>
Patriots Planet - New England Patriots Forums and Message Boards

Home Members List Top Posters Arcade Casino Toolbar
Go Back   Patriots Planet - New England Patriots Forums and Message Boards > The Razor > Politics and Religion Forum
Mark Forums Read rel="nofollow">Mark Forums Read
Register All Albums FAQDonate Calendar

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-01-2018, 10:29 PM   #16
johnlocke
Registered User
 
johnlocke's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Concord, NH
Posts: 4,726
Posting Frequency


Casino cash: $818120
My Mood


johnlocke has been touched by his noodly appendagejohnlocke has been touched by his noodly appendage
johnlocke has been touched by his noodly appendagejohnlocke has been touched by his noodly appendagejohnlocke has been touched by his noodly appendagejohnlocke has been touched by his noodly appendagejohnlocke has been touched by his noodly appendagejohnlocke has been touched by his noodly appendagejohnlocke has been touched by his noodly appendagejohnlocke has been touched by his noodly appendagejohnlocke has been touched by his noodly appendagejohnlocke has been touched by his noodly appendagejohnlocke has been touched by his noodly appendagejohnlocke has been touched by his noodly appendagejohnlocke has been touched by his noodly appendage
I couldn't link it. But here is yesterday's article.

"THE EMPEROR'S WOKE CLOTHES" -- an important article, in which Wesley Yang asks: "How did an elite, repressive minority policing speech and culture through political correctness come to browbeat the American democratic majority?" Because it IS, in fact, a tiny minority of Thought Police -- according to a huge national survey Yang cites -- that's intimidating the overwhelming majority that represents all demographic groups. Who is in this minority?

"The only group within which a majority of respondents do not regard political correctness as a problem are those that the study characterizes as 'progressive activists,' a category that comprises 8 percent of the country. Only 30 percent of this group considers political correctness to be a problem.

“'Compared with the rest of the (nationally representative) polling sample,' [political scientist Yascha] Mounk writes,

"'progressive activists are much more likely to be rich, highly educated—and white. They are nearly twice as likely as the average to make more than $100,000 a year. They are nearly three times as likely to have a postgraduate degree. And while 12 percent of the overall sample in the study is African-American, only 3 percent of progressive activists are. With the exception of the small tribe of devoted conservatives, progressive activists are the most racially homogeneous group in the country.'

"The extent to which this finding might surprise you is a measure of how close you are to either elite. It is also a measure of how successfully the toxic rhetoric of warring elite cliques has gaslighted you into submitting to a narrative that is brazenly false. The findings are disquieting because they show by implication the power of that false narrative. It reveals the extent to which the overwhelming will of the majority can be continually frustrated by wildly unrepresentative, power-seeking elite factions that increasingly occupy critical chokepoints within media, educational, nonprofit, legal, government, and corporate bureaucracies. For that is what political correctness really is—a symptom of a large disorder which the vast majority of Americans of all races and creeds regard as a problem."

So, how DO this tiny minority manage to exercise that kind of social, cultural, and political control? Yang's allusion to "the power of [a] false narrative" comes tantalizingly close. For by wielding that narrative like a moral cudgel, progressive activists...

"... benefit from what social psychologists have termed 'the false enforcement of unpopular norms,' a phrase that describes the tendency, as observed in both experimental settings and in the wider world, of widespread conformance to unpopular norms out of social pressure, and the accompanying desire to signal the genuineness of one’s conviction by out-competing all others in zealous enforcement of norms in which they do not themselves believe."

Left unraised -- hence, unanswered -- by the article are the questions: What IS that "narrative"? WHY does it hold so much power over the majority, causing them to feel morally intimidated into compliance with it -- even to "out-compete all others in zealous enforcement of norms in which they do not themselves believe?" Is there something in that "narrative" that disarms the majority, leaving them helpless before the demands and impositions from a "wildly unrepresentative, power-seeking elite"?

Honest grappling with those questions will lead to disquieting conclusions -- including confronting the cultural sources and wellsprings of that toxic "narrative." The victimized majority may find, to their excruciating anguish, that they have bought into the "moral" lessons of false and dangerous, but timeless and seminal, cultural myths and fairy tales that are cynically exploited against them by ruthless power seekers.

Read the article in its entirety and grapple with those questions yourself.

(Hat tip to Robert Tracinski for quoting from the piece extensively today in his subscriber newsletter.)



Sent from my SM-S327VL using Tapatalk
__________________
It says right on the Red Bull can, "Do not mix with alcohol". What do we do? We make Jager Bombs. We are not a species meant to last.
  johnlocke is online now Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2018, 08:30 AM   #17
Baron Samedi
Russian Bot 762X54R
 
Baron Samedi's Avatar
 

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Framingham
Posts: 25,594
Posting Frequency


Casino cash: $406175
My Mood


Baron Samedi should have their picture on moneyBaron Samedi should have their picture on moneyBaron Samedi should have their picture on moneyBaron Samedi should have their picture on money
Baron Samedi should have their picture on moneyBaron Samedi should have their picture on moneyBaron Samedi should have their picture on moneyBaron Samedi should have their picture on moneyBaron Samedi should have their picture on money
Mises yesterday posted something from one of my heros, one of my idols, a God in the world of the Baron....one of the 3 truly great minds of the 20th Century...

What the State Is Not
[From Anatomy of the State (1974).]

The State is almost universally considered an institution of social service. Some theorists venerate the State as the apotheosis of society; others regard it as an amiable, though often inefficient, organization for achieving social ends; but almost all regard it as a necessary means for achieving the goals of mankind, a means to be ranged against the "private sector" and often winning in this competition of resources. With the rise of democracy, the identification of the State with society has been redoubled, until it is common to hear sentiments expressed which violate virtually every tenet of reason and common sense such as, "we are the government." The useful collective term "we" has enabled an ideological camouflage to be thrown over the reality of political life. If "we are the government," then anything a government does to an individual is not only just and untyrannical but also "voluntary" on the part of the individual concerned. If the government has incurred a huge public debt which must be paid by taxing one group for the benefit of another, this reality of burden is obscured by saying that "we owe it to ourselves"; if the government conscripts a man, or throws him into jail for dissident opinion, then he is "doing it to himself" and, therefore, nothing untoward has occurred. Under this reasoning, any Jews murdered by the Nazi government were not murdered; instead, they must have "committed suicide," since they were the government (which was democratically chosen), and, therefore, anything the government did to them was voluntary on their part. One would not think it necessary to belabor this point, and yet the overwhelming bulk of the people hold this fallacy to a greater or lesser degree.

We must, therefore, emphasize that "we" are not the government; the government is not "us." The government does not in any accurate sense "represent" the majority of the people.1 But, even if it did, even if 70 percent of the people decided to murder the remaining 30 percent, this would still be murder and would not be voluntary suicide on the part of the slaughtered minority.2 No organicist metaphor, no irrelevant bromide that "we are all part of one another," must be permitted to obscure this basic fact.

If, then, the State is not "us," if it is not "the human family" getting together to decide mutual problems, if it is not a lodge meeting or country club, what is it? Briefly, the State is that organization in society which attempts to maintain a monopoly of the use of force and violence in a given territorial area; in particular, it is the only organization in society that obtains its revenue not by voluntary contribution or payment for services rendered but by coercion. While other individuals or institutions obtain their income by production of goods and services and by the peaceful and voluntary sale of these goods and services to others, the State obtains its revenue by the use of compulsion; that is, by the use and the threat of the jailhouse and the bayonet.3 Having used force and violence to obtain its revenue, the State generally goes on to regulate and dictate the other actions of its individual subjects. One would think that simple observation of all States through history and over the globe would be proof enough of this assertion; but the miasma of myth has lain so long over State activity that elaboration is necessary.

1. We cannot, in this chapter, develop the many problems and fallacies of "democracy." Suffice it to say here that an individual's true agent or "representative" is always subject to that individual's orders, can be dismissed at any time and cannot act contrary to the interests or wishes of his principal. Clearly, the "representative" in a democracy can never fulfill such agency functions, the only ones consonant with a libertarian society.

2. Social democrats often retort that democracy—majority choice of rulers logically implies that the majority must leave certain freedoms to the minority, for the minority might one day become the majority. Apart from other flaws, this argument obviously does not hold where the minority cannot become the majority, for example, when the minority is of a different racial or ethnic group from the majority.

3. Joseph A. Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy (New York: Harper and Bros., 1942), p. 198. The friction or antagonism between the private and the public sphere was intensified from the first by the fact that . . . the State has been living on a revenue which was being produced in the private sphere for private purposes and had to be deflected from these purposes by political force. The theory which construes taxes on the analogy of club dues or of the purchase of the service of, say, a doctor only proves how far removed this part of the social sciences is from scientific habits of mind. Also see Murray N. Rothbard, "The Fallacy of the 'Public Sector,"' New Individualist Review (Summer, 1961): 3ff.


https://mises.org/wire/what-state-not
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaric View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by benhamean View Post
Who is this self-important instigating douche-bag, anyway?
Dude, Baron has been a valued member of this forum for quite some time.
Peace, Prosperity, Liberty, Human Rights, Natural Rights, Civil Rights, Property Rights, Sound Money, Free Markets, Sovereignty, the Constitution, the Republic.

“Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won. So I think on that one I trump you.”
  Baron Samedi is offline Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2018, 11:41 AM   #18
subroc
Interested Observer
 
subroc's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 1,806
Posting Frequency


Casino cash: $87000


subroc really knows how to handle a Twizzler
subroc really knows how to handle a Twizzlersubroc really knows how to handle a Twizzlersubroc really knows how to handle a Twizzlersubroc really knows how to handle a Twizzlersubroc really knows how to handle a Twizzlersubroc really knows how to handle a Twizzlersubroc really knows how to handle a Twizzlersubroc really knows how to handle a Twizzler
Another reason to loathe the media.
link
Quote:
With Pelosi making nice, the White House press corps tries to lead The Resistance

By Post Editorial Board, November 7, 2018 | 7:45pm

Both House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi and President Trump offered a surprising amount of conciliation and sweet talk (albeit with some veiled warnings) the day after the split-decision midterms. Maybe that’s what inspired some in the White House press corps to try to seize leadership of The Resistance.

“The election’s over,” and “now everybody is in love,” the president declared.

