COLLAPSE OF AMERICAN LIBERALISM

The only official party that makes any sense is the Libertarians. Who can argue with the advantage to one and to many of individual liberty? Why would you not want to stand up for and protect such an advantage.

Still, having said that, have you examined why you feel you need a party at all? Can you vote your own conscience every time, i.e., can you be your own leader, or do you really need a group of others to follow instead?

Libertarians sound good, but when I think about what they stand for, they abandon the poor. They want less government, which is fine, but for middle class government is the buffer to protect us and educate our children.

Libertarians suggest doing away with government offices, such as Department of Education. I don't know about you, but I like public schools. If anything I want a party, which puts education of all, as a priority.

Republicans spin, while doing all they can for the elite, the have's and have more's. Republicans of today are not what they used to be. People like Palin and Newt have taken over the Republican party. They care more about power, than people. They spin people to gain power. Sad, sad, sad!

They always get away. No reason to leave the country sleeping.

It is human beings who create the "why", Jan. You must admit, each brand of politics arises from its own set of values, yes? Do not republicans value similar but different things than democrats? Do not conservatives values similar but different things than liberals? It is thus proper to speak of "republican values" vs. "democrat values", "conservative values" vs. "liberal values", etc.

Although many believe there is one "universal morality", there is not. There are some values most of us share and values that only a few share and values that only one individual holds. There is no "one set of human values" we ALL share. That would assume that ALL human beings share at least one common goal. I'd like to believe that too, but it's simply not the case.

One might assume that all living human beings want to, in the least, go on living. That too, is an unwarranted assumption.

In philosophy, the questions of ethics precede questions of politics. The issue of what is right and what is wrong - values - in one's personal life is what serves as a tool to determine what is right and what is wrong - values - in human relationships, i.e., "politics" (and its subset "economics). It is inevitable that one kind of politics has its own morality, whereas another kind of politics has a different morality. Each of the individuals involved in each kind of politics will have many other values that are not genuinely specific to whatever politics they profess to be part of.

I don't share any one "political" view. I cannot be pidgeonholed into any one particular political party, and believe politics is inherently against any values that are in the best interests of the whole. Personally, I do think there is a universal moral code only people choose not to follow it and choose to compartmentalize it into politics in order to escape responsibility and culpability for their actions or lack of them.

"I don't share any one "political" view."
______________________________

But let's put that to a test: Do you hold the view that an individual ought to be free of interference by other individuals in their personal choices? Do you hold that view that if you rightly posses a thing that you should be free of interference from other individuals to keep it in your possession until such time you choose to let it go? Do you hold the view that if you pay for an item in the marketplace, you ought to receive that product with its apparent value preserved?

I suggest you DO share certain political view with others and, no, I'm not trying to pigeonhole you into one kind of politics or another. A political view is simply value judgments with regard to how one should or should not act in human relationships ... and one could argue that it is also value judgments with regard to how one should and should not treat other species.

Do you hold the view that an animal ought not be beaten to death for sport? Do you hold the view that it is acceptable to do so?

No matter how you answer, it is a political view.

Values pertaining only to your own life are not political. Values pertaining to how you ought or ought not behave toward others are necessarily political.

As for "universal moral code", which values do you feel apply to every single human beings alive regardless of specifics of context? Let's examine those and see if they are genuinely universal OR whether they are actually dependent on context and thus NOT universal.

You seem to be equating wants and interests with value judgments.

Is "disinterested" morality an impossibility ? I can IMAGINE a case of
" I am hungry, I will now eat that apple,....and the apple is very boring and not very tasty. I also have a detached disposition about the entire experience; I neither think it is RIGHT or WRONG to eat, be hungry, or do in apples. I am just going with my gut, as it were. ( and this is all VERY boring,...and I hardly give a shit )"

Is hunger/desire itself inseparable from and intrinsic to moral judgement ?

p.s +^d for 'interesting notion'

Are you saying that everyone cares about something so there really is no such thing as nihilism? I do not agree that a bear has morality as humans define it. Morality is a human trait. Animals don't seem to have inner conflict or regret.

The problem is, many think "morality" only seems to deal with the loftier of values. That's not the case. "Morality" or "ethics" is merely one's set of values. It makes no statement of whether those values are rational and reasonable or not, only that one has values with which to make one's choices - from the most mundane to the incredibly complex.

