liberals are open-minded and conservatives are regressive- so on and
so forth. These tags are being pushed everyday by the media and
politicians and swallowed whole by the majority of citizens leading to
a kind of "holy war" between the classes. It's nothing new, really.
When James Hoffa- head of the bailed out auto workers- can call the
Republicans s.o.b.'s introducing the current president- Obama- at a
Labor Day speech I think this says it all- esp. when the bond holders
took a gigantic loss at GM and the president obviously is trying to
strengthen his labor voting base so this is quite calculated- same
with immigration and the Latinos (where we really should station our
troops is on our southern border). Then there is the question of
entitlements based on old or faulty projections of income by cities,
states and the federal government.
I have heard snide remarks and jokes made about the poor, the
uneducated, labor/blue collar over the years- by so called liberals
who have made enough money to look and act middle class- so I don't
trust them or their social/political motivations which feel more like
contempt or fear.
At any rate, there is a natural rank and talent operating in society
no matter what form of government. There is also flexibility in
bettering one's lot depending on various circumstances- a fair playing
field. There are laws that are enforced without regard to status
though it's true the rich can hire sharper attorneys $$$ but without a
guarantee anyway. There are Steve Jobs and Joe Slobs- take your pick.
On Sep 7, 7:04 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> My guess is we have to realise our democracies are corrupt and look to
> some alternatives to voting for parties that are easy prey to
> lobbists. One crucial statement is being made to us all the time -
> that the rich and entrepreneurs need to corner over half of all wealth
> in order to be 'motivated' and that we have to keep a lot of others
> very poor. This dooms us to a certain kind of economy - one I believe
> is more or less feudal.
> The question is how we can change this without being suckered into
> another form of big government we can't afford - I share rigsy's view
> on what we can currently vote for. One of the problems we face is
> free-riding - both of pond life and banksterism. The rich are by far
> the bjgger parasite.
>
> We always hear that investment will go elsewhere if we tax at high
> rates - with no discussion of why a small few deserve their returns
> and others don't. I'm not convinced by these special people or that
> this form of wealth accumulation is moral or efficient - and I doubt
> we understand its history. We do seem to know, through imperialist
> wars and "communist" experiments that big government is very
> dangerous. Mostly, we want government out of our lives - yet we need
> control that allows us dignity and genuine public equality. Allan
> points to much soaked up attitude that needs to change - but many say
> these are the very attitudes we need to exploit for 'success'.
>
> Trying to do something about wealth distribution,prevent poverty, make
> consumption sensible and societies peaceful and sustainable tends to
> lead is into old positions of left and right - this is not where the
> dialogue needs to go.
>
> On Sep 6, 8:54 am, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I defficiento not have a crystal ball I wish I did,, maybe the people need to wake
> > up and smell the roses, unfortunately in both Europe and the US the tiny
> > percentage of the population control the media and with that they guide the
> > thinking into what they nee it to be to preserve their way of life.
> > Unfortunately to many people worship money The golden calf syndrome and
> > while they are in that state they can be controlled quiet easily.
>
> > It is hard for everyone to get of the tiger of wealth and greed.
> > Allan
>
> > education amy allow one to see the dots but it is also the very thing that
> > prevents then from stepping out of the boundaries.
>
> > On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 3:55 PM, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > True, Allan, except that it is not stagnant but dying... however much
> > > people hold up technology and democracy and what not. The oligarchs
> > > are accumulating and manipulation and are more and more insecure and
> > > afraid of " Jasmine Uprising." The intellectuals are battling the
> > > ghosts. And people are becoming more and more poor and disenfranchised
> > > in a real sense. The Western economies are poorer today than in the
> > > 60s. In the US, 20% are on food stamps. Greece, Italy, Spain, UK,
> > > Ireland, France, Portugal... you name it.
>
> > > On the other hand Russia is becoming more and more undemocratic and
> > > dictatorial... 22% adults wish to emigrate for good... yes, FOR GOOD.
> > > China is a monster that believes only 100% propaganda and homogeneity
> > > can prevent a violent upheaval... the CPC cannot dismount the tiger it
> > > is riding on !
>
> > > In India, something interesting has just happened... the govt and the
> > > Parliament has had to hear the people's call for inclusive
> > > participation, anti-corruption ombudsman, transparency... setting a
> > > path from VOTE FOR POWER IN DEMOCRACY to POWER FOR VALUES IN
> > > DEMOCRACY. It has a long way to go.
>
> > > It's the people who have to rise up to say that the entire power of
> > > the State is theirs... only delegated to democratic institutions for
> > > their welfare and care, and nation building, and not to be usurped by
> > > an opaque, wilful and corrupt dispensation manipulated by self -
> > > serving oligarchical clique.
>
> > > On Sep 5, 2:06 pm, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I feel education is of great importance as it is the foundation for
> > > growth
> > > > as humanity. The truth comes to the simple point either you are growing
> > > or
> > > > you are dying. There is no standing still.
>
> > > > As I look at civilization I see a society that is in reality is stagnant,
> > > > control by an extreme minority who are terrified of losing control. The
> > > > result is extreme poverty world wide.
