's hard one

[Guest guest]

Dan, all,

First, Dan, like a plan that like to point out that your complaint about

the counterculture doesn't wash after 28 years during which we've had 20

years of Republican presidents. Included in this are 12 years of

Republican rule over the House of Representatives.

Also, after 12 years of being exposed to your own views, I think I

understand what the term counterculture stands in for. The hoary

dichotomies: tradition/innovation, authority/self-realization, etc.. But,

I'll get back to this later.

I will add that my 35th reunion all of my once upon a time hippie

classmates had become, for the most part, lawyers, doctors and

capitalists.

Noting this, I am aware that the capacity to possess power while also

complaining about being victimized by college professors and libertine

hippies and trial lawyers seems infinite. What would it take for

conservatives to be macho enough to stop whining about the losses imposed

by the counter-culture? After 30 years?

***

It is interesting that in this election there is not a baby boomer at the

top of the ticket.

Say what you will about Obama, he's the path-breaker for his generation.

It is interesting to note say that the remaining core of support for the

Republicans resides in those over the age of 60, is split on baby boomers,

and has its remaining principal foothold among white men over the age of

50.

So, probably, the center-right coalition is about to fade into history

simply because the demographics are changing. Diversity, tolerance, and

education sound a death knell to cultural conservatism.

(I find it odd that conservatives extoll their intellectual superiority

while, at the same time, they run campaigns against the intellect!)

As for economic conservatism, I don't know what that would be like after

the hyper-sizing of the government by spend-and-borrow Republicanism of

the last 20/28 years. Also, it would seem the corporate welfare state's

longstanding infection of the free market is going to be expanded beyond

anybody's wildest dreams.

Leaving us with the nothing more than the ashes of the neocon imperium,

the anti-Constitutionalism set in motion by Reagan, re-instantiated in the

SCOTUS coup of 2000, and brought to an insane level by the 'monarchists'

and paranoiacs of Cheney Inc.. I'm an outliar, but both the wars are

unwinnable unless a military dictatorship takes over the US and presses

5-10 million young men into service of victory.

***

McCain's anger and repression are impressive. He is a shocking coward too.

Palin? Her undeniable intelligence has been put in service of her ego and

persona. I don't see where her intelligence has ranged much beyond these

focal points. Her incoherent replies to the hardly tough questioning of

Gibson and Couric say it all about the quality of her mind. This said, she

does speak as if what she says is unassailable. That complete lack of

negativitve is associated with narcissism and egomania.

***

Meanwhile, not knowing whether Obama will be a good President or not, I

nevertheless endorse the strengths revealed by his thoughtfulness,

articulateness, self-discipline, dispassion, and executive leadership of

his campaign.

Nether Republican candidate shows any evidence of possessing those strengths.

McCain, in projecting his intense and self-righteous ambition onto Obama

in the form of those early campaign ads hewed to the model of envy and

dismay at his opponent's obvious phallic potency. For me, that McCain

First so self-evidently trumps the cynical 'country first' is but one of

the many delicious psychological features of this election season.

regards,

[Guest guest]

Dan, all,

Wow. Between the grand strawman and the frothing, it's hard to figure out

exactly what the *actual* targets of your ire are; these aside from the

targets proposed as a matter of your psyche and its *inner* dramas.

> You say " 30 years " as though it were a long time. Conservatives will

> stop complaining - and fighting - when we either succeed in

> overthrowing the counterculture and reversing the damage don, or are

> utterly destroyed.

Now it's time to discuss this monolithic " ounterculture " that needs to be

overthrown like some tinpot dictator.

Tell me is it one thing, an amalgamation, a variety? Are its pernicious

forces defeated by exactly what?

Would you care to, or be able to, give me a flavor of the problem in

psychological terms, and in doing so verify the psychological " rightness "

of your position?

***

Okay, now you line-up the forms your speculative paranoia take.

Obama shows himself to

1. poor friend of Israel

***likely to win the jewish vote by 3-1; explanation, Dan?

2. soft on the PLO

***You mean soft on the government of the West Bank. In what way has Mr.

Obama acted to lead you to believe this?

3. soft on the Iranians

***What do you imagine demonstrates this softness-to-be?

4. other enemies of the regime

***Please elaborate what enemies pose a meaningful threat to the regime

and what you suppose Obama will do to support their efforts

5. to be a radical redistributor

*** Per force the 3% increase he's proposed and the tax cuts for the

majority of households? If so, are you aware of how dynamic tax and

withholding rates have been over the many decades?

6. prevents economic recovery through excessivea nd unjust taxation

*** How do explain the economy of the fifties with their high tax rates

and 8 years of Republican rule? Come on, Obama will hopefully echo the

economic success that has usually been the province of demoratic

presidents; (this being true by almost any measure since the end of world

war 2)

9 unnatural equality

I have no idea what unnatural equality really means.

