I think the best educators see themselves as stewards of intellectual traditions and facilitators of a two-way process where they can (and are happy to) learn from students as much as students learn from them, not as authorities talking down to their intellectual inferiors. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

I'm in my 70s. When and where I was in college in the '60s, post-modernism had not made a significant appearance. Most of the teachers were, of course, interested in a two-way conversation. But... let's face it: 20 year olds normally don't have a lot to offer in 17th century literature--especially if their background was rural and semi-rural. Small town high schools. I was an English major from one of those small town high schools, as were many of my classmates. Most (many, at least) of our parents had not attended college. 17th century literature -- and much else -- just wasn't familiar stuff. We were empty vessels, happy to have a steward of intellectual tradition pour it in.

Maybe it is the case that highly sophisticated adolescents from well-funded suburban schools then and now were/are vastly more sophisticated. Later experience leads me to think they are, at least in some ways. But intellectual maturity doesn't develop a lot faster now than it did then.

Content has changed somewhat in the last few decades. "Eroticism and Family Life in Ancient Greece and Rome" wasn't offered in the 1960s. A juicy topic like that -- or "Magic and Religion in Ancient Greece" intrigues young (and older) students more than the history of the Peloponnesian War. It's easier to engage. And these topics aren't a dumbing down -- there are still only a limited number of ancient texts to go on.

The problems I see in POMOism are these:

It is heavily over-focussed on power or sexuality, and over reliant on the idea that reality is "constructed". The language style which POMOism promotes is often obscurantist. POMOism itself is "received wisdom" of a sort--not entirely open to dialog, especially opposition. Primary assumptions of POMOism may be in error.

It is one thing to talk about gender and power relationships in literature. It is something else altogether to talk about physics or biology a la POMOism (and, in fact, most scientists don't). Yes, many things in the cultural environment are constructions of the culture itself. But the physical universe isn't one of them. That is the key to the Sokol Hoax (and a few others like it). Altogether fallacious nonsense was strung together with the proper terminology and opaque style, and to many POMO practitioners, it sounded just great. If a type of thinking can't tell shit from shinola, it's time to give it up.

Now that Gay Pride month is here -- sorry--Lesbian, bisexual, Queer, transvestites, hag-drag, transgender, regendered, degendered, multi-sexual, questioning, a-sexual, friends, and regrettably, male gay pride -- it's a good time to talk about the limits of biology (LBQTHSTRDMQAF and GM, regrettably, Pride)

It will offend, but I maintain that biology determines sexuality. Culture gets to determine the style of pride march wear, it doesn't get to construct new sexuality. Transgendered folk -- whether just a change of clothing or vaginal or penile constructions with breast and hormone augmentation -- are still the males and females they were born as. They might very well be happier looking like the sex they wish they were and are not, and that's good for them. But their wishes in the matter do not redefine biology.

Nature bats last (which means, if you haven't heard that expression, a human proposes, nature disposes).

All material presented in formal education is unquestioningly taken as authoritative and supreme (BC's emphasis). "This is what other people have thought. This is what other people have concluded. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Yes, most teachers are confident when they lecture, and "authoritative and supreme" springs from many non-scientific wells.

I think that the flaw at the heart of any controversy over the curriculum in formal education is the premise that students will, and should, unquestioningly accept whatever their instructors present. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Come on. The truth is, many 16-22 year old students are unprepared to mount a skeptical assault on the content of the curriculum. They simply don't have enough practical real-world experience to feel the need to question their teachers. Skepticism takes maturity and the accumulation of more knowledge capital, and all that takes time.

You seem to be expecting students to have far more maturity than they actually do. So you walk into Medieval History 101, or Intro to Geology, or an English Literature survey class and you think the average freshman is going to challenge the professor? With what?

I can follow along, it sounds like a difficult piece to learn. My guess is that it would be a pleasure to play, once you get the fingering and everything else (like the notes) down.

Anybody have opinions on why Buddhism is declining (if it is)? Is it theistic competition? Is it ethnicity factors? what?

All the modernism and secularism that corrodes Christianity will, eventually, corrode Islam and other religions as well. When corrosion will begin to affect any particular group of believers is difficult to predict.

One of the factors affecting Christianity in some areas (definitely in North America, possibly Europe) is ethnic affiliation. 75 to 100 years ago (and further back) ethnicity tended to be closely related to one's religious affiliation. Germans in midwestern states were mostly Catholic or Lutheran, depending on the part of Germany they came from. The Irish, Italians, and French were generally Catholic. Other western Europeans scattered among (including Germans) Methodist, Presbyterian, and what used to be the Congregational (now United Church of Christ). Jewish congregations tended to be ethnically affiliated too.

In the 1960s and 70s, ethnicity faded and became a lot less important to Europe-originated people. With fading ethnicity, came a fading allegiance to ethnic churches, and in many cases, to churches at all. What faded here was not so much theology as ethnic loyalty.

Now, what I just said applies to places where ethnicity and religion were closely connected, In many parts of the US this connection isn't obvious.

Like with movies...

There are films that I have seen that have dreadful content but are terrific films. The Godfather, for instance, is about criminals, and their criminality isn't hidden. But the film is "beautifully acted and filmed". Films that endure tend to have that quality -- excellence in production and acting, whatever the content is. Opera often lavishes beauty on tragic scenes, where Mimi dies in La Boheme, or where Madam Butterfly longs for the American navy officer who will (we know) cast her aside (and does).

Un bel di vedremo:



An "ugly film" usually has "ugly" content -- scenes that are difficult to watch -- without top notch quality in acting in and production.

Nature (and our interpretation of it) often provides beauty that we can feel. Hardwood forests turned red and yellow in the fall are beautiful, whether one is walking in them or looking at them from a distance. A swamp is just as natural, but often involves scenes (dead trees from being smothered in water) which we don't like looking at. Are any of us charmed by stagnant sloughs?

In fact, I'm starting to feel conservative is something of a misnomer with regards to many of my positions, especially with regards to economics, but there's no better label. — Agustino

Liberal, conservative, centrist, radical, socialist, fascist -- all the political terms that serve for facile quick identification fail once you try to get below their surface. Maybe this has been true for a very long time -- but I think it is a later 20th and 21st century problem. Part of the problem is abuse of terms, part of it misuse, and part of it is actual changes in political thinking.

America is a nation founded first and foremost on God. That is why, even on your dollar bills, it is written "In God We Trust". It doesn't say "In The People We Trust"... And quite the contrary, America would count as a constitutional republic, by the way, not a democracy. — Agustino

What, exactly, "America" was "founded on" depends on where and when in history you place the founding.

The initial settling of the English colonies was for the express purpose of making money. Even the Puritan "City on a hill" colony was expected to produce raw material (lumber, in particular) for shipment back to England. The Middle Atlantic colonies -- same thing -- and the southern colonies, more of the same.

A century and a half later (1776): There were religious people here, of course -- people you would recognize as faithful Christians, and there were churches and missionaries (like John Wesley). The colonies' upper crust was not very religious. Religion didn't come to a boil in the United States until the early 19th century--the Second Great Awakening. (The Second Great Awakening was a Protestant religious revival movement during the early 19th century in the United States. The movement began around 1790, gained momentum by 1800 and, after 1820, membership rose rapidly among Baptist and Methodist congregations whose preachers led the movement.)

"In God We Trust" didn't end up on the currency until mid-19th century.

From the very beginning, man was religious. — Agustino

This is an assumption based on behavior observed long, long after homo sapiens achieved species status. We really don't know what our early direct ancestors were doing. They were sitting around the fire, but only long after 25,000 years ago (cave paintings, fertility figurines) do we have evidence of something as vanishingly insubstantial as "worship" activity. Maybe Neanderthal and early homo sapien peoples were profoundly religious -- maybe not -- there just isn't any evidence, one way or the other.

Belief in a transcendent order.
• Charity (real love, not the bullshit leftist version of it).
• Belief in the purpose and meaning of life.
• Duty (life is not here to enjoy it).
• Courage.
• Respect for tradition, culture and continuity.
• The sanctity of marriage.
• Chastity.
• Devotion and selflessness. — Agustino

Well, some of these are admirable traits. Whether all of them are essentially Christian -- and whether your take on them is essentially Christian -- is debatable.

I commend a biography of Dorothy Day -- "A Harsh and Dreadful Love: Dorothy Day and the Catholic Worker Movement" by William D. Miller and "The Duty of Delight: The Diaries of Dorothy Day" for a swift kick in your derriere by this likely-to-be-sainted Christian leftist.

"Belief in the purpose and meaning of life" is a nothing generality. What do YOU mean?

On Duty, I recommend James Thurber's short tale of the faithful bloodhound. “The paths of glory at least lead to the Grave, but the paths of duty may not get you Anywhere.”

Courage. Pretty much everybody needs courage. More so every day that passes.

"Respect for tradition, culture and continuity -- The sanctity of marriage, Chastity, and Devotion and selflessness.

There is an uncomfortable odor of fascist ideology here. I don't think you are a fascist. Yes, there are strains of Christian thinking that are very conservative. Dorothy Day was very conservative in her daily Mass attendance and her recognition of the authority of the church. That didn't stop her from being harshly critical of some highly UN-Christlike aspects of American tradition, culture, and continuity.

Had Jesus followed your advice, he would have stuck with carpentry, gotten married, and fathered children--all that for tradition, culture, and continuity. Ditto for the 12 Apostles, Paul, and various saints, martyrs, missionaries, etc. down through the last 2000 years (and longer, if you count the OT prophets).

Christianity is a sword--two sharp slicing sides. There is the dead-hand-of-history conservative side and the revolutionary claims of the Kingdom of God side, It's either-or.

That's precisely why Church bureaucrats are no longer capable to adequately deal with what is happening. They're not pragmatic enough. — Agustino

It seems like church bureaucrats are either not pragmatic enough or altogether too pragmatic -- whichever works least well.

I spoke of an innate desire for the divine. — Agustino

They're even born with desires that don't manifest right away, like the desire for intimacy. — Agustino

We don't know this. Why? Because, as you said, these "innate desires" don't manifest themselves right away. By the time the manifest themselves, most children have been thoroughly exposed to all sorts of divine-thinking by their parents, culture, school, church -- the machinery of tradition and continuity.

Freeze-dried papaya? Freeze dried peaches are crunchy tasty.

'enlightened self-interest' — Question

I wish I knew what "enlightened" self-interest was. Is that what guides "enlightened despots"?

it is lovely indeed.

"Cavatina" is a 1970 classical guitar piece by British composer Stanley Myers written for the film The Walking Stick (1970). Widely popularised as the theme from The Deer Hunter some eight years later.

The piece had been recorded by classical guitarist John Williams, long before the film that made it famous. It had originally been written for piano but at Williams' invitation, Myers re-wrote it for guitar and expanded it. After this transformation, it was first used for the film The Walking Stick (1970). In 1973, Cleo Laine wrote lyrics and recorded the song as "He Was Beautiful", accompanied by Williams.

It has been very popular (sometimes you can underestimate people's taste).

Following the release of The Deer Hunter in 1978, Williams' instrumental version of "Cavatina" became a UK Top 20 hit. Two other versions also made the Top 20 in the same year: another instrumental recording by The Shadows, with an electric guitar played by Hank Marvin, released on their album String of Hits with the name "Theme from The Deer Hunter" (number 9 in the UK singles charts and number 1 in The Netherlands); and a vocal version (using Cleo Laine's lyrics) by Iris Williams. (This is all Wikipedia; I didn't know all this.)

Yes, all those boxy building blocks massed together become visually more spectacular.

(1)I see a beautiful person and become attracted to them.
(2)I see a beautiful architectural structure and praise its form.
(3)I see a beautiful sky and revel in its hues and clouds.
(4)I see a beautiful flower and am entranced by its colors and shape. — River

Whenever I hear or see something or someone that is "beautiful", there are always other aspects of the object or person that come into play. For instance, a person who is "beautiful" might also be very sexual in ways which, taken alone or applied to someone else, would obscure physical beauty. Sexual appeal sometimes is not beautiful, it's on an altogether different wavelength.

