RadioFreeLiberal.com

Smart Voices, Be Heard
It is currently Tue Sep 18, 2018 7:40 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 50 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2018 6:11 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36371
Great - but long - thought-provoking article via this month's Atlantic:

I’ve joined a new aristocracy now, even if we still call ourselves meritocratic winners. If you are a typical reader of The Atlantic, you may well be a member too. (And if you’re not a member, my hope is that you will find the story of this new class even more interesting—if also more alarming.) To be sure, there is a lot to admire about my new group, which I’ll call—for reasons you’ll soon see—the 9.9 percent. We’ve dropped the old dress codes, put our faith in facts, and are (somewhat) more varied in skin tone and ethnicity. People like me, who have waning memories of life in an earlier ruling caste, are the exception, not the rule.

By any sociological or financial measure, it’s good to be us. It’s even better to be our kids. In our health, family life, friendship networks, and level of education, not to mention money, we are crushing the competition below. But we do have a blind spot, and it is located right in the center of the mirror: We seem to be the last to notice just how rapidly we’ve morphed, or what we’ve morphed into.
Related Story

The False Promise of Meritocracy

The meritocratic class has mastered the old trick of consolidating wealth and passing privilege along at the expense of other people’s children. We are not innocent bystanders to the growing concentration of wealth in our time. We are the principal accomplices in a process that is slowly strangling the economy, destabilizing American politics, and eroding democracy. Our delusions of merit now prevent us from recognizing the nature of the problem that our emergence as a class represents. We tend to think that the victims of our success are just the people excluded from the club. But history shows quite clearly that, in the kind of game we’re playing, everybody loses badly in the end.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2018 7:01 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 11547
Location: Sunny South Florida
Yeah, I am not in the 9.9 percent, although I may have family members who are ... using his definition.

Anyway, allow me to grab some paragraphs out of the long essay, on the other side:

The historian Richard Hofstadter drew attention to Anti-intellectualism in American Life in 1963; Susan Jacoby warned in 2008 about The Age of American Unreason; and Tom Nichols announced The Death of Expertise in 2017. In Trump, the age of unreason has at last found its hero. The “self-made man” is always the idol of those who aren’t quite making it. He is the sacred embodiment of the American dream, the guy who answers to nobody, the poor man’s idea of a rich man. It’s the educated phonies this group can’t stand. With his utter lack of policy knowledge and belligerent commitment to maintaining his ignorance, Trump is the perfect representative for a population whose idea of good governance is just to scramble the eggheads. When reason becomes the enemy of the common man, the common man becomes the enemy of reason.

Did I mention that the common man is white? That brings us to the other side of American-style resentment. You kick down, and then you close ranks around an imaginary tribe. The problem, you say, is the moochers, the snakes, the handout queens; the solution is the flag and the religion of your (white) ancestors. According to a survey by the political scientist Brian Schaffner, Trump crushed it among voters who “strongly disagree” that “white people have advantages because of the color of their skin,” as well as among those who “strongly agree” that “women seek to gain power over men.” It’s worth adding that these responses measure not racism or sexism directly, but rather resentment. They’re good for picking out the kind of people who will vehemently insist that they are the least racist or sexist person you have ever met, even as they vote for a flagrant racist and an accused sexual predator.

No one is born resentful. As mass phenomena, racism, xenophobia, anti-intellectualism, narcissism, irrationalism, and all other variants of resentment are as expensive to produce as they are deadly to democratic politics. Only long hours of television programming, intelligently manipulated social-media feeds, and expensively sustained information bubbles can actualize the unhappy dispositions of humanity to the point where they may be fruitfully manipulated for political gain. Racism in particular is not just a legacy of the past, as many Americans would like to believe; it also must be constantly reinvented for the present. Mass incarceration, fearmongering, and segregation are not just the results of prejudice, but also the means of reproducing it.

[snip]

The first important thing to know about these consequences is the most obvious: Resentment is a solution to nothing. It isn’t a program of reform. It isn’t “populism.” It is an affliction of democracy, not an instance of it. The politics of resentment is a means of increasing inequality, not reducing it. Every policy change that has waded out of the Trump administration’s baffling morass of incompetence makes this clear. The new tax law; the executive actions on the environment and telecommunications, and on financial-services regulation; the judicial appointments of conservative ideologues—all will have the effect of keeping the 90 percent toiling in the foothills of merit for many years to come.

