We felt that we have done all the necessary preliminary work prior to coming to Kickstarter. Many alternative and decentralized institutions have disappeared in that process and I agree that it would take time to rebuild and re-organize them. Wirelessly charge your iPhone flat or while standing up, in landscape or portrait mode with a convertible iPhone stand that does not interfere with your swipe gestures. When we wanted to add a convertible phone stand tray to our rounded square prototype, we realized that tray was too short to stably support a phone in portrait position. And since again we have a massive overabundance of food in America, I think people would donate enough to meet the demand.
It means England have won their opening two group-stage games at a World Cup for only the third time, also doing so in and I know how many people were watching at home on a Sunday afternoon and it's great to give them something to cheer about.
England play Belgium on Thursday to determine who will finish top of the standings and, despite not being pleased with some aspects of his side's play against Panama, Southgate is happy his team appear to be growing into the tournament.
It's a nice decision to make. Captain Kane, 24, became only the third England player to score three or more goals in a World Cup group stage, after Roger Hunt in and Gary Lineker in The Tottenham striker is also the leading goalscorer in Russia with five goals - one more than Portugal's Cristiano Ronaldo - and says England fans can be justified in believing they can land their first World Cup triumph since If you want to achieve anything in life you have to believe.
Hillary and Trump and Tea Party vs. The parties are such Far Groups to each other that the 2 populist groups that are from different parties have not been able to unite to pursue common goals— yet. But if so, there would have to be some way for people to cross the Great Divide and cooperate with people whom they formerly considered to be outright evil.
There has been plenty of populist rhetoric in the GOP, but it turned out to be lies always so far, as there has been no populist action at all in recent times. Winning elections is one thing— keeping promises quite another. There has been neither populist rhetoric nor populist economic action in the Democratic party in recent times, until Bernie. I think youre slicing the tribes too thinly by granting the existence of two populist tribes and two establishment tribes. My take is we have a Red and Blue tribe with internal divisions which are better understood through lens other than tribe, like age, caste, class.
There is also a Black tribe, but it is in general allied with the Blues politically. Hillary voters and Bernie voters are from the same Blue tribe. What distinguishes them is the former are older, the latter younger. When Hillary voters were younger they were likely part of the progressive left. Sanders and other older progressives are true believers, who never compromised with reality as they grew older, and for that reason they strike younger Blues as inspirational.
The Wall is a great selling point. Trump has said that whenever people start to look bored at his rallies, he brings up the wall and it perks them right up. One thing that Trump has clearly demonstrated is that policies are for suckers— at least in the case of the GOP. I thought it was interesting that he actually had a workable proposal to extort wall-money from the Mexican government:. The Mexicans will have no trouble setting up a Hawala network, with the full support of the Mexican government and many well-established criminal networks already operating in the US, and with the US Constitution Art I sect 9.
It seems much easier to simply tax remittances. No one already paying tens of dollars in fees to send money, is going to smuggle cash back across the border risking confiscation of the entire lot as drug money to save a few dollars in taxes.
Are you overlooking the bit about banning Muslims? Does Red Tribe have exoticized fargroups, or is it solely a Blue phenomenon? I feel like everyone exoticizes poor Africans.
Or exoticizes Africans by forgetting there are non-poor Africans. Everyone does exoticize poor Africans. Members of both parties will contribute to charity to help poor Africans. Even Right Wingers think that poor Africans are the deserving poor, as opposed to the poor in the U. Both sides even have the voluntourism tendencies I was thinking of, though voluntourism is typically the disparaging Grey name for the Blue variant.
Singapore is definitely exoticized by fervent capitalists and libertarians, all of whom usually lean Right. Another booster I think is Paul Romer, who strikes me as pretty middle of the road i. BTW if you ever get a chance to go to Singapore I highly recommend it. I was only there for a couple days, but it does seem like a very high-functioning society. A Singaporean policy I observed to this combat this problem is to enforce strict rules forbidding standing water, for example at construction sites.
Despite being stridently capitalist, this is not a society that fears to use top-down mechanisms to combat economic externalities.
Singapore has got something for everyone though. When your population quality is really high, the usage rate for social services regardless of quality is really low and thus the required tax rate is really low. It may not even be sustainable because modern society is dysgenic c. NPI cohort trends, conscientiousness-fertility trends etc. Tolkien had a fetish for Falangist Spain: You know, it occurs to me that in actual traditional societies, there were two kinds of romanticized fargroups: The Iliad has great examples of both: Somehow conservatives lost the spatial fargroups to progressives while being the only moderns to retain a romantic view of the ancestors.
Which english catholic writer Edit: Yet if a Lutheran is put in jail he is up in arms; but if Catholic priests are slaughtered—he disbelieves it and I daresay really thinks they asked for it. Israelis, Rhodesians, the Swiss, Bear-riding-Shirtless-Putin , anyone currently fighting filthy communists.
What about right-wing dictators during the height of the Cold War? I am not making any judgments about who was more justified in their view. Jews in the United States, from the Red Tribe perspective, are either solid members of the Democratic Outgroup or are local proxies for Israel. I think it has to be more complicated than that, given the relatively positive attitude Evangelicals evince towards Jews. But if that were the primary reason, one would expect philosemitism to be more common than antisemitism in Christian history, or at least among millenarian movements.
Obviously there remains an undercurrent of antisemitism out there as well which social media have made less isolated. But outside that, outgrouping of Jewish urban liberals seems to really be about the urban liberalism more than the Judaism to a historically unusual extent. Jews are not members of the outgroup for Reds in the US. Indeed, most religious groups other than Islam and Wicca because they think they worship Satan and call themselves witches mostly get ignored by the religious right.
Conservatives are much fonder of concentric loyalty, Liberals much fonder of Jellyby-ism. I think the Founders, the Greatest Generation, and even the medievals are really exoticized, even though the average conservative would enjoy living among them about as much as the average liberal would enjoy living in Tibet.
Raises the question, if the past is the fargroup to conservatives, is it part of the outgroup to liberals? The place from which all the evils of the present outgroup sprang, all the slavery and patriarchy and so forth, with the present outgroup scarcely any different from their troglodytic ancestors?
Albeit both terms as used in the US are rather a mystery to me. Could you clarify what makes you say that? Sorry if this is a tangent from your main point in this post, but I noticed that you regularly make such off-the-cuff remarks that seem taken for granted.
Then some evidence comes to mind for someone who cares about the poor and that make your statement at least questionable: To illustrate my question with an analogy: Even if we assume all of that is true I find it doubtful the individual who is dependent on food stamps still faces the risk of starvation if they get taken away.
Can things be done to fix it? At risk of starvation? Can something be done to fix it? Does that really tell us anything about what would happen if they were stopped?
Also, even if we assume all the people currently receiving food could manage without them, do they know that? We have tons of it, and there are a plethora of ways that it gets out to people. They may not always have the best quality food, but even among populations where people are homeless, mentally disabled, and not on food stamps, it really seems like some sort of sustenance can be readily acquired. Lack of knowledge is a huge problem.
There is a group of people who are homeless, jobless, and truly destitute. The worst case which is really bad is dumpster diving. However, since we have such an abundance of food in general, there is a lot of food that is available through dumpster diving. A second group is people who have a home and a place to prepare food.
They might have a job perhaps just part-time , but just not enough money to pay the rent and also buy sufficient food. These people are far more likely to receive food stamps. However, much of the infrastructure is actually there.
I just did a search for a network in my state. Their results gave seven such pantries within 10 miles. The second category would be more impacted. Lack of knowledge of alternative resources would probably lead to days without meals for a lot of people, after which they get sick of it, figure out where these food banks are, and start acquiring food there.
And since again we have a massive overabundance of food in America, I think people would donate enough to meet the demand. I find it exceeding unlikely that anyone will literally starve.
Or maybe not, but either way, it still sounds to me like something to fear, no matter what the final outcome might be. Like Scott, you seem to be making an assumption about the alternative. Namely they are people in need are left to die, with no assistance from various communities. Underlying this assumption is the notion that the only form of community and society is government. In reality, we know that there are and were many voluntary associations, such as NGOs, families, mutual aid societies and other institutions like churches, and many corresponding ways to raise funds for a cause.
Human interactions compose a complex network with many clubs and clusters, not a hub-and-spoke network with government at its center.
This is an order of magnitude in the opposite direction than you claimed, so I am quite surprised. Also, your line of reasoning makes two questionable assumptions: I wonder how much of that charitable giving number describes chuchgoers giving to their own churches, though.
Private charity has historically suffered from a miniature version of the problem… donors pick and choose who they donate to. Look, they feed you in jail. The odds may even be in their favour. If private charities were so well funded and working so well, there would never have been any need to start the government anti-poverty programs we have. If a private charity today goes looking for ways that it can help poor people, it will immediately determine that acquiring food is the easiest task they have, so they focus their resources on various other tasks.
If word came down that food stamps were ending soon, there would be concerted efforts to provide food resources privately before it occurred. Whether or not they would fill the whole gap in time or whether there would be a transitional hiccup is undetermined. Jill, Your question is natural why did government programs get started in the first place? How do you know that it works better than the alternative?
Both of their creations seems to correlate with either zero or even a negative change in the relevant trends poverty rate, workplace injuries and fatalities. Yes, poverty was a real problem, as were workplace injuries. Politicians and government bureaucrats are not known for being held tightly accountable, their horizons are short see the public-choice theory branch of economics , and their audience is mostly captive see monopoly theory in economics.
It is also hard for most people to spend the time and reason about counter-factuals. This assumption is what my initial question on the thread was basically trying to probe. Ever been unemployed and disabled? Ever been all of the above and needed something training, disability-related equipment, etc which costs considerably more than the resource limit on SSI? Or sleep at a busy intersection.
I have to be terrible at that , too? Did I claim that poverty was fun or desirable in any sense? Look at my question for Scott. Specifically it is a question about why he assumes the alternative to a government welfare is no security net at all and worse-off poors. Your reply is that poverty is terrible without a security net and the poor would be worse off, which begs the same question.
As a side question and borrowing from Milton Friedman , would you require your oncologist to have been a cancer survivor, for his analysis to be relevant? In other words, your first sentence is simply ad-hominem. Opposition to government charity is tantamount to opposition to all charity.
Government is the only entity engaged in this work on the necessary scale in the United States today. John Schilling, you make an interesting argument about the side-effects of transitioning back to a private social net.
The current government welfare system has snowballed and centralized over a century. Many alternative and decentralized institutions have disappeared in that process and I agree that it would take time to rebuild and re-organize them. But culture has adjusted one way now people expect government to provide those services and culture could adjust back.
As far as which solution takes more building and debugging, has government been known for being nimble, experimental, responsive, competitive, effective?
But the trends on medicaid, medicare, government pensions, etc make this questionable. Yes, I think that in the long run we would be better off with a more privatized and decentralized safety net. That way leads to a decade or more without any net. Except, you know, the thousands of private organizations doing charity work or the millions of companies that hire people. I tend to agree with you how can we minimize pain and disruption?
The transition concern was also brought during the abolition of slavery how are they going to adjust to freedom, find jobs,.. Did that turn out to be the case? There was a comparative study on how well former communist countries fared when they transitioned slowly vs quickly I think this qualifies as a transition involving trillions of dollars and millions of people. Is there evidence that the short-term pain was worse than the original soviet baseline, or worse than in the slow transitions?
Maybe those are not the best examples. Would you have some better historical illustrations of your catastrophic concern? More generally, and not just for Mark: It took longer than that to get cellphones in the hands of half of all Americans, or to replace half of the local retail stores with Wal-Marts, for Amazon to put half the bookstores out of business.
Taxi services are still going strong in cities where Uber and Lyft are free to operate. And those are in cases where there is a strong profit motive to find and exploit every accessible niche. The private sector can be quite responsive on the micro scale, not so much at the macro. And it cannot match bureaucracy in thoroughness. If you shut down the government-run safety nets tomorrow, some people will be taken care of by a more effective, more efficient, less soul-destroying system next week.
Does it need to expand 2 orders of magnitude? The number of people on food stamps is not the same thing as the number of people who would go hungry without food stamps. I believe in the theoretical possibility of a decent welfare substitute from a non governmental source, and I believe in the theoretical possibility of a godlike AI turning the world into paradise.
In neither case have I seen a blueprint. If you want me to back non government welfare , show me the blueprints, the detailed plan. Otherwise I will continue to believe that the idea is to cut existing welfare and then lose interest. Regarding your question for a blueprint, imagine this scenario: Please tell me how shoes are going to be produced.
What kinds will be produced? At what price or cost? Although I understand the question, it has nothing to do with whether it is the right thing to do. What work will slaves do after the end of slavery? Who will pick the cotton? Show me the blueprint. But since I do understand the impulse, let me suggest that you read up on mutual aid societies, lodge doctors and philanthropy in general.