Whether one eats an apple or an orange or a piece of cake, one is making value judgments. WHY choose one or the other? Why choose cake first followed by orange and then apple? Why choose none of these and instead eat a bag of chips. People will usually call it "spur of the moment preference", but conscious of why or not, you are still valuing one choice over another. The simplicity or complexity of the reasons don't matter except that you ARE choosing and ARE applying some sort of value system to make them. "Values" means you have a personal ethic or morality.

Perhaps you feel disinterested in what you've chosen, but the fact you've chosen necessarily implies values, i.e., ethics or morality. It is really no different than the process in choosing a job, or friend, mate, spouse, politics or religion, a book to read, what shirt to wear, whether to brush side-to-side or up and down, etc. Some choices are simple, others more complex.

Even if someone gives you an apple and directs you to eat it, the fact that you did not personally choose the apple or to eat at that particular moment in no way means there are no personal values involved. First, there are the values of the one giving you the apple and demanding you eat it. Second, there are your values busy at work in your own mind trying to decide whether you trust that person or not, whether to do as you are told, to refuse to eat it, to run, fight, fall asleep, give it to another, throw it or toss it back at them, smash it under your boot, etc.

"Morality" means values. If you value a thing, you cannot be disinterested in it at the same time. They are contradictory terms. "Disinterest" means no values at work at all.

"Disinterested morality" is a contradiction.

True, bears do not have a "morality" as SOME humans define it, but bears do have values and thus an ethic or morality. Values not only deal with the loftier ideas of which we humans are capable, they are also involved in whether to eat this berry or that berry, whether to scratch on this tree or that tree or roll in the dirt and in what order, whether to go into the forest or run through the meadow or get a drink from the river. Values are needed in what to kill and what to leave alone, which plants are yummy and which will make you sick, whether to try for that she-bear or avoid her, where to take a nap or shelter for the winter, whether to eat the little cub or lay in the grass and play with it.

Most animals aren't mindless automatons. They make hundreds of choices daily and thus have values which means necessarily an "ethic" or "morality". That notion irritates human beings arrogant enough to think - out of all of the species to evolve on the planet, despite the fact we evolved from previous animals - human beings are the ONLY species in the history of the Earth to evolve the capacity to value one thing over another and thus have an ethic or morality. Anyone who has spent even minimal time with animals knows this to be nonsense.

Only the dead or the mental vegetable is without an active set of values because they are unable to act on values and have no personal need of them. There can be no actual "lack of morality" in a living, breathing conscious human being. Most of us aren't fully aware of our complete value set, but we have one - aware of it or not. The fact you are alive and can act to remain alive or act toward your own demise and any state of life in between means you have need of values and thus consciously and subconsciously form them over time.

Save for those who cannot act on a value, all human beings have a personal set of values and thus a personal ethic or morality. There is no "nihilism", only mental and/or physical death.

Morality is about right and wrong and most animals don't have to deal with that. Animals deal with consequences of actions and therefor learn behavior that allows them to survive, but no right or wrong or good and bad has been programed into them.

I think an animal would not knowingly act toward its own demise. Animals don't rationalize either. lol Crazy humans.

You're quite right, ethics or morality is about what is right and what is wrong, what is "good" and what is "bad". Do you not think a bear has to decide what is the right berry to eat and what is the wrong berry to eat? Do you not think they can decide what is a "good" berry and what is a "bad" berry?

Do you not think a she-bear can decide which is the right male bear to mate with and which is the wrong bear to mate with? Do you not think they can tell the difference between a "good" mate and a "bad" mate? Do you not think she know the right places to rest for the night with her cub and which are the wrong places? Do you not think she can decide when is the right time to let the cub go its own path and when it is still necessary to see to the health and safety of the cub?

Are not values continually at work in all of this decision-making, or is the bear simply an automaton following a program and unable to deviate?

Do you not think a bear knows when it's time to lay down a die? What about other species?

I live with bear. My neighbor shot one about a week ago. There are an awful pain in the ass. They don't pick good berries and good apples, they eat all they can get before the dog chases them off. It is about survival. A she bear doesn't get to pick a mate, she gets the male who chases off the other males. The animal world is brutal and should not be confused with right or wrong. It is LIVE or DIE.

I won't even pretend to think that I really understand animals. I am just saying from my own observations. I am sure that animals do have preferences, but eat sleep fuck are their driving force. A few humans have moved beyond this, but most just ponder their lives with their morals. If you want to see this in action, raise cats and watch how dominance is determined. There is not a lot of choice happening when an animal is in heat; for either sex.

Your assessment of other species is not my own and, being somewhat familiar with them, not the assessment of a good many animal behaviorists.

