The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    CVille Dem's picture

    The Moral Dilemma Discussed

    By CVille Dem on Mon, 04/04/2016 - 7:14pm |

    Years ago I took a psychology course at The George Washington University, where I also worked.  One of the exercises, which will be recognized by anyone who has ever taken a Psych course, is one called "moral Dilemmas."  In case you haven't taken such a course, I will give you a couple of examples:

    1.  There is a drug that will cure a man's wife, who is deathly sick from some disease.  He goes to the pharmacy and finds out that it is far beyond his means to pay for.  He tries negotiating to no avail.  He goes home and sees his wife, suffering, and who, with this drug, could live.  His choices are:

    a.  Let his wife die

    b. Engage the pharmaceutical company to help him, which will take weeks and will be too late.

    c.  Break into the drug store, steal the medicine, and cure his wife.

    Another one is a military leader with a small contingent under his command...they are deep into enemy territory, and he needs to appoint someone to "point" position, which is dangerous, and may be one that is fatal.  He has to choose between a weak candidate (who is less of a loss to the company), or another who has many skills that may help the company, but is also more likely to survive and help them all on "point."

    We twenty-something's discussed these and other situations, and enthusiastically defended our own takes on these difficult options.  We all, to a student, knew our choices were right.  Myself included.

    Then I read a really interesting op-Ed in the Washington Post.  I don't recall who wrote it, but I remember the headline, "A True Moral Dillema.  It was an essay about Ted Kaczynski, and the absolutely true moral dilemma his brother faced when he contacted the FBI. The point was that in the moral dilemmas presented in psych classes give choices, each of which can be defended.  David Kacztnski knew, once he realized his brother had killed, and would kill again, what he had to do.  It was brave, and he could have pretended he had not figured it out. I won't go through the whole drama; anyone can google it, or read his brother's account of the whole nightmare.

    I just read a comment by a TPMer that voting for Bernie is the only moral choice.  Really?  I believe that Bernie is a loner with few friends he can rely on in Congress to get his programs heard, never mind passed; and has little international, or even national experience.  I think that he, with zero opposition thus far from the GOP, will get shot down as a old, socialist hippie, and regardless of his poll numbers today. As a completely unvetted candidate he has little chance to win in the general. But I know that good people can disagree. But the stubbornness and negativity towards Hiilary of Bernie supporters seems dismissive and an overall destructive.  

    I see this upcoming election as downright momentous, and I want the person who can weather the GOP onslaught, and whom I believe can come closest to delivering her/and my goals.

    Comments

    On a lighter note, a friend of mine who is training for the Boston Marathon was running along a country road here in Charlottesville, Virginia.  She and her running buddy were going past a house near the road.   A guy on the porch, with a goat and several chickens asked her if they had seen a pig in the road.  They thought it was pretty funny, and said, no.  They hadn't.  

    Not too far up the road, they saw this cute little pig in the ditch.  They flagged down a guy In a pick-up and told him the story.  He went back and found the owner, who had a hard time believing that the pig was alive.  Long story short:  the pig (named Hansel) was united with his betrothed, (Gretel), and their pal, "Bacon."

    And after we heard this story we all went to a winery and had a very nice time.

    Now, see how easy it is to be cordial


    by CVille Dem on Mon, 04/04/2016 - 10:06pm

    Maybe he'd left her at the altar and escaped to find his male companion "Fatback". No good deed goes unpunished.


    by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 04/05/2016 - 1:46am

    They did the Ted K theme on a least one L&W episode.

    The brother first led the cops on a wild goose chase and then he eventually gave in and gave up his brother.

    Like Ted K, the bad guy was severely mentally ill.

    Walk a mile in another man's shoes, I guess.

    What would I do in similar circumstances?

    Bernie is a nice guy and he is interesting.

    But I would vote for Hillary in a second. If Bernie 'won' I would vote for him.

    I see no moral dilemma at all.

    My moral issue concerns my certainty that all the repubs are immoral.

    Maybe it is genetic, but, besides Kasich, the repubs are not just immoral, but evil in the extreme.

    Kasich, as far as I can tell is just a humbler prick. hahahahah

    No socially redeeming value, as they say.


    by Richard Day on Tue, 04/05/2016 - 10:07am

    I agree with you on all points,DDay. I guess the psych class exercises were just to get us thinking. The thing about David K was that it really was a true moral dilemma because he absolutely knew what was right and he did it even though he loved his brother and it was very difficult. He then devoted most of his life to trying to end the death penalty. Ted hates him and refuses to see him. Tough stuff. 

    I often say that you don't have to look very far to see that you really don't have it so bad. 


    by CVille Dem on Tue, 04/05/2016 - 10:41am

    Good one, CVille.

    BTW, I made a comment here that Bernie is the moral choice (not that he is the only moral choice)and I was speaking of my own dilemma in that I think, on balance, Sanders has the moral high ground on policy and his life s exemplary in its modesty and good will to all. However, I support Hillary. Thus I am either making an immoral choice and or I have decided that the act of voting in the primary is not in the realm of moral choice making. Outside that realm is pragmatism. These are views about myself, and perhaps others are facing their own questions---I don't know.

    It is odd that I was more favorable towards Bernie before hearing from his more ardent supporters, and that puzzles me. I think perhaps that others believe Bernie is the only moral choice and that therefore they are not really engaged in the "pragmatic" sphere---they never get that far. I'm just speculating that having a moral mandate thrown at me is not to my liking,  therefore I'm not hearing their arguments and somewhat the same is true in the other direction. (I also don't like exaggerated claims against Clinton but that seems to be a different issue).

    I don't know if I'm talking in circles, but I'm uncomfortable with my support for Clinton when many of my core sympathies are with Bernie.

     


    by Oxy Mora on Tue, 04/05/2016 - 10:09am

    Thanks for chiming in, Oxy. I was responding to a comment you made but didn't want to say so for fear it would sound like criticism and that wasn't my intention. I really appreciate the comments above, and I agree with you (I have problems with the free college because it unfairly deprives those who aren't college material of a huge economic boost).

