Is there a schism forming among Americans?

[clairobscur]

@Starving Artist

I wonder what the “opium warlords” think of that? “Opium warlords” are outlaws. Countries have always had outlaws. .

Except that they aren’t outlaws, expect maybe in some official speeches. They’re are pretty much part of the political process in Afghanistan and hold considerable power and influence.

[RedFury]

@Starving Artist

But to get back to your question, I think if you brought the average housewife or business man from the fifties or early sixties into this day and age they would be absolutely horrified at what day-to-day life in this country has become. Back then women wore dresses (and sometimes even hats) when out in public, and most men wore suits or slacks and a jacket when out in public. Television was clean and wholesome, at least compared with today, and I can remember a time when if you said something like the word “fuck” in front of a girl, you were thought of as a low-life scuzzbug and she wouldn’t have anything to do with you from that point on. Criminals rarely had a record of twenty five arrests in ten years but were still allowed out on the streets. Parents had a great deal of input (if they chose to) into what their children were taught at school. People were much more mannerly and civilized in their day-to-day comings and goings, and the possiblity of being a victim of crime was very much less on people’s minds.

<snip>

As for me, I’m conflicted. (But then I’m a Libra, so I’m supposed to be.) I see a lot of good (and a lot less boredom) coming from liberalism, but I also see a lot of bad which has come about because of it, as well. By the same token, there were certain things that were bad in the old days (racism, bigotry, chauvinism, sexual repression and general uptightedness :p) that are much better now…but much that was good about the old days got thrown out in the process.

Ah, the everpresent old canard, “the gold old days”…that never were.

Take a look and see for yourself. Revisionist history might make you feel good, but it won’t change what actually happened.

**Here’s a little dose of reality for you**.

**This column is devoted to countering assertions made by the Religious Right. As with all articles in this newsletter, response is welcome. We will begin by examining what is perhaps the central assertion of all conservative religious/political movements.

Assertion of the Religious Right: Society today is worse off than it used to be. Things were better in the “good old days.”

Counter: Exactly when were the “good old days?” In one episode of the TV series, Dave, his wife tells him, “I just want our kids to grow up in the same world we did.” To which Dave replies, “You want our kids to grow up in a world with bomb shelters, polio, and separate drinking fountains?”

There may have been prayer in school back then, but there were also lynch mobs, communist “witch hunts,” segregation, open anti-semitism and Catholic-bashing. There was child abuse and spousal abuse, but it went mostly unreported, unnoticed, unpunished. And it was OK then to bar women and people of color from various professions and to pay them far less than their due in any work situation. Were those the “good old days?”

Maybe the “good old days” existed at some unspecified time PRIOR TO THE FIRST TWO WORLD WARS, when…genocide was practiced on Indian tribes, Blacks were enslaved, the Civil War set “brother against brother,” and the Wild West flaunted its lack of law and order.

Even up to the turn of the century New York and other big cities had annual increases in crime that exceeded today’s, poor families could not afford an education for their children, children labored in factories, mines, and fields, the child mortality rate was exceedingly high, wife-beating was a commonly accepted practice, the average lifespan was between thirty to forty years shorter than today, heroin was sold over the counter as a sedative for coughs, and cocaine was sold as a toothache remedy for children.

“Women and children worked in sweatshops and mills 12 hours and more a day [with only one day off per week] for nickels and dimes, without health insurance, unemployment compensation, safety in the workplace, and with a status a notch above slavery. It happened in this century. The Hard Right fought tooth and nail and wallet against child-labor laws, safety in the workplace and minimum wage and hour laws. They lost. Not until the 1950s and a bitter battle in the state legislature did North Carolina manage to enact a 75-cent- an-hour minimum wage law.” – Gary Kays, “Rush Limbaugh and the Dole,” Flush Rush Quarterly, Vol. 2, no. 2 (Summer 1994)

Meanwhile, in the northeast, the late Cardinal O’Connell of Boston bitterly opposed the abolition of child labor in factories. (much more at source, including extensive reading list)

**
So much for the good old days. Sorry to burst your bubble, pal. Actually, scratch that. I’m not. Simply fighting ignorance and, in the process, hopefully helping you out of your “conflicted” state.

You’re welcomed.

[clairobscur]

@Starving Artist

There will never be a war everybody approves of, and as long as there are elements within a country fighting to hamper its war effort, they only lend greater hope and determination to their country’s enemies and the result is the liklihood of a more protracted war with even greater casualties both among its own forces and the civilian populace of the country where the war is taking place.

Alternately, these elements fighting to hamper the war effort could result in the war coming to an end sooner, with lesser casualties both amongst its own forces and the civilian populace of the country where the war is taking place.
Which would a better prospect if the war is unjustified. You can’t just remove from the equation the “is the war justified?” question.

Since I don’t care about the Godwin’s law, if tomorrow a neo-nazi is elected, should you support his war for global domination, on the basis that despite the war’s goals being repugnant, the more support you’ll give, the shorter the war, hence the less people will be killed, while ignoring that without support, there would be no war at all, no people killed and the repugnant goals wouldn’t be achieved?

Another case : the war is just but unwinable. Which a number of people would say is the case in Irak. Supporting the war in this caseprecisely result in a the protracted war, with more deaths on both sides, and with no perspective of any good outcome.

So, you can’t remove from the equation the “can the goals of the war be achieved?”, either.
Stating that one must support a war regardless of whether it is justified or not and whether it can be successful or not is plainly idiotic.