well, considering there are going to be about 22 million people unemployed this week, I had thought at least a significant percentage of people would think, hey great, now I can read that book I always wanted to read. I havent seen anything like that at all. All the frontiers of change are pretty well used up, and the people who could have done something about it, like the people who are running companies, have not shown any responsibility to maintaining their corporate communities. they regard paying for retirement a responsibility of their employees, and have no cash reserves to keep employees on payroll during difficult times. Instead its all ended up in stock, which has greatly benefited executives, but not really provided any sense of community to the rest. What I observe is a reversion to tribal attitudes with employees treated as virtual and disposable slaves, who then find their own tribes and bicker with each other about how wrong theyve been treated but not agreeing what to do about it. And a total abscission of responsibility for global warming in the USA, which now appears the only significant remaining force for change.

When I got a Commodore 64 at 21,. I saw enormlus potential, and it was true, clock speeds went from 5mhz to multiple ghz while I was working, creating enormous changes in society. But now it feels like everything is exactly the same as two recessions ago, like a vinyl record stuck on a groove, except theres more people who dont know what to do with themselves and the world has to keep inventing new things for them to do. Security and the war against terrorism worked for a while, but now we pretty much ran out of terrorists too. and people, pressed against the walls of life by their own vacuity, are reverting to infighting and increasingly hostile tribal behavior. And the problem I see is, there is nothing, nothing at all, to reverse the trend for the si gnificant majoroity. Thats what I observe. I have taken my blog offline, no one did anything except make rude jokes about headlines, and canceled my other social media accounts/.

I would suggest a reading group here, but Im sad to say someone else would have to run it. Im not really good at moderating all this tribal behavior. I always found I could rely on other people to do that before, but now it seems there isnt anyone left who can do that, everyone's got sucked into this 'they are wrong, what fools they are, and how right I am jajajaja' thing.

Oooh. We got an answer we didn't like so let's have another investigation. Let's do the same with Trump shall we?

Hypocrisy again.

He has operated according to federalist principles: supporting the states in their efforts, providing funds and assets where needed. — NOS4A2

He was not supporting the states when he said it was entirely their responsibility to obtain ventilators they felt they needed. He later complained that some governors were asking for too many. It's not because anyone's stupid, it's because everyone's on their own in trying to figure out how to estimate their needs. The smart thing would have been to take on a coordination role as early as possible. The only thing he's done consistently from the beginning is to cast blame) and claim credit. At a time when strong, effective leadership is needed, he makes it about him.

I think you’re probably right on that. A federalist government does not serve us well in this pandemic. All the more reason why we should not depend on the federal government and expect more from our state governments. — NOS4A2

That sounds contradictory. I suggest that the lesson is that a dogmatic view of federalism is problematic. It may be best in some cases to leave things to the state, but this demonstrates there are other cases when it is not.

I would suggest a reading group here, but Im sad to say someone else would have to run it. Im not really good at moderating all this tribal behavior. I always found I could rely on other people to do that before, but now it seems there isnt anyone left who can do that, everyone's got sucked into this 'they are wrong, what fools they are, and how right I am jajajaja' thing. — ernestm

There's a reading group already that you can join. And online discourse just isn't discourse 99% of the time. Especially in politics. I stick around for that 1%though.

Government-loverboi NOS will be relived to hear that Trump just off-the-cuff mentioned the possibility of suspending congress. Not that Trump would do it because Mitch won't give him permission. Nonetheless, NOS will no doubt still remain a supporter for this State Leader and all-round cheerleader for big government, the Trump excreting relay machine that he is.

https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/banana-republic-trump-threatens-to-unilaterally-suspend-congress-20200416-p54kaq.html

This 'mention' of course coming from the piece of shit leader who left government positions vacant for months if not years and now wants to blame it on congress. Not unlike his move to blame the WHO for his own shitty job. Not that anyone should be surprised by his total avoidance of any responsibility at all. His equally piece of shit supporters will likely find excuses of too course, as they have been this whole time.

Seems like rubbish anyway.

...he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper..

They've already agreed on Jan 3rd being the adjournment date.

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/DatesofSessionsofCongress.htm
https://history.house.gov/Institution/Session-Dates/110-Current/

thanks fo rthe info. What's the subject?

https://thephilosophyforum.com/categories/16/reading-groups

I saw this in the related news the other day, "First ever iceberg wearing a bad wig found on large landmass situated between Atlantic, Pacific and Arctic oceans".

Old, but apt:

A very British opinion (and maybe a few other countries). Just to clear up any confusion.