    For me it's not only pragmatism but also honestly think Hillary will make a better President for all the reasons I have stated so many times. I also have been turned off by the Sanders supporters, who seem to be driven more by anger and hate for Hillary than anything else. 90% of their posts are scathing, stereotypical, nasty things about her rather than positives for him. However, Bernie's new crankiness and his decision to also go negative have changed my feelings about him as well. I thought of him as a likeable old soul who was idealistic and got into this to make noise that needed to be made. He really never had, and still doesn't have a plan for what he wants to do. He sure did strike a nerve, though, and it's gone to his head.  

    I also think he is being disingenuous (at a minimum) about his taxes. 


    by CVille Dem on Tue, 04/05/2016 - 11:02am

    Thanks, CVille.


    by Oxy Mora on Tue, 04/05/2016 - 12:42pm

    I like this comment, Oxy. CVille points out that there can be a moral dilemma when making a political choice but doesn't, that I can see, identify any moral choices that are involved in this particular choice. Her reasons for her choice are all pragmatic or emotional. 

     The recent consensus around here seems to be that neither Hillary or Sanders will be able to achieve more than small incremental accomplishments when faced with a hostile Congress. If this is the case then there would be little immediate difference in the effect of voting in one versus the other. On domestic issues the differences in what they would choose have relatively small moral distinctions if any. The area of power of the Presidency that is a huge exception is the ability of the President to effect our nation's actions around the world, how we view the relationship with other countries and what methods we [as a country] feel justified in taking for or against other countries. Although the framers of the Constitution tried to prevent it, a President can choose to wage war almost any time he/she chooses to. 

       A country that is dropping hundreds of thousands of bombs a year has some questions of morality to answer as does anyone voting for leaders who can be expected to continue to drop the bombs or supply them to others. 

    Image result for homs syria pictures

    Is there a domestic issue more pressing than preventing more of this if we are able to do so? Can this be ignored by a moral person if they are involved with choosing between two people and one is more likely to bring about more of the same? If anyone wonders, like I do, how it can be a non-question, or how the answer can be taken lightly, [note the put down jokes on the Michelle Alexander thread] I highly recommend giving this ten minutes of your time. Neither Sanders nor Clinton are mentioned. It is an abstract presentation, not directly about Presidential politics, but if there is such a thing as a moral dilemma involved in voting it is a relevant discussion. 

     


    by A Guy Called LULU on Tue, 04/05/2016 - 11:43am

    Hey, Lulu. I didn't follow that thread, but I'll take a look.


    by Oxy Mora on Tue, 04/05/2016 - 12:48pm

    The moral dilemma for me is that I do not believe that Sanders is electable. When Sanders is cast as a Communist with no national security or foreign policy experience, he will go down in flames. Two-three Supreme Court appointments will be in the hands of the wingnuts. Sanders has not been vetted. His inability to explain his single-payer and free college plans will expose them as frauds. Any terrorist attack between now and the election would paint Sanders as a wimp. I do not see Sanders as electable.That makes Hillary my moral choice.

    Sanders is not building a Congressional structure. Those who consider Obama a failure should beware the Sanders disaster.

    Edit to add:

    Sanders has the wrong position on gun manufacturers

    ​http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/chris-murphy-bernie-sanders-gun-manu...

    2nd Edit to add:

    Sanders has supported Israel's invasion in Gaza and does not vote to restrict military funding to Isrel. His rehetoric supports a two-state solution, but his actual votes have done nothing to aid the Palestinians. Are Palestinians somehow less worthy?

    http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/backstory-bernie-sanders-and-p...


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 04/05/2016 - 3:43pm

    Believing that Sanders is less electable as a Democrat in this election requires the selective belief in polls, not just as they show a snapshot of today but also the trend of voter preferences they indicate. Most say that he would beat Trump or Cruz by a bigger margin than would Hillary. I expect that she will beat either of them if it comes to that but by a scary small margin though in enough places that she should get a large electoral college margin. Sanders would probably do a bit better and maybe win even more states. I am afraid that if the Republicans establishment is able to control their convention that Kasich will be their nominee and that he will beat Clinton. The very worst candidate is Cruz. 

     I do not believe that the Democratic electorate would be scared that Sanders is a Communist as opposed to being a socialist and would also not be scared of the level of socialism he advocates. I hope we get the chance to find out.  

     The right to sue a manufacturer of a legal product that works as designed because somebody used it in an illegal manner is ridiculous. The law would no doubt be reviewed by the Supreme Court and I can not imagine that court, regardless who ends up sitting on it, setting such a precedent as would affirming that right.  


    by A Guy Called LULU on Tue, 04/05/2016 - 3:46pm

    When I say that I think Bernie is unelectable the conclusion is based on a poll done kon myself. Regarding guns, I say let the courts decide. Bernie blocked that opportunity. Regarding drones and death, Sanders was OK with Gaza.

    Regarding Kasich, like Bernie, he has not been vetted. He is as anti- woman's freedom to choose as the other wingnuts. He blamed a higher black infant mortality on stupid black parents.

    http://thedailybanter.com/2016/03/john-kasich-just-made-the-most-insanel...

    Hillary will rip Kasich to shreds.


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 04/05/2016 - 3:59pm

    Voting for a stupid gun bill is, well, it is stupid. That is not to say there could be no smart gun bill. All that is/was accomplished by introduction of that bill is more polarization, increased gun sales, and a loss of more votes by the Democrats. I don't know if Sanders is good or bad on guns because I don't know what "good' on guns is either to me personally or the country as a whole. I'm talking about going from where we are and staying within the realm of the possible. As for what is politically smart and what is pandering, voting against a stupid bill that had no chance of passing, no chance of being upheld by the Supreme Court, and which by even being offered did some harm both to the position of those who want some intelligent gun regulation and also to the simple pragmatism of not throwing away votes, such a vote should not be held against a politician by a thinking person. IMO. 

       "Regarding drones and death, Sanders was OK with Gaza."  That statement really takes some 'splainin' if it is intended to point out some way or some realm of  policy that Clinton is better on than Sanders. 

