How so?? Vaccination doesn't stop you from being a spreader. — baker

You probably wouldn't understand. Those who sign a blank check for an amount up to and including their lives don't always pretend to know better than those they are willing to follow. You can end up getting killed in a righteous war against Nazis, or you can end up getting killed in some BS war for the MIC or oil or whatever. The sacrifice and the honor is in the signing; not in the motives of those who send you. You don't get to decide policy. Once signed, you let people like Baker protest the war in the rear with the gear and say things like "war is dangerous."

I chose to follow the advice of people and institutions who I trust know more than "Baker" on the internet. After all, Baker hasn't devoted his life to the study of infectious diseases, vaccines, and this new product. Instead, he/she reads shit, tries to make him/herself informed, and ends up thinking he/she knows better.

People like Baker seem to think they are entitled to 100% safety guarantees in life. I imagine they spend a great deal of time hiding under the bed.

Then why isn't it mandatory? What are there no laws stating that people must accept the covid vaccine, or else face dire legal and penal consequences? — baker

I don't know about other countries, but in the U.S. it's like herding cats: a waste of time. You can try to appeal to their sense of community but that only goes so far when people are conditioned to hate each other. As usual, all the heavy lifting gets done by those who lift.

What do you have to say to that? — baker

Thank you for your service.

There are so many giant sucking sounds, one can be forgiven for not naming all of them. — Bitter Crank

I wish I had one of those vacuums putting money in my pocket. Well, maybe not. :chin:

paid for by private insurers. — Bitter Crank

Paid for by premiums and investment returns. Private insurers don't pay anything unless they are bankrupt. Indeed, they skim enough off the top between doctor and patient to invest and gain returns for shareholder dividends, plus paying $60k per year to each individual in thousands upon thousands of sky scraper cubicles around the country who stamp "pay/deny" on a form, between posts on FaceBook and emails with family and friends. Don't get me started on CEO pay. Ross Perot would call it a giant sucking sound between you and your doctor.

Also, I want to whine about another point. Why is it when we talk defense and all kinds of other industries, we include the spin-offs of service and product jobs in the nearby community, but when it comes to servicing welfare, we don't count all the downstream beneficiaries? Seems to me if we paid someone $40k per year to burn money, we'd have to offset the loss by the benefits to that employee, his family, the store he spends the $40k at and etc. At least it's staying in the U.S. and trickling out, instead of going to emerging markets overseas and raising a Chinese man's boat from 30 cents an hour to 40 cents an hour, all while sinking boats at home (except for the CEO's nesting doll yacht, of course).

And then we have to deal with that stupid mantra about "Well, there will be winners and losers if this program goes through". As if losers should vote for and support the program in return for retraining opportunities.

Had a few moments and had to rant.

Have you noticed the number of God posts rising again? — Banno

I haven't been around long enough to say. However, the answer to the thread title is, in my estimation, a definitive "No."

I know some folks who believe in god who I think are good and some who I think are bad. Same with folks who don't believe in god. Same with agnostics.

For believers, I think a fault lies in a mistaken belief, by some, that god somehow holds a special place in his heart for human beings. LOL! That's where the bad starts and keeps on a runnin'. Come to think of it, a similar belief holds true for atheists and agnostics. People thinking "we're all that" is the genesis of bad.

I don't believe people control the legislature at all. I believe the state is an anti-social institution. It operates only for its own benefit. It forbids murder but commits murder on a grand scale. It forbids theft but puts its hands on anything it pleases, and claims the right to do so. — NOS4A2

:100:

Why wouldn’t you blame the state? is the question. They’re the ones with all the power, who accept bribes, and pull all the levers. Remove the state and that all vanishes. — NOS4A2

That brings us back to my original question regarding what I recall (long time ago) about Mussolini and fascism: six of one, half dozen of the other. If you remove the state, none of that vanishes. You just have the corporations doing the same shit, beholden only to the shareholders. In order for you to have influence, you have to buy stock and attend the shareholder meetings, raise a stink and pray enough other shareholders put their financial interests on the back-burner to support whatever it is you are whining about.

