|
|
 8 Oct 2004 @ 08:37, by jazzolog. Politics
White dew on the bramble,
one drop
on each thorn.
---Buson
An artist is usually a damned liar but his art, if it be art, will tell you the truth of his day. And that is all that matters. Away with eternal truth. The truth lives from day to day, and the marvelous Plato of yesterday is chiefly bosh today.
---D.H. Lawrence
From the evening breeze to this hand on my shoulder, everything has its truth.
---Albert Camus
While I was in college in the late 1950s, the Government Department at Bates changed its name to Political Science. I feared the worst, and began to read poetry instead of constitutional law. Political scientists (if there be such things) not only tell us what happened in 2000, they go on to predict 2004. With the mess in Florida lurching the entire world into the US Supreme Court back then, a few states in this country have been seized upon as "swing states," in which our presidential election will be decided. I'm sure someone other than a fortune-teller can tell us how such precognition is determined. I can't though, nor have I been interested in finding out such things since Government changed its name.
Ohio is one of these states. Even if those scientists of the polis hadn't told me, I might have guessed something was up, since at least one of the major candidates is here every day. Most Ohioans I talk to are delighted to receive all this attention and up close contact with these guys. Friends elsewhere in the country and around the world envy us and ask for insight as to what's going on---somehow not satisfied with American news services anymore. Until this week I've felt the giddy power of a junior high school kid who knows a secret everybody wants to find out. Unfortunately that party now is over, and the story breaking out of Ohio is frightening in the extreme. More >
|
|
|
|
7 Oct 2004 @ 18:24, by ov. Politics
The Canadian parliament has started up for another season with the first minority government in twenty five years. The good news is that nothing radical is likely to happen out of fear that a vote of nonconfidence will trigger an early election; the down side is that a lot of time will be wasted and nothing at all will be accomplished.
This morning I heard a letter I wrote read on the CBC radio. They even pronounced my name correctly. It sounded good and felt good. Next step is to get a petition started. I hope this flies.
Greetings Anna Maria Tremonti
Intention and perspective are two of the most important aspects of reaching a common ground where it is possible to cooperatively work together. Think of the shift in attitude that would occur if we were to officialy change the name from "The Official Opposition" to "The Official Other Hand."
It has a touch of that Canadian humor that would lead to wide transmission. More importantly it would be a constant reminder that members of parliament are expected to work cooperatively towards the citizen's best interests, instead of the adversarial partisan politics which often does nothing but set the stage for pretentious ego battles leading to loggerheads.
Robert Oveson
Vancouver More >
|
|
|
|
 7 Oct 2004 @ 15:54, by ming. Politics
George Soros now has a blog. He's done many good things like the Open Society Institute. And, now, it is quite useful when a billionaire can put some significant resources behind opposing George Bush's regime.
Yesterday Soros got a good deal more traffic than he had expected. During the U.S. vice presidential debate, Dick Cheney suggested for the viewers to go to factcheck.com to get the truth about accusations made about his former company Haliburton. And after the debate, an average of a hundred people a second went to that site. It is just that Cheney unfortunately had given the wrong URL. He had meant to say factcheck.org. Factcheck.com happened to be some random commercial site hosted by some people in the Cayman Islands. When they realized what had happened, they decided it would be a better idea if they redirected all that traffic to Soros' site, even though he has no relation to them. A good political statement, and Soros' server could probably handle the traffic load. Which factcheck.org is having a bit of trouble with. Seems like a fine and objective site, though. I think Cheney regrets that he tried to mention it, as they found quite a few more flaws in what he said than in what Edwards said.Cheney wrongly implied that FactCheck had defended his tenure as CEO of Halliburton Co., and the vice president even got our name wrong. He overstated matters when he said Edwards voted "for the war" and "to commit the troops, to send them to war." He exaggerated the number of times Kerry has voted to raise taxes, and puffed up the number of small business owners who would see a tax increase under Kerry's proposals.
