World Politics

[BroDeal]

I think Obama fans who are not even and can be critical like myself have ****ing PHd's....but you never know do you with loose language raven...? punctuation rules must...make...you...**** your pants... worse than thought eating his own **** right?

...Takka...Og...***...? Oooga...uk uk ik...gog... Gakgo...uk...******...wahhh...?

 

[ravens]

I thought it was something about Bush being chums with satan.

I have seen more literate Egyptian hieroglyphics after they have been eroded by four thousand years of sandstorms.

Well I think the Bush is Satan and its many Cheney, Rove, Christian variants are pretty standard fare. It's like breathing for the Obama-ites...or farting. I refer you to the farting graphic.

Maybe Cash's teleprompter malfunctioned and he just kept typing whatever it said on the screen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQTaWjMoFw

 

[Anonymous]

...Takka...Og...***...? Oooga...uk uk ik...gog... Gakgo...uk...******...wahhh...?

must be a afro american hater I would think...nice translation for the left...

 

[BroDeal]

must be a afro american hater I would think...nice translation for the left...

 

[Anonymous]

wonderful obama sentence ...okie okie ikie yes? real nice smart guy...africaan yes?

 

[Anonymous]

And you keep thinking you are right, and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong. It's what children do best.

The funniest part is that I don't disagree with social programs, just blanket ones enacted because of white guilt that did nothing to improve the economic realities of the entire community it sought to help. I have been one of the people here defending the programs of FDR. What he did and what LBJ did are two completely different things, and you don't seem smart enough to know the difference.

thoughtforfood 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1...FART up...off and back in to your stove pie....!

 

[Anonymous]

thoughtforforfarts...."white guilt"....****ing rich man! white guilt! way to react! and good honest feelings white guilt...

 

[rhubroma]

Because I accept the reality of our society does not mean my actions further those problems...

Though neither do they help in indicating their possible solutions.

If you don't believe that people can condition other's lives, then there is nothing to explain how, for example, Western Civilization had been able to move from le trois estates of a class dominated culture to the democratic State: and thus from the Rex who was "invested" with a divine right to power toward a so-called people's government (how popular it has actually become, though, is a matter of debate). Nontheless a true revolutionary spirit, which, by the way, was led by philosophers and critical thinkers who allowed themselves to go beyond that "reality we all see," had caused millions to litterally rise up and rage against the machine. And this paved the way for the creation of that constitutional State based on social equality before the law and civil rights (though perhaps not quite enough civil responsibilities), which has allowed, for better or for worse, our world to have witnessed over the last two centuries or so the unprecedented progresses it had.

In fact the whole history of civilization has been one of periodic revolutions in which people have conditioned other peoples lives to effect change, though not always positively of course. It's what caused the ancient Atheneans to invent democracy, the ancient Romans to oust their last Etruscan overlord and set up the Republic (res publica) and the humanitarian beliefs of the Christian sect to ultimately triumph over the pagan cults of Classical Antiquity. All the while people conditioning other people. It additionally inspired Italian merchants (and others throughout Europe as well) to create a new politically invested class of upwardly mobile non-aristocrats to, at the end of the Middle Ages, defeat their feudal overloards and so begin to propel our culture into the early modern period. And this eventually begot the Enlightenment (again driven by philosophers), which begot the Scientific Revolution, which paved the way toward the Constitutional State, industrialization and, ultimately, raised new issues regarding human rights, which ended slavery in America and gave rise to the XIX century socialist ideologies of which the last word has not yet been said, etcetera.

By the way I don't disagree with your argument that some personal responsibilty is needed for social advancement, I'm just not in accord with the idea that that doesn't need to also be accompanied by considerable assistance from the society with a patrimony. Investing in the ghetto, in other words, is absolutley necessary.

That philosphical thinking has conditioned social evolution and human history to such a marked degree, still allows me to find, as the imprisoned Boethius once found (and wrote about), consolation in it. Whereas there is every reason to be optomistic about how such philosophies might yet again lead to new possibilities to the ways in which society behaves and solutions to the troubles which afflict it.

 

[TRDean]

Couple thoughts here...

