Meh. I got nothin'. (988 hits)
Category: PoliticsRating: 1.74 on 41 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by Teeee-fahhhhhhh (View user info) at 2004-08-20 15:08:10 EDT
"Can't we all just get along?"
Rodney King asked that question originally. And he was asking it after the L.A. riots that were in response to the savage beating he took at the hands of white L.A. Police Officers.
Rodney was addressing the issue of race relations in his particular city, But these days, it seems like the U.S. and indeed, even the rest of the world is split right down the middle based not on race but rather on political ideology.
On the one side, you have "Conservatives" and on the other side you have "Liberals." These labels are not terribly accurate, and oftentimes persons who fit into one category or the other are uncomfortable being pigeonholed by the label. This is because the other side has worked very hard to make that word, "Conservative" or "Liberal" a very slimy thing indeed.
What it breaks down to is this:
Conservatives, like myself (note: I'm not advocating the superiority of this ideology here, only disclosing my political leaning for sake of clarification) tend to claim to value "limited government." They claim to want the government to only be involved in providing the bare minimum of services, so that they may live their lives freely and without the specter of Government watching their every move. They claim to value privacy in this regard.
However, at least in the United States, the "Conservative" party is quite hypocritical once the issue moves from fiscal government policy to social policy. Conservatives are quite content to bad-mouth Government efficiency and bureaucracy when it comes to taxes or regulation of free-trade, but when an issue like drug legalization or gay marriage comes up, the party of "limited Government" takes a stand that is counter to their theoretical principles. Conservatives here, tend to feel that regulation of THESE activities is a worthwhile endeavor for Government.
Liberals, tend to see the Government less as an intrusion into private personal life, but rather as a great tool for equalization of rights and opportunity. The world is a place full of inequality, and Government, they claim is a good way to even the playing field.
Liberals do not advocate "expansive government," in fact, it seems obvious that they would like Government to be as limited as it could possibly be . . . so long as it is still capable of meeting the objectives they have set for it. Those objectives, are typically much more expansive than the goals "Conservatives" would put forth, at least in regard to fiscal or economic policies.
Like Conservatives, Liberals are quite hypocritical when it comes to social policy. Here they feel that the Government has no business interfering with an individual's private life. So issues like gay-marriage or drug use are NOT, in their opinion, legitimate areas of government concern.
The point of this remedial political-science primer is only to illustrate the logical inconsistencies of both political ideologies in the Untied States.
If either party were to be logically consistent, the Conservatives would be advocating Gay-marriage and drug legalization, and Liberals would be advocating the opposite.
But we don't, in the current political environment, explore these logical inconsistencies. We don't even argue the merits of either ideology (or any potential third or fourth ideologies either, for that matter) on the basis of its costs or benefits.
Instead we yell from our various soapboxes at the top of our lungs that we are right. The other side does their obligatory best not to argue the merits of our case, but rather to find meaningless loopholes in our presentation of our position. Any single WORD that can be shown to be slightly misused is declared "untrue" and, the political pundits would have us think, that the consequence of this untruth must be that the message must be stricken in its entirety.
The result is only more and more yelling from each side, and the yelling becoming more and more shrill.
I've only been around for 31 years, and I've only been politically aware for less than half of that time. However, some part of me thinks that it must not always have been this way. Some part of me thinks that, once upon a time, people with wildly differing political ideals could come together in mutual respect and honestly and ably DEBATE the merits of their ideas and do so FOR THE GOOD OF THE COUNTRY.
I don't think anyone is entirely motivated by the good of the country any more. I think that still factors in . . . somewhere . . . but I think the motivation today is more about power and pull.
I've heard the buzzings from people outside the U.S.. Then tell us that we are all suffering from a lack of information, that our media has become a tool of the Government and that we are not receiving the honest truth regarding the real state of affairs of the world.
Here, both sides claim that the other side is in control of the media, and if this is the case, how can the outsiders be correct?
I don't know.
What I DO know is that we are facing, in 74 or so days, the election of a new President. And I know that somewhere along the lines, we have lost our collective desire to pick the right person for the right reason, and this frightens me greatly.
Call me a nationalist if you will, but I have ALWAYS believed that the U.S. is the greatest nation on Earth. I believe that it was made so, not only be the foresight and determination of our Founding Fathers, but also by the sweat and blood of those who came after. Tom Brokow's book, "The Greatest Generation" gave me a respect and awe for the men and women of my grandfather's day that I had never appreciated before.
