The Re-Education of JustJess (and TFP) - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

JustJess · 02-07-2006, 08:53 AM

I read the Politics forum pretty regularly, though I don't often post (you guys are scary sometimes - sometimes from beating on each other and other times because you clearly know a lot more than I). Sometimes I have a hard time differentiating what is opinion, what is fact, and where all of these come from.

What I'm proposing is an educational thread. I'm pretty moderate, I think - socially I'm very liberal, fiscally I am undecided, and my foreign policy opinions change daily. All of you seem to have very delineated opinions, and I'd like to know why. Convince me.

What I DO NOT WANT TO SEE: Please, no sarcasm. Please try to leave your emotions out of it - I know you feel strongly, why else would you post? Please, no 7 feet long posts with nothing but article quotes. This is to be a discussion of the facts as you understand them, and the sources you choose to corroborate those facts. Did you read Book "X", and it convinced you? Do you find the NYTimes horrendously biased? Point me (us) in a direction!

First on the reading list...
What book, publication, article, author, whatever - completely evoked a visceral reaction in you, convinced you of a particular path?
What political persuasion do you consider yourself to be (moderate, liberal, conservative, whatever)? Why? What does that title mean to you and your beliefs personally? What sources did you use to come to the conclusion that you belong to "X" club?

Thanks! I hope to learn a lot from all of you!

ubertuber · 02-07-2006, 09:18 AM

Regarding a book that helped me form values that I use to evaluate issues... I first encountered In Defense of Elitism by William A. Henry about 10 years ago. It's more or less a defense of libertarian/neo-con (not theocon) principles. The book has its flaws - in particular, Henry's love of principal sometimes ignores hard reality, especially in areas of social/historical justice. It's got its fair share of hyperbole, and there are some infuriating ideas presented, but Henry was a smart guy. This is one of the most tightly reasoned and presented manifestos of conservative thought I've ever found. If you disagree with this book, at least you'll know you gave this point of view a fair shot.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcy L. Thompson, in an Amazon.com book review

I expect this book is infuriating to just about everyone who reads it. Progrssives will cringe at some of his social policy suggestions. Conservatives will hate his laissez-faire attitude towards things like gay rights. And most readers will feel flayed by his discussion about how to label himself, since some portion of his views appear to be repugnant to everyone.

If it pisses everyone off and it's smart, then it's probably worth reading.

ubertuber · 02-07-2006, 09:31 AM

Good topic, by the way! I'm always on the lookout for new sources. I'll look forward to seeing what some of my fellow TFPers post!

Some excerpts from the PM I sent you (edited to make sense for others to peruse).

I'm in the habit of reading opinion and editorial pieces. I think these are a highly underrated news source. The ideal of "objective journalism" occupies way too much of the public's attention and is highly suspect at any rate. Every news piece involves decisions about who to quote, what to say, what order to say it in and what not to include (because of space limitations, if nothing else). In other words, there is no way that bias won't come into play at some point, no matter how "balanced" the view is. With editorial and opinion pieces, at least you know where the author is coming from! Besides, the people that write these things are generally pretty smart - allowing them to do some first level analysis for you (even if it is coming from only one point of view) is a way of getting the heavy lifting done quickly and easily. That said, it's important to fact-check if something doesn't seem right - there is often a context that will explain things that appear to be inexplicable. For this reason, I am tired of all the pro-forma dismissals of NY Times, Fox News, Truthout.org, Washington Times/Post, etc... There may be a level of bias in their story selection, but the facts included are either true or not, and that is what is important. You can chase them down on your own later (or fill in the blanks). The bleating about the "obvious bias" of these sources seems like people who find it inconvenient to engage ideas that differ radically from their own.

Another author I enjoy: Thomas Friedman. He’s a foreign affairs columnist for the NY Times who tends to focus on the intersection of political and economic issues (he calls it geo-politics). Friedman’s got a few things going for him. He’s definitely a moderate (and seems comfortable lauding/criticising both sides equally), he’s a good writer with a gift for catchy phrases, he has an uncanny knack for extended metaphors, and he’s extremely readable even when writing on dense topics. Most of all, Friedman seems to recognize that even in politics, economics, and globalization, the important story is the pragmatic one – which comes down to how issues affect people, and vice-versa. So, I make a point of reading every word he writes on the NY Times (requires a *select membership*, but that is worth it for him alone).