First, all this ghetto talk and racism...sure they exist but there are plenty of poor caucasian families that are on the dole. To constantly bring up the racism issue is in itself racism...are not the other less fortunate, that are not African American, worthy of consideration as well?? And there are just as many poor Americans living in the rural areas as in the cities....ghettos these are not.

My whole feeling on this subject is simply better education. And by that I do not mean simply throwing money at the problem. The problem lies with the family unit, or lack there of. I learned math, language, social studies, etc. with a blackboard and chalk. My school didn't have air conditioning. Now, I do feel that good schools (the built environment) should be at a bare minimum adequate..and that should change...but throwing money to have the latest gadgets is not helping anything. Families who put a high value on education have children who perform. I don't live in the city anymore (I used to live in Philly) and now live in a very rural environment. I see the same things in the family units. Families that don't care...that use the school system to "babysit" their children underperform. And it matters not what their skin color may be. Throwing money at this will not work...it will take a monumental change in the way education is viewed by parents and care givers.

You guys are having a very good conversation. I have enjoyed reading.

 

[ravens]

I usually agree with most of what both you guys post, so I'm a little suprised that you two have been able to go on this long practically coming to blows over nuances rather than actual differences in policy. Oh well it's kind of entertaining........continue if you must, but save the invective for the ones that deserve it.....like ravens and Scott and Calibike.

I have more or less disappeared from this thread because my employer has had the nerve to start giving me something to do, interfering with my 20 posts/day and 2 hour walks while on the clock. The man is holdin' me down.

So if you want to barb, bait, skewer, fold, spindle and mutilate me, please do me a favor and send me a PM so I can see how you did.

Sheesh, lumping Scott and CCBike in with me...? What did they do wrong? Oh yeah, forgot....

 

[Anonymous]

Though neither do they help in indicating their possible solutions.

If you don't believe that people can condition other's lives, then there is nothing to explain how, for example, Western Civilization had been able to move from le trois estates of a class dominated culture to the democratic State: and thus from the Rex who was "invested" with a divine right to power toward a so-called people's government (how popular it has actually become, though, is a matter of debate). Nontheless a true revolutionary spirit, which, by the way, was led by philosophers and critical thinkers who allowed themselves to go beyond that "reality we all see," had caused millions to litterally rise up and rage against the machine. And this paved the way for the creation of that constitutional State based on social equality before the law and civil rights (though perhaps not quite enough civil responsibilities), which has allowed, for better or for worse, our world to have witnessed over the last two centuries or so the unprecedented progresses it had.

In fact the whole history of civilization has been one of periodic revolutions in which people have conditioned other peoples lives to effect change, though not always positively of course. It's what caused the ancient Atheneans to invent democracy, the ancient Romans to oust their last Etruscan overlord and set up the Republic (res publica) and the humanitarian beliefs of the Christian sect to ultimately triumph over the pagan cults of Classical Antiquity. All the while people conditioning other people. It additionally inspired Italian merchants (and others throughout Europe as well) to create a new politically invested class of upwardly mobile non-aristocrats to, at the end of the Middle Ages, defeat their feudal overloards and so begin to propel our culture into the early modern period. And this eventually begot the Enlightenment (again driven by philosophers), which begot the Scientific Revolution, which paved the way toward the Constitutional State, industrialization and, ultimately, raised new issues regarding human rights, which ended slavery in America and gave rise to the XIX century socialist ideologies of which the last word has not yet been said, etcetera.

By the way I don't disagree with your argument that some personal responsibilty is needed for social advancement, I'm just not in accord with the idea that that doesn't need to also be accompanied by considerable assistance from the society with a patrimony. Investing in the ghetto, in other words, is absolutley necessary.

That philosphical thinking has conditioned social evolution and human history to such a marked degree, still allows me to find, as the imprisoned Boethius once found (and wrote about), consolation in it. Whereas there is every reason to be optomistic about how such philosophies might yet again lead to new possibilities to the ways in which society behaves and solutions to the troubles which afflict it.

Here is the thing, my proposal is revolutionary in the direct sense of the word. Revolution does not always involve raging against the machine. In fact, I would suggest that rage is counterproductive to actual substantive change. Look at Gandhi, what did they do? They protested (peacefully), but they also went to the sea and started a salt market outside of the dictates of the British.