> > > > Allan
> > > > On Sep 4, 2011 1:21 PM, "Vam" <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > We need pragmatists and status quoists but can't depend on them for
> > > > > our future.
>
> > > > > For that, we must nurture creatives, rebels and blasphemes. Precisely
> > > > > what the social, political, judicial and business institutions are
> > > > > structured and pre-programmed to progressively discourage, oppose,
> > > > > reluctantly allow, absolutely oppose, and disallow. The majority of
> > > > > the rest of the population follows in " their " image and conforms !
>
> > > > > Don't get me wrong. Isn't that how it should be ? After all, we can't
> > > > > encourage, much less allow, monumental change everyday. Can we ?
>
> > > > > On Sep 4, 1:51 pm, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >> That seems so true. It is scary,, the God came out of a coffershop
> > > > >> conversation. Only it w called a 'Bartonian' named after my father.
>
> > > > >> It seem academics can only follow it teachings. You see the same thing
> > > to
> > > > >> the extreme in the churches, there they spend their time proving their
> > > > point
> > > > >> by quoting their religious documents. Little to creativity or original
> > > > >> thought.
> > > > >> Allan
> > > > >> On Sep 4, 2011 12:53 AM, "archytas" <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > >> > Icame across some recent research that says much I used to teach.
> > > > >> > I'll paraphrase rather than linking to it. It fits with what Bill
> > > > >> > says on politics, though the focus is 'creativity'
> > > > >> > ScienceDaily (Sep. 3, 2011) — Most people view creativity as an
> > > asset
> > > > >> > -- until they come across a creative idea. That's because creativity
> > > > >> > not only reveals new perspectives; it promotes a sense of
> > > > >> > uncertainty. The next time your great idea at work elicits silence
> > > or
> > > > >> > eye rolls, you might just pity those co-workers. Fresh research
> > > > >> > indicates they don't even know what a creative idea looks like and
> > > > >> > that creativity, hailed as a positive change agent, actually makes
> > > > >> > people squirm.
> > > > >> > "How is it that people say they want creativity but in reality often
> > > > >> > reject it?" said Jack Goncalo, ILR School assistant professor of
> > > > >> > organizational behavior and co-author of research to be published in
> > > > >> > an upcoming issue of the journal Psychological Science. The paper
> > > > >> > reports on two 2010 experiments at the University of Pennsylvania
> > > > >> > involving more than 200 people.
> > > > >> > The studies' findings include:
> > > > >> > Creative ideas are by definition novel, and novelty can trigger
> > > > >> > feelings of uncertainty that make most people uncomfortable.
> > > > >> > People dismiss creative ideas in favor of ideas that are purely
> > > > >> > practical -- tried and true.
> > > > >> > Objective evidence shoring up the validity of a creative proposal
> > > does
> > > > >> > not motivate people to accept it.
> > > > >> > Anti-creativity bias is so subtle that people are unaware of it,
> > > which
> > > > >> > can interfere with their ability to recognize a creative idea.
> > > > >> > For example, subjects had a negative reaction to a running shoe
> > > > >> > equipped with nanotechnology that adjusted fabric thickness to cool
> > > > >> > the foot and reduce blisters.
> > > > >> > To uncover bias against creativity, the researchers used a subtle
> > > > >> > technique to measure unconscious bias -- the kind to which people
> > > may
> > > > >> > not want to admit, such as racism. Results revealed that while
> > > people
> > > > >> > explicitly claimed to desire creative ideas, they actually
> > > associated
> > > > >> > creative ideas with negative words such as "vomit," "poison" and
> > > > >> > "agony."
> > > > >> > Goncalo said this bias caused subjects to reject ideas for new
> > > > >> > products that were novel and high quality.
> > > > >> > "Our findings imply a deep irony," wrote the authors, who also
> > > include
> > > > >> > Jennifer Mueller of the University of Pennsylvania and Shimul
> > > Melwani
> > > > >> > of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. "Revealing the
> > > > >> > existence and nature of a bias against creativity can help explain
> > > why
> > > > >> > people might reject creative ideas and stifle scientific
> > > advancements,
> > > > >> > even in the face of strong intentions to the contrary."
> > > > >> > Uncertainty drives the search for and generation of creative ideas,
> > > > >> > but "uncertainty also makes us less able to recognize creativity,
> > > > >> > perhaps when we need it most," the researchers wrote. "Revealing the
> > > > >> > existence and nature of a bias against creativity can help explain
> > > why
> > > > >> > people might reject creative ideas and stifle scientific
> > > advancements,
> > > > >> > even in the face of strong intentions to the contrary. ... The field
> > > > >> > of creativity may need to shift its current focus from identifying
> > > how
> > > > >> > to generate more creative ideas to identify how to help innovative
> > > > >> > institutions recognize and accept creativity."
>
> > > > >> > Actually, I ended up cutting and pasting - this summary stands for
> > > > >> > itself. Academics, as a rule, wouldn't experience creativity if it
> > > > >> > was a fish that walked across the room and slapped them in the face
> > > > >> > and most can't accept that many ordinary people can do
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário