dignified — Arcane Sandwich

And what's 'dignity' got to do with it?

I don't think that persuasiveness has anything to do with their success. — Arcane Sandwich

I'm not talking here about the persuasiveness of argument or logic. The "persuasiveness" of which I speak is the persuasiveness of bombs blowing up one's city, having one's harbors mined--that sort of thing. You are right, though: nations do often resist "gunboats". Their cities can be bombed without leading to capitulation. The Soviet Union lost a lot to the Nazi war machine, but they did not consider giving up the fight.

Not to overlook Japan in WWII: They had accumulated quite a bit of conquered territory before "WWII" proper got under way. Pearl Harbor was one piece of a coordinated attack that day. Thanks to our own conquest of North America, the US was able to mount a war in both the Pacific and in Europe.

Both Japan and Germany recognized their need to acquire the kind of resources that the USSR, United States, and the British Empire controlled--minerals, productive land, productive people, oil... That was the policy behind the war--take it away from those who possessed it and use it for their own purposes. After all, that's what the USSR, British Empire, and the Americans (and others) had done successfully.

On the other hand, most of Europe ended up under German control in WWII, and had Hitler finished off Great Britain and not attacked the USSR, things might have turned out differently.

You are also right about who gets left with the destruction. It took Europe a long time to clean up the 'mess' of WWII; WWI and WWII bombs are still being dug up and disarmed. Bones of dead soldiers still surface in fields. Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia still bear the scars of bombing and defoliation chemicals (Agent Orange). There is not much left to Gaza, save rubble.

War, especially as it developed in the late 19th and 20th centuries, is indeed barbaric. But that's people for you: we are never very far from barbarism.

Have we forgotten Clausewitz? War is a mere continuation of policy by other means. (longer quote at end of post)

Russia's invasion of the Ukraine was the result of policy / politics. The same goes for the war in Sudan or Gaza, or any other war you care to name. The facts of policy lead to the facts of war -- how bad a war is going to be; how long, how short, how ghastly, etc.

Given our mixed primate heritage (big bright brain, willingness to kill, etc.) humans are and always have been capable of waging war using whatever means are at hand -- sticks, rocks, bullets, bombs, nuclear devices...

Getting back to policy, though. Sometimes policy can sound quite lunatic: buying Greenland; bringing Canada (kicking and screaming) into the American union of states; Germany acquiring the grain fields of Ukraine and Russia as well as its oil fields. The European powers liked the policy of owning everything as soon as Columbus got back from his first trip. We Americans established the policy of Manifest Destiny early on, which led to a long stretch of wars on various groups.

The goods of the planet are not evenly distributed, and we, greedy bastards that we are, generally take it easy, but we take it (if at all possible) from others who just happen to be sitting on it. Like the residents of Congo who find themselves witting on suddenly desirable cobalt. A world power hasn't stepped in yet to seize it, but local entrepreneurial entities are busy taking it and leaving a mess behind. (Belgium seized a good deal of the riches of the Congo while they had it in their grasp. Cobalt and uranium were of less interest than rubber, at the time.)

Gun Boat diplomacy is not a contradiction in terms. Powerless nations -- Nepal, say -- can try to be a diplomatic intermediary, but the diplomacy of nations with gun boats will be more 'effective'. The US or China can be much more persuasive.

I don't like it, but that's the way it is. I admire the peace policy of Quakers, the Fellowship of Reconciliation, or the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, but they don't sway national policy much.





Clausewitz (1780–1831) We see, therefore, that War is not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument, a continuation of political commerce, a carrying out of the same by other means. All beyond this which is strictly peculiar to War relates merely to the peculiar nature of the means which it uses. That the tendencies and views of policy shall not be incompatible with these means, the Art of War in general and the Commander in each particular case may demand, and this claim is truly not a trifling one. But however powerfully this may react on political views in particular cases, still it must always be regarded as only a modification of them; for the political view is the object, War is the means, and the means must always include the object in our conception.

I was merrily reading The Power Broker until Moses started getting really nasty. Caro is a great biographer. You could start on his bio of Lyndon B. Johnson, if you think you'll live long enough.

A shorter book, The Public Burning by Robert Coover, (1976) an account of the events leading up to the execution of the Julius and Ethel Rosenberg in 1953, might be a nice change of pace. It's historical fiction -- most of the characters are historical; you might even consider The Phantom (communists) and Uncle Sam (jingoism cubed) real. The story is narrated by Richard M. Nixon, who spends quite a bit of time reflecting on his own virtues.

It's quite funny, despite the subject matter. For instance, in the prologue the execution is scheduled to take place in Times Square with a replica of the Sing Sing execution chamber on a stage. Times Square is decorated in red, white, and blue bunting, flags, etc. This is Uncle Sam's doing. Happily the plan is spoiled by The Phantom (presumably). Signage on the stage begins to be corrupted: "AMERICA THE HOPE OF THE WORLD" mysteriously changes into "AMERICA THE JOKE OF THE WORLD" and worse things. Eventually the whole stage collapses into the street in a big wind storm.