I truly believe that economic independence is the most logical and effective way to enact the change the African American community seeks. It in itself is a revolutionary change because it differs completely from the current model. Revolution does not always have to involve raging against anything. Sometimes it can come from using the tools within a system in a way that they have not been used before.

 

[rhubroma]

Here is the thing, my proposal is revolutionary in the direct sense of the word. Revolution does not always involve raging against the machine. In fact, I would suggest that rage is counterproductive to actual substantive change. Look at Gandhi, what did they do? They protested (peacefully), but they also went to the sea and started a salt market outside of the dictates of the British.

I truly believe that economic independence is the most logical and effective way to enact the change the African American community seeks. It in itself is a revolutionary change because it differs completely from the current model. Revolution does not always have to involve raging against anything. Sometimes it can come from using the tools within a system in a way that they have not been used before.

Though this does not eliminate the necessity, at times, to rage against...

To the contrary there were/are momments that for substansive change to have occured it was absolutely necessary, just as it was for those who were told in their abject misery to simply: "let them eat cake."

In any case the democratic and capitalist revolutions, while they have offered a means for more people in the advanced world, who are, by the way, a shameful minority (and so not elsewhere), to have a better economic and material prospect: they have also arising from a convergence of developments, long-term and short, pervading the social order; led to massive inequalities and injustices on an unprecedented global scale and thus rendering much of it dysfunctional and dystopian. Having been to sub-Sahara Africa recently such dysfunctionalism manifested in the relationship between the "haves" and the "have nots" of this world was painfully aparent. In the system's desire for greater acrued wealth in the homeland, no means of foreign expolitation has been left unexplored.

Nor have they within the mother cultures seen to an atrophying of the weak classes, which such a massive increase in collective wealth should have brought about. Again, to the contrary, the mechanisms placed into effect having to do with an economic system that weaves implacable and destructive conflict into its production and distribution of goods and wealth, has led to an ever growing impoverished or nearly impoverished social segment.

My reference to the "ghettoization" of the American city, which began in the 1950's and especially 1960's, is only one symptom of the crisis. The underlying disease is the modus operandi of an unregulated capitalism and democracy without social identity, which is how the country operates.

The reference to black America only allows us to see what disastrous effects the system can produce when it is also accompanied by a historical racism. However, poverty itself, naturally, transcends skin color and ethnic background. And rationally and philosophically it can not be made to whither in such a system without a revolutionary approach as to how that system is to function, which, in its present form, is totally predicated upon the generation of wealth without considering how that wealth (what I call patrimony) might be more equitably distributed.

Individual responsibility alone can not lead to the economic independence of which you speak, on the massive scale that it is needed, within the way capitalism under its present form operates. This is where the Social State might proove more advantages than the absence of one, in regards to appeasing that social unrest which inevitably leads to raging against the machine when it has reached a limit of unsupportability.

Historically it has always been the case that only under brutal physical force, and therefore not swayed by the force of reason, which has made those who hold a monopoly on the patrimony give something of it up to those who share none of it. Yet it is the force of reason that should ultimately be the objective, not violence, in regards to the creation of - if not a perfectly functioning - a system that at least works better than the terribly dysfunctiong one we have currently. It may not be entirely true that to solve the problem we need to "pour money into ghetto," though it is also a fact that without some of that patrimony arriving where it is needed the weak will not be able to pull themselves along entirely.

In terms of how irrationally we have always behaved, though, at the same time have been made to be aware of it (which is itself a call to reform): I would suggest reading In Praise of Folly by Erasmus of Rotterdam.

The real revolution is just that, namely overcoming our own folly and thus the base and self-serving instincts which have always prevailed over reason in the way society has worked. And we have no excuse that there have not been those noble voices of reform who have indicated a new path. We have just choosen to stay on the more convenient one we have been taking.

So that's my thing...

 

[Anonymous]

Though this does not eliminate the necessity, at times, to rage against...

To the contrary there were/are momments that for substansive change to have occured it was absolutely necessary, just as it was for those who were told in their abject misery to simply: "let them eat cake."

