First, the Republicans complain about Obama's proposed "stay-in-school" speech, citing that he will be indoctrinating his political views into it. There is no proof of that, and to assume that is just plain silly. Then Chairman Greer of Florida does this. The hypocrisy of the right-wing is absolutely astounding. It is illogical, irrational, and frankly very hateful. The actions of the Republican demagogues scream "We will wrongly claim you of doing something wrong, but if we do exactly what we will wrongly claim you of, it's okay." The Republican party is all about good Christian values, and yet so many Republican congressmen and governors have gotten in trouble due to adultery and other not-so-classy-or-moral sexual activity. I normally wouldn't care, since it's these congressman's personal business, except that they all claim to be promoters of "Christian values." Republican voters seem to know nothing of the meaning of Socialism, Communism, or Fascism, and yet they throw these terms around all the time. They also have an irrational hate for "socialism", even though the U.S.'s education, libraries, fire departments, police departments, social security, and senior welfare system (medicare) are all government-run and "socialized". At a speech about health care given by the president, a Republican voter calmly brings his assault rifle with him. It shocks many, but he possesses a license and is practicing his right to bear arms, and thus it's perfectly legal. And yet I have witnessed personally that if any liberals protest (peacefully) a federal government policy, the conservative passerbys will violently shout "THEY HATE AMERICA!" or "TERRORISTS!". If there are instances when they don't, Republican representatives and leaders will. Most Republicans claim not to be irrational extremists, and take the time to differentiate themselves from the Republicans we see on TV. The thing is, when those incidents (people shouting "HEIL HITLER", "HE'S A NAZI", etc) occur, the Republican politicians do not condemn it or speak out against these crazies. This leads me to believe that the Republican base could really be made of these Pamela Pilger and Glenn Beck types. I will not go so far as to say all Republicans are crazy, but that they are brutally misinformed/mislead.
Congratulations, you've realised that one of the major US parties is hypocritical, corrupt, opportunist, self-interested, and morally lacking. You're 50% of the way there!
As Spec stated although I would say 50% is slightly off as he has probably not taken libertarian or any of the smaller parties into account So maybe more of a 47%. The more things change the more things stay the same.
The reason he's outraged is because, for him, the difference between the two parties isn't negligible, as it is made to seem by theorists like Chomsky (however carefully documented the crimes of individual democrats are in his books and in those by Norman Finklestein and others). The revelation that both parties are relatively corrupt doesn't do much for TheMusician or many of us who live in the States: It doesn't give ordinary citizens medical protection, financial recourse or the right to equal education; welfare and food stamps are hard-won, compulsively revoked, and far less secure than being on the dole. Crippling illness = financial ruin and half-treatment as opposed to manageable debt and thorough treatment. In the past, the reforms and policies of that imperfect democrat, Franklin D. Roosevelt, provided relief and in many cases granted human life. That, friends, is the value of upholding an impure approach. In a sense, the views of true leftist (Marxist) and libertarian (not conservative socially) purists who dismiss both parties as equally corrupt, and suggest the States will only be saved by bypassing the two-party system, compliment the views of neo-classical economists who think the equilibrium of the free market will right North America's financial health. (Staunch monetarist Allan Greenspan was bewildered when the deregulation he effected actually accelerated our current crisis.) In the short run, both groups are willing to sacrifice the quality of life -- and even the literal lives -- of many Americans for idealized versions of government. But for many of us, the short run is the long run: To get to the distant future, we have to survive the present. Most of the time, political reporting in The New York Times doesn't interest me (except inasmuch as their editorial policy results in more opinion-purged presentation than other local sources such as the New York Post and the Daily News -- the slant is in the disposition of the information rather than even worse places, such as the tone of the stories or a propensity for pseudo-emotional editorializing). However, I make an exception for blog entries and articles by economist Paul Krugman. His explication of the prevailing economic theories in the States, their effect on financial stability, and instability's effect on the lives of ordinary Americans might be useful reading for those who see no difference whatsoever between both schools ("saltwater" vs. "freshwater", or general theory vs. monetarism). That piece is available here (though, sadly, you'll have to register (for free) in order to read it (for free)). Certainly, Krugman is critical of certain of the Obama Admin's strategies and their execution of said strategies, as well as the so-called blue dog democrats and their opposition to the Admin's most beneficial ideas, and many other aspects of the current (and possibly brief) democratic ascendancy. But he is equally aware that attempts by republicans to sabotage the policies and destroy the reputations of political representatives for which and for whom the majority of Americans voted are bone-chillingly dishonest and, in the case of the health care debate, potentially lethal. If you need to be reminded of where those strategies have gotten America in the past, then review the history and documentation, filmed and transcribed, of Joe McCarthy and the Hollywood Ten. HUAC couldn't abide the Ten's invocation of the First Amendment (right to free speech) instead of the Fifth (right to avoid self-incrimination) and sent them to jail to show just how free to pursue their political beliefs they really were (hence the frequent