Why do you think cancel culture works when people pressure corporations but it doesn't work on the corporate employees in the legislature? Follow the money.

Well, I would have to blame the state in these instances. They could have refused and done otherwise, but didn’t. It’s just another reason why people shouldn’t have that sort of power over others. — NOS4A2

That's what the corporations want you to do: blame the state. The state not executing the will of the corporations which own it, would be political suicide. I mean really, you expect a congressman or woman, or senator to go against the will of their boss? Oh, wait, you're still working under the mistaken impression that the people control the legislature. LOL! That's so 18th century.

Corporate influence doesn’t exist at that level as far as I know. — NOS4A2

Bless your heart.

Corporations don't have to do anything like that when they have a state to do it for them.

P.S. Perhaps I should flesh that out a little bit: MIC, Private Prisons, distraction, Oil. You can take if from there. Just follow the money.

Indeed.

Movie types like to refer to "the the willing suspension of disbelief." Children get lost in fantasy play.

People who want to understand dreams are the Holstein in the theater, two seats over, feeding in a trough of popcorn and crinkling the bag; or that teen brother who comes and pulls the kid out of fantasy for some real world teasing.

Yeah, yeah, we've all read the science, the mechanics, the meaning. Did anyone ever stop to think that maybe the purpose of dreaming is to dream?

This is a philosophy discussion forum, not the water cooler. You're jumping to the conclusion that the notion of sacrificing oneself for others is "incomprehensible" to me. On the contrary, I want to explore what a proponent of it has to say about it. — baker

Oh well, in that case, you might try leading with that.

Instead of this:

You're far too critical of others to still allow for the thought that you'd be willing to die for them. — baker

I took the vaccine, not for me, but for others, on the advice of others who know more than me.

I will confess, however, there was a certain (but not controlling) amount of contrarian political impetus. Where many of the stupid people refuse to vax because they are disingenuously contrarian (see $ post, above), I compared them to the people who advised the vax and decided to run with those I don't see as stupid.

I've also previously articulated my analysis based upon odds. And another analysis based on investment of time and resources making myself an expert on the matter.

But that is really all a digression. I want to honor your allegedly sincere curiosity about self-sacrifice.

So, what it really boils down to is a sense of honor, dignity, and integrity. There are tinges of Socrates and hemlock in there (that would be the honor), but I don't pretend to be that beholden to the state or my fellow man; just somewhat. Mine is more of an internal desire to be able to live with myself (that would be the dignity). But my agreement with the ideals and aspirations laid out in our organic documents plays on my sense of integrity. So I try to conduct myself in a way that allows me to sleep at night by forgetting what others think (hence my statement that I don't care if you believe me or not), and focusing on what I find myself in agreement with.

There are things out there that are greater than me, especially if viewed in the congregate. So, for example, while I believe all Republicans who have failed to publicly refute Trump have irrevocably branded the party and themselves (which makes me comfortable in holding the best to the standards of the worse; you have to watch the company that you keep), I see something in my fellow Americans worth dying for. Our founders had what I believe was an unwarranted faith in the people. But I am willing to subordinate my suspicions to their judgement. Notwithstanding their considerable flaws, I'm still in awe of what they created and what we try to honor. I don't believe I am the measure of all things and I try to contextualize my life as not worth living under certain circumstances. I'm also not afraid of the next adventure.

When you total all that up, you think "Hey, I'll take a shot. WTF?"

I've placed my life in the hands of men who could easily have killed me without consequence, and yet they did not. Even if they did not like me. Old school honor, dignity and integrity. Stepping up to the door and jumping out is like "Hey, Fauci, you bitch, give me a shot of that shit and let's roll this MFr!"