[snip][end]

OK, so here's where I'll agree, and where I'll quibble.

He's finally given me the proper frame for differentiating between Trump's right-populism and the other variety of left-populism.

Right-populism bathes in resentment and focuses on kicking down. But he doesn't quite get to the other thing that enables resentment: entitlement. To wealth, to sex, to power, to status, to being the center of the universe (political, economic, and otherwise) you think you should be. To be catered to by your political party as to where you belong, ... first in line.

So, on the rise of Trumpism -- I agree socioeconomic inequality is the terrain in which resentment flourishes, but the forms, frames, and varieties resentment takes is shaped by the social landscape, which is why white people resenting eggheads and non-white non-Christians is the kind of resentment that went for Trump.

On his general point that the 9.9 percent seem to believe in meritocracy as their faith, and that those who don't dwell with them in their country clubs and organic spirulina salons are not there with them due to the lack of effort, hard work, and determination only their cohort of humanity possesses, rather than "the 9.9%"'s own role in pulling up ladders, restricting opportunities, and building gated community walls, ...

he gets a very large Amen from me.

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2018 11:40 pm 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2016 9:37 am
Posts: 3580
US customs seizes Ohio family's life savings at airport

Quote:
Members of an immigrant family in Ohio say US Customs and Border Protection seized $58,100 of their life savings. Now they want it back.

Rustem Kazazi, 64, was headed to his native Albania to visit relatives in October, according to a federal lawsuit that he, his wife, Lejla, and son Erald filed this week in Ohio against the agency and others.

The suit alleges Customs and Border Protection used civil forfeiture laws to take the money without arresting or charging anyone with a crime.

Kazazi had planned to spend six months in Albania and buy a vacation home for retirement on the Adriatic coast, according to court documents. He also wanted to help members of his extended family, who are struggling, the court documents said.....................

.........In December, Customs and Border Protection sent Kazazi a notice saying agents had seized the cash because it was "involved in a smuggling/drug trafficking/money laundering operation," according to the lawsuit. The agency also said $57,330 was seized, or $770 less than Kazazi was carrying, the suit said.

The family said the allegations are baseless, and by holding the money, the agency is breaking the law.............

_________________
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dA3APlQeIAU


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 12:06 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:24 pm
Posts: 17313
I haven't read the cover story yet, because I know too many people like that. And have had friendships, relationships, and bff-ships smashed into bits because of it.

Regarding the topic in general, I do think that James Baldwin was right about such matters: too many people are not honest about themselves/ourselves about the relationship to the myth of America, dreams, and whatnot.

Thanks for posting, GoU - now I will have to read the whole thing.

_________________


Stop calling the cops on us.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 12:10 am 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2015 5:46 pm
Posts: 1618
Yeah, I am not in the 9.9 percent, although I may have family members who are ... using his definition.

Anyway, allow me to grab some paragraphs out of the long essay, on the other side:

The historian Richard Hofstadter drew attention to Anti-intellectualism in American Life in 1963; Susan Jacoby warned in 2008 about The Age of American Unreason; and Tom Nichols announced The Death of Expertise in 2017. In Trump, the age of unreason has at last found its hero. The “self-made man” is always the idol of those who aren’t quite making it. He is the sacred embodiment of the American dream, the guy who answers to nobody, the poor man’s idea of a rich man. It’s the educated phonies this group can’t stand. With his utter lack of policy knowledge and belligerent commitment to maintaining his ignorance, Trump is the perfect representative for a population whose idea of good governance is just to scramble the eggheads. When reason becomes the enemy of the common man, the common man becomes the enemy of reason.

Did I mention that the common man is white? That brings us to the other side of American-style resentment. You kick down, and then you close ranks around an imaginary tribe. The problem, you say, is the moochers, the snakes, the handout queens; the solution is the flag and the religion of your (white) ancestors. According to a survey by the political scientist Brian Schaffner, Trump crushed it among voters who “strongly disagree” that “white people have advantages because of the color of their skin,” as well as among those who “strongly agree” that “women seek to gain power over men.” It’s worth adding that these responses measure not racism or sexism directly, but rather resentment. They’re good for picking out the kind of people who will vehemently insist that they are the least racist or sexist person you have ever met, even as they vote for a flagrant racist and an accused sexual predator.

