- ...“the Millennial generation [is] less likely to recommend progressive taxation than” older generations.
One can't help but wonder if this is due to the terrible brand of brainwashing that now masquerades as education.
A way to be Left and still enjoy the benefits of exploitation. Shopping at Hole Foods and having gay friends as an ablution It works and is entirely more pleasant you don't have to hang with poor people and union folks.
It's funny, because everyone looks at social problems and economic problems as separate. Really, what isn't an economic problem? Social justice follows economic justice. That's why the 14th Amendment failed miserably. They tried to right a wrong by imparting social justice while still denying economic opportunity to blacks. The women's rights movement didn't take hold until women started working regularly. Gay people are affluent and many are white; that can explain why gayness has quickly become normative for all but ardent religious fanatics and old school latent homosexuals (e.g. Larry Craig types). All anyone wants is a chance to feed their families. The fact that young, white "liberals" see a separation of economic and social justice further speaks to how poorly they are educated about how the world works.
Two incomes at male wages no kids is a thing but a lot of gay households look nothing like that. The Lady-gays for instance.
There's actually an interesting bit of research going into the difference in acceptance with male gay-ness and female gay-ness (or lesbianism) and how being male and having a greater disposable income may have helped play into greater public male gay predominance and/or 'acceptance' (through the success of businesses like male gay bars vs. female gay/lesbian bars, for instance). Unfortunately I can't speak much more to this, heard about it through some friends of mine, but it's an interesting thing to think about - how the historic higher male salary, and thus disposable income, multiplied by 2 in a couple, may have encouraged businesses (and other structures) to cater to gay males, but not gay/lesbian females. However, like, it's all research and I know nothing conclusive, I just find it an interesting topic to consider. I do wonder how the rates of aggression/homophobia/attacks compare across genders as I wonder if greater public presence via gay males may have taken its toll elsewhere.
My folk theory is that gay men take the brunt of the violence/homophobia but no stats in front of me [if only I could figure out google] . I had a student once a young woman in an all-female sexual relationship she said "Two dudes is an abomination before God. Two chicks is sexy". In the Courts and Market I think gay men are more likely to have the cheddar to get the cheddar than Gay women or women in general.
You should have said that two chicks is an abomination before God, just like two men are. That would have thrown her the biggest right hook ever, I think. Of course I have to clarify (or feel that I do) that I'm totally fine with everybody marrying anybody that they want. Within reason of course (nothing like this old men and young boys organization, that shit is sick). I had a student once a young woman in an all-female sexual relationship she said "Two dudes is an abomination before God. Two chicks is sexy".
If you have an hour to spare, here is a video about how to type into a textbox. http://www.google.com/insidesearch/searcheducation/training.html
I am going tear shit up with my new Google skills
Exactly If everyone had the funds to get a fair shake in court and a voice in the political process social issues would be addressed. It is all about the benjamins. in america you pay to play.
This is the only thing that surprised me in this article. I guess we're truly looking at the century of libertarianism.A 56 percent majority of the younger group of Democrats believes that “Wall Street helps the American economy more than it hurts,” with just 36 percent believing that Wall Street hurts the economy. Older Democrats have almost exactly the opposite view. 56 percent believe that Wall Street hurts the economy; 36 percent believe it helps.
...are these people seriously even democrats?In contrast, only 19 percent of the younger group of Democrats blamed discrimination, with 68 percent saying that blacks “are mostly responsible for their own condition.”
I've actually run into a lot of people who think this. Whenever you talk about continuing discrimination in the US, they tell you to stop playing the race card or "whining." My impression is that white people think that racism is Bull Connor with the firehoses out and burning crosses, and they are threatened by the idea that things that still happen like the disproportionate incarceration of blacks could represent a continuing racially based injustice. They mostly want to ignore and forget about the problem, to the extent that they think it's a problem at all. But I honestly think that racial discrimination, voter discrimination, and segregation are making a comeback, and nobody is talking about it as much as it deserves. The lack of bipartisan outrage over things like the impediments to voting in the South (e.g. voter ID laws, moving of poll places to hard to access locations, etc.) is stunning to me, because we just went through dismantling things like that only a half century ago. I think America is going to sleep walk itself into more and more racial tension if things keep going the way they are.
But what will we have to endure in the meantime?
If you think any potential choices for presidency aren't going to give Wall Street the gud ol' reach-around, you're going to be sorely disappointed. Big Money/greed is driving this country straight into the ground. I'm completely apolitical, I just think this is a stupidly obvious observation.
