Chade on 8/9/2008 at 21:46
Quote Posted by heywood
Obviously, I agree about groupthink. But I do think that the two-party system is inherently polarizing. ...
... But I think in a multi-party system, the parties are closer and more accountable to their members, and it's easier for centrist parties to form when excessive political fighting renders the government ineffective.
I'm not sure if my post was worth such an intelligent response, but whatever ... :p
I don't pretend to be an expert on these issues, but it seems to me there is going never going to be much more then two successfull parties anyway.
The majority of the population is basically centrist, more or less by definition, so the only parties you are going to have are successfull centrist parties "playing the game" and non-successfull non-centrist parties representing a particular viewpoint held by a minority. There's not a lot of room to manouver in the centre, so there aren't niches for many successfull parties, and all but a couple (my guess is that that this "couple" probably means two) will be pushed out to the fringe anyway.
At the end of the day, a successfull party will never be "close" to it's consituents, because it will always appeal to a wider cross-section of voters then non-successfull parties. The success of a party is almost toally determined by the size of the voter base that it appeals to. That's why so many people feel they have a choice between parties that "don't really represent me" but have a chance of winning, and parties that do "represent me" but have no chance of winning. The feeling of choosing between the lesser of two evils is fundamentally built into any system which rewards parties on the basis of how much of the population votes for them.
So personally, I think the two party system is just a formalism of what would likely happen anyway. But of course this is just armchair reasoning, with no real weight behind it.
theBlackman on 8/9/2008 at 23:09
Quote Posted by BEAR
I think the fundamental difference between how you think and how I think is this: you have this sense that things were as they were because of some virtue that past generations had, and that current generations lack this specific thing that past generations had by their own efforts and therefor can be given credit for. Do you really think that there are just "bad" generations and "good" ones where the good qualities of one can be taken credit for and the bad qualities of others can be used to blame?
No, I don't blame anyone per se. Nor do I think that Generation A is any better or worse than Generation B, as a whole. However, that aside, have you been around long enough to see that RUDE and "self-interest" has become the norm, compared to courtesy and consideration for others?
Do you stop to ask if a stranded motorist has need of some help? With the proliferation of Cellphones, probably not, because the assumption is they called for help. On the other hand, I do because I was brought up to do so. If the lady is loading her groceries and has a case of soda or two that may be a little heavy, do you offer assistance? Most do not in this current "era".
That doesn't mean that the previous Gen was "good" and this one "Bad", it merely means that the conventions of social interaction have changed. Not necessarily because the world has changed, but more because we no longer feel that others deserve the consideration we give ourselves.
Quote Posted by BEAR
I'm not talking metaphysico-theologo-cosmolonigology or anything, but I think some realization needs to be made that things are as they are because they are, not because of the lazy hippy down the street or those teenagers and their rap music. Human civilization goes back 10000 years, if we think we are experiencing anything unique here we're wrong. Clearly there are some changes, and technology is molding our society more than in the past, but a large amount of what we deal with has been dealt with by EVERY generation. Same emotions, different date. [...]
To an extent, social conventions change, but as one human to another, that feeling of humanity and consideration is historically there in "some" of the population. For others, and in this particular period it is lacking in most of us.
The attitude of "Don't get involved" is rampant, and with minor exceptions, people fear to offer assistance, or just don't give a damn because it's not thier problem and they will not be inconvenienced by whatever the problem is. It's a matter of "whose ox is being gored". If it is yours, you deal with it. If it's mine why in the hell don't you help me.
Quote Posted by BEAR
Could things really be that different than they are? Can we blame the current situation on a past generation, who can blame their shortcomings on the generation before and so on, or do we just blame the closest scapegoats while refusing to look at the bigger picture?
Yes things could be very different. But blaming all problems on the past generations and the closest scapegoat has become the tenor of society. We, as a people, refuse to accept that we are the problem and that our attitudes and actions, or lack thereof, are the root cause.