No one expects the honeymoon to last long. Yet Pelosi, who’s likely to return as speaker, offered her own olive branch to Trump, citing her “responsibility to seek common ground when we can.”

Yes, she warned that Democrats “do not intend to abandon or relinquish” investigations of the administration. But she added, “that doesn’t mean we’ll go look for a fight.” Whether her members agree remains to be seen.

The president, in turn, warmly praised Pelosi, saying he, too, looks forward to negotiating “a beautiful bipartisan-type solution” to pressing issues.

Oh, he had his own warning: Aggressive congressional investigations will be met with a “warlike posture.” And “I’m better at that game than they are.”

There was no mixed message, though, at Trump’s long news conference, where some questioners outright berated him — and drew angry barbs in return.

“CNN should be ashamed of themselves, having you working from them,” he told Jim Acosta. “You are a rude, terrible person.” He had a point: Acosta showed no respect for Trump or his office during a protracted and often nasty exchange. Nor was he alone.

Persistence is one thing — indeed, it’s a reporter’s job. Repeatedly interrupting and debating and denigrating the president is something else entirely.

All this may go over big at the National Press Club, but it does no good for the Fourth Estate or for the nation. For Trump supporters and many moderates, it confirms the suspicion that the press has abandoned all objectivity.

When the president is playing nice with the opposition, it’s not the media’s job to poison the well.
__________________
Bill Parcells: "You are what your record says you are!"
Margaret Thatcher: "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples' money."
President Donald John Trump: "You don't hand matches to an arsonist and you don't give power to an angry left wing mob."

  subroc is offline Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2018, 11:55 AM   #19
Baron Samedi
Russian Bot 762X54R
 
Baron Samedi's Avatar
 

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Framingham
Posts: 25,594
Posting Frequency


Casino cash: $406175
My Mood


Baron Samedi should have their picture on moneyBaron Samedi should have their picture on moneyBaron Samedi should have their picture on moneyBaron Samedi should have their picture on money
Baron Samedi should have their picture on moneyBaron Samedi should have their picture on moneyBaron Samedi should have their picture on moneyBaron Samedi should have their picture on moneyBaron Samedi should have their picture on money
Wow...I can't believe this comes from the Toilet Paper of Record....

The Midterm Results Are a Warning to the Democrats
Stop manning imaginary barricades, and start building real bridges to the other America.

For months we’ve heard from sundry media apocalypticians that this year’s midterms were the last exit off the road to autocracy. On Tuesday, the American people delivered a less dramatic verdict about the significance of the occasion.

In a word: meh.

Are you interested in seeing Donald Trump voted out of office in two years? I hope so — which is why you should think hard about that “meh.” This week’s elections were, at most, a very modest rebuke of a president reviled by many of his opponents, this columnist included, as an unprecedented danger to the health of liberal democracy at home and abroad. The American people don’t entirely agree.

We might consider listening to them a bit more — and to ourselves somewhat less.

The 28-seat swing that gave Democrats control of the House wasn’t even half the 63 seats Republicans won in 2010. Yet even that shellacking (to use Barack Obama’s word) did nothing to help Mitt Romney’s chances two years later. The Republican gain in the Senate (the result in Arizona isn’t clear at this writing) was more predictable in a year when so many red-state Democrats were up for re-election. But it underscores what a non-wave election this was.

It also underscores that while “the Resistance” is good at generating lots of votes, it hasn’t figured out how to turn the votes into seats. Liberals are free to bellyache all they want that they have repeatedly won the overall popular vote for the presidency and Congress while still losing elections, and that the system is therefore “rigged.”

But that’s the system in which everyone’s playing — and one they had no trouble winning in until just a few years ago. To complain about it makes them sound like whiners in a manner reminiscent of Trump in 2016, when he thought he was going to lose. It’s also a reminder that, in politics, intensity is not strategy. You have to be able to convert.

The Resistance didn’t convert.

It didn’t convert when it nominated left-wing candidates in right-leaning states like Florida and Georgia. It didn’t convert when it poured its money into where its heart was — a lithesome Texas hopeful with scant chance of victory — rather than where the dollars were most needed. It didn’t convert when it grew more concerned with the question of how much Trump did not pay in taxes than with the question of how much you pay in taxes.

It didn’t convert when Chuck Schumer chose to make Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court the decisive political test of the year. It didn’t convert when it turned his initial confirmation hearing into a circus. It didn’t convert when media liberals repeatedly violated ordinary journalistic standards by reporting the uncorroborated accusations against Kavanaugh that followed Christine Blasey Ford’s.

Above all, it didn’t convert the unconverted.

It doesn’t take a lot to get the average voter to tell you what he doesn’t like about Donald Trump: the nastiness, the divisiveness, the lying, the tweeting, the chaos, the epic boastfulness matched by bottomless self-pity. As my colleague Frank Bruni has astutely observed, Trump is as transparent as they come: You don’t need a Ph.D. in psychology to know that the president is an insecure narcissist with daddy issues.

Then again, what does the average voter think about the people who pompously style themselves “the Resistance”? I don’t just mean the antifa thugs and restaurant hecklers and the Farrakhan Fan Club wing of the women’s movement, though that’s a part of it.
Editors’ Picks
Live U.S. House Election Results
Live U.S. Senate Election Results
The Election in Pictures

I mean the rest of the Trump despisers, the people who detest not only the man but also contemn his voters (and constantly let them know it); the ones who heard the words “basket of deplorables” and said to themselves: Bingo. They measure their moral worth not through an effort at understanding but by the intensity of their disdain. They are — so they think — always right, yet often surprised by events.

I was a charter member of this camp. Intellectual honesty ought to compel us to admit that we achieved precisely the opposite of what we intended. Trumpism is more entrenched today than ever. The result of the midterms means, if nothing else, that the president survived his first major political test more than adequately. And unless Democrats change, he should be seen as the odds-on favorite to win in 2020.

To repeat: I’d hate to see that happen. I want Trump, and Trumpism, to lose. But if the Resistance party doesn’t find a way to become a shrewder, humbler opposition party, that’s not going to happen. The day Democrats take charge in the House would be a good opportunity to stop manning imaginary barricades, and start building real bridges to the other America.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/08/o...democrats.html
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaric View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by benhamean View Post
Who is this self-important instigating douche-bag, anyway?
Dude, Baron has been a valued member of this forum for quite some time.
Peace, Prosperity, Liberty, Human Rights, Natural Rights, Civil Rights, Property Rights, Sound Money, Free Markets, Sovereignty, the Constitution, the Republic.

“Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won. So I think on that one I trump you.”
  Baron Samedi is offline Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2018, 03:04 PM   #20
tehmackdaddy
post tenebras lux
 
tehmackdaddy's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: IN the world, but not OF the world
Posts: 17,613
Posting Frequency


Casino cash: $429541
My Mood


tehmackdaddy should have their sex organs bronzed for posterity and put in a museumtehmackdaddy should have their sex organs bronzed for posterity and put in a museumtehmackdaddy should have their sex organs bronzed for posterity and put in a museum
tehmackdaddy should have their sex organs bronzed for posterity and put in a museumtehmackdaddy should have their sex organs bronzed for posterity and put in a museumtehmackdaddy should have their sex organs bronzed for posterity and put in a museumtehmackdaddy should have their sex organs bronzed for posterity and put in a museumtehmackdaddy should have their sex organs bronzed for posterity and put in a museumtehmackdaddy should have their sex organs bronzed for posterity and put in a museumtehmackdaddy should have their sex organs bronzed for posterity and put in a museumtehmackdaddy should have their sex organs bronzed for posterity and put in a museumtehmackdaddy should have their sex organs bronzed for posterity and put in a museumtehmackdaddy should have their sex organs bronzed for posterity and put in a museumtehmackdaddy should have their sex organs bronzed for posterity and put in a museum
Quote:
Hillary Will Run Again
Reinventing herself as a liberal firebrand, Mrs. Clinton will easily capture the 2020 nomination.
By Mark Penn and Andrew Stein
Nov. 11, 2018 2:13 p.m. ET


Get ready for Hillary Clinton 4.0. More than 30 years in the making, this new version of Mrs. Clinton, when she runs for president in 2020, will come full circle—back to the universal-health-care-promoting progressive firebrand of 1994. True to her name, Mrs. Clinton will fight this out until the last dog dies. She won’t let a little thing like two stunning defeats stand in the way of her claim to the White House.

It’s been quite a journey. In July 1999, Mrs. Clinton began her independent political career on retiring Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s farm in upstate New York. Her Senate platform included support for a balanced budget, the death penalty and incremental health-care reform. It was a decisive break from her early-1990s self. Hillary Clinton 2.0 was a moderate, building on the success of her communitarian “It Takes a Village” appeals and pledging to bring home the bacon for New York. She emphasized her religious background, voiced strong support for Israel, voted for the Iraq war, and took a hard line against Iran.

This was arguably the most successful version of Hillary Clinton. She captured the hearts and minds of New York’s voters and soared to an easy re-election in 2006, leaving Bill and all his controversies behind.

But Hillary 2.0 could not overcome Barack Obama, the instant press sensation. During the 2008 presidential campaign, Mrs. Clinton held fast to centrist positions that would have assured her victory in the general election. But progressive leaders and donors abandoned her for the antiwar Mr. Obama. Black voters who had been strong Clinton supporters in New York and Arkansas left her column to elect the first African-American president. History was made, but not by Mrs. Clinton. Though she won more delegates from Democratic primaries, activists in caucus states gave Mr. Obama, who had called her “likable enough,” the heartbreaking win.

Licking her wounds, Mrs. Clinton served as secretary of state while she planned her comeback. It was during this time that the more liberal Hillary 3.0 emerged. She believed she could never win a primary as a moderate, so she entered the 2016 primary as a progressive like Mr. Obama. Then she moved further left as Sen. Bernie Sanders came closer to derailing her nomination. This time she was able to contain her opponent’s support, crucially by bringing African-American voters into her camp.

But Mrs. Clinton’s transformation during the primaries, especially on social and cultural issues, cost her an easy win against Donald Trump. As Hillary 3.0 catered to the coastal elites who had eluded her in 2008, Mr. Trump stole many of the white working-class voters who might have been amenable to the previous version. Finally she had the full support of the New York Times and the other groups that had shunned her for Mr. Obama—but only at the cost of an unforeseen collapse in support in the Midwest.

