OMG Politics, I'm over it already.
- Thread starter sunvalleylaw
- Start date
- Status
sunvalleylaw
Yep.
I am coming off some fear myself that was taking me to not great places, but approaching where we are with more rational thought and not "fantasized events appearing real" is better. I must also remember the press is loving all the click bait they are getting out of this, and seems to want to keep us spun up into "chicken little" zone. Don't get me wrong. I don't like anything about the crap he pulled this week, but the Atlantic article I posted a few posts ago has a more resolved tone that I prefer to full panic.
sunvalleylaw
Yep.
Oh, and in a few pages, we hit a scary page number.
sunvalleylaw
Yep.
Also, here is this I just saw on my FB feed. Kinda hits on what I was saying about the press. Keep calm and rational. Don't be a puppet with a string being pulled. not that I say anyone here is.
From Heather Richardson, professor of History at Boston College:
"I don't like to talk about politics on Facebook-- political history is my job, after all, and you are my friends-- but there is an important non-partisan point to make today.
What Bannon is doing, most dramatically with last night's ban on immigration from seven predominantly Muslim countries-- is creating what is known as a "shock event."
Such an event is unexpected and confusing and throws a society into chaos. People scramble to react to the event, usually along some fault line that those responsible for the event can widen by claiming that they alone know how to restore order.
When opponents speak out, the authors of the shock event call them enemies. As society reels and tempers run high, those responsible for the shock event perform a sleight of hand to achieve their real goal, a goal they know to be hugely unpopular, but from which everyone has been distracted as they fight over the initial event. There is no longer concerted opposition to the real goal; opposition divides along the partisan lines established by the shock event.
Last night's Executive Order has all the hallmarks of a shock event. It was not reviewed by any governmental agencies or lawyers before it was released, and counterterrorism experts insist they did not ask for it. People charged with enforcing it got no instructions about how to do so. Courts immediately have declared parts of it unconstitutional, but border police in some airports are refusing to stop enforcing it.
Predictably, chaos has followed and tempers are hot.
My point today is this: unless you are the person setting it up, it is in no one's interest to play the shock event game. It is designed explicitly to divide people who might otherwise come together so they cannot stand against something its authors think they won't like.
I don't know what Bannon is up to-- although I have some guesses-- but because I know Bannon's ideas well, I am positive that there is not a single person whom I consider a friend on either side of the aisle-- and my friends range pretty widely-- who will benefit from whatever it is.
If the shock event strategy works, though, many of you will blame each other, rather than Bannon, for the fallout. And the country will have been tricked into accepting their real goal.
But because shock events destabilize a society, they can also be used positively. We do not have to respond along old fault lines. We could just as easily reorganize into a different pattern that threatens the people who sparked the event.
A successful shock event depends on speed and chaos because it requires knee-jerk reactions so that people divide along established lines. This, for example, is how Confederate leaders railroaded the initial southern states out of the Union.
If people realize they are being played, though, they can reach across old lines and reorganize to challenge the leaders who are pulling the strings. This was Lincoln's strategy when he joined together Whigs, Democrats, Free-Soilers, anti-Nebraska voters, and nativists into the new Republican Party to stand against the Slave Power.
Five years before, such a coalition would have been unimaginable. Members of those groups agreed on very little other than that they wanted all Americans to have equal economic opportunity. Once they began to work together to promote a fair economic system, though, they found much common ground. They ended up rededicating the nation to a "government of the people, by the people, and for the people."
Confederate leaders and Lincoln both knew about the political potential of a shock event. As we are in the midst of one, it seems worth noting that Lincoln seemed to have the better idea about how to use it."
From Heather Richardson, professor of History at Boston College:
"I don't like to talk about politics on Facebook-- political history is my job, after all, and you are my friends-- but there is an important non-partisan point to make today.
What Bannon is doing, most dramatically with last night's ban on immigration from seven predominantly Muslim countries-- is creating what is known as a "shock event."
Such an event is unexpected and confusing and throws a society into chaos. People scramble to react to the event, usually along some fault line that those responsible for the event can widen by claiming that they alone know how to restore order.
When opponents speak out, the authors of the shock event call them enemies. As society reels and tempers run high, those responsible for the shock event perform a sleight of hand to achieve their real goal, a goal they know to be hugely unpopular, but from which everyone has been distracted as they fight over the initial event. There is no longer concerted opposition to the real goal; opposition divides along the partisan lines established by the shock event.
Last night's Executive Order has all the hallmarks of a shock event. It was not reviewed by any governmental agencies or lawyers before it was released, and counterterrorism experts insist they did not ask for it. People charged with enforcing it got no instructions about how to do so. Courts immediately have declared parts of it unconstitutional, but border police in some airports are refusing to stop enforcing it.