      This aint Kasich' first rodeo and is not in his first election. I imagine the stakes were high enough and the political players were players enough that he got vetted pretty well while running for governor. Then he got elected and is still quite popular in his home state if I am not mistaken. In whatever his further vetting comes up with to go after him I am quite confident that there will be all kinds of quotes that I don't like and positions he has taken that I disagree with. He is a fucking Republican. You and I will not vote for him. Millions of Republicans will. Probably the same percentage of disaffected Tea Partiers and Trump supporters will vote for him as will disaffected Democrats who favor Sanders will vote for Hillary. Kasich will, I believe, appeal to at least as many independents as will Hillary as many will conclude that once again we are offered two versions of the same old thing but one hasn't been in the national public eye as much and can be largely created new and can be made shiny for most voters. Not so much so with Hillary.  It's just a prediction. If I was any good at predicting I would be rich. Are you rich? 


    by A Guy Called LULU on Wed, 04/06/2016 - 12:18pm

    So you criticize my gun control for being divisive, but you don't think raising taxes for healthcare and education is divisive. You also seem to dismiss the immorality of attacking Palestinians.


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 04/06/2016 - 12:23pm

    rmrd, after that comment you deserve an appropriate reward. Add a few more zero's after your dag name. I think my position on that particular gun bill was made clear but what is your point in conflating it, in the second half of that sentence, with something I never said and was not any part of the subject. 

    Your second sentence is totally wrong whether based solely on what I said above or what I have said in the past. You are not obligated or expected to remember positions I have taken in the past but my history here, established in many discussions on the very subject of Palestine, should make it clear that I certainly do not dismiss either the immorality of attacking Palestinians nor of their everyday treatment between attacks. Because everything you say about any difference between Sanders and Hillary, or simply in a response to something positive that is said about Sanders, is an attempt to elevate Clinton as a better candidate I think it is fair to conclude that you somehow think Hillary's position regarding the Israeli/Palestine situation is somehow better, somehow more 'moral". You can try to deny that meaning or defend that meaning or correct it or just let it stand as a thoughtless knee-jerk comment, but whatever, it is coming either from ignorance, deliberate mis-characterization, knee-jerk idiocy, or maybe some other reason you might offer, but it makes no difference really. Whatever the excuse, it is wrong. 


    by A Guy Called LULU on Wed, 04/06/2016 - 3:08pm

    I "elevate" Hillary over Sanders because I don't considers Sanders electable. If he becomes the nominee, I will vote for him as the lesser of two evils. Sanders will get torn apart because he cannot explain how his single-payer plan or free education plan can be budgeted. He will be destroyed during the Presidential campaign.

    Sanders (and you) are miles apart on gun legislation Sanders blocks Sandy Hook parents from taking legal action. I say let the court decide if a suit is "stupid"

    Sanders talks "revolution" but has done nothing to build the foundation for the revolution. Cheering crowds to not a revolution make. It took ten years to go from the Montgomery Bus Boycott to the Civil Rights Act. People died. I don't personally care for Sanders because he is a pretend revolutionary. Hillary went undercover in Alabama to assess private school segregation. Hillary set up organization to aid black children. Sanders ignored black activists in his own state.

    I will gain a little more respect for Sanders when he does more than just talk.Sanders is building no structure for revolution. I am not willing to be cannon fodder for Sanders' ego. Hillary sent aides to talk with the Mayor in Flint. There was at least some action that resulted. Sanders boldly and at great risk said that the Governor of Michigan should resign. Talk is cheap.

    Finally, I do not care for his surrogates. Sarandon can easily flee any revolution. Robbins insulted blacks and the citizens of Guam. Cornel West is an egotistical joke with a gift for Hip-Hop, Jazz, and Blues- infused gab. I will join the ranks of these folks who I don't like if a Sanders is the nominee, because Sanders would be better than Cruz or Trump.

     


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 04/06/2016 - 3:54pm

    I'm talking about going from where we are and staying within the realm of the possible. 

    Funny how when we're talking about guns Sanders gets a pass because it's all about going from where we are and staying within the realm of the possible.  But when Hillary says the same thing about the single payer, college tuition, or other issues she's a coward and a tool of the corporations. The main argument of many Hillary supporters about for example improving the ACA is that it's about going from where we are and staying within the realm of the possible. 


    by ocean-kat on Wed, 04/06/2016 - 2:56pm

    See my reply to rmrd000000 above.


    by A Guy Called LULU on Wed, 04/06/2016 - 3:15pm

    See ocean-kats reply to you. (from above at 1:56 PM)


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 04/06/2016 - 3:56pm

    To understand polling, just as to understand any other science, one must study the subject. Your comments on general election polling clearly shows that you have not studied the subject. This article on general election polling would be a good place to start educating yourself on how polling works, when and why it is or it is not reliable.


    by ocean-kat on Tue, 04/05/2016 - 4:08pm

    Here's an April 2008 poll pitting Obama against McCain. Note the trend. Tell me what conclusions you can draw from it, and in retrospect, was it accurate or meaningful?

    Basically, the spread went from Obama up by 3 to Obama down by 6 in a matter of 3 weeks. Obviously that would mean McCain trended more popular and won the Nov 2008 election handily, amirite?

    Here's a prediction of Romney vs Obama over the course of 4 months, ending 2 1/2 months before the election, showing a 20 point split. Hard to imagine the difference turned out 3.9%, no? (ignoring that elections are won by electoral votes, not popular vote)

    In April 2012, Romney was up by 5% for who voters would pick. Therising  trend over 2 weeks would predict Obama would win by a popular landslide, as did the trend in July. 

    Here's Bush leading Gore by 19% in Jan 2000 and expanding back to 9% in February. Obviously Bush won by a mile.

    But then here's Gore leading consistently by 7 points in September, but Bush rising to a 13 point lead 2 weeks before the election. Runaway alert!!!

    Here's Newt Gingrich drawing more enthusiasm than Romney, with Romney sinking by Nov 2011. Bad news for New Hampshire, no?


    by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 04/05/2016 - 5:00pm

     Believing, as I said, that Secretary Clinton will be a better President implies that I that I believe that she will be competent, responsible, will continue to work (as she has since her college years) for those less fortunate. She is known and respected around the world, and has met professionally, most of the leaders; I don't agree with your assessment that she is a war-monger.  I have said many times in other places the many things I admire about her, and why i support her.  I didn't want to go through that litany again; it wasn't what this thread is about, but when you characterize my support as "pragmatic and emotional" it comes off as simply dismissive.  

    When you do something (in this case casting a vote) because you think it is the right thing to do, it is a moral choice.  It only becomes a dilemma if you are conflicted about it for any reason.  I hope this helps you to understand the difference.


    by CVille Dem on Tue, 04/05/2016 - 2:49pm

    I cannot take more time right now but I will get back with my reply to this. Thanks for yours. 


    by A Guy Called LULU on Tue, 04/05/2016 - 3:47pm

    Deleted double post.


    by A Guy Called LULU on Tue, 04/05/2016 - 3:49pm

    I wasn't intending to be dismissive at all. Sorry if it seemed that way. I understand that you think Hillary would make a better President than Sanders. I actually agree with you if what you want for a President is more of the same. 

     I don't think I have gone so far as to call Hillary a war-monger but I agree with everyone who has ever paid attention to her record that she is a hawk. She, along with the rest of the hawks and the chicken hawks and the warmongers and a whole gaggle of sociopaths have trod the same path and have the same collective record over the last twenty years or so [with us coming along] and that should be considered.  Choosing Hillary, or any hawk, over a non-hawk, presents a moral dilemma for me and the only way, or at least the most likely way, I can see that it wouldn't for someone else is explained well by Albert Bandura.

     Did you take time to watch the video?  If you are interested but would rather read, here is a rather long written version covering the same points.  


    by A Guy Called LULU on Tue, 04/05/2016 - 9:55pm

    I, too, prefer a less militaristic POTUS. I am willing to vote for Sanders on the differential between his and Clinton's policy stances on this matter. But I haven't seen from Sanders the statements that gets over to something like a "non-hawk position." I may still vote for him because he seems less hawkish. But he hardly talks about the world outside of the U.S. as a matter of policy. This lack makes the supposed bright line of difference very fuzzy.


    by moat on Tue, 04/05/2016 - 10:24pm

    Yeah, I agree, I can't even pick out a minor point to bicker about.


    by A Guy Called LULU on Wed, 04/06/2016 - 12:09am

    Thanks for the response.  I agree with you that voting is in and of itself a moral responsibility and as I have said often, I will vote for the Democratic candidate, whomever that is.  


    by CVille Dem on Wed, 04/06/2016 - 1:56pm

    The moral dilemma of eco-terrorism  is discussed often among environmentalists. The argument is that people are dying, the planet is dying, many other species are dying therefore blowing up dams, buildings of polluting industries etc. is not just morally defensible but a moral imperative. I have friends that hold this view and argue it intensely. No one I know is actually involved in ecoterrorism, but then, since I've made it clear I disagree with their position they likely wouldn't tell me if they were.

    I don't see the competition between Sanders and Hillary as a moral dilemma. Neither are saints, both are reasonably ethical. While I think Hillary would be the better president I don't think Sanders would be a bad president. While I think Hillary is more electable I realize that's a subjective analysis and Sanders supporters can make a subjective argument that he is more electable.

    Most of the people I've read that see this election as a moral dilemma have decided that Hillary is evil and Sanders is pure. A level of black white thinking I don't indulge in. One phrase I use often in discussions with friends is, "It's just more complicated than that." I didn't realize I said it so often until several people pointed it out to me.


    by ocean-kat on Tue, 04/05/2016 - 3:27pm

    The fact that you describe radical attacks on property as eco-terrorism means that  either you are ignorant of what terrorism is, attacks aimed at civilians to instill terror beyond those actually attacked, or you are parroting authoritarian propaganda that seeks to conflate resistance to the Beast with actual terrorism such as that carried out by the US government for political and sometimes financial reasons.

    If your friends are actually talking about bombing dams they are a bit clueless because dams are difficult to bomb effectively. There have been 16 incidences of Monkeywrenching, where fiber optic cables were sabotaged, in the Bay area in the last year. The FBI and Homeland Security are still clueless about who are involved in these effective attacks on private property/infrastructure so these activists are maintaining excellent internal security. The number of this type of property sabotage may not be large yet but they  are widespread and they are rarely reported in the MSM except locally or when the clueless feds seek public assistance to rat out the radicals.


    by Peter (not verified) on Tue, 04/05/2016 - 5:24pm

    Yes I know the arguments. If you know the arguments you know that these small bore actions are often derided as insufficient to confront the "beast." There are numerous references to the Weathernen and calls for bigger acts of terrorism like bombing dams, buildings, ships, etc. There's much more than monkeywrenching going on and calls for more than just bombing buildings.

    the ELF gained state attention in the state of Oregon in 1996 when they burned down the Oakridge Ranger Station.

    , the ELF burned the Legend Ridge mansion and sent a message to the Boulder Weekly saying "Viva la revolution!"

    thirty SUVs were torched, belonging to Joe Romania's dealership, in Oregon, with damages estimated at $1 million. The action was claimed in support of Jeff "Free" Luers, who targeted the very same dealership and was in court for the charges at the time

    206-unit condominium in San Diego was destroyed, with a banner left at the scene saying "If you build it, we will burn it", signed "The E.L.F.s are mad".[51] The damages totaled $20 million[51] after flames reached an estimated 200 feet (61 m) in the air, as over a hundred fire fighters attempted to put out the fire.

    ELF arsons was reported on the morning of March 3, when explosive devices set fire to four multimillion-dollar homes from the 2007 Seattle Street of Dreams in Echo Lake, Washington,


    by ocean-kat on Tue, 04/05/2016 - 5:56pm

    You had to use the wayback machine to find your links to highlight and apparently fixate on, reports of property destruction by the old guard such as ELF and many of them are or have been jailed for their actions. What is happening now and not being widely reported seems to be a new generation of possibly Deep Green Resistance who have learned from the security failures of these earlier radicals and they seem to be refining their skills and abilities to avoid detection.

    This resistance through targeted attacks on the technology modernity depends on is not about revolution but about assisting the inevitable collapse of Industrial Civilization and hopefully helping some people to realize they should prepare for that collapse if they want to survive its repercussions.

    Just as with terrorist attacks these attacks on the system and property can't bring down the system but the reactions to them, as we have seen in the Homeland after 9/11, can accelerate the process. 