It was recommended in a NYT editorial a few days ago. It is weirdly relevant.

I am not familiar with every large gay community in the US, but I am more familiar with Boystown in Chicago than any other outside of my hometown. At one time, Minneapolis had a (smaller) gay ghetto like Chicago's -- and in it one could find gay businesses, service providers, social support, and the like. We also had two gay newspapers. Minneapolis's core city just isn't as big as Chicago's core city.

Boystown is still there; the Minneapolis community is mostly gone. The newspapers folded; the baths, cruising parks, adult bookstores, and the like are gone. Many of the social and religious institutions, like the softball league and other athletic groups, Lutherans Concerned, etc. fizzled out. The bar scene isn't what it used to be, by a long shot.

Gay people, of course, didn't go away. We're still here. And the bad stuff, like young people getting kicked out of their home, still happens. But mainline institutions have changed. Lutheran Social Services has two facilities for homeless youth, for instance. MCC is still in business, but the local mainline churches welcome gay individuals and couples, pretty much across the board.

I witnessed these changes over a 50+ year period, 1971 to the present. I would describe them as 'natural evolution'--not altogether welcome, but a result of internal as well as external changes in society.

One thing I am not very familiar with is how young gay people experience their identity today. I just don't have a lot of contact with young gay people in my old age. Their experience is likely not quite the same as it was in 1965 or 2000. "Gender discourse" has moved to the front of the class. I knew a few men and women transitioning from one gender to the other in the 1970s, but the 'discourse' wasn't as expansive then as it is now. and these pioneers had a steeper climb in some ways than they do now. Most gay men and women pair off in various ways now as they did in 1971, but they have more options now.

And they mostly run into a lot less hostility. It isn't that society is uniformly accepting and supportive; but at least among liberal Minnesotans, outright homo hating is bad form. We have become facts on the ground which even conservative types pretty much have to acknowledge.

... individuals found themselves rejected and ostracized over their behavior, which in many cases they had no control over? A feminine-acting gay male could be the target of bullies, and their partnership with another male not legally recognized. A tight-knit gay community was necessary as long as gays felt unsafe in mainstream society. — Joshs

Gays have been subjected to instances of bullying, beatings, and murder, true enough. In my experience, gays managed to get along in a frequently unfriendly society by keeping a low profile when necessary. I'm not sure how much protection was gained by being a tightly knit community. Whatever tight-knit community existed was more the result of seeking sex, partners and love. Informal institutions -- cruising, bathhouses, bars, adult bookstores, and so forth were the core of at least the gay male community. Later, by the mid 1970s, social institutions became more prominent -- religious, social, or sport groups. Without the cell phone and internet, physical proximity was essential.

Greatly increased tolerance of homosexuality and electronic methods of finding partners has eroded "the gay community" such as it was pretty much out of existence.

In recent decades, media, including movies, series, and magazines, have driven unattainable archetypes of masculinity and femininity. — Benkei

Certainly during the last 5 or 6 decades this has been true, but it seems like the projection of an IDEAL look for men and women has been going on for a long time. Body shape, clothing, and various aspects of personal projection and promotion have been the province of fashion and style for a long time--centuries, not decades.

I'll readily grant that identity for some people has fractured--and not just around sexual identity. At the same time, most of the adults I know (various ages) seem to have secure, intact, robust identities. The more extreme and artificial one's identity is, the more likely it is to crack. One sees this in very religious individuals whose religion is no longer working for them the way it once did. The fracture can be quite distressing,

it’s a reaction to the insecurity fostered by hyper-individualism and identity fragmentation. — Benkei

I'm not sure I understand what 'hyper-individualism' is -- as it might apply to most people. Of course, there are people who march to a different drummer -- or they march along to some obscure beat originating in their own brain -- and they can be pretty "far out". You have to be tough to be a pioneer in new-gender invention, and some of these people strike me as kind of fragile.

There is quite a bit of blow-back against excessive individualism from the Church and from some political institutions, focusing on what I suppose is a perceived abandonment of collective commitments to others, to 'the community'. The abandonment isn't altogether imaginary.

Individualism which is rooted in a community is a different species than the individualism of the altogether detached person without social connection.

Didn't Gandhi and King endure the violence of the British and the southern cops / mobs respectively?

What about the Dutch, one might ask. They seem like a peaceful, non-imperialistic society. Except, that they fought for their independence from Spain; they did establish imperial operations overseas; I'm not sure whether or not they were internally repressive at various points. It seems like they were unusually tolerant at a time when most kingdoms were not particularly tolerant.

American Indian tribes are fairly often suggested as peaceful and unwarlike. Except they, like humans everywhere, resorted to violence against other tribes when that was the most expedient option.

