experience is counted as personal deficiency. "It's your own fault."

It is not only Donald Trump who, per Volodymyr Zelenskyy, is living in a bubble of misrepresentation.

a fairly large majority of Americans are in such a bubble, where the reality of current symbolic and material discrimination, severe maldistribution of wealth, prejudicial policy and law, and so on isn't registered as something that can and should be eliminated.

The master-fact of the matter is that 10% of Americans are wealthier than the remaining 90%. Most Americans (the 90%+) are wage earners (aka wage slaves) who will not do better than "get ahead" to some degree. They won't be a success and they won't become rich despite their best efforts.

All workers -- White, Black, Asian, Aboriginal; men, and women; gay and straight; Catholic and Hindu are the victims of exploitation and systemic discrimination by the very wealthy ruling class.

White workers bear the double burden of recognizing how they themselves are the victims of discrimination (as wage slaves) and how they may discriminate against other workers. Don't feel guilty about it; just recognize reality and do better in the future. Blacks are not your #1 enemy: it's the 1%, the rich man who is your enemy and the black man's enemy alike. Unite in solidarity.

Just one quick addition: The alt-right most wants to destroy the gains which the 'old-left/liberals' achieved over the decades. Getting rid of DEI is just gravy.

I just got up, haven't finished coffee yet and you are asking me to defend the rotten corpse of leftism, so named by this bizarro world Nick Land. I had to do a quick Google consult to find out who Nick Land was and what "dark enlightenment" meant.

Land argues that the alt-right is reaction to a Left that has placed race on an untouchable holy altar. — frank

There certainly are leftists / liberals / progressives (whatever term...) who are focussed on race and marginalized, under-represented, and disadvantaged groups. They have substituted D.E.I for the class and labor issues of the "old left". The alt-right, ultra-conservatives, far right, etc. are quite exercised about D.E.I., but that isn't the big game they are hunting for.

What I think the alt-right and various fellow travelers are after is a retrenchment of mainstream liberal programs, such as the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid which help poor and poorer people; (mostly local) minimum wage laws that give workers something resembling a living wage;; regulatory programs which provide protection from egregiously exploitative businesses; and the like. There is an old core of conservatives who never liked Social Security, Unemployment and Disability Insurance, and Medicare and contested these programs in court -- just as younger conservatives took the ACC to court.

The alt-right isn't screaming about unions because, as important as organizing labor is, it's at low tide in most fields, except maybe public employment.

The primary beneficiaries of alt-right politics are members of the 1% / ruling class. Their rag-tag army of supporters and voters are not material beneficiaries. The riff-raff right wingers may get solace from suppressing various D.E.I. initiatives; they may like seeing food programs for the poor cut back; they may think that Godliness, the Flag, and National Honor will be restored. But in the end, they'll be shafted along with everybody else.

systemic racism — frank

It's an irritating catch phrase. Negative and positive race consciousness has been part of American culture for it to be anything other than 'part of the system'. After slavery, a civil war, Jim Crow, rampant racial exclusion and deliberate limits on opportunity, just about no body is free of race consciousness. Which is the source of the insight that we have to stop talking about race all the time if we are going to reduce racism.

I have to leave now for a lunch meeting. More later.

But I can't tell how they so quickly single out individuals to be fired. — magritte

High-level administrators can be singled out because they have a public record of statements--but that's a small number. Most federal employees are getting fired in bulk, by classification. For instance, new employees, or old employees with new jobs--are "probationary" for a period of time. It's easy to identify them as a group and fire them.

The big problem with firing 5000 people who are probationary is that these employees--trying to prove themselves--are probably the most hard working and diligent.

Musk and his raiders haven't had time to go through the files in the Personnel Department (or Human Resources) and pick out people to fire on the basis of performance efficiency or ideological stances. That could be done, but that would require time.

There is a paper trail, no doubt, but most of the records needed to fire en-masse are computerized. It doesn't take AI or a super computer.

Waste, Fraud, and Abuse takes time to ferret out. One can't just walk into the Treasury Department, look around, and say -- "We find waste and fraud here." A) there's probably not much fraud, and B) what is 'waste' anyway? Musk is abuse personified.

Musk is busy downsizing government bureaucracy — magritte

By share of the budget, wages for the federal workforce are between 4.5% and 6.6% of the federal budget, depending on how you count employees. There are about 1,870,000 employees. In order for Musk to make a significant dent in the bureaucracy, he might have to clear out about 500,000 workers.

