FYI - Against Autonomy (September 2013 book)


Ellen Stuttle

Recommended Posts

Sure I know, Ellen...

You had requested statistical evidence of liberalism being a feminine ideology and conservatism being a masculine ideology, and I supplied it for your sake even though it's totally obvious to anyone who trusts their common sense more than polls.

Polls either confirm what is consistent with common sense... or they're wrong.

Greg

"Liberalism" may be for more females than not but it doesn't tell us where it came from or why.

But the other clue is that Conservatism is a masculine ideology.

These two represent the gender archetypes. In America they represent the holiness of marriage under God. All is well when a decent husband (Conservative) deals with the world from a position of morality (State), works and builds (commerce), and protects the family (military). While the wife cares for the children (education, healthcare) and keeps the home (social issues). This represents a proper division of labor where each has their duties and performing them morally fulfills them as people... and as a nation.

But when that moral protocol is violated... you have the America you see today. A dysfunctional broken family. Weak liberal males who think like females. Liberal females who by the default of decent men who will do right by them, demand the government to be their husband and father to their irresponsible delinquent spawn.

The State is structured to continually expand regardless of its ideological underpinings.

The state only expands in response to the failure of people to properly order their own lives. Whenever people fail to be decent, they create a moral vacuum which is filled by government.

And this is important:

Note that it is not the fault of government...

...but of people who fail to do what is morally right.

I left your history comments unresponded because they are in the dead past and are something about which absolutely nothing can be done. In my opinion, all that matters is what is happening right here and right now...

...because that's what we can do something about. :smile:

Greg

Ah. A freedom fighter!

--Brant

who woulda thought?

The real war is waged inside of us.

Prevail... and the world is yours. :smile:

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 88
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

And you are not in a position to know how much "faith" I put in polls, or in my common sense either.

Ellen

Sure I know, Ellen...

You had requested statistical evidence of liberalism being a feminine ideology and conservatism being a masculine ideology, and I supplied it for your sake even though it's totally obvious to anyone who trusts their common sense more than polls.

Polls either confirm what is consistent with common sense... or they're wrong.

Greg

Oh, no, I did not "[request] statistical evidence of liberalism being a feminine ideology and conservatism being a masculine ideology,."

That statement is a thesis of a sort not amenable to statistical confirmation.

Here is what I asked, in response to a numerically testable assertion you made:

Today the Democratic party appeals far more to single (or divorced) liberal females than do all of the conservative parties combined.

Are there statistics on that? (There probably are. I'm asking from curiosity.)

Ellen

And note, although I amusedly thanked you for the chart you supplied in post #29, that chart doesn't provide any figures specifically about "single (or divorced)" females.

Also, I observe with amusement that in your characteristic snaky way of altering your claims when called on them, you've changed your contention about statistics from the original (in post #29, my emphasis):

"Statistics can only be two things: Either they confirm what you already know by your own common sense......or they're wrong."

To the claim:

"Polls either confirm what is consistent with common sense... or they're wrong.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Ellen.

Medical ethics, and particularly what drew his attention, coercive paternalism is, to me, significantly different than coercive political, philosophical, or religious paternalism. I can forgive an expert who has intensely studied the effects of smoking for strenuously waving me off, especially if he's not holding a gun(or, God forbid, smoking gun)and smoking a Camel while doing so.

I'm a little less enthusiastic about a politico directing ACA at me for what he claims is my own good while excusing him and his from same, all in the name of carving up he world into his eyes rolled into the back of his head arbitrary visions of perfection. What these guys once thought was really cool back in the dorm, during their pet Soc. grad school days at Dust Bunny U, is no reason to kill freedom.

And, I've stopped holding my breath, waiting for our current POTUS to pony up the transcripts that must be no doubt politically embarrassing to him. When our children fight their way out of university and search in vain for their entry level seat in a cubicle somewhere as assistant to the assistant, they must show up with transcripts and resumes. However, if someone wants to 'run THE economy,' none of that is necessary in the least. All that is required is that they look good when rolling up their sleeves and lying into our faces about 'asking' folks things and keeping things we like, and so on.

regards,

Fred

Fred,

I don't think the issue being discussed in the bioethics venues is such questions as medical advice pushed on people but instead overriding the patient's "informed consent," which is how "autonomy" is being defined in the reviews I read.

The under text, I gather, is such issues as, Can you require a woman to abort a fetus with certain genetic defects? And a host of other questions which will increasingly arise with advances in medical technology, including of course the already often troublesome questions of whether the doctor can override familial decisions and terminate life-support.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, no, I did not "[request] statistical evidence of liberalism being a feminine ideology and conservatism being a masculine ideology,."