     


    by Peter (not verified) on Wed, 04/06/2016 - 12:27am

    What "inevitable" collapse? It's mostly bright from here on out.


    by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 04/06/2016 - 12:42am

    The last time i checked all previous civilizations eventually failed and collapsed and there is no reason to think our modern version of civilization is being misled by brighter people than those who failed in earlier times. In fact our industrial conquest of the planet may guarantee a worldwide collapse with the very natural systems we depend on for sustenance failing and we are already seeing early warning signs of these inevitable collapses.

    There isn't much depth, elasticity or reserves left in our worldwide web of interconnected 'progress' and though it may take many years for our fall to be complete our systems are growing more brittle and they can't even respond effectively to the most immediate challenge of AGW.

    Pollyannaish illusions about technocratic exceptionalism have failed and will continue to fail because they are myths and myths won't feed the hungry multitudes unless you figure out how to eat your iPhone.


    by Peter (not verified) on Wed, 04/06/2016 - 4:55pm

    Catastrophic collapse is within  the realm of possibility. There is no guarantee that things will get better and better. PP's take is a bit too optimistic for my taste. But there is also no evidence that catastrophic collapse in the near future is inevitable. I see several possible futures, some likely, others less likely.

    In my experience those who are absolutely convinced that catastrophic collapse is inevitable and just around the corner are extremely unhappy with the system as it is today. It's often less that they have been rationally convinced than that they desire the present arrangement to collapse. Most actually believe that their life and their  position in the post apocalyptic society will be improved. The first question I ask those who are sure the end of the world is nigh is: How well does the current system fulfill your needs, dreams, and desires?


    by ocean-kat on Wed, 04/06/2016 - 5:29pm

    The world is going to end for all of us at some point. We all have a limited lifespan. Since we don't know when the end will come, should we just sit around and wait for the end or try to make the place a little better for others?


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 04/06/2016 - 5:39pm

    Please note my optimism doesnt rely on the US. I dont even live there. I just rely on the planet and its civilizations having a way through the morass.


    by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 04/06/2016 - 6:30pm

    I think you did a good job laying out the current trends.  I'm just never confident when people project those trends into the future. Downturns and even drastic shifts in either direction are within the realm of possibility imo.


    by ocean-kat on Wed, 04/06/2016 - 6:39pm

    Yeah I know, pretty much ancient history. I had to go "way back" to 2008. I think the might have been an election year but it's so far back I can't bring to mind who was elected.  Ahh history, who studies it anymore. Especially the first decade of the 21st century Very few historians spend much time studying the 21st century.

    There's a lot more nonsense in this post to mock but I'm not in the mood at the moment for such frivolity


    by ocean-kat on Wed, 04/06/2016 - 12:56am

    This is not a moral choice for me. I was with Hillary from the get-go. I know that must sound funny coming from me, given my perspective back in 2007, but I've grown up a lot since then.

    I was new to the Democratic Party then, and had spent years believing the "Hillary - lying demon" talk for a long time. I was sure that all the talk couldn't be lies, and there was certainly a lot of smoke so there must be fire in there somewhere.

    Then came Obama. He obviously had a lot of faith in her, or he wouldn't have made her SOS. Combined with that, I watched in horror as the right (and a section of the far left) told lie after lie about him, and saw it taking hold, so wondered if the very same thing had happened to her. So I started researching, and lo and behold, there wasn't much there, there. It was mostly twisting, lying and downright fabricating. 

    Combine that with having had it up to neck with all the testosterone, and just ready for THIS woman to be president. Not any woman. THIS woman.

    Any man with her resume would be sitting in the catbird seat. NO man would have to put up with the disgusting double standard she's had to contend with. 

    And the frosting on the cake for me has been Bernie himself. I started out with good feelings towards him, and I agree with most of what he's said. Except. And it's a big except. He can't come up with a rational argument for how he can accomplish it. From day one my question has been HOW? And he doesn't have an answer. No one does. Now, with his disgusting treatment of a person who deserves more respect, AND the party that has hosted his candidacy, I can't hardly stand to look at him. I come really close to despising him. On his worst day, he's still better than any repub on their best day. I'll vote for him if I have to. But I'll cry, and then take a shower.


    by stillidealistic on Tue, 04/05/2016 - 3:43pm

    Interesting that you bring this up. Go here: http://dagblog.com/comment/221454#comment-221454. For some excerpts of an interview with Bernie at the NYDaily News, in which he was asked that very question and came up woefully unprepared.  

    Here is the link to the interview transcript:  http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/transcript-bernie-sanders-meets-news-...

     


    by CVille Dem on Tue, 04/05/2016 - 3:53pm

    Even though I KNOW he is woefully unprepared to be president, I was still shocked at just HOW unprepared. Robert Reich made a feeble attempt to make the interview sound not as bad as it sounded, but it was BAD.


    by stillidealistic on Sat, 04/09/2016 - 8:43am

    Your comments are so so frustrating.  Sanders is very very clear how we can accomplish what will make our nation better.

    "And now let me tell you something that no other candidate for president will tell you. And that is, no matter who is elected to be president, that person will not be able to address the enormous problems facing the working families of our country.

    They will not be able to succeed, because the power of corporate America, the power of Wall Street, the power of campaign donors, is so great that no president alone can stand up to them. That is the truth. People may be uncomfortable about hearing it, but that is the reality.

    And that is why what this campaign is about is saying loudly and clearly. It is not just about electing Bernie Sanders for president, it is about creating a grassroots political movement in this country."

    Obama might have been able to achieve this but he opted not to try.  What a loss for America.


    by HSG on Tue, 04/05/2016 - 10:37pm

    He opted not to try.