Friedman’s books (all very readable and quite interesting):
On middle eastern politics/life: From Beirut to Jerusalem
On post 9/11 world affairs: Longitudes and Attitudes
On globalization (read in this order): The Lexus and the Olive Tree and The World is Flat

stevo · 02-07-2006, 09:56 AM

I feel its important to take a stand. Its important to know what you believe in. I think it is important to have convictions and not just sway with the wind. I think most people are "moderates" which, to me, basically says, "I take the side of the winner. I don't want to commit to anything until I have a good idea of the outcome." I don't understand people who claim to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative. To me social and fiscal programs are tied together. how can you be for massive government social programs but be against high government spending? I think thats just what people say to sound like they've put some thought into their position.

I've read books by many conservative authors, but not too often, and after I was aware of my conservative beleifs. I listen to talk radio every once in a while (I'm not into podcasts and I can't really listen at work, so not too often either). I do remember the first time I heard rush limbaugh on the radio. I thought to myself "Thats what I think, maybe I am a conservative." So I listened to his show maybe for 20 minutes a day while I was in my car, and more often than not agreed with what he had to say. I check out most of the current happenings on the internet. www.drudgereport.com for a daily chieck on the news along with news.google.com

A good place to start with links is http://www.intellectualconservative.com/links.html

I never used to think the media was biased or there was some liberal agenda behind the latest blockbuster film, but once I was aware of it, it was painfully obvious. I'm actually suprised (a bit) in how my beliefs have turned out. I never really thought I would be a conservative.

Charlatan · 02-07-2006, 09:57 AM

I agree with the super potato. Opinion and ediorial pieces are very good fodder for understanding issues. The key is to read a variety of opinions. Use them as starting points. If you read an opinion that doesn't make sense or perhaps, is just of interest to you, do some more reading on the subject.

In my mind it is always about balance. Trying to understand all sides (there are usually more than two) of an issue. Being able to admit when you are wrong as well as ask questions when you don't know are also key. Unfortuanately, in Politics this is too frequently seen as an excuse to attack rather than to enlighten.

Charlatan · 02-07-2006, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

I feel its important to take a stand. Its important to know what you believe in. I think it is important to have convictions and not just sway with the wind. I think most people are "moderates" which, to me, basically says, "I take the side of the winner. I don't want to commit to anything until I have a good idea of the outcome."

I find that facinating. I see myself pretty much as a moderate and yet, I am reasonably firm in my beliefs. I say reasonably because I don't believe in absolutes. I like to think that I am flexible and can recognize a good idea when I see it.

I never want to be in a place where I become so orthodox in my thinking that I cannot be open to changing my mind about something.

As I said above it is about balance. Standing up for your beliefs but not to the point of cutting off your nose to spite your face. This is one of the biggest problems that I see in US politics today.

stevo · 02-07-2006, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubertuber

I am tired of all the pro-forma dismissals of NY Times, Fox News, Truthout.org, Washington Times/Post, etc... There may be a level of bias in their story selection, but the facts included are either true or not, and that is what is important. You can chase them down on you own later (or fill in the blanks). The bleating about the "obvious bias" of these sources seems like people who find it inconvenient to engage ideas that differ radically from their own.

Thats not entirely true. I can read a the NY times or watch fox news and I'm aware of the bias. but the bleating about the "obvious bias" is not to disuage debate, but to move past just the one news story and the journalists point of view.

The one thing in the media today that I see as obvious bias (and hypocrisy) is the fact that when Plame's name was leaked there was a serious crime committed. Scooter libby is awaiting trial for perjury charges. (and yet fitszgerald can't even say in a court of law that Plame's identity was covert) Yet when classified national security secrets are leaked a great justice was done and the media writes about what heros these people are for uncovering such a scandle. Now tell me now which one has more of an impact on national security. Now tell me why in the media the leaking of Plames name is a crime, but the leaking of intelligence gathering methods isn't?

stevo · 02-07-2006, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

I find that facinating. I see myself pretty much as a moderate and yet, I am reasonably firm in my beliefs. I say reasonably because I don't believe in absolutes. I like to think that I am flexible and can recognize a good idea when I see it.

I never want to be in a place where I become so orthodox in my thinking that I cannot be open to changing my mind about something.

As I said above it is about balance. Standing up for your beliefs but not to the point of cutting off your nose to spite your face. This is one of the biggest problems that I see in US politics today.

I would think I'm flexible as well, if presented with the right situation. If I think its a good idea than I'm all for it, I jsut haven't seen any good ideas put forth by the democrats in a long long time.