But I look at the generation of which I am a part, and I do not feel this awe or reverence.
I fear that the United States may be headed in the wrong direction, and that we may be aiding and abetting those who would take it there.
This post is NOT about Republicans versus Democrats, it is about US, the young people of the United States (and elsewhere) who should be smarter than we are acting. Where are we going, and what are we going to do about it?
User Reviews
Submitted by boomslang (user info) at 2004-08-27 12:12:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
So what should i call you? bullet? tooth?
"you can call me susan if you like"
look, Tony....
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2004-08-23 11:14:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by sevens_travels (user info) at 2004-08-22 21:12:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Teephphah - he called himself boobslag first - not that it matters. And about Eric - do you know the story of the kid who deserted the Army and fled to Canada when he was selected, and the hell he's been put through? Deciding you don't want to risk your life for a cause you don't believe in should be allowed. If you join the Army with good intentions, as my friend Eric did (to get money for school) then you obviously realize the potential to be sent to war. But if you wholely disagree with the premise of the war, you are fucked. Eric, as well as my friends and his family, did not want to take part in it. I'm certainly not using the death of my friend as an arguing point because that's not fair to him, but I am still expressing his viewpoint nonetheless.
Submitted by Slovin (user info) at 2004-08-20 23:39:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4032
I'm voting for Kerry based largely on the fact that he is not George W. Bush.
Submitted by Socialist_Joe (user info) at 2004-08-20 23:05:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Rodney King was a terrible example
that man was was a fucking waste of flesh
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2004-08-20 22:54:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
1P21G - Did you call him "Boobslang?" That is dangerously close to completely missing the point of this post.
It has to BEGIN with mutual respect, man. If you assume that the opposite opinion has no merit, and no value, then where do you have to go?
I'm sorry to hear about your friend, but the FACT of the matter is that not only did he volunteer, but he even if, as you suggest, "he knew" HE STILL WENT, VOLUNTARILY.
Let that mean whatever you will.
Submitted by 1Point21Gigawatts (user info) at 2004-08-20 17:15:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
One more question for you, boomslag - did you loose a friend in Iraq?
My friend Eric passed away six months ago. He was killed with six others in a skirmish outside Iraq. True, he joined the service on his own will, but three days before he left we got drunk and he told me he didn't want to go. The fucking kid was crying with his three best friends in the back of my boy's Tahoe. It's almost like he knew he wasn't coming back.
I've said it before and I'll say it again - I would pay a million dollars a gallon if I could have that fucking kid with me tonight when I go out with my boys. He's not here, and I pay $2.25 for premium, and most of that probably ends up in Bush's fucking pockets.
I need a fucking beer - I'm fighting for you Eric - I fucking told you I would. I love you bro.
Submitted by 1Point21Gigawatts (user info) at 2004-08-20 17:08:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
boobslag - A republican in my gym told me that same thing yesterday. It's a good thing it's so easy to retort.
Bush loves to harp on Kerry's vacillation with his views on the war. Yes, it's true, he has changed his mind regarding his support. Why?
Because he found out Bush lied. I used to support our war efforts as well. When I read astouding evidence that Bush was wrong on all accounts, I changed my mind. When I also realized that Bush had completely diverted my attention away from the man who destroyed my home city (Osama) I was pissed. Bush invaded Iraq to finish his father's business, yet he can't find a 6'6" man with a huge towel on his head, a respirator, and a beard the size of George Bush's pinoccio-esque nose. Amazing. If you're voting for Kerry simply because he has the ability to change his mind, then you are, well, I guess you represent everything that's wrong with the stereotypical Republican.
Submitted by jumpinjellyfish (user info) at 2004-08-20 17:07:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Very well thought out.
Submitted by Shlongy (user info) at 2004-08-20 16:59:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
-2 for using lots of big words...
Submitted by Lost_Gator_Fan (user info) at 2004-08-20 16:47:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
+2 for using a lot of big words.
Submitted by boomslang (user info) at 2004-08-20 16:41:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
(Apparently pressing space bar a bunch of times ranks)
I could never vote for Kerry because what he stands for depends on where he is and what time of day it is.
He's the Sundial candidate.