10 catastrophic damage done -

Maybe, but then Obama is starting from the ruins of the neocon ins

We will never give up.

I hope not. Strong extremes fertilize milder majorities and enrich the

negotiation in the middle where things get synthesized and done.

***

> Diversity, tolerance and education don't go together.

In my view they do. There must be a reason why almost every anthropologist

is both highly educated and liberal.

***

>> (I find it odd that conservatives extoll their intellectual superiority

>> while, at the same time, they run campaigns against the intellect!)

>

> Perhaps as a result of their intellect, and more to the point their

> study, they know something about the nature of politics and the

> people, about the nature of democracy, that left-wing intellectuals

> have yet to learn.

Poppycock. Although it is ironic that conservatives are dispositively

naturalistic in your estimation. You ducked the question. If conservatives

are so secure in their veracious apprehensions of reality, then why do

they not repudiate the magical thinking, anti-intellectuallism, racism,

and the anti-science and creationists from their crowd?

There is little you can offer as a matter of knowledge that you can

demonstrate as fact. Much of what you are sure conservative intellectuals

are sure of can be contested simply because their claims cannot in anyway

be verified.

I've offered this challenge to you over 12 years and you have not brought

anything to the table except deployment of the fallacy of the appeal to

authority. It would seem you haven't even thought through this problem of

demonstration of truth yourself.

> The free market is going to be expanded beyond

>> anybody's wildest dreams.

>

> I'm afraid so.

Reagain, Bush II; both were corporate welfarists, Keynesians, devote to

spreading the wealth upward and redistribution. And, just to certify their

lack of principle, both exhibited contempt for the Constitution.

> At this point, a return to the draft might not be the worst thing that

> could happen.

I endorse a draft without any exemptions except for CO and physical reasons.

>> McCain's anger and repression are impressive. He is a shocking

>>coward too.

>

> You can say that after you've spent seven years in a Vietnamese prison

> camp or similar.

Aahh, you pull out the fallacy as if even common sense could reasonably

hold that once a heroic prisoner one is incapable of cowardice. Except

what could be more cowardly than violating your own principles?

> I wouldn't too often refer to Obama's " phallic potency " too much if I

> were you, though. Someone less tolerant than I might accuse you of

> racism.

Somebody ignorant can ause me of racism for any concocted reason they wish

to. But this would only reveal they don't know what the definition of

racism is; right?

I didn't mention race at all. You did! Obama's phallic potency would be so

irrespective of his racial background. And the charge, as it were, is

psychologizing about the roots of McCain's self-righteousness in the light

of his 'combat' against a virility McCain no longer can exercise

*consciously*.

regard,

[Guest guest]

Calhoun wrote:

Dan, all,

Wow. Between the grand strawman and the frothing, it's hard to figure

out

exactly what the *actual* targets of your ire are; these aside from the

targets proposed as a matter of your psyche and its *inner* dramas.

> You say "30 years" as though it were a long time. Conservatives

will

> stop complaining - and fighting - when we either succeed in

> overthrowing the counterculture and reversing the damage don, or

are

> utterly destroyed.

Now it's time to discuss this monolithic "ounterculture" that needs to

be

overthrown like some tinpot dictator.

Tell me is it one thing, an amalgamation, a variety? Are its pernicious

forces defeated by exactly what?

Would you care to, or be able to, give me a flavor of the problem in

psychological terms, and in doing so verify the psychological

"rightness"

of your position?

***

Okay, now you line-up the forms your speculative paranoia take.

Obama shows himself to

1. poor friend of Israel

***likely to win the jewish vote by 3-1; explanation, Dan?

Do you think that all American Jews put Israel first, or that they know

what its interests are? Like so many people, they have drunk the

Kool-Aid, as I believe the expression is. The savior complex is active.

2. soft on the PLO

***You mean soft on the government of the West Bank. In what way has Mr.

Obama acted to lead you to believe this?

His friends, his past associates, his failure to condemn the PLO in the

harshest possible terms, or to characterize "the government of the West

Bank" for what it is - a gross failure of democracy, and an indication

that the people of the West Bank are, at least at present, unfit for

self-government.

3. soft on the Iranians

***What do you imagine demonstrates this softness-to-be?

A willingness to allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons -that is, his

failure to assure us that, should he become president, he will prevent

Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons by any and all means necessary.

4. other enemies of the regime

***Please elaborate what enemies pose a meaningful threat to the regime

and what you suppose Obama will do to support their efforts

I don't say he will actively support their efforts (although I am not

confident that he will not), but I am unconfident that he will oppose

them. What is his position on Cuba? Does he wish to "normalize"

relations with Castro? Does he see the Chavez regime as an abomination?

He hasn't said so

5. to be a radical redistributor

*** Per force the 3% increase he's proposed and the tax cuts for the

majority of households? If so, are you aware of how dynamic tax and

withholding rates have been over the many decades?