In any case the democratic and capitalist revolutions, while they have offered a means for more people in the advanced world, who are, by the way, a shameful minority (and so not elsewhere), to have a better economic and material prospect: they have also arising from a convergence of developments, long-term and short, pervading the social order; led to massive inequalities and injustices on an unprecedented global scale and thus rendering much of it dysfunctional and dystopian. Having been to sub-Sahara Africa recently such dysfunctionalism manifested in the relationship between the "haves" and the "have nots" of this world was painfully aparent. In the system's desire for greater acrued wealth in the homeland, no means of foreign expolitation has been left unexplored.

Nor have they within the mother cultures seen to an atrophying of the weak classes, which such a massive increase in collective wealth should have brought about. Again, to the contrary, the mechanisms placed into effect having to do with an economic system that weaves implacable and destructive conflict into its production and distribution of goods and wealth, has led to an ever growing impoverished or nearly impoverished social segment.

My reference to the "ghettoization" of the American city, which began in the 1950's and especially 1960's, is only one symptom of the crisis. The underlying disease is the modus operandi of an unregulated capitalism and democracy without social identity, which is how the country operates.

The reference to black America only allows us to see what disastrous effects the system can produce when it is also accompanied by a historical racism. However, poverty itself, naturally, transcends skin color and ethnic background. And rationally and philosophically it can not be made to whither in such a system without a revolutionary approach as to how that system is to function, which, in its present form, is totally predicated upon the generation of wealth without considering how that wealth (what I call patrimony) might be more equitably distributed.

Individual responsibility alone can not lead to the economic independence of which you speak, on the massive scale that it is needed, within the way capitalism under its present form operates. This is where the Social State might proove more advantages than the absence of one, in regards to appeasing that social unrest which inevitably leads to raging against the machine when it has reached a limit of unsupportability.

Historically it has always been the case that only under brutal physical force, and therefore not swayed by the force of reason, which has made those who hold a monopoly on the patrimony give something of it up to those who share none of it. Yet it is the force of reason that should ultimately be the objective, not violence, in regards to the creation of - if not a perfectly functioning - a system that at least works better than the terribly dysfunctiong one we have currently. It may not be entirely true that to solve the problem we need to "pour money into ghetto," though it is also a fact that without some of that patrimony arriving where it is needed the weak will not be able to pull themselves along entirely.

In terms of how irrationally we have always behaved, though, at the same time have been made to be aware of it (which is itself a call to reform): I would suggest reading In Praise of Folly by Erasmus of Rotterdam.

The real revolution is just that, namely overcoming our own folly and thus the base and self-serving instincts which have always prevailed over reason in the way society has worked. And we have no excuse that there have not been those noble voices of reform who have indicated a new path. We have just choosen to stay on the more convenient one we have been taking.

So that's my thing...

I do not disagree with anything you wrote. The scale of my posts are much more narrow than the effects of Capitalism on the whole of the world's populace. This all began with my assertion that the welfare programs of the 1960's were insufficient to improve greatly the plight of the African American community. I do not believe the philosophical basis from which it sprang was coherent, nor comprehensive enough to affect real change. And my proof is where we sit now.

As to the machine of Capitalism chewing up resources and people in an never ending effort to create more capital for less than a tenth of the population of the earth, I agree completely. That small slice of humanity has no equal in power or wealth in history. It is terrifying in many ways because in reality, there is no way to fight all of it at once, and even if there were a downfall of part of them, their wealth would only be transferred within the economic stratosphere they inhabit, and would never make its way back to 99.99% of the population of the earth. Maybe we should have let the banks fail, and seen if Paulson was correct when he surmised that it would have led to the disappearance of almost all of the wealth on the planet. It would have been interesting to see from an academic standpoint, but most likely not that fun for anyone to live through. I guess we will never know? What we do know from it is that the wealth of the top 1% will be protected at all costs, be it money or blood. As much as it would be great to fight that kind of power and wealth, it isn't possible. The game is already rigged in my estimation, and I therefore must live within that reality as best I can. I firmly believe that it will take a natural disaster of unimaginable proportion to dislodge us from our current path.