"Someone on Quora asked "Why do some British people not like Donald Trump?" Nate White, an articulate and witty writer from England wrote the following response:
A few things spring to mind.
Trump lacks certain qualities which the British traditionally esteem.
For instance, he has no class, no charm, no coolness, no credibility, no compassion, no wit, no warmth, no wisdom, no subtlety, no sensitivity, no self-awareness, no humility, no honour and no grace – all qualities, funnily enough, with which his predecessor Mr. Obama was generously blessed.
So for us, the stark contrast does rather throw Trump's limitations into embarrassingly sharp relief.
Plus, we like a laugh. And while Trump may be laughable, he has never once said anything wry, witty or even faintly amusing – not once, ever.
I don't say that rhetorically, I mean it quite literally: not once, not ever. And that fact is particularly disturbing to the British sensibility – for us, to lack humour is almost inhuman.
But with Trump, it's a fact. He doesn't even seem to understand what a joke is – his idea of a joke is a crass comment, an illiterate insult, a casual act of cruelty.
Trump is a troll. And like all trolls, he is never funny and he never laughs; he only crows or jeers.
And scarily, he doesn't just talk in crude, witless insults – he actually thinks in them. His mind is a simple bot-like algorithm of petty prejudices and knee-jerk nastiness.
There is never any under-layer of irony, complexity, nuance or depth. It's all surface.
Some Americans might see this as refreshingly upfront.
Well, we don't. We see it as having no inner world, no soul.
And in Britain we traditionally side with David, not Goliath. All our heroes are plucky underdogs: Robin Hood, Dick Whittington, Oliver Twist.
Trump is neither plucky, nor an underdog. He is the exact opposite of that.
He's not even a spoiled rich-boy, or a greedy fat-cat.
He's more a fat white slug. A Jabba the Hutt of privilege.
And worse, he is that most unforgivable of all things to the British: A bully.
That is, except when he is among bullies; then he suddenly transforms into a snivelling sidekick instead.
There are unspoken rules to this stuff – the Queensberry rules of basic decency – and he breaks them all. He punches downwards – which a gentleman should, would, could never do – and every blow he aims is below the belt. He particularly likes to kick the vulnerable or voiceless – and he kicks them when they are down.
So the fact that a significant minority – perhaps a third – of Americans look at what he does, listen to what he says, and then think 'Yeah, he seems like my kind of guy' is a matter of some confusion and no little distress to British people, given that:
· Americans are supposed to be nicer than us, and mostly are.
· You don't need a particularly keen eye for detail to spot a few flaws in the man.
This last point is what especially confuses and dismays British people, and many other people too; his faults seem pretty bloody hard to miss.
After all, it's impossible to read a single tweet, or hear him speak a sentence or two, without staring deep into the abyss. He turns being artless into an art form; he is a Picasso of pettiness; a Shakespeare of shit. His faults are fractal: even his flaws have flaws, and so on ad infinitum.
God knows there have always been stupid people in the world, and plenty of nasty people too. But rarely has stupidity been so nasty, or nastiness so stupid.
He makes Nixon look trustworthy and George W look smart.
In fact, if Frankenstein decided to make a monster assembled entirely from human flaws – he would make a Trump.
And a remorseful Doctor Frankenstein would clutch out big clumpfuls of hair and scream in anguish:
'My God... what... have... I... created?
If being a twat was a TV show, Trump would be the boxed set"

:up:

Absolutely spot on.

To be honest I think it's deeply ingenuous to place the focus on Trump's personal failings. It's both a distraction from his politics - which in the end is all anyone should give a shit about - and more importantly, is premised upon the fantasy that if only a more 'competent, cultured and articulate' person were in office, everything would be better. It evinces a fundamental faith in the system, as though it would be working perfectly well if not only for this particular oaf that happens to be occupying the White House.

But it's precisely that faith which ought to be broken: the entire system is broken, and it's not simply because of this one man. Personalization is de-politicization and entrenches existing politics rather than arguing for a change.

Yet I think the worst is this: the disturbing classist overtones that saturate writing like that: "no class, no charm, no coolness, no credibility, no compassion, no wit, no warmth, no wisdom, no subtlety, no sensitivity, no self-awareness, no humility, no honour and no grace" - i.e. Trump does not display the correct markers of class: well educated, articulate, polished, etc. Ultimately: 'Trump is not one of 'us' (who, by contrast, are articulate, witty, charming, etc)". Like, do people know what kind of privilege it takes to fit this image properly? And again - as if this were the issue. No one gave a shit when Obama blew up hospitals in the Middle-East because he was so charming.

Trump of course is a joke. But taking that joke seriously misses precisely the seriousness of the situation. Writing like that is self-affirming, feel-good cathartic fodder for middling liberals. The smell of self-satisfaction reeks off of it. It's a deeply shameful, embarrassing piece of writing that illuminates more about the writer than it does of Trump. As if anything written there is news to anyone - of course it's not. It's just libidinal, orgiastic discharge, nothing more.

To be honest I think it's deeply ingenuous to place the focus on Trump's personal failings. It's both a distraction from his politics - which in the end is all anyone should give a shit about - and more importantly, is premised upon the fantasy that if only a more 'competent, cultured and articulate' person were in office, everything would be better — StreetlightX

No one gave a shit when Obama blew up hospitals in the Middle-East because he was so charming. — StreetlightX

Some of us did. Indeed a certain person of colour in my own household was extremely critical before that, on reading his rather weak autobiography. And it was based firmly on a judgement of character. The problem with any hierarchical system from monarchy to democracy is two-fold that kings, presidents advisors and functionaries can be incompetent and/or malicious. So the character of the person at the top is always significant, and in a democracy is more so intimately bound up with the character of the people.

And that is where I am critical.

Americans are supposed to be nicer than us, and mostly are. — an articulate and witty writer

No they are not. They are a vicious, ignorant, and sentimental folk. Just like us. And we fall for the same kind of bloated bluff con man. Which is a deep fault of the culture, deeper than 'the system'.

Which is a deep fault of the culture, deeper than 'the system'. — unenlightened

Culture is an object of social reproduction and does not spring ex nihilo out of nowhere. Culture is shallow, fragile and anemic, not deep, and it is all the more visciously defended and contested because of its shallowness. The person at the top is significant, but significant as a barometer, nothing more.

Not unlike his move to blame the WHO for his own shitty job. — StreetlightX

To be fair the WHO fucked up in a huge way:

In this case, WHO director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus specifically discouraged any such measures.

“The WHO doesn’t recommend and actually opposes any restrictions for travel and trade or other measures against China,” he said, while praising China’s response to the outbreak. “If anyone is thinking about taking measures, it’s going to be wrong.”

https://www.bangkokpost.com/world/1848369/china-travel-bans-spread-despite-who-advice

None of that is to say each government shouldn’t do their own investigations into the matter. That was the WHO’s position late Jan, early Feb - luckily many countries ignored them. I seem to remember China saying to Italy something along the lines of ‘Lockdown now. What you’re doing isn’t enough’.

That said, mistakes happen. When mistakes lead to tens of thousands of deaths then it seems tame to call it a ‘mistake’ given that the WHO should’ve been on top of this.

No one gave a shit when Obama blew up hospitals in the Middle-East because he was so charming. — StreetlightX

Actually there is a significant number of things which Obama did, that many Americans disagreed with, consequently tarnishing his image in their eyes. An important one was his sustained attack on whistleblowers through the use of the espionage act; culminating in the Snowden affair.

It's a deeply shameful, embarrassing piece of writing that illuminates more about the writer than it does of Trump. — StreetlightX

Right, it was an explanation of why some Brits dislike the man, so of course it says a lot about the writer. It actually doesn’t illuminate anything about Trump. What the writer mentions has always been painfully obvious.

Trump is a pile of dogs**t (I'm being nice), which The United States of America has stepped in. What do people do when that happens? After cursing, they clean off their shoe, maybe wash it, and get on. Maybe some people are tasked with clearing it away. But the relative merits of the dogs**t, its quiddities, no one wastes time on, unless maybe they're a seven-year-old boy. Once cleaned up then some people may be concerned with how it got there and how to prevent a recurrence. And so it goes.

But on this particular pile of dogs**t too many people seem to feel they have something important to say, usually some form of apologetics. Even Trump haters engage. And in so engaging, validate, to the end of wasting time, treasure, resources, possibilities. In short, in being inappropriately distracted by the dogs**t we lose everything else, more-or-less.

Trump just is a pile of dogs**t. That being grokked, move on! He will have fouled to some extent most the planet in one way or another, and cleaning up will be a big job that will the business of most of us. But a pathological obsession with dogs**t does not help. Dogs**t, ultimately, isn't funny or worth any more comment, time, or trouble than is needed to solve it as a problem. After all, finally, dogs**t is just dogshit.

Actually there is a significant number of things which Obama did, that many Americans disagreed with, — Metaphysician Undercover

Like what? Please educate?

Dogs**t, ultimately, isn't funny or worth any more comment, time, or trouble than is needed to solve it as a problem. After all, finally, dogs**t is just dogshit. — tim wood

It seems to me that the bigger problem is in how such a person could be elected. That problem won’t go away anytime soon, but meanwhile, it may serve a less than shameful purpose to express solidarity in our shared dislike of dogshit.