If I get stopped by a police officer for driving erratically, and I get a ticket for speeding, or some other offense. It is my fault. It is not the fault of the municipality wanting "quotas" from the officer. It is not the fault of the system for making petty or stupid laws (although in some non vehicular situations it is -it is illegal to bathe a horse in a bathtub in Maryland for example), the fault and resulting inconvenience or fine is of my own making.
But few of us accept this. Did not get the promotion at work? It's the fault of some brownnoser who lied about us. Not because we only worked 5 of the 8 hours a day we were supposed to. Did not get the homework for school done on time? It's the fault of dad, or mom, who made me clean my room, and so on.
Nobody says, "Hey, I watched TV or played on my computer all night instead of studying for the math test I failed."
You get the idea.
Ghostly Apparition on 9/9/2008 at 00:10
Quote Posted by heretic
Anyone that has a pastor has a problem in my book, so more power to you. Though unless she is a member of the Westboro Baptist church or some such it probably won't measure up to Wright as that's a pretty tall order.
It only won't measure up to Wright(as you put it) because it won't be drilled into our heads day and night for 8 days or so as the Wright controversy was.
I'd hazard a guess that you won't hear much about her pastor problem or the fact that her husband belongs to a Alaska secessionist Group, or that she While
Governor gave a televised welcome to the group on the occasion of their convention.
Here is a link.(
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/09/aip_founder_professed_hatred_f.php)
I especially like the aidio a little way down the article where the leader talks about his hatred for America.
heretic on 9/9/2008 at 00:39
Quote Posted by Ghostly Apparition
It only won't measure up to Wright(as you put it) because it won't be drilled into our heads day and night for 8 days or so as the Wright controversy was.
I'd hazard a guess that you won't hear much about her pastor problem or the fact that her husband belongs to a Alaska secessionist Group, or that she While
Governor gave a televised welcome to the group on the occasion of their convention.
If these scoops are not getting the same attention, or are just not as alarming to people as the Wright controversy then that is probably because they don't deserve to be. Are you suggesting that the media is simply covering for her or what?
Keep in mind, I never brought up the Wright issue as a reason to vote one way or the other, only to illustrate that declaring one guy as a 'more commited' christian than another is not so cut and dry.
Still, by all means, keep fapping away at your molehills. I don't have a horse in this race and really could not care less. If something worthwhile comes up (as well something may) I have no doubt we will hear about it.
heretic on 9/9/2008 at 01:20
Quote Posted by Starrfall
(Next week is still kind of lame though. If she's ready she's ready.)
(
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13264.html) It may prove to be worth the wait.
Short of linked article:
-Multiple interviews taking place this Thurs & Fri.
-Interviews will take place in her home, and be conducted by Charles Gibson.
-No questions or topics are off limits.
Ghostly Apparition on 9/9/2008 at 03:17
Quote Posted by heretic
If these scoops are not getting the same attention, or are just not as alarming to people as the Wright controversy then that is probably because they don't deserve to be. Are you suggesting that the media is simply covering for her or what?
Keep in mind, I never brought up the Wright issue as a reason to vote one way or the other, only to illustrate that declaring one guy as a 'more commited' christian than another is not so cut and dry.
Still, by all means, keep fapping away at your molehills. I don't have a horse in this race and really could not care less. If something worthwhile comes up (as well something may) I have no doubt we will hear about it.
Although you may not have a horse in the race or so you say, the large corporate media surely does. Yes I do suggest that the media has a conservative bias.
Your fapping away comment is totally uncalled for but not exactly unexpected coming from you.
If something worthwhile comes up? You mean like McCain saying he's against corruption and lobbyists in Washington while his entire
campaign is being run by lobbyists? Do you mean worthwhile stuff like that perhaps?
Quote Posted by heretic
(
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13264.html) It may prove to be worth the wait.
Short of linked article:
-Multiple interviews taking place this Thurs & Fri.
