It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
You are a very important member on here. Thank you for your efforts to impart knowledge and wisdom.
originally posted by: CB328
We condemn compulsory education laws … and we call for the immediate repeal of such laws.”
This kind of proves what I've been saying for years. Republicans want a lot of uneducated people because they're easier to manipulate. That's why they want teenage pregnancy (in spite of their rhetoric) because then you get the mother and the child mostly likely poor, ignorant and pissed off. Then you can't get people like Trump elected.
But overall, I would say this is a cycle that happens to every society. Look at Bosnia. Our country is developing into almost a mirror image of that society.
No matter how great a society starts out, eventually you get too many low quality people because it takes a lot of work, dedication, education, social structure and money to produce quality people while it's very easy to make losers.
originally posted by: TheRedneck
That was always the beauty of America, and the lure that brought so many here: the ability to succeed or not on one's own merits, in whatever one chose to do. And we've lost much of that.
I wonder if anyone has ever said on their deathbed, "I wish I had made more money," or, "I wish I had controlled others' lives more." I doubt it, yet how many, like the earlier example, spend the most precious thing they can own, their time, chasing things that won't matter in the end.
My overarching goal is self-sufficiency. It's much more specific than that statement, but that's the idea. I have weekly/monthly goals that I strive toward, and every morning set daily goals for what I want to accomplish that day. Periodically I re-examine my long-term goals and adjust them as necessary. Like you, I tend to keep them mental, although you are right that writing them down is preferable.
originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: Aazadan
Elan Musk often describes "First Principles" thinking.
The difference between knowing a ton of "stuff" and the process by which to solve novel problems...aka New, not done before stuff...Those are two very different skill-sets. One is fit for being a tool inside a corporation and making X happen 20 times a day...another is inventing new stuff, pushing forward....and Phd does not make anyone less of a tool if they can't start from the basics and THINK about a problem.
originally posted by: TheRedneck
There is assistance for folks like us. I started back in college in my 50s, broke, on food stamps. Now I hold a BSEE from UAH, am pursuing a Masters, and have an internship as a research engineer.
We've lost some of that, but I think it's for the better.
Mine are much bigger than that.
I may not be in a position to give back monetarily yet, but I do give back where I can.
We do need to have old laws abandoned and new ones added or modified. But the current media storyline is not about people working together to do this... it's about the Glory Of Big Struggles Against Shadow Government Organizations which are taking over the world/state/your town.
So I submit that our taste for entertainment drama (and the entertainment industry's interest in profits) is driving a lot of this. As "evidence" I'll point to other countries where the media isn't as engaged with this kind of story -- and where the people as a whole aren't quite as paranoid as Americans are getting.
West Virginia would be the size of Texas if they ironed the wrinkles out.
When far right Republican Newt Gingrich was allowed to have national power via Congress in the 1990s, he started the party on the road to becoming a faction of extremists. "Compromise" became a dirty word, and any Republican not conservative enough was RINOed.
Michigan Dem Meeting Breaks Into Violence as Clinton Fans Repel Sanders Partisans
On December 3, the Michigan Democratic Party held a committee meeting, open to the public and party members, to vote on delegates to represent Michigan at the Democratic National Committee. Unfortunately, rather than learning from Hillary Clinton’s presidential election loss, and sincerely welcoming Bernie Sanders supporters into the party after scolding them for more than a year, the Democratic establishment has continued treating progressives as second class citizens.
Michigan was one of the most closely contested races during the Democratic primaries. Sanders pulled off an upset victory there after polling suggested Clinton was likely to win. The most recent turmoil between the pro-Clinton leadership of the Democratic Party and Sanders supporters is a microcosm of the constant tug-of-war progressives are in with establishment types across the country, over issues such as appointing new leadership roles and determining a direction for the party’s recovery.
During their meeting, Sam Pernick, president of the Young Democrats of Michigan, and other Sanders supporters—who nearly outnumbered the rest of the attendees at the meeting—protested the lack of transparency and openness exercised by the Michigan Democratic Party, which rigged the DNC delegate nomination process behind closed doors. Michigan Democratic Party officials responded with force. Pernick and several others were nearly dragged out of the meeting. Pernick is pursuing charges, and the Westland Police Department recently issued Mike Stone, a senior Michigan Democratic Party official, a ticket for assault and battery.
"Over the last four decades, the Republican Party has transformed from a loyal opposition into an insurrectionary party that flouts the law when it is in the majority and threatens disorder when it is the minority. It is the party of Watergate and Iran-Contra, but also of the government shutdown in 1995 and the impeachment trial of 1999. If there is an earlier American precedent for today's Republican Party, it is the antebellum Southern Democrats of John Calhoun who threatened to nullify, or disregard, federal legislation they objected to and who later led the fight to secede from the union over slavery."
A couple of years ago, a Republican committee staff director told me candidly (and proudly) what the method was to all this obstruction and disruption. Should Republicans succeed in obstructing the Senate from doing its job, it would further lower Congress's generic favorability rating among the American people. By sabotaging the reputation of an institution of government, the party that is programmatically against government would come out the relative winner.
originally posted by: TheRedneck
The ability to succeed or fail is not the same as saying one should starve if they fail. Thinking about it now, it occurs to me that that same misperception may be responsible for part of the political rift we are seeing. I'm going to take an example from my own immediate life to illustrate my actual meaning.
So if the right to fail us removed, so is the right to succeed. That does, to me, have bad implications... for example, perhaps I would not have the right to try my experiments, or perhaps if they worked I would not be able to commercialize it for a reward. In that case, why bother trying? I didn't need to build my shop, didn't need to buy a board and parts... I could have spent that money on Dorito's to munch on while I watch the latest episode of a mind-numbing 'reality show' on the TV, sitting on the couch in my underwear without a care in the world.
And that's fine... good luck on your goals. I hope you succeed.
I agree that the option to not be a success has to exist, but I guess that what I was getting at is it feels like often times people feel a risk needs to be a total risk.
I'm rather poor now, I live on disability. Two years from now, I'll probably be making a very nice wage when I finish school. Most dev's in my field start around 100k in SF, or 80k in the midwest, which to me is an unfathomable amount of money, enough that the wage doesn't matter.
I just hope you understand.
Sometimes the clothes do not make the man.
All we have to do, now,
Is take these lies and make them true somehow.
All we have to see
Is that I don't belong to you,
And you don't belong to me.
originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Martin75
I guess that's the biggest cultural difference I saw there. Here we do value community, but we are even bigger into self-reliance. West by God seems to place a little more value on community than on individualism, which can make them seem a little 'liberal' compared to areas like the Deep South. I assume that's due to the difference in environment; here, a man can usually get by on his own most of the time, but when those winters hit up there, you better have some folks willing to band together for the greater good
originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Byrd
I beg to disagree. While I definitely understand your point that some members of society are not as capable of surviving under 'rugged individualism,' I also believe that when possible, reliance on oneself is more effective than reliance on others.
It also relies on defined roles.
For most of our history, American economics, culture and politics have been dominated by a New England-based Yankee aristocracy that was rooted in Puritan communitarian values, educated at the Ivies and marinated in an ethic of noblesse oblige(the conviction that those who possess wealth and power are morally bound to use it for the betterment of society). While they've done their share of damage to the notion of democracy in the name of profit (as all financial elites inevitably do), this group has, for the most part, tempered its predatory instincts with a code that valued mass education and human rights; held up public service as both a duty and an honor; and imbued them with the belief that once you made your nut, you had a moral duty to do something positive with it for the betterment of mankind. Your own legacy depended on this.
In Yankee Puritan culture, both liberty and authority resided mostly with the community, and not so much with individuals. Communities had both the freedom and the duty to govern themselves as they wished (through town meetings and so on), to invest in their collective good, and to favor or punish individuals whose behavior enhanced or threatened the whole (historically, through community rewards such as elevation to positions of public authority and trust; or community punishments like shaming, shunning or banishing).
Individuals were expected to balance their personal needs and desires against the greater good of the collective -- and, occasionally, to make sacrifices for the betterment of everyone. (This is why the Puritan wealthy tended to dutifully pay their taxes, tithe in their churches and donate generously to create hospitals, parks and universities.) In return, the community had a solemn and inescapable moral duty to care for its sick, educate its young and provide for its needy -- the kind of support that maximizes each person's liberty to live in dignity and achieve his or her potential. A Yankee community that failed to provide such support brought shame upon itself. To this day, our progressive politics are deeply informed by this Puritan view of ordered liberty.
In the old South, on the other hand, the degree of liberty you enjoyed was a direct function of your God-given place in the social hierarchy. The higher your status, the more authority you had, and the more "liberty" you could exercise -- which meant, in practical terms, that you had the right to take more "liberties" with the lives, rights and property of other people. Like an English lord unfettered from the Magna Carta, nobody had the authority to tell a Southern gentleman what to do with resources under his control. In this model, that's what liberty is. If you don't have the freedom to rape, beat, torture, kill, enslave, or exploit your underlings (including your wife and children) with impunity -- or abuse the land, or enforce rules on others that you will never have to answer to yourself -- then you can't really call yourself a free man.
When a Southern conservative talks about "losing his liberty," the loss of this absolute domination over the people and property under his control -- and, worse, the loss of status and the resulting risk of being held accountable for laws that he was once exempt from -- is what he's really talking about. In this view, freedom is a zero-sum game. Anything that gives more freedom and rights to lower-status people can't help but put serious limits on the freedom of the upper classes to use those people as they please. It cannot be any other way. So they find Yankee-style rights expansions absolutely intolerable, to the point where they're willing to fight and die to preserve their divine right to rule.