I remember watching an interview with the CEO of SUN microsystems in the 90’s argue that you didn’t need to know how to run a nuclear power plant to use a light switch, and you shouldn’t have to know how a computer works to use one.
I guess his vision came true, and we’re mad about it?
We’ve literally been told money is speech, but just as soon as people start organizing to vote with our dollar, we’re sabotaging everything.
Ok, so sure, a reasonably large chunk of all states education budget is going away, but for the states that do well, the hole will both be a smaller portion of the overall budget, and easier to make up.
No child left behind testing goes away, so the testing and standards all go away. You can bet the bottom 25 states in education ranking will quietly stop testing and claim they’re doing just great!
It’s the special Ed programs that are really going to catch hell. No dept. of Ed. no enforcement of standards. It will be the easiest portion to cut to save money, and the families left in the lurch will get nothing but thoughts and prayers to fill the gap.
Don’t believe Trump lives in a world where “truth” and “lie” has no meaning. He doesn’t lie to deceive. If that was his goal his lies would be more carefully crafted. He lies as a demonstration of power and test of obedience. He is absolutely saying things that no one believes are true, just to make his toadies nod along, just to ensure no one yet feels brave enough to question his pronouncements.
If none are willing to contradict his statements, none will hesitate to carry out his orders.
This is the sort of thing that makes me feel more sympathy for the Democratic party. The party simply can’t win with the left.
The party leadership worked against Sanders candidacy because they are convinced a liberal can’t win in America. I don’t agree, but recognize with Nixon and Reagan dominating over leftist candidates, Carter ekeing out a win as a centrist, Clinton winning convincingly as a centrist, and Obama winning as a rather vague candidate, recent history has given limited reason think a leftist national candidate is a safe bet.
But if voters are supporting Cuomo and the party doesn’t intervene the party is the wrong for not ignoring the will of the voters and tanking his candidacy.
I mean I get it. The left wants their candidates to win, but the lack of consistency is grating. It makes the centrist seem more sensible.
The reason is apparent in history. Party leadership lived through Nixon and Reagan’s punishing wins over a liberal leaning Democratic party. Labor support went lukewarm, and their funding stream dwindled. The left absolutely utterly to fill the gap. Clinton ran and won as a centrist, and just as important his cohort had a plan to fund the party. The ranks of party leadership were filled with this cohort, and the left hasn’t done the work to take back party control.
I quite like Sanders, but his vision of a groundswell of public support fails to account for the importance of campaign spending in election outcomes. It’s not enough for a few charismatic candidates to win, a party needs to win to effect change, particularly in a federal system. That reality, in my opinion, is why the left is still shut out of party control.
All this too say, the party should stand as an anti-oligarchy party, but the party needs a cohesive vision of what what that means.
Gilbert himself didn’t seem sure he had a complete definition, just a critical piece of it. As a psychologist he would have understood sociopathy well, among other psychological maladies. He seems to be making a distinction here, but that is my reading of him. If he could have provided a diagnosis that underpinned becoming a Nazi it would have been a bombshell, but they all seemed rather normal under a battery of tests. Instead of a specific diagnosis, the Banality of Evil became the commonly cited mechanism behind the Nazi’s abhorrent acts. Weak men following vile leaders.
After thinking about Gilbert’s quote I have come to conclude a lack of empathy is a necessary, if not sufficient condition for evil. There may be more to it, but this piece is already enough to oppose evil, and challenging on its own.
I told you once that I was searching for the nature of evil. I think I’ve come close to defining it: a lack of empathy. It’s the one characteristic that connects all the defendants. A genuine incapacity to feel with their fellow man. Evil, I think, is the absence of empathy.
Captain G.M. Gilbert
The army psychologist assigned to interview the Nazis at the Nuremberg trials.
A list of options has been previously catalogued.
I’ll grant you it’s easier to daydream about violence.
The word exceptional didn’t always mean better. It used to just mean different, as in an exception to the rule.
I’ve been using Here we go for years. I think it started as a Nokia project, that spun off to it’s own thing. I started using to conserve data. You download the map of your region when you have Wi-Fi, and it’s pretty low data load from there, directions and traffic updates mostly. I’ve been happy with it for a long time. I haven’t opened g-maps in ages. I know there are other options out there, open source and what not, but I never felt the need to try anything else out.
Something like this wiki page? There are some good charts showing trends at this site. That site also gives more context if you’re interested in digging.
I’ve read it. Many times from many outlets reporting on more than one survey. The first time I found it comforting.
However it’s not hard to find conflicting data. Methodology determines outcomes of these surveys, every time.
Today I’m less comforted. But ultimately, for what it’s worth, I don’t think we’re that far apart.
I’ve become pretty skeptical we know where the majority is. The question determines the outcome of the survey. The measuring stick is flawed and error bars are many times larger than the difference being measured. Frankly, the thing being measured has more dimensions than are being measured.
And it’s worth remembering how the party got here. The left and labor coalition failed to beat Nixon twice, Ford’s losing had little to do with the left, and it utterly fell apart against Reagan. The Democrats only started to get traction at the national level by going to the center, using the DLC playbook. I’m as angry about the abandonment of labor by the Democratic party as anyone, but the reason for it is not a mystery. By the same token if the left doesn’t build the structure for a more left leaning Democratic party to operate no one should expect the party to move.
The hard thing is, I don’t know what that structure looks like, but it’s not enough to be “correct”.
Well then, our troubles are deeper than we know.
On the right as long as you talk a good game on lowering taxes they’ll put aside any and all espoused convictions. See how quiet the Libertarians got when Roe v. Wade was overturned. Turns out any time I spent debating the preeminence of personal liberty and the NAP was a big fat waste of my time. Alas.
On the left we have an electorate that “…would rather be right than president,” and it turns out they get to be neither.
I keep ruminating on this argument, and it gives me deeply split feelings.
On one hand I keep thinking, voters need to grow up. Voting is how the populace gets to engage in self governance, i.e. politics, and as the aphorism goes, Politics is the art of choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable. Things that are easy aren’t solved by politics, and the voters need to accept that you’re often not going to get what you want and in governance you often have to settle for choosing the thing you hate the least.
On the other hand, I keep thinking I’m making the classic leftist mistake of demanding everyone should do what I think is right, because I am right, and then being frustrated when my rightness isn’t blindingly obvious to everyone.
Like the lady says, It’s like rain on your wedding day…
That is not an uncommon guess, but the argument against it is that these took some sophistication to make. This isn’t some disposable gewgaw. These were made with relatively tight tolerances and exhibited the best metalworking fabrication of the age. One theory I’ve seen seriously floated was that they were made as a demonstration of metal working competency, the equivalent of a benchy in 3D printing.
There was a period where it was still a skill to know how to use a computer. If you had a computer in your house it was a part of your identity, you were a computer owner. Using a computer was something you did. The computer is a powerful tool, and the user had an opportunity to overcome the challenge of learning how to use it.
Now a computer is an appliance. People know how to do what they do with it, but see no reason to explore farther. They aren’t interested in delving into the device’s potential. Owning a computer is like owning a car. They want it for the function they use it for. Learning more is like learning to change the oil in a car. In principle easy, but more of a chore than an opportunity.