In any event, I think you simply want to go on believing that human beings have some monopoly in the ability to form values and make value judgments about everything in their lives. I do understand the human need to think oneself somehow "special" in the sense most human beings use the term. I nevertheless, disagree that we are as "special" as most human beings want to assume.

No doubt bears find humans just as often a big pain in the ass to bear kind. We are partners on the planet, not its owners. I reject the human notion of dominion and those cultural traditions that seem eat up with the idea. Theirs is a scientifically ignorant view both of animals AND of human beings.

Ok, I am not saying animals don't value, I am saying that value and morality as humans define the words, do not adequately define the animal counterpart.

I consider all life on this planet to be earthling and so deserving of protection. I am sure the bear thinks my dog is a pain in the ass, but he eats the apples anyway. I really don't mind. They are hungry, it has been a bad year for lots of wild food, as well as domestic, here on the Oregon coast.

Well, that's good then. I'd already admitted that animals obviously are less sophisticated on the issue of values and thus ethics and morality than are humans. I was simply pointing out that less sophistication in no way means "lacks the capacity for values" and thus lacks the capacity for ethics and morality. It was interesting that you brought up the example of cats because I've lived with several (eight at one time) over the years. I found the same thing in my long experiences with dogs as pets. I'm full aware of the dangers of projecting onto animals human traits they may not genuinely possess. But being aware of that danger, it is nevertheless clear that cats and dogs are capable of forming values and thus have individual ethics or morality PLUS some evident species-wide ethic and ethics in relation to other species - especially with human beings.

Yes, a single cat knows its own "right" and "wrong", a cat's "right" and "wrong" and appears to be capable of deciding "right" and "wrong" when it comes to members of other species. This means cats and dogs are also quite capable of understanding and forming their own species and interspecies politics. We agree, it's not as sophisticated - i.e., as complex and dynamic - as with human beings, but it is hardly missing entirely.

Agreed, if anything I think animals see the world in a more rational light. I have 8 cats right now( a few more then I would like). My daughter has been helping the mother kitty teach the 5 little kittens to use the litter box. The big male cat hovers just waiting to make make more babies.

His actions are anything but moral in my eyes, But you are right. I can not deny the cat does value.

Umm, surprised no one pointed this out to you: $1 million dollars each to 300 million individuals comes to $300 trillion dollars. The best figures I could find for the entire U.S. gross domestic product is $14.6 trillion.

Who wants to bankrupt whom? How long do you think it'd take the entire economy of the U.S. to pay THAT one off?

We seem to be stuck on a two party system...it swings back and forth with no real change.

You called that one.

Ironically, the way out of the "two-party system" is to simply refuse to vote for either of the see-saw parties. Many feel this is to render your vote meaningless. Whether one votes or not, I have found that there are far better ways to influence opinion and guide the direction of our culture.

One can vote once in an election OR one can examine the issues, decide what is true and reasonable, and then voice one's mind wherever, whenever the opportunity arises in the hopes of influencing MANY votes.

In other words, one can choose to be influenced or choose to influence others. The first isn't terribly influential, the second is.

+^d Full agreement

Maybe the phrase should have been

The revolution will be sensationalized

It would be hard to sensationalize an act of kindness . I actually watched TV yesterday . Haven't done that in a long time . Every show I analyzed was an extreme of some mindset ( emotional , philosophical , political or otherwise and the cartoons were just shallow and stupid ) , with very few exceptions . I had no idea how many religious channels there were ! Sensationalized is a good word for it . There was absolutely no representation of the liberal mindset at all , with one exception . Both related to history . At least history is still allowed . Food , sports , money and sexual violence with torture , and murder of children seems to get good placement . There is a LOT of PRO LAW ENFORCEMENT on TV . What kind of message does this collectively send ? Why would it be good and for whom for it to be propagated ? And we are given no opportunity to interact or share differing perspectives . And there are many differing perspectives that get excluded . These are "mainstream " ? I am so glad my kid does not watch .

Exceptional post, artemis. I wish more people would take heed of your rallying cry at the end.

One of the many reasons I stopped watching TV years ago was that the stereotypes of men and women became so awful. On shows like "I Love Raymond" "The Simsons" and countless others, the main male character is portrayed as a lazy, bumbling idiot who rarely interacts with his children, ignores his wife or girlfriend's good advice, and thinks of nothing but sex and booze. While the main female characters are slightly more sympathetic (they have a more active political lobby, after all), they are shown as intelligent but mostly controlling nags who are logical in every respect save their choice of men who utterly lack any redeeming qualities. The reality TV shows take the same formula and just add that the women are completely self-absorbed, spend more time on their hair and make-up than the rest of their daily activities combined...and are back-stabbing shrews.