Proposing is not disposing. Nobody that I know believes that he will

stop there. He promises to raise capital gains taxes from 15 to 20

percent, and will, if he has his head, almost certainly raise or remove

the limit on wages subject to social security tax. How is this not

kicking the stuffing out of the middle class. That said, if all he does

is raise taxes, things won't be as bad as I anticpate.

6. prevents economic recovery through excessivea nd unjust taxation

*** How do explain the economy of the fifties with their high tax rates

and 8 years of Republican rule?

All of our economic competitors had been hobbled by the war. And

Eisenhower hardly counts as a Republican, even though he belonged to

the party.

Come on, Obama will hopefully echo the

economic success that has usually been the province of demoratic

presidents; (this being true by almost any measure since the end of

world

war 2)

9 unnatural equality

I have no idea what unnatural equality really means.

Forced equality of condition in terms of wealth, honor and privilege.

You know, "everyone deserves the chance to go to college," and all that

sort of thing. If Obama were to say, "you know, let's face it, a lot of

kids just aren't college material," I would feel a bit better.

10 catastrophic damage done -

Maybe, but then Obama is starting from the ruins of the neocon ins

We will never give up.

I hope not. Strong extremes fertilize milder majorities and enrich the

negotiation in the middle where things get synthesized and done.

***

> Diversity, tolerance and education don't go together.

In my view they do. There must be a reason why almost every

anthropologist

is both highly educated and liberal.

Now that is funny. There must be a reason why almost every political

philosopher is both highly educated and conservative. Must be the

difference in subject matter.

***

>> (I find it odd that conservatives extoll their intellectual

superiority

>> while, at the same time, they run campaigns against the

intellect!)

>

> Perhaps as a result of their intellect, and more to the point their

> study, they know something about the nature of politics and the

> people, about the nature of democracy, that left-wing intellectuals

> have yet to learn.

Poppycock. Although it is ironic that conservatives are dispositively

naturalistic in your estimation. You ducked the question. If

conservatives

are so secure in their veracious apprehensions of reality, then why do

they not repudiate the magical thinking, anti-intellectuallism,

racism,

and the anti-science and creationists from their crowd?

You want it plainer? Perhaps it is because they know that the plebs are

the plebs, and not subject to "enlightenment." Perhaps they have

learned the Roman lesson that, in a large regime, what matters is not

the effort to make philosophers of the many, but rather "control of the

plebs" (Plutarch). Perhaps they know what the people need in terms of

what you call magical thinking. Perhaps they are not cruel enough to

rip away all the veils. Perhaps they agree with Nietzsche that the

truth may be poisonous, and that what has brought man to this point in

his evolution is not truth but falsehood. Perhaps they know that

science and unfettered inquiry have got us into this mess. Perhaps they

know, with President Washington, that the interests of those with minds

of perculiar construction may not coincide with the needs of the many,

or the common good. Perhaps.The conservative Jung knew these things.

Why shouldn't they?

To rif on the 20th century's greatest American president, modern

natural science is not the solution, it is the problem.

There is little you can offer as a matter of knowledge that you can

demonstrate as fact. Much of what you are sure conservative

intellectuals

are sure of can be contested simply because their claims cannot in

anyway

be verified.

I've offered this challenge to you over 12 years and you have not

brought

anything to the table except deployment of the fallacy of the appeal to

authority. It would seem you haven't even thought through this problem

of

demonstration of truth yourself.

They are verified by experience, the surest form of knowledge in

political matters. For twelve years I have refused to accept your idea

of what constitutes "demonstration," and may, god willing, continue to

refuse for another twelve years (time flies, doesn't it?)

> The free market is going to be expanded beyond

>> anybody's wildest dreams.

>

> I'm afraid so.

Reagain, Bush II; both were corporate welfarists, Keynesians, devote to

spreading the wealth upward and redistribution. And, just to certify

their

lack of principle, both exhibited contempt for the Constitution.

A difference is that corporations contribute to society, while welfare

recipients contribute nothing. Downward welfare does nothing but

corrupt the character of the citizens.

> At this point, a return to the draft might not be the worst thing

that

> could happen.

I endorse a draft without any exemptions except for CO and physical

reasons.

I would also exempt the insane, but on the other hand would not make an

exception for CO. It's not about individual conscience. The rulers will

tell you when the gods want you to fight. Ours is not to reason why.

>> McCain's anger and repression are impressive. He is a shocking

>>coward too.

>

> You can say that after you've spent seven years in a Vietnamese

prison

> camp or similar.

Aahh, you pull out the fallacy as if even common sense could reasonably

hold that once a heroic prisoner one is incapable of cowardice.

Character doesn't usually change.

Except

what could be more cowardly than violating your own principles?