That statement is a thesis of a sort not amenable to statistical confirmation.

Do you disagree or agree with that statement?

Also, I observe with amusement that in your characteristic snaky way of altering your claims when called on them, you've changed your contention about statistics from the original (in post #29, my emphasis):

You're right, Ellen, I didn't clearly understand exactly to which request you were referring.

"Statistics can only be two things: Either they confirm what you already know by your own common sense......or they're wrong."

To the claim:

"Polls either confirm what is consistent with common sense... or they're wrong.

Ellen

Yes. Consistent with what you already know by your own common sense because common sense is of a higher order than polls.

As an aside... liberals commonly demand to see "studies" because they have become separated from their common sense by having been "educated" in government medrasas, and have degenerated to the level of being dependent upon government "studies" to tell them which lies to believe.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Ellen.

Medical ethics, and particularly what drew his attention, coercive paternalism is, to me, significantly different than coercive political, philosophical, or religious paternalism. I can forgive an expert who has intensely studied the effects of smoking for strenuously waving me off, especially if he's not holding a gun(or, God forbid, smoking gun)and smoking a Camel while doing so.

I'm a little less enthusiastic about a politico directing ACA at me for what he claims is my own good while excusing him and his from same, all in the name of carving up he world into his eyes rolled into the back of his head arbitrary visions of perfection. What these guys once thought was really cool back in the dorm, during their pet Soc. grad school days at Dust Bunny U, is no reason to kill freedom.

And, I've stopped holding my breath, waiting for our current POTUS to pony up the transcripts that must be no doubt politically embarrassing to him. When our children fight their way out of university and search in vain for their entry level seat in a cubicle somewhere as assistant to the assistant, they must show up with transcripts and resumes. However, if someone wants to 'run THE economy,' none of that is necessary in the least. All that is required is that they look good when rolling up their sleeves and lying into our faces about 'asking' folks things and keeping things we like, and so on.

regards,

Fred

Fred,

I don't think the issue being discussed in the bioethics venues is such questions as medical advice pushed on people but instead overriding the patient's "informed consent," which is how "autonomy" is being defined in the reviews I read.

The under text, I gather, is such issues as, Can you require a woman to abort a fetus with certain genetic defects? And a host of other questions which will increasingly arise with advances in medical technology, including of course the already often troublesome questions of whether the doctor can override familial decisions and terminate life-support.

Ellen

Ellen:

I just came back from Special Olympics track practice. Cold morning, tough to run, throw the softball and so on. My wife and I had our second child late in life, we were 38 at the time. She had a CVS procedure with what were our obvious intentions, which were, to not deliberately bring a child with birth defects to Nature's Table(where, according to A. Philip Randolph, there are no reserved seats.). However, not all defects are screened, and our youngest slipped by the gauntlet and showed up anyway with WIlliam's Syndrome, a sporadic genetic deletion in his Elastin gene. And of course, now we can't imagine life without him; he surprises the living Hell out of us. We did not see him coming, nor were we close to understanding what life with him in it was going to be like. Our choice, our responsibility. But being intimately -- on a first name basis, year round -- familiar with a wide community of individuals with all kinds of birth defects and learning disabilities, I can't for the life of me imagine a state in which the government inserted itself forcefully into those decisions -- either to force a woman/couple to carry to term, or equally, to force them to abort, even if the screening technology were perfect. We collectively just are not that smart in advance, and especially, from afar. I was totally clueless. My youngest snuck by our gauntlet and made it to Nature's Table anyway, and educated me,.

The decisions need to be left up to those bearing the responsibility, and as well, the responsibility must be left up to those making the decision. Deviating from that either way is a state out of control; heads will no doubt roll with it, and worse when the unfettered state is allowed to roll unchecked.

regards,

Fred

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, no, I did not "[request] statistical evidence of liberalism being a feminine ideology and conservatism being a masculine ideology,."

That statement is a thesis of a sort not amenable to statistical confirmation.

Do you disagree or agree with that statement?

To the extent I see metaphorical legitimacy in classifying ideologies as "feminine" and "masculine," yes (keeping in mind, as you've previously noted, that you're talking about present-day U.S. "liberalism" and "conservatism").

The classification has been around for some while, at least since the late '70s. Where I first heard considerable talk bemoaning the "feminization" of liberalism was in the late '70s - early '80s via a friend and others I met through her who were into New Age activities.