Like what? Please educate? — tim wood

Some times I really wonder about your capacity to read, tim wood. Why did you ask me this question? I gave you an example right there in the post which you replied to, and it wasn't a long post, like you might have skipped that part. The example was Obama's attack on whistle blowers, through the use of the espionage act. Google it if you are interested, and maybe in your research you'll uncover other things which Obama did that people were unhappy with. There's a problem with having high expectations for someone, and that is that you're bound to be let down, because no one's perfect.

The example was Obama's attack on whistle blowers, — Metaphysician Undercover

On leaks, arguably illegal. When I have a check in hand, I need only look at the last endorser, and you're he. Your comment was:

Actually there is a significant number of things which Obama did, that many Americans disagreed with, consequently tarnishing his image in their eyes. — Metaphysician Undercover

There are, to our shame, lots of Americans who did not like Obama out-of-the-box, mainly for reasons plain as the nose on your face, and also because he wasn't "Republican" - that in quotes because those people are not republicans either. But you aver there were "a significant number of things" he did, which apparently alienated people not already alienated by just his race, and secondarily his humanism.

I'll allow there were things done that made some people uncomfortable, but arguably they had to be done one way or another - it's not clear to me his nay-sayers understood that bit of realpolitik, or cared for that matter. But you slide in weasel-like and with your rhetorical microscope find and without any accuracy at all proclaim the mote you find in his eye, overlooking the whole faggot in your own.

Faults are faults and stand on their own merits - or demerits. I hate the tu quoque - you too - argument that seems a staple of Republicans (and the PLO, when they were blowing up restaurants), especially Kelly-Ann Disgusting - or whatever her last name is. And the viciousness of their argument is not that their guy is innocent, oh no!, but rather that he is justified by the often-fictional transgressions of your guy.

To my way of thinking it all falls under the Big Lie. I'm calling you a Big Liar - not a good thing. Show me wrong.

Obama didn't close Guantanomo Bay. He expanded the war into Pakistan without approval from the Senate and Congress. I'm sure there's more but those are the ones that stand the most out for me.

Obama didn't close Guantanomo Bay. He expanded the war into Pakistan without approval from the Senate and Congress. I'm sure there's more but those are the ones that stand the most out for me. — Benkei

As I recall, it was not that simple. I wish he had closed it. But I buy that he couldn't. Read here:

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/08/01/why-obama-has-failed-to-close-guantanamo

As to Pakistan, are you quite sure he expanded the war there? Please make your case. Because I'm pretty sure you don't know what you're writing about.

Where was Bin Laden killed again? And that's not the only instance US forces were active in Pakistan. In fact they blew up their Pakistani allies by accident.

As to Pakistan, are you quite sure he expanded the war there? Please make your case. Because I'm pretty sure you don't know what you're writing about. — tim wood

In fact they blew up their Pakistani allies by accident. — Benkei

The final straw came when an US air attack targeted and killed Pakistani border guards at Gora Prai. Pakistan refused after that (if I remember correctly) any supply routes going through their country or using their aerospace (and afterwards US forces in Afghanistan were supplied by air from Romania). Yet as this happened in 2008, I guess that it still was Dubya's administration. But these attacks (or incidents) where the US has killed Pakistani troops have continued during the Obama years with the deadliest incident happening in 2011. Between 2008-2012 as many as 42 Pakistani soldiers were killed by the US.

He expanded — Benkei

Did you miss "expanded"? It's your word, and it is the word I questioned. See?

As to Pakistan, are you quite sure he expanded the war there? — tim wood

And this from the article you referenced:
"The Gora Prai airstrike was an airstrike by the United States that resulted in the deaths of 11 paramilitary troops of the Pakistan Army Frontier Corps and 8 Taliban fighters in Pakistan's tribal areas.[1] The attack took place late on June 10, 2008, during clashes between US coalition forces and militants from the Pakistani Taliban.[2]

"The airstrike was in retaliation for an attack on troops about 200 yards (180 m) inside Afghan territory, originating from a wooded area near the Pakistani border checkpoint at Gorparai in Pakistan's Mohmand Agency.[1]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gora_Prai_airstrike

Did not you read this? Now in the interests of mere honesty and clarity I insist on your defending "expanded" or retracting it, because you're arguing absurdities at best.

Well, yes, the middle class luxuriant in me did reach a catharsis when this piece reappeared in my feed. The description of Trump is so delicious. And you are right to point out how ineffectual an ad hominem critique is in the face of the tragedy before us. Except that the failings listed for the man are the failings of the nation. Trump is the modern Leviathan, the "sovereign by institution", the Master fo the Deal, and as such he embodies the will of the people.

Hence White's piece, while superficial about Trump, is also a list of the failings of a culture.

There is much to praise in a culture with an unprecedented genius for innovation, and I watch the unfolding cataclysm with fascinated horror. If one would understand what went wrong, one might start by looking at the failings of the person chosen to embody that culture.