Birthers? ... by Bob Nelson
Are there any birthers remaining, on NT?
Brad DeLong is one of the economists I take a look at (as opposed to "read") every day. Yesterday he brought back an old Caltech commencement address by Richard Feynman that is perhaps even more significant today than when it was first given:
During the Middle Ages there were all kinds of crazy ideas, such as that a piece of rhinoceros horn would increase potency... Then a method was discovered for separating the ideas — which was to try one to see if it worked, and if it didn’t work, to eliminate it. This method became organized, of course, into science. And it developed very well, so that we are now in the scientific age. It is such a scientific age, in fact, that we have difficulty in understanding how witch doctors could ever have existed, when nothing that they proposed ever really worked — or very little of it did.
But even today I meet lots of people who sooner or later get me into a conversation about UFO’s, or astrology, or some form of mysticism, expanded consciousness, new types of awareness, ESP, and so forth. And I’ve concluded that it’s not a scientific world.
Most people believe so many wonderful things that I decided to investigate why they did. And what has been referred to as my curiosity for investigation has landed me in a difficulty where I found so much junk to talk about that I can’t do it in this talk. I’m overwhelmed. First I started out by investigating various ideas of mysticism, and mystic experiences. I went into isolation tanks (they’re dark and quiet and you float in Epsom salts) and got many hours of hallucinations, so I know something about that. Then I went to Esalen, which is a hotbed of this kind of thought (it’s a wonderful place; you should go visit there). Then I became overwhelmed. I didn’t realize how much there was.
...
I began to think, what else is there that we believe? (And I thought then about the witch doctors, and how easy it would have been to check on them by noticing that nothing really worked.) So I found things that even more people believe, such as that we have some knowledge of how to educate. There are big schools of reading methods and mathematics methods, and so forth, but if you notice, you’ll see the reading scores keep going down—or hardly going up—in spite of the fact that we continually use these same people to improve the methods. There’s a witch doctor remedy that doesn’t work. It ought to be looked into: how do they know that their method should work? Another example is how to treat criminals. We obviously have made no progress—lots of theory, but no progress—in decreasing the amount of crime by the method that we use to handle criminals.
Yet these things are said to be scientific. We study them. And I think ordinary people with commonsense ideas are intimidated by this pseudoscience. A teacher who has some good idea of how to teach her children to read is forced by the school system to do it some other way—or is even fooled by the school system into thinking that her method is not necessarily a good one. Or a parent of bad boys, after disciplining them in one way or another, feels guilty for the rest of her life because she didn’t do “the right thing,” according to the experts.
...
I think the educational and psychological studies I mentioned are examples of what I would like to call Cargo Cult Science. In the South Seas there is a Cargo Cult of people. During the war they saw airplanes land with lots of good materials, and they want the same thing to happen now. So they’ve arranged to make things like runways, to put fires along the sides of the runways, to make a wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head like headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas—he’s the controller—and they wait for the airplanes to land. They’re doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the way it looked before. But it doesn’t work. No airplanes land. So I call these things Cargo Cult Science, because they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but they’re missing something essential, because the planes don’t land.
It's well-written and easy to read. Highly recommended for those of you whose thinking goes beyond bumper-sticker slogans.
I also happened across a short article that took note of the decline in birtherism.
Hmmm... Is there something to be learned by combining these two?
There used to be quite a few birthers on NT. Are there any left? More importantly, are there any NTers who recognize that they used to be birthers, but no longer are?
There was a time, not so long ago, when Obama's "Kenyan birth" was a central tenet of the alt-right dogma, but then the Big Guns like Fox and Breitbart quit pushing the topic. Mr Trump used to be one of the loudest preachers of birtherism, but even he has pretty much fallen silent on the subject.
So I ask you all: Were you ever a birther? Are you still a birther? If you have changed your mind, what made you do so?
This is not a polemic argument-starter. I am sincerely interested in understanding how elements of alt-right dogma rise and fall. (I am using the term "alt-right" because I can see no link between a dogma like birtherism and "traditional conservatism". I could have used "Tea Party" but even that name seems to have evaporated over the last two years, as the folks who used to be marginalized as Tea Party have gradually taken over the Republican Party.
I believe that the Tea Party → alt-right → Republican Party will have total political control over the United States with the next decade, so it seems to me to be important for the rest of us to understand how something like birtherism evolves within the alt-right context.
Is birtherism waning because of the scientific method... because the evidence that Mr Obama was born in the US is overwhelming? Or is birtherism waning because Mr Obama is leaving office and there's no longer any point in spending energy on him?
Is the scientific method at work, or just the gradual erosion of a Cargo Cult? Or is there some other explanation?
So... please, NT Birthers! Tell us what the situation is today, and how we got here. Thank you.
-----------------------------------
RED RULES apply:
- Be polite .
No insults whatsoever. No insults to particular people, to groups of people, to ideas, ... None!
- Be smart .
Contribute substantive thought. Facts and/or reasoning.
One-line zingers and bumper-sticker mantras are by definition off-topic.
Tags
Who is online
44 visitors
RED RULES apply:
- Be polite. No insults whatsoever. No insults to particular people, to groups of people, to ideas, ... None!
- Be smart. Contribute substantive thought. Facts and/or reasoning. One-line zingers and bumper-sticker mantras are by definition off-topic.
My Mama birthed me in the Third World State of LA. So, I reckon by birth I'm a birther. A Birther By Birth. As it were.
It is an oddity that if one repeats a word or words, birth birth birther birther birther, it becomes random and meaningless after awhile. Kinda sorta like the entire Birther movement.
Better than birtherism. A Chiptoke.
Meaningless.
Sort of like your post just now.
"Birther" is hardly meaningless.
Meaningless in its veracity. It certainly produced a tremendous amount of panty bunching and hand wringing.
So, out of a perverse sense of curiosity, does your post mean you believe in the various birther stories out there?
Donald Trump should be disqualified, period, for consideration as president of the United States, because he was a "birther". The concept is anything but meaningless right now.