I can give you some pointers if you care. The critical point about the abandonment of government welfare is that it seems to entail the abandonment of a rights-based system, and therefore a lower level of security for potential claimants.
The analogy with communism is misleading. A transition form communism to capitalism is a transition from something that was known to to not to work to something that is known to. What you are calling for, the uninvention of the welfare state and the reinvention of Victorian charity, is pretty much the opposite.
People who reject it are therefore not being unreasonable. Private charity has been tried, and did suffer lack of a comprehensive safety net. If you think a new version is not going to have that problem, agai, you need to explain why. Naively, I would predict that taking away their income makes their life worse, so I would need more evidence to be convinced that what you say is true. The welfare cliffs guarantees at least some percentage of people are trapped in poverty by the fact that any improvement will leave them worse-off, so for some percentage of people on welfare, losing welfare will be the best thing that could happen to them.
He found that people, even educated ones, respond worse than random. I totally agree with your observation that it seems counter-intuitive. In economics, there is what is seen I tax you and build a bridge, the bridge is seen and the unseen what would have happened in the counter-factual. We must train ourselves to analyze the unseen to understand the net effects of policies. I like this quote on the topic: I understand that it could seem counter-intuitive, which is why I listed some suggestive evidence.
I have a summary and pointers at blog. For economy freedom correlating with less poverty and better standards of living for the bottom quintile: For charitable giving by conservatives vs liberals: Also, as Orphan Wilde pointed out the US welfare is particularly badly designed, with welfare cliffs: Also, as Orphan Wilde pointed out the US welfare is particularly badly designed, with welfare cliffs:.
So why is Victorian charity the answer, and not a US welfare state remodelled to match one of the better ones worldwide? Entrenched social programs like that get tweaked at the margins, with the tweaks described as massive reforms. Cutting off food stamps now, unless accompanied by the sort of massive social and economic engineering programs Republicans are not generally known for, will leave the people who are unemployed and unemployable now, simply unemployed, unemployable, and foodless.
Without a full-employment economy like the s this is a real cut. Impossible to tell if this is cynical theater knowing it would probably get struck down in court or sincere bootstrap-yadda-yadda-yadda. You can see a chart going back to here. But we could go back and forth like this for a while, and the bottom line is that any well-sourced number either of us comes up with is probably going to suck in one way or another.
John Schilling, I agree with you that abolishing a program is very difficult politically. But that is besides my question. Assuming that small-government and no government-welfare people got their desired changes implemented, are the poor going to be worse off?
The specific people who are currently poor are going to be worse off. Cutting off food stamps and the like now, might plausibly result in fewer poor people twenty-five years from now. And partly because the people who were born twenty-five years ago and are poor now will have starved to death.
How well off will the poor be when it crashes? On that last point effectiveness , see the indications of overhead of government administrators which I also shared above: As a side note, I must take it from your comment that you agree that government welfare programs should not be increased any further, possibly they should be rolled back but very slowly and carefully , and private solutions should not be further crowded out?
Take it away if he finds something else? Take it away and replace it with nothing? He riots or votes for the party who will restore the dole. Other people note that getting paid for existing seems pretty sweet, and now you are feeding an awful lot of folks. It seems like, ultimately, you either suck up the riots or you watch the dems morph into a true patronage party in the Indian mold, and you get the riots anyway, further down the line when the cart has too many sitters, not enough pullers.
I agree with John that the transition from public welfare to private welfare is likely to be quite deadly to some welfare recipients. I think our society is rich enough that the government should be able to at least allow each person to get above the poverty line. By the way, the US already spends far more on welfare than the amount needed to bring every person out of poverty.
If many are still in poverty, it is because of the extremely complicated welfare system we have, with 78 means tested programs just in the Federal government. I do also want to reply to Dumky about whether the welfare system creates more poverty. In fact, it seems very likely that welfare DOES create more poverty, because it obviously creates incentives for those who would prefer not to work.
I also think giving every person the right to welfare benefits creates a much more effective minimum wage than the laws we have currently, which put low skilled workers out in the cold if their labor is worth less than the lowest legal wage. If welfare is available to all, then no worker will work for less, without punishing the low skill workers. If you are saying that all welfare systems are doomed to crash, irrespectively of the details of how they are funded, then the burden is on you to show that that is the case.