Robert Bly's men's movement was popular among these people - Google search link.

Here's some material from a site called "Men and Masculinity."

link

MEN AND MASCULINITY

MEN AND MASCULINITY IS RANDOM OBSERVATIONS AND REFLECTIONS ABOUT THE CONSTRUCTION OF MASCULINITY IN AMERICA.

SUNDAY, AUGUST 22, 2004

Three Mens' Movements: Robert Bly, Promise Keepers and the Million Man March

By the Old Professor

MEN'S MOVEMENTS : SOME PERSPECTIVES

[....]

Almost fading from our memory is the 1980's Men's Movement with Robert Bly as the guru of middle aged, middle class white males who gathered at seminars and retreats to beat on drums and lament the loss of their manhood. Bly is very explicit that a grief process is needed, particularly in middle age to lament the loss of strong father figures, meaningful physical work, and male intimacy. Men have exhibited weakness in the face of attacks from primary women such as wives and lovers, mothers and sisters, and attacks from the larger women's movement. Men need to come together to collectively mourn, grieve, express anger and ultimately find the "wild man" within themselves. Other articulate voices such as Robert Moore and Sam Keen, shared with Bly a consistent approach that men were collectively and individually in some form of negative space, and that "grief work was necessary before men could become healed (or at least be more healthy) individuals. (Keen, 1991, Moore, 1990) [....]

I suppose that the current pick-up-artist scene is a continuation of what got started forty years ago by Bly and others.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ellen:

The central thesis of Against Austerity (without saying it this way) is to blame Germany's policies/Agenda 2010 etc., for Greece's welfare state outcomes. If only Germany would endlessly subsidize Greece's magical whims, all would be fine in Europe. It's not the giant sucking from Greece that causes Greece's dysfunction, it is Germany's failure to endless supply subsidy.

I can well imagine who would buy that, and why.

And here is the Progressive argument: if only we would have caved in to full national socialism, there would have been 8 million more jobs in something called 'the economy' today. Trust them, their naval gazing is that good.

Germany and Estonia are interesting counter examples in Europe; well kept secrets in America. Even Sweden has been long term backing out of the cul de sac.

The Progressives have an existentially need to hide/distort the facts of these experiments every time they are run, because austerity works for the nation that embrace those ideals, and the century old swill still being sold by the Progressives is sucking wind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Estonia

Yes, Estonian needs to be quietly rolled up by Putin; for sure. Progressives praying for that, before the world gets wind.

Can't let freedom break out so close to bootlicker central.

regards,

Fred

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Ellen.

Medical ethics, and particularly what drew his attention, coercive paternalism is, to me, significantly different than coercive political, philosophical, or religious paternalism. I can forgive an expert who has intensely studied the effects of smoking for strenuously waving me off, especially if he's not holding a gun(or, God forbid, smoking gun)and smoking a Camel while doing so.

I'm a little less enthusiastic about a politico directing ACA at me for what he claims is my own good while excusing him and his from same, all in the name of carving up he world into his eyes rolled into the back of his head arbitrary visions of perfection. What these guys once thought was really cool back in the dorm, during their pet Soc. grad school days at Dust Bunny U, is no reason to kill freedom.

And, I've stopped holding my breath, waiting for our current POTUS to pony up the transcripts that must be no doubt politically embarrassing to him. When our children fight their way out of university and search in vain for their entry level seat in a cubicle somewhere as assistant to the assistant, they must show up with transcripts and resumes. However, if someone wants to 'run THE economy,' none of that is necessary in the least. All that is required is that they look good when rolling up their sleeves and lying into our faces about 'asking' folks things and keeping things we like, and so on.

regards,

Fred

Fred,

I don't think the issue being discussed in the bioethics venues is such questions as medical advice pushed on people but instead overriding the patient's "informed consent," which is how "autonomy" is being defined in the reviews I read.

The under text, I gather, is such issues as, Can you require a woman to abort a fetus with certain genetic defects? And a host of other questions which will increasingly arise with advances in medical technology, including of course the already often troublesome questions of whether the doctor can override familial decisions and terminate life-support.

Ellen

Ellen:

I just came back from Special Olympics track practice. Cold morning, tough to run, throw the softball and so on. My wife and I had our second child late in life, we were 38 at the time. She had a CVS procedure with what were our obvious intentions, which were, to not deliberately bring a child with birth defects to Nature's Table(where, according to A. Philip Randolph, there are no reserved seats.). However, not all defects are screened, and our youngest slipped by the gauntlet and showed up anyway with WIlliam's Syndrome, a sporadic genetic deletion in his Elastin gene. And of course, now we can't imagine life without him; he surprises the living Hell out of us. We did not see him coming, nor were we close to understanding what life with him in it was going to be like. Our choice, our responsibility. But being intimately -- on a first name basis, year round -- familiar with a wide community of individuals with all kinds of birth defects and learning disabilities, I can't for the life of me imagine a state in which the government inserted itself forcefully into those decisions -- either to force a woman/couple to carry to term, or equally, to force them to abort, even if the screening technology were perfect. We collectively just are not that smart in advance, and especially, from afar. I was totally clueless. My youngest snuck by our gauntlet and made it to Nature's Table anyway, and educated me,.

The decisions need to be left up to those bearing the responsibility, and as well, the responsibility must be left up to those making the decision. Deviating from that either way is a state out of control; heads will no doubt roll with it, and worse when the unfettered state is allowed to roll unchecked.

regards,

Fred

I fully agree as to who should be making the decisions and bearing the responsibility. What I'm seeing in the bioethics material I explored (which was quite a bit more than the samples I provided) is an undercurrent of softening up for taking the decisions out of the affected persons' control.

I'm expecting the book Against Autonomy to arrive on my doorstep later today, or Monday. The book sounds like one which is going to become a big favorite of social planners. I can't say I'm looking forward to perusing it. Prepared.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ellen:

The central thesis of Against Austerity (without saying it this way) [...].

I can well imagine who would buy that, and why.

Darn. I thought from the advertising that it might be a call for a return to licentiousness. :laugh: No such luck.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Ellen.

Medical ethics, and particularly what drew his attention, coercive paternalism is, to me, significantly different than coercive political, philosophical, or religious paternalism. I can forgive an expert who has intensely studied the effects of smoking for strenuously waving me off, especially if he's not holding a gun(or, God forbid, smoking gun)and smoking a Camel while doing so.

I'm a little less enthusiastic about a politico directing ACA at me for what he claims is my own good while excusing him and his from same, all in the name of carving up he world into his eyes rolled into the back of his head arbitrary visions of perfection. What these guys once thought was really cool back in the dorm, during their pet Soc. grad school days at Dust Bunny U, is no reason to kill freedom.

And, I've stopped holding my breath, waiting for our current POTUS to pony up the transcripts that must be no doubt politically embarrassing to him. When our children fight their way out of university and search in vain for their entry level seat in a cubicle somewhere as assistant to the assistant, they must show up with transcripts and resumes. However, if someone wants to 'run THE economy,' none of that is necessary in the least. All that is required is that they look good when rolling up their sleeves and lying into our faces about 'asking' folks things and keeping things we like, and so on.

regards,

Fred

Fred,

I don't think the issue being discussed in the bioethics venues is such questions as medical advice pushed on people but instead overriding the patient's "informed consent," which is how "autonomy" is being defined in the reviews I read.

The under text, I gather, is such issues as, Can you require a woman to abort a fetus with certain genetic defects? And a host of other questions which will increasingly arise with advances in medical technology, including of course the already often troublesome questions of whether the doctor can override familial decisions and terminate life-support.

Ellen

Ellen:

I just came back from Special Olympics track practice. Cold morning, tough to run, throw the softball and so on. My wife and I had our second child late in life, we were 38 at the time. She had a CVS procedure with what were our obvious intentions, which were, to not deliberately bring a child with birth defects to Nature's Table(where, according to A. Philip Randolph, there are no reserved seats.). However, not all defects are screened, and our youngest slipped by the gauntlet and showed up anyway with WIlliam's Syndrome, a sporadic genetic deletion in his Elastin gene. And of course, now we can't imagine life without him; he surprises the living Hell out of us. We did not see him coming, nor were we close to understanding what life with him in it was going to be like. Our choice, our responsibility. But being intimately -- on a first name basis, year round -- familiar with a wide community of individuals with all kinds of birth defects and learning disabilities, I can't for the life of me imagine a state in which the government inserted itself forcefully into those decisions -- either to force a woman/couple to carry to term, or equally, to force them to abort, even if the screening technology were perfect. We collectively just are not that smart in advance, and especially, from afar. I was totally clueless. My youngest snuck by our gauntlet and made it to Nature's Table anyway, and educated me,.