Edwards falsely claimed the administration "lobbied the Congress" to cut the combat pay of troops in Iraq, something the White House never supported, and he used misleading numbers about jobs. Hard work to keep those guys honest, I'm sure. While watching their debate, I thought they came out about even, but now reading the fact check analysis, it is obvious that they didn't do equally well in the truth department. More >
|
|
|
|
 5 Oct 2004 @ 13:53, by ming. Politics
After watching the U.S. presidential debate the other day, I'm puzzled at what it possibly might be that Bush is doing right. You know, I see a guy who's dazed and confused, seeming to be under the influence of some kind of psychiatric drugs, unable to discuss the issues at hand, but simply able to wake up once in a while and repeat the same two or three points, with some conviction, but without much relevance to the particular questions at hand. And, ok, Kerry isn't particularly charming, but he was prepared for defending his position and the rationale behind it and for presenting some kind of plan. So why is it that a considerable percentage of the U.S. population actually considers Bush a leader who delivers a message they like?
Well, I noticed a particular difference, which also might be a typical difference between what's called conservatives (=republicans) and what is called liberals or progressives (=democrats) in the U.S. You know, Kerry was talking about whether the war in Iraq was justified or not, which based on the evidence, it wasn't. But he thinks that it would be a bigger mess not to "finish" it at this point. No matter how clearly he lays that out, it opens him up to being accused on flip-flopping and not being sure what he thinks. And then there's the key point: What message are we sending? Most of Bush's position added up to "sending a clear message". A message to the world, a message to the U.S. allies, a message to the Iraqi people, a message to the troops in Iraq, a message to the "terrists". It apparently has nothing whatsoever to do with whether that war is backed up with sufficiently good reasons or whether anybody is better off for it or whether sufficient dialogue has taken place. No, the main thing is sending a message. Showing how strong and single-minded we (the U.S.) are.
That is clearly contrasted to the other approach, which is to look at the facts, talk about things, and try to take the best possible action. And if the situation or the information changes, then to talk about that, and see what to do next.
Now, I'd definitely be leaning towards considering the second approach the "proper" way. Not based on any political opinion, but based on the need for examining what is at stake before taking important decisions. Seems self-evident to me. You need to check with reality first, and hear what everybody involved have to say. Dialogue. Cooperation. Seeking the truth. "Democracy" it is called, as well. Going through some kind of process where everybody involved will have some kind of input into making the best possible decision.
So it is with some incredulity that I realize that a whole lot of people don't work like that at all. Rather, they start with the outcome they'd like to see happen, and then they use the means at hand for getting it to happen. Which includes talking about it, repeating it, giving reasons for it, lining up other people who think so, or just going ahead and doing it. And in that camp you score points for not ever wavering from the view you started off with. Staying firm on your conviction is more important than facts, or whether lots of other important stake holders disagree.
You'll recognize it with religious convictions, of course. They don't come out of a dialogue that is intended to unearth the facts and the most desirable outcome. On the contrary, it usually starts with some arbitrary statement interpreted from an old book by a revered prophet, and it is believed necessary to get its intention carried out, without being distracted by facts or feelings or different views.
I'm not aware of any previous U.S. administration before Bush's that worked predominantly in that way. I.e. they work out in some think tank what their position is and what is supposed to happen, and then they go and do it, and facts and differing opinions make very little difference.
But apparently it works because it resonates with something in many people. And I do recognize it always having been there in the "conservative" mindset. Just never before has it been exploited so blatantly and openly.
An example would be the issue of abortion. The conservative view would tend to be that it is wrong, for religious or moral reasons. Thus the task becomes to send a strong message that we don't want that, and laws are merely a tool for sending that message. But even most of the conservative politicians who campaign against abortion rights would privately admit that if their own daughter needed an abortion, they would of course help her with that. Bush Sr was caught admitting that once, for example. The point is that in that mindset, such an apparent conflict doesn't change the position. The position is a certain point which one needs to send a message about. It is only a minor issue whether it really would work for everybody, or whether there's agreement about it, or whether one even oneself would want to adhere to it.
The difference is clear in the typical liberal vs conservative ways of talking about things. Well, I don't know if it is really just a liberal vs conservative thing. I don't really like or agree with the illusion of a political spectrum. But let's stick with those words for the moment.