And you want us to believe you'd die for these people? — baker

I don't want you to believe anything. You asked, I answered. I've already put my life on the line, numerous times, for people I don't know, and if I did know I probably wouldn't like. It is a little disconcerting that the notion is incomprehensible to many, such as yourself, but "disconcerting" is part of the deal too, so I'm comfortable with it. Back in the day it wasn't such an anomaly.

We will have billions of people vaccinated and ten years down the road there will still be people saying the negative fall-out may take eleven years.

Science doesn't drive these people. Just start offering money and 99% will cave long before the $ value they place on their life is finally reached.

You certainly don't sound like it. You're far too critical of others to still allow for the thought that you'd be willing to die for them. — baker

Being critical of others does not in any way limit one's willingness to die for them. Again, it's old school, so you may not be able to understand it. LOL! You ever sit around and listen to a bunch of grunts complaining about people?

Are you willing to die for others? — baker

I am. It's an old school thing.

t seems more likely that they already believe such things, rather than having "bought into his lies". It seems unlikely that one person would have such power over others. Rather, this is about something that is already in the people. Similar as in Nazi Germany: Hitler didn't convert anyone, people weren't "buying into his lies". Rather, they already believed those things. — baker

I have to agree with you. The only caveat I would add is this: Most of these beliefs were under the fridge. Trump let them out, when the lights were on, allowing them to get brave, and getting braver.

Physically, I look the part. I've spent a lifetime with these people confiding in me, thinking I was one of them. And there are a lot of them. It had always been on the down-low: winks, nods, and, when in a conservative safe space, the quiet part was said out loud. It usually started out with little feelers, testing the waters, trying to make sure they were in "good" company. If I shut them down, that was the end of it. But if I remained silent, the stupid ones thought silence was agreement. Some thought I was "on the fence" and prime for recruitment with their absolutely, fundamentally stupid logic. Then they got shut down and crawled back under the fridge.

But then Trump came along and all of a sudden, here we are.

When it comes to putting the toothpaste back in the tube, it's going to take a real leader. I'm not so sure POTUS Biden has what it takes. I hope so. And I hope he can do it through example and moral persuasion, because the left, largely, has abdicated on their civil liberty outlined in the Second Amendment. They must now rely on government to save them and, I'm afraid, much of the subject beliefs you reference are insinuated throughout the very government we would rely upon for our defense. Who will enforce the law when the man next to them, in whom they have entrusted their very life, is dragging his feet, or worse?

Leadership indeed.

How exactly does this "save America?" — fishfry

Justice is supposed to be blind. Thus, justice would not give a rats fucking ass about how punishment would hurt the feelings of a bunch of snow flakes. Serving justice saves America and we don't not serve justice simply because of 74m petulant snowflakes who would extort a denial of justice under threat.

Today is June 6, the anniversary of D-Day, when slaughtering fascists, like the worthless pieces of shit that they are, was an honor, involving sacrifice. We should honor all the men who died in that struggle by serving justice to Trump in their name.

In fact, a failure to serve justice destroys America and all they fought for.

Get on the right side of history. Trump is a dishonorable coward and a liar who no man would follow into combat, no man would leave his daughter to watch, no man would give his money to for protection.

The only thing I'm curious about is how his Secret Service detail will deal with Donny getting plowed by Billy Bob in his little cell. Oh yeah, that's right, he won't get justice. Nobody with money and power get's justice in America. Maybe America already is dead due to a lack of justice.

About 40 years ago I thought I read something about Mussolini and fascism. If I recall, he coined the term, and it had something to do with state control of corporations. I always thought, yeah, so what's the difference between state control of corporations and corporate control of the state? Six of one, half dozen of the other.

While unbridled capitalism may be a myth, that is only because self-identified "capitalists" are really socialists to the extent they socialize costs and have government/politicians do their dirty work for them.

