Gun Control Anyone?

[c1ue]

Re: Who's pulling strings? Billderbergers?

Feminism in the form of women's suffrage/right to vote is often classified as first wave feminism.

I'm more concerned about the hijacking of 2nd wave feminism that started in the 60's, which among other things, focused on family/workplace inequities.

Whether 2nd wave feminism was a cause or an effect of poor fiscal/monetary policy that impacted on Joe 6 pack is irrelevant......aspects of it were/are still vulnerable to being hijacked for less than altruistic reasons.

Perhaps you can elucidate.

The only use of feminism I've seen that was so blatantly non-altruistic - besides the homosexuality subtext - is the constant decrying of 'freeing the women' from the burdens of the burqa.

Not that I'm a big fan of it, but very questionable just how altruistic the loudest pointers and shouters against it are...

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Who's pulling strings? Billderbergers?

Perhaps you can elucidate.

The only use of feminism I've seen that was so blatantly non-altruistic - besides the homosexuality subtext - is the constant decrying of 'freeing the women' from the burdens of the burqa.

Not that I'm a big fan of it, but very questionable just how altruistic the loudest pointers and shouters against it are...

Here's probably the best example I can think of in terms of 2nd wave feminism hijacking:

A TV commercial:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4X4MwbVf5OA

I remember this one clearly as a kid.

If I understand the commercial correctly, if a woman spritzes on some Enjoli perfume then she will magically be transformed into a happy liberated woman with 2.4 full time jobs:

Full time worker, full time mother, part time prostitute

Doesn't this commercial effectively glamorize how "awesome" it is that women(because it was 99.99% women) get shafted with ANOTHER full time job?

How exactly is this any different from Orwell's book where the chocolate ration in 1984 goes "up" to 25 grams..........from 30 grams in 1983?

--------

In my personal anecdotal experience amongst a broad range of peers I've seen stay at home parents become an economic luxury.

But instead of people questioning why it is no longer affordable, the attitude I commonly see directed towards those who can either afford it or make the necessary sacrifices to do so are labeled as "part of the patriarchy"(that's a recent one and use of the word), and not exactly very "progressive".

In the social pecking orders between and amongst people when we get together and self organize, even momentarily.......the stay at home parent issue pops up a fair bit....and I think many look down on those than can almost like a defense mechanism.

If you can't afford to be a stay at home parent, the default setting seems to be "I'm more progressive/liberated", rather than questioning "why can't I afford to stay home as well?"

"There is no debate about the affordability of keeping a parent at home.....because parents should both be working equally outside of the home whether they are together or not......next stupid question."

---------

Down here there is a very aggressive "breast is best" attitude(to which we agree that breast milk has MANY benefits over formula) that borders on the scary(in our experience and the anecdotal experience of peers).

While I think most sane folks would agree it is the best/preferred/recommended option for good reason.......it is delivered in an almost dogmatic/militant fashion openly referred to down here as the "breast feeding mafia".

While it's not a business friendly posture(hey, government comes first, business second....people last)...it's certainly a government friendly one.......because the response to the cohort of women unable to breastfeed easily is simple: breastfeed, breastfeed, breastfeed.

The question of baby milk powder affordability due to exploding prices simply doesn't come up, because "We only recommend breastmilk, baby milk affordability is irrelevant...next stupid question."

And that militant/dogmatic/inflexible position is projected by a midwife profession which itself is a classic inflation thru inferior quality product/service when they replaced OB/GYNs in the delivery of all public healthcare non-critical care births. Government wins thru lower cost births, midwive profession gains a near monopoly hold on childbirth, public loses but is told that it is winning and accepts it as truth.

That's how I see it.


I'm surprised a book hasn't been written yet to incorporate historical examples of such perception shaping.

Anyone can get people to like a beautiful meal.

But it takes some real skill to get people to like a shit sandwich and say it tastes good...or at least not complain about it.