    Or he counted the cards and calculated it was a lost cause.


    by Flavius on Thu, 04/07/2016 - 12:27am

    Dr. King didn't count the cards and calculate civil rights was a lost cause, although it certainly would have seemed to be the right calculation in the mid-50s.  Abraham Lincoln didn't count the cards after Fort Sumter and say let the South go its own way, who needs 'em?  FDR didn't count the cards in 1933 and decide it made more sense to be on the side of the Bank of New York, John D. Rockefeller, and L.B. Mayer.  In 2009, Obama was in a similar situation to FDR in 1933, he had a popular mandate and a Democratic Congress.  He chose to play small ball and lost his Democratic majority in two years.


    by HSG on Sat, 04/09/2016 - 10:53am

    MLK counted the cards all the time. He chose Birmingham to protest because he knew Bull Connor would overreact. No use holding a non-controversial unchallenged protest with no press play. The Memphis garbage strike was calculated well. The NAACP passed on a similar case to Rosa Parks, as the girl had an out-of-wedlock pregnancy so wouldnt get Rosa's sympathy. Same is true for all these other cases - FDR counted his votes and the Supreme Court, and then tried to pack it. In 2009, Obama had a razor thin Senate full of blue dogs. Not the same as FDR who had a 23 seat margin in the Senate and a whopping 200 seat margin in the House.


    by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 04/09/2016 - 11:49am

    Sure he thought tactically and strategically but he never wavered in his ultimate goal - a peaceful and racially and economically just society - and didn't act in ways that made it less likely that we would attain some measure of justice.  Obama's frequent refusal to take on entrenched interests reduced the likelihood that we would move much closer to an economically and environmentally just society.  Moreover, Obama's compromises have more than occasionally had a perverse effect.


    by HSG on Sat, 04/09/2016 - 11:51am

    When questioned by Rachel Maddow, Jane Sanders said that Bernie has supported Democratic candidates by writing letters. Bernie says that he will "eventually" support the "right" Democratic candidates.From a strategic standpoint, Sanders is not building a Congressional coalition. He seems to possess the strategic skills of George Armstrong Custer. He did nothing of significance in Congress but talk for decades, and he is going to be better than Barack Obama. Put down the crack pipe.


    by rmrd0000 on Sat, 04/09/2016 - 1:03pm

    And I know it's received wisdom that the Clintons will just soldier on for the party, campaigning hard for Obama's 7 point and 4 point victories among others, but I think it's a bit presumptuous to think that if Bernie somehow won and got her $100+ million in PAC and DNC money that he abhors that she and the big dog would be out there with loads of enthusiasm having been rejected twice. I know I'd be tempted to take a long fall vacation to New Zealand if I were her, whatever the consequences. All those college students can get out the vote on their own, no? Money? Who needs it, the best things in life are free. Besides, aristocrats are expected to lounge hard. 


    by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 04/09/2016 - 1:47pm

    Perhaps, I wouldn't blame her. But I think it's more likely the Clintons will campaign for Bernie and down ballot dems than Sanders will. The Clintons actually care about the party and democratic values and Sanders is too pure to campaign for the democratic party. They are all corrupted by Wall Street money, sell outs every one.


    by ocean-kat on Sat, 04/09/2016 - 3:54pm

    One could say that FDR counted the cards and decided that a SS bill that barely covered half the white mem in the country was all he could get. Sanders would have fought to get elected by disparaging the SS bill and the incremental approach to improving it. He would have advocated we throw it out and start over to get a comprehensive bill that covered all people.


    by ocean-kat on Sat, 04/09/2016 - 2:08pm

    Sanders has not disparaged the Affordable Care Act if that is your implication.  He has argued we have a moral obligation to do even better.  FDR and Eleanor would have taken the exact same position.


    by HSG on Sat, 04/09/2016 - 3:50pm

    Of course he has. Over and over again. He wants to start over and create a single payer system. He does not want to expand on the ACA. He criticizes Hillary for wanting to use the ACA, improve on it to universal health care. I have never once seen him say he wants to improve on the ACA and use it to get to universal health care. That is the fundamental difference between their health care plans.

    FDR clearly settled for substantially less than a half loaf SS act. I'd guess he'd be happy to see the incremental improvements that have led to the system we have today.


    by ocean-kat on Sat, 04/09/2016 - 4:17pm

    He says that single-payer is best and that's what America deserves.  He's right.  Please adduce one Sanders quote that disparages the Affordable Care Act for which he voted, i.e., settled for.

    Here's Sanders on the Supreme Court decision mostly upholding the law:

    The Supreme Court recognized the common-sense reading of the Affordable Care Act that Congress intended to help all eligible Americans obtain health insurance whether they get it through state or national exchanges. Access to affordable health care should not depend on where you live.

    “At a time when the United States in the only major country on earth that doesn’t guarantee health care to all Americans – and 35 million of our citizens today still lack insurance – it would have been an outrage to throw 6.4 million more people off health insurance.

    “What the United States should do is join every other major nation and recognize that health care is a right of citizenship. A Medicare-for-all, single-payer system would provide better care at less cost for more Americans.”[emphasis added]

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/6/25/1396450/-Bernie-Sanders-We-Need-....  Ooooh - major disparagement!


    by HSG on Sat, 04/09/2016 - 4:31pm

    This is a summary of his bill to change health care (and there were no sponsors):

    "Bernie's 2013 bill proposal 

     

    " Here is the summary, click below for full bill text. Of the multitude of things I find interesting, including that it has no co-sponsors to date, the push-back against Hillary for how she's portraying it as dismantling the entire current system ranks in the top five. Unfortunately, thus far she has nothing more current to reference.

     

    Eliminates benefits under: (1) titles XVIII (Medicare), XIX (Medicaid), and XXI (Children's Health Insurance) (CHIP, formerly known as SCHIP) of the Social Security Act; (2) the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program; and (3) TRICARE.

    Repeals provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) related to health insurance coverage, including provisions concerning state health insurance exchanges.

    "There's no evidence in the bill of how Senator Sanders proposes to Congressionally enact or pay for his highly transformative plan, but there's this -"

    Amends the Internal Revenue Code to impose on individuals: (1) a health care income tax, and (2) an income tax surcharge on amounts of modified adjusted gross income exceeding $1 million. Imposes an excise tax on securities transactions and allows an income tax credit for such taxes.

     

    I lost part of this, but it was determined that Clinton's points about dismantling the current health care system including the ACA, were true.  think that wanting to ELIMINATE it indicates disparagement, and I think any objective person would agree.


    by CVille Dem on Sat, 04/09/2016 - 4:47pm

    On Monday, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) introduced the American Health Security Act, which would require each state to set up a single-payer health-care system and would undo the exchanges that have plagued Obamacare.