How about capitulating to the enemy?

> I wouldn't too often refer to Obama's "phallic potency" too much

if I

> were you, though. Someone less tolerant than I might accuse you of

> racism.

Somebody ignorant can ause me of racism for any concocted reason they

wish

to. But this would only reveal they don't know what the definition of

racism is; right?

I didn't mention race at all. You did! Obama's phallic potency would be

so

irrespective of his racial background. And the charge, as it were, is

psychologizing about the roots of McCain's self-righteousness in the

light

of his 'combat' against a virility McCain no longer can exercise

*consciously*.

I know what you meant, but many would not. I intended that warning

seriously, and not just to tweak you.

regards,

Dan

regard,

[Guest guest]

Dear Dan,

What exactly is " un-natural equality " You wrote:

" when he fails to fulfill

> the revolutionary fantasies of the left (by failing to enforce an

> unnatural equality), "

Is that when I am starving to death and you have too much food?

or when I am at the best public school because I live is " high income " area

and you have a lousy, awful school because your Mom can't afford a decent

place to live?

Unnatural equality?

Oh, I know that is when I develop my ability to paint well while people are

probably laughing at my efforts, while you don't try and can't be an artist

anyway?

No. Ok, then its when my parents die while I am an infant, and nobody except

unfeeling foster-parents can take care of me, so I don't feel as loved as I

should.

OK, now I get it! It is when my father loses his job because the factory is

going to China, and he cannot find another one, and is so discouraged, and

my mom cannot work because of small kids at home.

No,Its when I get sick and have no health insurance and have to declare

bankruptcy because I can no longer pay the health bills and my house payment

is way behind because i could not work.

I knew I'd figure out what un-natural equality is all about.

All those " unlucky people are un-naturally equal

No, Its when we all go to the polls to vote, and you have to stand in line

as long as everyone else.

Equal simply isn't all that equal even in our society.The Food banks have

bare shelves, and i get better cancer care than those who have no voice and

no insurance.I live well because i was born into a family of " haves " and so

were most of us here. We were instilled with the idea of responsibility and

the work ethic because we were " middle class " and knew the system. (Sure

there always some who can scramble into the middle class by themselves), but

they are the exception and or have good luck and ability. Some just cannot

make it. No, not because they are lazy, but they simply don't know how and

never saw an example.

The survival of the fittest isn't the way human beings must behave...human

beings are created with innate worth, and even conservatives know that. Why

should people feel beholden to patronage from the rich? Our system is meant

to make the so called playing field a little bit more even to help those who

cannot compete.And without being everlastingly in bondage to say " thank you "

It is not " far " left to assume responsibility to give hope and some aid to

those who need it. In fact most world religions grapple in some way with

those most in need. Our taxes must be graduated. People must not wait for

the rich to give alms...and expect not only power but thanks.

Counter-culture? No, that is the culture of the people in this country who

are trying to take responsibility for everyone who needs enough to live.

" A path to what? " To a society that can take care of those who need its help

by taking a little from everyone to help those who cannot help

themselves...and we are barely doing that so far.

I don't know what you will never give up, that of course is up to you. But

paying your dues to society is one of the methods civilizations have assumed

to be the will of the majority....in some societies, which claim to allow

the population to make the rules they live by. Yes, we must protect the

rights of the minority....but not the excess of their luck or karma when

others are in need.

Most of us would really not fight, but there will be no peace while huge

chasms exist between " haves " and " have nots " Why is that so hard to

understand? History will prove it to you.Must we have violence or a

revolution first?

Maybe capitalism creates greed? maybe a regulated capitalism is not always

socialism...just maybe.

Toni

Re: 's hard one

> Dear ,

>

>

>>

>> Dan, all,

>>

>> First, Dan, like a plan that like to point out that your complaint about

>> the counterculture doesn't wash after 28 years during which we've had 20

>> years of Republican presidents. Included in this are 12 years of

>> Republican rule over the House of Representatives.

>>

>> Also, after 12 years of being exposed to your own views, I think I

>> understand what the term counterculture stands in for. The hoary

>> dichotomies: tradition/innovation, authority/self-realization, etc..

> But,

>> I'll get back to this later.

>>

>> I will add that my 35th reunion all of my once upon a time hippie

>> classmates had become, for the most part, lawyers, doctors and

>> capitalists.

>

> People do grow up.

>

>

>>

>> Noting this, I am aware that the capacity to possess power while also

>> complaining about being victimized by college professors and libertine

>> hippies and trial lawyers seems infinite. What would it take for

>> conservatives to be macho enough to stop whining about the losses

> imposed

>> by the counter-culture? After 30 years?

>

> You say " 30 years " as though it were a long time. Conservatives will

> stop complaining - and fighting - when we either succeed in

> overthrowing the counterculture and reversing the damage don, or are

> utterly destroyed.

>

>

>>

>> ***

>>

>> It is interesting that in this election there is not a baby boomer

> at the

>> top of the ticket.

>>

>> Say what you will about Obama, he's the path-breaker for his generation.

>>

>

> But the path to what?

>

>

>> It is interesting to note say that the remaining core of support for the

>> Republicans resides in those over the age of 60, is split on baby

> boomers,

>> and has its remaining principal foothold among white men over the age of

>> 50.

>>

>> So, probably, the center-right coalition is about to fade into history

>> simply because the demographics are changing.

>

> We have been here before - in 1992. After Pres. Obama shows himself to

> be a poor friend of Israel, to be soft on the PLO, to be soft on the

> Iranians and other enemies of the regime, to be a radical

> redistributor, after he prevents economic recovery through excessive

> and unjust taxation, and, on the other hand, when he fails to fulfill

> the revolutionary fantasies of the left (by failing to enforce an

> unnatural equality), then there will be a correction in 2010. No

> doubt, there will be significant and even catastrophic damage done -

> but to cause us to fade into history? The reports of our deaths are

> exaggerated. We will never give up.

>

>

>> Diversity, tolerance, and

>> education sound a death knell to cultural conservatism.

>

> Diversity, tolerance and education don't go together.

>

>

>>

>> (I find it odd that conservatives extoll their intellectual superiority

>> while, at the same time, they run campaigns against the intellect!)

>

> Perhaps as a result of their intellect, and more to the point their

> study, they know something about the nature of politics and the

> people, about the nature of democracy, that left-wing intellectuals

> have yet to learn.

>

>

>>

>> As for economic conservatism, I don't know what that would be like after

>> the hyper-sizing of the government by spend-and-borrow Republicanism of

>> the last 20/28 years. Also, it would seem the corporate welfare state's

>> longstanding infection of the free market is going to be expanded beyond

>> anybody's wildest dreams.

>

> I'm afraid so.

>

>

>>

>> Leaving us with the nothing more than the ashes of the neocon imperium,

>> the anti-Constitutionalism set in motion by Reagan, re-instantiated

> in the

>> SCOTUS coup of 2000, and brought to an insane level by the 'monarchists'

>> and paranoiacs of Cheney Inc.. I'm an outliar, but both the wars are

>> unwinnable unless a military dictatorship takes over the US and presses

>> 5-10 million young men into service of victory.

>

> At this point, a return to the draft might not be the worst thing that

> could happen.

>

>

>>

>> ***

>>

>> McCain's anger and repression are impressive. He is a shocking

>>coward too.

>

> You can say that after you've spent seven years in a Vietnamese prison

> camp or similar. Until then, it's just old-hippy noise. Yawn.

>

>

>> Palin? Her undeniable intelligence has been put in service of her

> ego and

>> persona. I don't see where her intelligence has ranged much beyond these

>> focal points. Her incoherent replies to the hardly tough questioning of

>> Gibson and Couric say it all about the quality of her mind. This

> said, she

>> does speak as if what she says is unassailable. That complete lack of

>> negativitve is associated with narcissism and egomania.

>

> I know the type. I can't disagree entirely. She has potential, but is

> not there yet.

>

>

>>

>> ***

>>

>> Meanwhile, not knowing whether Obama will be a good President or not, I

>> nevertheless endorse the strengths revealed by his thoughtfulness,

>> articulateness, self-discipline, dispassion, and executive leadership of

>> his campaign.

>

> He has some of the Teutonic virtues, no doubt about it. Who knows,

> there may be better train service in our future.

>

>

>>

>> Nether Republican candidate shows any evidence of possessing those

> strengths.

>>

>> McCain, in projecting his intense and self-righteous ambition onto Obama

>> in the form of those early campaign ads hewed to the model of envy and

>> dismay at his opponent's obvious phallic potency. For me, that McCain

>> First so self-evidently trumps the cynical 'country first' is but one of

>> the many delicious psychological features of this election season.

>

> Well, it is a disappointing set of choices that we have before us. I

> wouldn't too often refer to Obama's " phallic potency " too much if I

> were you, though. Someone less tolerant than I might accuse you of

> racism. Of course, I guess that now we all need to get used to that

> sort of histrionic charge.

>

> regards,

>

> Dan

>

>

>>

>> regards,

>>

>>

[Guest guest]

Dear Toni,

Surely even you would agree that the best violin should be in the hands

of the best violinist?

best,

Dan

toni wrote:

Dear Dan,

What exactly is "un-natural equality" You wrote:

"when he fails to fulfill

> the revolutionary fantasies of the left (by failing to enforce an

> unnatural equality),"

Is that when I am starving to death and you have too much food?

or when I am at the best public school because I live is "high income"

area

and you have a lousy, awful school because your Mom can't afford a

decent

place to live?