No one is born resentful. As mass phenomena, racism, xenophobia, anti-intellectualism, narcissism, irrationalism, and all other variants of resentment are as expensive to produce as they are deadly to democratic politics. Only long hours of television programming, intelligently manipulated social-media feeds, and expensively sustained information bubbles can actualize the unhappy dispositions of humanity to the point where they may be fruitfully manipulated for political gain. Racism in particular is not just a legacy of the past, as many Americans would like to believe; it also must be constantly reinvented for the present. Mass incarceration, fearmongering, and segregation are not just the results of prejudice, but also the means of reproducing it.

[snip]

The first important thing to know about these consequences is the most obvious: Resentment is a solution to nothing. It isn’t a program of reform. It isn’t “populism.” It is an affliction of democracy, not an instance of it. The politics of resentment is a means of increasing inequality, not reducing it. Every policy change that has waded out of the Trump administration’s baffling morass of incompetence makes this clear. The new tax law; the executive actions on the environment and telecommunications, and on financial-services regulation; the judicial appointments of conservative ideologues—all will have the effect of keeping the 90 percent toiling in the foothills of merit for many years to come.

[snip][end]

OK, so here's where I'll agree, and where I'll quibble.

He's finally given me the proper frame for differentiating between Trump's right-populism and the other variety of left-populism.

Right-populism bathes in resentment and focuses on kicking down. But he doesn't quite get to the other thing that enables resentment: entitlement. To wealth, to sex, to power, to status, to being the center of the universe (political, economic, and otherwise) you think you should be. To be catered to by your political party as to where you belong, ... first in line.

So, on the rise of Trumpism -- I agree socioeconomic inequality is the terrain in which resentment flourishes, but the forms, frames, and varieties resentment takes is shaped by the social landscape, which is why white people resenting eggheads and non-white non-Christians is the kind of resentment that went for Trump.

On his general point that the 9.9 percent seem to believe in meritocracy as their faith, and that those who don't dwell with them in their country clubs and organic spirulina salons are not there with them due to the lack of effort, hard work, and determination only their cohort of humanity possesses, rather than "the 9.9%"'s own role in pulling up ladders, restricting opportunities, and building gated community walls, ...

he gets a very large Amen from me.

Quote:
<snip>

According to Forbes magazine's list of richest people, there are well over 500 multi-billionaires. They are mostly men, and a great number of them are American. They make obscene sums of money in tech startups and dot coms. Others strike it rich in mining, the media, retail and real estate. Some simply inherit their fortune.

Most often, the way to make a fortune and add billions on top of it, is by investing the extra cash you already have lying around in the stock market.

No two rags to riches, or riches to riches, stories are exactly alike. But what unites many of these people is a firmly held belief that they got where they are through hard work and talent and they deserve everything that's come to them. But, is it true?

Not a chance, according to Professor Robert Frank. He says economic success has far more to do with luck. He believes the wealthy's failure to acknowledge the role luck plays in life erodes the very society that facilitates their success in the first place.

<snip>

Interview at:
The role of luck in accumulating wealth

I don't know if the audio link works in the US. I'm pretty sure the podcast is free for all to listen to.

_________________
Socialism! That's that word that your politicians use that it's so nasty. Socialism. Other places just call it sharing. It's a good thing! You just share and give some to the less fortunate. -Fred Eaglesmith


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 1:06 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:07 am
Posts: 10371
It's a bit much to be applying the word aristocracy to a wide group of the upper middle class encompassing all of the top 10% in terms of net wealth.

That group begins with a net worth of about a million dollars and ends with multi billionaires.

Just about anyone in California who owns their home and has paid off their mortgage is included in that group at the bottom boundary. There's no way in hell that they're a part of a "new aristocracy" class.

:|

I'm in that so called "new aristocracy" down towards the bottom boundary. I'm have a net worth above a million dollars, my mortgage is paid off, and I have a yearly income which places me at about the government poverty level.

I don't go shopping, I mend things instead. I don't buy hardly anything new. Even with an income at the poverty level I still manage to actually save money, which adds to my net worth.

They used to call someone like me a retiree. If I'm real careful and lucky I won't end up eating canned dog food during the ends of my days.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 1:20 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:24 pm
Posts: 17313
It's a bit much to be applying the word aristocracy to a wide group of the upper middle class encompassing all of the top 10% in terms of net wealth.