    Since the exchanges are and integral part of the ACA many were calling this an attempt to repeal it.


    by ocean-kat on Sat, 04/09/2016 - 5:26pm

    Regarding the claim that Sanders wants to take away people's healthcare, from the decidedly centrist, pro-Clinton Politifact:

    Under Sanders’ plan, Americans would lose their current health insurance. However, his proposal would replace their health insurance and cover the currently uninsured. The program would auto-enroll every citizen and legal resident, all of whom would be entitled to benefits. While the plan would give governors authority to administer health insurance within their states, it includes provisions to allow federal authorities to take over if the governors refuse to implement it.

    It’s impossible to predict with certainty how Sanders’ plan would play out in real life. But Clinton’s statement makes it sound like Sanders’ plan would leave many people uninsured, which is antithetical to the goal of Sanders’ proposal: universal health care.

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jan/14/chelsea-c...


    by HSG on Sat, 04/09/2016 - 6:48pm

    You see, Hal...this is what we're talking about when we say he is running on giving everyone a unicorn.  Because governors (all 30+ of them who would not expand Medicaid) will surely go for the "Socialist's Plan."   It is only slightly less high on the BS scale that Trump's:  "My health care plan will be awesome."


    by CVille Dem on Sat, 04/09/2016 - 7:01pm

    That's right.  As Politifact points out, if governors reject SandersCare, the Feds step in just as they have stepped in when Republican states have refused to set up online exchanges.  Your broader point that current Republican executives and legislators will not agree is precisely why Bernie always says he can't do it alone.  We need, he says correctly, a "political revolution."


    by HSG on Sun, 04/10/2016 - 10:03am

    The fed didn't "step in" for Medicaid expansion in those states, in and the Supreme Court backed them up.  You are being very selective in overlooking that part of my comment.  For what you and Bernie are calling for requires a full-on vote for Universal Health Care, with all the required tax hikes associated with it.  How completely unrealistic can you be?

    When you say that "the people" have to rise up and make Congress accountable, let me point out to you that Congress did its best to delegitimize the President who won the popular vote and had "Hope and Change" at the heart of his campaign, and who had a hugely hopeful country behind him.  They even vote against things they LIKE just to give him a black eye whenever possible.  The country wants gun regulation.  Congress says no.  The country believes they should vote on Obama's Supreme Court nominee.  No is the answer.  And did they suffer for any of this? No.  In fact they ran on repealing the "socialist" Obamacare and won!  

    Wake up!


    by CVille Dem on Sun, 04/10/2016 - 10:20am

    Right the Republican Congress has done everything it can to stymie our President.  That's why we need a political revolution.  That's why I criticize Obama for not trying to build on the wave that swept him into office.  I think your arguments make the case for Sanders.


    by HSG on Sun, 04/10/2016 - 10:23am

    Ha!  Hal made a funny!


    by CVille Dem on Sun, 04/10/2016 - 10:30am

    Hal, we've been over this ground before but let's try again.

    Suppose Bernie was elected, was obstructed on everything and refused even a half-loaf if he could have gotten it? Where would all the enthusiasm go?  Wouldn't he be in the same position as Obama, weakened by virtue of not fulfilling the tide of rising expectations?

    Also, should Obama have nominated a more liberal Supreme Court candidate and increased his chances of not confirming any justice to 100%?


    by Oxy Mora on Sat, 04/09/2016 - 11:30am

    I like Obama's Justices.  I'm not sure why you bring them up.  Are they too conservative for your taste? 

    If Bernie can't get laws changed, he would presumably/hopefully go to the people and campaign against the obstructionists in Congress, who are thwarting the will of the people, in hopes of replacing them.  He would also use Executive orders aggressively in Obama's recent manner.

    If you think we need a compromiser in the White House, perhaps you can identify some compromises that Obama made with the Republican majority that led to good legislation for the American people.


    by HSG on Sat, 04/09/2016 - 11:47am

    Thanks. Glad your o.k.with Garland.

    The thrust of my question was about the downside of failing to meet rising expectations. Personally, I don't think the argument itself of "they obstructed" answers the disappointment.


    by Oxy Mora on Sat, 04/09/2016 - 2:06pm

    I think the left is disappointed with Obama because he did not  fight hard enough for economic and environmental justice - probably because he doesn't really share our values on these issues.  The disappointment does not stem from a failure to achieve our loftiest hopes.


    by HSG on Sat, 04/09/2016 - 3:48pm

    So with Bernie we'd go down swinging, but feel good about it.


    by Oxy Mora on Sat, 04/09/2016 - 7:18pm

    Exactly.  With tons of excuses, blaming the Clintons and  probably Obama too.  Because, according to Hal he just didn't care enough.  I guess I'd like to know how all of Bernie's caring for this last 30 years has accomplished?  He has no friends; no co-sponsors for his health-care bill; he isn't building a coalition of supporters.  He also comes unhinged when he perceives any negative statement.  

    I just have to say this also.  Even if Hillary HAD said that he was unqualified (which she clearly did not), is that a justification to say that it justifies Bernie saying that she isn't qualified, as a tit for tat?  Especially when he semi-walked it back by saying she started it.  Childish to the extreme,min my opinion.  Bernie has been making unfounded insinuations about money she has earned for speaking fees as though that showed she was in the bag.  He has never documented one single vote she ever made as a senator that would prove his case.

     

    tiresome in the extreme. Also hypocritical. 


    by CVille Dem on Sat, 04/09/2016 - 7:41pm

    Nice goal post shift.  You ignored my demonstration that the problem we have with Obama isn't that he didn't accomplish all we wanted but that he often didn't try and also more than occasionally went in the wrong direction -  drones, Libya, "grand betrayal", no bank fraud prosecutions, no investigation into 9/11 and the run up to War on Iraq, a failure to march with working people, etc. Next you assume, absent any evidence, that a concerted effort on Obama's part to keep the populace truly engaged in progressive politics would have failed.  Do you realize you did this or was it subconscious?


    by HSG on Sat, 04/09/2016 - 8:09pm

    And are you unaware that Bernie is joke?  Do you really. Or does he really think this is going to work?

     


    by CVille Dem on Sat, 04/09/2016 - 8:58pm

    Well, you have sidestepped my question about the downside of a Sanders administration which fails to fulfill rising expectations---but I no longer care.