qualification, "you've the right to your opinion" before savaging the rights of the person who holds the opinion). There are striking similarities between the right's pursuit of the supposed communists in the 50s (mostly liberals, as it turned out) and their campaign against so-called "socialists" and "socialist" policy today. That massive effort is also massively corrupt. It is worthy of opposition in the two-party sense. Police Commissioner Theodore Rooselvelt's enforcement and vindication of the rights of tenants was inspired by his horror at Jacob Riis's book-length photo essay, How the Other Half Lives in the 1890s. Obama's horror at the current health system is an equally inspired reaction to the failure of medical coverage and the battle for human rights. Like Theodore Roosevelt's midnight tenement inspections of the premises of corrupt landlords, Obama's proposed regulation of insurance companies would be a blow against corruption no matter how unsatisfactory his policies might be in Afghanistan and elsewhere. And no, I'm not forgetting the role of democrats in furthering the witch hunt against leftist writers in Hollywood, which was often anti-Semitic, insofar as communism seemed to be a code word for Jew. ("How can you work with all those Hollywood Jews?" Dalton Trumbo recalls being asked privately by one of the members of McCarthy's committee.) I'm simply pointing out that, in many cases, the lesser of the two evils provides the only way out of hell. Ulterior powers massed against any kind of meaningful health reform -- which must include a public option -- are proof of that. "The deeply dishonest are adept at making the relatively honest appear deceitful and hypocritical." -- Christopher Isherwood
I just spent the weekend with my friends who are mostly liberal (in the modern sense of the word) and I disagree with them on most every issue politically (I am a liberal in the original- 1700's sense of the word) and we all had a consensus that this **** is stupid and blown out of proportion. Let the president talk to kids about school and my advise to you is stop watching the media and talk to regular Americans you may disagree with and realize that we have more in common than we think and don't be characterized by the cartoonish examples at each end of our respective political spectrums
weird they drafted up a lesson plan for the kids though.. here's the actual lesson plan 7-12th grade - http://www.scribd.com/doc/19447632/712 K-6th - http://www.scribd.com/doc/19447631/prek6 tell you guys how it goes on tuesday over here in fresno.. teachers don't have to pass out this lesson plan as it's not part of the schools curriculum
With all due respect, you're the last person who should be complaining of cartoonish examples. You announced your presence in previous debates by asserting that I personally was a leftist hypocrite ("you, of all people!") -- an elitist, and a credulous twit who was somehow so intellectually lazy that I "got all [my] news from TV." Certainly, these were cartoonish caricatures on your part. You then proceeded to caricature in broad language nearly everyone else against whom you'd chosen to argue -- Nexxo, Rum&Coke, ad nauseum and stir -- framing their opinions and approaches in similarly cartoonish terms. Equally cartoonish are your latest inferences about the ways in which all liberals spend their time. I'm so glad you feel we haven't had time for exposure to Real Americans given our commitment to jeering at the poor and memorizing the speeches of TV news anchors. Would you like to name the resorts we frequent in our attempt to avoid Real American Peasants so that we can drink single malt scotch by the pool unmolested while streaming MSNBC opinion panel telecasts on our Blackberries? You seem to know so much about the leisure time of your opponents. What's more, you haven't responded to others' posts as if you wanted to be enlightened by their political opinions. You haven't even admitted you were ever wrong about your own opinions in the history of your time on these boards, nor have you proved a particularly careful listener whenever the topic strayed into politics. You haven't said anything to suggest you actually read your opponents' source links. Instead, you make dismissive comments that seem only tangentially relevant. You have also ignored opponents' points and only pretended to address them -- either by "giggling" (as you said in your initial response to Nexxo), listing generalizations or spitting counter-links without providing any argument to justify their being clicked on. The person making an argument should take the effort to make the point himself and then provide a link as a supporting footnote. And for the record, some of us are tired of your avoidance of recognized terms for your position even as you circumscribe, cordon off and label the rest of us. "1770 liberal," "centrist," libertarian (never in terms of social freedom) -- few of us are buying the conservative marketing speak. No offense, but shouldn't a Real American like yourself have the good-natured candor to call yourself what everyone can see you are by your stated positions -- a reactionary conservative -- instead of pimping yourself with a myriad of pseudonyms coined by spin 'toonists who retreat from the fallout of past crimes by slipping behind tinted smoke clouds? Wouldn't you win points by allowing the same brush with which you paint us to be applied to you? Let's be honest: I'm a liberal ("in the modern sense") and you're a conservative (in the late 1990s sense). It might hurt to be on the losing team for now, but rest easy -- your side often gets what it wants. My side has been defeated more often than yours in the past forty years and doubtless will be again. Even so, we don't go around renaming ourselves every time we do something unpopular. Perhaps self-reinventing conservatives, too, should learn from past policy mistakes instead of running from them. Perhaps adopting new political positions isn't a matter of avoiding common language or seeking out prettier packaging. Take the residence from which you tend to throw your stones, for example. If you like, you may call it a "post-crystal manse" or a "non-opaque Real American Hut." Unfortunately, none of that will stop us from noticing it's made out of glass.
Look, I wanted to avoid this because it has no bearing on the topic at hand (or in the original thread for that matter) but because it has been carried into another thread... I honestly meant the "you of all people" as a compliment that you have proven to be well read and savvy on so many other topics. If you misunderstood, or more likely, I communicated it wrong, then I apologize. I didn't want to address it there because it seemed to make the topic about you/I and not the discussion at had but an apology was in order and I missed the opportunity. The MSNBC reference was also a regrettable one and was generic as I've been involved in a lot of discussions about the other topic and I made a general statement. You yourself mistook someone else's comments for another in that thread, it happens. As far as picking and choosing who I talk to in the other thread. I am outnumbered and have been discussing at-length with more than a dozen people, sorry if I didn't respond to every single post. I have nothing but respect for Rum and Coke and Nexxo and thrive on their input. If I didn't feel that way I would've quit the discussion days ago. Both are perfectly capable for talking for themselves and have respectfully taken me to task on the topic and I have learned a lot. You have spent many paragraphs telling me who I am and in some respect, you are dead on correct. But I don't want to spend the whole discussion telling people who I am, I want to discuss the topic. I don't want or intend to tell you who you are either I have no idea and if I came across as presumptuous as that, again, I apologize. Oh, and I liked the speech too.
Great speech. I really do hope parents send their kids to school so they can hear this. If they attend as well, it's all for the better.
Eddie Dane: Thanks for your gracious and restrained reply. It was much appreciated. One last thing before we return to the topic(s): I actually wrote a paragraph in my previous post explaining why I would choose to do the very thing of which I've often complained. I subsequently deleted it so as not to continue writing in a mode that troubles me on principle. Now that I need not force myself into that mode, I can explain my reasons without having to be uncivil. The reason I took offense to your remarks is because I don't think it's right to tell relative strangers who they are. I, too, believe that people should stick to the topic and not attack the projected attitude of an opponent. I was in fact so offended by your attack on my character two weeks ago that I stopped contributing to the thread I started and haven't visited it since. The only reason I would ever focus on someone's character on a message board is to (i) let them know how it feels to be on the receiving end and (ii) show them that, in making the discussion about character, they lay themselves open to similar treatment. That is the mode in which I scrutinized your posts. The reason I sounded angry is because I hate being forced to malign other people's characters: I didn't appreciate having to do it to prove a point. If you truly didn't intend to infer things about my character in the past, then I apologize to you in turn. But it would have been nice to receive a PM to that effect rather than a brief sarcastic comment that suggested I was to be treated to more of the same. In closing, I'll leave you with Roger Ebert's comments on a thread initiated by his review of a film about Intelligent Design. Condensing events, Ebert describes a fair and reasonable advocate of I.D., and speaks of him admiringly, since the majority of posters on that side of the debate were neither reasonable nor fair. In his opinion, the anti-Darwinist argument for I.D. is impossible to win: That said, he was impressed and moved by an advocate of that position who argued in a tireless and reasonable manner. Perhaps you'll find the compliment applies to you (or could) when you populate boards like this one -- boards which are frequented by people whose views differ strongly from your own. (And by the way -- I'm not suggesting you actually advocate I.D.)
That was a cracking speech and i wish school kids in the UK would get to read or hear it. I think he summed up a lot of this generations (apparent) problems very succinctly.