You know that painting, The Peaceable Kingdom, where the predators and prey are lounging about in each other's close company? As one cynic put it, "The lion and the lamb may lie down together, but the lion will sleep a lot better than the lamb will." Lions stay predators and lambs stay prey. Strong countries tend to be predators, and weak countries tend to be prey.

Humans can display a great deal of solidarity, cooperation, loyalty and trust when either a sufficiently dangerous threat or an irresistible opportunity presents itself. Americans could unite to defend ourselves from the British, or unite to happily seize the northern 60% of Mexico, without later regrets.

All Watched Over By Machines Of Loving Grace by Richard Brautigan

I like to think (and
the sooner the better!)
of a cybernetic meadow
where mammals and computers
live together in mutually
programming harmony
like pure water
touching clear sky.

I like to think
(right now, please!)
of a cybernetic forest
filled with pines and electronics
where deer stroll peacefully
past computers
as if they were flowers
with spinning blossoms.

I like to think
(it has to be!)
of a cybernetic ecology
where we are free of our labors
and joined back to nature,
returned to our mammal
brothers and sisters,
and all watched over
by machines of loving grace.

his is an astute observation that most people don't seem to acknowledge anymore. Nietzsche pointed this out, correctly, that all good things in human history have been the product of bloody and gruesome events. That's not to say we should keep doing it for because of that, but it is worth acknowledging. — Bob Ross

It seems to me that you could just as easily make the case that good things have overwhelmingly involved cooperation, loyalty, trust, and love. It's a selective history. — Count Timothy von Icarus

You are both right. Take the United States: Good soil, geographic advantages, forests, huge mineral deposits, etc. were tremendous advantages, gained through colonialism, enslavement, conquest, dispossession of native people, and military power. Bloody and gruesome, but that's how it was done. On the other hand cooperation, loyalty, trust, and love -- all good things -- were indispensable in the development of the scientific / industrial revolutions, growth of agriculture, trade, industry, and culture which brought about our prosperous present state. .

My preferential option is always for cooperation, loyalty, trust and love. That said, our species lapses into violence all too often, and there are too many cases to need a citation.

Thanks for your thoughtful insight, as always!

My basic political orientation tells me to be against nationalism, western supremacy, and imperialism. Socialists are supposed to see all nations as one, all workers as brothers, etc. etc. On the other hand, nationalism seems like a reasonable vehicle for large-scale organization. I don't see the species as anywhere close to ready to abandon national identity.

As for imperialism, its methods are a proven method of advancement for the imperialistic power -- be it the Romans or the British, Mughal or Dutch, this dynasty or any of the other numerous empires that have arisen and fallen. People dither over colonialism and imperial conquest, but where would much of the world be today if no ambitious group had set out to capture as much territory as possible, and in doing so, gained glory, riches, and power to fuel its cultural development?

Every culture might be equal in the endeavor to meet basic human requirements, but that's a low bar. Some cultures are better than others--Not necessarily better at any given instant, but on average, superior cultures get better over time. Inferior civilizations get worse over time.

I've was lucky enough to be born in a culture which benefitted from a long history of colonialism, imperialism, and western supremacy. Had I been born in a culture which was the recipient of the hob-nailed boot, I'd look at things differently, I suppose.

If a people want to get ahead, nationalism, imperialism, supremacy, dominance, force -- that's how it's done.

As a child I wasn't sure that goblins (fiends from hell) didn't exist. I feared that monsters were lurking in the unlit coal bin in the barn when it was my turn to fill up buckets of coal to bring to the house. Eventually, (around age 50--just joking) I stopped fearing monsters. However: our brains are prone to fears of neo-monsters in adulthood. As adults, we can suppress or dissolve these fears--most of the time. When we can't suppress or dissolve, we might start seeing monsters in the sky -- drones, flying saucers, human-abducting aliens, communists doing subversion, white supremacists plotting coups, (oh wait, that one might be true) the whole weird garbage heap.

Our irrational fears may be underscored by sensible fears. I fear the widespread use of drones for package delivery because they will be annoying, intrusive, and unavoidable. People have similar fears about infrastructure projects -- freeways, big airports, super-tall billionaire residential towers, etc. There is clearly a lot more sky traffic over New Jersey than there is over me, and I don't envy them.

There is also the power of suggestion. If actual alien abductions had been witnessed 10 times, but had never been mentioned to anyone at any time, rumors of these weird events would not have propagated.

A hungry bear will just eat her alive. Nothing to worry about.

One of the things I find annoying about the drone business in New Jersey is the dismissal of observations reported by ordinary people. I live relatively close to a large airport in a metropolitan area. There's also a military air base operation. I've never had difficulty identifying what was overhead from sound alone -- prop planes, jets, and helicopters of various sizes make different kinds of noises, and they move in distinctive ways. In the day time one can see them, too, of course.

True enough, a large passenger plane taking off at night can seem like it is hovering at certain points in its flight, but this is a very short-lived phenomena. Within a minute or two the impression of hovering ceases aas the plane picks up speed and climbs. By the time a plane is overhead it is unmistakably a plane--not a bird, not Superman, not a drone.

