14/2/09

[identity profile] fischlehrer.livejournal.com
I am sad about the direction of recent posts in talk_politics. Listening to people bash Republicans and Democrats and conservatives and liberals and just generally be nasty and assassinate other people's characters ad infinitum is getting old.

I like to debate and I do learn from others opinions even if I don't agree with them. Too much of what I read is people attempting to one up each other and make someone else look stupid.

After the 2008 US presidential election, I got sick of the You tube videos, slams on people's human errors and the inability of either side to respect, understand or even have a whiff of compassion for the "other side." Someone does not agree with your views? They must be idiots. Someone agrees with your views, great let's make fun of people on the other side and belittle and demean them. Cause it really elevates our intelligence and brings us closer together. That's not the common bond I want with my fellows. The bond of putting other people down to draw us together.

I have friends and family on both sides of the coin. I rarely agree with anyone 100%, but I do listen. I listen most to people who make calm, rational arguments. Least to people who focus on belitting others or slamming the other side as though their side is perfect. Sorry, neither side is 100% right or 100% wrong.

I am learn a lot from people who cite actual sources and try to back up their opinions with factual or at least cited information.

I do not identify with either US political party although I have voted for people in both and supported people in both parties. I have compassion for others but I am a realist. I like to play devils advocate and learn from everyone I can. It's good to question my basic premises about life from time to time. I am not afraid to be wrong. But when I am wrong, I don't need to be beat over the head for it. And when someone disagrees with me I don't need to be personally attacked or shamed.

I am sarcastic and tend towards dry humor. People do funny things and humans can be funny. But I am finding the intense hatred and polarity between people, esp in the US, to be very disturbing. And don't tell me the Republicans started it. Or the Democrats started it. To me that argument and any argument where people lump a bunch of people together under a political party banner and then attribute all people who identify with a party as having the same exact views, the same characteristics, and the same failings is dangerously simplistic. It reminds me of two kids in the back of a car telling mom, "he started it," "no she started it." "He's on my side." "No she is on my side." Maybe I am growing up.

This year I've been really listening to people in my life with viewpoints different from mine. I am listening to people who have very different incomes and different lifestyles yet share some commonalities with me. For example, while I am not a Right to Lifer, I can see their point of view and respect their view without holding the same view. I read both sides reaction to the stimulus plan. Not to berate each side but to learn and understand what people are thinking and feeling. I've been a worker and a boss. I've been a welfare recipient and I've run a small corporation. I've been a lot of things and I do have a knack for seeing both sides of things. For being more comfortable with shades of gray. I don't think that most people want to exploit or hurt others. In many instances, people who hurt or restrict others think they are doing good. (Not always but the majority). People can be selfish, from the welfare mom with 14 kids to the CEO who earns millions on bonuses and runs the company into the ground. No one party, no one ideology is immune to human selfishness and greed, ignorance and wastefulness. There are corrupt communists, socialists, capitalists, etc. I've also met some incredibly people who try to help others and are enormously generous and kind yet make millions or make next to poverty wages. Income level does not dictate integrity.

We all come from very different backgrounds and ideologies. That’s’ great. We have an opportunity to learn from each other and strengthen our own beliefs by blogging about them. But this community can be either an asset to us all or it can disintegrate into a community of ideology bashing and US government focused partisan argument. Don’t we have enough of that in the mainstream media already?

And, if you want to comment on this post, great. I ask you to reply with intelligence, respect and openmindedness. Do what you will, but it’s be great if we could all show each other the best sides of ourselves. Instead of the worst.
[identity profile] inibo.livejournal.com
This is an excerpt from Everyday Anarchy, by Stefan Molyneux. Perhaps I am naive or maybe I'm being sucked into Molyneux's evil cult, but I do find the logic of this piece to be nearly unassailable in its critique of the contradiction of democracy with respect to the state. It does make the assumption that anarchy, i.e., statelessness, is preferable to democracy, but it could probably be used as a defense of monarchy or other more traditional non-democratic forms of government.

If I might attempt to sum up his argument it would be something like this:
Democracy assumes the wisdom of the majority, that is, given exposure to various competing political philosophies and policy prescriptions the majority, through the process of voting, will choose those leaders who will most likely to implement a program that serves the greater interests of society as judged by the majority.

If that is the case, that the majority have the best interests of society at heart, then why do we need a government at all? Won't the majority of people just do what's right in the first place?