There are multitudes of reasons why Mr Trump should be disqualified from being president. No doubt about it. I wouldn't be holding my breath on that one. The money is already in, so to speak. There are valid reasons, from my perspective, that Ms Clinton should be as well. That's not going to go down either.
It's a Saturday Night Special Every Night of the Week regardless the winner. The future should be exciting either way.
I had to give the chiptoke a thumbs up.
Please, John... Do not participate in derailing. I do not know if Tex is purposely derailing or not, but he is derailing. Please do not assist.
Thank you.
Tex,
Please re-read the article.
You apparently did not understand it.
Perhaps it is you who has failed to understand the point of my reply to your post. Absurdity deserves absurdity. If all you require is a yes/no response, well, no. I've never adhered to the birthers claims.
Though I kinda enjoy the sport of this who can out whine the other side with heinous qualities of each candidate, this election is a travesty and a carnival of the insane. Pointing out the defects and Machiavellian characteristics of each candidate is easy as shooting ducks on the water.
The issue that we should be discussing nationally is whether or not we still have a democratic republic and, if not, what are we going to do about it. If anything. The latter being the most probable end game there.
Besides, even if these folks who believe Pres Obama is a Kenyan, Muslim/Fascist/Liberal/Socialist, are correct, it's too dang late now. Isn't it? All that shyte kills me anyway. Obama has pretty much ruled as an old school Republican in many ways.
Anyhow, best your way.
Tex, your viewpoint is not going to prevail. Not this time anyway. One of the two major party candidates will win. Your remarks on this and other threads indicate that you don't care which one of THESE TWO wins. Is that true?
We have well voiced apathy ABOUT THESE TWO CANDIDATES, on this forum and other forums like this. But one of them will win and play a big part in shaping the next 4 or 8 years.
It's kind of 'ironic' to see the "both sides do it" crowd seem so distressed about the state of government, but seemingly not care that we could elect the worst candidate that has ever run for the office (Donald Trump) . If you care so much about the government, wouldn't you want to keep the worst guy ever out of there?
As for "birtherism", even a superficial consideration of this issue PLAINLY illuminates Trump's total lack of qualifications for high office, for his birtherism proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Trump is
VERY GULLIBLE
A SERIAL LIAR
and
COMPLETELY INCOMPETENT
I have written articles about this so I will not go into detail about why those three traits are proven by his birtherism again, but it really doesnt take that much thought to see why they would be so.
Not too far into the future all this will be moot, the election will be over. No buyer's remorse for four years.
Tex, John...
You're both off-topic. Please desist.
Prevail? Crikey. That sounds like I am the great manipulator of our community destiny. The head bull moose looney of a great anarchist plot to take over the world and leave everyone's ass alone? I'm not trying to do anything but perhaps give all you status quo Empire supporters reason to think beyond your dogma and fear.
In lieu of the recent Princeton study and remarks made by Jimmy Carter and others concerning the status of our democratic republic I think that most of this caterwauling is somewhat pointless.
You read me wrong. I am not apathetic in the least. Quite the opposite. I've only cast a national vote within the two parties twice, both times under the "lesser of two evils" hammer. As it turns out there really wasn't that much difference in the long run. Evidently, they, the two ruling parties, are just different evils. I do still feel alright having voted for Jimmy Carter. Pres Obama, not so much. Anyhow, if you want us what hate your parties to vote within the framework of the status quo it is incumbent upon your party to field a palatable candidate. I might have voted for Sanders and Liz Warren a most probable, Ms Clinton a definite no. Trump and the Republicans? Only with a gun to my head. Even then, asshole that I am, I'd probably just get shot.
An interesting question you ask. Do I care which of these two win the election? Obviously Trump should never even been considered as a viable candidate. We are kind of a nation of morons though, and they are going to have their say. That's not very charitable, and it might insult morons. Shyte. How about, an ill informed, citizenry lacking in education and cognitive skills? Ms Clinton? A Margaret Thatcher light, anti Bill of Rights, War Hawk Machiavellian plutocrat. There is a reason the hierarchy of old school republicanism have gone over to her. Other than the obvious reason. Trump. She is a kindred spirit and far closer to old school conservatives than whatever the hell Trump is.
At the end of the game I'm not sure, really. Both parties are leading us toward a more totalitarian, police state. Both are in lust with the military industrial complex. Both are the minions of plutocrats. Both are fear mongers. Despite much passionate sounding rhetoric both parties don't much give a shyte about the working class and the working poor. Though, I will grant the Dems more cred in their bleating. Regardless who wins we are in for social unrest, violence and trouble. So, I don't know. With Trump we may get revolution but not likely. A coup? Maybe. Heck, I dunno. We are glued, screwed and tattooed. Ok, it would obviously be insane to elect Trump and only slightly less insane to elect Ms Clinton. There you have it
My question to you would have to be what do you think of the aforementioned study? Do you think there is validity to it? If so, what does this election truly decide?
best your way
Are you or have you ever been a birther? The new McCarthyite question.
McCarthy seems more like a gentleman, and I use that term loosely, who would be in solidarity with the Birthers rather than grilling them........
Its his techniques that are the subject here and in today's world it's the way the intolerant secular progressive left treats anyone who disagrees with them.
That's getting pretty far afield, K.
XX,
Its his techniques that are the subject here and in today's world it's the way the intolerant secular progressive left treats anyone who disagrees with them.
Your analogy between McCarthy and "the intolerant secular progressive left" requires that the persons being "treated" have a desire to hide what they believe.
McCarthy accused people of being communists. The people McCarthy called "communists" never proclaimed themselves to be such.
I don't see any "intolerant secular progressive leftists" accusing anyone of being birthers. I do see -- or rather did see, a few years ago -- quite a few people very noisily proclaiming their own birther beliefs.
People did not want to be named communists because communists were generally presumed to be enemies of the nation. I can see no parallel for why a person would not want to be named birther. (Or whatever other word. This is not a question of semantics. If you have a better term for "person who believes that Barack Hussein Obama II is foreign-born".)