-
boobslag
Submitted by boomslang (user info) at 2004-08-20 16:38:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
1Point21Gigawatts -
How can you logically explain Kerry's
a) Voting Record - specifically cutting the military every chance he could and now says he can make our military better.
b) Conflicting accounts of Vietnam / Cambodia Incident / Stance on Vietnam War
c) Latest views on reappropriating troops from Asia/Europe to now thinking
that is not a good idea.
I'm not saying you have to like the current President. But come on,
what has Kerry accomplished in the last 19 years as Senator. The man would be homeless if it weren't for his wife.
Submitted by disAbled (user info) at 2004-08-20 16:36:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I've posted similarly before. I like opinions that are willing to cross party lines and point out the inadequacy of a bi-partisan system.
And, no, Libertarians are not anarchists.
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2004-08-20 16:34:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Bob- Okay, how about this? According to Robert Nozick, Libertarians would be willing to pay for police. They aren't advocating a "state-of-nature" only the most minimally minimal government possible. Not NO government.
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2004-08-20 16:31:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
A libertarian would be willing to go for the police, but unwilling to pay them.
I have no plan to kick in your door, it was just a hypothetical example, a parable.
Submitted by Razor (user info) at 2004-08-20 16:24:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Libertarians are not anarchists bob.
Submitted by JohnGalt (user info) at 2004-08-20 16:23:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by munkeypants (user info) at 2004-08-20 16:21:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by Zandy1123 (user info) at 2004-08-20 16:21:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
here's my full response to your post, Teeeeee-fahhhhhh
http://www.ubersite.com/m/42400
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2004-08-20 16:16:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Bob - Libertarians are willing to go for police, so while the mail-bomb would have to go Fed-Ex, you might have a problem busting down my door.
Boobslag - Yeah, I'm itchy, or was.
Submitted by 1Point21Gigawatts (user info) at 2004-08-20 16:15:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2004-08-20 15:58:18 (#)
Ranking: 2
1.21GW, polling data shows far more support among young voters for Bush, but it's not as helpful as other blocks because younger voters have the lowest turnout
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you serious? I really don't know anyone my age who is dumb en... okay, I'll stop myself from insulting anyone. Let me start again. A-hem. I don't know anyone my age who is planning on voting for Bush. Is that because I'm from New York? Or is it because 3 of my friends are dead because of him? I'm seriously shocked. I'm not saying you're wrong, but where did you get your polling information?
Also, boomslang: I'm an engineer and I think logically as well. BSEE, BS Biomed E, and MSEE. Funny, I say the same thing to my devout Catholic family when they ask me why I'm a dedicated atheist. I also give that "logically minded thinking" explanation to people when they ask me why I'm so liberal (or why I'm voting for Kerry). Mind-blowing shit, man!
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2004-08-20 16:13:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
If you are a true libertarian, then you would have no problem with me kicking down your door, punching you in the nose, and drinking all your beer.
A true libertarian would probably then kick my ass with a tire iron.
A true libertarian would then expect to have his house burnt down in retaliation, but he wouldn't want to get government agencies like police or a fire department involved.
A true libertarian would then send me a bomb in the mail, but it would never arrive, because in a libertarian world the postal system would be seen as a waste of tax funding.
To quote The Human Torch; "Flame on!"
Submitted by Zandy1123 (user info) at 2004-08-20 16:07:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
+500 if I could.
Submitted by boomslang (user info) at 2004-08-20 16:03:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Also, are you Mr. Itchy,
I think you've alluded to this before...
Submitted by boomslang (user info) at 2004-08-20 16:02:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I am an engineer, therefore I think logically and consistently. I consider myself a pure conservative. Meaning that I believe government should be limited in all aspects, as such, taxes would be minimal (preferably some sort of 15% flat tax, sorry accountants)
along with goverment interference in all other things social/domestic.
I do want a Fire Dept. to come and put out any fires, and I want Police to arrest people when they get out of line, etc, etc. I don't really care what other people do as long as they don't infringe upon my basic rights.
This is because of my belief in a capital system; my belief that anything that could be provided by the government, (ie. health insurance) would be cheaper and better (Canada, hello) if it were provided by corporations.
If drugs were regulated they would be worth nothing and the cocaine/heroine industries would fail.
I don't believe there was ever a time when people from both ends of the liberal/conservative spectrum stopped and thought about OUR Country.
Someone had mentioned in a post recently that the Founding Father envisioned this, and thus set up a government of cheques and balances of not just the 3 branches of government, but also across the political spectrum.