That group begins with a net worth of about a million dollars and ends with multi billionaires.

Just about anyone in California who owns their home and has paid off their mortgage is included in that group at the bottom boundary. There's no way in hell that they're a part of a "new aristocracy" class.

:|


It's definitely possible if you include the penchant for aspiration.

Quote:
I'm in that so called "new aristocracy" down towards the bottom boundary. I'm have a net worth above a million dollars, my mortgage is paid off, and I have a yearly income which places me at about the government poverty level.


Explains a lot about you and why you are so out of touch on most social issues.


Quote:
I don't go shopping, I mend things instead. I don't buy hardly anything new. Even with an income at the poverty level I still manage to actually save money, which adds to my net worth.

They used to call someone like me a retiree. If I'm real careful and lucky I won't end up eating canned dog food during the ends of my days.


Get to know some people who aren't your age or who aren't at your level of social and economic privilege. I know that is a challenge, since most such people have also never been in your demographic. It's also a challenge because it means getting to know some people.

_________________


Stop calling the cops on us.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 1:58 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:07 am
Posts: 10371

It's definitely possible if you include the penchant for aspiration.



Explains a lot about you and why you are so out of touch on most social issues.




Get to know some people who aren't your age or who aren't at your level of social and economic privilege. I know that is a challenge, since most such people have also never been in your demographic. It's also a challenge because it means getting to know some people.


A penchant for aspiration, means having a hope or ambition of achieving something. I regard that as a necessity, rank it with food and shelter. Much of what I have been able to achieve is having food and building and improving my shelter. I have never bought or owned a new car.



Your statement that I'm out of touch on most social issues, means I don't subscribe to what you have subscribed yourself to. I regard that as your issue not mine. I'm well aware of my white privilege. In the ways in which I can I do try to correct that inequality as I go though life.


With regard to your suggestion about getting to know people who aren't my age, or who aren't at my level of social and economic privilege. Getting to know people outside of my own demographic group. I would suggest you might try getting yourself a new Carnac the Magnificent hat. I would also suggest you might try being more empathetic and less judgmental.


I've spent time and have lived amoung minorities all of my life. Mostly with Native Americans, but I have lived amoung Latinos, Blacks, and Asians when I lived and worked in the city as well.

An Indian reservation is about a ten minute walk from my house. I know many of them by name. I've learned their names by picking them up along the road, giving them rides to and from town. And once when I had a breakdown I was given a ride to and from town. :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 2:11 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:24 pm
Posts: 17313
Your statement that I'm out of touch on most social issues, means I don't subscribe to what you have subscribed yourself to.


Had I meant to say you don't subscribe to what I have subscribed to and that's what makes you out of touch with social issues, I would have simply said that. But you already know you're out of touch on social issues.

The "empathy" of which you speak starts and ends with at the very least getting in touch, paternalistic white man.

There is a remedy for being out of touch on social issues. You already know what it is.

_________________


Stop calling the cops on us.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 2:29 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:07 am
Posts: 10371

Had I meant to say you don't subscribe to what I have subscribed to and that's what makes you out of touch with social issues, I would have simply said that. But you already know you're out of touch on social issues.

The "empathy" of which you speak starts and ends with at the very least getting in touch, paternalistic white man.

There is a remedy for being out of touch on social issues. You already know what it is.


I don't actually know all that. I do know you have been saying I'm out of touch, but that doesn't mean I am out of touch.

You really do need to get a new Carnac the Magnificent hat because your current ability to read minds and see that which is not in your range of vision is leaving you short.


I would suggest you get a really nice turban kind of one with some feathers. :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 3:02 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:24 pm
Posts: 17313

I don't actually know all that. I do know you have been saying I'm out of touch, but that doesn't mean I am out of touch.

You really do need to get a new Carnac the Magnificent hat


2nd/3rd time you've invoked this.

Are you imitating Johnny Carson or tritumi.

Quote:
because your current ability to read minds and see that which is not in your range of vision is leaving you short.


I would suggest you get a really nice turban kind of one with some feathers. :)


I bet. Thanks for the recommendation but I'll pass, since it seems to be the kind of hat you wear, where you somehow divine what you know about social issues out of nothing but thin air?

Not very accurate, and full of hot air.

_________________


Stop calling the cops on us.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 7:39 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 11547
Location: Sunny South Florida
This is not addressed to Sam; just a general point.