    BTW, you any idea how silly it sounds to ask someone if their actions stem from their subconscious?


    by Oxy Mora on Sun, 04/10/2016 - 12:29am

    Time constraints aside, I try very hard to respond to every legitimate question people - even those playing gotcha - pose here since I have such great confidence in my arguments that I believe a greater investigation into them will only strengthen their power.  Then there's always the possibility I omitted an important factor into my analysis or got something very wrong.  Since I'd rather admit error than argue a weak position, I also think it's appropriate to use others' doubts to challenge myself.

    That said, I thought I did answer your question Oxy which, as I read it, asked me what will happen when "President" Sanders disappoints his legions of young idealists.  In that question, I see an assumption that Sanders will disappoint his supporters because he concededly will not be able to accomplish many of the goals he has set in this campaign.  I reject the assumption because I don't think a failure to accomplish universal single-payer healthcare or free education at state colleges will cause great disappointment in Sanders as long as he is perceived as trying his hardest to get these passed. 

    In fact, I believe Sanders would use setbacks as fodder for his constant refrain that "we need a political revolution."

    But let me respond to your question as you actually framed it.  What happens if Sanders disappoints his legions because he doesn't fight hard enough?  What if he makes deals with Republicans and corporadems that set the progressive cause back?  What about those who believe they'll get a free pony if he's elected even though Sanders never promised anybody a free pony?

    Disappointed people will react as disappointed people.  Some will react with learned helplessness.  They will drop out of the political system altogether believing it can only work for the rich and powerful.  Others will be further radicalized.  Still others may decide "if you can't beat 'em join 'em" as some 60s radicals became conservative over time.  Hopefully, the majority will go back to the old drawing board and try to find a better torch carrier in 2020 or 24.

    Does that answer your question?


    by HSG on Sun, 04/10/2016 - 10:37am

    Cabinet and various agency appointees could be, and under Sanders might be, different enough to start changing the culture of D.C. An Attorney General that did not take the position that some crooks are too big to prosecute for example. 


    by A Guy Called LULU on Sat, 04/09/2016 - 12:16pm

    Strong point LULU.  I wasn't thinking about how much power the President has chief law enforcer even when Congress rejects his legislative agenda.


    by HSG on Sat, 04/09/2016 - 12:41pm

    Well, I'm glad you're frustrated. You should be. It should make you crazy that your candidate is really good at pointing out weaknesses, but providing no practical way of improving any of it.

    Sure he says a tax on this this and a tax on that, but it'll never happen in the current environment, and he is making zero effort at getting Dems elected down-ticket. There's a reason for that. He's NOT a Democrat. Never has been, never will be. He has shown nothing but disdain for our party.

    Grass roots movement? Huh? Movement to do what? Bitch and moan about how awful it is? Who's moving what? He's not running for dictator, and without a sympathetic congress his plans are DOA. I REALLY don't think HE thought he would catch on, and this whole thing is poorly thought out. There is more to a revolution than saying everything, including the Democrats, suck.

    But how dare he come and dine at OUR table and proceed to tell us that the meal stinks? 

    As for Obama choosing not to try? Get a grip. He bent over backwards trying to work with those people, only to get shut down time after time. 


    by stillidealistic on Sat, 04/09/2016 - 4:19pm

    Obama did try to work with Republicans - sometimes in an effort to do harm to our nation - like when he proposed the grand betrayal that would have cut social security payments to seniors.  Since you acknowledge that Obama could not accomplish anything good with a Republican-controlled Congress, why do you believe Hillary Clinton's incrementalist approach would be more successful than Sanders' call for a political revolution?

    What I very clearly wrote is that Obama did not try to build on the grassroots political movement that swept him to victory in 2008.  Do you dispute that claim?


    by HSG on Sat, 04/09/2016 - 4:29pm

    You're right, Obama did not try to build on the grass roots movement that swept him to office. Sanders would likely try. But the biggest difference between Obama and Sanders is that Obama had a grass roots movement that swept him to office. Sanders clearly does not. Sanders isn't being swept into office, he's doing worse against Hillary than Hillary did against Obama. Sanders can't use a grass roots movement to pass legislation that he doesn't have. A grass roots movement that is so small it can't even win him the democratic nomination.


    by ocean-kat on Sat, 04/09/2016 - 4:40pm

    Ridiculous argument.  If he wins, he'll have done so on the back of such a movement.  If he doesn't, we try again.  So sad that you and others here have chosen to side with the establishment against those the establishment has repeatedly betrayed.


    by HSG on Sat, 04/09/2016 - 8:06pm

    Let's face it, Hal, anyone who disagrees with you is making a ridiculous argument. There is nothing anyone can say to change your mind, so I'm not sure why we keep trying.

    You are bound and determined to "get your way." There is no room for compromise.

    And that is the very thing that is destroying the Republican Party, and the country as a whole. Neither extreme can completely get their way, or a huge chunk of the rest of the population gets screwed over. 

    The interesting thing is that the founding fathers knew this, and set the government up so that people HAD to compromise to make it work. The far right thwarted this by refusing to compromise unless absolutely forced to, and we have gridlock. Now the far left is following suit. Tea party vs. the "Bernie or bust" folks. Both cannot win, but apparently there is no room for middle ground.

    But, unlike the Civil War, there are no geographic lines that match the called for "revolution." We can't split the country up between north and south or east and west. Somehow, we have to be able to live with each other, and that can't be done on either end. It has to occur in the middle.


    by stillidealistic on Sun, 04/10/2016 - 6:35am

    Of course, none of us can get our way all the time.  The question is who will be a better President and what compromises are appropriate and which are not.  "Neither extreme can completely get their way, or a huge chunk of the rest of the population gets screwed over. "  Wouldn't you agree that the 1% has gotten its way over the past 35 years regardless of which party is in power far more than the 99%?  Isn't it time we change that dynamic?  Which candidate do you trust to try?


    by HSG on Sun, 04/10/2016 - 10:00am

    What lies did the far left tell about Obama?


    by Hal G. (not verified) on Wed, 04/06/2016 - 7:11pm

    Jealous.  


    by CVille Dem on Wed, 04/06/2016 - 9:50pm

    Well there is that.


    by HSG on Wed, 04/06/2016 - 8:32pm