Because that is the reality that affects my philosophical path, I can continue to grind against the stone fortress, quit fighting at all, or find something in the middle. I have chosen the middle path, and I am okay with that. I fight the battles I can in terms of personal action with the knowledge that the effect is minimal, but that the morals that guide that action are honest and real. I just cannot change the world. I can only change my attitude and actions, and I continually seek to refine them as I grow older. I don't have the choice to vote for honesty. I cannot stop other people from buying clothing made by children in cities with no running water. I cannot change the way others work and act in the world. I can however choose to act purposefully regarding those things I am aware of, and capable of making a change in relation to. That will not solve my city, state, country, or planets problems. It does however give me a sense of purpose, and the knowledge that I am making the only real difference I can. I will never be president, or a senator, or a congressman, or a leader of a movement. So I act in a way that allows me to sleep at night, and know that is the only real power I have. However, that power is one in which I know my soul is not owned by anyone but me, and that cannot be taken away by any wealth or power unless I freely give it, and today I choose not to.

I wish there were a unifying theory at the point of convergence of the rays of the differing philosophies that guide people. However, those rays may or may not intersect, and never intersect at the same point. Decision makers will always then be limited in the scope and effectiveness of their policy regarding anything. The best they can do is ineffectiveness, and that will never change. Because of that, I believe that personal responsibility is a much needed attribute. Yes, there will need to be help from a larger entity, but for the human spirit and will, there is no more powerful position than to enact the change available to you with the knowledge that you did what you could do, not what you wish you could do. I may be different than most, but I find that when I sit and philosophize over the larger picture, I can become frozen because I see no action available to change the larger wrong. When I instead accept the larger problem as being too large for me to fix and inherent to a system I did not create, and will not bring down, and move instead to the actions that are available to me, I am content. If everyone did the same we still wouldn't be where I think we should because we all do not proceed from the same point. If the world worked the way I wanted it to, I would be happy, but I don't know if you would. Maybe it isn't my job to be king of the world?

 

[ChrisE]

Lance armstrong for president.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Lance armstrong for president.

You can kinda tell that ChrisE's attention wanes if he has to read more that a few sentances, no matter how well written.

 

[ravens]

Lance armstrong for president.

I think it is a pretty well established trend that people from entertainment and sports find politics to be in the career path.

What does that say about our society?

 

[Hugh Januss]

I think it is a pretty well established trend that people from entertainment and sports find politics to be in the career path.

What does that say about our society?

I think it says we are phucked.

Edit: What do you mean "Entertainment and Sports".

 

[rhubroma]

I do not disagree with anything you wrote. The scale of my posts are much more narrow than the effects of Capitalism on the whole of the world's populace. This all began with my assertion that the welfare programs of the 1960's were insufficient to improve greatly the plight of the African American community. I do not believe the philosophical basis from which it sprang was coherent, nor comprehensive enough to affect real change. And my proof is where we sit now.

As to the machine of Capitalism chewing up resources and people in an never ending effort to create more capital for less than a tenth of the population of the earth, I agree completely. That small slice of humanity has no equal in power or wealth in history. It is terrifying in many ways because in reality, there is no way to fight all of it at once, and even if there were a downfall of part of them, their wealth would only be transferred within the economic stratosphere they inhabit, and would never make its way back to 99.99% of the population of the earth. Maybe we should have let the banks fail, and seen if Paulson was correct when he surmised that it would have led to the disappearance of almost all of the wealth on the planet. It would have been interesting to see from an academic standpoint, but most likely not that fun for anyone to live through. I guess we will never know? What we do know from it is that the wealth of the top 1% will be protected at all costs, be it money or blood. As much as it would be great to fight that kind of power and wealth, it isn't possible. The game is already rigged in my estimation, and I therefore must live within that reality as best I can. I firmly believe that it will take a natural disaster of unimaginable proportion to dislodge us from our current path.

Because that is the reality that affects my philosophical path, I can continue to grind against the stone fortress, quit fighting at all, or find something in the middle. I have chosen the middle path, and I am okay with that. I fight the battles I can in terms of personal action with the knowledge that the effect is minimal, but that the morals that guide that action are honest and real. I just cannot change the world. I can only change my attitude and actions, and I continually seek to refine them as I grow older. I don't have the choice to vote for honesty. I cannot stop other people from buying clothing made by children in cities with no running water. I cannot change the way others work and act in the world. I can however choose to act purposefully regarding those things I am aware of, and capable of making a change in relation to. That will not solve my city, state, country, or planets problems. It does however give me a sense of purpose, and the knowledge that I am making the only real difference I can. I will never be president, or a senator, or a congressman, or a leader of a movement. So I act in a way that allows me to sleep at night, and know that is the only real power I have. However, that power is one in which I know my soul is not owned by anyone but me, and that cannot be taken away by any wealth or power unless I freely give it, and today I choose not to.