My guess is that people in New Jersey have some idea about what they are seeing that is reasonably accurate. Helicopters make distinctive noise, and if they are hovering, it's a pain in the neck to listen to them. My understanding is that drones don't make helicopter-type sounds; instead it's a whine. How far away one can hear a large drone whining, don't know.

I have no idea whether the Koreans or Iranians or Australians might be hiding a nuclear bomb or two, smuggled into the country. It's not a far-fetched idea. What better way to stage a decapitation event as part of a war?

Perhaps Santa Claus is testing out drones as a humane alternative to forcing reindeer to fly thousands and thousands of miles in one night. Or maybe Santa is looking for gains in delivery efficiency. This business of landing on roofs, slithering down a narrow dirty (and possibly hot) chimney (if there even is one) with a bag has to be a nightmare of wasted time and motion. If they capture a drone, it is likely to be "manned" by elves. Or, maybe Santa needs more data about who's been bad or good, and the old Christmas surveillance methods just aren't sufficient any more.

Back in the 1970s, one Saturday on University of Minnesota Radio, I heard speeches at a conference on extraterrestrial life. Ashley Montague, an anthropologist, asked the question "What would we do if we encountered a superior civilization?" Well, he said, we would wipe them out as soon as possible -- as we had done already on our own planet, as people have encountered superior civilizations -- or at least successful, happy civilizations that were 'different' than us.

So, I either read -- or heard on YouTube -- a proposal that the drones over New York and New Jersey were probably US military drones looking for nuclear radiation emissions. Why?

The story said there have been a couple of radiation spikes detected previously in the NY / NJ area which were not explained. This source said that there are fears that North Korea might over time smuggle the various parts for a complete atomic bomb into the country, then assemble it and use it at their convenience.

Of course, WE don't know where THEY put the bomb parts (or bomb) so scanning is covering a large area, looking for abnormal radiation emissions. (I don't know how much radiation a nuclear core would emit, just sitting there on someone's coffee table.).

This scenario is the sort of thing the government would be secretive about, lest people fear the worse and suddenly act on their fears in mass panic. If I thought there was a surreptitious nuclear bomb in my neighborhood, I'd be worried.

This seems like a far more plausible scenario than aliens from a long ways away. Earthlings have always been able to out-alienate everybody else in the galaxy.

EDIT:

I DIDN'T READ THIS ON REDDIT, BUT SOMEBODY ELSE...

https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1heg8ot/could_the_drones_be_looking_for_a_suspected_nuke/

I don't believe there are aliens flying around, and I don't spend time thinking about it. I prefer to get my fix of aliens visiting earth (or earthlings being the aliens on some other planet) from well crafted science fiction. Reading takes time, and not everybody has the leisure. Plus, a lot of sci-fi stories are disappointing duds.

You've heard of Fermi's Paradox? "If intelligent life is plentiful in the universe, then where is everybody? We should have been visited."

In my universe, beings who have spent light years getting here would not spend decades playing hide and seek games. They would fly over, land on the ground or hover over it, and it would be crystal clear to everyone that THEY were here. Then they would come out of their ships and demand tribute in the form of kitchen and laundry appliances which Americans worked very hard to get (according to @Hanover). Chinese and French appliances are of no interest to them.

In order to make us understand how serious they were, they would probably blow Manhattan to smithereens with one shot.

After America had been fleeced of every Maytag, Ikea chair, and Miele dishwasher worth having, with all the loot loaded up, they'd leave and go back to XZV4739b and sell their plunder to eager homeowners there. Will they be back? Depends on fashion trends out there in the various galactic arms.

a final plan to take the hard earned belongings and freedoms from average Americans — Hanover

I just don't understand why aliens from distant planets want my used appliances and furniture. They could at least offer to trade something -- maybe their old orgazmatron couch, or some nice floor covering?

We are all going to die and be dead for eternity. — Jack Cummins

A good reason to stay alive while we can!

What next, after all the striving and attaining? That place you’re in is what existential philosophers call “the existential vacuum”, where the old meanings have dried up, and the activities that once filled your life no longer sustain you.

I like that. Great term--existential vacuum.

I've experienced that a few times -- major goals which took years to reach, then achieved, then "now what?" Or, foundational beliefs play out and new foundational beliefs have to be found and set in place. James Russel Lowell (New England poet, Romantic era) said in a poem that "Time makes ancient good uncouth". But one doesn't want an existential vacuum of values--too much of that going around.

I stumbled when I encountered my first vacuum. I had finished a degree, worked in a peace-corps type program a couple of years, did some more school, then got a job at a college. After 3 or 4 years, the 10 year plan was over. Now what? It took me years to fill the vacuum but I did, several times over.

I've lived with chronic depression for decades (under control, thanks to medicine) but have never felt more than a twinge of suicidal thinking. We must be careful how we talk to ourselves: if a lot of our internal dialogue is about the pointless, meaninglessness of life, suicide as a solution, and so on -- we are -- at the very least -- sowing the seeds of more unhappiness, if not our death.