Claims of a Russian conspiracy and the unfairness of the Electoral College shielded Mrs. Clinton from ever truly conceding she had lost. She was robbed, she told herself, yet again. But after two years of brooding—including at book length—Mrs. Clinton has come unbound. She will not allow this humiliating loss at the hands of an amateur to end the story of her career. You can expect her to run for president once again. Maybe not at first, when the legions of Senate Democrats make their announcements, but definitely by the time the primaries are in full swing.

Mrs. Clinton has a 75% approval rating among Democrats, an unfinished mission to be the first female president, and a personal grievance against Mr. Trump, whose supporters pilloried her with chants of “Lock her up!” This must be avenged.

Expect Hillary 4.0 to come out swinging. She has decisively to win those Iowa caucus-goers who have never warmed up to her. They will see her now as strong, partisan, left-leaning and all-Democrat—the one with the guts, experience and steely-eyed determination to defeat Mr. Trump. She has had two years to go over what she did wrong and how to take him on again.

Richard Nixon came back from his loss to John F. Kennedy in 1960 and won the presidency in 1968. He will be the model for winning again. Mrs. Clinton won’t travel the country in a van with Huma Abedin this time, doing small events and retail politics. Instead she will enter through the front door, mobilizing the army of professional women behind her, leveraging her social networks, and raking in donations. She will hope to emerge as an unstoppable force to undo Mr. Trump, running on the #MeToo movement, universal health care and gun control. Proud and independent, this time she will sideline Bill and Mr. Obama, limiting their role to fundraising.

The generation of Democrats who have been waiting to take over the party from the Clintons will be fuming that she is back and stealing their show. But they revealed themselves to be bungling amateurs in the Brett Kavanaugh nomination fight, with their laughable Spartacus moments. She will trounce them. Just as Mr. Trump cleared the field, Mrs. Clinton will take down rising Democratic stars like bowling pins. Mike Bloomberg will support her rather than run, and Joe Biden will never be able to take her on.

Don’t pay much attention to the “I won’t run” declarations. Mrs. Clinton knows both Mr. Clinton and Mr. Obama declared they weren’t running, until they ran. She may even skip Iowa and enter the race later, but rest assured that, one way or another, Hillary 4.0 is on the way.

Mr. Penn was a pollster and senior adviser to Bill and Hillary Clinton from 1995-2008. Mr. Stein is a former Democratic Manhattan borough president and president of the New York City Council.
__________________
"The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy."

-MLK Jr.
  tehmackdaddy is offline Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2018, 03:55 PM   #21
BostonTim
IIWII
 
BostonTim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 26,675
Posting Frequency


Casino cash: $1006263


BostonTim is a statwhoreBostonTim is a statwhoreBostonTim is a statwhore
BostonTim is a statwhoreBostonTim is a statwhoreBostonTim is a statwhoreBostonTim is a statwhoreBostonTim is a statwhoreBostonTim is a statwhoreBostonTim is a statwhoreBostonTim is a statwhoreBostonTim is a statwhore
Quote:
Originally Posted by tehmackdaddy View Post


Have at it I guess,
__________________
May your heart always be joyful
May your song always be sung
And may you stay forever young
-Bob Dylan
  BostonTim is online now Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2018, 12:25 PM   #22
tehmackdaddy
post tenebras lux
 
tehmackdaddy's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: IN the world, but not OF the world
Posts: 17,613
Posting Frequency


Casino cash: $429541
My Mood


tehmackdaddy should have their sex organs bronzed for posterity and put in a museumtehmackdaddy should have their sex organs bronzed for posterity and put in a museumtehmackdaddy should have their sex organs bronzed for posterity and put in a museum
tehmackdaddy should have their sex organs bronzed for posterity and put in a museumtehmackdaddy should have their sex organs bronzed for posterity and put in a museumtehmackdaddy should have their sex organs bronzed for posterity and put in a museumtehmackdaddy should have their sex organs bronzed for posterity and put in a museumtehmackdaddy should have their sex organs bronzed for posterity and put in a museumtehmackdaddy should have their sex organs bronzed for posterity and put in a museumtehmackdaddy should have their sex organs bronzed for posterity and put in a museumtehmackdaddy should have their sex organs bronzed for posterity and put in a museumtehmackdaddy should have their sex organs bronzed for posterity and put in a museumtehmackdaddy should have their sex organs bronzed for posterity and put in a museumtehmackdaddy should have their sex organs bronzed for posterity and put in a museum
Quote:
Smartphones raising a mentally fragile generation
November 13, 2018

San Diego State University psychology professor Jean Twenge sees smartphones and social media as raising an unhappy, compliant "iGen."

QUESTION: What is the iGen?

ANSWER: The iGen is the generation born in 1995 and later, and they're the first generation to spend their entire adolescence in the age of the smartphone. They spend a lot more time online, on social media and playing games, and they spend less time on non-screen activities like reading books, sleeping or seeing their friends in face-to-face interactions.

Those children are growing up more slowly. By the age of 18, they are less likely to have a driver's licence, to work in a paying job, to go out on dates, to drink alcohol or to go out without their parents compared to teens in previous generations.

So iGen's probably the safest generation in history and they like that idea of feeling safe.

Yet, they also have the sense that they are missing out on something. They realize that being on the phone all the time is probably not the best way to live. They don't like it when they're talking to a friend and their friend is looking at their phone.

Many of them have a recognition of the downsides of that type of living as well.

QUESTION: You have researched the behavior and health of millions of teenagers. What have you observed?

ANSWER: Around 2011 and 2012, I started to see more sudden changes to teens, like big increases of teens feeling lonely or left out, or that they could not do anything right, that their life was not useful, which are classic symptoms of depression.

Depressive symptoms have climbed 60 percent in just five years, with rates of self-harm like cutting (themselves) that have doubled or even tripled in girls. Teen suicide has doubled in a few years.

Right at the time when smartphones became common, those mental health issues started to show up. That change in how teens spend their time is so fundamental for mental health. We know, from decades of research, that getting enough sleep and seeing friends in person is a good recipe for mental health and that staring at a screen for many hours a day is not.

QUESTION: What advice would you give to parents?

ANSWER: Many of the things on which happiness and mental health depend are now under our control. We cannot change the genes we were born with and we are not going to solve poverty overnight, but we can control how we spend our leisure time and we can help our children do the same.

The research points toward limiting digital media use to about two hours a day or less. That seems to be the sweet spot for mental health and happiness.

So sure, use social media to stay in touch with friends, help plan things, and watch a little bit of video but keep it under that two-hour limit for 13- to 18-year-olds. Then you get all the benefits of social media and this technology without the big downside of it.

If you feel your child needs a phone, say for getting back and forth to school, you can get them a "dumb" phone that does not have internet and all the temptations of a smartphone.
__________________
"The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy."

-MLK Jr.
  tehmackdaddy is offline Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2018, 02:31 PM   #23
tehmackdaddy
post tenebras lux
 
tehmackdaddy's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: IN the world, but not OF the world
Posts: 17,613
Posting Frequency


Casino cash: $429541
My Mood


tehmackdaddy should have their sex organs bronzed for posterity and put in a museumtehmackdaddy should have their sex organs bronzed for posterity and put in a museumtehmackdaddy should have their sex organs bronzed for posterity and put in a museum
tehmackdaddy should have their sex organs bronzed for posterity and put in a museumtehmackdaddy should have their sex organs bronzed for posterity and put in a museumtehmackdaddy should have their sex organs bronzed for posterity and put in a museumtehmackdaddy should have their sex organs bronzed for posterity and put in a museumtehmackdaddy should have their sex organs bronzed for posterity and put in a museumtehmackdaddy should have their sex organs bronzed for posterity and put in a museumtehmackdaddy should have their sex organs bronzed for posterity and put in a museumtehmackdaddy should have their sex organs bronzed for posterity and put in a museumtehmackdaddy should have their sex organs bronzed for posterity and put in a museumtehmackdaddy should have their sex organs bronzed for posterity and put in a museumtehmackdaddy should have their sex organs bronzed for posterity and put in a museum
I found this very well done and highly relatable, though I've never lost an eye or been made fun of on SNL.

Quote:
SNL mocked my appearance. Here's why I didn't demand an apology
By Dan Crenshaw
Updated 12:38 pm CST, Wednesday, November 14, 2018


The past couple of weeks have been unusual for me, to say the least. After a year of hard campaigning for Congress in Texas and gradually entering the public sphere, I was hit by a sudden, blinding spotlight. But I have no complaints - it wasn't as bad as some other challenges I've faced, like a sudden, blinding IED explosion. (See what I did there? "Saturday Night Live" has created a comedic monster.)

On the Nov. 3 show, SNL's Pete Davidson mocked my appearance - "he lost his eye in war . . . or whatever," Davidson said, referring to the eye patch I wear. His line about my looking like a "hit man in a porno movie" was significantly less infuriating, albeit a little strange. I woke up on the Sunday morning after the show to hundreds of texts about what Davidson had said. A lot of America wasn't happy. People thought some lines still shouldn't be crossed.

I agreed. But I also could not help but note that this was another chapter in a phenomenon that has taken complete control of the national discourse: outrage culture. It seems like every not-so-carefully-worded public misstep must be punished to the fullest extent, replete with soapbox lectures and demands for apologies. Anyone who doesn't show the expected level of outrage will be labeled a coward or an apologist for bad behavior. I get the feeling that regular, hardworking, generally unoffended Americans sigh with exhaustion - daily.

Was I really outraged by SNL? Really offended? Or did I just think the comment about losing my eye was offensive? There is a difference, after all. I have been literally shot at before, and I wasn't outraged. Why start now?

So I didn't demand an apology and I didn't call for anyone to be fired. That doesn't mean the "war . . . or whatever" line was acceptable, but I didn't have to fan the flames of outrage, either. When SNL reached out with an apology and an offer to be on the show, I wasn't fully sold on the idea. It was going to be Veterans Day weekend, after all, and I had events with veterans planned. I asked if another weekend might work. No, they said, precisely because it was Veterans Day, it would be the right time to send the right message. They assured me that we could use the opportunity to send a message of unity, forgiveness and appreciation for veterans. And to make fun of Pete Davidson, of course.