Your McCarthy analogy only works if birtherism is something to be ashamed of, something that must be hidden from public scrutiny. Is that what you think, XX?
XX,
Are you or have you ever been a birther? The new McCarthyite question.
Your question creates an analogy that would never have occurred to me. You equate "birther" and "communist" as epithets that might be condemnable by popular opinion or even legally.
Do you really consider "I am a birther" to be condemnable today in the same way that "I am a communist" was condemnable in the 1950s? Do you consider birtherism to be something to be hidden, never to be stated clearly in public? Why?
I really do not understand, XX. I don't see any logic. If Mr Obama is foreign-born, then birtherism is not only valid but essential. So from a birther's point of view, birtherism should be something to be proud of.
If your problem is purely semantic -- you do not like the word "birther", than I would be very happy to use any other word you prefer, for "a person who believes that Barack Hussein Obama II was not born in the US".
I simply don't care about the issue and never have. He had an American mother and thus to me would have been eligible to be President no matter where she gave birth to him. The real issue which has nothing to do with his birth is whether he used the fact that he spent part of his childhood in Indonesia in order to gain a better shot at admission into university or get access to more financial aid/scholarships. Since his college records are sealed we don't know yet. I don't think that would have legally disqualified him from running for president but voters may have considered that a negative if it happened and they knew about it.
I simply don't care about the issue and never have.
Then why are you posting here?
Not true XX - his American mother who was not a Government employee nor an ambassador had to have been in the U. S. when he was born. According to his Autobiography on his dad - she wasn't and he wasn't.
Bob, a poll taken within the last 6 weeks or so revealed that 40% of Republicans do not believe Obama was born in America.
Don't know what the views of NT birthers are.
No insults whatsoever. No insults to particular people, to groups of people, to ideas, ... None!
Bob is violating his own rules ... Thanks for playing !
Good point. You are right.
Petey,
Where have I insulted anyone? I did not use the word "birther" as an insult -- simply a quick way of designating "a person who believes that Barack Hussein Obama II is foreign-born".
I assume that you agree that there are many Americans who hold this belief. If you have another name for them, I would be quite happy to use that.
Why do you consider "birther" to be an insult, Petey?
Bob ,
What you are doing is setting a trap for certain members here . Your red rules are quite restrictive but you want to be able to circumvent them . Le Bob uber alles !
What trap, Petey?
How is a conversation about the evolution of a political dogma "a trap"?
If you don't like my articles... if you find them problematic for one reason or another... you are free to stay away.
So you'd be OK if I commented on stupid ideas that liberals often present ?
What trap, Petey?
How is a conversation about the evolution of a political dogma "a trap"?
If you don't like my articles... if you find them problematic for one reason or another... you are free to stay away.
In terms of "getting results" versus other factors that might determine behaviour. I have been greatly influenced by the ideas of Robert Fritz ("structural dynamics") as well as having taken many other courses, workshops,lectures,etc only many diverse subjects but were somehow related to this.
To even begin the process, you must be clear about two things:
1. Current Reality (the way the situation is now)
and
2. Your Goal (What you want to create).
It may be surprising to some, but most people have a lot of difficulty with both. And without having clarity about both...you can't succeed.
Which goes back to "birthers", and people of that ilk. They are delusional-- not at all clear about reality, i.e. "facts".
(As long as you let some dogmatic belief system shape your thinking & actions (rather facts)... you're going to be in deep doo doo, and never get out of it.)
Krishna,
Thank you for contributing.
I find the other answers -- Tex, XX, and Petey -- to be fascinating. They clearly are avoiding answering simple questions about what they believe... as though they are ashamed to talk about it. And yet... if they are still birthers, then they should be proud of the fact.
How can a person be ashamed of what they believe? I was hoping for a conversation on "Why I changed my mind"... but "Why I believe something that I am ashamed to talk about" is even more fascinating.
I have not been and never will be a birther. To call me one is an insult and a violation of your own red box rule.
XX,
Why is "birther" an insult? Donald Trump used to be vehemently birther. Lots of people on the alt-right are birthers... although it seems that they are fewer and fewer in number.
As I said, I don't want to get hung up in semantics; I am truly interested in understanding how these phenomena develop. If there is a better term for identifying "a person who believes that Barack Hussein Obama II is foreign-born", then I will be glad to adopt it.
I do not understand why you, personally, seem to feel insulted by the mention of the word "birther". Has someone claimed that you are one, or ever have been? I admit that I thought you are or were a birther, but I hope you will recognize that I took care to ask, and not use the label directly.
I don't support Trump either.
I don't support Trump either.
Fine...
May I ask, again, why you consider "birther" to be an insult? If someone says I am a birther, I would not feel insulted. I'd think they were joking... or something...
Someone else's being wrong about me is their problem, not mine.
I don't support Trump either.
I'm surprised-- why are you doing something that will have the effect of helping Hillary to win? Do you realize that only 2 candidates have any chance of winning? So by not voting for Trump...you will increase the odds of Hillary winning..and thereby nominating anywhere from one to three justices to he Supreme Court?
(Well, maybe you think Hillary's nominees would be better for the country than the ones Trump would nominate? I have to say I'd be in agreement with you on that
Krishna,
Please don't collaborate with a derail. Trump is not the topic.
I live in California. The popular vote means nothing. I live in a blue state Hillary will win by a million votes so my sway in the state popular vote to control our electoral college voters is nil. So I can support any third party or independent candidate without fear of contributing anything to Hillary winning. I can have a clean conscience risk free and help a third party get started. If California were to somehow become competitive, then Trump would be winning a huge landslide election. Then I'll still have a clear conscience because I won't have supported him either.
"But now even a moronic buffoon like Donald Trump knows that Obama was born in the U.S"
Do you think he could be lying? Politicians have been known to fib at times when on the campaign trail.
"But now even a moronic buffoon like Donald Trump knows that Obama was born in the U.S"
Do you think he could be lying? Politicians have been known to fib at times when on the campaign trail.
Trump...lying?
Nevah! His honesty is impeccable.