The decisions need to be left up to those bearing the responsibility, and as well, the responsibility must be left up to those making the decision. Deviating from that either way is a state out of control; heads will no doubt roll with it, and worse when the unfettered state is allowed to roll unchecked.

regards,

Fred

I fully agree as to who should be making the decisions and bearing the responsibility. What I'm seeing in the bioethics material I explored (which was quite a bit more than the samples I provided) is an undercurrent of softening up for taking the decisions out of the affected persons' control.

I'm expecting the book Against Autonomy to arrive on my doorstep later today, or Monday. The book sounds like one which is going to become a big favorite of social planners. I can't say I'm looking forward to perusing it. Prepared.

Ellen

Ellen: Re responsibility from decision vs decision from responsibilty, isn't the State's on- ramp for making these decisions our acceptance of the state taking responsibility for outcomes? If the state is going to bear the costs then the state has an argument that it should make the decisions...and adult life is reduced to the endless Thirteenth Grade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose that the current pick-up-artist scene is a continuation of what got started forty years ago by Bly and others.

Ellen,

I doubt it. I have some of Bly's stuff. It's based on fairy tales, poetry, song, "healing" (that New Age buzzword), etc.

PUA (pickup artist) material is based on manipulating women with some pretty impressive covert (conversational) hypnosis techniques.

The difference between Iron John or The Sibling Society by Robert Bly and, say, The Game: Penetrating the Secret Society of Pickup Artists by Neil Strauss is like the difference between delicate flowers and cheap whiskey.

Robert Bly, for as weird as his stuff is (albeit quite entertaining), aims at self-awareness. A New Agey spiritual growth thing. The PUA world aims at manipulating women to do things they usually would not freely choose to do so insecure dorks won't feel rejected when they try to get a date.

As a curiosity, I became interested in Robert Bly because there is a famous marketing copywriter by the same name. I bought Iron John at a used book sale once wondering what on earth this had to do with marketing. Then I got home and started reading it. :smile:

Continuing with marketing, a guy named Oren Klaff took the techniques elaborated by Neil Strauss (and Mystery and Ross Jeffries and so on) and put together a sales system for pitching venture capitalists (and other sales scenarios): Pitch Anything: An Innovative Method for Presenting, Persuading, and Winning the Deal.

Also, an Internet marketer I admire a lot named Frank Kern was hired by Neil Strauss to do what is called a Product Launch Sequence for his PUA training system called The Annihilation Method. Frank has told of his adventures putting that together several times (and he made a few million for Strauss, too).

Basically, all this stuff is good to look at because it works and gives you insight into the human mind. I find the PUA stuff incredibly sleazy, though. The techniques are interesting for a persuasion geek like me, but I get creeped out by the constant subliminal insecurity mixed with predatory conceit I sense in this material.

If you're interested in a quick plunge, here is Robert Bly with Bill Moyers (you don't have to watch it all, although I'm weird and think it's kinda cool):

And here is Neil Strauss:

How to pick up a girl and kiss her without getting rejected

Not even on the same planet.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose that the current pick-up-artist scene is a continuation of what got started forty years ago by Bly and others.

Ellen,

I doubt it. I have some of Bly's stuff. It's based on fairy tales, poetry, song, "healing" (that New Age buzzword), etc.

PUA (pickup artist) material is based on manipulating women with some pretty impressive covert (conversational) hypnosis techniques.

The difference between Iron John or The Sibling Society by Robert Bly and, say, The Game: Penetrating the Secret Society of Pickup Artists by Neil Strauss is like the difference between delicate flowers and cheap whiskey.

Robert Bly, for as weird as his stuff is (albeit quite entertaining), aims at self-awareness. A New Agey spiritual growth thing. The PUA world aims at manipulating women to do things they usually would not freely choose to do so insecure dorks won't feel rejected when they try to get a date.

[....]

Not even on the same planet.

Michael,

My statement wasn't clear as to what I'm supposing is continuing. The common theme, it seems to me, is that there's a crisis of male identity, with traditional ideals of "masculinity" becoming a negative image. Bly wasn't against "women's lib," but he thought that men were left with identity problems in relationship to women's lib. The pick-up-artist people seem like an angry backlash against changed mores.

I looked into a few of the PUA websites as a result of reading some of Doug Bandler's material on SOLO. A theme that I thought was often emphasized both by Doug and on those sites was that of men being de-masculinized.

It was in this sense I was meaning a "continuation," not in the sense of the emotional quality and goals.

Your phrase "the difference between delicate flowers and cheap whiskey" might be a good description of the way the whole culture has changed between the New Age period and now. Things have become coarse, and far from displaying the hopefulness for a loving world of humanity which was "in the air," however naively, then.