(Digression: They can hardly complain when folks like me disparage capitalism. Sure, it's not pure capitalism's fault. But they don't abide pure capitalism. An analogy would be the "right" misappropriating "America" and the flag and "patriotism" and "the troops" as theirs, and theirs alone. Then they say "See!" when the left lets them have it. Fuckers. Well, it's the same for capitalism. So yes, unbridled capitalism is real. They stole it, they can bear their lie, and the twisting of the term on their own. While true capitalism may be innocent, American "capitalists" have redefined the term to mean them, and they are not capitalists.)

Corporations have risen to such levels of power that if the people want to influence government, they are better off doing cancel culture on a corporation than they are petitioning their elected representatives. If you don't like a state statute, why call your worthless politician? Just follow the money, boycott corporation X who owns that politician, if the corps focus groups show it matters, they call the politician and tell him the corporation is going to cut off the gravy train and the politician whimpers and does what he's told.

Citizens United and campaign finance make "the people" an emasculated joke.

What you see as state interventionism is corporate interventionism using the state as it's proxy bitch.

The American constitution, providing congress has the power “To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes” need only be peeled back to see how that power has been applied and for who, and to who.

If you live in the U.S., it ain't the state that's been messing with you, and it hasn't been for a long time. But the plutocracy is happy to have you all pissed off at the state. That' part of the plan.

On compulsion, interesting tweet, when someone says:

“Nobody wants to work anymore.”

Response:

"Nobody ever wanted to work at all. We wanted to be productive, be creative, be part of a community, be supported, be validated, and have the time and space to truly rest. No one actually wants to trade in hours of their life to “earn” necessities." Emelyne Museaux

I’m thinking of statism, though I’m interested to hear your argument. — NOS4A2

I basically keyed off your statement:

The problem I have is I see state "communal action" as compulsory, maintained through coercion and funded by exploitation. This is why I cannot see it as something desirable, no matter the comforts it may be able to provide. — NOS4A2

When I read that I immediately thought of your average indebted working stiff in the U.S. The current situation in the United States and China, two states with capitalist economies, I see the majority of people as worker bees in compulsory communal action maintained through coercion and funded by exploitation, no matter the comforts it may be able to provided.

While capitalism is an economic system and not a form of government, when it is unbridled, it ends up owning the government (U.S.). It manufactures tax exemptions, limitations on liability, coercive and binding user agreements, limited standards and scopes of judicial review, limits on collective bargaining, exclusive legislation, and a general "work will set you free" mentality. The same corporations that own the state will avail themselves of communist and dictatorial, artificially lowered labor value in order to produce cheap pieces of plastic Chinese shit for American workers who's wages must more accurately compare to emerging marked labor in order to survive. (i.e. the tide that lifts their boats, lowers our boats and keeps us in compulsory, coerced exploitation.) Can we bail? Yeah, just like the Individualist can bail.

he problem I have is I see state "communal action" as compulsory, maintained through coercion and funded by exploitation. This is why I cannot see it as something desirable, no matter the comforts it may be able to provide. — NOS4A2

You're thinking of capitalism.

money is, all said and done, a unique economic invention and it could be that there ethical issues exclusive to it. — TheMadFool

One of those "ethics" is the case where the law actually mandates a fiduciary take all legal action to look out for the best economic interest of beneficiaries (shareholders, et al), even if that action is otherwise unethical or immoral. So the law says what is "ethical" (even it's not) and provides legal cover for fiduciaries. There are some limits, but an unscrupulous POS can pass the red face test and still sleep at night.

Compare: Lawyers are compelled to zealously represent their client's interest and, justice is supposed to come out of the fray, as determined by an independent, neutral third party. However, lawyers work under a ton of limitations on their advocacy, ethics, statutes, rules and bar oversight, along with insurance, etc. CEO's, Fiduciaries, not so much. Money can buy law makers.

personal charity is, in my opinion, not a convincing foundation for a society. — Echarmion

:100: Bingo!