Predictably, chaos has followed and tempers are hot.
My point today is this: unless you are the person setting it up, it is in no one's interest to play the shock event game. It is designed explicitly to divide people who might otherwise come together so they cannot stand against something its authors think they won't like.
I don't know what Bannon is up to-- although I have some guesses-- but because I know Bannon's ideas well, I am positive that there is not a single person whom I consider a friend on either side of the aisle-- and my friends range pretty widely-- who will benefit from whatever it is.
If the shock event strategy works, though, many of you will blame each other, rather than Bannon, for the fallout. And the country will have been tricked into accepting their real goal.
But because shock events destabilize a society, they can also be used positively. We do not have to respond along old fault lines. We could just as easily reorganize into a different pattern that threatens the people who sparked the event.
A successful shock event depends on speed and chaos because it requires knee-jerk reactions so that people divide along established lines. This, for example, is how Confederate leaders railroaded the initial southern states out of the Union.
If people realize they are being played, though, they can reach across old lines and reorganize to challenge the leaders who are pulling the strings. This was Lincoln's strategy when he joined together Whigs, Democrats, Free-Soilers, anti-Nebraska voters, and nativists into the new Republican Party to stand against the Slave Power.
Five years before, such a coalition would have been unimaginable. Members of those groups agreed on very little other than that they wanted all Americans to have equal economic opportunity. Once they began to work together to promote a fair economic system, though, they found much common ground. They ended up rededicating the nation to a "government of the people, by the people, and for the people."
Confederate leaders and Lincoln both knew about the political potential of a shock event. As we are in the midst of one, it seems worth noting that Lincoln seemed to have the better idea about how to use it."
mongooz
.
funny thing about that. i'm in the engineering business now.....and there's a city that is a client of ours.....we've been doing 'flow' studies on their sewers to determine where they have issues....and this one manhole has been an ongoing problem....i mean.....every year for the last decade.....the bottom invert of this particular manhole is.....wait for it.....666.66.....not kidding. mutherfucker has been the bane of every flow model ever done.
we just call it hell's gate.
mongooz
.
@sunvalleylaw
lincoln had the luxury of the 19th century's publishing capacity. we do not. everything is out there in seconds. not days.
lincoln had the luxury of the 19th century's publishing capacity. we do not. everything is out there in seconds. not days.
sunvalleylaw
Yep.
Might as well touch on religion here too. Here in the verboten thread. The Jesuits always seemed to have it more together when I went through Catholic school as a kid. I am not really a practicing Catholic any longer, but I still respect a lot of Jesuits.
Fr. James Martin, SJ
January 25 at 11:50am ·
“I was a stranger and you did not welcome me.”
President Trump has announced that he will order the construction of a Mexican border wall, the first in a series of actions to crack down on immigrants, which will include slashing the number of refugees who can resettle in the United States, and blocking Syrians and others from what are called “terror-prone nations” from entering, at least temporarily.
These measures, which mean the rejection of the stranger, the rejection of the person in need, the rejection of those who suffer, are manifestly unchristian and utterly contrary to the Gospel. Indeed, last year, Pope Francis said, "A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian. This is not the Gospel."
But maybe you don’t want to listen to Pope Francis. Maybe you think that he was being too political. Or maybe you think Pope Francis is too progressive for you.
Maybe you think that you have a right to refuse a person in need. And that you have the right to protect yourself. Well, we do have the right of self-protection. But refusing the one in need because you want to protect yourself, especially when the other is in desperate need and obvious danger, is not what Christianity is about. It’s about the opposite. It’s about helping the stranger, even if it carries some risk. That’s the Parable of the Good Samaritan in a nutshell.
But if you still don’t want to listen to Pope Francis, then listen to Pope John Paul II, St. John Paul II, who wrote dozens of times about refugees and migrants. “Seek to help our brother and sister refugees in every possible way by providing a welcome…Show them an open mind and a warm heart,” he said. And as if predicting our current situation, he said, "It is necessary to guard against the rise of new forms of racism or xenophobic behavior, which attempt to make these brothers and sisters of ours scapegoats for what may be difficult local situations."
For this is an issue of life or death. Migrants flee from profound poverty, which causes suffering and can lead to death. Refugees flee from persecution, terror and war, out of fear for their lives. This is, then, one of the church’s life issues, so dear to St. John Paul II.
But maybe you don’t want to listen to St. John Paul. Maybe you’re not Catholic. Then listen to the voice of God in the Book of Exodus, speaking to the people of Israel: “You shall not oppress the resident alien [i.e, the refugee] for you aliens yourselves once, in the land of Egypt.” Every American heart should be stirred by that. Other than the Native Americans, all of us are descendants of immigrants. We were aliens ourselves once.