[aaron]

Re: 6-guns in the Capital building ?

http://www.businessinsider.com/dhs-f...-rounds-2013-1

[c1ue]

Re: 6-guns in the Capital building ?

I remember this one clearly as a kid.

If I understand the commercial correctly, if a woman spritzes on some Enjoli perfume then she will magically be transformed into a happy liberated woman with 2.4 full time jobs:

Fair enough, although I will point out that a commercial hardly constitutes a societal focus. If so, then we are being societally focused into Paris Hilton and Lady Gaga...

As for the stay at home/breast feeding - in my view this is normal human behavior.

As I've noted before - in the 1800s it was fashionable to be pale as milk, because most people were brown from working/living outdoors. Today, the roles are reversed.

I don't see why being a stay at home mom and/or a breast feeder is any different - and if in fact the need to work two jobs is due to FIRE economic pressure, then the societal mores you note are a merely response.

From my own view and experience, a lot of the woman working bit is really not so much about liberation as a female as it is liberation from the societally under-recognized value creation activity known as housekeeping and child raising. The trinkets are nice, but the ability to get away from the screaming kid is even nicer.

[flintlock]

Re: 6-guns in the Capital building ?

rom my own view and experience, a lot of the woman working bit is really not so much about liberation as a female as it is liberation from the societally under-recognized value creation activity known as housekeeping and child raising. The trinkets are nice, but the ability to get away from the screaming kid is even nicer.

I've noticed the same in some cases.

I remember having a discussion with an employee about his working situation. His wife was pulling down $20,000 year as a receptionist, and they had three small children in Daycare and hired a house cleaner. Made no financial sense at all, but she kept her sanity I guess.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: 6-guns in the Capital building ?

Fair enough, although I will point out that a commercial hardly constitutes a societal focus. If so, then we are being societally focused into Paris Hilton and Lady Gaga...

As for the stay at home/breast feeding - in my view this is normal human behavior.

As I've noted before - in the 1800s it was fashionable to be pale as milk, because most people were brown from working/living outdoors. Today, the roles are reversed.

I don't see why being a stay at home mom and/or a breast feeder is any different - and if in fact the need to work two jobs is due to FIRE economic pressure, then the societal mores you note are a merely response.

From my own view and experience, a lot of the woman working bit is really not so much about liberation as a female as it is liberation from the societally under-recognized value creation activity known as housekeeping and child raising. The trinkets are nice, but the ability to get away from the screaming kid is even nicer.

Stripping my post down to the bare essentials:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4X4MwbVf5OA

How exactly is this any different from Orwell's book where the chocolate ration in 1984 goes "up" to 25 grams..........from 30 grams in 1983?

----------

As to the societal focus, Paris Hilton, Lady Gaga bit......

Hasn't the The Ministry of Truth bit been outsourced to the Big 6?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_c..._.22Big_Six.22

If you are bombarded with a concentrated and aligned message long enough, it's pretty bloody hard to fight it, even if you are aware of it.

The science and psychology of marketing/advertising/propaganda/psychological operations(now called MISO).

Which brings us full circle to gun control. The highly correlated message from the White House, gun control advocates, and mass media is quite disturbing.

Can you find ANY references from the Executive Branch or the Mass Media about the 2nd Amendment role in deterring tyranny as the Framer's Intent?

The ONLY time I've heard "deter tyranny" is from the rare guest, and then the discussion is conveniently shaped away from it....or commingled with 9/11 conspiracy nutters.

If you use the words "2nd Amendment purpose is to deter tyranny", then you get lumped in with crackpots.

The narrative/meme is that the 2nd Amendment is for hunting.

But the consistency of that message from so many different mass media properties with such a small ownership group is truly frightening.

----------

Society has traditionally under-appreciated and underpaid a number of quite critical roles in society.

Stay at home parents is covered.......caregivers, Ambulance officers/EMTs, even apprentice/journeyman pilots....all of which can be pretty scary depending on personal circumstances.

--------------------------

To your point of the flip flop in white/tan complexion.......I would posit that is one of those many subconscious social hierarchy dances we perform daily.

Back in the day, you were pasty white to show you weren't working class/blue collar.

Today a tan in winter is a visual display of relative wealth and status.

Knowingly or unknowingly, humans lord it over each other........like a western stealth caste system...where the lower castes are kept from insurrection by being made to feel socially superior in some ways.

While breast feeding IS the best option, reinforcing it as the ONLY option prevents some awkward questions being asked about affordability of basic necessities.

It also provides a social and public sense of superiority for someone in an inferior socioeconomic position(breast is best...and only for good mums) over someone in a superior socioeconomic position.

Just like a woman who HAS to work for the financial integrity of the family can possess a social and public sense of superiority(truly liberated, free, equal) over a woman whose family can afford for her to stay at home.

To me, the secret in getting people to eat the sh!t sandwich is not so much in the marketing and advertising of the sandwich, but in the misdirection away from the sandwich.

Tell a woman she's a great mother and she will not only eat a double sh!t burger but drink the poison kool-aid too.

Just my 0.02c

[shiny!]

Re: 6-guns in the Capital building ?

Can you find ANY references from the Executive Branch or the Mass Media about the 2nd Amendment role in deterring tyranny as the Framer's Intent?

The ONLY time I've heard "deter tyranny" is from the rare guest, and then the discussion is conveniently shaped away from it....or commingled with 9/11 conspiracy nutters.

But... But... we're not nutters! Someday you'll come around to our way of thinking. You're just a little slow ;-)

[c1ue]

Re: 6-guns in the Capital building ?

Which brings us full circle to gun control. The highly correlated message from the White House, gun control advocates, and mass media is quite disturbing.

I personally am not the least bit surprised. Guns is one of those hot- button issues which - as EJ/iTulip has pointed out - is closely correlated to red states.

Given the decided blue state mentality shared by all of the entities you note, why then is a similar message so surprising?

Knowingly or unknowingly, humans lord it over each other........like a western stealth caste system...where the lower castes are kept from insurrection by being made to feel socially superior in some ways.

Absolutely agree. The means by which differentiation is demonstrated, however, is controlled by the specific society's mores.

As for lower castes - I really don't know what you are referring to. The biggest 'socially superior' liberals are more often than not limousine liberals. The teachers tend to be liberal as well, but then again these are front line troops in the fight for hearts and minds, so is a special case.

Tell a woman she's a great mother and she will not only eat a double sh!t burger but drink the poison kool-aid too.

Perhaps, but then again, people can be both more and less stupid than you might think. The funny thing is, when I talk to people who really are forced to work to survive, these issues take a distinct second place to pure survival. Thus for me the 'self reinforcing repression' aspect is bogus; people who are surviving barely are exactly hose who aren't going to rock the boat.

It is the ones with nothing to lose or too much to gain that you have to watch out for.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: 6-guns in the Capital building ?

But... But... we're not nutters! Someday you'll come around to our way of thinking. You're just a little slow ;-)

Don't worry Shiny!

The difference between aligned interests and conspiracy may be vast.....but I'd like to think the paths intersect in a place where enough disparate good guys, regardless of their individual points of origin, collectively seize the vital ground destination.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: 6-guns in the Capital building ?

I personally am not the least bit surprised. Guns is one of those hot- button issues which - as EJ/iTulip has pointed out - is closely correlated to red states.

Given the decided blue state mentality shared by all of the entities you note, why then is a similar message so surprising?

And it's win-win-win for the entrenched special interests:

Gun control wins.....and the special interest win via the Republic suffocating further

Gun control loses....and the special interests win because everyone missed the real news.....like SEC coup for WS

Keep the masses infighting....and the special interests win because precious limited political energy is expended on each other rather than focused on them.



Absolutely agree. The means by which differentiation is demonstrated, however, is controlled by the specific society's mores.

As for lower castes - I really don't know what you are referring to. The biggest 'socially superior' liberals are more often than not limousine liberals. The teachers tend to be liberal as well, but then again these are front line troops in the fight for hearts and minds, so is a special case.

I'm thinking the working to middle class folks not necessarily drinking the koolaid, but happy to take a bite of the sandwich in exchange for a chance at a 5 second thin bandaid of lifestyle superiority of breastfeeding/3 jobs/carless by necessity, low carbon footprint masking relative financial gangrene.

Orwell's "2 Minute Hate" compressed and rebranded by Saatchi & Saatchi into "5 second superiority".

My sister is a teacher at a fairly affluent public school system. A lot of girls I went to school with became teachers. I am stunned at the left wing militancy they all universally shared when I visited them prior to the election. They weren't just Koolaid drinkers....they were the Praetorian Guard.

If they are a reasonably accurate indication of the whole public school system then the strict constitutionalists better start pumping out teachers by the hundreds of thousands.

Perhaps, but then again, people can be both more and less stupid than you might think.

I never cease to be amazed at discovering new personal/anecdotal highs and lows in humanity..the ball keeps bouncing ever higher and lower.

The funny thing is, when I talk to people who really are forced to work to survive, these issues take a distinct second place to pure survival. Thus for me the 'self reinforcing repression' aspect is bogus; people who are surviving barely are exactly hose who aren't going to rock the boat.

It is the ones with nothing to lose or too much to gain that you have to watch out for.

The folks with too much to gain are running the show aren't they?

The folks doing OK apathetically watch everyone in the trains travel to the Economic Auschwitz.

The folks treading water are singularly focused on survival as you state and are temporarily irrelevant.

The folks with nothing to lose haven't presented themselves in an organized fashion, but lone wolf outlier attacks are certainly an indicator....and they provide a means to turn the heat up faster don't they? At least for a while.

Personally, in my opinion the folks at the bottom end, our western lower castes(I don't personally treat folks this way,but might as well use the term as I think it's fairly accurate).....aren't much of an existential threat to entrenched interests. At best they are tool...political cannon fodder and "useful idiots".

To me the real threat to the entrenched interests would be the folks doing OK.

IF apathy turns into action.

Personally, what I'd like to see is a group of skilled and motivated people approach Ross Perot in a non partisan approach.

And tell him to hand over $1 billion dollars no questions asked to save the Republic.

Call it FIREfighters.

Everyone likes firefighters....especially women.....bam!

I just got the bipartisan women's vote(bar militant teachers).

[c1ue]

Re: 6-guns in the Capital building ?

And it's win-win-win for the entrenched special interests:

Gun control wins.....and the special interest win via the Republic suffocating further

Perhaps, but I'll note that highly unpopular measures have passed before, and then been reversed. It is far from clear to me that a fundamental change like a Constitutional amendment is anywhere close to possibility, and federal gun control measures will be just as strong (or weak) as marijuana legalization has been.

Thus while I dislike the hue and cry, I can't say that I'm really all that concerned about fundamental changes.

I'm thinking the working to middle class folks not necessarily drinking the koolaid, but happy to take a bite of the sandwich in exchange for a chance at a 5 second thin bandaid of lifestyle superiority of breastfeeding/3 jobs/carless by necessity, low carbon footprint masking relative financial gangrene.

The problem I have with your statement is that none of these band aids measurably improve the lifestyles of the truly middle class. Nor do those working so hard have so much time to luxuriate in the feeling of good they are accomplishing.

The ones I see who push the hardest in these areas are generally the idle rich and the academics.

The folks with too much to gain are running the show aren't they?

Hardly. The banksters weren't poor to start with. It is that they are not getting even richer.

The folks doing OK apathetically watch everyone in the trains travel to the Economic Auschwitz.

The folks treading water are singularly focused on survival as you state and are temporarily irrelevant.

I don't know about where you get your views from, but your comments above are completely inconsistent with regards to the people that I talk to - and I talk to a lot of people about this kind of thing.

The people who are surviving know there's something wrong. They don't know what, nor how it will get fixed, but they are anything but apathetic.

The ones doing OK - if they're young, they assume it is because of their own specialness. The older ones though also know something is wrong, and may or may not have any idea on how to fix it. More often than not, they don't really know.

So where you see a pool of apathy and selfishness, I see a ticking time bomb. I do not see people today as being any stupider than the peasants of the 1800s - they are far better educated today with more leisure time and access to data if they want it.

If the peasants of the 1800s were able to eventually get the gumption to launch literally dozens of bloody and failed revolts, I for one don't see why the same cannot happen here. It is really just a matter of time and - as Mao said - the worse, the better. Things just aren't bad enough yet.

When things get bad enough, the scrutiny over leadership becomes extreme.

The reality right now is that the governance of the American nation to most of its people is exactly as important as the popularity of C-Span's ratings - which is to say, not very.

[bart]

Re: 6-guns in the Capital building ?

Thus while I dislike the hue and cry, I can't say that I'm really all that concerned about fundamental changes.

It's not about assault rifles.

Hardly. The banksters weren't poor to start with. It is that they are not getting even richer.

To the contrary, not only are the .1% getting richer, but the 1% and 10% are getting relatively richer since they have been losing less than the 90% for many years.

...
When things get bad enough, the scrutiny over leadership becomes extreme.

And then some!

As the old saying goes, you ain't seen nothing yet.

[LorenS]

Re: 6-guns in the Capital building ?

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lano...omen-shot.html

LA Police shoot newspaper truck.


I hope this gets scrutiny. That truck is just riddled ---- FROM BEHIND.

If gun control is about public safety there would be no exemption for government employees. Obviously someone misused their magazine capacity on this truck.

[c1ue]

Re: 6-guns in the Capital building ?

It also provides a social and public sense of superiority for someone in an inferior socioeconomic position(breast is best...and only for good mums) over someone in a superior socioeconomic position.

On a separate amusing note - I should point out that the Taliban government, which the US was liberating Afghan women from, arose out of the overthrow of the previous monarchy. The same monarchy which had espoused education and the ability to work/own property for women, but which unfortunately had been far too friendly to the Soviet Union. The only reason I mention this - besides a personal relation's involvement - is that women's lib was merely a fig leaf to be ignored to used as necessary for a geopolitical goal. Less clear to me the benefit in oppressing the masses in the US.

Thus while I dislike the hue and cry, I can't say that I'm really all that concerned about fundamental changes.

It's not about assault rifles.

Certainly, I understand that. My point isn't that this attack isn't real. My point is that so long as there are people who understand and cherish the notion of liberty, a bunch of words on a piece of paper aren't going to change how said people will act when push comes to shove. Prohibition came, then went arguably having made more drunkards than any other policy could have done.

If anything, I'd say that we need things to get much worse so that the necessities of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness will again be recognized rather than taken for granted.

Hardly. The banksters weren't poor to start with. It is that they are not getting even richer.

To the contrary, not only are the .1% getting richer, but the 1% and 10% are getting relatively richer since they have been losing less than the 90% for many years.

not = now. Google toolbar is hosing my typing speed. I'd also say that losing less is hardly winning - certainly the 10% don't think so. I can't speak for the 1%.

[bart]

Re: 6-guns in the Capital building ?

Originally Posted by bart Originally Posted by c1ue

Hardly. The banksters weren't poor to start with. It is that they are not getting even richer.




To the contrary, not only are the .1% getting richer, but the 1% and 10% are getting relatively richer since they have been losing less than the 90% for many years.

not = now. Google toolbar is hosing my typing speed. I'd also say that losing less is hardly winning - certainly the 10% don't think so. I can't speak for the 1%.

When they lose less, they're getting a bigger piece of the total pie, which is the same as getting richer.