A beautiful building needs to also be visually interesting. If it isn't interesting (in it's visual form) it probably won't be beautiful. The trouble with some modern, international style office buildings isn't that their forms, claddings, and settings are not attractive, they are just not very interesting. They are too smooth, too regular, too similar to other buildings of the same style.

Take these four buildings: Inland Steel in Chicago, Prudential in Boston, and the Seagrams and Lever buildings in New York -- all outstanding examples of their style:




Compare the Seagrams Building and Lever Building (New York). Both are definitely attractive (they were fairly early examples of their style), they are faithful to the urban, international style (maximization of usable space, minimal decoration, regularity of design, and so on. I like both of these.

Take the Prudential building in Boston. Privileged to stand alone out on a previously industrial/railroad site between Boylston and Huntingdon Avenues in the back bay, it had no visual or social competition for two or three decades. It's just a concrete box, and up close it is decidedly not beautiful--it's attractive only at a distance. It is probably even less lovely now, but I used to like the building, because I liked the area.



The Inland Steel Building in Chicago features very shiny stainless vertical elements and green-tinted glass. It's a striking building, day or night. I find it very interesting, but it's effect is corporate-cold, whether seen in January or July.



Is the Eiffel Tower beautiful? Billions have warm feelings toward it because it represents Paris, and it curves upward, rather than rises like a spike. It's structurally complex (ornate?). I haven't seen it first hand.

The thing is, whether it's music or buildings or poetry or people, is "beauty" one aspect of the whole, or is a summation of the whole? There are many pieces of music I love, but "beauty" isn't first in line. Sometimes it is power, or intricacy, or inspiration (as in, inspired instrumentation and melody, say). The Choral finish of Beethoven's 9th is beautiful, but as a summation of many aspects--melody, harmony, massing of voices, instrumentation, rhythm, text, etc.

That is an important issue, but I'm not sure if it is relevant to the point I was trying to make. Do you think so? — T Clark

Yes, I think it's relevant -- that's why I posted it.

You were discussing charts of relative GDP over time. That's important, but it isn't the only operative factor in the way wealth affects cultural trends, including economic trends (see Piketty). The point I was making is that a very small number of people -- from a number of countries, including countries like Mexico--not a top GDP player itself--control a vast amount of wealth, wherever it is coming from.

If wealth were equitably distributed, then GDP would be of paramount importance, but wealth isn't evenly distributed. You know about the 1% in the US, but in the world it is far less than 1%. We could assemble the richest people in the world, put them in a large ballroom, and they would have room to move around--get to the drinks and hors d'oeuvre tables, do some slow dancing, and do whatever the richest people in the world do together -- I don't know what they do, maybe sit around in a circle and jerk off. This group would control more wealth than maybe 70% of the world's population (just a guess, could be more).

Rich people have always pushed their own agendas -- what's the point of being rich if you can't do that? -- and that includes religious agendas. For instance, the Saud family which more or less owns Saudi Arabia, are quite rich and can regretably pay for the promotion of ultraconservative Wahabi Islam.

a lot of religious people aren't particularly religious — Heister Eggcart

True enough. Perhaps we differ in what we mean by "religious'. If religion refers to the rituals of the church (kneeling, genuflecting, saying certain creeds, praying certain prayers, singing certain responses, etc.) then sure, a lot of people aren't religious.

However, if you mean by religion that they enact the beliefs of the faith (the various corporal acts of charity, unconditional generosity, etc.) then you find far fewer pseudo-religious people, because people aren't unconditionally generous, usually, unless they really are motivated by good feeling toward others. In fact, you probably don't find a lot of genuine believers, period, because following Jesus or Buddha is hard.

how many religions would even survive without a community component — Heister Eggcart

I'd go so far as to say a religion which doesn't foster community (people together) isn't worth having or saving.

No, but I have read some of Luther (little catechism) and read some other books about him, and of course sung some of his lyrics.

Interesting aside... Luther represented his childhood as quite poor. It wasn't. Luther's family was fairly well off. They were in the mining and smelting business.

It would be worthwhile to read over the Wikipedia article on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The article includes some objections which have been made--for instance, that some Moslems believe the UDHR is incompatible with Sharia law, and...