I wish there were a unifying theory at the point of convergence of the rays of the differing philosophies that guide people. However, those rays may or may not intersect, and never intersect at the same point. Decision makers will always then be limited in the scope and effectiveness of their policy regarding anything. The best they can do is ineffectiveness, and that will never change. Because of that, I believe that personal responsibility is a much needed attribute. Yes, there will need to be help from a larger entity, but for the human spirit and will, there is no more powerful position than to enact the change available to you with the knowledge that you did what you could do, not what you wish you could do. I may be different than most, but I find that when I sit and philosophize over the larger picture, I can become frozen because I see no action available to change the larger wrong. When I instead accept the larger problem as being too large for me to fix and inherent to a system I did not create, and will not bring down, and move instead to the actions that are available to me, I am content. If everyone did the same we still wouldn't be where I think we should because we all do not proceed from the same point. If the world worked the way I wanted it to, I would be happy, but I don't know if you would. Maybe it isn't my job to be king of the world?

Fair enough TFF...

The world simply needs more visionaries, and on that note, for anybody that cares: if you happen to be in Rome anytime before the 13th of June there is an awsome exhibition on Caravaggio at the Scuderie on the Quirinal Hill....now he, yes, was a visionary.

Cheers

 

[TRDean]

I have an honest question for both TFF and rhubroma...this is meant in no disrespect to you folks...but you both seem to come off a little, if not a lot "high and mighty". I mean it seems like you are trying to convince everyone that you are morally superior to everyone else? You both write very well...and it appears that you both have read and studied quite a bit of philosophy and political science, but let me say, as a biochemist with two children, a mortgage, and a very full life...the best thing that I can do to make the world a better place is to raise my kids to be educated, compassionate, and good human beings. I think if everyone started small and did just that you both might just have that "revolution" you are railing so hard to start.

So anyway, while I won't be able to get to Rome any time soon, and I'm sure that Caravaggio was a visionary I do wish you both the best in your drive for change.

 

[ChrisE]

You can kinda tell that ChrisE's attention wanes if he has to read more that a few sentances, no matter how well written.

It's not that my attention wanes; all this high-powered educational type talk hurts my head. I don't need more stuff hurting my head.

For some reason, Maxim started sending me magazines in the mail last month. I think I can use that to balance the last few pages of this thread out.

 

[Anonymous]

I have an honest question for both TFF and rhubroma...this is meant in no disrespect to you folks...but you both seem to come off a little, if not a lot "high and mighty". I mean it seems like you are trying to convince everyone that you are morally superior to everyone else? You both write very well...and it appears that you both have read and studied quite a bit of philosophy and political science, but let me say, as a biochemist with two children, a mortgage, and a very full life...the best thing that I can do to make the world a better place is to raise my kids to be educated, compassionate, and good human beings. I think if everyone started small and did just that you both might just have that "revolution" you are railing so hard to start.

So anyway, while I won't be able to get to Rome any time soon, and I'm sure that Caravaggio was a visionary I do wish you both the best in your drive for change.

I understand what you are saying, but as I have always said, I will not pretend I do not possess the knowledge and understanding I have gained through study simply because some may perceive me to be "high and mighty" or "elitist." I read books and I will not apologize for that. That does not mean that I believe I have THE answer to the world's problems. I have a philosophy that works for me, and I don't know if it would work for you? In fact, it has nothing to do with you or anyone else. I don't live other people's lives. I just have opinions like everyone else, and live accordingly. If it seems I am trying to be "morally superior" then I would suggest that any striving for greater morality and understanding in ones life would be classed as such. I guess I am trying to be morally superior to the person I was yesterday if only by a tenth of a degree. I don't see the problem with that.

As to the raising of my children. I do precisely what you suggest. I am more focused on being a good father and husband than any other pursuit in my life, and while not perfect by any stretch, I do believe I succeed in that endeavor.

