How we got to where we are.

So you are real working class hero, and proud of it, obviously. I respect it. But things were a whole different world when you were going to college, and so was the economy. Back then people could actually live on minimum wage.
As for myself, I started working at age eight, selling peanuts on the streets of Alabama. I made up to $5.00 a day, which was more than minimum wage at the time. My education was a mess, being dyslectic. I flunked algebra two years in a row, even though I got straight A's on all the tests. The teacher flunked me because I didn't explain how I got the answers to the problems, and I didn't do homework assignments. Ten years later I became the head surveyor for a Seismic company, a lot of algebra.
A month after starting the 11th grade, I went in the army and graduated high school by taking the GED. I missed getting my first year of college by three points. After the army, I started college, but good ol' uncle Sam wasn't coming through with my G.I. benefits, so I was working from 10pm to 6am as a maintenance man for McDonalds. My first class was at 7:30, and I didn't get out of my last class until 2pm, drove home and got to bed at 3pm. 3 to 9pm is six hours sleep, with an hour to get to work. No time for studying or homework, left me no choice but to drop out of school. Three months later, I got a check from uncle Sam for the time I was in school.
My work history is a long story. Mostly because I have always refused to put up with bullshit. My attitude was, "I was looking for a job when I found this one.", and I'd just find another. Some of the jobs I had were, construction labor, carpentry, concrete form setting, Seismographic research, cab driver, Forest Service wild land fire fighter, ski instructor, hair stylist( yeah, I went to school for it with 120 women), shrimp fishing, lobster fishing, golf course maintenance, condo cleaning at ski areas, telemarketing, and currently I play music at bars. I could go on, but you get the gist. I qualify for social Security in two years. But if the cons have their way, it won't exist by then.

 

Wow, this thread sure has gone off the tracks.
I liked and was intrigued by the OP and article, but alas the thread has devolved into another politics rant rage.

Am I the only one who read the original article and understood that it has ALMOST NOTHING TO DO WITH POLITICS AS BEING DISCUSSED IN THIS THREAD ?
It is about the shift in attitudes and perceptions globally, and how those attitudes and perceptions got to where they are today.

Geez, I'm suggesting that class in critical reading and logic again, this place sure could use it.

Meagain this would have been much better suited for the philosophy forum, as the article is more about overall ideas and philosophies rather than specific political ideologies as it is being improperly interpreted and discussed here.

it's lame shit like this that has taken a lot of the enjoyment out of this place.
It's always the same members with the same gripes posting the same tired shit regardless if the thread topic warrants it or not...
This site has taken a nosedive.

 

And yet the points raised in the OP have directly impacted past and current political policies and ideologies. You cannot separate the two, IMO.

 

Yes you can, but as has been demonstrated in this thread, a lot of people don't bother to critically read something nor are they able to discern the differences.

But this thread didn't take the direction of investigating those trends and shifts mentioned in the article, people just started spewing their usual tired rhetoric.

So, Sig, without going into politics, what other things do you see that went along with the OP in regards to facilitating this paradigm shift the article is about?
I tried to get it going by looking at how TV changed in the '70's.
I thought that was the direction this thread was taking.......silly me.

 

No, I have no problem separating the different aspects mentioned, politics being only one small facet. Granted they are very interrelated, but still can be considered separately.
It would appear it is you that can't separate them, but personally, I have no problem.

Just because the points raised in the OP have influenced political thought does not mean that is the sole thing worthy of focus.

and it should be in the philosophy section, really the politics forum should be a sub-forum of philosophy considering all politics is the implementation of different philosophies relating to the structure and function of a society, nothing more, nothing less.

@Sig, the main difference between your take on recent history and rj's, scratcho's, meagain's and mine is that you have only read about it, we lived it. Like I said, you were born after the paradigm shift mentioned in the OP article and therefore are unable to appreciate the differences and subtleties in the same manner as we old fucks can.
'nuff said.

 

Thank you. True enough, NG. I suggested it be put in politics and MA and I discussed it. I wanted to see what the 'right' had to say and if they would even take the time to read and understand it. My fault--perhaps the philosophy area WOULD be better. I would like it put somewhere where it will not fade away---I'm still hoping the youngins' get a chance to read and comment. And thanks again for posting it, MA.

(Don't mean to act like I have any say about where it goes--this is all MA's baby)

 

hello meagain, I did not read all of your post but I got the jist of it. It is no lie, the world (earth) is in bad shape right now and the people (humans) are very frazzled right about now. If all in earth would just turn to Jehovahs ways of the bible, the worlds problems will be solved. That wont happen of course and is not the plan at all. Armegeddon will come some day soon, not sure when, but soon and the world of people will be just like the wheat Jesus described. Where the weeds grew up next to the wheat and looked the same, just like people, good and bad people, the angels will be the reapers and reap the harvest and separate the wheat from the weeds. Just like the righteous man from the bad man

 

That's what the Muslims say about the Koran, and it's what the Jews say about the Torah, and it's what the the right wingers say about the GOP doctrine.
It's like the old saying, "IF, IF, IF a frog had a tail, he wouldn't bump his butt."