It is not obvious. What private charity can do, compared to government, is likely wildly overestimated by available statistics. Or it goes to some cause where the donor has strings attached, so that he gets a lot out of and so is really just making an investment in it. Which if you are in the church seems good, but it is not keeping Americans out of poverty. And the people who are hurt by the policies as they currently exist?
Should we not consider their needs? Indeed, the War on Poverty has effectively destroyed poverty in the US; only a very small percentage of Americans are materially poor once you take government aid into account. If the West Virginians end up propelling Trump to victory I agree with the prediction that there will be less sympathy for them among Blues than otherwise; yet the simple fact that West Virginia would still seem like another planet to the Blue tribe urbanite would not change.
The blue tribe leadership of the Republican party pretends to be red tribe but is deeply and thoroughly blue tribe or is simply unwilling to tolerate outgrouping from the blue tribe — same thing either way. Every other Republican candidate was fully on board with replacing the red tribe, Trump appears not to be. The blue tribe prefers their newer, cheaper clients who can be bribed with EBT and phones. In any case, the overall thrust of the green Anon above is correct.
Republican candidates are often Red, but the national party leadership is thoroughly Blue, and sometimes the candidates are Blue as well Romney being the textbook example of a Blue Republican. Mai La Dreapta — Heavily pro-christianity-in-public-life, anti-abortion, pro-gun, militant foreign policy, pro-business, anti-regulation, dismissive of global warming… What exactly about how he ran or ruled fits blue tribe at all?
Heck, I was deep, deep blue tribe during most of his administration, and I hated him like poison. How many of the non-political tribal Blue markers does Romney show? Political beliefs are a part, but not a requirement, of belonging to a tribe. The Bush clan is cosmopolitan and hardly nationalist e.
What exactly did GWB deregulate, and did it actually hurt any incumbents in the industries in question? Global warming is a distraction. I will agree and point out: My in-laws always vote Democrat. The GOP often has come up with a less extreme Right Wing person to nominate for president, in order to try to get some of the middle of the road voters. The politicians you like can do no wrong, the politicians you hate can do nothing right. The political programs you like were by the good guys, the programs you hate were by the bad guys.
Republicans in office have increased regulation, but not by as much as the Democrats want, and increased spending, but not by as much as the Democrats want. They put into place environmental regulations, just not as strict as the Democrats want. For this, Republican politicians take flack from the Republican voters. Dubya was born in Connecticut and went to Yale.
He originally registered as an independent He was the Governor of Massachusetts and oversaw implementation of a statewide socialized health care program. Keep in mind that W had to fight a hard initial primary campaign, and was criticized for profligate spending by the proto-tea party.
Most of those policy changes seem more relevant at the local level and less so nationally. Tax cut for the wealthy definitely seems Red to me. NCLB strikes me as fairly nontribal. Tax benefits for the wealthy in the case of subsidies for Blue-heavy industries like solar power companies or Hollywood have long been a staple way to get donations to the Democratic party. Please try to be more charitable to the beliefs of those that disagree with you rather than caricaturing them to make them easier to outgroup.
Red Tribers and keep the distinction between tribe and party here tend to favor tax cuts for everyone, including the rich, and tend to oppose tax increases on everyone, including the rich.
And I also bet a plan to only decrease the top income tax rate without touching the lower brackets would be much less popular. Or that they believe in trickle down economics with the wealthy as growth drivers. They just prefer high taxes with lots of targeted subsidies, where the Red Tribers prefer lower overall taxes. Heck, how many Blue Tribers at least of the sort likely to run in SSC circles are openly against Federal tax incentives for Tesla buyers?
Literally writing checks to high earners so they can buy a six figure or nearly luxury item from a billionaire? Certainly I could twist that with an uncharitable reading Blue Tribe wants to steal from all of us to give to their insider buddies!
Acorss the board tax cuts for everyone who is wealthy—once, not tax cuts for just for a few industries that are helping to make energy cleaner— are definitely Red. NCLB was that it was an expansion of the Federal role over something that has typically been the domain of local control — and in that sense is a blue thing.
To go back to the Albion Seed arguments and to simplify, the Massachusetts Bay Colony essentially required a universal literate society. That is not the case for the Southern colonies. Abolish the Department of Education 2. Also a way to claim that everyone has to take personal responsibility in very unrealistic ways, which is a very Red Tribe thing.