And that's what we did. I was happy with how it worked out. But now what? Does it suddenly mean that the left and right will get along and live in utopian harmony? Maybe Saturday's show made a tiny step in that direction, but I'm not naive. As a country, we still have a lot of work to do. We need to agree on some basic rules for civil discourse.

There are many ideas that we will never agree on. The left and the right have different ways of approaching governance, based on contrasting philosophies. But many of the ultimate goals - economic prosperity, better health care and education, etc. - are the same. We just don't share the same vision of how to achieve them.

How, then, do we live together in this world of differing ideas? For starters, let's agree that the ideas are fair game. If you think my idea is awful, you should say as much. But there is a difference between attacking an idea and attacking the person behind that idea. Labeling someone as an "-ist" who believes in an "-ism" because of the person's policy preference is just a shortcut to playground-style name-calling, cloaked in political terminology. It's also generally a good indication that the attacker doesn't have a solid counter-argument and needs a way to end debate before it has even begun.

Similarly, people too often attack not just an idea but also the supposed intent behind an idea. That raises the emotional level of the debate and might seem like it strengthens the attacker's side, but it's a terrible way to make a point. Assuming the worst about your opponents' intentions has the effect of demonizing their ideas, removing the need for sound counter-reasoning and fact-based argument. That's not a good environment for the exchange of ideas.

When all else fails, try asking for forgiveness, or granting it. On Saturday, Pete Davidson and SNL made amends. I had some fun. Everyone generally agreed that a veteran's wounds aren't fair game for comedy. Maybe now we should all try to work toward restoring civility to public debate.

Crenshaw, a former Navy SEAL, is a Republican representative-elect from Houston.
__________________
"The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy."

-MLK Jr.
  tehmackdaddy is offline Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2018, 02:55 PM   #24
Baron Samedi
Russian Bot 762X54R
 
Baron Samedi's Avatar
 

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Framingham
Posts: 25,594
Posting Frequency


Casino cash: $406175
My Mood


Baron Samedi should have their picture on moneyBaron Samedi should have their picture on moneyBaron Samedi should have their picture on moneyBaron Samedi should have their picture on money
Baron Samedi should have their picture on moneyBaron Samedi should have their picture on moneyBaron Samedi should have their picture on moneyBaron Samedi should have their picture on moneyBaron Samedi should have their picture on money
How to Resolve the De-Platforming Problem

Is enacting anti-discrimination legislation the answer to social media de-platforming?

Many right-wing commentators are justifiably concerned about social media censorship of controversial content creators. Unfortunately, they advocate for state-based solutions promoting equal access and anti-discrimination measures. Ironically, these conservative pleas are calling cards of the political Left. The reflexive impulse to turn to the State may seem like a quick fix in the short-term. Government interventions, however, always have nasty implications decades after passage.

Unbeknownst to them, these well-intentioned conservatives are playing into the State’s hands. Once in power, there is nothing to keep leftist bureaucrats from using a new free speech bureaucracy for their own political ends. In order to solve this riddle, we must first understand that Big Tech’s behavior is not the product of spontaneous actions on the free market. In fact, it is the result of the U.S.’s overly politicized economy.

Recognizing the Enemy: Participatory Fascism

For starters, we must recognize that the current tech environment is not operating under a free market. There is plenty of government privilege being spread around.

Big Tech’s relationship with the State is Exhibit A of participatory fascism—the public-private smorgasbord of government interference and nominal private ownership of property. Economist Robert Higgs expands upon the concept of participatory fascism:

For thirty years or so, I have used the term “participatory fascism,” which I borrowed from my old friend and former Ph.D. student Charlotte Twight. This is a descriptively precise term in that it recognizes the fascistic organization of resource ownership and control in our system, despite the preservation of nominal private ownership, and the variety of ways in which the state employs political ceremonies, proceedings, and engagements—most important, voting—in which the general public participates.

In the case of Big Tech, it’s clear the State does not own the means of production, but it does exercise indirect pressure through threats to fine companies or pass draconian laws. Unfortunately, many on the right wing overlook this and fall for the siren song of government control.

The State’s perverse incentives also stretch into matters of platform liability. In his article, Challenging the Lords of the Internet , Justin Raimondo goes into how the Federal Communications Decency Act shields social media platforms from potential torts. By claiming to be “carriers,” many of these social media giants can’t be held liable for defamation, libel, or criminal activities taking place on their platforms. This creates a two-tiered system where Big Tech enjoys cartel-like privileges, and other traditional publishers like Antiwar.com or Mises can still be held liable or criminally responsible for illegal activities allegedly taking place on these sites.

A blogger, Bionic Mosquito, piggybacks off of Raimondo’s points:

Raimondo goes on to discuss the other unique protections offered by the government to these platforms – protections not available to sites like his own. Protections that are offered to a common carrier, like the phone company, which are not liable for the content that passes over their lines or networks.

These social media internet firms are sheltered from liability regarding the content – just as if they were common carriers. Yet, unlike common carriers, they are allowed to (and now, under threat by the government, required to) censor content. But they are not liable for the content that they censor, nor are they liable for the content that they allow. How is this the free market? Is this typical for private property? Heads I win, tails you lose.

A private company may censor content and also be liable for its decisions. Do these social media platforms really fit the definition of a private company? I would say that Raimondo nailed the point that these companies do not qualify as private property.


The privileges Big Tech enjoys are real, and are not the product of a free market. Facebook’s partnership with government-backed think tanks like the Atlantic Council and Silicon Valley’s cozy relationship with the military-industrial complex are lurid illustrations of how Silicon Valley has deviated from its relatively free market origins.

The Solution is Still Free Markets

To solve the issue of de-platforming, we would ideally have a separation of economy and State. That means a repeal of the Communications Decency Act, no regulation of so-called hate speech on the Internet, and less government barriers to entry. A daunting set of tasks indeed.

On a more positive note, there are 21st century tools available to help content creators maneuver their way out of Big Tech’s censorship mine field.

Email marketing and personal branding are providing individuals new outlets to earn a living online. Thanks to these innovations, individuals can make money anywhere in the world. Better yet, people now have the ability to make money without having to deal with politically correct bosses or government censors. Libertarian content creators like Tom Woods have mastered email marketing to build their own brands online without government funding or having to rely on politically correct corporations for a paycheck.

In a similar vein, alternative social media platforms like Gab have emerged to fulfill the desire for a censorship-free social media platform. That being said, Gab does face considerable challenges in overcoming the network effects other established platforms like Facebook and Twitter have enjoyed. It also doesn’t help that businesses like payment processor Paypal and hosting company Joyent are breaking ties with Gab.

But not all is doom and gloom. Certain payment protocols like the Lightning Network allow users to conduct transactions without fear of government interference or being cut off by traditional payment processors like Paypal. In the same token, decentralized storage systems like Gaia facilitate the hosting of content in a way that is free from government censors’ grasp and corporations’ PC agenda.

It’s the State Stupid

The key is that the State not be involved in social media in the first place. In fact, the State is arguably the biggest obstacle in preventing the arrival of Big Tech’s next competitor. This is not a discussion about what platform is going to be the “next Facebook”. What we should really be talking about is a wholesale upgrade to the current social media market. Ideally, this upgrade would come with decentralized features.

The future is decentralized and if we want to speed up this process, the State must butt out of our economic activities.

https://mises.org/wire/how-resolve-d...orming-problem
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaric View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by benhamean View Post
Who is this self-important instigating douche-bag, anyway?
Dude, Baron has been a valued member of this forum for quite some time.
Peace, Prosperity, Liberty, Human Rights, Natural Rights, Civil Rights, Property Rights, Sound Money, Free Markets, Sovereignty, the Constitution, the Republic.

“Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won. So I think on that one I trump you.”
  Baron Samedi is offline Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2018, 10:11 AM   #25
subroc
Interested Observer
 
subroc's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 1,806
Posting Frequency


Casino cash: $87000


subroc really knows how to handle a Twizzler
subroc really knows how to handle a Twizzlersubroc really knows how to handle a Twizzlersubroc really knows how to handle a Twizzlersubroc really knows how to handle a Twizzlersubroc really knows how to handle a Twizzlersubroc really knows how to handle a Twizzlersubroc really knows how to handle a Twizzlersubroc really knows how to handle a Twizzler
I think she nailed it.



Quote:
Lisa Boothe: Democrats, the party of sore losers

By Lisa Boothe | Fox News

The 2018 midterms crystallized one thing: The Democrat Party is the party of sore losers. Joining the ranks of Hillary Clinton - who still hasn't come to grips with the fact she lost the 2016 presidential election - Stacey Abrams, Bill Nelson, and Andrew Gillum all showed America how to lack grace in defeat.

During the last presidential debate in 2016 with Fox News Sunday’s Chris Wallace, then-candidate Donald Trump drew criticism when he suggested the election had been rigged against him and wouldn’t say if he would accept the outcome of the election. The New York Times called it “a remarkable statement that seemed to cast doubt on American democracy.” Hillary Clinton said it was denigrating and “talking down our democracy.”

But those comments were made when the New York Times gave her an 85 percent chance of winning. It would end up being Hillary Clinton who in the face of a staggering election loss struggled to accept the results. Not only has she listed over a dozen reasons why she lost, but even more troubling is that members of her team encouraged faithless electors, sought to drive a dangerous narrative that the Russians were behind President Trump’s win, and Clinton herself called for the abolishment of the Electoral College.

After the election, her campaign chairman John Podesta poured gasoline on a fire that was brewing on the left for electors to abandon the will of their state. He claimed that electors needed an intelligence briefing on Russian hacking. His calls backfired because more electors tried to defect from Hillary Clinton than Donald Trump. Additionally, the irony of his request is that it was Hillary Clinton’s campaign that was driving the narrative that Russian was behind Trump’s victory.

It is often said that losing can reveal more about one’s character than winning. The way Clinton, Abrams, Nelson, and Gillum conducted themselves in defeat speaks volumes.

According to the book “Shattered,” the Clinton team devised a plan to blame Russia 24 hours after Clinton’s concession. It was also her campaign, along with the Democratic National Committee, that had paid for the dossier which was used obtain a FISA warrant against Trump adviser Carter Page and drive news cycles about alleged Russian collusion.