-Interviews will take place in her home, and be conducted by Charles Gibson.
-No questions or topics are off limits.
Here I guess is where you're suggesting the hard hitting journalism we've come to expect from Charlie Gibson. From reading the article it says that the questions will be as difficult as one of the debates.
(
http://mediamatters.org/items/200804170007)
(
http://mediamatters.org/items/200809040021)
But I really don't know why I try to convince you of anything.
Since you don't even care about this election at all and have no horse in the race. Why pray tell do you even post in this thread?
BEAR on 9/9/2008 at 03:27
Seriously, fuck Gibson. Especially fuck him for the way that he defended his own bullshit later as relevant because the average middle school chud would want to hear about it.
I generally like Stephanopoulos, and I can't really remember what his role was in the debate (I remember Gibson asking the real steamers).
heretic on 9/9/2008 at 04:00
Quote Posted by Ghostly Apparition
Although you may not have a horse in the race or so you say, the large corporate media surely does. Yes I do suggest that the media has a conservative bias.
Your fapping away comment is totally uncalled for but not exactly unexpected coming from you.
If something worthwhile comes up? You mean like McCain saying he's against corruption and lobbyists in Washington while his entire
campaign is being run by lobbyists? Do you mean worthwhile stuff like that perhaps?
Here I guess is where you're suggesting the hard hitting journalism we've come to expect from Charlie Gibson. From reading the article it says that the questions will be as difficult as one of the debates.
But I really don't know why I try to convince you of anything. Since you don't even care about this election at all and have no horse in the race. Why pray tell do you even post in this thread?
This really doesn't work when you keep putting words in my mouth. Quit taking everything so personally and I will continue the reasoned disc..eerr hyperbolic rants while you keep editing more errors into your posts.
Conservative media? Thanks for the laugh. Of the top big agencies, only FOX fits that description. Most of the larger printed press and the other four networks are in stark contrast. If Gibson won't cut it surely there will be others, but haven't you allready made up your mind regardless?
One can find whatever flavor of media one wants on the internet, so that doesn't really count, nor is it mainstream.
As far as the campaign stuff, does that really surprise you? The same lobbyists benefit both major parties you know, as it's in their best interest to stay in business regardless of who eventually wins.
Remember, it's not up to me to decide where the beef is, bouncing all of these criticisms of Mccain & CO. off my door is flattering and all, but I've made my inherent suspicion of
all politicians forward to any other position within my posts. I extend this to one and all, though I do often elaborate on certain positions that are highly underrepresented here at TTLG. Echo chambers are boring, reasoned discourse is not. It's rarely taken to the level one could consider reasoned discourse here at the hotbutton, but it happens now and then.
For clarification: I have more interest in the election than I do any particular candidate. My man is out of the race.
As things stand now, I may write him (Ron Paul) in or I may begrudgingly vote Mccain, I'm not sure yet.
Also, trying to convince anyone of anything is folly.
IMO, it's fleshing out our own thoughts and acknowleging those of others without taking offense or getting indignant that makes our little pastime worth it. If my jab got to you then I apologize, I'm just annoyed at having had to explain the Wright issue multiple times over.
D'Juhn Keep on 9/9/2008 at 10:16
Quote Posted by BEAR
The people in the 30's were different because their world was different, that's why I'm always so surprised that people are surprised that things are as they are, when they cant be any different. They COULD have been different if something in the past was different, but how can people not see that pretty much everything makes sense because if it didn't the whole universe would tear itself apart? You cant have an effect without a cause, so can you blame the effect for the cause?
Does this make any sense to anyone but me?
Yeah, this makes lots of sense. Although you could make the argument (only 1 e, theblackman) that it's the people that shape the climate of the world and not vice versa. Chicken and the egg and all that. For me, this reminds me of people who see foreign country X as being a perfect place with no flaws simply because they don't know the flaws. A typical example I've heard goes along the lines of "Look at Sweden, they don't have a problem with illegal immigration like we in the UK do!". But of course this is just a claim from ignorance. Living in your own country you get all the bad news and can easily have a pessimistic view of your own country. Whereas with foreign countries you don't get that at all.