When that objection is raised the usual response is to say that without out a government people will ignore the needs of the poor and rampant greed and selfishness will rule society. In other words, the majority will do the very things that demonstrate they do not have the best interests of society at heart. This seems to contradict the first assumption. If it is true then how could they be expected to vote for people who will implement policies that go against what they would do left to their own devices?
I hope I presented that in a way that points out the basic contradiction, at least enough to spark a discussion and to abide by the guide line for [livejournal.com profile] politicsforum "Please do not post news stories or editorials by themselves. This is a discussion forum, not a newsreel", even though I'm not posting this there because it appears to exist merely as a place to cheerlead the two major parties and cast aspersions on those who do not belong to one's club.

Oh, by the way, I'm really not interested in discussing Molyneux as a person, I'm concerned with his political philosophy. I've read that Richard Wagner was a dick, but he sure did produce some amazing music.

OK, now that that's out of the way...

ANARCHY AND DEMOCRACY below the cut... )
[identity profile] lucazzo.livejournal.com
Wednesday, Feb. 11, 2009

Hugo Chávez: Man With No Limits?


Gunmen have started dumping bodies down the hillside garbage chute in La Silsa. The slum, one of the poorest that ring Caracas, was crime-ridden when I was a teacher there in the 1980s. But residents like housewife Gladys Rodríguez tell me the barrio has become a killing field over the past few years, and that corpses are sometimes found atop the rubbish pile below her street. "That's what things have come to," says Rodríguez, 36. "How do you hide your kids from that?"

You can't, which is why Rodríguez says she's conflicted about Venezuela's referendum on Feb. 15, over whether to eliminate presidential term limits. President Hugo Chavez wants to amend the constitution so that he can run for a third six-year term in 2012. On the hustings, the former paratrooper insists that only if he stays in Miraflores, the presidential palace, will "the people stay in power." He's taken to ending his rallies with a campaign slogan that anticipates the vote's outcome: "Oo-ah, Chávez no se va!" Chávez isn't leaving!
 

Article continues... )
My take:

There was a time, many years ago, when he referred to himself as unimportant, merely a leaf being blown by the winds of the revolution. His speech has since changed into something along the lines of "I AM the revolution, and once I go, it all goes down with me". It has been 10 years, and he still has three to go in his current term.

If he were to lose, he'd find a way to call for yet another referendum on the matter next year. Or a constitutional assembly. Or a referendum on extending each presidential term to 10 years.

It's no secret that I'm no fan of Chavez whatsoever, but I wouldn't support something of this sort even for a politician I *did* genuinely like. Power is one thing that is very, very hard to let go of.

 

[identity profile] kinvore.livejournal.com
Apparently we've launched another missile strike into Pakistan, killing 27.

So when we pull out of Iraq chances are it's going to be overcome with Islamic militants who will have good reason to hate us, and it will have nothing to do with our freedom. Afghanistan isn't looking too stable either, and I think we'll need more troops in there if we want ANY chance of not letting it degenerate into Vietraq II.

Then there's Pakistan. The government there has become increasingly unpopular for supporting the United States. Our old friends Al-Qaeda and the Taliban have apparently moved in, established a foothold, and are looking into the possibility of taking over THAT country.

I don't think the Pakistani government has the resources or the will to resist them. If so, what then? Do we invade yet another country or do we turn our backs on an ally that helped us? Is the collapse of Pakistan inevitable?

Let me state that I was for the Afghanistan invasion from the start because unlike Iraq they actually attacked us first. I think Bush handled that war almost as badly as he did Iraq, sending in way too few troops in this case. They are too spread out to deal with the insurgency. If he had kept Saddam contained and put all these resources into Afghanistan I think we'd have caught or killed Bin Laden and all but wiped out all traces of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in that region. But I it's easy to look back and speculate on what we did wrong, what can we do to avoid a potentially bigger disaster in the future?

Credits & Style Info

Talk Politics.

A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods


MONTHLY TOPIC:

Failed States

DAILY QUOTE:
"Someone's selling Greenland now?" (asthfghl)
"Yes get your bids in quick!" (oportet)
"Let me get my Bid Coins and I'll be there in a minute." (asthfghl)

June 2025

M T W T F S S
       1
2 34 5 678
910 1112 131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30      
OSZAR »