Ok, guys... Red Rules.
Krishna, no insults, none.
Dean, stay on-topic.
Thank you.
Is birtherism waning because of the scientific method... because the evidence that Mr Obama was born in the US is overwhelming? Or is birtherism waning because Mr Obama is leaving office and there's no longer any point in spending energy on him?
For me, the above statement captures the reason of the rise and fall of "birtherism". IMO - those who were adamantly opposed to having a black person in the highest office in America needed a reason to disavow President Obama. They didn't want to be viewed as racist so they opening embraced birtherism. It allowed them to question no only his birth but his education and whether he was eligible to receive it and it allowed his mother's lifestyle and choice of lover/husband to be disparaged.
I was never a birther. I understood what the true meaning of the word was and heard the whistle quite clearly.
Do I understand that you think that the decline in birtherism is because he's soon leaving office and there's no longer any point? No more passion because that battle is soon ocer?
Thank you, PJ, for actually reading the article, and giving it a pertinent response. You and Krishna. Two out of...
I find it fascinating that our alt-right (for want of a better term) members feel a need to say something... but never to actually answer the questions asked. Are they so unsure of their beliefs? Or are they somehow embarrassed by what they think? I truly do not understand.
Why is it impossible to get past bumper-sticker slogans?
I'd be happy to participate in something similar run by any other member... but I never see any of them running articles that are other than mantras. * * * sigh * * *
Do I understand that you think that the decline in birtherism is because he's soon leaving office and there's no longer any point? No more passion because that battle is soon ocer?
Yes, I most emphatically believe that the decline in birtherism is due to President Obama leaving office. With the end of one conspiracy I am brave enough to suggest another campaign is afoot. This campaign targets "women" and their role in family and the work place. The machine has been warming up for about 1.5 - 2 years now in anticipation of Hilary Clinton running for President. If you listen closely you can hear the whispers..........
If you listen closely you can hear the whispers..........
That's actually the topic, here: How are these mantras disseminated? How are the Faithful told what to Believe?
A printing error . .who knew?!??!
Cool!
But I'm wondering if part of it may be due to the nature of the Internet. It tends to make people communicate with very short comments. And to often respond quickly, without thinking.
Interesting idea. Kinda depressing. How can we have a serious conversation?
Birtherism was a silly distraction among some Republicans when Obama was running for president. The intent, I assume, was to show that he is un-American, even though he was an American citizen (because his mother was an American citizen) no matter where he was born.
Now, the issue is a silly distraction by Democrats to show that Trump is a loon for pushing birtherism in the first place. Republicans no longer care about the issue because Obama isn't running for president and there are way better issues than this for Democrats to show that Trump is a loon.
It's a dead horse of an issue and beating the horse in the head won't make it get up and walk again. If Hillary or anybody else brings it up at the debate, Trump will just say she (or one of her associates) started the whole thing and he ended it. She'll say that's a lie. He'll say you know more about lying than I do and point out that the FBI investigated her not him.
1st,
You may be right that it was silly, but there were a lot of people who took it very seriously. Now there's no one. This iinterests me. How does a subject go from important to unimportant? (This is regardless of "what is True".)
You may be right that it was silly, but there were a lot of people who took it very seriously. Now there's no one. This interests me. How does a subject go from important to unimportant? (This is regardless of "what is True".)
Well, unfortunately there are a lot of people who really just aren't too bright-- or perhaps more accurately (as well as being more politically correct) "critically-thinking challenged". They are easily led around by the nose, to coin a phrase.
You know the olde saying:
A fool and his mind are easily parted.
Krishna,
Whether they were right or wrong is irrelevant. They were loud, and now they are not. What happened?
How does a subject go from important to unimportant? (This is regardless of "what is True".)
Obama will cease to be president in a few months so there is nothing to be achieved by continuing this nonsense. Like a protest over an offensive movie, there is no point in continuing to picket after the movie has left the theater.
Everyone seems to agree with you. (Among those who actually made an effort to respond to the article, that is...)
I was hoping to find that someone, somewhere, had changed their mind. I'm an eternal optimist.
Bob - he is not "1st", he is "1ofMany".
I am "1st".
Could be treated as a CoC violation by he and/or I.
What in the world does where he was born have to do with anything. His mother is American, period, end of story.
That's not the point, K.
Whether it was reasonable / logical or not is irrelevant. There were lots of people who were vehement about "the Kenyan". Today, there's nobody.
Where did they go? If they changed their minds, why? Or did they never really believe it, but maybe all that noise anyway? If that's the case, why?
Questions...
There were lots of people who were vehement about "the Kenyan". Today, there's nobody.
Bob, you keep repeating this nonsense. There are still millions, tens of millions of people who believe in "birtherism". It is a major reason Trump even ran for president. You are getting lost in the weeds.
I'm still happy from my birthday this past weekend, and have been taking a brief snark break. Therefore, I'm so glad I missed this article earlier, and didn't have read some of the earlier posts, that were subsequently deleted.
As far as the term "Birtherism" as an offensive name-calling term, Bob has explained that he meant no insult to anyone, AND has asked what other term he should use. Please allow me to post a picture that was posted on another article, where the far right was calling out the far left:
If I may, the shoe fits both ways.
Personally, I feel that those than suddenly don't care if Obama was born in the US, after having supported the notion for 8 years, are confused and generally angry. I don't think the anger has left them, I just think they are gearing up for something else outrageous.
Why now? I truly believe it is because Obama is leaving office, and they will find a new battle cry to rally around-- true or not.
I agree with PJ that the next battle will likely be about women's rights, working vs women in the home, (which is each a full time job), abortion rights, etc. It wasn't that long ago that women were given the choice not to die on the kitchen table.
How do these things get started? How did the German people allow Hitler's gang to convince them that people of a different religion were from the devil and needed to be destroyed, as well as all the gypsies, deformed, mentally challenged people, and others who lived on the edge of society? Take a charismatic leader, who speaks to the general anger, and he can say just about anything-- and people will believe him.