Cutting 5,000 here, 20,000 there; eliminating such agencies as USAID, and so on, isn't going to achieve much toward trimming the bureaucracy.

One gets a bigger bang for the buck by disabling agencies like the IRS, which is laying off 6000 more recent hires (made largely under Biden, I would guess). Weak agencies just can't do as much to get in the way of liars, thieves, knaves, and scoundrels as strong, fully staffed agencies can.

@fdrake Riding herd on this cattle drive must be one of the more thankless jobs for which one doesn't get paid. You've been on the trail for a long time, and you no doubt need an extended rest stop in one of the rooms with services at the Long Branch Saloon. They have a large selection; just ring.

So hang up your saddle, check your horse into the local livery stable, and order a nice hot bath to soak away all the sturm and drang of the site.

And should you decide to make yourself scarce, thanks for letting us know in advance. I would thank you profusely for your dedicated service, but you know, you did have a thankless job, so...

Good luck!

Well, what do you mean by "leg up" and "benefit?" — Count Timothy von Icarus

he might remind you that these are ultimately not the most important things in life, or maybe even particularly important things. — Count Timothy von Icarus

The rank and file of nations claiming The Western Tradition have never read much of classical literature or whatever counted as The Great Books at any given moment. They usually did not learn Latin or Greek, or anything else in much depth. Were they anti-intellectual proto-MAGA slobs?

No, they were not. They were focussed mostly on staying alive, making ends meet, affording food and shelter for themselves and their children. Their lives were constrained by burdensome circumstances. We have not transcended these circumstances. If lives are less constrained by burdensome circumstances in some countries, those better conditions are nowhere universal.

In a consumer driven political economy, what one ought to do with one's life is a difficult question. There are numerous texts (the Bible among them) which can lead one to understand how the necessary and yet superfluous role of 'consumer' is something of a curse. One works enough to afford the stuff one is expected to consume, and if you don't want the economy to crash, you had jolly well better buy buy buy!

But what is "good work" in this political economy based on consumption? Some of the work I spent 40+ years performing was death on the installment plan, figuratively speaking. Dead; dead end; deadening. There is a shortage of "good work" -- work that is on the face of it productive, clearly useful, meaningful, and paid--the grace of God doesn't put food on the table). Good work exists, certainly; there just isn't a lot of it.

Reading, study, seeking knowledge and understand, etc. can greatly enrich a life, but only the circumstances of the elite 10% to 20% of the population allow it.

The average student from the average family attending the average classically-oriented school will not graduate into the elite (unless his or her parents are already elite, generally) and will not readily put their classical knowledge to use in building a fine meaningful life. They will have to navigate the same crappy consumer political economy as everybody else does who belongs to the mass rank and file, and not to the elite.

I'm saying that there seems to be a cultural shift and renewed interest in Western civilisation and the intellectual tradition more broadly. — Tom Storm

Good news! There are many thick branches of varied thought within that intellectual tradition, and many of them are as good as gold. Find the most reachable limb and pick the best fruit you can find, depending on season and taste.

In order to sample these good fruits, students will have to read widely, an activity which actually entails very little suffering. Spice it up a bit; ancient western civilization isn't only about Plato and Aristotle. Much of the content in Eroticism and Family Life in Ancient Greece and Rome that I took at the U would not be news to a lot of high school students.

Family, community, and school (in that order) can encourage life-long learning. There are SO MANY interesting things to learn, and a long life isn't time enough.

I'm not at all convinced that a "classical education", as worthwhile as it might be, will turn out to be a great benefit to its recipients -- in 2025 going forward. Well, why wouldn't reading 'the great books' and getting sound mathematics instruction be beneficial?

First, there is the world-as-it-is, not the world-as-it-was. There are numerous upheavals under way in all sorts of areas of endeavor--and society at large--and I am just not convinced that being able to read Latin texts, for instance, or having read the Consolations of Philosophy by Boethius (died 524 a.d.) will give a young person that much of a leg-up in life.

Second, the classical education movement is not a solution to the problem which the enterprise of public education has become. I figure that 20% of American students receive very good to excellent education in public schools. 80% are receiving "passable to abysmal" education. Everyone is responsible for this -- the school administrations, the teachers, the students, the parents, and the communities at large (and no one is guilty?).

The 20% who are receiving a very good or better education have their communities, parents and schools to thank.

Third, It makes sense that parents would opt out of public education if an alternative is available. Some religious and non-religious parents have sent their children to Catholic or Lutheran schools (which tend to get better results, not least owing to motivated parents and students). The charter school movement provides an alternative, though (at least in Minnesota) charter schools tend to be inferior to public schools! Some opt for home schooling, some for other parochial education programs.

I attended a public school in small-town Minnesota starting in 1952. What made my public school experience at least reasonably successful was that the school was orderly, students were cooperative, teachers varied from excellent to fair. The community and parents supported the schools. At least acceptable behavior was expected all round.

Decent schools and successful education results are largely bottom up, rather than top down. No matter the administration, teachers, or curriculum, a school can't do much with several hundred to a few thousand "don't give a shit about school" students.

I don't care.

Before long you'll be bitching and carping about not being consulted in your conception and birth, as some people do who consider being born a misfortune.

I am the face of Suspected Evil Itself. — Arcane Sandwich

Reminds me of a travesty on Psalm 23: Yea, though I walk through the valley of death I shall fear no evil, because I am the meanest son of a bitch in the valley.

[a 'travesty' here means crude satire]

That does not make them evil. — Arcane Sandwich

What invincible ignorance makes them is very difficult to enlighten. Invincible ignorance is not a virtue of any sort and might be a sin IF it is deliberate and maintained over time, especially in the face of suspected evil which one doesn't want to admit.

Some people are not even educated to begin with! — Arcane Sandwich

Of course we have to ask 'what do we mean by 'educated'. But however we define it, there will certainly be people who are not even educated to begin with. Some didn't have the opportunity; some resisted every inch of the way; some rejected what they had received. There's not a lot one can do for invincibly ignorant people.

Liberally educated people are susceptible to offense -- perhaps (but not certainly) less than religiously (fundamentalist madrasas, fundamentalist christian schools, etc.) educated people.

What's the criteria for offense? — flannel jesus

Some criteria might be how high the offended person's blood pressure rises, how much their pulse increases, how much cortisol is excreted, how much their rate of breathing increases--when they are "offended". One might also measure the volume of yelling and screaming, and so on. When I get really offended, all those values rise quickly.

Maybe that's not what you are asking? Perhaps you are asking about the criteria for offensiveness in an image, a statement, or an action. "Offensiveness" is an abstraction like "humor'; it may be quite difficult to specify particulars. Why is a particular joke funny? Why is a particular drawing offensive?

I prefer to live in a society where individuals are not protected from witnessing offensive material. As a gay socialist, I am offended fairly often, and that's fine. It's also fine if my sexuality and politics offends others. Don't like it? Not my problem. It's also not your problem if your sexuality or politics offends me.

What we can not do in a civil society is coerce someone to view offensive material. A swastika on a T-shirt is one thing; painting swastikas on a synagogue is altogether different. Charlie Hebdo didn't coerce anyone into looking at its cartoons. Viewing was optional. A school might coerce students into viewing offensive material, though. Attendance in school is required, and students do not choose instructional material. Presenting students with Charlie Hebdo cartoons as part of a required assignment could be seen as coercive, possibly.

There was a case at Hamline University in St. Paul, MN where an art professor presented a very old painting of Mohammed (from a Moslem country and artist) which offended a Moslem college student. There was an uproar. The professor was fired.

In the Hamline University case, the class had received prior notification that a 'sensitive' painting would be displayed. The student could have opted out, but she didn't. Instead, she remained and was duly offended and insisted on corrective action on behalf of her sensitivities. Who was more coerced? The student or the professor?

Do you tango?

What are your thoughts on Emerson's Transcendentalism?
What are your thoughts on Peirce's Reasonableness?
What do you think of Materialism? — Arcane Sandwich

I haven't thought about Emerson recently (decades) but if Google's summary of transcendentalism is accurate, then:

Self-reliance, individualism, nonconformity, and free thought have been important in my thinking.
Seeing nature as a source of truth and belief seems problematic. Believing that God is present in nature is also problematic--fine for flowers and bees, less so for remorseless disease which is also part of nature. Valuing intuition over logic and scientific method? My intuition is that we are better off being guided by science than by intuition.

Peirce's Reasonableness seems quite reasonable. I'm not so familiar with Pierce that I should expatiate on the matter. Let's see, what's the date today? Not sure I have time left to become an expert on him.