Btw, I saw Robert Bly once in Seattle. He and a local Seattle poet, a woman, did trade-off poetry readings and then enacted a little story about a frog and a princess, much to the New Agey audience's delight.

It was like innocent children in the hopefulness. The reality has panned out as vicious competing predatoriness.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ellen:

Enjoyed C. Frankel's essays in "Education and the Barricades." Ch5: "The Moral Right to Impose on Others."

1] I'm Agent A. I am upset about injustice X, which I claim is abetted by agent B.

2] I take a forceful action which is a symbolic action against B, but which actually impacts only agent/agents C.

3] When C asks "w.t.f.?" I whip out my license based on 1] and tell C to s.t.f.u. and get on board or they are as bad as B.

4] If this succeeds, we are now new mobbed up Agents A in agreement, we lather, rinse, and repeat, and eventually agent B might be embarrassed/shamed/compelled into action to remedy the claimed injustice.

I suppose the ethical assessment of 3] depends on an assessment of 1], and no way to judge that in advance.

Frankel justifies degrees of imposition towards a just end, such as, forcefully bringing to the attention of others instances of injustice previously tolerated. But that seems a traffic citation shy of actually imposing on them an imperative to act or surrender without agreement. I think he is describing a forceful form of free speech, that forcefully insists on being heard. At 3] agent C is free to assess and decline and claim a new injustice Y. As is, Agent B, at 4, a new injustice Z.

Frankel's essays, and especially, the times they were written, are fascinating. Don't trust anyone over 30. That always seemed to be a very short sighted cul de sac those folks were sprinting into. Did it mean, trust everyone under 30, or did it mean trust some under 30 and none over 30? As well, the big one; do the folks who spouted this dross 40 years ago today not trust themselves? If not, then why would anyone trust them then?

There was a recent PBS piece on the year 1964. Poet Robert Frost died in the early 60s, and was asked just before his death what he thought of the then new generation of Americans emerging. He said something like, "I"d have great hope for them, if only we could give them the gift of our struggle; alas, we are a success, and cannot." The new generation was 'special' not only in the sense they were marketed at (by who? the generation that preceded them...)but in the nearly exclusively distant nature of their stress. The immediate context was rising affluence. The distant context was the threat of nuclear war, vietnam, and racial injustice at the end of a long bus trip down South, largely ignored in the midst of the nations rising affluence elsewhere, which caused the reaction to injustice to spread, easily, using the technology of this national rising affluence. The species is wired for conflict, to overcome, and yet the Depression was over, WWII was over, the Cold War was cold, Vietnam was 12000 miles away at the end of a selective selective service, murkily justified, not well explained or understood. Dead Kennedy's and King. Riots in Harlem. Riots in Oakland. Dammit, we need conflict, and so, conflict became internal. And of course that internal conflict was abetted by external competitors. Taken full advantage of. Fanned. Fomented. Encouraged. Anti-War Movement? Timeout-- if it was Anti-War and not simply Anti-US, then where were the protests aimed at Moscow and Hanoi-- the other half of the conflict? We're asked to believe, by the left, that the actions of the North Vietnamese aimed at the South were a polite political disagreement, and that it was impolite of us to get in the way of the re-education camps. Please, can't we just turn our backs while millions stream into the south China sea fleeing re-education, and other millions next door rot under the sun in the fields of agrarian marxists, because this is all a goof thing and the US is just interfering in an inevitable global historical movement.

The PBS special bent over backwards to paint republicans as the impediment to civil rights in this nation. It was Eisenhower who sent the troops to Little Rock to turn the bayonets around on those NG bayonets. The word 'democrats' were never mentioned with the names Faubus, Barnett, or Wallace. To see a bigger issue -- to rail against creeping concentrated nationalism at the expense of distributed federalism -- was conflated with 'racism.' A smart tactic by the enemies of freedom, nothing more. The civil rights movement did not need to be conducted in such a manner as to divide the nation against itself in order to rule it; the legitimate complaints of minorities in this nation have continued to be used like so much politiical Kleenex, long after the issue of slavery was resolved. The enemies of freedom saw a means of using freedom to destroy freedom, and the nation succumbed to it. What was going on at college campuses was an integral part of that free fall, no matter what the intentions were of the willing,,.