Shall we clear the bailey and leave the motte? Regardless of which cultural tribe it was a part of, if the idea of two cultural tribes is correct, NCLB-type legislation is a right wing, not a left wing, thing in the US. The idea that Blue Tribe seriously opposes standardized testing is farcical.
Practically every unit of the highly Blue Tribe college industry considers standardized tests, practically all Blue Tribe parents look at standardized test scores to determine where to move. It also screws over the poor— a very Red tribe value. The Red Tribe consists a lot of poor people who consistently vote against their own best interests, making themselves more poorly educated, less well in terms of health care etc.
NCLB makes schools far more dysfunctional, by pretending that teachers are solely responsible for the test scores of their students. This is literally Saturday-morning cartoon villain stuff.
NCLB was intended to appeal across political lines and across tribal boundaries. I think it did. It was about the schools attended by the underclass both rural and urban. Screwing over the poor maybe is not exactly what it is.
Being too ignorant to recognize when you are being screwed over, and so voting against your best interests as a poor individual, is perhaps more what the Red Tribe value is here. Poor people voting to have funds slashed on their health care, education, social services, resulting in poorer quality in them. I do not see Red Tribe making any big initiative at the federal level for any education policy. Charter schools are the attack vector on teachers unions, not NCLB.
NCLB was about accountability and benchmarking. It is in fact exactly the opposite, they made the most gains. Letting criminals and degenerates run amok in your community maybe is not exactly what it is. Coming up with excuses for why criminals and degenerates should be allowed to run amok, and arguments for why arresting and executing criminals and degenerates is evil are a Blue Tribe specialty. Poor and vulnerable people have been voting to give criminals rights, and even to import sex criminals in masse.
One was more testing and more qualified teachers along with a bunch more money. Two was forcing states that took the money to allow students more freedom to move between public schools. The first of these was to appease the left, the second was for the right, though this was very mild.
It had nothing for charters, nothing four vouchers, just letting students in one public school go to another. It was about as mild and inoffensive a proposal as you could manage, which was no accident given that the republican position in the senate was tenuous. Of course, the teachers unions went nuts about it, and mobilized the democrats against it. The bill was stymied until Bush cut a deal with Ted Kennedy.
The deal was simple. Kennedy would bring over a bunch of democratic votes and the choice provision could stay, but only if it was watered down so much as to make it completely meaningless.
It made democrats happy because they could feed more money to one of their interest groups. The only people it made unhappy were people who actually believed in school choice and a smaller federal role in education, i. There was nothing in it about teachers unions, even in the original version, much less the one that passed.
I suggest in future you actually read about things at places other than salon before opining on them, that will help you to avoid looking so foolish. My idea of a charitable interpretation of poor-screwing is: Their constituencies were both largely Red Tribe.
The culture of the large, sparsely populated, rural colonies versus the culture of the small and densely populated urban ones? Goes way, way back. The existence of a split goes way back. The specifics of each culture change rapidly. No, Wilson was very, very red tribe, though coming from an academic background. His successor in lost Manhattan, but still won Kentucky. By , Wilson had pissed off all the Blue Tribe constituencies you could possibly imagine, thus leading to the grandest Republican popular vote victory ever.
The smallest decline in the Democratic vote share from to was in Kentucky and the Carolinas. Both Wilson and Bryan represented the same tribe and party. Both won Manhattan at least once. They may have represented the same party but they did not represent the same tribe, which was the point I was trying to make.
Just the fact Newt Gingrich is a former college professor does not mean he ever represented the same tribe Obama does today. A tribe is a cultural construct. It is possible for two people to share political opinions or an occupation without necessarily sharing a culture.
Are these people blue tribe? Wilson was far more blue than Douthat and Douthat is pretty blue. Gingrich on the other hand started off pretty red, but has moved towards the center purple? Wilson was very blue.
From a policy standpoint he tended to be big on theory but less so on implementation. WJ Bryan on the other hand was almost his mirror. Yes there were both academics and democrats.
Culturally Wilson and Bryan were on separate sides. Ross Douthat is an upper class kid from San Fransisco, who went to Harvard to become a journalist. Romney may have had some blue tribe features in fact, a lot of them for a Republican , but Cruz was not blue tribe at all. The leadership of the Democrats and the Republicans are both gray tribe, or were historically. The blue and gray tribes are reacting with genuine fear because Trump is evil and the Reds have been radicalized by incessant fearmongering.