The American Anthropological Association criticized the UDHR while it was in its drafting process. The AAA warned that the document would be defining universal rights from a Western paradigm which would be unfair to countries outside of that scope. They further argued that the West's history of colonialism and Evangelicalism made them a problematic moral representative for the rest of the world.

They proposed three notes for consideration with underlying themes of cultural relativism:

"1. The individual realizes his personality through his culture, hence respect for individual differences entails a respect for cultural differences",

"2. Respect for differences between cultures is validated by the scientific fact that no technique of qualitatively evaluating cultures has been discovered", and

"3. Standards and values are relative to the culture from which they derive so that any attempt to formulate postulates that grow out of the beliefs or moral codes of one culture must to that extent detract from the applicability of any Declaration of Human Rights to mankind as a whole. — Wikipedia

As one might expect, the document is the work of a committee, and numerous additions to explicate the list of "Four Freedoms" which the Allies in WWII had agreed to:

Freedom of speech
Freedom of religion
Freedom from fear
Freedom from want

The UDHR is 30 planks long -- it could probably be 10 times 30, and not cover every angle. I would prefer a shorter list, closer to the Four Freedoms, and of course, if it doesn't have legal force, then it is only a document for moral education.

Firstly, that you're either Lutheran or Methodist, considering the bitterness of your tenor at present. — Heister Eggcart

I was being bitter at present? (Hrumphs bitterly to himself... O the fickleness of the world!)

but tu, Bitter Crankus? No, I like you. You seem like a good, upstanding gentleman. — Heister Eggcart

I'm far more of a cultural Christian than an ardent believer. Whether I even believe in it is unclear. I hang around a Lutheran church because it is near by (across the street) and it helps me maintain a little community with other people. I would prefer a bit more community, and would like to have more gays and oddball outliers among my circle,. But success in seeking oddballs and outliers in Lutheran churches is contraindicated.

You cannot expect Western values to remain afloat when you tear apart the very institutions, ideas, and beliefs that they stand on. You can't have the West without God, it is as simple as that. — Gust

I agree with what you said, and as distressingly stupid as some POMO 'texts' are, in all fairness I don't think POMO, a few French Philosophers and American graduate students are responsible for the Decline of the West.

My personal opinion is that economics has done much more damage to the family, religion, and other important institutions than any philosophical strand could have. Concentration of wealth has resulted in a concentration of power, and in both cases, most individuals lack both wealth and power -- sometimes having too little to keep body and soul together.

They're as rotten and sinful as everyone else, so there's definitely an outward, superficial aspect there that you had best not get lured in by. — Heister Eggcart

They also have as much integrity, interest in salvation, and are as attentive to the teaching of Jesus as everyone else.

I have had lots of interaction with conservative and liberal Catholics, mainline Protestants and evangelicals. Sincere and earnest believers are all pretty much alike, as are lukewarm believers, whatever their denominational membership.

I also think that Lutherans and Methodists and all other bland ass, more leftist Protestant denominations are as fake as the evangelicals. — Heister Eggcart

My, such a glittering generality. What, actually, do you know about Lutherans and Methodists?

What is your idea of the Genuine article?

Atheists don't need to reproduce! All babies are atheists — VagabondSpectre

True. Rather than the term "atheist" I think "secular" and "secularized" is better. Secularization is an active process brought about by urbanization, technology, communication, prosperity, education, and other factors. Of course, urban, techno-sophisticated, plugged in, prosperous and educated people may be religious, but they are more likely not to be, certainly less likely to be traditionally religious.

Unpredictable, indeed. In 1950 the future of Christianity in the United States looked very bright. Everything pointed toward the enduring popularity of Christian faith and institutions. Then, in the 1960s, there was an abrupt mass exodus. The hippies left? I suppose the hippies left, but the millions of Catholics, millions of Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, et al who left were mostly very conventional people--not outliers. They left, and they didn't come back. Nuns and monks left the orders in droves. Seminaries started retrenching, as vocation applicants shrank.