 

[TRDean]

I understand what you are saying, but as I have always said, I will not pretend I do not possess the knowledge and understanding I have gained through study simply because some may perceive me to be "high and mighty" or "elitist." I read books and I will not apologize for that. That does not mean that I believe I have THE answer to the world's problems. I have a philosophy that works for me, and I don't know if it would work for you? In fact, it has nothing to do with you or anyone else. I don't live other people's lives. I just have opinions like everyone else, and live accordingly. If it seems I am trying to be "morally superior" then I would suggest that any striving for greater morality and understanding in ones life would be classed as such. I guess I am trying to be morally superior to the person I was yesterday if only by a tenth of a degree. I don't see the problem with that.

As to the raising of my children. I do precisely what you suggest. I am more focused on being a good father and husband than any other pursuit in my life, and while not perfect by any stretch, I do believe I succeed in that endeavor.

See the issue is really how others are treated in these "debates"..and I use the term loosly because this is a cycling forum and not filled with political thinkers. I am very conservative financially...and tend to be conservative socially...however, I am not a regular church goer or listener to the radio talkshows that I hear about on here. All I can do is go off my history...and that is one of self improvement...I was not given anything and come from very modest beginnings. And what I have become I am very proud of and will not apologize for. The problem I have with debating any of these points is that people as a rule (not speaking of you) take opposing arguments very personally. It is a fault really. I dare say there are many on here who would (and may) hate me because of the way I believe. That is their problem and not mine.

I have watched these arguments on here from afar...not wanting to get too involved. Yours and rhubroma dialogue has been pretty interesting and insightful.

Since I am rambling I will just add one more thought...all of these theories and thoughts of a better world are great...but they all lack a central piece of the puzzle...humans are animals and like it or not survival of the fittest will always play a part. As we have advanced in society we have eliminated a lot of the survival that we used to use/need as a species. Why do we race bicycles? Play sports? To be the best...survival instinct being shown in a competitive manner. Same with capitalism...survival....

I am not saying it is right or not...but whenever there is a goal in front of humanity...there are going to be those who will do whatever it takes to achieve it. The human condition (or maybe the animal/biological condition) is always going to be part of the equation.

 

[rhubroma]

I have an honest question for both TFF and rhubroma...this is meant in no disrespect to you folks...but you both seem to come off a little, if not a lot "high and mighty". I mean it seems like you are trying to convince everyone that you are morally superior to everyone else? You both write very well...and it appears that you both have read and studied quite a bit of philosophy and political science, but let me say, as a biochemist with two children, a mortgage, and a very full life...the best thing that I can do to make the world a better place is to raise my kids to be educated, compassionate, and good human beings. I think if everyone started small and did just that you both might just have that "revolution" you are railing so hard to start.

So anyway, while I won't be able to get to Rome any time soon, and I'm sure that Caravaggio was a visionary I do wish you both the best in your drive for change.

Normally I don't respond to provocations of a personal nature in debates such as these, though I take it yours was coming from a sincere perspective without intention to offend.

Each of course has his own intellectual/cultural background and communicates his ideas as he deems fit. I have always believed that there is nothing wrong with aspiring to a high standard, whether it be on the bike or in writing down one's point of view, byworking toward the realization of a certain level of attainment in these endeavours. And I have always harbored a great admiration for those who have instructed me, or whose style and class in how they think and communicate their ideas has been immensely insightful to me. For those that know me my working class background keeps me grounded, however. Though for me it basically boils down to an aesthetic issue, but also one of decorum.

For these reasons I also disdain the present American popular culture that says if one is too "intellectual," then he or she can't be in touch with the every day Joe's needs and problems. And this has led to a general atrophying of critical thinking within the society, which has resulted in far too many US schools doing little justice to the American youth, where corporate technologies and standardized tests have replaced actually teaching critical thought. A corolary to all of this is found in the often apallingly elementary level of so much of the nation's journalism and a political discourse that must be taken down to the lowest common denominator for everybody to feel in touch, which has been epitomized in the oratory of George Bush who has thus become the phenomenon's leading exponent. This is also why GW's antithesis, Obama, has been derogitorily branded an intellectual by his political enemies.