Materialism ("a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature") doesn't seen disputable. And ("that all things, including mental states and consciousness, are results of material interactions of material things") is at least largely true. It may be altogether the case, but I'm not sure that we can say that consciousness or ideas are the result of material interactions.

So why do you ask? What is your question's connection to the topic of this thread?

The Quran is a symbol.
Burning the Quran is a symbol.
A flag is a symbol.
Burning a flag is a symbol.

Burning a symbol does not harm the (alleged) reality which a symbol represents.

Substitute the crucifix in Andres Serrano's Piss Christ for the Quran. Numerous people were offended by the art work and its symbolic meaning, but Christ was not harmed in any way, shape, or manner. Presumably Christ is beyond the possibility of harm. Neither was the message of Christ harmed. The message in the Quran was likewise not harmed.

A Nazi-organized book burning in the city square in the 1930s was a symbolic act conducted on symbolic objects. In itself, a book burning does not harm the text represented in 'the book'. What IS a crime against humanity IS burning the reality represented by the symbol: a synagogue torched with its occupants inside; the expulsion of authors from their jobs, homes, communities and their eventual burning at death camps.

Casting doubt on the validity of a prophet, the prophet, or any prophet is symbolic.

Retaliation with violence against a symbolic act is not allowable in civil societies, whether it is knifing a Quoran burner in London or beating up a flag burner in Los Angeles, or a imprisoning peace demonstrators in Moscow.

At this point, "natural" and "nature" has become hackneyed and practically meaningless by being used and misused for so many purposes. No news to you.

Still, it seems like there is an over-arching system of matter and energy, or "nature", which existed before us and without us, even as "it" was bringing us into existence. We can build a bridge using raw materials provided by "nature" which we process into concrete and steel. If we follow the rules which describe how nature's materials work, the bridge will last--though nature set's about destroying everything we make--not willfully, of course, but because the "forces of nature" such as rust never sleep.

Plastic is a bit more problematic. Nature made petroleum but we made plastics, many of which nature has not previously dealt with, and which will last and trouble various species for a long time--or forever, perhaps, and maybe it should not be considered "natural".

If Nature is TRUE because it is unchanging and eternal, then perhaps plastic is also TRUE. Yuck!

Turning Gaza into a "riviera", meaning a plutocratic playground for pernicious parasites, is an insult to the residents there, of course, and it's a bad idea from every angle EXCEPT the angle of the totally crass brain-rotted mind of Donald Trump.

"Sleepy Joe", Trump sneered. What about senility Don?

Panama, Canada, Greenland, Gaza... Why not seize the French Riviera -- that's already open for business. Somebody else's business, but that's not a problem.

Unfortunately, plutocrats are not re-licensed every few years to make sure they're still mentally competent.

@SSU The size of the national debt does concern me. I understand that deficit spending keeps the economy afloat, particularly, consumption.

people do consume a lot; I do my part. It's good for the economy. BUT if we wanted to tighten our belts and spend less on consumption and spend more on national debt reduction, where could we save a significant amount of money???

Americans spend about 1.3 trillion dollars a year on products that are optional. I don't consider coffee optional, but the rest of you can jolly well live with out it. We could save $1.3 trillion a year by foregoing these products, which would significantly reduce the debt. Coke and Pepsi will really hate it, as will brewers, vintners, distilleries, and bottlers of tap water.

But there are other optional items I didn't list, and if coffee is critical for you, then maybe carpeting and floor care are non-essential for you. We spend about as much on lawn care as we do pet care. So, maybe ditch the lawn mower and get a puppy. A large dog will ruin the lawn, so no more mowing. Fair trade, I'd say.

If we can squeeze a trillion dollars out our worker pockets, think how much can be squeezed out of the pockets of the 1%? (Might have to be by force; I'm willing to sacrifice their comfort and convenience for the national good.)

What the rank and file could save on

$46 billion - bottled water
$29 billion - salty snacks
$164 billion - candy
$259 billion - beer, wine, spirits
$70 billion - commercial weight loss products
$30 billion - dietary supplements
$342 billion - sweetened and diet drinks at home and away from home
$13 billion - vaping products
$110 billion - coffee
$153 billion - lawn care
$5 billion - car washing
$48 billion - perfume & fragrance
$33 billion - cake (bakery, freezer case, mix)

1.3 trillion total

Nothing like that can happen here where the debt is basically there to uphold present consumption. And sooner or later DOGE has to look at where the actual government spending is, which isn't USAID.

Do we think that DOGE will go after enormously expensive health care spending, which first and foremost is expensive because corporations make profit from it? — ssu

There is zero chance that DOGE / Musk will go after United Health Care, et al. The sort of government spending that will be sacrificed are USAID, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, National Public Radio, National Endowment for the Humanities. The Library of Congress? How many congressmen ever check out books there, anyway? Sell it to Amazon!

his job derives from a mandate — Leontiskos

Trump won the popular vote by a little over 2 million votes out of a total of 152 million votes. That's not a mandate by a landslide vote by any stretch of the imagination. Musk's job derives from an electoral victory, but more from Trumps adoration of business success (richest man in the WORLD) and Musk's rabid animus toward government. Musk has the role of Trump's junkyard dog.

Biden had more popular votes than Trump and a bigger mandate--81.2 million votes, a 4.4% lead over Trump.

Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan had 23% and 18% popular vote wins respectively-- much closer to a mandate.

Why do you think he wants Greenland and Canada? — frank

Canada is a fine place, and may it continue as a sovereign nation forever. Even so, I don't quite see Canada as the escape hatch for anyone's existential threat. Even less so Greenland. Besides, Trump and his allies will be dead long before much more ice melts off of Greenland's chilly shores.

I also asked Gemini / Google about year to year budget reductions. It said:

AI Overview

Yes, the federal budget has been reduced year-to-year in the past. For example, in 1993, President Clinton's Economic Plan cut federal spending by $255 billion over five years. The deficit decreased year-over-year in December 2024, dropping by $44 billion.

Beats me.

The US paid off the huge WWII national debt through a combination of economic growth (a boom), higher rates of taxation (especially on top earners), and fiscal discipline. By 1974, the post WWII economic book started to wane; over the coming decades a lot of tax burden shifted from wealth to workers. At the same time, spending was not curtailed--indeed, it was accelerated for Star Wars and similar boondoggles. Expansions in social benefit programs are also expensive.

Short of another boom (none in sight), the main tool is fiscal discipline--reduce the yearly deficit by a) raising taxes on those with the most wealth (very unpopular among that group) and reduce spending (very unpopular if it's your ox that is gored in the reduced budget). Not impossible, just really, really hard to pull off -- even with cooperative congresses and presidents.

Can this be done, difficult as it is? Sure -- it just won't be done, in all likelihood.

The presence of Musk, Vance, and Vought signals that visionaries are gathering around Trump. — frank

Perverse visionaries!

In a democracy there is no way to limit government spending. Only an entity who does not answer to the people can do that. — frank

Of course there is: President Clinton's 1993 Economic Plan included $255 billion in spending cuts over five years.

Congress can cut future spending and fail to appropriate funds for previously approved spending. The president can veto spending bills, and unless congress overrides the veto, it stands. Congress can eliminate whole categories of spending. If the congress should so choose, it can eliminate the Education Department, for example. Or the Defense Department -- just don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen. States are more responsive to budget pressures because there is no such thing as "state's debt". If tax collection shrinks--as it sometimes does--spending has to also shrink.

Trump may think he is anointed by God to Rule, Reign, and Ruin, but Congress actually is the source of program creation and spending.

Foreign aid (think USAID) has been unpopular for decades, mostly because of a gross misunderstanding. Polls reveal that quite a few people think foreign aid is one of the largest expenses in the Federal budget. It is not! All forms of foreign aid amount to no more than 1% of the federal budget. As a share of GNI, it's is a minuscule amount. Still, the USA is one of the largest donors -- in total dollars, not as a share of our resources.

The US is actually not all that generous, in terms of capacity to give: As a share of income, Norway gave 1.1% of its GNI [gross national income] and topped the list in 2023, followed by Luxembourg (1%), Sweden (0.9%), Germany (0.8%) and Denmark (0.7%). The U.S. gave 0.24% of its GNI in official development assistance, ranking No. 26 on the list.

I think that we are talking about autocracy and totalitarianism rather than just fascism. Totalitarianism would be more useful than the just fascism. — ssu

Could've, would've, should've.

Totalitarianism and fascism are both bad, in the same way tuberculosis and AIDS are both bad but different, and you can have both of them at the same time. The Third Reich had both; the USSR did not.

The US is neither totalitarian nor fascist at this point, even if there are some symptoms of them. Oligarchs are another problem, as are extremists conservatives. (Extreme leftists could be a problem, but we don't have many of those, Trump's claims not withstanding.).

