Musk is busy downsizing government bureaucracy — magritte

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good luck!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't care.

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

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

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

[a 'travesty' here means crude satire]

That does not make them evil. — Arcane Sandwich

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

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

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

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

What's the criteria for offense? — flannel jesus

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do you tango?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What the rank and file could save on

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

1.3 trillion total

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

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

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

his job derives from a mandate — Leontiskos

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

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

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

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

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

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

AI Overview

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

Beats me.

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

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

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

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

Perverse visionaries!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is getting really, really serious. — Wayfarer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arcane Sandwich

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

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

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

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

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

computers are already better than them — Eros1982

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

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

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

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

:100:

Me: "That sounds stupid to me. I prefer to stay at home like a coward, eating toast with butter, instead of risking my life in a war just so that I can convince myself and others that I'm brave."

Her: "Then you don't understand fascism." — Arcane Sandwich

I too prefer toast and butter and haven't found a cause for which dying seemed like a good idea.

In the last few decades, the practice of valorizing soldiers and military-adjacent agents like police has become more noticeable, more common in the US. Flags and flag-waving has become more prominent in some circles. Personally, I've been falling through a hole in the flag since the 1960s (per HAIR!) It sometimes sounds like the only citizens who possess and display courage, self-sacrifice, grit, and loyalty are people in uniforms.

Usually, this rhetoric of the patriot's game is voiced by people who are quite conservative, whether they served in the military or not.

A fascination with uniforms, flags, chains of command, obedient service, weapons, and so on isn't in itself fascist. Sprinkle holy water on the troops, and one is a little bit closer. [Contrarywise, U.S. United Methodists and Evangelical Lutherans, among others, no longer allow flags in the sanctuary, or allow their display during veterans' funerals.)

Thanks!

I think we can agree that fascism isn't a particularly coherent system of beliefs. It's based on sentiment, there is no rational ideology behind it. It works because it riles people up into a sort of raptured state of mind. — Arcane Sandwich

Very much so.

Fascism has also been characterized as "a style" -- by which I do not mean a mere preference for brown shirts and goose stepping. "Style" would include the regular crude use of force, ruthlessness, crass manipulation of the public, the deployment of sappy 'Volk' sentimentality (like PATRIOTISM), etc.

"It works because it riles people up into a sort of raptured state of mind." Indeed.

Only after the attack on Pearl Harbor that FDR prepared for war. — Vera Mont

Had FDR waiting until Pearl Harbor to prepare for a war that was already well underway in Europe and Asia at the end of 1941, we would have had one hell of a time. The level of war production ramped up steeply in 1942 and following, certainly. Remember the pre-Pearl Harbor Lend - Lease program.

You want to know what fascism is like? It is like your New Deal!

Reminiscent of Fascism is the principle that the state no longer leaves the economy to its own devices

When I look for fascistic features I generally don't look at social security, unemployment insurance, public works programs, and the like as examples. Or, was it the rapid marshaling of government programs that struck Mussolini as fascistic? Fascists are not alone in managing economies. Are programs which alleviate poverty fascistic in nature?

The view that government economic policy is fascistic leads me to wonder about the relationship between fascism and libertarianism, which finds government activities so repugnant.

Welcome to TPF.

I also believe that to fairly judge an action, one must set aside the circumstances and intent and evaluate the act itself. — ZisKnow

We can judge the performance of a motor itself while setting aside circumstances and intent (which motors are not supposed to have). I don't see how we can evaluate a person's significant act in isolation from the circumstances and intent. What is left to evaluate?

I picked up a rock and smashed your window. In the absence of circumstance and intent, you might consider how well I threw the rock or how much repairing the window would cost. It would be much more useful if you considered WHY I threw the rock through YOUR window, and not someone else's. Did I wish to harm you and your family? Did I want to scare you? Did I want to drain your bank account? What happened in the several days before your window was broken?

Granted, there are events that do not involve intent. My rear wheel kicked up a rock that hit your windshield and broke it. The event was without intent. The only relevant circumstance is that we were both on the same road.

morality is tied to what we do, not necessarily what we think or feel — ZisKnow

Sure. I agree. But one could quarrel with this position.

For one thing, what we DO is quite often related directly to what we were or are THINKING. First degree murder involves planning. Supporting one's alumni scholarship fund also requires planning.

FWIW, Jesus thought that our thoughts counted; "Whoever hates his brother is a murderer": the thought and the act are weighed the same. We don't want that standard to apply in civil court, for sure; we'd all be behind bars! For our own good (setting salvation aside) cultivating moral thought is probably a better strategy than cultivating wicked thought.

It is very possible that the UK is just beyond saving. — BitconnectCarlos

Possible, but I don't know whether it is or not. Just guessing, it is salvageable.

Each of Paxton's fascist characteristics might apply in some degree and together not add up to fascism. The January 6 attack on the capital (instigated by DT) seems like an overtly fascist act, which hasn't been repeated so far.

The American political system works. A frustrated voter said it doesn't make any difference who you vote for -- nothing changes. Precisely. Both parties will deliver reasonably adequate government, sufficient to keep the various vested economic interests happy. That's not fascism -- that's merely loathsome corporate capitalism.

All I'm asking is for you to be consistent. — Mr Bee

I'm sorry, but your statement triggered a mental reflex: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." Ralph Waldo Emerson

Sure. I'm familiar with these methods of seeing the earth's curve. There's also the curved shadow of the earth during an eclipse.

Several someone elses figured out the earth was round and about 24,000 miles in diameter long time ago. According to NASA:

It has actually been known that the Earth was round since the time of the ancient Greeks. I believe that it was Pythagoras who first proposed that the Earth was round sometime around 500 B.C. As I recall, he based his idea on the fact that he showed the Moon must be round by observing the shape of the terminator (the line between the part of the Moon in light and the part of the Moon in the dark) as it moved through its orbital cycle. Pythagoras reasoned that if the Moon was round, then the Earth must be round as well. After that, sometime between 500 B.C. and 430 B.C., a fellow called Anaxagoras determined the true cause of solar and lunar eclipses - and then the shape of the Earth's shadow on the Moon during a lunar eclipse was also used as evidence that the Earth was round.

Around 350 BC, the great Aristotle declared that the Earth was a sphere (based on observations he made about which constellations you could see in the sky as you travelled further and further away from the equator) and during the next hundred years or so, Aristarchus and Eratosthenes actually measured the size of the Earth!

Once civilization collapses in a few years (or next week) this knowledge will soon be lost and will have to be rediscovered, IF there is anyone around to rediscover anything at all.

What does any of this have to do with sexual arousal? — flannel jesus

Just "Because" by McCarthy and Lennon: Because the world is round it turns me on.

I have no personally obtained evidence that the world is round or that the earth is the third planet from the sun. Various someone elses figured out all this out and I take their word for it. I have experienced gravity first hand, so I am confident it exists. There are a lot of alleged facts about the world which seem to be true, but of which I have not a shred of personal evidence. Somehow atoms manage to produce what we suppose to be substantial matter. Don't ask me how. Somehow electrons manage to move from here to there; are they moving within a field or are they moving within a copper wire? Beats me.

The world seems to work in a particular way for which various people have gathered evidence. I am taking their word for it.