Goldwater and Reagan, in 1964, asked the following question, with some incredulity; after 30 years of these policies, has the government even come close to solving the problems of poverty in this nation? They were decrying, in 1964, the out of control expansion of the national)no longer federal) government. In 2014, it seems like such an incredible complaint. If only they knew what was coming. JFK's budget was $100B, over half of which was for defense. We're at near $4000B. Has government even come close to solving the problems of poverty in this nation? Detroit actually looked better in 1964.

Those well intentioned students on those barricades, starry eyed, were used. But most of them meant well. And are now all gray haired; the new failed old.

The new must replace the old, they asserted then, when the old fails to fix the world. Exactly, now as then. But the special generation is trying to claim a Mulligan, even as the wheels are falling off the Great Society and dusty New Deal. 60 is the new 40. Like hell it is, but it is still over 30..

The special generation is handing over not the same broken world, but an even dingier broken world, with less hope, less opportunity, and with a freshly busted credit card, and on the way out, suggesting that the next generation should not only stick to their plan, but double down on it. The Krugman's recite their mantras, stare at their topsey-turvey charts and scream 'No, it can't be wrong-- we need more, more, more....' and are in desperate need of a hand on the elbow and a walk to the home.

Whatever the last 50 years of American politics was, it has failed. My sincerest hope is that the newest generation does exactly what the special generation did, and rail against the failure and try something new. A pox on both failed wings. Where I've been most encouraged by the newest generation, that is what I've heard them mutter under their breath, as they look at the adults in this mess and shake their heads, with the realization "Yikes...we are on our own. These people are insane...".

Indeed, what generation does -this- to its young?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ellen:

Enjoyed C. Frankel's essays in "Education and the Barricades." Ch5: "The Moral Right to Impose on Others."

1] I'm Agent A. I am upset about injustice X, which I claim is abetted by agent B.

2] I take a forceful action which is a symbolic action against B, but which actually impacts only agent/agents C.

3] When C asks "w.t.f.?" I whip out my license based on 1] and tell C to s.t.f.u. and get on board or they are as bad as B.

4] If this succeeds, we are now new mobbed up Agents A in agreement, we lather, rinse, and repeat, and eventually agent B might be embarrassed/shamed/compelled into action to remedy the claimed injustice.

I suppose the ethical assessment of 3] depends on an assessment of 1], and no way to judge that in advance.

Frankel justifies degrees of imposition towards a just end, such as, forcefully bringing to the attention of others instances of injustice previously tolerated. But that seems a traffic citation shy of actually imposing on them an imperative to act or surrender without agreement. I think he is describing a forceful form of free speech, that forcefully insists on being heard. At 3] agent C is free to assess and decline and claim a new injustice Y. As is, Agent B, at 4, a new injustice Z.

Frankel's essays, and especially, the times they were written, are fascinating. Don't trust anyone over 30. That always seemed to be a very short sighted cul de sac those folks were sprinting into. Did it mean, trust everyone under 30, or did it mean trust some under 30 and none over 30? As well, the big one; do the folks who spouted this dross 40 years ago today not trust themselves? If not, then why would anyone trust them then?

There was a recent PBS piece on the year 1964. Poet Robert Frost died in the early 60s, and was asked just before his death what he thought of the then new generation of Americans emerging. He said something like, "I"d have great hope for them, if only we could give them the gift of our struggle; alas, we are a success, and cannot." The new generation was 'special' not only in the sense they were marketed at (by who? the generation that preceded them...)but in the nearly exclusively distant nature of their stress. The immediate context was rising affluence. The distant context was the threat of nuclear war, vietnam, and racial injustice at the end of a long bus trip down South, largely ignored in the midst of the nations rising affluence elsewhere, which caused the reaction to injustice to spread, easily, using the technology of this national rising affluence. The species is wired for conflict, to overcome, and yet the Depression was over, WWII was over, the Cold War was cold, Vietnam was 12000 miles away at the end of a selective selective service, murkily justified, not well explained or understood. Dead Kennedy's and King. Riots in Harlem. Riots in Oakland. Dammit, we need conflict, and so, conflict became internal. And of course that internal conflict was abetted by external competitors. Taken full advantage of. Fanned. Fomented. Encouraged. Anti-War Movement? Timeout-- if it was Anti-War and not simply Anti-US, then where were the protests aimed at Moscow and Hanoi-- the other half of the conflict? We're asked to believe, by the left, that the actions of the North Vietnamese aimed at the South were a polite political disagreement, and that it was impolite of us to get in the way of the re-education camps. Please, can't we just turn our backs while millions stream into the south China sea fleeing re-education, and other millions next door rot under the sun in the fields of agrarian marxists, because this is all a goof thing and the US is just interfering in an inevitable global historical movement.