If I wanted two-dimensional characters, I would read the Sunday comic strips.

turned my tv off too, got tired of paying for crap I wasn't interested in, but I definitely observed what you are saying before turning it off, especially the prolific amount of pro law enforcement, and its purpose seems to be either to frighten people into submission, and/or normalize police brutality. I think TV has everything to do with the rising level of stupidity in America.

yeah disconnect the cable

Clearly they hope it will convince us resistance is futile . To stop being an individual .

Agreed . There were no people I could relate to , no role models I would choose . Thank goodness there are still books . The archetypes were --- warped . Extremified . Even the reality show was NOTHING like reality . Disturbing . I cannot believe my very cool friend , who I was house sitting for actually bought a TV .

I have seen research that indicates you are correct . Children should not be exposed to it .

"The Big Bang Theory" will lead you into the light.
( or at least into geekery ) heh. ( make that "Bazinga". ) p.s. +^d

are those the same people predicting the disappearance of the polar bear? whats really ironic is how the democrats held so much power, more than they possibly ever had. and in less than two years they totally fuck it up and throw it away. had they been smart and slowly mesmerized america with a similar analogy as throwing a frog in a pot of cold water and slowly turning up the heat, they could have totally cooked the country and had everything. too bad for them and really fuckin lucky for the rest of us!

I predict the disappearance of your intelligence.
oh wait.. that already happened.

thanks stoney, i can always count on your undivided support

and i can always count on you posting a bunch of nonsense for me to "support"

Do you actually believe the shit you type or are you just trying to get a rise out of people?

He is just a small child who wants attention,
and has not learned the difference between good attention and bad attention.
Maybe some day he will grow up, but I doubt I'll live that long to see it.

Polar bears are disappearing. It doesnt matter if we caused it or if it was time for them to go doesnt change that fact. Conservatism is collapsing along with any other ism in this country. Wall Street runs this country while everyone is busy arguing stupid shit like Obama's socialism or whether Sarah Palin is as bat shit crazy as she seems.

I agree, +'d.

last i read polar bears are on the rise. politics and politicians are still under review

rise out of people

actually im pretty big for my age

actually not true. more made up fox news just keep repeating the lie and most people will believe it. Polar bears depend on pack ice to live. without it they have no consistent food sources. The recent "debunking" of the loss of pack ice turned out to be based on poor understanding of conditions on the ground. While the area of water covered by pack ice has grown somewhat it is very thin or in rotten condition that cannot support the bears weight.

Congo anyone that uses George Carlin for an Avitar can't be all there.

Except I'm not sure the other side would have done much better either, to be honest. I am convinced that there is nothing that can really be done to truly ameliorate the effects of a huge recession.

The Democrats just came in at a very bad time. We can argue that they made it better or worse, but I'm not sure we can say that the other side would have done any better either. This country has truly become ungovernable, and if you ask me, I have lost faith in any side's ability to do anything about the economic crisis.

agreed, but he could use the queen mum and it wouldnt help his image. his rantings alone give him away

sometimes i feel that way too. but anarchy isnt much of an alternative

the healthy population of polar bears dont seem to mind...According to a U.S. Senate and Public Works Committee report, the “alarm about the future of polar bear decline is based on speculative computer model predictions many decades in the future. Those predictions are being “challenged by scientists and forecasting experts,” said the report. http://www.examiner.com/seminole-county-environmental-news-in-orlando/canada-s-g...

"thanks stoney, i can always count on your undivided support"

That bit of sarcasm was dry enough to make me laugh.

glad i could make you smile, my only true purpose today

i have to go with the latter, otherwise he would be so anti-progressive he wouldnt dare use the internets

maybe your doctor or mechanic canceled thier subscription to national geographic in the mid 70's but the polar bears are not on the rise.unless that is you mean interms of climbing higher and higher from lack of glacial plains to roam.

marijuana smoking will do that to a populace

really does you american contemperary history ignore 65-75?
marijuana abuse sparks (pun intended) activism not apathy.alcohol is the mindnumber

if you say so

That is true.

I like half of one of her songs. Shock and awe.

65-75 I was there and as I recall that the one thing that sparked activism was Professor Timothy Leary and Orange Sunshine ( LSD )

Who is it saying that "Lady Gaga" is the best we got? I don't hold the same opinion about Lady Gaga as you seem to express, but there ARE literally millions of other great human beings in the United States accomplishing genuinely great things every day.