The Christian church in the United States is certainly not dead, and it isn't dying--it is diminished. Fewer adherents, and adherents with more varied theological stances, but adherents none the less.

From the experience of the last 60 years we can not conclude that the church will continue to shrink, or that it will suddenly start expanding again. We will just have to wait and see what happens.

Worthy is Atilla and his band of jolly Huns, but you know there weren't any hand grenades in 5th century Hungary, right? How the Germans became associated with the Huns is another story -- they were not associated in any way, shape, manner, or form. Also, Hungary wasn't Christian at the time -- not for a few hundred years.

One of the variables which has changed in the last 10 years is the percentage of wealth a small number of people control. "Eight men own the same wealth as the 3.6 billion people who make up the poorest half of humanity, according to a new report published by Oxfam today to mark the annual meeting of political and business leaders in Davos." If you take the richest 2000 people, there isn't much left.

Yes, these figures are open to various interpretations. "The Oxfam report calculates the wealth of the richest individuals using the Forbes Billionaires list and the wealth of the poorest groups from the Credit Suisse Global Wealth Report." When various caveats are figured in, it isn't 8 people that have more wealth than 50% of the world's population, it's about 60 people. 8, 60, 120, 500, 1000, 2000 -- what difference does it make? It's all very disproportionate.

And, chances are it will stay that way, because that much wealth controlled by a few people, the wealth can hardly avoid increasing at a generous rate. Poor farmers just can't generate new wealth for themselves quickly, unless they unearth a gold mine. And if they do unearth a gold mine, chances are that it will be taken away from them.

There are a couple of factors which seem to have been left out of the projections.

One factor is the tenor of the two leading religions. In their local manifestation, either/both of the religions can be fiercely militant or accommodating, and have been both. The distribution of militant and accommodating believers coupled with demographics will matter a great deal. Some Christians and some Moslems are hot, cold, and lukewarm.

Global warming looms over all predictions. No area of earth will be untouched, but some will be touched more than others. How severe the effects of global warming are (and not just warming per se, but other consequences like drought, insect vectors and disease distributions, flooding, unpredictable rains and dry periods, food production, etc.) is going to result in disruption of population predictions and familiar climate conditions.

Now, people in North Africa, the Eastern Mediterranean, Western Asia, and Southern Asia are (sadly) unlikely to become Christians, Buddhists, or Atheists just because the weather is bad, but they may not be as successful in reproducing as they have been. The water crunch in the Middle East has not really hit hard yet. Their aquifers have been overdrawn (just like aquifers in the US great plains have been) and will be recharged only in the distant future. As oil production diminishes (owing to diminishing supply) the amount of income in the Middle East could be insufficient to support massive desalination projects and food imports.

So, projections of population growth may not be fulfilled.

A third factor is change in religious tenor. Christianity has gone through periods of decay and rejuvenation. In the colonial period, religiosity was not very intense. This changed in the early part of the 19th century in the unpredicted "great reawakening" episodes, the effects of which were long-enduring. I don't anticipate a great reawakening in Europe or North America, but it isn't at all inconceivable.

A new religion might appear; that would not necessarily be a good thing. There are possibilities that are quite unsavory.

Songs, like Patriot Game and With God on His Side influenced me quite a bit. Music can be more persuasive if the lyrics are clear (and sung clearly) and the melody compelling.

Here's another that I like very much, and is stirring: The Ballad of Jean Deprez by Robert Service, sung by Country Joe McDonald. Some of Service's songs are clearly antiwar, and dismissive of the patriotism that feeds war. This song celebrates the courage of the French soldier -- the zuave. The Prussians are not so esteemed.

Thank you.

Did you see "Z" -- the movie about the military dictatorship in Greece (1969)?

God might be on our side, but certainly not yours. Dylan wrote the song and recorded it, but, you know, his performance of his own song (in 1988, at least) was so gawd awful I couldn't stand it.

Billy Bragg's Internationale, the theme song of the revolution. Better than the old red square version.

Come all ye young rebels, and list while I sing,
For the love of one's country is a terrible thing.
It banishes fear with the speed of a flame,
And it makes us all part of the patriot game.