The article suggests a tenet of faith for the 9.9 percent is that luck, knowing the right people, or having the right parents, had nothing to do with their success (let alone maybe a willingness to step on others on the way up, see: Donald Trump); it's all based on merit. What often must follow from that, unspoken until invoked, is that clearly those not past the boundary must lack merit, and that is their ultimate problem. Not bad breaks, not a rigged system (cue the thing Bernie keeps repeating but he means the economic one, not the political), not all the isms of discrimination, not some of the limitations human beings have for, well, being human, like making mistakes or being flawed.

Not a lack of full-time tenure-track opportunities because of underfunded higher education and a system moving toward automation like the rest of the world (see: distance learning), no it's YOU. (Do I sound resentful?)

This is I think the real test the author is posing. If you believe the distribution of wealth in this country is entirely due to a flawless system of meritocracy, ... you tend to be in that boundary, and of course to believe that, I mean you had to get there all by your own talent and merit and nothing else, it's like ... an article of faith. Questioning that doctrine is to question the self, and self's relationship to others.

Thus, who needs social programs, government efforts, wars on poverty; these are just the problems of people who need to simply pull harder on their bootstraps, harder, harder. As if in any society there could be white collar high-paying professional jobs for everybody! and nobody, even in our glorious post-industrial paradise, had to clean the toilets, make the McBurgers, help you find the Widget on Aisle 119, make your double tap latte, or box up your Amazon order. Yeah, robots are doing more and more of that work, but not totally, yet. Let us all make apps, drive for Uber, rent out our spare bedroom, and rise to glory.

And thus, when we suggest that while even people doing that work deserve a livable wage, no, don't talk about the structural economy, don't even suggest that even if it were better structured not everybody will have a job coding for Facebook, ever, people are poor because they suck.

If you believe that, you are part of that aristocracy.

I think that was his point, kind of an old one, but yeah, Marx noted it, your ideology tends to reflect your class position. People at the top of the class hierarchy like to think they are a gift from god, but people below them are refuse.

But to return to the point of his I focused on, a lot of the Trump voters, not inside the golden boundary, don't get angry at the top, they kick down, because in turn they don't want to strike up, they want to blame Mexicans, immigrants, Blacks, Mooslims, and welfare cheats ... which supposedly is all the Democratic party now cares about, not the proper hard-working white salt of the Earth, like they used ta.

(I'm not saying this is true - I'm saying this is how they see it.)

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 9:20 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:01 pm
Posts: 16025

I do know you have been saying I'm out of touch, but that doesn't mean I am out of touch.


Oh come on Sam. It's obvious, in post after post from you that you think everybody but you expresses opinions and you express the truth.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 10:07 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:07 am
Posts: 10371
This is not addressed to Sam; just a general point.

The article suggests a tenet of faith for the 9.9 percent is that luck, knowing the right people, or having the right parents, had nothing to do with their success (let alone maybe a willingness to step on others on the way up, see: Donald Trump); it's all based on merit. What often must follow from that, unspoken until invoked, is that clearly those not past the boundary must lack merit, and that is their ultimate problem. Not bad breaks, not a rigged system (cue the thing Bernie keeps repeating but he means the economic one, not the political), not all the isms of discrimination, not some of the limitations human beings have for, well, being human, like making mistakes or being flawed.

Not a lack of full-time tenure-track opportunities because of underfunded higher education and a system moving toward automation like the rest of the world (see: distance learning), no it's YOU. (Do I sound resentful?)

This is I think the real test the author is posing. If you believe the distribution of wealth in this country is entirely due to a flawless system of meritocracy, ... you tend to be in that boundary, and of course to believe that, I mean you had to get there all by your own talent and merit and nothing else, it's like ... an article of faith. Questioning that doctrine is to question the self, and self's relationship to others.

Thus, who needs social programs, government efforts, wars on poverty; these are just the problems of people who need to simply pull harder on their bootstraps, harder, harder. As if in any society there could be white collar high-paying professional jobs for everybody! and nobody, even in our glorious post-industrial paradise, had to clean the toilets, make the McBurgers, help you find the Widget on Aisle 119, make your double tap latte, or box up your Amazon order. Yeah, robots are doing more and more of that work, but not totally, yet. Let us all make apps, drive for Uber, rent out our spare bedroom, and rise to glory.