That one doesn't see it that way is testament to one's own personal judgment, NOT the only judgment possible of such persons and their accomplishments.

Are you really going to judge the culture of hundreds of millions based on ONE celebrity?

i dont,science,history,and basic common sense say so

in the most ironic way, almost as a side effect as while high you aint gunna do shit lol

i dont mind her, it beats that horrific wave of boy bands and teen princess's we got stuck with previously.imagine a world with no britney spears, if only.
while she has glommed on to the madonna schtick of the 80's her music in conjunction with video are kind of a means of art.not historicaly note worthy, but a good effort in a wierd way

well im sorry you missed all the weed.lsd was the counterance as it proved itself to be mind expanding at first but massively destructive when abused.it has always been the pot heads who (most likely through marijuana enduced paranoia) find the nuanced evil to fight.

i used lady gaga as an example of the level of quality that is mainstream music.musicians will always push art forward to be better, and bazillions of artists exist as we speak that fit that mold.the point that im driving at is while we have them, they arent makng it to the radio for mass consumption, hergo effecting us as a culture.long gone are the days of guns and roses and nirvana.it will be rehashing of yesterdays money makers in a new suite.
i wasjust in best buy this weekend and the music section is all of two rows, half of wich were filled with aerosmith and tom petty records.thats right records.
how bad has it become that the "antique" hipster feel towards records has becomes what the industry is pushing.
steve carrel and tina fey are in that "new" moe date night, or as i know it the ethan hawke oldy but goody blind date.nightmare on elm street, and friday the thirteenth got a faceift.alien vs preditor really? how desperate must they be to bother stringing those two together.
look at the rock band series(one of the few actual new phenominon).who are the bands, and what are the highlighted songs? not to much after 2000 really.
we have been culturely dying and are so jaded we havent even noticed.

I hear what you're saying, but I think you're simply being excessively pessimistic and need to get out more or explore more of what's available in music, television, movies, books, magazines, art, etc. I browse music from a good many sources and see an incredible diversity both in stores and online. I think if one only looks at mainstream, that is all one will see. That brings up the question of why a culture is only judged by the mainstream? Does one discard an entire automobile merely because one hates the color?

The mainstream is merely the most homogenized portion of any culture and, historically, what we've come to know as "mainstream" is a relatively new phenomenon made real essentially through mass media. An entire culture can hardly be judged solely by the qualities of the mainstream. If you want to see diverse and genuinely influential originality, the quantity and quality of that diversity grows as you move away from the mainstream. Of course, unlike many, I don't entirely dismiss the mainstream either. There is diverse originality even there.

One likes its content or one does not, but the same can be said for everything - mainstream or not.

If need be, I can point you to many websites or even places "real world" where you can see ample proof that human culture, worldwide and in the United States, isn't dying but is rather experiencing a tremendous rebirth. Perhaps you're experience a dip in your own passions that you cannot see the passion in the words or actions of others. It is there and, when you are genuinely ready to see it, it will be waiting.

True again. Even if marijuana is more ''intellectual'' that alcohol, it is just as likely to create procrastinative behavior.

niether belong in a catagory regarding productiveness, but one plants the seeds and the other kills the feeling.

hey i hope im wrong i really do.im getting real tired of watching the same sitcom jokes told by different hipster characters.i hope another early 90s or 60s happens again.

Agreed. She is art.

I know what you mean. I don't even watch that kind of crap anymore - whoever called it comedy? I do nevertheless find great television from time to time that always surprises my expectations. When it comes down to it, there always seems to be more quality content to explore than there are hours in the day - and I have a lot of free hours in my day. What I cannot find to my liking, I at least attempt to create for myself. As a creative person, if what I find isn't fulfilling, it is often enough just what's needed to inspire something better ... as I see it.

maks peepul dum to

color me jealous.
im artisticly inclined as well but have little to no time.i just have ideas of expression building up in my head wieghing on my soul, just dying to get out.
out of curiousity as this is a rare unique element to discuss, but when you sooth your desires by your own means, do you feel bad about it, like your being snobbinshly arrogant? i dont know you from adam and im not insinuating at all, im just saying for me i wonder when i choose to listen to my cd's that i created rather than what the rest of the world or what ever are listening to, i wonder if it is indicitive of an unhealthy arrogance.like im not giving other stuff its proper due and everyone else is thus making me not actualy superior but inferiorly flawed.
a lil philosophical in nature, but just wondering form some one who creates his own endevours of entertainment too, if i seem crazy or if you can relate?
i haveing a feeling it wont be the latter lol.