@lotlizard

the editor of the whole earth catalog, stewart brand...came out in favor of nuclear power. go figure. ; ) but yeah, we lived by that bible, as well as lots of counter-culture ideas: spiritual gurus, whole health body/mind, herbology, diet for a small planet, on and on.

of course, i still carry my hippie card with me, and i made my living for 30 (more?) years doing body/mind/soul therapy under the license of 'massage therapy'... : )

#3.1.2.2  
They came to understand that one must have experienced, and/or be able to verify, something oneself, first-hand, with one’s own senses — otherwise one doesn’t really “know” it. In the latter case one is relying on hearsay, no matter how pervasive and well organized.

People came to this realization through having experienced and experimented with all sorts of things first-hand — be it communal living, non-Western religion, direct confrontation with authorities, “back to the land” rural self-sufficiency, travel on a shoestring to exotic places, or, lest we forget, psychedelic drugs.

In the course of pursuing any of these endeavors, the irrelevance to actual experience — and often politically or commercially motivated, deliberate outright mendacity — of mainstream media and schooling quickly became evident to people.

Hence the growth and reliance upon independent, alternative, “counterculture” media voices during this period. An audience of radical empiricists developed, who for news and information turned to other radical empiricists: people one could trust to be reporting their own first-hand experiences rather than regurgitating hearsay in pursuit of some unknown agenda bankrolled by faceless figures and forces behind the scenes.

The Whole Earth Catalog, for example, was subtitled “access to tools” — full of stuff that others like oneself had tried and could report on and recommend first-hand as being truthful and/or useful.

So . . . while others may scoff at you, I — as someone whose epistemological habits were formed during the hippie era — do not.

@lotlizard Well being a hippie myself and a staunchly anti-war advocate since the late sixties, I could finesse this and say that I got my skepticism from that era. However, truth be told it was 35 years of practicing law and all the skepticism a law practice engenders that makes me have this opinion.

Years ago I was determined to be an educated voter, only to discover that no one wants voters to know the truth.

When it comes to matters of war, the government just does not want you to know. Period. No matter how diligent you are, the government has no intention of letting the citizens know what is going on about matters of war. And it is pretty much the same about anything that is important.

Lawyers are privy to a lot more government information than other citizens. And I was always frustrated trying to figure out what the government was up to.

So I think it is an exercise in self delusion when people think they can become educated voters or citizens. It is not happening.

#3.1.2.2  
They came to understand that one must have experienced, and/or be able to verify, something oneself, first-hand, with one’s own senses — otherwise one doesn’t really “know” it. In the latter case one is relying on hearsay, no matter how pervasive and well organized.

People came to this realization through having experienced and experimented with all sorts of things first-hand — be it communal living, non-Western religion, direct confrontation with authorities, “back to the land” rural self-sufficiency, travel on a shoestring to exotic places, or, lest we forget, psychedelic drugs.

In the course of pursuing any of these endeavors, the irrelevance to actual experience — and often politically or commercially motivated, deliberate outright mendacity — of mainstream media and schooling quickly became evident to people.

Hence the growth and reliance upon independent, alternative, “counterculture” media voices during this period. An audience of radical empiricists developed, who for news and information turned to other radical empiricists: people one could trust to be reporting their own first-hand experiences rather than regurgitating hearsay in pursuit of some unknown agenda bankrolled by faceless figures and forces behind the scenes.

The Whole Earth Catalog, for example, was subtitled “access to tools” — full of stuff that others like oneself had tried and could report on and recommend first-hand as being truthful and/or useful.

So . . . while others may scoff at you, I — as someone whose epistemological habits were formed during the hippie era — do not.

@lotlizard
I have the Trottel Distraction Syndrome. How could I forget.

#3.1.3.1  
It’s personal insult and/or attack.

(Moderator comment)

@UntimelyRippd saying different things in different places was an important part of being a pol in a state like IL that had sizable divisions in the populace on the questions of slavery and equality. Lincoln was first and foremost a politician, not a saint, and he wanted to get elected.

#3.2.2.1
I mean, ultimately, Lincoln had to be opposed to slavery on a fundamental basis, or he wouldn't have been a Republican to begin with. What is difficult is pinning him down on the particulars. Would he have been content, absent the Civil War, only to limit the expansion of slavery into new states and territories? Or would he have devoted himself to a slow, implacable undermining of the institution throughout the slave states (e.g., by finding ways to thwart fugitive slave return)? Did he believe that blacks ought to have full and equal civil rights? In one speech, he indicated that he did. In another, he asserted that in a society of blacks and whites, one would necessarily have to be superior to the other, and he favored the supremacy of the white race. So again, my two points were:
A. As a campaigner, he wasn't all that honest -- he told different crowds (and correspondents, for that matter) what he thought they wanted to hear.
B. As a result of "A", even today we cannot build a complete, in-depth profile of his true thoughts and feelings with respect to race and slavery.

@UntimelyRippd

I thought/imagined. (-:

Intended to extend slavery to the territories, but run on limiting it, would be being a dishonest politician. Tailoring his remarks to each of his 1860 audiences in order to become President so that he could limit slavery? That's being a politician, period, and in the service of a great good to boot. But, thanks to Democrats splitting into two parties and the slave states rebelling, he got to do great things that should never have needed to be done.