Martin Luther (apocryphally) observed that "A nation is better off if ruled by a wise Turk than a stupid Christian." We are going to have plenty of problems resulting from the rule of "stupid Christians", without having outright fascists in charge.

There are various ways of delivering bad government to the people. Fascism and totalitarianism don't exhaust the possibilities. Run of the mill incompetence, naked self-interest, greed, vindictiveness, crude nationalism, poorly thought-out (if thought at all) policies, ad nauseam will do the trick.

This is getting really, really serious. — Wayfarer

Yes, it is. Musk has [apparently] gained access to the Federal Government's financial "Holy of Holies" -- the Federal Payment System.

"Sources tell my office that Treasury Secretary Bessent has granted DOGE *full* access to this system. Social Security and Medicare benefits, grants, payments to government contractors, including those that compete directly with Musk's own companies. All of it," Wyden posted to social media site BlueSky on Saturday evening.

DOGE's reported access to the payment system comes after the Washington Post reported on Friday that the former acting director of the Treasury, David A. Lebryk, was planning to exit the finance department of the federal government following a clash over granting DOGE access to its payment system. Lebryk oversaw the Treasury Department in the days between President Donald Trump's inauguration on Jan. 20 and Bessent's confirmation to lead the department on Jan. 27.

The barbarians have breached the gate and are in a position to start playing with the levers of power. And for them it IS play. What with presidential immunity and being the richest parasite on earth, Musk is neither elected nor cleared by congressional confirmation, and as far as I know, he has not been sworn to uphold the law and defend the constitution. He more like "been let loose".

Of course, being sworn in isn't quite the same as perpetual protection from pesky prosecution, but it at least establishes some sort of possible accountability.

Characterizing USAID as a criminal enterprise [Musk] or radical lunatics [Trump] is unusually appalling.

NGO's that contract with USAID to carry out programs in Africa, Central and South America, the Caribbean, and Asia must state clearly what their goals are, how they plan to reach them, and how to measure progress to show success or not early in the contracting process. Further, contractors are audited. These are all rational procedures in the interest of obtaining what taxes are paying for. If goals are not met, the agency may find themselves summarily defunded (as the NGO I was working for years ago was--it was sudden death).

Of course one can find fault with USAID. Its goals may or may not be aligned with a given country's priorities or maybe its self interests. But in general, USAID funds work for the common good. And foreign aid can be a difficult game for any NGO / country to play. The best laid plans of mice and men and all that.

Not that we should be surprised of course -- considering the radical lunatic felon pulling the US out of the Paris Climate Accords-- stupid idiotic moronic--the World Health Organization--imbicilic dumb cretinous--or slapping tariffs on our closest friends and largest trading partners--wicked self-defeating delusional.

Arcane Sandwich

But is it really worth our time analysing an entire myth like this when thousands, perhaps millions have come before us?
— Tom Storm

Sure, why not? Who says that we can't do better than them, the ones from the past? — Arcane Sandwich

One reason we are not going to do better than all those who have preceded us is that 2000 years of thinking and believing have washed up on our shores much to our good (or not). Some of our predecessors developed penetrating insights into the nature of biblical texts also to our benefit.

Shakespeare died 409 years ago, and there is nothing new and sensible to say about his plays: It's all been said several times over by generations of PhD students toiling away on the doctorates in English Literature. The chance that someone will discover significant information previously unknown about the Gospels is vanishingly small. As small is the possibility that someone will come up with a good idea about interpreting the Gospels nobody has thought of already. UNLESS, of course, they hatch out some total bullshit.

That said, scholarship in well-plowed fields remains worth while, because learning to plow is still a good idea.

computers are already better than them — Eros1982

According to Google's AI, "AI can sometimes achieve higher diagnostic accuracy than physicians when presented with case reports or patient information". That's not QUITE the same as out-performing doctors.

In some important ways, it doesn't matter whether supercomputers and AI can outperform humans. The question we must ask is "In whose interest is it to replace human workers with computers? Chances are it won't be patients or doctors. It might be hospitals or it might be insurance companies.

Machines have been built for many years that replace human workers. Sometimes workers benefit by being relieved of horrible jobs. Fairly often workers suffer by losing their jobs to the machine, and thus their source of the means to live.

Yes, technology does create new opportunities, new jobs, etc. -- but not automatically and not necessarily for those directly affected. A machine may cost you your job; that doesn't mean you will become the worker that repairs the machine or makes more machines like it.

:100: