patrick.net

And the parties dictate on petty oneupmanship, instead of what is actually best for the country.

Don't forget that most important indicator of the decline of the free world.

Everybody had to fight to be free. And to paraphrase Thomas Jefferson... natural progression of any society is bigger government and less freedoms.

If you want this nation to be better, you can't give up. Once you give up, you can never win and that is when liberty yields and dictatorship sets in.

wthrfrk80 says

Our divorce rate is what, 50%? I'd say the institution of "marriage" is already dead, with or w/o the gays doing it.

It's not dead, but the culture has wanted some adaption to the post-pill, post-at-will-divorce world.

The (hopefully) good news is that Gen-Y is backlashing against their grandparents' view of courtship, which clearly stopped working for their parents. They understand this viscerally because they either went through divorces as kids, or supported close friends who did. Either way, they know well the wages of divorce. Consequently, they're taking marriage more seriously and deliberatly than any generation has in recent times.

As it should be.

In my opinion, there is no way for this not to drive the divorce rate down. It seems obvious that mature adults should form more successful marriages than people who are barely post-child.

What might be most interesting about this evolution of the culture is that it is not of the left, or of the right. It is an amalgam. It is steeped both in a deeply conservative reverence for the institution of marriage, and a wantonly libertine view of casual sex. It seems very well-suited for an advanced, hyper-specialized professional society.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2012/0213/Modern-romance-Gen-Y-is-late-to-the-wedding-but-wants-marriage

wthrfrk80 says

Maybe TV was always a "vast wasteland", but today's TV makes that from the 60s-90s look like high art.

Yep. Hollywood remakes 60s-80s movies and TV shows. Even B-grade TV shows and films like the A-Team or Amityville horror get remade into movies.

How much TV is licensed BBC shows redone in America, or flat out BBC programming with an American voiceover (I'm looking at you, A&E Networks)?

And don't get me started on Pop Music, that also died by the 90s. The fusion of Pop-Punk dominates, with the worst elements of both genres. Or hip-hop sluts and wanna be gangsters, none of the funny stories or moral tales of the early rappers.

Is this what a degenerating civilization looks like? Did we did out peak in the 60s or 70s and fall off rapidly from there?

thunderlips11 says

And don't get me started on Pop Music, that also died by the 90s.

Amen to that. I can point to 1993 as the exact year Pop Music died.

wthrfrk80 says

Amen to that. I can point to 1993 as the exact year Pop Music died.

Dead on!

I'd say it was sometime around when Hootie and the Blowfish came out.

As my friend said to me about that time, "Why do they call it Alternative when it's the only thing on the radio, and the songs all sound the same?"

thunderlips11 says

I'd say it was sometime around when Hootie and the Blowfish came out.

Absolutely. And don't forget that "Mr. Jones and me" song. If the death of pop music can be attributed to any one song, I'd say it was that one.

thunderlips11 says

As my friend said to me about that time, "Why do they call it Alternative when it's the only thing on the radio, and the songs all sound the same?"

Yes exactly. And I found that the music was generally depressing in tone.

wthrfrk80 says

Absolutely. And don't forget that "Mr. Jones and me" song. If the death of pop music can be attributed to any one song, I'd say it was that one.

Oh, that's a real bad one!

Some other duds I remember from about that time:
Disneyland by Dada
Rock and Roll all Nite cover by Toad the Wet Sprocket
Breakfast at Tiffany's
MMM, MMM, MMM by the Crash Test Dummies

wthrfrk80 says

I'd say the institution of "marriage" is already dead, with or w/o the gays doing it. How much of the next generation has been aborted?

Who cares? See? This is why Social issues are bullshit, unless the right is trying to limit their fellow citizens access to them.

Abortion is good for you, economically. It also limits overpopulation, but in particular it's good for small, low income families. I can't think of a counter-argument.

If you suspend relative morality, it is a net gain. Those who have used it for terminating pregnancies, either through rape or incest, or as a form of contraception--makes no difference, are certainly better off economically. And when you're better off economically, you have better access to education, work and so on.

classic "in my day" bs. The human race is much bettor off for the cultural revolutions started mainly in the USA. I believe the middle east will be a better place once they have their own sexual revolution.

You're right about the Republicans destroying the economy but they had LOTS of help from Democrats.

CL says

Who cares?

Quite a few people, apparently. Heck, it's the main reason so many low-income folks vote Republican. I'm not saying that's a good thing, but it IS a political reality.

I want the "New Deal Coalition" back. We're becoming a third-world country.

CL says

If you suspend relative morality, it is a net gain. Those who have used it for terminating pregnancies, either through rape or incest, or as a form of contraception--makes no difference, are certainly better off economically. And when you're better off economically, you have better access to education, work and so on.

Right, it's clearly worth ending a life so that one can be better off economically. How is that any different than bombing the fuck out of Iraq to get their oil?

Seems that both parties stand for money over morality if the two come into conflict.

wthrfrk80 says

Right, it's clearly worth ending a life so that one can be better off economically. How is that any different than bombing the fuck out of Iraq to get their oil?

Not every abortion is a reckless woman who forgot her pills; let's remember that.

I think forcing a woman to give birth to a child she doesn't want (especially if the child was a result of rape or incest) is cruel to the mother. I'd say that's why the option is legal, since the rights of the mother are sacrosanct.

Now, there are plenty that would disagree that abortion is taking a life. But nobody can disagree that financially, the woman with less unwanted children does better.

And, I understand the theological argument against abortion. But we live in a secular society, and not a theocratic one.

I'd rather we live in a culture that respects women and their Doctor's decisions, than a forced birth society...n'est-ce pas?

In any case, I think the culture war argument is a strawman. But, I do think rubber should be made illegal. :)

wthrfrk80 says

Right, it's clearly worth ending a life so that one can be better off economically.

Ask any cattle rancher, and he'd agree.

Life isn't sacred. Human life isn't even necessarily sacred. The crux of the abortion morality debate is around what makes humans special and when, in the case of developing embryos. Ie: whether human fetuses are more like living human kidneys or living human brains.

If CL believed embryos were endowed with that special sauce, then he'd be psychotic to support abortion. If you didn't, then you'd be psychotic to oppose it. I suspect neither of your are psychotic. You fundamentally disagree on what makes humans different moral objects from cattle; or on when or how we become so imbued.

Call me psychotic then! I, for one, am not crazy about abortion, especially when used as a supplemental prophylactic. I know that reasonable people can disagree, but also that the Government should not be in the business of shackling women to their beds to force a baby to term.

I understand theologically why Catholics believe what they do, including on euthanasia and on operating on conjoined twins. Given that we have a secular Government, designed to protect the rights of individuals, I don't see any other conclusion but to uphold and maintain Roe.

That does not seem at all psychotic. "Not being crazy" about abortion does not rise to the level of thinking it is murder. There is clearly a gray area where one can think it obscene without thinking it transgresses an inalienable moral right, and that seems to be where you live.

Or am I misreading you?

I like it here. I'm annoyed by a lot of dumb people and dumb shit (particularly the extremists on either side constantly telling me how terrible it is because of the other guys).

I don't know about "fighting" for it though. A very long time ago the U.S. was a pretty unique place, but with global culture so homogenized and american values like democracy and guaranteed rights can be found in a plurality of nations today. It'd be hard to go anywhere else.

msilenus says

That does not seem at all psychotic. "Not being crazy" about abortion does not rise to the level of thinking it is murder. There is clearly a gray area where one can think it obscene without thinking it transgresses an inalienable moral right, and that seems to be where you live.

Or am I misreading you?

I'm just happy to be considered "not crazy". :)

No, I think you're on it. My take on most things is that life is messy. Moral absolutists, in this case Catholics, don't approve of anything that gets in the way of "natural law" as pertains to "life". Hence no contraception, and no non-procreative sex, no euthanasia.

But life (or God) gave someone a horribly deformed child, that won't live past its first month. Life (or God) gave someone conjoined twins, sharing a vital organ. The "life" crowd would have them all die. Science and secularism spares the deformed child the agony that life brings, and rescues one twin while sacrificing the other. Or allows an individual a peaceful death of his or her own choosing.

We didn't make the conditions by which we live. Some surrender to them as "God's will", and others do the best they can under the circumstances.

Life is ugly, and sometimes your options are between shitty and shittier. The Government has to respect that, and religion can define it for you. But, ultimately, it's you who needs to sleep at night and your conscience is higher than any law. (Assuming you have a well-informed conscience, and are acting in what you consider moral)

msilenus says

Human life isn't even necessarily sacred.

It's truly sad that our culture has reached this conclusion.

I thought the "life is cheap" attitude was limited to China. Not so much anymore it appears.

You either hold a wake for every skin cell you slough off, or dropping the rest of that quote is disengenuous.

Life isn't sacred. Human life isn't even necessarily sacred. The crux of the abortion morality debate is around what makes humans special and when, in the case of developing embryos. Ie: whether human fetuses are more like living human kidneys or living human brains.

Of course our country is worth fighting for.

Despite our challenges, America is still blessed with massive natural and human resources with no rival. We don't have even a fraction of the demographic challenges facing countries like Europe and the third world. All you abortion supporters - hope you realize we need babies to be the next generation of tax payers to support our already unsustainable entitlement obligations. Its just simple math.

Even today in the middle of the "Great Recession", our generation has never had it so good in terms of creature comforts and options.

The quick rich mentality of flipping homes, IPO's and day trading come and go. There are still plenty of good paying stable jobs provided you get a decent education (i.e. not basket weaving or folklore) and are willing to work hard.

We have the good farmland. I guess ultimately that's all we really need.

The Arabs can't eat oil.

wthrfrk80 says

We have the good farmland. I guess ultimately that's all we really need.
The Arabs can't eat oil.

Yes - American can feed the world a couple times over with our massive agriculture technology and land.

We also have one of the biggest oil shale reserves on the planet.

We still breed at replacement levels keeping our demographics stable with a steady supply of new tax payers (perhaps one of the most important differences between the US and much of Western Europe)

We also have mostly friendly neighbors to the north and south.

We also have a good source of culturally assimilated immigrants.

We also have wonderful weather.

We also still have the best colleges on the planet (albeit too expensive).

We also have one of the best militaries on the planet.

We also have hotter women.

Buck up man - we still have it better than virtually any human throughout the history of modern man and are still 10X structurally stronger (resources, demographics, work ethic) than most everyone else.

socal2 says

Yes - American can feed the world a couple times over with our massive agriculture technology and land.

We also have one of the biggest oil shale reserves on the planet.

We still breed at replacement levels keeping our demographics stable with a steady supply of new tax payers (perhaps one of the most important differences between the US and much of Western Europe)

We also have mostly friendly neighbors to the north and south.

We also have a good source of culturally assimilated immigrants.

We also have wonderful weather.

We also still have the best colleges on the planet (albeit too expensive).

We also have one of the best militaries on the planet.

We also have hotter women.

Buck up man - we still have it better than virtually any human throughout the history of modern man and are still 10X structurally stronger (resources, demographics, work ethic) than most everyone else.

amen!

We still breed at replacement levels keeping our demographics stable with a steady supply of new tax payers (perhaps one of the most important differences between the US and much of Western Europe)
Read >i>we: not California.
Then again, Richard Rodriguez once suggested a way to deal with the 'immigrant problem': Ask anyone who's been here for more than a couple of generations to leave...

socal2 says

All you abortion supporters - hope you realize we need babies to be the next generation of tax payers to support our already unsustainable entitlement obligations. Its just simple math.

Only it's not.

People can retire later. Health care can be fixed (pick one of any other wealthy country's system, voila, you cut health care costs in half!).

It's highly likely that people under 50 are going to live extremely long, extremely healthy lives relative to the existing older generation.

It's quite possible that the next generation will live for hundreds or thousands of years while remaining productive throughout.

We can automate a whole lot of things.

Kevin says

Only it's not.
People can retire later. Health care can be fixed (pick one of any other wealthy country's system, voila, you cut health care costs in half!).

I think that is easier said than done. Look how the French are reacting simply at the thought of raising the retirement age to 62. They run out to the streets to protest and just elected another Socialist to preserve their unsustainable pampered existence.

The Greeks are busy burning down their cities at the prospect of living within their means.

They say necessity is the mother of invention. Lets see if Greece, Spain, and Italy can miraculously reform their entitlements into solvency with their dwindling population.

That's a meme, too be sure. More than likely, it's what Americans want to believe about their sibling rivals. Truth is, both countries are rebelling against austerity and the idea that the poor and middle class in their respective countries have to pay the price for the wealthy's excesses.

In our sycophantic, intellectually lazy country, we submit to the overlords that we should work until death (it's our fault for not investing properly, after all), and that all cuts should come to bear on the poor while preserving and increasing cuts for the rich.

We could use a little Greco-Franco passion here. Hell, even Americans used to have that passion a few decades ago.

wthrfrk80 says

Culturally, we're basically just barbarians with i-Phones.

Civilized people use Android.

The opening question is not even valid.

Fighting implies a clear set of enemies to fight.

As it stands, we lumber along somehow.

Personally I'd like to see people redefine themselves as CITIZENS and not "consumers" and end the stranglehold of "things" on their lives. What use is a "strong economy" if how people define it, is to keep you on a treadmill so you can spend every cent you have to buy things?

wthrfrk80 says

With the upcoming election, it's the same choice: destroy the country culturally, or destroy it economically

The older I get, the more it seems to me that the future is going to look something like this...

http://www.youtube.com/embed/iYZpR51XgW0

Vicente says

Fighting implies a clear set of enemies to fight.

Does that include the war on terror?