I want us to have more parties. I also want us to champion a different voting count method. However, unfortunately, a Democratic party schism would threaten the strength of Democrats, what they perceive to stand for, and those values as a whole, as a result potentially leaving a rift or valley into which a united Republican party could storm and overcome in elections. We are damned if we do and damned if we do not due to the entrenched nature of our party system in my opinion.“You may have issue differences within the Democratic Party, but they become irrelevant when confronted by a Republican Party determined to turn elections into cultural conflicts,”
Allow me to translate: "Issues within a party become irrelevant when confronted by a (perceived) opposing party." Also known as why a two-party system becomes a problem. Also known as why the Left and Right are polarized. Basically, even though the Democratic party isn't meeting the needs of some of its members (which should encourage schism), because of the presence of a polarizing force, aka an opposite, an enemy, or nemesis, they group together. -Stanley Greenberg
To be fair, I'm not so sure this wouldn't happen with a >2 party system, either. Factions would still have to group together into a coalitional government if they wanted to get anything done. And then there's still no guarantee that anything would get done. Sometimes the presence of an extra label in and of itself suppresses cooperation as it reinforces ideological differences. e.g. the already present schism w/in Republican circles between moderate ("moderate") Republicans and Tea Party conservatives. If you think the Republican party is any more ideologically monolithic than the Democratic party (or even AS ideologically monolithic), you nuts, _refugee_. Come to think of it, I bet you could make a strong case that we already have a >2 party system. Tea Party & traditional Republicans is more an arranged marriage than a romantic marriage. And there are increasing striae w/in the Tea Party contingent as well, between social conservatives and more traditional right-leaning libertarian types and just flat out crazy people (used to work with a lady that believed she could talk to her cats- she was a proud part of the original Tea Party demonstrations). (That was a low blow but it felt good.) So maybe we're just seeing concurrent greater divisions inside the left as well- everybody's pulling apart. More and more parties attempting coalition under increasingly superficial umbrella labels. Personally, I think it's not so great. In the late nineties, some scholars argued we didn't even have a 2 party system, but rather a 1.5 party system, wherein the differences between the American left and right were less pronounced than elsewhere, and the American public tended to stray towards the center, where the divisions were even fuzzier. Each side talked a lot of game, but both made ideological concessions behind closed doors for the sake of their constituencies and ultimately things trended towards the center. Now what, earmarks have become a dirty word (or are they technically illegal now?) providing disincentive to compromise, legislative fights have become so public and pronounced that nobody can grant any concession for fear of looking like an ideological traitor, huge moneyed interests have put their resources behind the principle of shrinking gov't small enough to "drown in a bathtub," etc. More parties now, less getting done. Forgive the poor writing, I'm tired and no coffee and bluuuuurgh
But, but, but things get done in gov'ts with >2 party systems! ;) Oh, it was funny. I think that we need to be able to compromise, for sure. I think parties provide people with labels that they feel comfortable operating under and thus they feel comfortable expressing certain opinions, and I do think with a 1.5 party or a "blurred party line towards the center" we would see, perhaps, a great deal of "I'm going to just strike for the center" without necessarily encouraging difference or, yes, eventually difference does lead to radicalism, and radicalism is part of the problem here. I don't think we have a >2 party system because I feel like when the rain comes out everyone goes running back for their chosen label. Like, when the fight's fightin', Tea Partiers and old-school Republicans run to their side and stick to it; same with Democrats and new Democrats. I would like to see >2 parties because I would like to feel like I have more of a choice in what I am voting for. However in that case I'd also prefer we vote for people along issues, i.e., "I stand by Elizabeth Warren on women's rights issues," than blanket "You can have this job for 4 years and I just hope/believe that I will agree with you on most of the issues that you encounter in those two/four/six years which by the way could be literally anything." (That was a low blow but it felt good.)
This is why local gov't is your best friend. City/county council positions, mayoral elections, state legislature, every stupid ballot initiative for every boring thing- that's where the hyper-specialized interests find their home. Which is why the freshman member on my city council is a self-proclaimed socialist (whether or not she actually is is another issue). It's also way easier to see the effects of your ideologies play out on a local level. Which can be A) very affirming or at least B) a useful way to test and then revise your ideologies. And with enough local sea change, movements will ripple outward. This, incidentally, is also why conservatives have been pouring so much money into local elections. It's also why it's not just convenient, but especially important to be active locally.
I find that interesting, considering the origins of the Soviet Union. Even the word "soviet" means "local council."This is why local gov't is your best friend.
conservatives have been pouring so much money into local elections