#3.2.2.1
I mean, ultimately, Lincoln had to be opposed to slavery on a fundamental basis, or he wouldn't have been a Republican to begin with. What is difficult is pinning him down on the particulars. Would he have been content, absent the Civil War, only to limit the expansion of slavery into new states and territories? Or would he have devoted himself to a slow, implacable undermining of the institution throughout the slave states (e.g., by finding ways to thwart fugitive slave return)? Did he believe that blacks ought to have full and equal civil rights? In one speech, he indicated that he did. In another, he asserted that in a society of blacks and whites, one would necessarily have to be superior to the other, and he favored the supremacy of the white race. So again, my two points were:
A. As a campaigner, he wasn't all that honest -- he told different crowds (and correspondents, for that matter) what he thought they wanted to hear.
B. As a result of "A", even today we cannot build a complete, in-depth profile of his true thoughts and feelings with respect to race and slavery.

@The Voice In the Wilderness
non-leadership. did it help? yes. was there a good reason to not just say, "Hey, it's now okay to be gay in the military?" no. it was pure triangulation: avoid taking a stand. avoid calling to the "angels of our better nature."

blech.

#3.2.2.1
People who say this have no idea at all what military service was for gays before "Don't Ask Don't Tell". It was comparable to "Juden 'Raus!" It was ILLEGAL to be gay and there were organized hunts for gays and officialdom turned a blind eye to attacks on gays. Any complaint and "Oh! You're gay! You have committed a crime and will get a bad paper discharge." Don't ask don't tell ended the official hunts and forbid inquiry into status unless the soldier rubbed their nose in it (the "don't Tell" part. Although not full rights, it was a giant step forward.

@dfarrah

As you probably know, the house was set up to be representative by population. The senate was set up to have 2 senators.

Of course. Everyone knows that. My point was that unicameral vs. bicameral is not the issue when discussing direct democracy vs. representative democracy. In a direct democracy, no houses are necessary. In a representative democracy, you can have an infinite number of houses or only one.

You've never heard the concept of tyranny of the majority?

Yes, of course. Mostly from rightists, though. I've also heard of the tyranny of the minority.

You fault our past,

Actually, that not what I did.

bringing up the usual slavery issue.

The "usual slavery issue?" That seems unduly dismissive. In any event, I referenced the colonies whose economies involved slaves, not out of the blue, but because they were directly relevant to the reason the Framers gave sparsely-populated states undue power.

Do you forget that it was our system that finally gave full rights to blacks, that the US finally passed laws against various isms? Do you forget that it was our system that gave women the right to vote? Do you forget that our system allowed for the passage of laws to protect various classes of people? Do you realize that most of these changes came without ruinous violence (compared to the rest of the world), and most of the time, issues get talked about and resolved via elections? You lose, you live with the consequences until you win.

Frankly, I can do without the constant violent changes in governments and constant warring among peoples. Do you wish to be like the Tutsis and Hutu? Or the Serbs and Bosnia? What about the Sunnis and Shiites?

And, in your estimation, these things happened because a minority of people was allowed a veto over the majority of people Because states, lines on a map, were given power over people? If so, I strongly disagree. If anything, allowing minority rule delayed many positive changes. If that is not the reason you're bringing up these historical events, I am not understanding why you are bringing them up. And, btw, many nations effect change without either violence or giving undue power to lines on a map.

There is a reason that the US does not have similar murderous uprisings between whatever groupings of people that might exist. It is because our political system flexes and it is designed to flex.

I think you are vastly oversimplifying the reasons for uprisings, which are often against murderous, tyrannical regimes. Second, again, it's not allowing the minority to override the majority that makes our system either fair or flexible.

People are unhappy with the electoral college. Good luck trying to pass a constitutional amendment that does away with it. Good luck trying to pass any constitutional amendment. However, my prior post said nothing about abolishing it. I simply cited it as one example of states--political units, lines on a map--getting to override the will of a majority of human Americans.

#4.2.2.1 As you probably know, the house was set up to be representative by population. The senate was set up to have 2 senators.

You've never heard the concept of tyranny of the majority?

You fault our past, bringing up the usual slavery issue. Do you forget that it was our system that finally gave full rights to blacks, that the US finally passed laws against various isms? Do you forget that it was our system that gave women the right to vote? Do you forget that our system allowed for the passage of laws to protect various classes of people? Do you realize that most of these changes came without ruinous violence (compared to the rest of the world), and most of the time, issues get talked about and resolved via elections? You lose, you live with the consequences until you win.

Frankly, I can do without the constant violent changes in governments and constant warring among peoples. Do you wish to be like the Tutsis and Hutu? Or the Serbs and Bosnia? What about the Sunnis and Shiites?

There is a reason that the US does not have similar murderous uprisings between whatever groupings of people that might exist. It is because our political system flexes and it is designed to flex.

Currently, I have no doubt that a huge group of democrats would imprison people based on speech, wearing a MAGA hat, religion, and baseless evidence-free accusations if they had the power to do so, or that they would try to overthrow elected officials on a whim. Our current system has held, for now, against these types of actions.

People are unhappy with the electoral college. Good luck trying to pass a constitutional amendment that does away with it; certainly the smaller and mid-size states would never pass such an amendment, and there are probably blue states that wouldn't like the idea of being run by California and New York.