The main reason that the Democrats are winning in the long term is because young people are becoming much more educated. The result, though, is that the red tribe is in terminal decline. Young people can switch cultures when they go to college, and they are doing so in droves. The reds are getting older and older and literally dying off. Without demographic replacement, the tribe is doomed.
It would be dying off more slowly with fewer immigrants, but it would still be dying. And indeed, it is worth remembering that the Cubanos aligned themselves with the reds; immigrants are not naturally anti-red. The reds have simply made it that way. This reminds me of something I realized a little while ago: But my sympathy for them is like the sympathy of someone in a developed country for a starving waif in an underdeveloped country.
There is a criticism of the left by the right or, by some people on it that you have white left-wingers who are hugely against racism, against racists, brimming with sympathy for downtrodden minorities … who nevertheless turn out to have picked their neighbourhoods, schools, friends, route to work, side of the street they walk on, etc in such a way as to avoid those same downtrodden minorities.
I think there is something to this criticism, honestly: No one actually wants to live around poor people. The first four Directors of Central Intelligence, the first Secretary of Defense, and several outstanding scientists and military leaders were allegedly part of the team. Here is what MJ12 proponents said recently: The fundamental story told by the MJ documents is this: All means were authorized to hide and discredit these phenomena. If you do not believe such events are possible, then you will reject the MJ documents, and you will interpret other information through this same lens of denial.
Conversely, if you suspect such events may have happened, you would expect to see some leaked documents like MJ- 12 from whistleblowers. Stanton Friedman counters MJ12 critics: How did a hoaxer know? Twining's log had been in a classified box at the Library of Congress Manuscript Division for decades.
Go to Chapter 5. Roswell was a Mogul balloon. Limited releases were also made by the Brazilian government revealing a flotilla of unknown space objects that passed over their airspace and industrial facilities in southern Brazil in In addition, Belgium, Russia and the United Kingdom have also made recent limited releases of declassified official documents. A Mormon, seems to view certain aspects through his religion] Wonders in the Sky: In his UFO encyclopedia, J.
Clark assembled the most comprehensive set of references on UFOs ever created, including an entry on abductions by T. Bullard, and an examination of the radar-visual evidence in the RB47 case by Brad Sparks a case which may be the first instrumentally-documented demonstration of UFOs engaging in intelligent behavior.
Expensive, but useful reference. I - Chronology of a Coverup, by Richard M. He had the opportunity to meet with scientists, pilots and people from all walks of life in Britain, who had been involved in UFO close-encounters and gain access to information.
Cramp accepted the Adamski contactee story, which is rejected by most UFO researchers. He nevertheless provides an interesting account of his conception of the use of gravity and anti-gravity effects in relation to the appearance, behavior and effects of UFOs. A Rational Approach to Gravity Control". PDF , amazon Project Identification: A Scientific Theory of Ufos [bunk?
Hendry personally investigated over UFO reports and wrote this book. A new review of the physical evidence" by Peter A. Suggests the idea of "orthoteny" i. Search your favorite online bookstore Amazon etc for books by: Or better, visit Anomalia. Might be interesting, but haven't read them yet: If you enjoyed this page, you are welcome to link to it from your Website or Blog, or add it to "social bookmarking" services so others can find it too. During a family vacation, Mrs McRoberts saw "a cloud over a mountaintop, suggestive of a smoking volcano" and snapped a photo of it.
She didn't notice the UFO at the time the photo was taken, it was captured by chance. More case details at ufobc , ufoevidence. Higher-resolution versions of the photo: PDF is published in the scientific report of the Sturrock Panel PDF , funded by billionaire Laurance Rockefeller. Haines considered the possibility that it was just a small frisbee near the camera, and argued that a frisbee wouldn't fly well if it had a dome on its top -as the Vancouver object apparently has- nor would it show up sharp in the photo due to its quick movement.
Roestenberg, age 29 at the time, and her two sons over her home near Ranton, Staffordshire, England in Oct - sketch ref: Extract from BBC's "Out of this world" duration 6min:. Case file and photos: Fregnale electrical engineer of Le Puy, was hiking in the area of Bessem Friday in search for geological study, near Lake Chauvet, when he saw a kind of disc that crossed the sky from West to East.
He took 4 photos. I saw the machine approximately during 50 seconds and after having taken the photographs I observed the craft with binoculars.