When we grow beyond the population levels which allow for the old band/tribal protocols, and enter the realm of modern population densities, we need a state. Personal charity (an old band/tribal protocol) relieves the state of some of it's obligations that come with the reason for it's existence in the first place (population densities). Relieved of those obligations (at least in part) frees the state up to engage in other activities inimical to the best interests of the people.

That is why I always hesitate to do for the state what I feel it should be doing with my tax dollars. It's not like if I give $100.00 to X, then the state will double down on my contribution. No. The state will instead reduce what it gives to X by $100.00 and use that $100.00 for Y (gun-boat diplomacy, subsidizing favorites, etc.).

Then we have the large donors. They are not unlike the crime lord, providing goods and services to buy the loyalty of the community in which they operate. The plutocrats on the one side; the cartels on the other, and government left in the middle as punching bag for the people, blaming it for their woes. The plutocrats and crime lords chuckle all the way to the bank. They keep government running at an anemic level just for that reason.

So my question then would be is greed or sharing the more natural state of the human psyche? Or do we have equal capacity for both? — Benj96

We have the capacity for both. However, I am aware of some indigenous, tribal cultures where the biggest, baddest, strongest, most-looked-up-to, admired and respected man was the one who gave the most to the community, and particularly to those who could least fend for themselves. This person became the de facto leader in a community that eschewed (generally) the idea of leadership:

"What do we want to do about that problem over there (enemy tribe, drought, game migration, whatever)? Let's ask Bob."

It was a classic case of where a virtue had been made of necessity; an evolutionary outcome where those who could function like a pack, working together, would succeed, and those who could not would succumb. No one was mandated to participate and there was no physical or verbal punishment. There was, however, ostracization (i.e. "consequences" or "cancel culture) which is a good thing; a peaceful method of social engineering which maintains respect for the individual and freedom of choice.

When you think about it, the best provider could provide more than he could use. It would rot if he didn't share. He could just receive less in the first place, but it was to his evolutionary advantage to receive more than he could use and then share it with those who made him stronger. (I use "receive" when talking of the Earth, because the word "take" sounds so inconsiderate, disrespectful, and presumptuous).

This is where we get the idea that single payer, universal health care is a human, or natural right. We look at man in his natural state and see that a huge, unique, distinguishing character of man found in the archeological record, going back to Neandertals and before, was the fact we took care of the sick, lame, stupid, lazy and crazy.

I think sharing is the more natural state of the human psyche. Even where "greed is good" the enlightened man uses what early philosophers of capitalism (during the Enlightenment) called "enlightened self-interest" or "self-interest properly understood"). We've only fallen away from that since the greedy were allowed to delude themselves into thinking they were capable of defying the laws of physics by pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps. Some have made a virtue of our demise. Sometimes, if they can't learn the lesson on their own, we have to remind them. Sometimes we use a guillotine. It's always best if we can avoid that. But we need their help. They have to want to learn. If they refuse, we do what comes naturally.

I remember an Indian (American) once told me a story about a kid who grew up on a reservation getting bullied by this other guy from very early. The bullying continued from adolescence up until he was about 25 or 30 years old. The bully harassed, poked fun at, and generally hazed the person all his life. During this time, the kid worked hard and quiet and diligent and patient. He eventually became a well-respected, relatively wealthy man who helped others in the community. One year at the annual Pow Wow, all the people were there, drumming, singing, trading, eating, engaging in ceremony and otherwise carrying on like his people do at Pow Wow. Then came the time for "Giveaway."

During Giveaway ceremony, people deliver to the center of the circle a gift that they want to give to someone else in the community. Blankets, baskets of food, animal skins and other good and valuable things are brought to the center. Some elders would then go to the center, pick up an item, call out a name and the person would go forward to receive the gift. When the bully was called he went forward and was given the keys to a big, brand new Ford F-250 Pickup Truck. Every one in the tribe new what had happened. Lessons were learned by those who didn't know any better, or who had forgotten; but especially by the children. And that was the end of the matter.

What do we find virtuous? That will tell us who we are. It's not what we actually are, but the ideals that we aspire to, and the extent of our effort/struggle toward it, which is important. If we make a virtue of necessity, all but the sick will aspire to it.

I saw a meme the other day where one women is telling another women (paraphrased) "If you raise wages then the cost of goods and services will go up." The other woman says "So you agree, capitalism does not provide upward mobility for the middle class?"

Anyway, I think all the "down sides" exist, or would exist without money. Money is just convenient. I don't think it exacerbates distinctions or problems.

As is always the case, if you want to fix a problem, fix people. The problem is, the rich want to fix the poor instead of themselves. The poor want to fix the rich, instead of themselves. Neither perceives themselves as having a problem. But both need to be fixed; especially those who don't perceive a problem.

People can be unethical, not money.

I liken our death to what you are suggesting god may have done. When we die, it's like a big bang, where all our molecules and finer particles are blown apart into a kajillion (scientific term of art) directions becoming a more integrated part of All (maggots, ravens, coyotes, microbes, etc., then carried off to parts unknown and shit back on the prairie to make the grass grow, get eaten, shit again, and etc. Maybe even spun off into the universe after a glancing blow from and inter-stellar or inter-galactic rocky visitor. It's like the river: Sit and watch it go by and wonder if the same water molecule ever goes by twice, and if so, in how long? Wave-ocean, us-earth, everything- All.

Likewise with the soul. We always have been a part of All but we were a synthesized or coagulated part of it. At death, we "reintegrate" more fully. And, once that state is achieved (possibly after a short transition process) who the hell needs to be "self-aware" on the one hand, or a "special" part of All on the other? At that point, you are All. It is only us that perceived a separateness, so we are just coming home when we die. Anyone who's ever been beside themselves with joy will understand the phrase "beside myself"; You don't exist except as part of something greater than you. This idea that you, or we, are somehow "special" is only true when placed in the context of everything being special; one thing no more than the other.

We were only parsed out as "coagulated"/ "separate"/"synthesized" part in the first place so All could perceive that part of itself. We are those pieces All blew into. There is an infinite number of you out there, the same, and some varied by a molecule or atom here or there. And that goes for everything else, too. And for nothing. After all, it is All. It is both sentient and not, at the same time and place.

I must be out of the loop. I do know that I often hear "the right" complaining that the "lame stream media" never reports news of the left acting like idiots. Since I don't recall hearing the stories about Nazi hand signals, black girl abductions, church burnings and etc. maybe they are right. The news doesn't make a big deal out of the left lying because, well, it's lies. Then again, maybe my own bias has me blind to these stories.

Either way, cancel culture is a good thing. The winner will tell us which way our society leans: Liberal/Radical Democratic Theory, or Fascists.

:100: Sometimes they do it as they complain about it and don't even see themselves doing it. Crazy.

I have seen too many red flags. — Book273

You will always see too many red flags.

Our public schools have been attacked for decades, of course. Underfund or defund anything we don’t like. Claim there’s a problem that doesn’t exist, defund it, watch it fail, then point to the failure and say “You see!” Then you can privatize it, turning it more into a “business” — so that now you have the student debt problem, with degrees that don’t do much, and kids never really learning anything about the world or about themselves. — Xtrix

:100: I equate it to little Billy and Sally coming home from school and daddy coming home from work. They argue current events around the dinner table and kick dad's ass. He says the schools are filling his kid's heads with commie liberal shit and won't vote for the next mill levy increase for schools or otherwise support them. He's all for STEM and making his children good little consumers and producers but not individual thinking human beings. Too dangerous.

So what’s missing other than organization? — Xtrix

Love. That's all I can think of.

guess that above is a perfect example of cancel culture and just why it's called cancel culture. — ssu

Cancel culture is an ancient, time-tested, conservative value, used in tribal communities in lieu of physical or verbal punishment. It's called "ostracization." It is also called "consequences." Conservatives like to talk about consequences, they just don't like to suffer them. They act like snowflakes when they have to suffer consequences. When we moved to larger communities, beyond the simple tribal affair, a new moniker was ginned up: "Cancel culture."