I think you enjoy shooting down suggestions the way New Jerseyans would like to shoot down all these drones flying around.

For an increasing number of people, the struggling and the striving isn't a matter of too much ambition, but a matter of bare survival. — baker

:up:

it seems like a lot of more people nowadays are simply dissatisfied with work itself — L'éléphant

:up:

Now back to suicide.

Hold on, hold on. Not every baby boomer retired on Golden Pond with ample resources from their financial planning for retirement. Maybe 20% of boomers have comfortable retirements. I was not and am not in that group. I did plenty of struggling to survive low pay, bad jobs, roach infested housing, disability, bad public transit, homophobia and other impediments to the good life. I retired early not because I was well fixed, but because I couldn't stand the thought of looking for yet another job at 62.

Agreed, though; as a group, the post WWII birth cohort were lucky--what with a 25 year growth period, generous government programs, full employment, and so on. If subsequent generations find it difficult to retire (a pattern that prevailed before the 20th century), there are several guilty parties to blame: The administration of the government has not been as good a steward of Social Security and Medicare funds as they could have been. Wealthy people have worked hard to avoid being taxed at a level where entitlement programs could be properly and fully financed. Antigovernment politicians have worked to hobble agencies, like the IRS which gathers in what the government needs; they'd like to do away with social security / medicare / medicaid altogether. Fucking bastards!

Fortunately or unfortunately, people tend to live longer now than when Social Security was set up. Longevity uses up more reserved funds.

I have a great deal of empathy for younger people who are starting out or are at mid career, or heading toward retirement age. Short of major reform (nothing revolutionary is required), millions of old workers are going to have a tough time. 20% of younger people -- those professionally employed at good salaries -- will do fine. The rest, no so much.

BTW, it isn't just Social Security. Many state managed retirement funds are in very bad shape. Generous promises were made to the state employees, but not nearly enough cash was collected to actually fund the promises.

So, spoken like a retired baby boomer or not, I'll stick to my advice to Darkneos.

Interesting fact: prior to the social security expansion act and other social program actions in the mid 1960s, poverty among the elderly was around 35%.

Concern, anxiety, worry, fear, etc. with respect to something that seems abnormal (and may or may not be) is infectious--not just on social media, but in social settings. People get wound up.

IF the drones actually are harmless commercial vehicles, I would be happier if the government had a clear grasp of how many of these things are flying around, who owns them, how they are identified, and how they are policed--if they are. I'm pretty sure the government isn't keeping track. Free enterprise is once again doing its thing and running amok.

Amok: behave uncontrollably and disruptively from the Malay word, mengamok, meaning to make a furious and desperate charge.

I want my beer and pizza delivered by a hot handsome guy, not a whirring machine. Delivery drones are just another way of eliminating jobs. A drone would be a good way to deliver frozen vaccines to isolated clinics in Africa which are otherwise very hard to reach while maintaining the cold chain.

The way I see it if there is no greater reason to meaning to life then there isn’t really a reason to keep going. Not reason to really struggle and fight for a place in the world. No reason to really pursue anything. One can just end their life and be done with the pursuit and struggle. — Darkneos

As far as I know the cosmos does not supply ready-made meaning for us. You are certainly NOT the first person to discover that life may be, can be, may seem to be... meaningless. Get used to it and move on. That's what people do.

Struggling? Fighting, Pursuing? Suicide is a possible solution but the most obvious alternative to the unsatisfactory rat race of striving, struggling, and all that is to stop striving, stop struggling. Try to be more in the present moment rather than being busy trying to accomplish something in the future, or fretting over something not done in the past, because "now" is where you live.

William Wordsworth (1770-1850) said,

The world is too much with us; late and soon,
Getting and spending, we lay waste our powers

We are way too busy striving which leaves us depleted, deflated, depressed. Step one: stop it.

Avoid perseveration. What's that? spending a lot of time chewing over the same idea (like, life has no meaning, nothing matters, I might as well be dead).

What should you do if you are perseverating? In a nutshell, stop it, at once! Stop it because it's a giant waste of time going in mental circles and wearing a rut in your mind.

At the very least, hold off planning your suicide until you have a really good reason to do it, like developing Huntington's disease, terribly painful terminal cancer, or some other mortal threat. As for discovering that life is meaningless, well...pfffft.

I don't get it either as to why what certainly seems like a problem is being treated as nothing. I don't understand why a military would tolerate being surveilled by drones; they generally have fences around bases to keep prying eyes out.

Without going into conspiracy territory, it does make one wonder why the government is so casual about it.

Crazy people?

Unfortunately, BC doesn't have a clue about the drones. Zip. Zero. Equally (or worse) unfortunate is that nobody else seems to have a clue either, or they aren't saying.