And thus, when we suggest that while even people doing that work deserve a livable wage, no, don't talk about the structural economy, don't even suggest that even if it were better structured not everybody will have a job coding for Facebook, ever, people are poor because they suck.

If you believe that, you are part of that aristocracy.

I think that was his point, kind of an old one, but yeah, Marx noted it, your ideology tends to reflect your class position. People at the top of the class hierarchy like to think they are a gift from god, but people below them are refuse.

But to return to the point of his I focused on, a lot of the Trump voters, not inside the golden boundary, don't get angry at the top, they kick down, because in turn they don't want to strike up, they want to blame Mexicans, immigrants, Blacks, Mooslims, and welfare cheats ... which supposedly is all the Democratic party now cares about, not the proper hard-working white salt of the Earth, like they used ta.

(I'm not saying this is true - I'm saying this is how they see it.)


That seems to be a fair assessment of what the author was saying. And the author did include that some of the 9.9 percenters are minorities in an attempt to dispel having the theory becoming completely stereotypical. (90% to 99.9% is better way of expressing that by the way).

Carmen mentioned "a penchant for aspiration" to me. On one hand there is something to the authors theory, but on the other hand there is something to folks having a penchant for aspiration too. A mixed bag. That is where I think the author fails. He or she tries to cram too much into too wide a bag, with too much over simplification going all around.

Kind of like when farmers talk about city folk, or city folk talk about farmers. Not very useful. About all that kind of talk can be is stereotypical.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 10:15 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 11547
Location: Sunny South Florida
but on the other hand there is something to folks having a penchant for aspiration too. A mixed bag.


First question, Sam. Is this 'penchant for aspiration' lacking in the other 90% or so? I just want to be clear what you are saying.

The only other point I'd make is 'penchant for aspiration' as to what. I think you're speaking to material comfort and well being. Well, humans need that, yep. A house is better than an efficiency or a shack. I get it, we should aspire for more material needs. For ourselves, and of course children & co-domestic family members if we have them.

Maybe people aspire to serving others in their community better, in being better educated and knowledgeable even if that doesn't translate into material rewards, to being more humane and kind, or to contemplate the deepest mystical mysteries of the universe. Throughout history, some folks have said you need to give up most of your material possessions and accumulations to do that effectively.

I just think there are lots of kinds of aspiration, and just because people lack one kind that is often seen as central in American life, doesn't mean they don't have others.

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 10:17 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:07 am
Posts: 10371

Oh come on Sam. It's obvious, in post after post from you that you think everybody but you expresses opinions and you express the truth.


What's obvious to me is in post after post I express an opinion or a fact about the subject matter of the thread, and instead of that being agreed with or criticized for it's merits or faults I find an attack on my person results.

You are one of the prime offenders around here Ike. In this thread you have contributed nothing.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 10:35 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:07 am
Posts: 10371

First question, Sam. Is this 'penchant for aspiration' lacking in the other 90% or so? I just want to be clear what you are saying.

The only other point I'd make is 'penchant for aspiration' as to what. I think you're speaking to material comfort and well being. Well, humans need that, yep. A house is better than an efficiency or a shack. I get it, we should aspire for more material needs. For ourselves, and of course children & co-domestic family members if we have them.

Maybe people aspire to serving others in their community better, in being better educated and knowledgeable even if that doesn't translate into material rewards, to being more humane and kind, or to contemplate the deepest mystical mysteries of the universe. Throughout history, some folks have said you need to give up most of your material possessions and accumulations to do that effectively.

I just think there are lots of kinds of aspiration, and just because people lack one kind that is often seen as central in American life, doesn't mean they don't have others.


In that post where I was replying to Carmen having mentioned it I said, "A penchant for aspiration, means having a hope or ambition of achieving something. I regard that as a necessity, rank it with food and shelter."

And no, I don't feel that this 'penchant for aspiration' is lacking in the other 90% or so. In some selected cases it appears to be lacking in all 100% of the groupings. In other cases it's present but poor spending habits have lead to the persons failing to achieve financial security.

And as the author has expressed privilege often plays a role. But it's not the only role. (To be fair I don't think the author tried to express that it was the only role.)


My major point is not that the author is wrong in every case, the author has oversimplified, has been too stereotypical, and has attempted to encompass too wide a grouping for the article to be very useful.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 10:45 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 11547
Location: Sunny South Florida
I think his point was that while the 9.9 percent want to pretend all our economic inequalities and injustices come only from the 1 percent or the 0.1 percent ... you know, the Monopoly figurine in the tophat with the monocle ... they cannot completely hide in absolute innocence.

