DonCoquixote
DonCoquixote's Journalugly truth ahead
warning, this may be offensive:
Let's not forget, that our culture come from the United Kingdom (biggest misnomer in History.) In particular, we come from the period where England was becoming an Empire, and using all sorts of religious and cultural shit to justify itself. The Calvinist "work ethic" sold the idea that you could prove God loved you by getting rich, and that the only thing standing between you and gettign rich was your capapcity for Hard work. Everyone else was simply hated by God. Now what made matters worse is the way England handled it's Calvinists. The Anglicans (aka Royals and those who supported them) were perfectly willing to treat their Calvinists like shit, and did so with the idea that these stupid gits do not realize what is good for them. It's the same holier-than thou arrogance that you can get a whiff of whenever you read people like Polly Toynbee or Seamus Milne in the Guardian UK newspaper. It did not help that many of these Calvinists where descendents of the Celts that the English had treated like shit for Milennia.
Well, London had a lovely idea: "we just stole all this land in the Americas, let's ship thsoe crazy Scotch and irish and scot-Irish to there, so that they can work for us and we get the cream." Of course, they did not realize that they would not keep the beasts of burden in their pen for long. Then when America was born, these same people did NOT mellow out, but kept expanding and expanding, but never challenging the idea that the work ethic was good, or the idea that government was just a means for a bunch of lazy, smarmy elites to get the cream while the workers got the whey.
So in short, religion, and to a large extent, the desire to get revenge on English elites warped the soul to where propaganda is fed. Notice one thign about the modern conservatives, you never see an upper class person on there. It is nto that there are not scads of elitles in New England who can break out theiur Ivy league education to pontificate. No, they bring out the Rush Limbaughs, the Sean Hannitys, The Bill O Reilly's the people who can FAKE being working class, in order to appeal to a rabble whose grandfathers thought high class people wuz nuttin but crooks! Why do you think the most successful Bush so far, W. made a point of being an amplified cartton of a Texan, despite the fact that he was every bit the New England Brahmin. And sadly, the most successful democrats were people like Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, people who had brains, but knew well enough to hide it from the camera, as it it was something to be ashamed of. The people who make of the mass of America are still hiding in their log cabins, saying "look at him, he talks funny" as opposed to those that God meant to win the kingdom, broken English and all.
If 2016 is Clinton vs Bush
Granted, there a a thousand things that can happen, especially in an age where Billionaires can spend all the gold they want, and blow an Iron wind into anyone's sails. However, let's take a look at both of these two. For all the talk of how they are of opposite sides, they come from the same cloth; the center-right that feels obligated to protect the rich. Both of them have a strong contempt for their bases, because the radicals and reactionaries know that the Politics they care about is really just a secondary by-product of supporting the rich. Neither of them like to criticize the rich; but it is not fear as much as the fact they really do not disgree with the rich. Outsourcing? Both Jeb and Hillary support it. Unions, neither of them like unions. Social spending, both speak as if social spending is somethign you do once you cut largesse from programs, though never, ever the milatary. Both of them refuse to criticize Israel, despite the fact that just because you think Bibi is self-destructive does not mean you cannot call the PLO out on it's folly. Both of them are products of an elite system that says "the buisness of America is buisness" and everything else is secondary. Both are intelligent, and think they are self-made, self-starters, despite the fact that neither of them would have had half the influence they have if their last name were Smith.
There is no real opposition here. Granted, if Hillary wins I will vote for her, if only because Sotomayor and Kagan proved how important it is to heal the Supreme Court. Granted, I would rather have Scalia in a jail cell, but that is not happening soon, and it will not happen under Bush. However, the fact that we are bringing in relics of a world that is not, people tryign to revive solutions and methods that frankly, did not work that great the first time, is a sad commentary on our nations, and democracy itself. It is especially sad that the one thing standing between either of these two and the White House, is not a change in values or methods, but that some billionaire may choose to push button a or b because they themselves suffer from Bush/Clinton faitgue as much as many of us do.
the best quotew to use on the dlc/puma/centre-right/it's her turn folk
"...But it’s fair to say that Warren’s histrionics are often built atop genuine policy beefs rather than straw men. They often reflect legitimate questions about cronyism. Not only would Warren compel Hillary to avoid any premature triangulation but also her presence in the race might impel Republican candidates to engage in a worthwhile conversation about corporatism and free markets. "
and by premature, I mean that is not only starting NOW, it has been well under way, ever since the TPP and Keystone Pipeline were supported by Hillary.