Unnatural equality?

Oh, I know that is when I develop my ability to paint well while people

are

probably laughing at my efforts, while you don't try and can't be an

artist

anyway?

No. Ok, then its when my parents die while I am an infant, and nobody

except

unfeeling foster-parents can take care of me, so I don't feel as loved

as I

should.

OK, now I get it! It is when my father loses his job because the

factory is

going to China, and he cannot find another one, and is so discouraged,

and

my mom cannot work because of small kids at home.

No,Its when I get sick and have no health insurance and have to declare

bankruptcy because I can no longer pay the health bills and my house

payment

is way behind because i could not work.

I knew I'd figure out what un-natural equality is all about.

All those "unlucky people are un-naturally equal

No, Its when we all go to the polls to vote, and you have to stand in

line

as long as everyone else.

Equal simply isn't all that equal even in our society.The Food banks

have

bare shelves, and i get better cancer care than those who have no voice

and

no insurance.I live well because i was born into a family of "haves"

and so

were most of us here. We were instilled with the idea of responsibility

and

the work ethic because we were "middle class" and knew the system.

(Sure

there always some who can scramble into the middle class by

themselves), but

they are the exception and or have good luck and ability. Some just

cannot

make it. No, not because they are lazy, but they simply don't know how

and

never saw an example.

The survival of the fittest isn't the way human beings must

behave...human

beings are created with innate worth, and even conservatives know that.

Why

should people feel beholden to patronage from the rich? Our system is

meant

to make the so called playing field a little bit more even to help

those who

cannot compete.And without being everlastingly in bondage to say "thank

you"

It is not "far" left to assume responsibility to give hope and some aid

to

those who need it. In fact most world religions grapple in some way

with

those most in need. Our taxes must be graduated. People must not wait

for

the rich to give alms...and expect not only power but thanks.

Counter-culture? No, that is the culture of the people in this country

who

are trying to take responsibility for everyone who needs enough to live.

"A path to what?" To a society that can take care of those who need its

help

by taking a little from everyone to help those who cannot help

themselves...and we are barely doing that so far.

I don't know what you will never give up, that of course is up to you.

But

paying your dues to society is one of the methods civilizations have

assumed

to be the will of the majority....in some societies, which claim

to allow

the population to make the rules they live by. Yes, we must protect the

rights of the minority....but not the excess of their luck or

karma when

others are in need.

Most of us would really not fight, but there will be no peace while

huge

chasms exist between" haves" and "have nots" Why is that so hard to

understand? History will prove it to you.Must we have violence or a

revolution first?

Maybe capitalism creates greed? maybe a regulated capitalism is not

always

socialism...just maybe.

Toni

Re: 's hard one

> Dear ,

>

>

>>

>> Dan, all,

>>

>> First, Dan, like a plan that like to point out that your

complaint about

>> the counterculture doesn't wash after 28 years during which

we've had 20

>> years of Republican presidents. Included in this are 12 years

of

>> Republican rule over the House of Representatives.

>>

>> Also, after 12 years of being exposed to your own views, I

think I

>> understand what the term counterculture stands in for. The

hoary

>> dichotomies: tradition/innovation, authority/self-realization,

etc..

> But,

>> I'll get back to this later.

>>

>> I will add that my 35th reunion all of my once upon a time

hippie

>> classmates had become, for the most part, lawyers, doctors and

>> capitalists.

>

> People do grow up.

>

>

>>

>> Noting this, I am aware that the capacity to possess power

while also

>> complaining about being victimized by college professors and

libertine

>> hippies and trial lawyers seems infinite. What would it take

for

>> conservatives to be macho enough to stop whining about the

losses

> imposed

>> by the counter-culture? After 30 years?

>

> You say "30 years" as though it were a long time. Conservatives

will

> stop complaining - and fighting - when we either succeed in

> overthrowing the counterculture and reversing the damage don, or

are

> utterly destroyed.

>

>

>>

>> ***

>>

>> It is interesting that in this election there is not a baby

boomer

> at the

>> top of the ticket.

>>

>> Say what you will about Obama, he's the path-breaker for his

generation.

>>

>

> But the path to what?

>

>

>> It is interesting to note say that the remaining core of

support for the

>> Republicans resides in those over the age of 60, is split on

baby

> boomers,

>> and has its remaining principal foothold among white men over

the age of

>> 50.

>>

>> So, probably, the center-right coalition is about to fade into

history

>> simply because the demographics are changing.

>

> We have been here before - in 1992. After Pres. Obama shows

himself to

> be a poor friend of Israel, to be soft on the PLO, to be soft on

the

> Iranians and other enemies of the regime, to be a radical

> redistributor, after he prevents economic recovery through

excessive

> and unjust taxation, and, on the other hand, when he fails to

fulfill

> the revolutionary fantasies of the left (by failing to enforce an

> unnatural equality), then there will be a correction in 2010. No

> doubt, there will be significant and even catastrophic damage done

-

> but to cause us to fade into history? The reports of our deaths are

> exaggerated. We will never give up.