There's a point to all this, honest. It's that your view of these other countries is rose tinted because you don't live there. Just like a rose tinted view of the past. Yes, it sure was great that households living next to each other would help each other out but guess what, today they don't NEED TO. Which is a better scenario? Of course you might say that the former situation is more desirous but I think harking back to a bygone golden age is facilitated by ignoring all the bad stuff that happened then. Not to mention that it's a huge cliché. It's also ignoring the fact that there are undoubtedly small, tightly knit communities that are friendly and help each other out still around today. I live in a city, this doesn't happen and I doubt it has been that way since, or before for that matter, the second world war. I don't know where you live but if you don't live in a community with an ethos you like, have you considered finding one?
BEAR on 9/9/2008 at 14:39
I grew up in a pretty cool place all things considered, I'm not really speaking too much from personal experience as observation.
Quote Posted by theBlackman
No, I don't blame anyone per se. Nor do I think that Generation A is any better or worse than Generation B, as a whole. However, that aside, have you been around long enough to see that RUDE and "self-interest" has become the norm, compared to courtesy and consideration for others?
Do you stop to ask if a stranded motorist has need of some help? With the proliferation of Cellphones, probably not, because the assumption is they called for help. On the other hand, I do because I was brought up to do so. If the lady is loading her groceries and has a case of soda or two that may be a little heavy, do you offer assistance? Most do not in this current "era".
That doesn't mean that the previous Gen was "good" and this one "Bad", it merely means that the conventions of social interaction have changed. Not necessarily because the world has changed, but more because we no longer feel that others deserve the consideration we give ourselves.
To an extent, social conventions change, but as one human to another, that feeling of humanity and consideration is historically there in "some" of the population. For others, and in this particular period it is lacking in most of us.
The attitude of "Don't get involved" is rampant, and with minor exceptions, people fear to offer assistance, or just don't give a damn because it's not thier problem and they will not be inconvenienced by whatever the problem is. It's a matter of "whose ox is being gored". If it is yours, you deal with it. If it's mine why in the hell don't you help me.
Yes things could be very different. But blaming all problems on the past generations and the closest scapegoat has become the tenor of society. We, as a people, refuse to accept that we are the problem and that our attitudes and actions, or lack thereof, are the root cause.
If I get stopped by a police officer for driving erratically, and I get a ticket for speeding, or some other offense. It is my fault. It is not the fault of the municipality wanting "quotas" from the officer. It is not the fault of the system for making petty or stupid laws (although in some non vehicular situations it is -it is illegal to bathe a horse in a bathtub in Maryland for example), the fault and resulting inconvenience or fine is of my own making.
But few of us accept this. Did not get the promotion at work? It's the fault of some brownnoser who lied about us. Not because we only worked 5 of the 8 hours a day we were supposed to. Did not get the homework for school done on time? It's the fault of dad, or mom, who made me clean my room, and so on.
Nobody says, "Hey, I watched TV or played on my computer all night instead of studying for the math test I failed."
You get the idea.
We pretty much agree entirely as far as values. Where I grew up most of what you said is the considered way of acting, but its a small town/rural southern community. I've noticed a big difference moving into the city (hah, city, really a big town to someone from a big city). I always got the feeling that people could probably sleep through gunshots or watch people get robbed (even though there was very little crime). I remember we had a crazed drunk guy break out the window in our front door once and the morning after, our neighbor said a similar (probably the same) thing happened to her but she didn't call her neighbors or even wake up her own family, which is totally off to my sensibilities. Not that I would have wanted to go and bust his head in, but if she was in real danger it hurt me that she wouldn't ask for help.