In the same vein of Hillary Clinton, Stacey Abrams has sought to delegitimize Governor-elect Brian Kemp’s victory in Georgia. Even though she admits Kemp is the “legal” governor of the state, she has refused to say he is the legitimate winner. In her non-concession speech, she said, “this is not a speech of concession, because concession means to acknowledge an action is right, true, or proper.” She has claimed that “democracy failed Georgia” and accused the state of “systemic disenfranchisement, disinvestment and incompetence.”

However, the voter suppression that Abrams and her allies have tried to taint Kemp with is ridiculous. If she has a problem with Georgia laws like “Use It or Lose It” - which passed in 1997 by a Democrat legislature and was signed into law by a Democrat governor - or “Exact Match,” she should take it up with the Georgia legislature. Further, concerns over long lines at the polls or the shuttering of polling places should be addressed with the local county officials who oversee them.

Abrams’ allies also stoked the voter suppression fire before the election results were certified. Hillary Clinton said that if Abrams had a fair election, “she already would have won.” Democrat Senator Sherrod Brown baselessly claimed that “if Stacey Abrams doesn't win in Georgia, they stole it, it's clear.” But even the Washington Post admitted that Abrams and her allies were “alleging illegal activity that hasn’t been proven - and seems unlikely to be.” Abrams ended up losing by nearly 55,000 votes.

In Florida, Andrew Gillum and Bill Nelson also showed Americans how to be graceless in defeat. After a machine recount that showed Gillum had lost to Governor-elect Ron DeSantis by 33,000 votes, he took two days to concede. His delay prompted publications like the Wall Street Journal to deem him “The Ungracious Mr. Gillum” in an editorial and call on him to concede. Bill Nelson also tried to litigate his way to a victory.

Not surprisingly these Democrat candidates were not roundly criticized for casting doubt on democracy like then-candidate Donald Trump was in 2016 - apparently that criticism is only reserved for Republicans. It is often said that losing can reveal more about one’s character than winning. The way Clinton, Abrams, Nelson, and Gillum conducted themselves in defeat speaks volumes.
__________________
Bill Parcells: "You are what your record says you are!"
Margaret Thatcher: "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples' money."
President Donald John Trump: "You don't hand matches to an arsonist and you don't give power to an angry left wing mob."

  subroc is offline Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2018, 09:54 AM   #26
tehmackdaddy
post tenebras lux
 
tehmackdaddy's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: IN the world, but not OF the world
Posts: 17,613
Posting Frequency


Casino cash: $429541
My Mood


tehmackdaddy should have their sex organs bronzed for posterity and put in a museumtehmackdaddy should have their sex organs bronzed for posterity and put in a museumtehmackdaddy should have their sex organs bronzed for posterity and put in a museum
tehmackdaddy should have their sex organs bronzed for posterity and put in a museumtehmackdaddy should have their sex organs bronzed for posterity and put in a museumtehmackdaddy should have their sex organs bronzed for posterity and put in a museumtehmackdaddy should have their sex organs bronzed for posterity and put in a museumtehmackdaddy should have their sex organs bronzed for posterity and put in a museumtehmackdaddy should have their sex organs bronzed for posterity and put in a museumtehmackdaddy should have their sex organs bronzed for posterity and put in a museumtehmackdaddy should have their sex organs bronzed for posterity and put in a museumtehmackdaddy should have their sex organs bronzed for posterity and put in a museumtehmackdaddy should have their sex organs bronzed for posterity and put in a museumtehmackdaddy should have their sex organs bronzed for posterity and put in a museum
Quote:
What Teens Need Most From Their Parents
The teenage years can be mystifying for parents. Sensible children turn scatter-brained or start having wild mood swings. Formerly level-headed adolescents ride in cars with dangerous drivers or take other foolish risks.

A flood of new research offers explanations for some of these mysteries. Brain imaging adds another kind of data that can help test hypotheses and corroborate teens’ own accounts of their behavior and emotions. Dozens of recent multiyear studies have traced adolescent development through time, rather than comparing sets of adolescents at a single point.

The new longitudinal research is changing scientists’ views on the role parents play in helping children navigate a volatile decade. Once seen as a time for parents to step back, adolescence is increasingly viewed as an opportunity to stay tuned in and emotionally connected. The research makes it possible to identify four important phases in the development of intellectual, social and emotional skills that most teens will experience at certain ages. Here is a guide to the latest findings:

Ages 11 to 12
As puberty takes center stage, tweens can actually slip backward in some basic skills. Spatial learning and certain kinds of reasoning may decline at this stage, studies show. Parts of the brain responsible for prospective memory, or remembering what you are supposed to do in the future, are still maturing. This may be why a teen may seem clueless if asked to give the teacher a note before school.

Coaching tweens in organizational skills can help. Parents can help build memory cues into daily routines, such as placing a gym bag by the front door, or helping set reminders on a cellphone. They can share helpful tools, such as task-manager apps.

Parents can help foster sound decision-making, thinking through pros and cons and considering other viewpoints. Children who know by age 10 or 11 how to make sound decisions tend to exhibit less anxiety and sadness, get in fewer fights and have fewer problems with friends at ages 12 and 13, according to a 2014 study of 76 participants published in the Journal of Behavioral Decision Making.

By remaining warm and supportive, parents may be able to influence the way their teen’s brain develops at this stage. A 2014 study of 188 children compared the effect of mothers ​who were warm, affectionate and approving during disagreements, versus mothers who became angry and argumentative. Teens at age 16, who had affectionate moms when they were 12, ​showed brain changes linked to lower rates of sadness and anxiety and greater self-control, according to the study led by researchers at the University of Melbourne in Australia.

Ages 13 to 14
Parents should brace themselves for what is often a wildly emotional passage. Young teens become sensitive to peers’ opinions and react strongly to them. Yet the social skills they need to figure out what their peers really think won’t be fully mature for years, making this a confusing and potentially miserable time.

At about this time, teens’ response to stress goes haywire, sparking more door-slamming and tears. The impact of social stress is peaking around this time: Of adults with mental disorders often triggered by stress, 50% received a diagnosis before age 15. Other research shows teens from ages 11 to 15 become sad and anxious when subjected to social stresses such exclusion from social groups, while adults don’t show a similar effect.

Parts of the brain most vulnerable to stress are still maturing, so coping strategies teens use at this stage can become ingrained in the brain’s circuitry as lifelong patterns, according to a 2016 research review in Developmental Science Review. Psychologists advise teaching and modeling self-soothing skills, such as meditation, exercise or listening to music.

Coach teens on friendship skills, including how to read their peers’ expressions and body language. Encourage them to choose friends based on shared interests, not popularity, and to dump friends who are unkind. Teach them how to repair friendships after a fight by apologizing, making amends or compromising.

Family support is a stress buffer. Teens whose families provide companionship, problem-solving and emotional support are less likely to become depressed after exposure to severe stress, according to a 2016 study of 362 Israeli adolescents in the Journal of Family Psychology.

Ages 15 to 16
Teens’ appetite for risk-taking peaks at this age, according to a 2015 study of more than 200 participants ages 8 to 27 led by researchers at Leiden University in the Netherlands. The brain’s reward receptors are blossoming, amplifying adolescents’ response to dopamine, a neurotransmitter associated with feelings of pleasure and satisfaction. This makes thrill-seeking more desirable than it will ever be again.

Normal fears of danger are temporarily suppressed during adolescence, a shift scientists believe is rooted in an evolutionary need to leave home and explore new habitats. Studies have found adolescents fail to change their appraisal of risky situations even after being warned that the hazards are greater than they expect.

The ability to make and keep good friends is especially useful at this stage. Teens with friends they trust and count on for support are less likely to engage in risky behavior such as shoplifting, riding with a dangerous driver or having unprotected sex, according to a 2015 study of 46 teens led by Dr. Eva Telzer, an assistant professor of psychology at the University of Illinois in Champaign-Urbana. Teens who argue often with close friends are more likely to take such gambles.

It is not too late for warm, supportive parents to make a difference. In a laboratory risk-taking test, teens who grew closer to their parents starting at age 15 showed less activation of a brain region linked to risk-taking and took fewer chances 18 months later, according to a 2015 study of 23 adolescents published in Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience. The closeness to parents included having parents’ respect and help talking through problems, and an absence of arguing or yelling, according to the study, in which Dr. Telzer was a co-author.

Ages 17 to 18
Benefits of the teenage brain’s ability to change and develop are evident at this stage. Some teens show increases in IQ. Intellectually gifted teens are most likely to achieve gains in IQ scores, so teens who are already smart are likely to grow even smarter, according to a 2013 study of 11,000 pairs of twins led by researchers at Penn State University, in University Park, and the University of Colorado at Boulder.

In older teens, the parts of the prefrontal cortex responsible for judgment and decision-making typically are developed enough to serve as a brake on runaway emotions and risk-taking. Executive-function skills, such as solving problems and planning strategies, continue to develop at least through age 20, according to a 2015 study by researchers at Sheffield Hallam University, England.

Social skills and related brain regions are still maturing, according to researchers including Sarah-Jayne Blakemore, a professor of cognitive neuroscience at University College London. At this stage, teens are better at noticing how others feel and showing empathy. They still lack the ability to decipher people’s motives and attitudes in complex social situations, though, such as figuring out why a friend might suddenly change the subject during a conversation at a party.
I'm a little disappointed I didn't see severe and consistent beatings in there somewhere.
__________________
"The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy."

-MLK Jr.
  tehmackdaddy is offline Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2018, 12:08 PM   #27
Baron Samedi
Russian Bot 762X54R
 
Baron Samedi's Avatar
 

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Framingham
Posts: 25,594
Posting Frequency


Casino cash: $406175
My Mood


Baron Samedi should have their picture on moneyBaron Samedi should have their picture on moneyBaron Samedi should have their picture on moneyBaron Samedi should have their picture on money
Baron Samedi should have their picture on moneyBaron Samedi should have their picture on moneyBaron Samedi should have their picture on moneyBaron Samedi should have their picture on moneyBaron Samedi should have their picture on money
Excerpt from "The Case Against the Fed" by Murray Rothbard

Culmination at Jekyll Island

Now that the groundwork had been laid for a central bank among scholars, bankers, and interested public opinion, by the latter half of 1910 it was time to formulate a concrete practical plan and to focus the rest of the agitation to push it through. As Warburg wrote in the Academy of Political Science book on Reform of the Currency: “Advance is possible only by outlining a tangible plan” to set the terms of the debate.