The PBS special bent over backwards to paint republicans as the impediment to civil rights in this nation. It was Eisenhower who sent the troops to Little Rock to turn the bayonets around on those NG bayonets. The word 'democrats' were never mentioned with the names Faubus, Barnett, or Wallace. To see a bigger issue -- to rail against creeping concentrated nationalism at the expense of distributed federalism -- was conflated with 'racism.' A smart tactic by the enemies of freedom, nothing more. The civil rights movement did not need to be conducted in such a manner as to divide the nation against itself in order to rule it; the legitimate complaints of minorities in this nation have continued to be used like so much politiical Kleenex, long after the issue of slavery was resolved. The enemies of freedom saw a means of using freedom to destroy freedom, and the nation succumbed to it. What was going on at college campuses was an integral part of that free fall, no matter what the intentions were of the willing,,.

Goldwater and Reagan, in 1964, asked the following question, with some incredulity; after 30 years of these policies, has the government even come close to solving the problems of poverty in this nation? They were decrying, in 1964, the out of control expansion of the national)no longer federal) government. In 2014, it seems like such an incredible complaint. If only they knew what was coming. JFK's budget was $100B, over half of which was for defense. We're at near $4000B. Has government even come close to solving the problems of poverty in this nation? Detroit actually looked better in 1964.

Those well intentioned students on those barricades, starry eyed, were used. But most of them meant well. And are now all gray haired; the new failed old.

The new must replace the old, they asserted then, when the old fails to fix the world. Exactly, now as then. But the special generation is trying to claim a Mulligan, even as the wheels are falling off the Great Society and dusty New Deal. 60 is the new 40. Like hell it is, but it is still over 30..

The special generation is handing over not the same broken world, but an even dingier broken world, with less hope, less opportunity, and with a freshly busted credit card, and on the way out, suggesting that the next generation should not only stick to their plan, but double down on it. The Krugman's recite their mantras, stare at their topsey-turvey charts and scream 'No, it can't be wrong-- we need more, more, more....' and are in desperate need of a hand on the elbow and a walk to the home.

Whatever the last 50 years of American politics was, it has failed. My sincerest hope is that the newest generation does exactly what the special generation did, and rail against the failure and try something new. A pox on both failed wings. Where I've been most encouraged by the newest generation, that is what I've heard them mutter under their breath, as they look at the adults in this mess and shake their heads, with the realization "Yikes...we are on our own. These people are insane...".

Indeed, what generation does -this- to its young?

Ellen:

I don't mean to imply by the above that I look favorably on the US involvement in Vietnam; any national conflict for which it is acceptable to end after a dozen years and 55,000 lives and many more broken with a "Never mind, JFK/America really didn't mean all that nonsense about pay any price for freedom, we were just kidding" could have been acceptably never entered to begin with. The shame of Vietnam is that it was murkily entered, poorly explained, poorly justified, waged anyway, and ended with that pitiful outcome-- which if it was an acceptable outcome to this nation, then the entire conflict was clearly unnecessary.

There were arguments to be made to enter that conflict; JFK made those arguments explicit in his inauguration speech. Were we listening? Did we question his words? I was five when he made that speech, so not so much. But I can readily go back and re-read his speech.

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty. 4 This much we pledge—and more.

Was the NV incursion into the South a polite political disagreement? Of course the commies wanted to paint that as a war of liberation ... from liberty. As they do today. Why weren't they laughed at?

The shame of Vietnam was, there was an argument to be made, and it wasn't made. We backed into that conflict anyway.. It was run for profit, not to end -- to decide in the shortest possible time frame, using the maximum effort available, after fully debating and defining the reason for entering that conflict and winning the debate before waging the war. To enter the conflict as a nation-- or not, as a nation. Informed with full knowledge of the why and why not. This nation did not do that...and entered the conflict anyway. Covertly. Quietly. As advisors. As a slowly ramped up effort. Why no, this isn't an actual war. And in the 70s we will end it with a massive 'never mind.'

A total national shame.

Not a failure of our military, but a complete failure of the civilian authority that allowed that military to be lightly abused, plus Rhode's 5%, Ike's MIC, and we all wish it was Rhode's 5%.

Why, after that national failure, there were not widespread fraggings in that abusive civilian authority, is beyond comprehension. Nixon's resignation was not nearly enough penance for that this nation blundered into, and what it did to its best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now