“Yes, Virginia, There is a Santa Claus”
http://www.newseum.org/exhibits/online/yes-virginia/The links has the text, and many have heard it this holiday season. However, I humbly offer my two cents on this.
There are some that may be livid angry at anything that is not a complete destruction of myth, who think that anything but a curt, cold smashing of Santa Claus to children is child abuse. There are those who may think that lying to children is good, and that reason cannot offer anything replacign wonder. There are those that will muddle between two extremes, hoping to avoid getting ripped at by a and b.
The genius of this essay is that Church has to tell the truth, but in the process, not ruin the child's ability to imagine:
"They think that nothing can be which is not comprehensible by their little minds. All minds, Virginia, whether they be men’s or children’s, are little. In this great universe of ours man is a mere insect, an ant, in his intellect, as compared with the boundless world about him, as measured by the intelligence capable of grasping the whole of truth and knowledge."
This is an honest statement about what people can know, and never know. A lot of cynicism is nothing more than people encircling themselves around what they know, and hissing at anything else.
"Yes, VIRGINIA, there is a Santa Claus. He exists as certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist, and you know that they abound and give to your life its highest beauty and joy. Alas! how dreary would be the world if there were no Santa Claus. It would be as dreary as if there were no VIRGINIAS. There would be no childlike faith then, no poetry, no romance to make tolerable this existence. We should have no enjoyment, except in sense and sight. The eternal light with which childhood fills the world would be extinguished."
No, this is not telling the child that there is some elf in the north pole, this is him telling the child that Santa is part of the general "romance to make tolerance this existence." Compare this to someone like Bertrand Russell, who takes pride in saying man's life is "nasty, brutish and short." The fact is, we humans think in terms of myths..now, unlike those who are religous, we can break out the Kant and the Jung and realize this dreaming and myth making is just what we do, and because we are aware, we can dream and think instead of simply react to the nasty realitiues of life.
"Only faith, fancy, poetry, love, romance, can push aside that curtain and view and picture the supernal beauty and glory beyond." No here is where I disagree. Science can also show this, and is indeed great for such, but it works when you have folk who are prepapred to indeed unshamedly use the poetic side of the mind to lead people to reason. When he was alive Carl Sagan knew how to do such with Cosmos, as does his successor Degrasse Tyson. Russell on the other hand, did not, and as a result, science was very falsely and sadly relegated to a a small bauble in the hands of a small carde of intellectuals, as opposed to being a tool to see the world.
In short, this essay should not be dismissed as "it's okay to lie to the kids because it is pretty", it means that we can take myths, peoms, and use them to make children think about what is real, what they can do to make themsleves better human beings. If you we do not want Faith to become some diogmatic spiller of blood and choker of hopes, we need to learn how to appeal to the peotic side of people, the part that often does good despite the odds, because in life, the odds are always against trying to make posotive changes, so we need to learn to work despite the "poor, brutish" facts of life that are there; the ability to do this is what the priests try to abuse and turn into faith, and folks like Church turned into a poem.
Yes Virginia, dreams, love and romance do have value. "in all this world there is nothing else real and abiding." If we are going to surivive the times ahead, we will need people that remember that, even as they crunch numbers and test hypothesis.
stuff to keep in mind about Sony
First off, this is not the first time they have been hacked. Back when they were trying to get a game called DC Universe online going, they were hacked, as revenge for them prusuing a hacker for modding his machien to play pirate software.
http://kotaku.com/5797858/more-than-12700-credit-cards-stolen-from-sony-online-entertainment
http://www.wired.com/2011/05/sony-online-entertainment-hack/
So, we should not act like this is a surprise, especially because the on report was that Sony had failed to upodate their security. But theren is also something in common to note..Rioght after DCuniverse wnet on, many employees were fired, meaning the same people who put in 70 hour weeks than just got dumped.