I realize that mine is a perspective from having lived in Europe for quite some time, where in the journalism and political discourse a certain level of sophistication is usually maintained. Though not for this do most Europeans view it as snobish pretense, because they have been tought to expect that journalists and public officials communicate their ideas with a certain class and knowledge base (or at least pretend to do so). Whereas here the offense would be just the opposite, namely if they didn't maintain such an appropriate decorum. It is also a means for the society to not teach down to the lowest common denominator. And for none of this, having chosen to live where I do and work toward thinking and communicating within the expectations of a certain cutural background, do I need to make apologies.

But to address the issue you brought up, namely that I was consciously trying to be "high and mighty," well, all I can say is that I was just communicating as my inclinations and cultural background have led me. If that makes me "high and mighty" for you, I suppose you have your reasons (which perhaps you should analyze). But I have often percieved that those that do feel "talked down to," are simply suffering from a sence of inadequacy. Though I'm sure this isn't the case for a biochemist such as yourself.

Lastly as to the moral superiority thing, I detest the moralists about as much as I do social injustice and intellectual dishonesty. I don't have any reason to feel morally superior to just about anybody but rapists and serial killers. If mine seemed to be coming from a "moral high ground," perhaps that just has to do with the nature of my world view, which, if anything, tries to be objectively in line with my belief in social justice and intellectual honesty.

Peace.

 

[TRDean]

Normally I don't respond to provocations of a personal nature in debates such as these, though I take it yours was coming from a sincere perspective without intention to offend.

Each of course has his own intellectual/cultural background and communicates his ideas as he deems fit. I have always believed that there is nothing wrong with aspiring to a high standard, whether it be on the bike or in writing down one's point of view, byworking toward the realization of a certain level of attainment in these endevours. And I have always harbored a great admiration for those who have instructed me, or whose style and class in how they think and communicate their ideas has been imensely insightful to me. My working class background keeps me grounded, however. Though for me it basically boils down to an aesthetic issue, but also one of decorum.

For these reasons I also disdain the present American popular culture that says if one is too "intellectual," then he or she can't be in touch with the every day Joe's needs and problems. And this has led to a general atrophying of critical thinking within the society, which has resulted in far too many US schools doing little justice to the American youth, where corporate technologies and standardized tests have replaced actually teaching critical thought. A corolary to all of this is found in the often apallingly elementary level of so much of the nation's journalism and a political discourse that must be taken down to the lowest common denominator for everybody to feel in touch, which has been epitomized in the oratory of George Bush who has thus become the phenomenon's leading exponent. This is also why GW's antithesis, Obama, has been derogitorily branded an intellectual by his political enemies.

I realize that mine is a perspective from having lived in Europe for quite some time, where in the journalism and political discourse a certain level of sophistication is usually maintained. Though not for this do most Europeans view it as snobish pretense, because they have been tought to expect that journalists and public officials communicate their ideas with a certain class and knowledge base (or at least pretend to do so). Whereas here the offense would be just the opposite, namely if they didn't maintain such an appropriate decorum. It is also a means for the society to not teach down to the lowest common denominator. And for none of this, having chosen to live where I do and work toward thinking and communicating within the expectations of a certain cutural background, do I need to make apologies.

But to address the issue you brought up, namely that I was consciously trying to be "high and mighty," well, all I can say is that I was just communicating as my inclinations and cultural background have led me. If that makes me "high and mighty" for you, I suppose you have your reasons (which perhaps you should analyze). But I have often percieved that those that do feel "talked down to," are simply suffering from a sence of inadequacy. Though I'm sure this isn't the case for a biochemist such as yourself.

Lastly as to the moral superiority thing, I detest the moralists about as much as I do social injustice and intellectual dishonesty. I don't have any reason to feel morally superior to just about anybody but rapists and serial killers. If mine seemed to be coming from a "moral high ground," perhaps that just has to do with the nature of my world view, which, if anything, tries to be objectively in line with my belief in social justice and intellectual honesty.

Peace.

Thanks for the clarification! I will continue to read and learn of others thoughs and feelings.

All the best!

 

[ihavenolimbs]

Same with capitalism...survival....

This argument is often used to rationalise one's actions. But the opposite is true, poor people generally have more kids. Capitalism is selecting for poverty (and mediocrity?).