My name is O'Hanlon, and I've just turned sixteen.
My home is in Monaghan, and where I was weaned
I learned all my life cruel England's to blame,
So now I am part of the patriot game.

It's nearly two years since I wandered away
With the local battalion of the bold IRA,
For I read of our heroes, and wanted the same
To play out my part in ththe patriot game.

This Ireland of ours has too long been half free.
Six counties lie under John Bull's tyranny.
But most of our leaders are greatly to blame
For shirking his part in the patriot game.

They told me how Connolly was shot in his chair,
The wounds from his battle all bleeding and bare.
His fine body twisted, all battered and lame
They soon made me part of the patriot game.

And now I am dying, my body all holes
I think of those traitors who bargained ones soul
I'm sorry my rifle had not done the same
To traitors who sold out the patriot game.

I served two years in the US domestic peace corps program in 1968-70. Most of the projects were interesting, challenging, and all of them were paid at a nominal level (low enough to be a real earnings sacrifice). Most of the people in the program were young, college educated and mostly very liberal. It was not an escape from the draft.

Most of the volunteers worked very hard and took pride in the fact that they were serving the needs of their country. (We also understood we were the primary beneficiaries of the program.) We were uniformly against the war in Vietnam, but we were also patriotic.

I am also a qualified nationalist, in that I believe the US system of government, as well as its laws, values, and culture, to be superior to other forms of government and other laws, values, and cultures throughout the world and in history. I also believe the US should be independent and sovereign over its own territory. — Thorongil

We were also qualified nationalists. Here's the confusing part: one can be very critical of one's government's policies, methods, and objectives; one can loathe the presidential candidates (back then our preferred much loathed POTUS candidate was redneck George Wallace, a segregationist) and still feel that one's country is superior. We did a lot of bitching and carping about the way things were run, but we also recognized that we were in a good place to both do interesting work the nation needed to have done, and have our bitching and carping tolerated.

Trump is so problematic in so many ways.

I thought this thread is about patriotism, like when you identify with a country and choose to serve it. — Noblosh

It is about patriotism.

he political yet again? — Noblosh

"Patriotism" can not be a-political or non-political because it's a virtue or vice depending on the definition. Many people think Snowden was a traitor -- betraying his country by revealing government secrets, like various spies have done in the past. Daniel Ellsberg (of the Pentagon Papers having to do with the Vietnam war) might be considered a patriot or traitor too. Various others.

It's simple, liberalism is the opposite to conservatism and thus rejects all that is conservatism specific. — Noblosh

Come now, you surely don't expect to get away with that, do you?

Why is nationalism (?) specific to conservatism? Because it aims to preserve and perpetuate existing values, seems obvious to me. — Noblosh

This holds water in that "nationalism" is based on "my country right or wrong", as Cavacava's quote from Harris points up. But liberals and leftists also find values in national life that they wish to perpetuate. For instance, liberal-leftists tend to prefer that civil liberty principles be interpreted as generously as possible, rather than as restrictively as possible.

I agree, though, that the pattern of what conservatives want to preserve is usually distinguishable from what left/liberals want to preserve. (Except when it really isn't.)

Is Edward Snowden a Patriot? — Cavacava

Yes, Snowden is a patriot (in my value system) because he revealed a program of data collection which, because of its immense scope and immense means, prepared the groundwork for American government agencies (NSA/CIA ET AL) to secretly track the activities of American citizens. My assumption is that they were not YET tracking ordinary citizen interactions.

The government agencies were (are) acting under the cover of defense against terrorism. The ostensible objective was to find and track terrorist plots. They should be doing that very thing, but the appropriate means is labor intensive police investigation, not wholesale surveillance. For purposes of discovering terrorist plots, the ratio of productive anti-terrorist leads to meaningless chatter is far, far too high, in favor of the meaningless.

Presumably, he didn't reveal unknown secrets to other nations (like China and Russia)--which would fall into a decidedly unpatriotic category.

I did conflate the two. "My country, right or wrong", and "Love it or leave it" are two slogans that have characterized the American nationalist. These slogans (and others) also seem to be the province of the pro-military viewpoint and at least many conservatives.

