Things change. Times change.
Look at Iran. The Islamic revolution of 1979 was, in fact, a PEOPLE'S revolution. That was then, this is now. The children of the people from that revolution feel differently about their place in the world than their parents' and grand-parents' did.
The funny thing is that the older generation literally sowed the seeds of this generation's "revolution". The older generation were religious fundamentalists. In keeping with their beliefs, they had HUGE families with many, many children. Consequently, Iran has among the youngest populations on earth - nearly 70% of the population is under 30. And it is the children of the Islamic Revolution Generation that are have decided to reject their parent's politics AND religion - theocracy - and here we are, with people being slaughtered in the streets. (Ironic does not begin to describe that.) The same thing is occurring here in the U.S. with the NAACP, NOW, JDL, South Florida Cubans, etc... and, so far, absent the pesky slaughtering of innocents.
"When strange peoples meet... first they fight, then they fornicate".
DNA wins all wars. Groups that have been successful in avoiding assimilation do so by controlling the reproductive options of their females, using techniques like head scarves (to differentiate), "honor killings" (Oxymoronic at its best, moronic at its worst), and dietary restrictions (if you can't eat together, its kind of tough to meet new peoples, and even if you did the relationship isn't going very far), among other strategies. (Look, I am not a qualified sociologist (whatever that is), just a self-educated, white trash, multi-ethnic mutt American, in an inter-racial marriage that grew up in the world's biggest ethnic melting pot (New York) with a half century of doing my best to keenly pay attention to the human condition around me... well, if you feel you know someone more familiar with assimilation, I am all ears...)
In my recent post where I beat the hell out of Special Interest Groups ("SIG"), the thing I was trying to point out is that times CHANGE. While there may have been a time when certain SIG's were absolutely necessary in bringing about social change there will ALWAYS come a time when either the change has already happened, OR the group has been assimilated into the society and now no longer exists in its previous form and there is nobody left that cares, except those in power at the SIG. ( If history shows us anything, it is that groups that absolutely refuse to assimilate into a given society will go through periods of acceptance and oppression - not suggesting that this is right or wrong, just that it IS the human condition - and that the "leaders" of these groups will use this to further their agenda of rejecting the broader society around them - again not attempting to indict nor applaud, just calling 'em like I see 'em - until either they become the dominate group or SIG or die out.)
Things change, people change, data changes, politics change, etc... Each day is a new day - but not for Special Interest Groups. For them nothing changes.
Just look at Iran.
Mentatt (at) yahoo (dot) com
18 comments:
Not much may change in Iran either. Oil depletion and zero infrastructure investment, a huge drug problem, the U.S. embargo and, as you said, lots of kids needing things, isn't going to go away anytime soon. The big chief of Iran just said this morning that Amadinejad was elected fair and square (who knows what the truth really is). If you haven't seen the kids lose a revolution, you haven't seen Les Miserables. :)
I have (seen Les Mis).
The truth?
Statistical analysis makes this one rather easy...
IF
70% of the population is under 30
AND
Candidate A enjoyed the vast support of "young" people
THEN
it is highly improbable that candidate A secured onl 1/3 of the vote.
The point is the SIG - the Theocrats - like ALL SIG's, are unable to see that a new day has dawned around them.
You should know when it comes to teens (you should know, cause you appear to have about a dozen of them ;)), that kids are squirrely. They start out as Earth-saving liberal environmentalists and wind up Wall Street, blackberry-carrying conservatives. Why would these kids be any different? They lose interest in everything in a matter of minutes when the excitement is over, and go back to listening to their Ipods and talking about boys. They wouldn't know the first thing about how to run a country even if they won one. Not to mention the torturers that await them if and when they get arrested. This will be over in a week a la Burma.
It is worth noting that under thirty is the prime fighting age.
Uh Dan... if my memory serves correct, under 30 is a prime fuckin' age too.
Just sayin'...
And Greg, I love you cousin.
It's good to know you're out there doing what you do!
The two significant SIG's in the USA would seem to be the retiring baby-boomers and the religious right.
With them in power (not just government, but every aspect of administration all the way down to your local corner shop), it's hard to see how it is possible to generate the kind of changes necessary to cope with the end of cheap oil. They'll protect their interests and resist change until it's absolutely forced upon them.
You're spot on about the demographics; in Iran, change will happen because 70% of the population is young. In the U.S. change won't happen, because 70% of the population is old.
Donal:
Excellent point about the demographics.
I do not see the religious right as being that significant an SIG (and I am SECULAR). They demand very little in the way of services, tax revenues, or special dispensation. Their issue is abortion - I bet that you could do business with them... say, Gay Marriage in exchange for overturning Roe V Wade.
BTW, though I ardently pro-life, I have no wish to overturn Roe or to criminalize abortion. Pro Life folks need, IMHO, to change tactics. Life is not perfect, and there are few absolutes. We cannot stop ALL abortions. Pro-Lifers need to pony up MONEY, build hospitals, care facilities, homes, adoption networks, and ongoing care programs for mother's who decide to keep their child. They need to volunteer and commit their TIME to caring for children and mothers, rather than protesting, or worse, committing acts of violence.
Considering my Libertarian belief system...
Attacking this from a political (using Law Enforcement, and you know how I feel about them) point of view is just plain silly and counter productive.
I see the AARP set, the retiring baby boomers as you call them, to be THE SIG. All of the other SIG's together are not 1/5 of the political power held in that group.
Although I am getting there myself, I am not enamored with America's grey population. The arrogance of youth has been displaced with the hypocrisy of age. Old people need to see to their own affairs, rather than try to use FORCE to extract tax money from younger people (well, in a perfect world). Unfortunately, older Americans will be only too willing to have "The Authorities" confiscate money, food, healthcare, etc... from young worker's with families. This is their only issue. There will always be unscrupulous politicians willing to pander to them, and unscrupulous, unthinking, inhuman goose stepping jag offs willing to shot, beat, imprison, etc... those that do not comply.
Pro-Lifers need to get on the contraception bandwagon and stop this silly abstinence sh*t.
Though it is true that young people that are not capable of being parents should not engage in behavior that will result in children... humans, being humans, cannot stop themselves. The passions of youth are a force of nature, and thinking that we might blunt them with a lecture is such a complete circle jerk, I will give it no more thought.
There are 2 ways to cut abortions:
Stop unwanted pregnancy in the first place.
Give pregnant women the care, assistance, and resources they need to provide for the child.
And yes, I am aware of the moral hazard with item 2, considering the American experience with the welfare system and its incentive for illegitimate parents (there is no such thing as an illegitimate child), but I think that that can be overcome within a generation or so by giving these children and education and a proper start in life.
I may have mentioned before; a think-tank in the UK has proposed that any man who father's a child be automatically considered married in law, making him legally responsible for both mother and offspring. That should make couples think twice about unprotected sex!
But I also agree with your second point; pregnant women must be given support, and their children a better-than-poverty upbringing. It is obvious that prisons are full of people raised in poverty in single parent households; so wouldn't it be better to spend the money on educating and caring for the kids, than paying to lock them up when they're older.
Meanwhile the Greys will want things to be like they remember they were when they were young (conveniently 'forgetting' their 60's hippy drugs and sex years!)and be happy to sell their children and grandchildren into tax-slavery so at least they can enjoy a cossetted retirement. Sadly Obama seems to agree with them!
You should read the I-Ching if you havent already. It describes an ancient system of cosmology and philosophy that centres on the ideas of the dynamic balance of opposites, the evolution of events as a process, and acceptance of the inevitability of change.
I think that the British think tank is on to something. The greatest social force by far and away is economics. We have made it economically advantageous for poor young women to get pregnant. As long as that moral hazard exists, there will be scads of babies born without functional fathers.
In 1964, the illegitimacy rate among the black population in the US was about 21%. This was about the same as for the general population. At this time, blacks were moving from the rural south to the big cities to find work. They were the next wave of "immigrants" who were replacing the Italians and Eastern Europeans as the next group to work their way up and out.
In 1965, the "Great Society" legislation was passed, making a single mother on welfare the economically superior short term choice to marriage and work. Blacks were affected most by this because they were the largest single population of poor at the time. Poor people do not have the luxury of long term planning, unless you consider feeding the kids this week and paying the rent at the beginning of the month long term. So, they took the economically superior short term choice. They are still stuck in poverty 45 years later. The illegitimacy rate is now 71%.
This ranks near the top of the list of horrible unintended consequences.
None amount of education, social action and no number of million man marches will fix the problem until the economic incentives are removed. They will certainly be helpful afterward.
Regards,
Coal Guy
And further, to think that more than about a third of these pregnancies is "accidental" is to misunderstand the problem.
Coal Guy
Such wonderful analysis of the black birthing problem. The black/African-American population is 10% of the U.S. population, and has been for 30 years. If they are making babies, fatherless or not, they aren't growing the population. That problem isn't growing. Not to mention there are FAR more poor, rural whites on welfare than the urban poor blacks that everyone blames for all the problems of the world. :)
Now, the Latios/Mexicans have perhaps a lesser illegitimacy problem, but as far as babymaking, they are in 7th gear. The Mexicans will take over this country in 30 years maybe -- 50 years at the latest. Lots and lots of kids running around on the northwest and southwest sides of Chicago, who, if they even have fathers, are going to be necessary to bail out the Social Security system very soon.
So, before we start pointing fingers at who is consuming all those welfare dollars, lets look at the biggest welfare group of all: white, wealthy old people.
Bureaucrat has a point. Actually, several. However,
statistical analysis is, with all due respect, specious and incorrect.
As I said, DNA wins all wars. The folks who breed, dominate eventually.
That does not eliminate the moral hazard Coal Guy was speaking of. It exists, but in my mind, is preferable to aborting pregnancies.
Hmmmm, that Iran reveloution is starting to peter out ...
The kids are fighting for American Idol on satellite TV. The mullahs are fighting for their very existence. Which will win?
Ever since I saw the torture the "Iranian government" was capable of, I figure they would have the REAL 1,000 year Reich. The Romans stayed in power for 800 years, scaring the hell out of people with that "cross" thing. To have a successful revolution, you need to at least have someone inside the current government rooting for you (a la USSR)
Bureaucrat,
I'm not BLAMING the people caught in the mess, and the problem is not limited to our black population. The statistics are highlighted in this group because of the timing of the "Great Society" when, sadly, most of the black population would be illegible if Daddy would just leave home. This is NOT a race issue.
Also, there are many people who use the welfare system as it was probably intended. We know several women with children, personally, who were left flat by their husbands. They used the system to get temporary support, some education and a job. I'm all for a helping hand.
You have never, and will never, hear me complain about the poor abusing the system. So, don't imply it in your responses. My problem is that the system abuses the poor by addicting them to "free" stuff while a tribe of politicians, academics and self-appointed champions tells them that they don't stand a chance without it. Learned helplessness is not beneficial to the poor or society at large. However, aforementioned tribe has learned to benefit from it.
I'm not for the creation of multi-generational welfare families who have been habituated to the handout. It is morally indefensible to continue a system that promotes that. While I don't believe that congress or LBJ intended this consequence, no administration or congress has had the balls to fix it.
GWB addressed it tangentially in one of his state of the union addresses when he endorsed some sort of work-fare system. BHO has also talked about it. He has a much better chance to correct it without being burned at the PC stake as a racist. If he actually accomplishes something in this area, it will be a huge gain for everyone.
Regards,
Coal Guy
I thought Clinton did substantially end welfare as we know it (5 year max for benefits, etc.)
And there are plenty of people who abuse welfare (as well as charity care, etc.) Though given the small amount of money you get on AFDC, etc., I don't know why anyone who could get off of it would want to stay on it.
thanks for the information....
___________________
Sharon
For 3 Months Enjoy Free 28 Premium Movie Channels
Post a Comment