http://www.afterdawn.com/news/article.cfm/2012/04/10/sony_to_fire_10_000_employees
http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/09/news/economy/job_cuts/index.htm?postversion=2008120909
So, what happened? Maybe NK is involved, they have been crazy enough to do silly things, but frankly, the REAL story is that Com;anies that have been burning through employees like a chain smoker burns through cartons have apprentlyu forgotten who runs their data, and if you were treated badly by your company, why not sell your info to whoever buys. a disgruntled employee can do a lot, as a former private contractor named Edward Snpowden showed. Is it an accident that the targeted people were top level executives, many fo whom bragged about being assholes?
yes, and no
is atheism, by itself a religion. Not really.
are there those who use atheism to try and achieve the same unformonty opf thought and agression against all others as theism does, yes.
Perfect example: Madalyn Murray O hair condemned agnostics, to the point where SHe defined the term.
http://www.atheisms.info/atheisms/ohairag.html
"Let me tell you in one word the difference between an atheist and an agnostic. The difference is guts. I lose more agnostic friends by saying that. But let's go into detail again."
Now, in this manner, by defining those that do not care to carry her banner, she behaves very much like the same people she condemns. Atheists might rightly cirticize the Christian who says "Jews are just Chrtisans who have yet to accpet Jesus" or Muslims who say "Chrtisians are just Muslim who do nto realize the Quran." In both times they would be right to criticize, so why did O hair choose to define what an Agnopstic was, and even claim to define what Huxley thought?
Athism by itself, is not a religion, but , like anythign else, people can mix in their own agenda.
stiuff to keep in mind about sony
OK, years before this happened, they had a serious hack, where millions of people,. myself in cluded had their creidt card stolen. This was done to avnege a hacker that had modded a ps to play pirated software. However, Microsft chuckled and helps publicie the fact their security had not been updated for years.
Now, they were cuaght again.
As far as NK, honestly, they did not need to...All they had to do to get the same effect was offer some people a few dimebags of weed and pizza. NK could not STOP hackers, much less control them.
Why are some people so eager to kill the idea Warren might run?
Now, you see people bring up OPS that say "liz said she will not run, deal with it!" Granted, Hillary herself has not delcared she will run, and when asked about 2008, she said she would not run, and she did. But why is DU so dedicated to the idea that Liz will not run?
The fact is, the Hillary supporters already had an experience where people opened the package, and did not like what they were being fed. There are many who are still angry, especially as frankly they felt it was their "turn." Now, the idea of Turn is ill defined; is it a generational thing? Is the idea of a turn somethign to base the presidency on? Then of course, she ran a campaign that was awful, gaffe ridden, where Bill Clinton reminded people that he loves to run his mouth, at a moment where he needed to let Hillary get some limelight. Then she was sec of state, where she pretty much ran over the peace crowd, ensuring that we went to both Syria and Libya.
The point is, Hillary supporters know there is a lot that many people do not like, and that they will only support her if it is the only choice between her and a GOP slime. Are Hillary supporters so scared that people cannpot wilingly take Hillary that she must be inevitable?
peoplewill hate to admit it
but frankly, they failed to do the work needed. Yes Obama has not a strogn leftist, but when we failed to vote because of various reasobns, some good, some outright awful (I am gonna punish him because I did not get what I want now, or I am not gonna vote for him becvause i want Hillary) than who the hell is to blame. I do not agree with some Foprginers hating all Americans, but there is a point where we have to look and say whether or not we as Americans diod iour part, and the fact is, we did not.
Former New Beginnings homeless shelter residents decry 'pits of hell'
http://www.tampabay.com/news/specials/former-new-beginnings-homeless-shelter-residents-decry-pits-of-hell/2210057Here is a perfect example of why Churches must NOT be the only social programs for the poor. Here a church BLATANTLY exploits the Homeless, turning them into slaves!
Profile Information
Member since: Thu Apr 17, 2008, 05:51 PMNumber of posts: 13,616