Cancel culture is a good thing. Everyone agrees, including conservatives who use it all the time. They just hate it when the shoe is on the other foot. In essence, if individual members of society think you are someone or something who should not be entitled to their company, they turn their back on you and walk away. They will also encourage others to do the same. But you are still left alone, free to be an asshole if that is what you like.

So, if you are a filthy POS like Trump, you might be able to find a safe space where you can continue to thrive, compound your beliefs in a confirmation-bias echo chamber and, if enough people like you, then you can find a following there. In that case, you've essentially started your own tribe. Which is fine. If you have enough support you might be able to replace the society, the spot light, the business, you so desire. You will no longer be relegated to simply looking through the knot holes in the fence, watching, with jealousy, the other other kids playing ball together. But unless and until you quit hurting about the fact that no one wants to play with you, and no one but losers like you, then you will always be a loser.

Ostracization, consequences, cancel culture are all the same thing and they are what is referred to as "social engineering." It's how people make other people social, tolerable, permissible to have around. Look around at the company you keep, if any. If you love and respect those people, great. But if you look down up them as useful idiots who you would not hang out with in your leisure time then, well, you can either try to change your ways, or you can be an asshole that goes nowhere. That's cool too.

After all, imagine what could be done, besides a simple, voluntary, peaceful, non-physical, non-verbal punishment. That could be so much worse. So, why little bitches whine about "Cancel Culture", I'll never understand. I mean, if they don't like or respect those people who are cancelling them, then what's the big deal? No one should mind being cancelled by a culture for which they have no respect or desire to be a part of.

I never let sex wander out of my head. If it goes out, I make it promise to be home by six. — god must be atheist

I remember those days. :blush:

But basically he is doing it to get laid just once more again. After all, we have no evidence of sex in his life after he lost his virginity. — god must be atheist

Fucking awesome! I was just thinking something similar to that but let it wander out of my head. Thanks.

We could do a lot, the problem is there isn't enough political will to do any of that. How do we change that? — ChatteringMonkey

The answer is education; teaching people how to think (as opposed to what to think). One of the problems is, the left, when it is in charge, tends toward tepid, timid overtures toward moderation and accommodation. That is often couched in terms of "cooler heads", and "wait and see," and "test the waters" and all that BS. Such strategies may have indeed been wise in the past, and there is no doubting the appeal of the man of "gravitas" and calm demeanor when shit gets real (read Kipling's "If").

But that is what the likes of Mitch McConnel count on the left doing, all while ramming shit down our throats when he has the cat bird seat. However, there comes a time where the door is closing and you best get up off your fucking ass and run through it. Shit on the bastard, kill the filibuster, don't succumb to the "long game" BS about "Better not, because some day the shoe will be on the other foot and then you will regret it. Blah blah blah." The only way that could be true is if the left is not bold in action now (read Roosevelt's "The Man in the Arena").

Failure to be bold and seize the moment now will indeed let the other side have their turn again. And then we will be fucked. The acceleration of time means now is the time. It's a last opportunity to quadruple down on education and giving the people what they want and need to thrive into the future, leaving these conservative Republican rusty ball-and-chain assholes in the dust. This isn't about panic or Chicken Little or Henny Penny. This is about our republic, democracy and the aspirations and ideals set forth in our organic documents. They are under threat like never since the Civil War. One asshole let the roaches out from under the fridge and they are threatening to take over the house.

Short of that, in the past it took war. Or, at the very least, massive social upheaval. So there is always that. I don't want to see my son have to fight in that. But alas, maybe it's his time and I should take a seat.

School. School. School. Public education per the founding fathers. Languages, reading, writing, philosophy, arts, history, civics, sociology, psychology, poly sci. critical and analytic thinking, etc. Start in pre-school and teach kids how to think. How to use that fucking brain flopping around atop their stupid shoulders.