To be honest, I blame the churches for a lot of this. Don't they read their bible's New Testament? Or are they so stuck in the Old Testament that they can't see what Jesus said to do? Love they neighbor as thyself. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. When churches start spewing politics from the pulpit is when I think they should be paying taxes! May God forgive them!
I'm not coming back here, so feel free to blast me to oblivion. I'm still keeping up with my snark break, and letting myself remain infused with a benign attitude. One of peaceful joy and love...
It's a much more pleasant feeling than one of snarkdom...
Thank you, Dowser.
It's rare to get a Comment that is pertinent, thoughtful, and emotional, all at once.
It's interesting that two of our women members are expecting to be the targets of the campaign that replaces birtherism.
I'm still happy from my birthday this past weekend,
HAPPY BELATED BIRTHDAY Lady Dowser!!!!!!
Sounds like you had a wonderful birthday. Wishing you many many more.
Sorry for the "off topic" Bob but this was very very important doncha know.
I'm editing my post to bring it back on topic.
To be honest, I blame the churches for a lot of this. Don't they read their bible's New Testament?
Lady Dowser - I just started reading this book by Reza Aslan called the Zealot. My girlfriend is in the process of reading it and was telling me about it this past weekend during our hike. Very interesting theory of how and why Jesus was created or rather promoted. As I mentioned, I just downloaded it last night so I haven't gotten too far into it but the way my friend described the theory it sounded more like a marketing campaign. Anyhow, I think it ties into Bob's question as to how things get started and how they can morph into something more or less than what was originally planned.
Thank you, dear PJ, it was wonderful!
To get the subject back on track, maybe Pj and I have lived through our share of female abuse in the work force, et. al., so we expect it...
maybe Pj and I have lived through
A long time ago -- I was not long out of college, so it was a VERY long time ago -- I made an off-hand remark to a woman, on the order of, "I know what you mean...". She shot back, "No, you certainly do not!"
I'm more careful, since. I listen to women about women, Blacks about Blacks, and so on.
So when two intelligent women tell me the same thing.....
"We are the slaves of slaves. We are exploited more ruthlessly than men." Lucy Parsons
Happy birthday Dowser.
Thank you 1 of many! It's great to be alive!
🎈🎉🎂🎁
Thanks!!!
Very interesting theory of how and why Jesus was created or rather promoted. As I mentioned, I just downloaded it last night so I haven't gotten too far into it but the way my friend described the theory it sounded more like a marketing campaign.
Haven't seen the book, but why would it be surprising or alarming that a new religion at the time was marketed and promoted? That would have been how they would gain followers.
I'll have to get back to you John when I've read more. Going off of what my friend was describing I just thought it was surprising how much information is still available and can be traced back hundreds of years. I'm looking forward to reading the book and learning first hand what the author discovered.
Sounds like another good read Krishna. I'll have to check it out after I'm done with this one.
it probably is, but I don't remember what it said too well-- I read izt decades ago.
And like Obama, I also read "Rules for Radicals" . Also long ago, don't remember that one much ether, only remember that I didn't think it was all that good at the time. (It might've been a lot less radical than its title would imply)
Anyhow, I think it ties into Bob's question as to how things get started and how they can morph into something more or less than what was originally planned.
Since you were answering Dowser, I didn't pay attention. I should have. You may have something interesting. Let me know if you do indeed establish a parallel.
Great tome!! Oddly enough, Aslan is the spiritual/theological consultant to the television series "The Leftovers".
What did you think of the book? Did it change your mind or reinforce how your already felt about religion? NEVER MIND!!! Don't tell me yet - I don't want to be tainted. I'll get back to you once I've read the book and we can have a more meaningful discussion - plus I don't want to derail.
I think you'll find it fascinating. I tend toward Evangelical Agnosticism. Consequently, great choirs of angelic demi gods did not emerge from the eventide and alter my point of view. No road rage on the county lane to Damascus.
But, it was fascinating and illuminating. It did substantiate a theory of mine. Of course, Aslan's view was born of scholarly rigor and research. Mine from one of those dumbgut feelings folks get who are sadly less scholarly than they would like. Nonetheless, good to read of someone with the same opine. And the genesis my theory isn't that stoopid, but close....
I'd love to hear what you think of it. My brother who is a pastor and missionary loved it, but he's not your typical Christian. I hope to tell you though, he walks the walk and I've got nothing but respect for him. I have, however, questioned their decision to move back to west Africa at this particular point in time and space. That is all I can do though. It is not my road to tread and I understand their belief in duty and mission. A little less on the latter....
Of course, Aslan's view was born of scholarly rigor and research. Mine from one of those dumbgut feelings folks get who are sadly less scholarly than they would like.
Sometimes very different paths can lead to the same destination.
Some time ago I read a book that was very popllar at the time. I wonder if what it says is similar. Its called "The True believer" by Eric Hoffer:
A stevedore on the San Francisco docks in the 1940s, Eric Hoffer wrote philosophical treatises in his spare time while living in the railroad yards. The True Believer -- the first and most famous of his books -- was made into a bestseller when President Eisenhower cited it during one of the earliest television press conferences. Completely relevant and essential for understanding the world today, The True Believer is a visionary, highly provocative look into the mind of the fanatic and a penetrating study of how an individual becomes one.
Eric Hoffer (1902 -- 1983) was self-educated. He worked in restaurants, as a migrant fieldworker, and as a gold prospector. After Pearl Harbor, he worked as a longshoreman in San Francisco for twenty-five years. The author of more than ten books, including The Passionate State of Mind, The Ordeal of Change , and The Temper of Our Time, Eric Hoffer was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1983.
Seems relevant today, especially in light of many people being radicalized online by ISIS.
P..S: Apologies for the weird formatting in some of my posts. The programmers who created this ("Jamro"?) were obviously using The HTML From Hell! (I've never seen such bizarre html code before)
Best Social Network Script | Powered by Jamro
Sounds like another good read Krishna. I'll have to check it out after I'm done with this one.
Sounds like another good read Krishna. I'll have to check it out after I'm done with this one.
it probably is, but I don't remember what it said too well-- I read it decades ago.
And like Obama, I also read "Rules for Radicals" . Also long ago, don't remember that one much ether, only remember that I didn't think it was all that good at the time. (It might've been a lot less radical than its title would imply)
But of course the right has had a field day mentioning that Obama read a book with a title like that.-- regardless of what it actually said).
I'll look it up! It sounds like a great book!
I've read "The True Believer" . Its excellent but a little hard to follow at times . But don't let that stop you ...
I'm still happy from my birthday this past weekend, and have been taking a brief snark break. Therefore, I'm so glad I missed this article earlier, and didn't have read some of the earlier posts, that were subsequently deleted.
I hadn't known it was your birthday.
Libra? (very early...almost cuspy..)
Libra's symbol is the old fashioned balance scale-- goes up & down, up & down,..ever seeking balance.
The symbolism is apt, Libra people (& pets!) are constantly seeking balance. Very important to have balance ..& harmony in their lives. Keyword = "Nice". Libras tend to be nice people themselves, want people around them and things around them to be nice. They really dislike ugliness (Physical, emotional, verbal, etc). Dislike extremes, anger, fights, violence, too many snarky people.
have been taking a brief snark break.
Hmmm...interesting...probably just a "coincidence"
They dislike unfairness, seek justice & fairness in all situations. They make good diplomats ("peacemakers"). Depending on the rest of your chart, you're probably not much of a loner. Most Libras really like company, relationships (that Venus thing again), to be with people (who are nice people, especially thse who are kind,loving, and fair course).
Libra is ruled by Venus, which in plain English means, like Venus, they seek "beauty & love". Peace & harmony...
And, strangely, many Libras like cross-word puzzles. (I still haven't figured that one out yet...)
Like the old fashioned scale that goes up and down before it finds the point of balance, Libras often can go back and forth before the decide n something. Depending on the rest of their chart, some may be a bit more indecisive than other signs.
But, getting back to science & THE ACTUAL TOPIC (well, sort of) as "everyone" knows, there's no scientific basis to Astrology at all*-- its a total hoax. Intelligent people should not basis their beliefs on things that are...unscientific! So everything I've said could be wrong.
OK, there's your mini-reading. You can pay the receptionist on the way out.
(Oh wait-- its your birthday. So this one is free-- its a small birthday gift! :^).
_____________________________________________________________
*Actually I've studied it for well over 25 years, and wanting to see if there was any validity to it I've used scientific
methods. (Astrology is no birtherism-- no way!)
Sweet Krish, thank you! I'd say it hit right on the money! I dislike ugliness, nastiness, and things like that. I always plant flowers... I feel very balanced right now-- and need to stay that way!
I will be publishing a video that my son made me for my birthday-- and, most importantly, I love you, dear friend! Thank you for the wonderful reading! Sept. 24th 12:15 pm, at the Owensboro, Daviess County hospital. Due Sept. 5th, but decided I didn't want to make my appearance until the 24th-- obviously determined to be a Libra...
The secret to cross-word puzzles is how they fit together... They're always fun, and I love cross-word puzzles!
Please forgive me, Bob, for going off topic, and stopping to smell the roses! I just have that feeling about the women thing. It's been simmering up under the surface for far too long. As far as we've come, that people feel they can say these horrible things about women, with no consequences, says more... I remember not being able to do my job, because it was forbidden for a women to go into a coal mine. For Pete's sake! I've fought it all my professional life, and still have to fight today-- just to do what I want to do for a living... After 40 years, you'd think they would just accept me as I am!
I just have that feeling about the women thing. It's been simmering up under the surface for far too long.
I think you're right (even if Hillary isn't elected). Its been simmering on the back burner for far too long.
And if she is elected (IMO she will be) its really going to bring the issue to the fore. All sorts of misogynists will come out of the woodwork, which though unpleasant will be a good thing-- it will bring women's issues to people's attention.
I just have that feeling about the women thing. It's been simmering up under the surface for far too long.
I think you're right (even if Hillary isn't elected). Its been simmering on the back burner for far too long.
And if she is elected (IMO she will be) its really going to bring the issue to the fore. All sorts of misogynists will come out of the woodwork, which though unpleasant will be a good thing-- it will bring women's issues to people's attention.
Take a charismatic leader, who speaks to the general anger, and he can say just about anything-- and people will believe him.
I think that's an important point. Two things are necessary for this to happen. A clever demagogue has to come along, but also there has to be a lot of pre-exisiting anger.(What both Trump and Sanders did , each in their own way, was to channel anger that already existed. Anger toward "the establishment". Anger towards various forms of injustice.
I wonder if it could happen if a demagogue comes along during a period when most people have a lot of satisfaction in their lives. (Maybe its possible, but probably much more uncommon. Or maybe it takes a really long for that person to create most people having a lot of anger...might take a much longer time?)
Take a charismatic leader, who speaks to the general anger,
I think many people believe that Nazism somehow just descended upon Germany out of thin air, or maybe that the Germans were just inherently evil people. But neither is the case.
The intense anger already existed when Hitler came along-- it was due to the harsh punishment germany received fr their role in WWI: ("War Guilt Clause")
The Treaty of Versailles ( French : Traité de Versailles ) was one of the peace treaties at the end of World War I . It ended the state of war between Germany and the Allied Powers . It was signed on 28 June 1919, exactly five years after the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand . The other Central Powers on the German side of World War I were dealt with in separate treaties. [7] Although the armistice , signed on 11 November 1918, ended the actual fighting, it took six months of negotiations at the Paris Peace Conference to conclude the peace treaty. The treaty was registered by the Secretariat of the League of Nations on 21 October 1919.
Of the many provisions in the treaty, one of the most important and controversial required "Germany [to] accept the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage" during the war (the other members of the Central Powers signed treaties containing similar articles). This article, Article 231 , later became known as the War Guilt clause.