The tangible plan phase of the central bank movement was launched by the ever-pliant Academy of Political Science of Columbia University, which held a monetary conference in November, 1910, in conjunction with the New York Chamber of Commerce and the Merchants' Association of New York. The members of the NMC were the joint guests of honor at this conclave, and delegates to it were chosen by governors of twenty-two states, as well as presidents of twenty-four chambers of commerce. Also attending this conference were a large number of economists, monetary analysts and representatives of the nation's leading bankers. Attendants at the conference included Frank Vanderlip, Elihu Root, Jacob Schiff, Thomas W. Lamont, partner of the Morgan bank, and J. P. Morgan himself. The formal sessions of the conference were organized around papers delivered by Laughlin, Johnson, Bush, Warburg, and Conant. C. Stuart Patterson, Dean of the University of Pennsylvania Law School and member of the finance committee of the Morgan-oriented Pennsylvania Railroad, who had been the chairman of the first IMC and a member of the Indianapolis Monetary Commission, laid down the marching orders for the assembled troops. He recalled the great lesson of the IMC, and the way its proposals had triumphed because “we went home and organized an aggressive and active movement.” He then exhorted the troops: “That is just what you must do in this case, you must uphold the hands of Senator Aldrich. You have got to see that the bill which he formulates ... obtains the support of every part of this country.”

With the movement fully primed, it was now time for Senator Aldrich to write the bill. Or rather, it was time for the senator, surrounded by a few of the topmost leaders of the financial elite, to go off in seclusion, and hammer out a detailed plan around which all parts of the central banking movement could rally. Someone, probably Henry P. Davison, got the idea of convening a small group of top leaders in a super-secret conclave, to draft the bill. The eager J. P. Morgan arranged for a plush private conference at his exclusive millionaire's retreat, at the Jekyll Island Club on Jekyll Island, Georgia. Morgan was a co-owner of the club. On November 22, 1910, Senator Aldrich, with a handful of companions, set forth under assumed names in a privately chartered railroad car from Hoboken, New Jersey to the coast of Georgia, allegedly on a duck-hunting expedition.

The conferees worked for a solid week at the plush Jekyll Island retreat, and hammered out the draft of the bill for the Federal Reserve System. Only six people attended this super-secret week-long meeting, and these six neatly reflected the power structure within the bankers' alliance of the central banking movement. The conferees were, in addition to Aldrich (Rockefeller kinsman); Henry P. Davison, Morgan partner; Paul Warburg, Kuhn Loeb partner; Frank A. Vander-lip, vice-president of Rockefeller's National City Bank of New York; Charles D. Norton, president of Morgan's First National Bank of New York; and Professor A. Piatt Andrew, head of the NMC research staff, who had recently been made an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under Taft, and who was a technician with a foot in both the Rockefeller and Morgan camps.

The conferees forged the Aldrich Bill, which, with only minor variations, was to become the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. The only substantial disagreement at Jekyll Island was tactical: Aldrich attempted to hold out for a straightforward central bank on the European model, while Warburg, backed by the other bankers, insisted that political realities required the reality of central control to be cloaked in the palatable camouflage of “decentralization.” Warburg's more realistic, duplicitous tactic won the day.

Aldrich presented the Jekyll Island draft, with only minor revisions, to the full NMC as the Aldrich Bill in January, 1911. Why then did it take until December, 1913 for Congress to pass the Federal Reserve Act? The hitch in the timing resulted from the Democratic capture of the House of Representatives in the 1910 elections, and from the looming probability that the Democrats would capture the White House in 1912. The reformers had to regroup, drop the highly partisan name of Aldrich from the bill, and recast it as a Democratic bill under Virginia's Representative Carter Glass. But despite the delay and numerous drafts, the structure of the Federal Reserve as passed overwhelmingly in December 1913 was virtually the same as the bill that emerged from the secret Jekyll Island meeting three years earlier. Successful agitation brought bankers, the business community, and the general public rather easily into line.

The top bankers were brought into camp at the outset; as early as February, 1911, Aldrich organized a closed-door conference of twenty-three leading bankers at Atlantic City. Not only did this conference of bankers endorse the Aldrich Plan, but it was made clear to them that “the real purpose of the conference was to discuss winning the banking community over to government control directly by the bankers for their own ends.” The big bankers at the conference also realized that the Aldrich Plan would “increase the power of the big national banks to compete with the rapidly growing state banks, (and) help bring the state banks under control.”33

By November, 1911, it was easy to line up the full American Bankers Association behind the Aldrich Plan. The threat of small bank insurgency was over, and the nation's banking community was now lined up solidly behind the drive for a central bank. Finally, after much backing and filling, after Aldrich's name was removed from the bill and Aldrich himself decided not to run for reelection in 1912, the Federal Reserve Act was passed overwhelmingly on December 22, 1913, to go into effect in November of the following year. As A. Barton Hepburn exulted to the annual meeting of the American Bankers Association in late August 1913: “The measure recognizes and adopts the principles of a central bank. Indeed, if it works out as the sponsors of the law hope, it will make all incorporated banks together joint owners of a central dominating power.”34

https://mises.org/library/case-against-fed-0/html/c/306

..................................................................................................

The Birth of a Monster
12/01/2014 David Howden

The Federal Reserve’s doors have been open for “business” for one hundred years. In explaining the creation of this money-making machine (pun intended — the Fed remits nearly $100 bn. in profits each year to Congress) most people fall into one of two camps.

Those inclined to view the Fed as a helpful institution, fostering financial stability in a world of error-prone capitalists, explain the creation of the Fed as a natural and healthy outgrowth of the troubled National Banking System. How helpful the Fed has been is questionable at best, and in a recent book edited by Joe Salerno and me — The Fed at One Hundred — various contributors outline many (though by no means all) of the Fed’s shortcomings over the past century.

Others, mostly those with a skeptical view of the Fed, treat its creation as an exercise in secretive government meddling (as in G. Edward Griffin’s The Creature from Jekyll Island) or crony capitalism run amok (as in Murray Rothbard’s The Case Against the Fed).

In my own chapter in The Fed at One Hundred I find sympathies with both groups (you can download the chapter pdf here). The actual creation of the Fed is a tragically beautiful case study in closed-door Congressional deals and big banking’s ultimate victory over the American public. Neither of these facts emerged from nowhere, however. The fateful events that transpired in 1910 on Jekyll Island were the evolutionary outcome of over fifty years of government meddling in money. As such, the Fed is a natural (though terribly unfortunate) outgrowth of an ever more flawed and repressive monetary system.

Before the Fed

Allow me to give a brief reverse biographical sketch of the events leading up to the creation of a monster in 1914.

Unlike many controversial laws and policies of the American government — such as the Affordable Care Act, the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or the War on Terror — the Federal Reserve Act passed with very little public outcry. Also strange for an industry effectively cartelized, the banking establishment welcomed the Fed with open arms. What gives?

By the early twentieth century, America’s banking system was in a shambles. Fractional-reserve banks faced with “runs” (which didn’t have to be runs with the pandemonium that usually accompanies them, but rather just banks having insufficient cash to meet daily withdrawal requests) frequently suspended cash redemptions or issued claims to “clearinghouse certificates.” These certificates were a money substitute making use of the whole banking system’s reserves held by large clearinghouses.

Both of these “solutions” to the common bank run were illegal as they allowed a bank to redefine the terms of the original deposit contract. This fact notwithstanding, the US government turned a blind eye as the alternative (widespread bank failures) was perceived to be far worse.

The creation of the Fed, the ensuing centralization of reserves, and the creation of a more elastic money supply was welcomed by the government as a way to eliminate those pesky and illegal (yet permitted) banking activities of redemption suspensions and the issuance of clearinghouse certificates. The Fed returned legitimacy to the laws of the land. That is, it addressed the government’s fear that non-enforcement of a law would raise broader questions about the general rule of law.

The Fed provided a quick fix to depositors by reducing cases of suspensions of their accounts. And the banking industry saw the Fed as a way to serve clients better without incurring a cost (fewer bank runs) and at the same time coordinate their activities to expand credit in unison and maximize their own profits.

In short, the Federal Reserve Act had a solution for everyone.

Taking a central role in this story are the private clearinghouses which provided for many of the Fed’s roles before 1914. Indeed, America’s private clearinghouses were viewed as having as many powers as European central banks of the day, and the creation of the Fed was really just an effort to make the illegal practices of the clearinghouses legal by government institutionalization.

Why Did Clearinghouses Have So Much Power?

Throughout the late nineteenth century, clearinghouses used each new banking crisis to introduce a new type of policy, bringing them ever closer in appearance to a central bank. I wouldn’t go so far as to say these are examples of power grabs by the clearinghouses, but rather rational responses to fundamental problems in a troubled American banking system.

When bank runs occurred, the clearinghouse certificate came into use, first in 1857, but confined to the interbank market to economize on reserves. Transactions could be cleared in specie, but lacking sufficient reserves, a troubled bank could make use of the certificates. These certificates were jointly guaranteed by all banks in the clearinghouse system through their pooled reserves. This joint guarantee was welcomed by unstable banks with poor reserve positions, and imposed a cost on more prudently managed banks (as is the case today with deposit insurance). A prudent bank could complain, but if it wanted to use a clearinghouse’s services and reap the cost advantages it had to comply with the reserve-pooling policy.

As the magnitude of the banking crisis intensified, clearinghouses started permitting banks to issue the certificates directly to the public (starting with the Panic of 1873) to further stymie reserve drains. (These issues to the general public amounted to illegal money substitutes, though they were tolerated, as noted above.)

Fractional-Reserve Free Banking and Bust

The year 1857 is a somewhat strange one for these clearinghouse certificates to make their first appearance. It was, after all, a full twenty years into America’s experiment with fractional-reserve free banking. This banking system was able to function stably, especially compared to more regulated periods or central banking regimes. However, the dislocation between deposit and lending activities set in motion a credit-fueled boom that culminated in the Panic of 1857.

This boom and panic has all the makings of an Austrian business cycle. Banks overextended themselves to finance the booming industries during America’s westward advance, primarily the railways. Land speculation was rampant. As realized profits came in under expectations, investors got skittish and withdrew money from banks. Troubled banks turned to the recently established New York Clearing House to promote stability. Certain rights were voluntarily abrogated in return for a guarantee on their solvency.