So, liberal people would tend to want to dig up the facts and talk about them and they tend to want to look for some solution that works for most everybody. Some kind of consensus based on what is on the table. So, obviously one can't preach the outcome in advance, because one doesn't know what it is yet. The answer is "it depends".
For conservative people, that seems terribly wishy-washy and ineffective. The thing to do is to have a strong position, based on moral principles and the protection of your own kind, and then you carry your intention through, no matter what. So, you score points for a noble and moral aim, presented clearly and concisively. And for going through whatever it takes to get there.
So, the way liberals would want to discuss big issues would be to bring forward various kinds of facts and the concerns of various kinds of stake holders. Say the issue is the war in Iraq, or global warming. Instinctively, this kind of person would believe that if we just bring this all out in the open, sane people would realize the truth and act accordingly. And these folks are really surprised if even the most obvious and horrifying facts don't change public opinion.
The conservatives use information very differently. It is not used as input to help people decide what is what. It is used to back up the moral and noble aim that is being carried through, and as part of the message. So, the information that is being provided is to support and strengthen and promote the position we started with. If things aren't going well, the answer is to speak more clearly about the initial position, to create a more clear and focused message, backed up by whatever is available to back it up with.
There's a considerable number of right-wing weblogs which seem remarkably well coordinated and synchronized. Common for a lot of them is that their opponents, the left-wing liberals, loudly are regarded simply as "idiots", "morons", or similar words. You see a surprising number of blogs where that's even stated as the head-line or in the blog's name. You know "anti-idiotarian ..." And they go to some length to create "Laugh at Liberals" websites, and that kind of thing. No, I'm not going to link to them. But my point is the different way of having dialogue. The liberal approach of showing concern for different sides is just very funny and ridiculous for people on the other side. Obviously moronic and naive to think one could actually talk with North Korea, or reason with terrorists, hahah. The right-wing blogs also post loads of information about the bad deeds of the bad guys, but again, information selected to back up a position, not information selected to provide the whole picture.
I don't see very many left-wing weblogs that spend most of their energy on ridiculing right-wing people. Oh, not that anybody would mind, but it doesn't seem to be the same focus. Which is again that difference. From the conservative perspective, it is of crucial importance to take down the opponent. From the liberal perspective it is of crucial importance to bring everything on the table, to be decided. The first approach often wins, because it is much easier and clear.
There are other aspects to the stereotypes of conservative and liberal people, of course. For conservatives, the ideal is a strong father figure who imposes discipline, and discipline and hard work are rewarded. For liberals, the ideal is a nurturing mother figure who listens to everybody's concerns and makes sure there's a warm meal for everybody. For conservatives, the world is a dangerous place and one better protect oneself and one's property against the bad people out there. For liberals, the world is basically a nice place and there needs to be room for all of us in it.
Anyway, I still don't believe in the political categories or spectrum. I think it is a fake scheme to cover up the real choices. Anyway, the political groups often end up doing the opposite of what they're supposed to. Like, in the U.S. it is supposed to be the conservatives that are for small government and private freedom, but yet they create the most humongous central government and spend more money than anybody else, and they put way more curbs on personal freedoms, many only for abstract religous reasons. And the supposedly big government liberals end up balancing the budget and to a much higher degree let people do what they feel is right. Anyway, that's all the U.S. picture. Looks different in other parts of the world.
Anyway, I didn't actually mean to talk just about politics. My point was the difference between worldviews of those who prefer clear, strong messages and those who prefer to have a dialogue about the facts. I'm afraid there's unfortunately still more of the first kind of people. More >
|
|
|
|
 7 Sep 2004 @ 02:07, by ming. Politics
Below is a letter, from an e-mail, from a regular woman who's daughther was held for several days in a containment facility for temporary political prisoners, without access to telephones or legal representation. In New York. A facility run, apparently, by the Republican National Committee. The young lady made the mistake of walking though a park on a day when thousands of protesters were being rounded up and locked away, so that the Republican Convention could, eh, do its thing. Lots more of the kind from indymedia.