Hobbyist and commercial drones usually are not designed to travel very far. How far depends on battery power, weight, design quality, and environmental conditions. Military drones can travel a long way -- 1000+ km. As far as I know (not much) a low-flying drone might evade radar.

So, it's possible that the drones could originate from a ship somewhere on the ocean. That would be quite worrisome, imho. Foreign powers harassing innocent New Jerseyans? Don't know.

I have been against drones from the get go because I hate the idea of a lot of machinery flying at low altitude over neighborhoods. Granted, they have some utility, but they are also just more clutter and junk. I don't like Elon Musk's low-orbit flocks of small satellites fucking up the night sky, either.

Supposedly, drones have been spotted over Minnesota. True? Or copycat? Don't know.

There have been reports for quite some time of people interfering with aviation by using lasers directed at plane cockpit windows. The lasers are capable of blinding a pilot. Another interference, more recently, has been people shooting airplanes. Why? Don't know. Are the aviation harassers related to the drones? Could be but don't know.

Satellites enable countries to surveil the world in pretty fine detail. It doesn't seem like a foreign power would need drones for that purpose. Attack planning? Don't know.

Are the drones interfering with commercial aviation? If so, the sky should be cleared. There are reliable devices which could be used for this purpose.

The government's limp-dick response to this is similar to its erectile dysfunctional response to the unidentified balloon floating over the country.

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum! As of December 14, you have not posted for 6 days. My guess is that, after asking a very good question, you were perhaps overwhelmed by the many complicated good responses which maybe exceeded your expectations.

But take heart: you started a good thread (discussion). Good credit to you!

My advice is to aim for simple and down to earth, as you think about the topic "How to Define Good". As time goes on, you will see where you can be more nuanced.

People, being what we are, tend to mix a lot of sentimental claptrap into their otherwise serious religion. Combine sentimental claptrap with a secular holiday (which Thanksgiving is) and you get low quality results.

It's not surprising that there are a lot of trivial prayers sent heavenward on behalf of one's lottery ticket, the home team, or the potentially great date with so and so. God is supposed to have his eye on the sparrow, and surely this lottery ticket is more important than some bird. So, God, how about a big win here?

Following the Lord's Prayer formula, the basics of prayer are:

a) acknowledgement of the Holy (hallowed be your name)
b) acknowledgement of God's rule (thy will be done)
c) simple requests (our daily bread)
d) confession (forgive us our sins...)
e) a plea to be spared the great test (lead us not into temptation)
f) acknowledgement of the Holy (for the kingdom, the power...)

The Lord's Prayer isn't a rigid model that has to be followed, but it does suggest how to pray to God, and it isn't all "I need this", "give me that", "make that team lose and mine win" etc.

Based on my very close relationship with God, and hints I've picked up from high ranking personnel up there, God doesn't give a rat's ass about who wins the big game, or whether your lottery ticket will pay off.

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum.

For many people, the time when they were "warriors" in the military was their most meaningful period of time. It may have been a good experience, or it may have been horrible, but it was memorable. They keep returning to those memories, alone and with others.

The 'military industrial complex' has a vested interest in maintaining a positive public image of the military and its fighting men. Should the view of the public change significantly, it might mean no more new fighter jets, no more new missiles, no more new aircraft carriers.

Most people in most societies are engaged in peaceful activities which maintain the stability of societies. Collectively, farmers, truck drivers, machinists, factory workers, medical workers, teachers, and so on are the force which makes societies strong. The fact that 90% of adults are working class and literally produce society seems to have gotten lost. It isn't the military that makes us strong,

We devote one day recognizing the people who make life possible (Labor Day here, May 1 in most countries). Wars, battles, generals, victories and all that are regularly commemorated -- defeats, not so much. A number of our wars didn't end with a victory celebrations, like Vietnam.

Countries are free, and they are peaceful (internally, at least) because ordinary people make it so. Wars are launched elsewhere, but the people at home manage to live peacefully and freely, most of the time. Well, yes, there was the Civil War when we ripped ourselves apart.

Rather than teach history as a series of battles in a series of war, we could more easily teach children and youth the glorious history of peaceful accomplishments. Oh, say, photography, radio, the airplane, the auto, x-rays, discoveries in science, great artistic achievements, agricultural achievements, etc.

No, I don't consider you a neoconservative bonehead hawk - a bonehead perhaps, but not a neoconservative. — T Clark

I'd really hate being thought of as a neoconservative! Ugh, disgusting.

started the ISIS insurgency — T Clark

As Billy Joel said, "We didn't start the fire".

My view at the time was that our invasion of Iraq was a bad idea because we (Washington policy makers, military planners, etc.) do not have sufficient expertise to take apart and then put back together a complex middle eastern nation. It wasn't thought through nearly far enough. What happens after "shock and awe"? Iraq wasn't in great shape to start with (economically) and making a battlefield of the place didn't improve things. Perhaps we (people in the Beltway) couldn't tell shit from shinola when it came to the local politics of Iraq.

We didn't create the ISIS insurgency. That is an opportunistic infection in the body politic. We created the wound in which the infection fulminated. The US didn't create its own fundamentalist Christian Nationalist wing nuts that have crazy plans, and I'm not sure that anybody knows precisely what to do with them. Maybe El Salvador's approach to gangs? Just round them all up and put them in well guarded prisons? But then what? They aren't going to turn into gentle lambs in there.

I've sort of forgotten what the lines in the sand were all about back in Obama's administration.

I do deeply and earnestly hope that we do not decide to take apart and rebuild Syria. It may be a mess; it may be the victim of insane politics; but... Our leaders, less now than before, do not have the facts, insight, long-range policy capacity, and more besides to intervene in Syria. It might very well be a shit hole, but that doesn't mean we know how to fix it.

Whether or not mutually voluntary incest is morally wrong depends on the various codes societies create, defining which behaviors are good, bad, or indifferent -- for whatever reason. In our (broadly defined society) a close blood relationship has been defined as wrongful, whether children are produced or not. It could be redefined as morally indifferent or as good, but there is not movement in that direction as far as I know.

Aside from it being 'right' or 'wrong' one might want to consider whether there is anything about incest that makes such relationships problematic. Do two closely related people in sexual relationships have the same, greater, or fewer problems arising in their relationship than people who are not related?

Even if incestuous relationships were unusually happy doesn't mean society would necessarily change the moral code.

Offspring of incestuous relationships are not invariably penalized genetically, though the rate of unfortunate consequences are fairly high:

Children of incest

P A Baird, B McGillivray
PMID: 7131177 DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3476(82)80347-8
Abstract

Twenty-nine children of brother-sister or father-daughter matings were studied. Twenty-one were ascertained because of the history of incest, eight because of signs or symptoms in the child. In the first group of 21 children, 12 had abnormalities, which were severe in nine (43%). In one of these the disorder was autosomal recessive. All eight of the group referred with signs or symptoms had abnormalities, three from recessive disorders. The high empiric risk for severe problems in the children of such close consanguineous matings should be borne in mind, as most of these infants are relinquished for adoption.

Similar articles

A study of children of incestuous matings.
Seemanová E.
Hum Hered. 1971;21(2):108-28. doi: 10.1159/000152391.
PMID: 5127404 No abstract available.
Incest and mental handicap.
Jancar J, Johnston SJ.
J Ment Defic Res. 1990 Dec;34 ( Pt 6):483-90. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2788.1990.tb01560.x.
PMID: 2077135
[Children of siblings].
Busa M, Méhes K.
Orv Hetil. 1978 Sep 17;119(38):2321-2.
PMID: 693036 Hungarian. No abstract available.
Inborn errors of morphogenesis. A review of localized hereditary malformations.
Holmes LB.
N Engl J Med. 1974 Oct 10;291(15):763-73. doi: 10.1056/NEJM197410102911505.
PMID: 4137724 Review. No abstract available.
Congenital and acquired disorders presenting as psychosis in children and young adults.
Benjamin S, Lauterbach MD, Stanislawski AL.
Child Adolesc Psychiatr Clin N Am. 2013 Oct;22(4):581-608. doi: 10.1016/j.chc.2013.04.004. Epub 2013 Jul 3.
PMID: 24012075 Review.

How do people believe this kind of lunacy?

Why do people believe this kind of lunacy? — ssu

It's a conundrum.

"I will protect American Jobs and American families" and similar luminous words, are positive sounding non-inferential statements which, while meaningless, sound like something good. There isn't any way the hearer can know what the statement means in real terms. People hear the words, hear the applause, and feel just a little glow of warmth. It's like a benediction. "May the Lord make His face to shine upon you." Freedom, flags, liberty, loyalty, faith, guns... a whole batch of nice words. The man speaking the words must be OK.

Deporting 10 million people is, for starters, not a simple task, and we have no recent experience in rapidly rounding up millions of people and moving them to the next street over, let alone across national borders. The logistics are unspeakable and likely far more expensive than imagined. Unless one pauses to think in detail about what deporting 10 million people would actually mean, it has little reality.

The famous Austrian who got rid of 6 million+ people he didn't want around, established annihilation as a high priority national objective. There was census data stored on punch cards (and other records) that facilitated identification and location of subjects. A large bureaucracy was created to execute the annihilation, and a lot of money was spent on it. The appalling atrocities were completed.

Is the orange-tinted Real Estate Agent prepared to engage in the intensely detailed and strenuous planning process that would bring about his goal? Does he really expect 330 million Americans to quietly ignore the military trucks loaded with Mexicans and Venezuelans and others rumbling through town stopping to drive ever more onto the transports?

But the average person isn't reflecting on the details any more than Trump is, and it doesn't have much reality for them.

Whatever he does, I call a plague down on his head, his minions, and his plans.

The world needs an emperor. Not exactly like a Dune emperor, but similar. — frank

The Dune Universe had the Bene Gesserit breeding program and Paul Atreides. What have we got? Donald Trump. .

What are your thoughts on the matter? — Shawn

Over the decades we have seen a revolving door which roughly alternates Democratic and Republican administrations. Same for control of congress, state legislatures, and governorships. It isn't altogether predictable who will be ushered in at the next election, but it is going to be one party or the other.

Sometimes there is a clear shift -- an unpopular war like Vietnam can favor the party not in power. Picking a candidate that is too far from the mainstream like McGovern was, may help an otherwise unpopular incumbent stay in power.

Had Biden bowed out of the race in January 2024, thus enabling the Democratic Party to conduct the proper process of candidate selection, the results might have been in the Dem's favor, campaign spending staying the same all round.

At any rate, the equal concern of the Republicans and Democrats is to stay in power. If the party in power can solve problems, great. If they didn't improve life for Americans, they will still want to maintain their hold on power.

Voters are left to guess who will do the most good and the least harm. Often the evidence is nothing better than specious campaign promises and specious campaign attacks mixed in with a little factual information,

Thanks for highlighting Milwaukee! Milwaukee's history is most interesting; The Making of Milwaukee is a 5 part series which is available as a disc set or streaming from Milwaukee Public Television. There are some short excerpts on YouTube. Madison, Wisconsin is unlike the rest of the state, given the dominance of the University of Wisconsin's politically progressive student body.

Minnesota and North Dakota also had socialists in government. The Farmer Labor Party in MN was leftist. (They merged into the present Democratic Farmer Labor Party) which alternates with Republicans for political control.)

Minneapolis was home to several small socialist parties between the 1960s and 1990s--emphasis on 'small'.

I wish socialist political activism was present and capable of electoral success, but at this point, it is not. And despite the presence of active socialist politics in the past, midwesterners are not now receptive to socialist politics, at least in my experience,. Still, there is a strong liberal politics which is worth having.

However, I blame Twitter most of all for the downturn against the left wing. — kudos

One can reasonably blame Twitter, and several other social media sites, for animosity towards the left and for polarization. The algorithms encourage whatever gains the most eyeballs (to sell to advertisers) something that quiet, reasoned discourse doesn't do. And, of course, people respond to outrage by supplying more fodder to feed the hungry algorithms.

As a longtime midwestern leftist, I have never found most fellow midwesterners all that receptive to leftist ideas. It isn't that "the people" are all troglodytes or rednecks. Most people just hold mainstream values, which some leftists sneer at. Socialism (as they misunderstand it) just isn't attractive for most people. Their family is the center of their lives; they're not interested in radical social experiments. Bread and butter issues (like whether they can afford good bread, meat, milk, fruits and vegetables, clothing, transportation, health care, and all that) are the most important thing to we working people, and we are roughly 90% of the population.

Senator Sanders was emphatic that the people Democrats need to serve are working class people--none of whom, by definition, belong to an 'elite'. Address and legislate working class concerns--things like a $17 federal minimum wage; inflation (to which people living paycheck to paycheck are very sensitive); the high cost of renting or buying a home; and so on.

Men, women, straights, GLBT, hispanics, asians, whites, Blacks, etc. are almost all working class. Yes, the working class has some layering by wealth, but as a group, none of us has much wealth. As a group, we have to get a regularly and reliable paycheck to make ends meet. That's what Democrats need to focus on--so say Bernie and me.

The National Health Care System in Britain is suffering under austerity budgets, apparently. Why? Brexit, for one; austerity-preferring conservative governments for another. Decent public services require a reasonably robust economy, and commitment.

Trump wants to shrink government. Since WWII, the percent of citizens who work for the government has fallen. The population has increased by roughly 200 million people over that time. Cutting the budget by 1/3 (Musk's plan) will be impossible (and is a very bad idea) because most government programs have important constituencies within every congressional district.

We may not have the most equitable health care system; we may have the most expensive health care system; our health care system leaves out some people. With careless management it could get a lot worse.

chances are you have some moral indecency in you — kudos

We are prone to sinning (whatever the list of sins may contain). Many nice people--decent, honest, cooperative, civiic minded--have people "chained to the walls in the dungeons of their mind". I've had to expand dungeon space at times, convert it to archival storage at other times. There's nobody down there right now. Over time the former inhabitants shriveled, dried up, crumbled, and blew away. Various science fiction and phantasy novels, plots, and characters (like from Herbert and Tolkien) were moved into that space.

Sometimes we must acknowledge that harm must come to others as a formal cost of being... — kudos

A New York Times editorialist said that "Democrats must learn to say no." Some people's interests have to be turned aside. Should the public be asked to pay for prisoners' and immigrants' "gender affirming" therapy and surgery? It may be a burning issue for several hundred or a couple thousand individuals, but elevating it to a public policy was a mistake. There are millions of illegal immigrants in the US. I don't think Trump will have the wherewithal to round up all of them and send them back. But they aren't entitled to be here. Admitting that isn't xenophobia or racism.