[Rhodes22-list] Grumpy Old Men - political for some, common sense for others

[Herb Parsons]

   That's laughable. So, the "right wing" has the KKK, but the left
   doesn't have bullying groups. Maybe you should look a little closer
   Robert. How oftend did the riot police have to come out to Denver
   during the DNC? Compare that to the gentle left that showed up at the
   RNC.
   The "gap" between the poor and rich is only abhorrant to those that
   want what others have without having to do the same things to get it.
   As Brad mentioned earlier, the "poor" in this country have color TV's.
   Not too bad.
   Robert Skinner wrote:

Over the course of the last year or so, I have come to
the conclusion that the far right wing is the holding
area for the grumpy old men.

This is not to say that all those who hold with what
passes for conservative thinking these days are nut
cases, but the far right seems to have a great
attraction for some who are.  To be fair, the far
left has its own population of monomaniacs.

Those of us who (with some degree of calmness and
humility) are working on understanding the way things
work, reasoning out how they should work in the
future, and figuring how to get from here to there
are less vociferous, but not cowed by the torrent of
abuse from the grumpy old men.

It is, however, surprising that those on the far left
do not use such abusive writing, bullying tactics,
etc.  The far right wing has the KKK, but one must
remember that the left wing, when adequately aroused,
has the guillotine.

Society has elastic limits in all directions.  When
adequately stressed, the limit is passed, and the
rules of behavior change radically and unpredictably.

A case in point:

One of those limits is the rich-poor spread.  Taken
to extremes, as it seems to be headed these days, it
creates stresses that threaten civil order.  Just as
a thermal inversion (storm) occurs when air masses
are unstable, social storms occur when social norms
reach instability.  Confiscational taxes result.

This rich-poor spread is not unique to the US.  Many
would say that it exists when the US standard of
living is compared with third world countries.  This
fuels terrorism.

And another:

When the US undertakes unilateral international
actions with physical force, there is a parallel
between that and rogue nations that threaten their
neighbors.

The US is no longer the only superpower in the world,
but we are acting as if we were, spending our
carefully built credibility as the "good guys" in
the international arena.

This reduces our security, and encourages terrorism.

Wrap-up:

There are many such stresses that exist (and always
have) in societies.  How we handle ourselves in
dealing with them is history in action.  And history
rarely, if ever, produces absolute results.  It's a
dirty business, with imperfect results.

We do what we can with what we have.  Bombast is a
waste of breath (or electrons).

/Robert
----------------------------------------------------
Ben Cittadino wrote:
  

My Dear Culture Warriors;

So....are we having fun yet?

First, I'd like to thank Richard and Slim for stepping up to join the "Assault 
on the Citadel".  
The bullets don't sting as much when the adversary's fire is spread out among m
ore than one target.
In the words first uttered by Gen. "Vinegar Joe" Stillwell, "illegitimi non car
borundum".

As for Tootle, Brad, and Herb, you guys crack me up.  I posted about Obama only
 because I saw Tootle's post that 
suggested anybody supporting Obama was either a marxist, or a farm animal.  Wha
t did he expect when he said that?
Herb, where was your outrage that Tootle would refer to some of his fellow "Rho
dies" in such derogatry terms? Supporting Obama or McCain 
may turn out to be right or wrong, but if we debate policy and don't engage in 
mere name-calling this "sailor's bar"  could be an interesting place.

Richard's "geezer" remarks are defensible on several grounds. First, he was pro
voked. Second, he was defending ME.
Third, it was funny. Calling someone a "marxist" as Tootle did is several magni
tudes worse than gentle kidding of the 
"old fart" kind. Surely you see the difference.

The positions I tried to lay out as reasons some people support Obama were inte
nded as an outline of ideology (as Slim noted), 
not an argument supporting any position.  For example, Herb, you are pro-life a
nd will probably vote for McCain/Palin in part for that reason.
I am pro-choice, pro-embryonic stem cell research and so I will support Obama/B
iden in part for that reason.  It is not hyperbole to  point out
the policy differences that explain my choice.  What I know for sure is that ma
rxism and "sheepiness" have nothing to do with it. I have thought about all of 
my positions on the issues I mentioned and am completely prepared to explain an
d justify them.  In Brad's oft' repeated mantra I know I have "done my homework
".

Enough for today. The games will be on soon. 

Cheers!

Ben C. , s/v Susan Kay, Highlands, NJ



__________________________________________________
To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to [1]http:
//www.rhodes22.org/list
__________________________________________________



__________________________________________________
To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to [2]http:
//www.rhodes22.org/list
__________________________________________________

References

   1. http://www.rhodes22.org/list
   2. http://www.rhodes22.org/list