The treaty forced Germany to disarm, make substantial territorial concessions, and pay reparations to certain countries that had formed the Entente powers. In 1921 the total cost of these reparations was assessed at 132 billion Marks (then $31.4 billion or £6.6 billion, roughly equivalent to US $442 billion or UK £284 billion in 2016). At the time economists, notably John Maynard Keynes , predicted that the treaty was too harsh – a " Carthaginian peace " – and said the reparations figure was excessive and counter-productive, views that, since then, have been the subject of ongoing debate by historians and economists from several countries. On the other hand, prominent figures on the Allied side such as French Marshal Ferdinand Foch criticized the treaty for treating Germany too leniently.
That is exactly what I meant, Krish! Germans are people like us-- very MUCH like us! They are basically good people, that got turned "off track" with Hitler. He spoke to their nationalist culture and their willing to obey the order-ness... They couldn't help it-- they had bad leaders, and they elected him, and then, suddenly, it was dangerous to try to take it back...
There's a famous quote:
Truth is one, paths are many
That is exactly what I meant, Krish! Germans are people like us-- very MUCH like us! They are basically good people, that got turned "off track" with Hitler. He spoke to their nationalist culture and their willing to obey the order-ness... They couldn't help it-- they had bad leaders, and they elected him, and then, suddenly, it was dangerous to try to take it back...
At that time it was a truly horrendous place. I believe many people study the history of that time in order to understand how the Nazis came to power-- in order to learn how to stop similar things happening elsewhere.
What I find ironic is that after the war, (or maybe even during the war?) some highly respected American scholars analyzed the events and concluded it was due to "the German character"-- that Germans were inherently rigid" & authoritarian. There were even psychologist who felt Germans were predominantly "The Authoritarian Personality" type.
But if that were actually true-- how come today's Germany is one of the most democratic countries in the entire world?
(I was going to say that Germany is "as democratic as the United States.", but now we may actually be slightly less democratic than Germany in some ways)
Have you read the Princeton study of late on oligarchy?
For many moons I have been whining that the discussion we should be having as a nation is whether we still have a democratic republic. It kinda makes all this bitter partisan bullshyte moot. More or less.
Hey, this is great. Two theories posited by a less than brilliant hipbilly have been substantiated by real live scholars. One more and I may get the key to the executives washroom.
I wonder if it could happen if a demagogue comes along during a period when most people have a lot of satisfaction in their lives. (Maybe its possible, but probably much more uncommon. Or maybe it takes a really long for that person to create most people having a lot of anger...might take a much longer time?)
Hmmmmm.......interesting. I think you make an excellent point. A demagogue is more likely to be successful in manipulation with an angry group rather than a satisfied group. Angry people are generally reactionary and emotionally driven. People who are satisfied are more apt to weigh what they are hearing or seeing., taking more time to consider and ponder. I don't think a demagogue would be successful without the element of hate, anger and fear.
Take a charismatic leader, who speaks to the general anger,
I think many people believe that Nazism somehow just descended upon Germany out of thin air, or maybe that the Germans were just inherently evil people. But neither is the case.
The intense anger already existed when Hitler came along-- it was due to the harsh punishment germany received fr their role in WWI: ("War Guilt Clause")
The Treaty of Versailles ( French : Traité de Versailles ) was one of the peace treaties at the end of World War I . It ended the state of war between Germany and the Allied Powers . It was signed on 28 June 1919, exactly five years after the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand . The other Central Powers on the German side of World War I were dealt with in separate treaties. [7] Although the armistice , signed on 11 November 1918, ended the actual fighting, it took six months of negotiations at the Paris Peace Conference to conclude the peace treaty. The treaty was registered by the Secretariat of the League of Nations on 21 October 1919.
Of the many provisions in the treaty, one of the most important and controversial required "Germany [to] accept the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage" during the war (the other members of the Central Powers signed treaties containing similar articles). This article, Article 231 , later became known as the War Guilt clause.
The treaty forced Germany to disarm, make substantial territorial concessions, and pay reparations to certain countries that had formed the Entente powers. In 1921 the total cost of these reparations was assessed at 132 billion Marks (then $31.4 billion or £6.6 billion, roughly equivalent to US $442 billion or UK £284 billion in 2016). At the time economists, notably John Maynard Keynes , predicted that the treaty was too harsh – a " Carthaginian peace " – and said the reparations figure was excessive and counter-productive, views that, since then, have been the subject of ongoing debate by historians and economists from several countries. On the other hand, prominent figures on the Allied side such as French Marshal Ferdinand Foch criticized the treaty for treating Germany too leniently.
I'm not coming back here, so feel free to blast me to oblivion
Wow-- I didn't know you were planing to leave (although actually I was considering leaving myself. Did I really want to play the role of Ed Norton every day? Yuk!!!
).
Your presence has been a real contribution to this site. So I imagine many people are urging you to stay. But I would urge you to wait a while.
Why wait? Because it seems that Bob has "invented" a radially new form of moderating. And I wouldn't be surprised at all if its successful!!!! So let's give it a chance...
Oh no! I'm not leaving the site, just taking a break from the snark! Peace in my valley is what I want... Just peace in my valley.
I have too many people here that I care about to leave!
By the way, if I haven't told y'all today-- I love you!!! Everyone has something worthwhile to offer "the neighborhood", and I just want to tell all of y'all that I believe in you!
Good morning, everyone... (7:30 in the morning, here...)
Nice exchange. Maybe I should be absent more often... I agree that the German people were punished for a war that was really a mutual disaster. They had motive for anger. But that doesn't explain Krystalinacht. Scapegoating the Jews was a very beside-the-point reaction to the Treaty of Versailles.
The link is Hitler. He fed on the Germans' anger, and he fanned that anger. If Hitler had not come along, would the Holocaust ever have occurred?
"Leaders" are co-responsible with those they lead.
How could the German people believe that the Jewish were responsible for their difficulties? The evidence they had simply did not support the notion. The Jews the knew personally were artisans and ordinary business-people. Scapegoating the Jews was irrational, feeding on a millennial tradition of antisemitism.