But maybe you don’t want to listen to the Old Testament. Then, in the end, listen to Jesus. In the Gospel of Matthew, he provides a litmus test for entrance into heaven. At the Last Judgment, he will say to people, “I was a stranger and you did not welcome me.” And people will say, “When were you a stranger and we did not take care of you?’ And he will say, “Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.”
Jesus himself is speaking to you from the Gospels. It is Christ whom we turn away when we build walls. It is Christ whom we reject when we slash quotas for refugees. It is Christ whom we are killing, by letting them die in poverty and war rather than opening our doors.
“Today,” St. John Paul II said, “the illegal migrant comes before us like that ‘stranger’ in whom Jesus asks to be recognized. To welcome him and to show him solidarity is a duty of hospitality and fidelity to Christian identity itself.”
So, reject these measures and welcome Christ. Call your local legislators and tell them to care for Christ. Write to the White House and ask them to protect Christ. Show up at town hall meetings and advocate for Christ. And pray for our brothers and sisters who are refugees and migrants.
Because if you do not, and you reject Christ, then it is their prayers that you will need.
Thinking I might send this, along with a note of my own, on to my state government officials. But they are more Mormon. Still, . . .
Fr. James Martin, SJ
January 25 at 11:50am ·
“I was a stranger and you did not welcome me.”
President Trump has announced that he will order the construction of a Mexican border wall, the first in a series of actions to crack down on immigrants, which will include slashing the number of refugees who can resettle in the United States, and blocking Syrians and others from what are called “terror-prone nations” from entering, at least temporarily.
These measures, which mean the rejection of the stranger, the rejection of the person in need, the rejection of those who suffer, are manifestly unchristian and utterly contrary to the Gospel. Indeed, last year, Pope Francis said, "A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian. This is not the Gospel."
But maybe you don’t want to listen to Pope Francis. Maybe you think that he was being too political. Or maybe you think Pope Francis is too progressive for you.
Maybe you think that you have a right to refuse a person in need. And that you have the right to protect yourself. Well, we do have the right of self-protection. But refusing the one in need because you want to protect yourself, especially when the other is in desperate need and obvious danger, is not what Christianity is about. It’s about the opposite. It’s about helping the stranger, even if it carries some risk. That’s the Parable of the Good Samaritan in a nutshell.
But if you still don’t want to listen to Pope Francis, then listen to Pope John Paul II, St. John Paul II, who wrote dozens of times about refugees and migrants. “Seek to help our brother and sister refugees in every possible way by providing a welcome…Show them an open mind and a warm heart,” he said. And as if predicting our current situation, he said, "It is necessary to guard against the rise of new forms of racism or xenophobic behavior, which attempt to make these brothers and sisters of ours scapegoats for what may be difficult local situations."
For this is an issue of life or death. Migrants flee from profound poverty, which causes suffering and can lead to death. Refugees flee from persecution, terror and war, out of fear for their lives. This is, then, one of the church’s life issues, so dear to St. John Paul II.
But maybe you don’t want to listen to St. John Paul. Maybe you’re not Catholic. Then listen to the voice of God in the Book of Exodus, speaking to the people of Israel: “You shall not oppress the resident alien [i.e, the refugee] for you aliens yourselves once, in the land of Egypt.” Every American heart should be stirred by that. Other than the Native Americans, all of us are descendants of immigrants. We were aliens ourselves once.
But maybe you don’t want to listen to the Old Testament. Then, in the end, listen to Jesus. In the Gospel of Matthew, he provides a litmus test for entrance into heaven. At the Last Judgment, he will say to people, “I was a stranger and you did not welcome me.” And people will say, “When were you a stranger and we did not take care of you?’ And he will say, “Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.”
Jesus himself is speaking to you from the Gospels. It is Christ whom we turn away when we build walls. It is Christ whom we reject when we slash quotas for refugees. It is Christ whom we are killing, by letting them die in poverty and war rather than opening our doors.
“Today,” St. John Paul II said, “the illegal migrant comes before us like that ‘stranger’ in whom Jesus asks to be recognized. To welcome him and to show him solidarity is a duty of hospitality and fidelity to Christian identity itself.”
So, reject these measures and welcome Christ. Call your local legislators and tell them to care for Christ. Write to the White House and ask them to protect Christ. Show up at town hall meetings and advocate for Christ. And pray for our brothers and sisters who are refugees and migrants.
Because if you do not, and you reject Christ, then it is their prayers that you will need.
Thinking I might send this, along with a note of my own, on to my state government officials. But they are more Mormon. Still, . . .
sunvalleylaw
Yep.