Good vs. Evil, Hot vs. Cold, Positive vs. Negative, the world is a spectrum from one end to the other, there will never be all of one or the other, but a balance of all.
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2004-08-20 16:01:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Bob - REAL Conservatives are called "Libertarians." They're great, I used to be one.
The only reason they aren't more popular, I think, is because if you watch C-Span, their conventions bare a striking resemblance to a Star-Trek Convention. Nerd central. No offense intended.
Submitted by chipolatte (user info) at 2004-08-20 16:01:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Nicely done. I especially agree with the whole sentiment about labeling people 'liberals' or 'conservatives', and then expecting that perosn to follow an entire line of thinking based on what that party is 'supposed' to think, and this is usually just based off of one opinion this person has voiced!
Submitted by Razor (user info) at 2004-08-20 15:59:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
How about we start with one term, six year presidencies so that the motherfuckers can get shit done without worrying about re-election - that will allow them to just do what they believe and fuck what the opinion polls say... six years would also be enough time for them to carry out their goals before they became a lame duck.
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2004-08-20 15:58:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Wow.
I'm a logical conservative, according to your definition.
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2004-08-20 15:58:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
1.21GW, polling data shows far more support among young voters for Bush, but it's not as helpful as other blocks because younger voters have the lowest turnout
Submitted by 1Point21Gigawatts (user info) at 2004-08-20 15:53:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Meh, I got nuthin... I'm voting for Kerry because I strongly disagree with pretty much everything GWB does; from invading Iraq, to making it easier to be rich and harder to be middle class. Of course, that is all based on opinions. Some people honestly believe that the Iraqi people are happy we occupied thier country, and that the sole purpose of the 1000+ loss of troops was to protect the world from Saddam and his WMD's. These people also believe that Bush and Cheney were not simply lining their pockets, but doing their civic duty to save the world. I'm not one of those people.
I think the country is headed down the tubes as well, but I think it's because most young people do not think for themselves. My father and extended family all plan on voting for GWB. There isn't much I can do about it, besides get ganged up on at family BBQ's. However, I am one of the few people who looked at the issues and made a decision based on knowledge. Most people in my position would vote for Bush because their entire family says so. My neighbor is voting for Kerry for that reason. He doesn't know shit, he would vote for Hitler is his mommy told him too.
I guess I agree with you, then. I'm just on the other side of the fence (where the grass is greener, trust me!).
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2004-08-20 15:45:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
1P21G - Man, I HOPE that's not how the subtext reads! No, I really don't think Kerry is the right guy for the job. But to be honest, I've been so inundated with propaganda, that I'm not sure I even remember WHY I thought that in the first place. Frankly, I've stopped thinking. Maybe I'm projecting that onto others of my generation too. Maybe we aren't all whiney, knee-jerking, one or two issue, with no concern for or understanding of the long-range consequences of a policy voters. But that's how it seems to me.
Submitted by 1Point21Gigawatts (user info) at 2004-08-20 15:36:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Nicely done, and this is coming from a self-proclaimed liberal. But coming from me, I do see an undertone - and correct me if I'm wrong. I believe that most young people are going to vote for Kerry, and I also believe this is a good thing because I believe he will take this country in a better direction. When you say you don't revere our generation as much as the Brokaw generation of baby boomers, are you saying that you don't think the overwhelming support for Kerry is good? I know you're not saying that directly, but I feel it in the subtext. Comments?
Submitted by Bennywild (user info) at 2004-08-20 15:35:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Glad to know I'm not alone. Although I tend to lean left because of social policy and am a centrist when it comes to fiscal policy, I have been getting more and more irritable with the hypocritical nature of the discourse. The ideologies have lost their way and are now pandering to votes. Great mini-essay.
Submitted by sheckynecky (user info) at 2004-08-20 15:31:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by welshwitch (user info) at 2004-08-20 15:29:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
You've touched upon a subject I've been bitching and moaning about elsewhere. Great post.
Submitted by freebie (user info) at 2004-08-20 15:26:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
That was just too mature and well written. If you all are gonna keep this up, I'll find another
topic to get people riled up about.
Submitted by GodLovesALittleLovin (user info) at 2004-08-20 15:24:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
+2 because I didn't read this.
Submitted by WhatTheHell (user info) at 2004-08-20 15:18:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
WOOOO-HOOOO
+2 FOR EVERYONE!!
FUCK UBER...FIGHT THE POWER!