Thomas Jefferson's statement, "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just" is more likely to be cited by left-liberals then ex-melitary members of the VFW or American Legion right-conservatives.

From my highest, most left-cosmopolitan view, nationalist and patriotic games are equally suspect. From this viewpoint I admire the European Community's de-emphasis of national perspectives in favor of a regional unity. From the perspective of my midwestern American value-set, there is something unwholesome about diluting national characteristics and the patriotism that not-very-long-ago went with it.

From that highest, most left-cosmopolitan view, most people in a given nation have very little stake in nationalist interests. Trade deals are generally not made in the name or interest of the working class; they are for the benefit of the ruling class which pretty much owns the country of (fill in blank here).

On the other hand...

For many left liberals, patriotism is inverted and becomes the occasion for self-flagellation. The past sins of national interest (the European colonization of much of the world, of which the proto-American state was one of many results) involved many trespasses upon the occupants of real estate which had been declared AVAILABLE.

The facts of how peoples and nations get ahead tend to be ignored by both patriots and self-flagellators alike. As often as not, our advancement is at your expense. The winners may be thieves, but that is generally the way expansion works.

I do think that some discussions involving "being" and "nothing" make for good "literature." — visit0r

Not if the author has NOTHING on the ball.

I have two questions:
1. Is nothing part of everything?
2. Nothing is something? — wax1232

Nothing is no thing. Null. Zero. Zilch. Empty. Nothing from nothing leaves nothing. Nothing plus nothing is nothing.

...all cocaine users are addicted on the first hit — Noble Dust

This is a common fear/misconception--the one-hit menace.

The fact that argues against one-hit addiction is that in fact, addiction is a process which changes brain chemistry and it takes time. Recreational drugs either block neurotransmitters (e.g., heroin), or they resemble the neurotransmitters too closely (meth). Either way, neurotransmitter output and uptake doesn't change so fast that one can get addicted from one use.

Another fact that argues against one-hit addiction is that most people do not get addicted to psychoactive substances that they use fairly often. Take alcohol. Many people drink regularly but don't exhibit any sign of addiction (like reduced sensitivity to alcohol).

However, some people are more prone to addiction (might be heritable) and exhibit reduced sensitivity and drug seeking behavior fairly quickly (meaning over months time).

With respect to pornography (or any other pleasure producing behavior) most people won't develop an "addiction" to the pleasurable behavior, but some people will. People have developed a dependence on aspirin. Aspirin isn't addictive, but compulsive personalities feel they need it, and tend to take it even when advised not to (like, before surgery, with bad consequences). Laxatives are abused by some compulsive personalities, too. It isn't the aspirin and laxatives that trigger the abuse -- its the compulsivity in the personality of the abuser.

Schop, I hope you noticed the pun in my post. Auntie Mame / Anti Mame... and that bucket of dirty gray slush. You should get rid of that stuff.

Auntie Mame (in the musical by that name) says "Life is a banquet and most poor suckers are starving to death."

You, schop, are kind of the "anti-mame". "Life is a starvation diet and why are those poor suckers waiting for a banquet?" But they also served who tended the bucket of dirty gray slush to dump on the party, and you do your job well.

You don't have to believe everything Sartre said. I've noticed that John Paul had the highly inauthentic behavior of always looking his same mousey self--smoking, nicotine-stained fingers, ugly hair, rumpled clothing, palpable stale clothing and body odor, writing consistently depressing books, and hanging around with that woman, Simone.

I'll grant you that our lives contain inauthentic elements, though I would raise the bar for consideration way above getting one's haircut at the same place all the time and having to do laundry regularly. (And, in any case, you do freely choose to get your hair cut and do your laundry, right?) Let's worry about major inauthenticity.

The labor of everyday life (the 9-5 job) is loaded with inauthenticity with far more consequence than getting your hair cut short once or twice a month. Politics is infested with inauthenticities, as is religious endeavor, artistic enterprises, and lots of other stuff. We might be capable of authentically and freely choosing each and every options in our lives, but a necessary part of being human is limiting the occasions when deliberation is required. Habits are part of successful and authentic life. Habits enable us to use our limited resources to make important decisions when they arise.