>

>

>> Diversity, tolerance, and

>> education sound a death knell to cultural conservatism.

>

> Diversity, tolerance and education don't go together.

>

>

>>

>> (I find it odd that conservatives extoll their intellectual

superiority

>> while, at the same time, they run campaigns against the

intellect!)

>

> Perhaps as a result of their intellect, and more to the point their

> study, they know something about the nature of politics and the

> people, about the nature of democracy, that left-wing intellectuals

> have yet to learn.

>

>

>>

>> As for economic conservatism, I don't know what that would be

like after

>> the hyper-sizing of the government by spend-and-borrow

Republicanism of

>> the last 20/28 years. Also, it would seem the corporate

welfare state's

>> longstanding infection of the free market is going to be

expanded beyond

>> anybody's wildest dreams.

>

> I'm afraid so.

>

>

>>

>> Leaving us with the nothing more than the ashes of the neocon

imperium,

>> the anti-Constitutionalism set in motion by Reagan,

re-instantiated

> in the

>> SCOTUS coup of 2000, and brought to an insane level by the

'monarchists'

>> and paranoiacs of Cheney Inc.. I'm an outliar, but both the

wars are

>> unwinnable unless a military dictatorship takes over the US

and presses

>> 5-10 million young men into service of victory.

>

> At this point, a return to the draft might not be the worst thing

that

> could happen.

>

>

>>

>> ***

>>

>> McCain's anger and repression are impressive. He is a shocking

>>coward too.

>

> You can say that after you've spent seven years in a Vietnamese

prison

> camp or similar. Until then, it's just old-hippy noise. Yawn.

>

>

>> Palin? Her undeniable intelligence has been put in service of

her

> ego and

>> persona. I don't see where her intelligence has ranged much

beyond these

>> focal points. Her incoherent replies to the hardly tough

questioning of

>> Gibson and Couric say it all about the quality of her mind.

This

> said, she

>> does speak as if what she says is unassailable. That complete

lack of

>> negativitve is associated with narcissism and egomania.

>

> I know the type. I can't disagree entirely. She has potential, but

is

> not there yet.

>

>

>>

>> ***

>>

>> Meanwhile, not knowing whether Obama will be a good President

or not, I

>> nevertheless endorse the strengths revealed by his

thoughtfulness,

>> articulateness, self-discipline, dispassion, and executive

leadership of

>> his campaign.

>

> He has some of the Teutonic virtues, no doubt about it. Who knows,

> there may be better train service in our future.

>

>

>>

>> Nether Republican candidate shows any evidence of possessing

those

> strengths.

>>

>> McCain, in projecting his intense and self-righteous ambition

onto Obama

>> in the form of those early campaign ads hewed to the model of

envy and

>> dismay at his opponent's obvious phallic potency. For me, that

McCain

>> First so self-evidently trumps the cynical 'country first' is

but one of

>> the many delicious psychological features of this election

season.

>

> Well, it is a disappointing set of choices that we have before us.

I

> wouldn't too often refer to Obama's "phallic potency" too much if I

> were you, though. Someone less tolerant than I might accuse you of

> racism. Of course, I guess that now we all need to get used to that

> sort of histrionic charge.

>

> regards,

>

> Dan

>

>

>>

>> regards,

>>

>>

[Guest guest]

Dan, all,

Waiting to respond allowed Toni to give you a pretty good roasting. She

evoked your insipid, meaningless violin gambit.

Earlier you wrote:

> They are verified by experience, the surest form of knowledge in

> political matters. For twelve years I have refused to accept your idea

> of what constitutes " demonstration, "

There you have it. If your political belief rests on but this surest form

of knowledge and brooks no other objective demonstration--and you haven't

offered any in 12+ years--then this goes along way in explaining why your

political belief system is suffering under the contest supplied by other

person's experience.

I also note the irony that you, we learn mow, are a ian too.

***

> If Obama were to say, " you know, let's face it, a lot of

> kids just aren't college material, " I would feel a bit better.

Why don't conservatives pool together 100 billion dollars or so and start

up 4 or 5 well funded universities to peddle their " surest form of

knowledge sans demonstration " to manly gentlemen?

> Now that is funny. There must be a reason why almost every political

> philosopher is both highly educated and conservative. Must be the

> difference in subject matter.

Having made your confession, I doubt this assertion is true.Surely you can

see it couldn't be true on its face if we grant your onto-epistemic

proposition, right?

***

> You want it plainer? Perhaps it is because they know that the plebs are

> the plebs, and not subject to " enlightenment. "

> Perhaps they know that science and

> unfettered inquiry have got us into this mess.

Well, this reminds me of Strauss! In other words, this " they " hides from

their plebs the truth of their dangerous analysis and peddles in the

plebs' language a satisfying noble lie, " that the so-called pleb knows

better and is the salt of the earth and is the best of America. "

Wow! Imagine what would happen if this secret you have revealed got out

and became part of the experience of those plebs. And, not only would that

be a shocker, but it would probably come out that this " they " was

channeling Dan Watkins. Double shocker.

***

My conservative benchmark for 30+ years is Kirk. Maybe you would

call him naive for extolling principles as constituting the irrevocable

foundation of the ideology. I contrast this with the arch 'neocon' idea

that said principles are only valuable after you've obtained power by any

means possible.

Psychology changes the frame for ideology. The conservative ideology

obviously wants to reform civic life from the impositions of modernity,

etc... It is no less a project of social engineering than other are

ideologies. Has it sussed out 'human nature?' Not to any degree given the

deeper more sophisticated analysis provided for by the depth psychologies

and cognitive psychology and anthropology.

As I've said before, the fundamental problem is a social psychological

one. What do you do about the massive deficit in sheer compliance? And,

how can you root foundational principles that disappear when you step back

through time and arrive at the historical points when even the possibility

of conceiving such principles disappears completely?

There aren't enough compliant plebs to allow for a silencing of the

contest. And, finally, as I always have noted, not much favorable to

compliance can end up resting on Jung, who, being a psychologist,

understood that the dynamic and spectral psyche can only realize itself by

not being compliant to any collective. This is pertinent to the first two

stages of realization, the problem of the persona, and, that of the

shadow.

regards,

[Guest guest]

Dear ,

You may very well be right. In any event, Mr. Obama will almost

certainly become potus, so we'll hope for the best. Maybe he'll

surprise me.

regards,

Dan Watkins

Calhoun wrote:

Dan, all,

Waiting to respond allowed Toni to give you a pretty good roasting. She

evoked your insipid, meaningless violin gambit.

Earlier you wrote:

> They are verified by experience, the surest form of knowledge in

> political matters. For twelve years I have refused to accept your

idea

> of what constitutes "demonstration,"

There you have it. If your political belief rests on but this surest

form

of knowledge and brooks no other objective demonstration--and you

haven't

offered any in 12+ years--then this goes along way in explaining why

your

political belief system is suffering under the contest supplied by other

person's experience.

I also note the irony that you, we learn mow, are a ian too.

***

> If Obama were to say, "you know, let's face it, a lot of

> kids just aren't college material," I would feel a bit better.

Why don't conservatives pool together 100 billion dollars or so and

start

up 4 or 5 well funded universities to peddle their "surest form of

knowledge sans demonstration" to manly gentlemen?

> Now that is funny. There must be a reason why almost every

political

> philosopher is both highly educated and conservative. Must be the

> difference in subject matter.

Having made your confession, I doubt this assertion is true.Surely you

can

see it couldn't be true on its face if we grant your onto-epistemic

proposition, right?

***

> You want it plainer? Perhaps it is because they know that the

plebs are

> the plebs, and not subject to "enlightenment."

> Perhaps they know that science and

> unfettered inquiry have got us into this mess.

Well, this reminds me of Strauss! In other words, this "they" hides from

their plebs the truth of their dangerous analysis and peddles in the

plebs' language a satisfying noble lie, "that the so-called pleb knows

better and is the salt of the earth and is the best of America."

Wow! Imagine what would happen if this secret you have revealed got out

and became part of the experience of those plebs. And, not only would

that

be a shocker, but it would probably come out that this "they" was

channeling Dan Watkins. Double shocker.

***

My conservative benchmark for 30+ years is Kirk. Maybe you would

call him naive for extolling principles as constituting the irrevocable

foundation of the ideology. I contrast this with the arch 'neocon' idea

that said principles are only valuable after you've obtained power by

any

means possible.

Psychology changes the frame for ideology. The conservative ideology

obviously wants to reform civic life from the impositions of modernity,

etc... It is no less a project of social engineering than other are

ideologies. Has it sussed out 'human nature?' Not to any degree given

the

deeper more sophisticated analysis provided for by the depth

psychologies

and cognitive psychology and anthropology.

As I've said before, the fundamental problem is a social psychological

one. What do you do about the massive deficit in sheer compliance? And,

how can you root foundational principles that disappear when you step

back

through time and arrive at the historical points when even the

possibility

of conceiving such principles disappears completely?

There aren't enough compliant plebs to allow for a silencing of the

contest. And, finally, as I always have noted, not much favorable to

compliance can end up resting on Jung, who, being a psychologist,

understood that the dynamic and spectral psyche can only realize itself

by

not being compliant to any collective. This is pertinent to the first

two

stages of realization, the problem of the persona, and, that of the

shadow.

regards,