Beleive it or not, it was open-mindedness and not being orthodox in my thinking that lead me to where I am today.

ubertuber · 02-07-2006, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

Thats not entirely true. I can read a the NY times or watch fox news and I'm aware of the bias. but the bleating about the "obvious bias" is not to disuage debate, but to move past just the one news story and the journalists point of view.

The one thing in the media today that I see as obvious bias (and hypocrisy) is the fact that when Plame's name was leaked there was a serious crime committed. Scooter libby is awaiting trial for perjury charges. (and yet fitszgerald can't even say in a court of law that Plame's identity was covert) Yet when classified national security secrets are leaked a great justice was done and the media writes about what heros these people are for uncovering such a scandle. Now tell me now which one has more of an impact on national security. Now tell me why in the media the leaking of Plames name is a crime, but the leaking of intelligence gathering methods isn't?

THAT would be a response to an article, not "well, it's truthout, so what do you expect?" All I'm saying is that disparaging a source without engaging facts is a waste of time.

stevo · 02-07-2006, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubertuber

THAT would be a response to an article, not "well, it's truthout, so what do you expect?" All I'm saying is that disparaging a source without engaging facts is a waste of time.

True. agreed. disparaging a source without engaging in facts is a waste of time.

JustJess · 02-07-2006, 10:40 AM

Okay, so we have two major approaches here:

One, stevo's: listened/read until he found a place that he mostly agrees with strongly, and now is strongly firm in those beliefs and arguing those to the best of his ability, but has not completely barred the possibility of seeing something new (though he sounds difficult to persuade otherwise) - i.e. find a comfortable spot and camp in it;

and two, charlatan and ubertuber's, reviewing many sources for information that is useful, trying to keep perspective balanced so as to learn new things, feeling firm in their beliefs, but possibly easier to convince of new ideas - some might call it fence-sitting based on different definitions of moderate etc.

I also find it interesting that this is the first time I'm reading a reason why someone dislikes a media event. Thanks, Stevo!

Also, Stevo: I don't think I agree that it's impossible to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative. As I've heard Bill O'Rights say (paraphrasing heavily): People should have the right to do what they want, but I may not want to pay for it.

To me, socially liberal means that I believe strongly in the right to privacy. Am I gay? Am I having an abortion? No. But it's not my business if someone else is, as long as it's not socially irresponsible. (i.e. keep medical procedures safe, etc.).
I'm a Practical Idealist - I want to take care of our people, but not indebt ourselves carrying the lazy. Can that be a new term? Practical Idealist?

ubertuber · 02-07-2006, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JustJess

Also, Stevo: I don't think I agree that it's impossible to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative. As I've heard Bill O'Rights say (paraphrasing heavily): People should have the right to do what they want, but I may not want to pay for it.

To me, socially liberal means that I believe strongly in the right to privacy. Am I gay? Am I having an abortion? No. But it's not my business if someone else is, as long as it's not socially irresponsible. (i.e. keep medical procedures safe, etc.).
I'm a Practical Idealist - I want to take care of our people, but not indebt ourselves carrying the lazy. Can that be a new term? Practical Idealist?

It may not be impossible for YOU to be that way (as I feel similarly), but it sure is hard to PARTICIPATE in elections on that basis!

stevo · 02-07-2006, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JustJess

To me, socially liberal means that I believe strongly in the right to privacy. Am I gay? Am I having an abortion? No. But it's not my business if someone else is, as long as it's not socially irresponsible. (i.e. keep medical procedures safe, etc.).
I'm a Practical Idealist - I want to take care of our people, but not indebt ourselves carrying the lazy. Can that be a new term? Practical Idealist?

Thant makes perfect sense to me. I can understand that POV. perhaps I confuse socially liberal with "huge amounts of government funded programs" that just doesn't go with being fiscally conservative. A more libertairian view is definitely understood.

Bill O'Rights · 02-07-2006, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

I think most people are "moderates" which, to me, basically says, "I take the side of the winner. I don't want to commit to anything until I have a good idea of the outcome." I don't understand people who claim to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative. how can you be for massive government social programs but be against high government spending? I think thats just what people say to sound like they've put some thought into their position.

Interesting.
No really, I think that explains a lot. You see, I consider myself a "moderate" And certainly not just to see which way the wind blows. I just simply do not see most issues as being black and white.