 

the is no "if" with god

 

You mean the Catholic god, or the Protestant god, or the Muslim god, or the Jewish god, or the Hindu god? "If" you're REALLY the authority on god, he must have told you with his own mouth, who has the monopoly on him.

 

I don't mean this as a criticism Balbus, but your writing style (to me) is very disjointed, vague and overall just laborious to follow. You also repeat yourself verbatim a lot and seem completely resistant to opposing viewpoints.

So it's not a matter of unable to defend them, it's been more like unwilling. I plan to engage in that debate, but it's not been a priority. I have my beliefs and that's that. I feel you are compassionate and idealistic, which are not bad things, but I feel you are misguided and out of touch in terms of what needs to happen in US society. I don't really care how you do it in Britain, it's not my business.

The thing everyone needs to keep in mind is that no political philosophy comes without flaws, you also need to keep in mind that the term 'libertarian' is an umbrella term under which there are many different camps of thought. The biggest problem with the liberty movement is division among people that stand for the same general principles.

 

You just have a problem with me, because you have a problem with either my attitude in general or my politics.

When have you called out any of your 'progressive' comrades for 'labeling'? I've been called a con, fuckwit, teabagger, redneck, ignorant. Shall I continue?

Please tell me, what am I supposed to call it? Are you condemning the notion of a person having strong convictions, or are you just so politically correct that you feel the term 'liberal democrat' is derogatory unless used favorably?

 

Regardless of content, it was posted in a politics subforum in a politically charged and divided period of time in our society. I mean, what do you realistically expect?

 

I agree with that.

 

The validity in this kind of thinking is minimal at best. But whatever.

 

In my opinion "How we got to where we are" is a result of people taking control of their own individual lives away from those who had ruled us for Centuries.

The difference between Right and Left, also my opinion and a result of schooling 60 years and more ago is simply who holds the reins controlling the power, the people or the government. Recognizing the fact that seldom there is a single answer to each and every question or problem solution, the Nation was founded as the United States of America, NOT the Unitary State of America, resulting in what today should be seen as 50 sovereign States who each have both different as well as similar problems needing solutions.
While Socialism often sounds very good, Freedom in my opinion sounds much better.

Today we have a Federal government made up of representatives who get elected by saying what people want to hear and then governing based on what they claim to be in their constituents best interest, regardless of how they respond. The office of the President has changed from being one in which power given by the people through their representatives is exercised, into one in which power is being exercised over both the people and their representatives to accomplish an agenda of his own. This is rule from the top much like when we were ruled by Kings. And by the packing of our Supreme Court with activist Justices our Constitution is being redefined by whatever means found necessary to assure the agenda of the party who packed it is eventually achieved.

History tells us 'How we got to where we are', but the more relevant question we should be asking is 'Where are we going to end up?', and that can be best answered by taking a close look at our spending and debts, both current and projected.

 

Indie

Oh no not again with the ‘freedom’ argument come on man why oh why do you repeat stuff you know we’ve covered and for which you still haven’t addressed the criticisms?
“You throw out ‘freedom’ whenever challenged over anything - but its meaning in your lips as has been shown many times seems to come down in social and economic terms to the ‘freedom’ of a few to exploit the majority. That is why you sneer at the idea of bringing about ‘greater equality’.”

“As pointed out before the meaning of what freedom means is open to interpretation. Freedom from harm, freedom from exploitation, freedom from hardship, freedom from sickness. There is also peoples freedom of choice this can change according to a person’s circumstance and in a monetary based system wealth can dictate those circumstances. I mean if someone is born into power and wealth which gives them freedom from exploitation and hardship and another is born into poverty which opens them to exploitation and hardship, then there is in that society an inequality of freedom. The society is benefiting one over the other and if the ones getting the greater benefit are few compared to the others then that society is benefiting the few and not the many?”

 

I can't say that I disagree with his points, but I would have to say that he is overlooking some things. The sixties counterculture had a lot more connection with the Greatest Generation that most people realize. Actually the values of that generation and the values of the Hippies were very much the same. Sure, the outward appearance of the Hippies was different, and their immediate behavior was different but their VALUES were very similar. The rebellion that took place stemmed from the realization that we as a nation were drifting away from those values of the first half of the Twentieth Century, as we became more materialistic and corporations began to control our thought patterns through mass media. We knew what we were losing, in a very intense way, given our enhanced self awareness.