The original sin of the free-banking period was its fractional-reserve foundation. Without the ability to fund lending activity with their deposit base, banks never would have financed the boom to the extent that it became a destabilizing factor. Westward expansion and investment would still have occurred, though it would have occurred in a sustainable way funded through equity investments and loans. (These types of financing were used, though as is the case today, this occurred less than would be the case given the fractional-reserve banking system’s essentially cost-free funding source: the deposit base.)

In conclusion, the Fed was not birthed from nothing in 1913. The monster was the natural outgrowth of an increasingly troubled banking system. In searching for the original problem that set in motion the events culminating in the creation of the Fed, one must draw attention to the Panic of 1857 as the spark that set in motion ever more destabilizing policies. The Panic itself is a textbook example of an Austrian business cycle, caused by the lending activities of fractional-reserve banks. This original sin of the banking system concluded with the birth of a monster in 1914: The Federal Reserve.

https://mises.org/library/birth-monster
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaric View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by benhamean View Post
Who is this self-important instigating douche-bag, anyway?
Dude, Baron has been a valued member of this forum for quite some time.
Peace, Prosperity, Liberty, Human Rights, Natural Rights, Civil Rights, Property Rights, Sound Money, Free Markets, Sovereignty, the Constitution, the Republic.

“Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won. So I think on that one I trump you.”
  Baron Samedi is offline Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2018, 02:26 PM   #28
tehmackdaddy
post tenebras lux
 
tehmackdaddy's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: IN the world, but not OF the world
Posts: 17,613
Posting Frequency


Casino cash: $429541
My Mood


tehmackdaddy should have their sex organs bronzed for posterity and put in a museumtehmackdaddy should have their sex organs bronzed for posterity and put in a museumtehmackdaddy should have their sex organs bronzed for posterity and put in a museum
tehmackdaddy should have their sex organs bronzed for posterity and put in a museumtehmackdaddy should have their sex organs bronzed for posterity and put in a museumtehmackdaddy should have their sex organs bronzed for posterity and put in a museumtehmackdaddy should have their sex organs bronzed for posterity and put in a museumtehmackdaddy should have their sex organs bronzed for posterity and put in a museumtehmackdaddy should have their sex organs bronzed for posterity and put in a museumtehmackdaddy should have their sex organs bronzed for posterity and put in a museumtehmackdaddy should have their sex organs bronzed for posterity and put in a museumtehmackdaddy should have their sex organs bronzed for posterity and put in a museumtehmackdaddy should have their sex organs bronzed for posterity and put in a museumtehmackdaddy should have their sex organs bronzed for posterity and put in a museum
Quote:
Europe’s Migrant Disaster Should Teach America a Lesson
Even Hillary Clinton now admits the Continent erred in allowing entry of too many unvetted ‘refugees.’
By Jason L. Riley
Nov. 27, 2018 6:43 p.m. ET


Political up-and-comers like New York’s Rep.-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez might feel comfortable comparing Central American migrants to Jewish families fleeing Nazi Germany, as she did in a tweet the other day. But some elder statesmen in her party seem to know better.

Take Hillary Clinton, who surprised a lot of people last week when she told a British newspaper that “Europe needs to get a handle on migration.” She said the Continent’s leaders should make clear that they are “not going to be able to continue to provide refuge and support” to any and all who want to come. Border chaos fuels anti-immigrant populism, be it in the U.S. or Europe—and she should know. During the 2016 campaign, Mrs. Clinton’s focus was making the Mexico border more open rather than more secure, and she believes that’s one of the reasons Donald Trump was elected president.

Delivering the Nelson Mandela Annual Lecture in South Africa in July, Barack Obama went further. “It’s not wrong to insist that national borders matter, [that] whether you’re a citizen or not is going to matter to a government, that laws need to be followed,” he said. Newcomers, Mr. Obama added, “should make an effort to adapt to the language and customs of their new home. Those are legitimate things, and we have to be able to engage people who do feel as if things are not orderly.”

Right now, the situation on America’s southern border is anything but orderly, and Europe is a cautionary tale for Democrats who think national boundaries are passé. In his recent book, “The Strange Death of Europe,” British journalist Douglas Murray explains how the Continent became a prime example of how to mishandle cross-border migrant flows. The Arab uprisings and Syrian civil war displaced millions of people from mostly Muslim countries. Many fled to a Europe caught unawares by the numbers. When the migrants showed up in places like Greece, Italy and Norway, laws went unenforced. Refugee protocols were tossed aside. Vetting ranged from poor to nonexistent. Criminality was played down. And fake asylum seekers were indulged instead of deported.

Years before U.S. reporters were interviewing Central American caravaners as they headed north, the European press was traveling alongside migrants as they passed through poorer countries like Hungary to reach richer ones like Germany and Sweden. “The fundamental right to asylum does not have a limitation,” said German Chancellor Angela Merkel in 2015, as the crisis was worsening. Would-be migrants from far and wide happily took her up on the offer. “Over the next 48 hours The New York Times reported a surge of migrant movement from Nigeria, among other countries, as people saw that a window of opportunity had opened for citizenship in Europe,” writes Mr. Murray.

Even when European officials determined that a migrant had no legitimate asylum claim, he often was allowed to stay. Left-wing activists strenuously opposed deportation for any reason. Word of lax enforcement spread quickly and proved a major magnet for illegal immigration. Citing data from the European Commission, Mr. Murray reports that a majority of the migrants who traveled to Europe in 2015 “had not been asylum seekers but economic migrants,” who had “no more right to be in Europe than anyone else in the world.”

In her interview, Mrs. Clinton praised the “generous and compassionate” approach taken by some European countries to deal with the largest refugee crisis since World War II. But where was the compassion for the citizens of these countries who count on their governments to keep them safe? Norway was so concerned about the increase in reported rapes that followed a large influx of Muslim refugees that it began offering etiquette classes to new arrivals. The program, reported the New York Times, “seeks to prevent sexual and other violence by helping male immigrants from societies that are largely segregated or in which women show neither flesh nor public affection to adapt to more open European societies.”

The same officials Mrs. Clinton lauded also made their countries more susceptible to acts of terror. The man who in July 2016 carried out Germany’s first Islamist suicide bombing was a Syrian refugee and failed asylum seeker. Shouldn’t a country’s immigration policies prioritize the welfare of its citizens?

The good news is that America’s troubles on the southern border pale in comparison to what Western Europe has experienced. The bad news is that the situation on this side of the Atlantic continues to worsen. The president’s anti-immigrant agenda is as well-known as it is misguided, but he’s right to take the caravan situation more seriously than Jim Acosta of CNN does. Mr. Trump wants the U.S. to learn from Europe’s recent mistakes, while too many Democrats seem hell-bent on repeating them.
.
__________________
"The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy."

-MLK Jr.
  tehmackdaddy is offline Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2018, 12:34 PM   #29
Baron Samedi
Russian Bot 762X54R
 
Baron Samedi's Avatar
 

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Framingham
Posts: 25,594
Posting Frequency


Casino cash: $406175
My Mood


Baron Samedi should have their picture on moneyBaron Samedi should have their picture on moneyBaron Samedi should have their picture on moneyBaron Samedi should have their picture on money
Baron Samedi should have their picture on moneyBaron Samedi should have their picture on moneyBaron Samedi should have their picture on moneyBaron Samedi should have their picture on moneyBaron Samedi should have their picture on money
Fewer Guns, Less Crime? Not in Europe.

As an addendum to last week's article on the prominence of civilian-owned guns versus homicide rates, it may be interesting to look at the diversity in gun prominence across European countries.

Contrary to the broad generalizations and over-simplifications spread by US gun-control advocates about European gun control, there is actually quite a diverse range in gun prominence and gun control laws across Europe.

Returning to the Small Arms Survey data, released earlier this year, we see that gun prominence in Europe ranges from 2 per 100 people in Hungary to 39 per 100 in Serbia:

Comparing these numbers to homicide rates, however, we clearly don't find much of a relationship at all.



Homicide rates in nearly all cases are below 2 per 100,000 which is a very low rate by any global or historical standard.

But, as we can see, civilian guns in Austria, for instance, are six times more numerous what they are in the UK. But the homicide rate is lower in Austria. Similarly, there are twelve times more civilian guns in Switzerland than in the Netherlands. Yet both countries have about the same homicide rates.

Attempts at proving causality here then especially starts to go off the rails when we look at Russia. In Russia, there is a modest 12 guns per 100 people — which is about half the Swiss rate. And yet the country's homicide rate is 10.8 per 100,000.

What can explain these large differences?

In the case of Russia, at least, we certainly can't blame things on lax gun control laws. Gun ownership requires registration and licensing. Handguns and rifles with shorter barrels are tightly controlled.

By contrast, guns are easier to acquire in Switzerland, Finland, Serbia, and Austria — although we find registration and licensing requirements in most cases. Especially notable is the Czech Republic which, by European standards, has very lax gun laws. In fact, it is remarkably easy to acquire a conceal-carry permit in the country, and more than 200,000 such permits (in a country of fewer than 11,000,000 people) have been issued.

The Czech republic has also made headlines in recent years by additional legislative efforts to further ease gun restrictions in certain cases.

The Czech Republic, by the way, has one of the lowest homicide rates in Europe, at less than one per 100,000.

Household Gun Ownership vs. Gun Prevalence

It is helpful to remember, though, that even in cases where gun prevalence is high, gun ownership rates (on a household basis) might still be low. That is, it's entirely possible in some cases that only a small number of people own most of the civilian guns that the Small Arms Survey says exist. This could lead to a situation in which few people have guns in spite of there being a large number of guns overall. However, while this is theoretically possible, it has not been demonstrated to be a common occurrence. Moreover, this lopsided situation is more likely in poorer countries where the high cost of firearms, combined with government-mandated licenses, is prohibitive for much of the population, leaving ownership a realistic option open to only a relatively few wealthy residents.

International comparisons in gun ownership rates, however, are hard to find. Most articles that purport to make these comparisons are usually using the Small Arms Survey data, and are thus just comparing gun prevalence.

(At the very least, considering both high gun prevalence and relative ease of purchase in countries like Switzerland, Austria, and Serbia, we have good reason to believe that both gun ownership rates and prevalence are comparatively high in some areas of Europe.)

