President Camacho wrote:A world without borders shouldn't be ascribed to 'millennials' in my opinion.

Ha ha, I did not mean millennials in the sense of people born after 1980, but millennials in the traditional sense of those who dream of the thousand years of peace described in the Bible.

Millennialism in religion is the idea that the second coming of Jesus Christ will bring a paradigm shift to a world of peace and love. Anabaptists, Mennonites and also a range of conservative fundamentalists are millennial, although most millennial thinking is of the kooky rapture variety.

I like millennial thinking, but from a scientific pov of asking how human society can evolve to escape collapse.

It is ironic that those who came of age at the millennium are called millennial, since the old Christian 7000 year theory of time assumed that Jesus would come back to institute the thousand years of peace, ruling with the rod of iron and chaining Satan in the pit of fire, from 2000 to 3000 AD.

The idea of Jesus ruling the world would involve abolition of nation states and national borders in some views, at least those which don’t assume doomsday is about the end of the laws of physics.

With 40% of Americans believing young earth creationism which evolved together with the 7000 year theory of time, there is a very big hold that millennial thinking has in the American psyche and politics. Old fashioned millennial fundamentalists tend to be last trumpeters.

President Camacho wrote:Stability is good... depends on who you are and what your situation is.

My personal view about the value of stability arose from watching the collapse of communism in the Warsaw Pact, alongside the retention of formal communism in China. Russia is a mess compared to China, and a big part of that is the chaos unleashed by Gorby in 1989.

This political decision by Deng to make stability the highest value is in my opinion the one key factor that delivered the millennium development goal of halving absolute poverty in the world. The policy of kill one and make a million tremble is harsh but effective, when the emperor has clear vision.

If China had been riven by political conflict and instability, it would not now be challenging the USA for world hegemony. I put stability up there with evidence and logic as the highest moral value.

Lan, this is all opinion in my opinion. ( I cant work the quote) . Humans are small minded and power hungry. What could possibly unite the U.S., Isis, neo-Nazis, China, Russia, conservatives, North Korea, environmentalists, Libertarians, drug cartels, and socialists? Other than Jesus' genocidal return, the only thing that might focus humanity on a common goal would be a full scale alien invasion and occupation as in science fiction movies.

Tulip,

Interesting as always. My apologies for not being better versed in the history of religion. I see that as a benefit - just as a man is molded by life experiences as Clausewitz suggested in his treatise on war, I feel investing my time learning it would harm me. Excluding it from my past studies always brings a smile to my face.

I like to think of stability as earth in relation to a garden. Too much for too long can create problems but it IS generally a truly good thing and quite necessary for growth.

Lawrence, see above for how to use the quote tags. (Ignore the initial "code:") That produces what follows.

LanDroid wrote:Humans are small minded and power hungry. What could possibly unite the U.S., Isis, neo-Nazis, China, Russia, conservatives, North Korea, environmentalists, Libertarians, drug cartels, and socialists? Other than Jesus' genocidal return, the only thing that might focus humanity on a common goal would be a full scale alien invasion and occupation as in science fiction movies.

Well yes those are opinions, but they're based on mountains of facts. Look to the world's dictators to illustrate how power hungry humans are. They kill, imprison, and corrupt large numbers of the populations they rule in order to remain in power. Look to the world's democracies for how small minded humans are. Republicans had 4 to 8 years to come up with a coherent strategy for the 2016 election. Instead they field 16 candidates with fractured policies and nominate an ass clown. Or take the European Union, an example of nations working together to improve the situation, but too much power in the central authority may be starting to break down that cooperation, inspiring nations to leave.

In your unsupported opinion, 9 billion humans working together have unlimited potential. Where is the evidence for such widespread cooperation in the last 5000 years? Even in America you claim "There are many, many people who are prepared, willing and able to make an armed insurrection against the current government." Obviously you have conflicted opinions about the human potential to cooperate. Other than the global conflagrations I mentioned, I can't imagine anything that would unite all humanity towards a common goal. What "facts" support your opinion that humanity will construct a global peace?

In support of Mr. Tulip's statements about the millennial nature of human progress, perhaps one small step humanity should work on is agreeing to not see the enemy as Evil. I doubt even that is possible, but it might increase the long term potential for greater cooperation.

LanDroid wrote:how to use the quote tags

Go to the post you want to quote.

Click on the box at the top right of the post that says Quote.

Delete any text you don't want to quote.

Add your comment.

I then click on Control C A to copy the post in case it fails, and in a longer post I prepare it in word, since there is no undo function typing a post directly.

Then click review. Edit any mistakes. Then post. Then edit again and fix any mistakes.

My dear BookTalk friends,
I believe I have come to the end of any contribution I could make to this thread. I want to finish with what I learned this morning. I watched the History channel and the topic was our Revolution 1776-1779? General Washington had to deal with the adversaries of: General Green, General Arnold, an untrained militia, a "government" that would not or could not provide military support of food, clothing, materials and money, and who bickered about his ability to lead the Continental Army, and an enemy who was composed of men who were trained and experienced in warfare, and generals who had the full support of their government.
I believe I am not equipped in spirit, motivation, or character to make the sacrifices General Washington and the many others of the Continental Congress made and, offered to make with their personal dedication to the cause they believed in.

But what I learned with penetrating retention is: If we believe a goal is worth pursuing, our methods of achieving it just, our reasoning sound in our opinion, we can only persevere in our cause and trust that if there is a power of the universe, it is leading and guiding our effort to accomplish it to achieve the end it has for humanity.

Happy 4th of July, LAWRENCE

LanDroid wrote:This information from fivethirtyeight.com (poll analysis experts) MIGHT calm some folks down. Or not.
Donald Trump Has A 20 Percent Chance Of Becoming President. However, this Doesn’t Mean Clinton Is A Sure Thing.

From June 30 (above) to today, 538.com has Trump's chances of winning increasing from 20% to 34%.

What Cost Honor?

Phillip Jennings is an investment banker and entrepreneur, former Marine Corps Captain who flew missions� in Vietnam and, after leaving the Marine Corps, flew for Air America in Laos. He won the Pirate’s Alley Faulkner Society short fiction award in 1998. He has a degree in business administration and is the CEO of Mayfair Capital Partners. He is the author of two novels and one non-fiction book.

He authored the following article which appeared in the May 26, 2016 edition of USA Today. It is short and contributes to the discussion in this thread.

Secretary without honor

When I hear people say Clinton emails don't matter, I remember a young Marine captain who owned up to his career-ruining mistake.

Apologists for Hillary Clinton’s alleged criminal mishandling of classified documents say that it doesn’t matter, that she really did nothing wrong, or nothing significant. But the real question is not so much what she did as how she has responded to being found out.

Once during the mid-1960s when I was on active duty in the Marine Corps, I was the air liaison officer for a battalion of Marines aboard 11 ships in the Mediterranean. As the air officer and a senior captain, I had a rotating responsibility for the nuclear code book, kept in the safe in the operations room of the lead amphibious squadron command ship. I shared that duty with another captain, a squared away young man, liked by all he commanded and the son of a very high-ranking Marine.

On the day our ships were leaving the Mediterranean, we met the new amphibious squadron near Gibraltar and made preparations to transfer security codes and other sensitive material to the incoming Marine battalion. The young captain was on duty and went to the operations office to pick up the code book. He was alone in the office. He removed the code book and placed it on the desk while closing the safe. In a rushed moment, he stepped across the passageway to retrieve something he needed from his quarters. Seconds later, he stepped back into the operations office and found the operations sergeant having just entered, looking down at the code book.

Against all regulations, the code book had been out of the safe and unattended. It mattered not that it was unattended for only seconds, that the ship was 5 miles at sea, or that it was certain no one unauthorized had seen the code. The captain could have explained this to the operations sergeant. He could have told the sergeant that he “would take care of it.” He could have hinted that his high-ranking dad could smooth it over.

But the Marine Corps’ values are honor, courage and commitment. Honor is the bedrock of our character. The young captain could not ask the sergeant to betray his duty to report the infraction, no matter how small. Instead, the captain simply said, “Let’s go see the colonel.”

That captain had wanted to be a Marine officer all of his life. It was the only career he ever wanted. When he reported the incident to the colonel, he knew he was jeopardizing his life’s dream. But he did it.

The results went by the book. The amphibious squadron stood down. Military couriers flew in from NATO. The codes were changed all over Europe. The battalion was a day late in leaving the Mediterranean. The captain, Leonard F. Chapman III, received a letter of reprimand, damaging his career. He stayed in the corps and died in a tragic accident aboard another ship.

I saw some heroic acts in combat in Vietnam, things that made me proud to be an American and a Marine. But that young captain stood for what makes our corps and our country great.

Clinton is the antithesis of that young captain, someone with no honor, little courage and commitment only to her endless ambition. This has nothing to do with gender, party affiliation, ideology or policy. It is a question of character — not just hers, but ours. Electing Clinton would mean abandoning holding people accountable for grievous errors of integrity and responsibility. What we already know about her security infractions should disqualify her for any government position that deals in information critical to mission success, domestic or foreign. But beyond that, her responses to being found out — dismissing its importance, claiming ignorance, blaming others — indict her beyond anything the investigation can reveal. Those elements reveal her character. And the saddest thing is that so many in America seem not to care.
(or know what the problem is. This article is not about Mrs. Clinton, it is about the character of the American People. L)

Lawrence wrote:What Cost Honor?
Apologists for Hillary Clinton’s alleged criminal mishandling of classified documents say that it doesn’t matter, that she really did nothing wrong, or nothing significant. But the real question is not so much what she did as how she has responded to being found out.

I applaud the commitment to honor in the story related here, and agree it is fundamental to our system. I deplore the short-cut mentality shown by Clinton's use of a private email server, (while noting that no one has investigated Rice or Powell for similar use) and the lack of honor shown by her responses to questions about it.

However, I would support her even if her opponent was an honorable person like John Kasich, rather than the antithesis of honor that is Donald Trump. This is partly political, but it is also a certain familiarity with the hall of mirrors that is American power politics, familiar both from years of following the news and from a fairly brief employment within the government.

In the environment created by insider politics, K Street lobbying, Faux News, talk radio, and all the rest, perceptions matter far more than the actual facts. And I think Hillary, and even Bill, have negotiated that environment with an actual commitment to good government even though they have compromised principle right and left.

A simple example of what I am talking about is shown by the contrast between the "Willie Horton" episode and the "Sister Souljah" episode. The first was a cynical move in complete disregard for perspective, spotlighting a more-or-less random outcome of a common practice and presenting it as an illustration of "liberal" views and their supposed disregard for the true nature of criminals, not to mention exploiting racism. The second was a truthful dissent from a view on the fringe of race relations, calculating in its awareness that this would position Bill C. in the center as well as appealing to more subtle racists, but not cynical in taking a fundamentally dishonest position to do so.

The difference between calculating and cynical may not seem important to you, but to me it is the difference between competent response to a complex environment replete with choices between two evils, and betrayal of the fragile social structures which enable us to govern ourselves in such an environment.

The best, in other words, is often the enemy of the good. Feel free to deplore the myriad ways Washington compromises honor, but if you cannot distinguish between Hillary's fudging and Donald's complete rejection of accountability for truth, I am more worried about you than I am about the status of honor in American society.

The best, in other words, is often the enemy of the good. Feel free to deplore the myriad ways Washington compromises honor, but if you cannot distinguish between Hillary's fudging and Donald's complete rejection of accountability for truth, I am more worried about you than I am about the status of honor in American society.

Your disrespect of my ability to discern the moral morass of our two presidential candidates has eaten on my ego. This thread is about the question, " is anyone else torn about who they want to be the next US pres. I thought my article on morality as it applied to Clinton explained why the email server was a moral issue. I did, and do not, believe, I am responsible for exploring both candidates on each and every failure on their part to define a moral principle that I believe they are obligated to honor. Your statement that "Donald's complete rejection of accountability for truth," is your opinion, which might be accurate but is little more than the railing blabber of his supporters."

So there too.