Some of the rigging of the game is also for themselves, too, and on that point, I think he's correct.

I thought his example of exactly what dental assistants are prevented from doing in dental offices by regulation, all so the dentist themselves has exclusive responsibilities that can justify their better pay and job security, a notable one. For example. Or the way we do medical education so as to limit the number of MD graduates, precisely so MDs can get better salaries and be in higher demand. Even if that leads to a doctor shortage in rural areas and other critical places. As well as fewer opportunities for people to be doctors.

BTW, lack of absolute innocence doesn't mean equivalence of guilt, he does correctly argue the 0.1 percent have the bucks necessary to grab financial control of the government more than the rest of the 9.9 percent. They are the worse villains on that score.

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 10:46 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:01 pm
Posts: 16025

You are one of the prime offenders around here Ike. In this thread you have contributed nothing.


So...am I to take this as the typical Sam fact or opinion? :lol:

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 11:02 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 17358
http://laissez-fairerepublic.com/tenplanks.html

10 planks of communism by Marx

Number 3 Abolish all rights of inheritance

_________________
"my choice is for people like you to be deported -Ike Bana 5/13/18

"within weeks of being rid of the likes of you, rid of every fucking one of you,we would begin to see what kind of country this ought to be" Ike Bana 6/14/18


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 11:06 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:24 pm
Posts: 17313
http://laissez-fairerepublic.com/tenplanks.html

10 planks of communism by Marx

Number 3 Abolish all rights of inheritance


What in the devil is "laissez-fairerepublic.com"?

Oh look, it's a Rushbo fansite. :problem:

_________________


Stop calling the cops on us.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 11:06 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 11547
Location: Sunny South Florida
Yeah, I'm not in favor of that.

But I am in favor of not eliminating, and restoring, the estate/inheritance tax to where it was before the Rethugs in Congress put their mitts on it.

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 11:08 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:24 pm
Posts: 17313
Lol "laissez-fairerepublic.com" considers World Nuts Daily News and Analysis

Quote:
The Drudge Report -- Don't make the mistake of depending on only one source for news and commentary (especially if the one source is TV)! Investigate for yourself and get news weeks or even months BEFORE the "Liberal" Media Establishment decides to finally report on it. The Internet offers a greater diversity of news and opinion than you will ever get watching the Boob Tube. The Drudge Report provides an important alternative to the Establishment slant.

NewsMax.com - America's News Page -- America's News Page

World Net Daily.com - A Free Press For A Free People-- A Free Press For A Free People

Insight Magazine -- News & Analysis

Accuracy In Media-- Watchdog on Media Bias

The Washington Times

Rush Limbaugh -- the Web Site! The conservative Republican weighs in against "liberal" Democrats and environmental whackoes!

Townhall.com - Conservative news & Information-- Conservative News & Information

Conservative News Service -- An alternative news network

Big Eye! A different way to search the Web and discover the best sites.

The Kansas City Star -- The Web Edition of the K C Star


:lol:

_________________


Stop calling the cops on us.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 11:10 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 17358
Yeah, I'm not in favor of that.

But I am in favor of not eliminating, and restoring, the estate/inheritance tax to where it was before the Rethugs in Congress put their mitts on it.


Even though I have never heard a pol state it GoU had a pretty good ide. Tax it one time as income for that year. Of course the problem with that is what happens when you inherit property instead of money.

_________________
"my choice is for people like you to be deported -Ike Bana 5/13/18

"within weeks of being rid of the likes of you, rid of every fucking one of you,we would begin to see what kind of country this ought to be" Ike Bana 6/14/18


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 11:13 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 17358
Lol "laissez-fairerepublic.com" considers World Nuts Daily News and Analysis



:lol:


I was wondering who would be the first to trash the website. Even though the site is extreme RW the 10 planks of Marx are correct. Wasn't it Marx who said something along the lines of if you can't dispute the fact dispute the source?

_________________
"my choice is for people like you to be deported -Ike Bana 5/13/18

"within weeks of being rid of the likes of you, rid of every fucking one of you,we would begin to see what kind of country this ought to be" Ike Bana 6/14/18


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 50 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ap215 and 8 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group