Where I grew up, the hospital is an hours drive away and the nearest police are at least a half hour (if you know exactly where you are going) away, so there is a strong feeling of community. Everyone watches out for each others stuff, even though there is only 5 families on the entire mountain. When someone is in trouble or needs help, we expect to be called, and if we aren't we feel hurt. It's made me want to go out of my way to help people whenever possible, even when most people ignore it. My brother and I always find ourselves in that position driving around. We find people stuck in ditches and pull them out, or flat tires etc.
I remember when my Dad got his face messed up bad when bush-hogging a field and hooked a branch on the roll bar that slid right down his face (broke his nose and all kinds of shit). Since the paramedics can't get there quicker than a half hour (they would have a tough time getting to my house at all, but 30 minutes on the "main road"), everyone just meets the ambulances half-way if it is needed. When we got there, there were literally 20 people waiting that had nothing to do with the incident. Anyone who isn't a first responder is a volunteer FD member and they all have CB radios and heard the 911 dispatch and came out to help. Its a good feeling, even if I'm very different than my neighbors its great to know they are there for you. If the shit ever hit the fan for real there is no place on earth better to be.
If you get broke down on our creek (as you get off of it it kind of turns into a different place, it feels like a community with the river being the dividing line, once you get off people quit waving at each other on the road etc) you literally will be over-run with people trying to help you. I tried to walk home one time (3 or 4 miles maybe) and I was having to beat people away with a stick to get a ride (though I ended up taking one eventually). I always laugh because at any given time a day, some redneck with a chainsaw and a 3 ton hydraulic jack is going to pass you on the road so no obstacle or breakdown is going to last more than 10 minutes. A huge tree fell down in the road once and it lasted about 20 minutes before multiple people driving around with chainsaws had sawed it and loaded it up and hauled it off. It was a fucking race almost. The entire county is like that to an extent but the further from home you get the less it is (which is only natural).
So in terms of values and gut feelings we are very similar, but I have a very different opinion on why things are the way they are. Judging from your picture (if it is real) you could practically be my dad (except he's got a huge bushy beard).
Quote Posted by heretic
Conservative media? Thanks for the laugh. Of the top big agencies, only FOX fits that description. Most of the larger printed press and the other four networks are in stark contrast. If Gibson won't cut it surely there will be others, but haven't you allready made up your mind regardless?
I don't know if I think the media itself is conservative (or at least overtly, there is a large amount of corporate media and corporations seem to lean to the right in general, but I don't think it totally controls the media other than Fox). I think its is a couple issues: A) The whole Liberal Media myth is perpetrated as an "attack where you are weakest so you can't be attacked there". By propagating this myth they make it to where everyone is by default on the defensive, and it can be used as an excuse when anyone attacks you at all. The majority of the media tries to be objective (if fucking stupid), but when they are constantly being attacked as the "liberal media", they over-compensate resulting in a lack of coverage of republican bullshit.
That and there is no END of horrible shit to report on the republicans. You could run a 24/7 news network that just played clips of them contradicting themselves (basically a all day daily show). Watching the daily show and seeing clips of republicans making exactly opposing statements on the SAME FUCKING SHOW and realizing that you will NEVER see that on any 24/7 network is pretty disheartening. This is where the idea of the conservative news comes from, they aren't overly conservative they are just whimpering shadows of what they used to be. The democrats don't viciously attack the media whenever they report on them so they tend to get worse press (even though they seem to have less to report about them). You end up with Rev Wright rather than McCain's utter about face in policy and the laundry list of concerns of their VP pick.
If the Democrats do the same thing I would like to see it as well, but the daily show, left leaning that it is, doesn't give them a free ride (their convention coverage was pretty irreverent). This is another tactic of the republicans which works GREAT. Attack your opponent where you are weakest, taunt them constantly on "flip-flops" that really aren't when you, within a single year, make two opposite claims on meet the press both with 100% conviction depending on whichever the wind blows.
I guess to boil it down, the republicans are great at politicking and elections but terrible at actually governing.