At the same time, the NYPD is testing its new long range sound weapon. Well, really it was made for violent mobs in Iraq. But, hey, works great for random people walking on the street in New York too. Some of them might be Democrats.
I'm increasingly glad I now live out here in the free world, in a place where one is allowed to demonstrate, with police protection, and where there are free elections and human rights. More >
|
|
|
|
 7 Sep 2004 @ 01:18, by quinty. Politics
Is Kerry really as shallow as he appears to be? He went to Bill Clinton just before the latter went into surgery to ask for campaign strategy advice. Clinton, the darling of the DLC, who has said nothing against this war. (Whereas Gore has been eloquent on the subject.) Who has only mouthed some “third way” mumbo jumbo about the need for enduring patience as our leaders gradually find their way in this post 9/11 world. Yes, Clinton is popular, and if he could go on the stump he would help Kerry. That would be a boost. But Clinton also appears to be totally out of touch. More >
|
|
|
|
 6 Sep 2004 @ 11:03, by jazzolog. Politics
My photo shows Parkersburg High School and us demonstrators at the distance we were kept by police lines, complete with police dogs, Secret Service and SWAT teams. You can see the lights of the football stadium, which obviously is further away still. The other sides of the school and stadium were lined with a fleet of schoolbuses parked bumper to bumper.
Fall River's many white apes
hurry like flying snow
haul their children over the branches
lap at the moon in the water
---Li-Po
Make the universe your companion, always bearing in mind the true nature of all creation---mountains and rivers, trees and grasses, and humanity---and enjoy the falling blossoms and scattering leaves.
---Basho
As naturally as the oak bears an acorn, and the vine a gourd, a man bears a poem, either spoken or done.
---Henry David Thoreau
Parkersburg, West Virginia, is a sleepy town on the Ohio River an hour or so north of Charleston, the state's capitol. The Wood County Seat, for many years it's had a shopping mall that attracts consumers from miles around...including our town which is an hour west. There also are a number of curious federal centers in Parkersburg, chiefly the Bureau of Public Debt---here at a location conveniently out of sight of Washington policymakers. The Parkersburg High School has a football stadium attached which can hold about 9000 people, a graduate told me. What happens to a town like this if the President of the United States decides to stop by on the campaign trail? More >
|
|
|
|
4 Sep 2004 @ 00:39, by bkodish. Politics
Well, I'm registered as a "Democrat."
The first major Republican I voted for, for a major office, was Arnold Schwartzenegger for Governor of my fair state. And now it looks as if I'm going to vote for George Bush.
Thomas Sowell puts things well for me.
If you're shaking your head in wonderment and disbelief, I have lots of friends and loved ones who shake their heads too. Ah well.
--BIK
Democrats for Bush
by Thomas Sowell
Jewish World Review Sept. 3, 2004
"Democratic Senator Zell Miller's electrifying speech at the Republican convention may overshadow the fact that another well-known Democrat — New York's former mayor, Ed Koch — has also crossed party lines to support and campaign for President George W. Bush."
"Never a shrinking violet, Ed Koch says that he disagrees with President Bush on virtually all domestic issues, but that the over-riding issue of our time is the war on terrorism — and that his own Democratic Party doesn't have the "stomach" (Koch's word) for the fight. Mayor Koch understands that if we don't win the war on terrorism, nothing else is going to matter." More >
|
|
|
|
3 Sep 2004 @ 17:12, by craiglang. Politics
Last night I briefly caught some of Bush's acceptance speech. What caught my attention was the way in which he attempted to associate himself with the heroes of 9/11. But overall what struck me was the stridency and the degree of divisiveness which I saw. Listenning to what little I did of the Republican convention, it struck me just how much the level of polarity has increased in our present day. It once again dramatizes to me that the pace of change in our world is quickening, and we have reached a key crossroads in history. More >
|
|
|
|
2 Sep 2004 @ 16:42, by namakando. Politics
"DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD HAVE THEM DO UNTO YOU."-THE MAN YESHUA(JESUS) More >
|
|
<< Newer entries Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Older entries >> |
|