... And then there's racism -- and scapegoating Latinos -- in America, and "leaders" who thrive on them and feed them...
Hatred comes easy, and even easier when encouraged
.. And then there's racism -- and scapegoating Latinos -- in America, and "leaders" who thrive on them and feed them...
Who's scapegoating Latinos?
Who's scapegoating Latinos?
Donald Trump and the alt-right.
Who's scapegoating Latinos?
Donald Trump and the alt-right.
If you're talking about deporting those that enter the country illegally, then that's just enforcing the law not scapegoating.
But, it makes all Latinos subject to speculation as to whether they are in the country legally or not... I mean, no one has a giant A for "American" tattooed to their forehead...
But, it makes all Latinos subject to speculation as to whether they are in the country legally or not... I mean, no one has a giant A for "American" tattooed to their forehead...
That may be a bit of racial profiling but it's not scapegoating. In fact, "speculating" is not even an action. We now have at least 10 million illegal aliens and they should be deported. I don't need a giant "A" tattooed on anybody's head. In Europe, they just say "papers please".
Remember the movie The Hunt for Red October? This reminds me of that scene where Sam Neill, the Russian 2nd in command, wanted to go to Montana and raise rabbits. He was shocked to know he didn't need any papers to do that... Astounded, in fact.
I don't want to turn America into a place where everyone needs papers to go about their business... It's really nice to travel between states, and not have to show an exit visa, or an entrance visa... Basically, here, we just cross a bridge, or drive down the highway.
Everyone screams so much about illegal aliens, but the fact is, in KY, we need them. They do a LOT of our farm work, roofing, etc. You can't seem to find help to hire if you need someone to pick your tomatoes, or plant your tobacco, or pick your strawberries, etc. Are they here illegally? Probably a lot of them are. But they're still people. They have hopes and dreams just like we do.
I'm not saying to give them the farm, (like Social Security benefits), but let them have a path to citizenship... Here, they seem to form small communities, at the fringes of the larger communities. They stick together, take picnics together, and seem to have really strong family units. They attend church. They do things together. And they are welcoming to those who smile at them... They seem to be nice people who work hard. What more can we ask?
Everyone screams so much about illegal aliens, but the fact is, in KY, we need them.
Absolutely right. The economics of Latino immigration is not in doubt: They contribute far more to the economy than they take out. They generally occupy poorly paying jobs, which would cost more if Anglos took them. They pay more into health insurance than they take out. And so on...
A five minute Google search suffices, if anyone doubts my knowledge on this.
Absolutely right. The economics of Latino immigration is not in doubt: They contribute far more to the economy than they take out. They generally occupy poorly paying jobs, which would cost more if Anglos took them. They pay more into health insurance than they take out. And so on...
I think discussing the economic advantage of breaking the law is a preposterous justification.
You seem to think that most Hispanics are undocumented. That's not the case. I was speaking of Hispanics in general... people just as "legal" as you or me.
You seem to think that most Hispanics are undocumented. That's not the case. I was speaking of Hispanics in general... people just as "legal" as you or me.
I have no reason to refer to the general Hispanic population since those who are American citizens are obviously not illegal.
OK, I guess we just misunderstood each other.
What more can I ask? That they follow the law like everybody else and enter the county legally. To me, it's not about smiling faces and pleasant people since they could have those same attributes by waiting in line and going through the process. That process includes, among other things, determining whether the person has a criminal background, whether they have diseases, and whether they have the means to support themselves so they aren't dependent on welfare. Why would anyone go through the time and expense to enter the country legally if you can jump the damn fence for free? I think this undermines the entire process and is a slap in the face to the people who patiently wait their turn. I would treat them the same way I would someone who broke into the theatre and is sitting in my seat . . . I don't care if they're smiling or not and I don't care what great people they are when they're not breaking into the theater. I say "usher!" and he comes and asks them to leave.
What more can I ask? That they follow the law...
Who are "they"? Less than one Hispanic in five is undocumented. In fact, only about a third are immigrants, with or without documents. In the Southwest, many Hispanics can trace their families back to before the Anglos arrived. But you say "they" as though the undocumented are the "usual" case.
Who are "they"? Less than one Hispanic in five is undocumented. In fact, only about a third are immigrants, with or without documents. In the Southwest, many Hispanics can trace their families back to before the Anglos arrived. But you say "they" as though the undocumented are the "usual" case.
I use "they" as a pronoun to refer to illegal aliens. You, on the other hand, seem to be trying to lump "them" into all hispanics (legal or not) and then say that I'm implying "they" are representative of the entire Hispanic population when "they" make up less than 20%. I don't care how many illegals there are or what percentage they are of the entire Hispanic population or how many hispanic citizens can trace their ancestry back to before anglos arrived or how many smiles they generate per capita or any other irrelevant fact. Deport illegal aliens. Period.
If you're talking about deporting those that enter the country illegally, then that's just enforcing the law not scapegoating.
No. If I say "scapegoating", that's what I mean.
Mr Trump says that Latinos are more involved in crime... which is not true. He says they are a drain on the economy... which is not true. He says they are a drain on the health care system... which is not true.
That is scapegoating.
No. If I say "scapegoating", that's what I mean.
Mr Trump says that Latinos are more involved in crime... which is not true. He says they are a drain on the economy... which is not true. He says they are a drain on the health care system... which is not true.
He was talking about illegal aliens, not latinos in general, and you couldn't possibly know the extent to which illegal aliens commit crimes. And they shouldn't be committing even one crime or pulling on any support system because they don't belong here to begin with.
He was talking about illegal aliens
He did not make the distinction... and that's the problem...
He was talking about illegal aliens
He did not make the distinction... and that's the problem...
He absolutely made the distinction. Hillary and the press conflated illegal and legal in order to create a smear against the entire Hispanic population.
Ooops, gotta go. A few minor things to do before 9 PM EST. (I think I saw yesterday that there some programme on TV that might be interesting, don't remember what is is-- probably not too important, but I thought I may check it out briefly-- if its not too boring I may even watch most of it.
Probably nothing too significant
(Deleted)