I like the notion that humans left an embodied world (God) as they increasingly developed the memory mediated self. Maybe animals still live in the embodied world, where the dissection of the self and the world has not happened. The dawn of consciousness is a kind of curse but since we're already here, this is the party we have to attend. Might as well build a god (a mummy daddy) to replace the one lost. — Nils Loc

I like that. I often wonder, however, if it's not so much that we have something animals don't, or that we somehow gained something through evolution and have "grown" or "progressed" or are somehow "better" but, rather, that animals have something we used to have, and we lost it: Where they lack the anxiety and the feeling of being alone because they retain a sense of being a part of the whole? God is what they appreciate being a part of, and not something separate.

Even if I'm wrong on that, I do think the "feeling alone" or "abandoned" is more a misperception, or an "illness" or a failure to appreciate, a lack of gratitude, amazement, wonder and love. I know there are some people who seem to be good with our condition. Some children (not all) and some of those touchy-feely yogi types (unless they are bullshitting us).

The idea that a philosopher or physicist or a intellectual deep thinker or a bible thumper or a person on top of current events must have an empty feeling of aloneness or abandonment simply because ignorance is bliss, and they are not ignorant is, really, the height of arrogance. It's like the old phrase "If you aren't angry, you aren't paying attention." Is that really true? If one has a more objective, long-term view of life, maybe all the shit that should make one angry just doesn't. Sit in the stands and watch the show, or get in the arena a fight. But to sit back and wring ones hands in consternation with some "woe is me" BS and "why hast thou forsaken me?" seems pretty weak.

But what type of evidence would be reasonable to convince skeptics that an afterlife probably is a real possibility? — TiredThinker

This reminds me of the first elk I ever killed. Even before I finished gutting, skinning and quartering, the flies were on it. Shortly there after, a motherless cub bear started in on the gut pile as I started to pack out the meat for consumption. I'm no biologist, but I was told that once death sets in, certain microbes inside the body started their work. I know for a fact there is an afterlife. Every time I perceive life I see it.

We can very easily change that as well. It's not like there's nothing we can do. We can prevent tax havens just as well as we can prevent outsourcing. You put restrictions and regulations on what companies can do. This threat of "we'll just take our business elsewhere" is an empty one. These companies would not survive if it weren't for the United States government and general society, and they know it. — Xtrix

I agree. Let's do it. It's an alternative to the "socialism" they whine about as they take advantage of it. Here's something else I like the idea of: "Claw back." So, if any do decide to run, they lose their citizenship and the U.S. goes on the hunt for assets to recoup all that was gleaned from the U.S. If they want to try and offset it with what they've "given" (LOL) in the way of jobs, etc. then we say "Cool, let's go into a court of law and have an official accounting. And don't forget, we get to include that old grant of the "creature of the state", i.e. corporate registration. You all ain't such a "person" after all, now are you?
Oh, and let's not forget the blood and lives of the servicemen and women who protected your "right" to loot."

We'll all get to sit back and watch the best rendition of a Michael Jackson Moon Walk we've ever seen.

I like it, but my understanding of All has me thinking All could be both before and after at the same time, and not. Plus, while my understanding of All forces me to admit that we are special to All in one or more particulars, we really aren't, even in those particulars, so every time it comes up I'm a little repulsed by it. After all, I'm stuck with us and can't just take my sentience off to more inviting parts of All any old time I feel like it. Whenever someone's notion of "God" had us as teacher's pet, it makes me throw up in my mouth a little bit. Familiarity breeds contempt?

I'm happy to be corrected if I've missed something. — Janus

No, you are right. I woke up this morning with my brain on, asked my wife and we worked it out on a piece of paper like some third graders. :blush: As a typical American, thinking of myself only, I was going from one to two, etc. Totally forgetting about the damn in-laws. And the wife.

I stand corrected. Carry on.