As I said, I am not really religious in any sort of organized way any more. But my point is these jerks calling themselves Christian have it all wrong. So I think I ought to include a little scripture, via Fr. Martin's post, along with my response. They probably won't read it anyway.
mongooz
.
Ya Tah Hey wave0
Last edited:
rickenvox
Animal Psychic
I believe we need to respect other people's religions and religious freedom and at the same time I believe we need to be wary of religion in general and pray that someday people will grow out of such polarizing, pointless myths.
On another note, I think it's extremely relevant that social media has caught so many acts of intelligent and compassionate animal behavior, that we should seriously begin doubting our supposed superiority over other animal species. It seems that the only thing language and opposable thumbs have given us is the power to destroy the planet and all other life forms. That doesn't seem superior. So maybe basing our concept of God on some superior notion of a human or man was incorrect. Maybe a more caring God would be a divine cat. (Edit: Sorry I just realized that a Cat god might be dangerous, they don't really care about others and like to hunt and toy with their prey. Dolphin God. How about that?)
Has Trump ever heard of Zoroastrianism? It's older that Christianity and Islam, and still has many adherents in Iran. And there's a big population of Bahai in the banned countries. I'm sure he know's this right? He's a world leader.
Thanks, just thought I'd share.
On another note, I think it's extremely relevant that social media has caught so many acts of intelligent and compassionate animal behavior, that we should seriously begin doubting our supposed superiority over other animal species. It seems that the only thing language and opposable thumbs have given us is the power to destroy the planet and all other life forms. That doesn't seem superior. So maybe basing our concept of God on some superior notion of a human or man was incorrect. Maybe a more caring God would be a divine cat. (Edit: Sorry I just realized that a Cat god might be dangerous, they don't really care about others and like to hunt and toy with their prey. Dolphin God. How about that?)
Has Trump ever heard of Zoroastrianism? It's older that Christianity and Islam, and still has many adherents in Iran. And there's a big population of Bahai in the banned countries. I'm sure he know's this right? He's a world leader.
Thanks, just thought I'd share.
Last edited:
mongooz
.
the thing is that there are a bunch of 'religions' that are older than christianity/islam. but of course, they're all wrong. rolleyes1
An interesting bit on that: http://www.rawstory.com/2017/01/wat...-she-was-obamas-nominee/#.WJBsnW-pCFQ.twitter
sonik
Motor City Madman
The White House says President Donald Trump will leave intact a 2014 executive order that protects federal workers from anti-LGBTQ discrimination.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...ctions/ar-AAmrzdl?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=mailsignout
And that quoted article has been updated.
Then again it's Trump and his loony bin so who knows...
mongooz
.
this is why i posted a couple pages back, that we are at a time when the A.G. position needs to be an elected position, not influencable by the pres or congress.
what the fuck good does it to....to have the top cop be under the gun of a politician? we had that shit with ashcroft....and he gave us "enhanced interrogation techniques"....TORTURE and black torture site in other countries where there's no law or constitution or rights.....or any of it.
the A.G. HAS to be a position that cannot be effected by politics.
sonik
Motor City Madman
No such thing.
mongooz
.
if the A.G. was elected, the prez can't ORDER him/her to DO anything or not do it. if it was an elected position, the A.G. could just tell someone like dumpster to fuck the hell off.
Dogsinplastic
avuncular to no one
But Chad, and you may need to sit down for this...we are not a smart nation. People seem to be more stupid than not. They have proven unable to use common sense and logic. We're more likely to see another President like this shitbag in the future now that playbook has proven successful in the U.S. and the door opened.
The expansion of requirements is not a big government thing, so it's a quick fix/easy amendment. If Trump had just won as a Democrat and the Republicans still had control of Congress, you can bet they'd already have a bill in the works to prevent this crap in the future.
Lerxst
spaghetti and blankets
To further illustrate the whole immigrant fear mongering thing, look no further than the mosque attack in Canada that just happened.
Immediately after the attack news right/nationalist leaning outlets were speculating that the attacker(s) were Muslim extremists or Syrian refugees when it turned out to be some alt-right Canadian internet troll.
Spicer took advantage of the tragedy to use it as justification for the travel ban.
Some one need to explain to me how denying foreign travelers from select middle eastern countries does anything at all to make us safer from batshit crazy citizens of our own country?
Immediately after the attack news right/nationalist leaning outlets were speculating that the attacker(s) were Muslim extremists or Syrian refugees when it turned out to be some alt-right Canadian internet troll.
Spicer took advantage of the tragedy to use it as justification for the travel ban.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/01/30/sean-spicer-quebec-mosque-shooting_n_14501792.html
Some one need to explain to me how denying foreign travelers from select middle eastern countries does anything at all to make us safer from batshit crazy citizens of our own country?
- Status