Few gun control advocates trouble themselves with these details, however. For many, it apparently remains good enough to simply conclude "more guns=more crime," even when the numbers fail to show much connection at all.

https://mises.org/power-market/fewer...ime-not-europe
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaric View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by benhamean View Post
Who is this self-important instigating douche-bag, anyway?
Dude, Baron has been a valued member of this forum for quite some time.
Peace, Prosperity, Liberty, Human Rights, Natural Rights, Civil Rights, Property Rights, Sound Money, Free Markets, Sovereignty, the Constitution, the Republic.

“Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won. So I think on that one I trump you.”
  Baron Samedi is offline Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2018, 09:11 AM   #30
subroc
Interested Observer
 
subroc's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 1,806
Posting Frequency


Casino cash: $87000


subroc really knows how to handle a Twizzler
subroc really knows how to handle a Twizzlersubroc really knows how to handle a Twizzlersubroc really knows how to handle a Twizzlersubroc really knows how to handle a Twizzlersubroc really knows how to handle a Twizzlersubroc really knows how to handle a Twizzlersubroc really knows how to handle a Twizzlersubroc really knows how to handle a Twizzler
Not really an op-ed, just a few questions and answers. She surely has a way of looking at things.
link

Quote:
Camille Paglia: ‘Hillary wants Trump to win again’
The author and academic discusses 2020, Trump and Jordan Peterson
Camille Paglia

Camille Paglia is one of the most interesting and explosive thinkers of our time. She transgresses academic boundaries and blows up media forms. She’s brilliant on politics, art, literature, philosophy, and the culture wars. She’s also very keen on the email Q and A format for interviews. So, after reading her new collection of essays, Provocations, Spectator USA sent her some questions.

You’ve been a sharp political prognosticator over the years. So can I start by asking for a prediction. What will happen in 2020 in America? Will Hillary Clinton run again?

If the economy continues strong, Trump will be reelected. The Democrats (my party) have been in chaos since the 2016 election and have no coherent message except Trump hatred. Despite the vast pack of potential candidates, no one yet seems to have the edge. I had high hopes for Kamala Harris, but she missed a huge opportunity to play a moderating, statesmanlike role and has already imprinted an image of herself as a ruthless inquisitor that will make it hard for her to pull voters across party lines.

Screechy Elizabeth Warren has never had a snowball’s chance in hell to appeal beyond upper-middle-class professionals of her glossy stripe. Kirsten Gillibrand is a wobbly mediocrity. Cory Booker has all the gravitas of a cork. Andrew Cuomo is a yapping puppy with a long, muddy bullyboy tail. Both Bernie Sanders (for whom I voted in the 2016 primaries) and Joe Biden (who would have won the election had Obama not cut him off at the knees) are way too old and creaky.

To win in the nation’s broad midsection, the Democratic nominee will need to project steadiness, substance, and warmth. I’ve been looking at Congresswoman Cheri Bustos of Illinois and Governor Steve Bullock of Montana. As for Hillary, she’s pretty much damaged goods, but her perpetual, sniping, pity-me tour shows no signs of abating. She still has a rabidly loyal following, but it’s hard to imagine her winning the nomination again, with her iron grip on the Democratic National Committee now gone. Still, it’s in her best interest to keep the speculation fires burning. Given how thoroughly she has already sabotaged the rising candidates by hogging the media spotlight, I suspect she wants Trump to win again. I don’t see our stumbling, hacking, shop-worn Evita yielding the spotlight willingly to any younger gal.

Has Trump governed erratically?

Yes, that’s a fair description. It’s partly because as a non-politician he arrived in Washington without the battalion of allies, advisors, and party flacks that a senator or governor would normally accumulate on the long road to the White House. Trump’s administration is basically a one-man operation, with him relying on gut instinct and sometimes madcap improvisation. There’s often a gonzo humor to it — not that the US president should be slinging barbs at bottom-feeding celebrities or jackass journalists, much as they may deserve it. It’s like a picaresque novel starring a jaunty rogue who takes to Twitter like Tristram Shandy’s asterisk-strewn diary. Trump’s unpredictability might be giving the nation jitters, but it may have put North Korea, at least, on the back foot.

Most Democrats have wildly underestimated Trump from the get-go. I was certainly surprised at how easily he mowed down 17 other candidates in the GOP primaries. He represents widespread popular dissatisfaction with politics as usual. Both major US parties are in turmoil and metamorphosis, as their various factions war and realign. The mainstream media’s nonstop assault on Trump has certainly backfired by cementing his outsider status. He is basically a pragmatic deal-maker, indifferent to ideology. As with Bolsonaro in Brazil, Trump rose because of decades of failure by the political establishment to address urgent systemic problems, including corruption at high levels. Democrats must hammer out their own image and agenda and stop self-destructively insulting half the electorate by treating Trump like Satan.

Does the ‘deep state’ exist? If so, what is it?


The deep state is no myth but a sodden, intertwined mass of bloated, self-replicating bureaucracy that constitutes the real power in Washington and that stubbornly outlasts every administration. As government programs have incrementally multiplied, so has their regulatory apparatus, with its intrusive byzantine minutiae. Recently tagged as a source of anti-Trump conspiracy among embedded Democrats, the deep state is probably equally populated by Republicans and apolitical functionaries of Bartleby the Scrivener blandness. Its spreading sclerotic mass is wasteful, redundant, and ultimately tyrannical.

I have been trying for decades to get my fellow Democrats to realize how unchecked bureaucracy, in government or academe, is inherently authoritarian and illiberal. A persistent characteristic of civilizations in decline throughout history has been their self-strangling by slow, swollen, and stupid bureaucracies. The current atrocity of crippling student debt in the US is a direct product of an unholy alliance between college administrations and federal bureaucrats — a scandal that ballooned over two decades with barely a word of protest from our putative academic leftists, lost in their post-structuralist fantasies. Political correctness was not created by administrators, but it is ever-expanding campus bureaucracies that have constructed and currently enforce the oppressively rule-ridden regime of college life.

In the modern world, so wondrously but perilously interconnected, a principle of periodic reduction of bureaucracy should be built into every social organism. Freedom cannot survive otherwise.

What is true multiculturalism?


As I repeatedly argue in Provocations, comparative religion is the true multiculturalism and should be installed as the core curriculum in every undergraduate program. From my perspective as an atheist as well as a career college teacher, secular humanism has been a disastrous failure. Too many young people raised in affluent liberal homes are arriving at elite colleges and universities with skittish, unformed personalities and shockingly narrow views of human existence, confined to inflammatory and divisive identity politics.

Interest in Hinduism and Buddhism was everywhere in the 1960s counterculture, but it gradually dissipated partly because those most drawn to ‘cosmic consciousness’ either disabled themselves by excess drug use or shunned the academic ladder of graduate school. I contend that every educated person should be conversant with the sacred texts, rituals, and symbol systems of the great world religions — Hinduism, Buddhism, Judeo-Christianity, and Islam — and that true global understanding is impossible without such knowledge.

Not least, the juxtaposition of historically evolving spiritual codes tutors the young in ethical reasoning and the creation of meaning. Right now, the campus religion remains nihilist, meaning-destroying post-structuralism, whose pilfering god, the one-note Foucault, had near-zero scholarly knowledge of anything before or beyond the European Enlightenment. (His sparse writing on classical antiquity is risible.) Out with the false idols and in with the true!

There’s a lot of buzz about the ‘intellectual dark web’. One of its leading figures is Jordan Peterson, who is in some ways like you — he provokes, he works in an array of disciplines, he encourages individual responsibility. I saw your podcast with him. What did you make of him? Why is he so popular?

There are astounding parallels between Jordan Peterson’s work and mine. In its anti-ideological, trans-historical view of sex and nature, my first book, Sexual Personae (1990), can be viewed as a companion to Peterson’s first book, Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief (1999). Peterson and I took different routes up the mountain — he via clinical psychology and I via literature and art — but we arrived at exactly the same place. Amazingly, over our decades of copious research, we were drawn to the same book by the same thinker — The Origins and History of Consciousness (1949), by the Jungian analyst Erich Neumann. (My 2005 lecture on Neumann at New York University is reprinted in Provocations.) Peterson’s immense international popularity demonstrates the hunger for meaning among young people today. Defrauded of a genuine humanistic education, they are recognizing the spiritual impoverishment of their crudely politicized culture, choked with jargon, propaganda, and lies.

I met Peterson and his wife Tammy a year ago when they flew to Philadelphia with a Toronto camera crew for our private dialogue at the University of the Arts. (The YouTube video has had to date over a million and a half views.) Peterson was incontrovertibly one of the most brilliant minds I have ever encountered, starting with the British philosopher Stuart Hampshire, whom I heard speak impromptu for a dazzling hour after a lecture in college. In turning psychosocial discourse back toward the syncretistic, multicultural Jung, Peterson is recovering and restoring a peak period in North American thought, when Canada was renowned for pioneering, speculative thinkers like the media analyst Marshall McLuhan and the myth critic Northrop Frye. I have yet to see a single profile of Peterson, even from sympathetic journalists, that accurately portrays the vast scope, tenor, and importance of his work.

Is humanity losing its sense of humor?

As a bumptious adolescent in upstate New York, I stumbled on a British collection of Oscar Wilde’s epigrams in a secondhand bookstore. It was an electrifying revelation, a text that I studied like the bible. What bold, scathing wit, cutting through the sentimental fog of those still rigidly conformist early 1960s, when good girls were expected to simper and defer.

But I never fully understood Wilde’s caustic satire of Victorian philanthropists and humanitarians until the present sludgy tide of political correctness began flooding government, education, and media over the past two decades. Wilde saw the insufferable arrogance and preening sanctimony in his era’s self-appointed guardians of morality.

We’re back to the hypocrisy sweepstakes, where gestures of virtue are as formalized as kabuki. Humor has been assassinated. An off word at work or school will get you booted to the gallows. This is the graveyard of liberalism, whose once noble ideals have turned spectral and vampiric.
__________________
Bill Parcells: "You are what your record says you are!"
Margaret Thatcher: "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples' money."
President Donald John Trump: "You don't hand matches to an arsonist and you don't give power to an angry left wing mob."

  subroc is offline Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:13 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Template-Modifications by TMS
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Patriots Planet is not affiliated with the NFL or with the New England Patriots. The views and opinions on this forum do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the owners and/or operators of this forum and website.