I also consider mself to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative. What you are doing, I believe, is making the Limbaughesque mistake of defining "liberal" with throwing lots of cash into social programs. I don't see it that way. To me, liberal means progressive. Not being bound by authoritarian attitudes, open to new ideas, and tollerent of ideas and attitudes of those different from my own. In short...I really don't care how you live your life, just so long as it doesn't affect me. Now, as far as fiscally conservatism goes...I believe in limited government, and judicious use of government funds. I do not wish to see dollars that I pay into the central government squandered like a drunken sailor on shore leave. (my appologies to all of you drunken sailors out there...MikeyChalupa

)

In so far as books and publications. I don't recommend a single one. My attitudes and beliefs are based on little more that 43 years of living on this planet, and watching, listening, and then deciding for myself. I don't require anyone, liberal, conservative, or otherwise to tell me what to think.

Oh...and for those that don't know, by now...I am a registered Libertarian.

Poppinjay · 02-07-2006, 11:02 AM

If I had to pick any one thing that guided my political beliefs, that thing would be Jesse Helms. Growing up with him as my senator, I started to become amazed at the mental hoops people would jump through to vote for him. My first vote ever was for Harvey Gantt, who ran against him (and lost by .5%, fueled by a last minute racist mailing that told blacks they probably weren't eligible to vote).

My favorite response from a Jesse voter, after I said there were many speeches and recordings of Jesse from his days as a radio man that well documented his hatred for the mixing of the races, they answered, "yeah, but he's moderated his views alot."

And now, he's helping Bono fight hunger in Africa. Go figure.

But I pretty much decided I was against whatever he was for.

Plus being bookish, I read Upton Sinclair and Sinclair Lewis. They were pretty much in the liberal to Bolshevik spectrum.

Charlatan · 02-07-2006, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubertuber

It may not be impossible for YOU to be that way (as I feel similarly), but it sure is hard to PARTICIPATE in elections on that basis!

Come to Canada, we have representation across the spectrum. We also have a multi party system that gets rid of the "all or nothing" approach so prevelant in the US (yes I know there are other parties in the US -- Libertarian and Green, for example -- but they are greatly marginalized).

ubertuber · 02-07-2006, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

Come to Canada, we have representation across the spectrum. We also have a multi party system that gets rid of the "all or nothing" approach so prevelant in the US (yes I know there are other parties in the US -- Libertarian and Green, for example -- but they are greatly marginalized).

Geez, a guy says he likes the metric system and 18 hours later the Canadians are asking him to move in!

It's a thoughtful invitation, but I'll have to sleep on it.

In all seriousness (and to stop jacking Jess' thread), I do like the plurality of Canadian politics. I also am impressed by the depth of knowledge our particular Canucks display regarding American politics and history... What are the major media sources in Canada?

Charlatan · 02-07-2006, 11:37 AM

Ha! I don't see this a jacking the thread rather I think it is a key issue to understanding how Americans act the way they do, politically speaking.

The major media sources in Canada are:

TV: CTV, CBC and Global as well as all the US channels cable and terrestrial
Magazines: Maclean's is our Time Magazine... but we also get all of the US magazines. Time includes a number of pages devoted to Canadian issues
Newspapers: There are two national daily papers: The Globe and Mail and the National Post. They are both centre right style papers though the Post in the past, when owned by Conrad Black was a lot more neo-con than conservative.

We can also get US papers, if one wants them, by going to the bookstore. Though it's easier to get them online these days.

I'd say the big difference is that we have a lot more access to American press than vice-versa. I can watch local news out of Buffalo (should I want to see all about the fires in Tanawanda) or I can watch Foxnews, CNN, the Daily Show or MSNBC just as easily as I can watch CTV, Global or CBC.

There are plenty more publications and broadcasters, not to mention radio (which is where I get most of my news -- I love As It Happens on the Radio One, I think NPR carries it).

flstf · 02-07-2006, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JustJess

All of you seem to have very delineated opinions, and I'd like to know why. Convince me.

I have no idea why I have my political opinions other than having lived for 56 years and following the news and trends during most of my adult life. I like to think my opinions are based on common sense but I have reversed myself several times over the years on important positions sometimes based on personal experience and sometimes from the experiences of those around me.

I think I am mostly socially liberal and fiscally conservative and think my beliefs are closer to the Libertarian Party than the others.

Socially I think the government should pass few laws regarding sexual matters, drug use, etc.. and mostly adopt a live and let live position. I believe we should ammend the constitution to add a clear "right to privacy" clause which should make abortion mostly legal as well as add a clear limit to emminent domain practices.

Fiscally I think the government should only tax and do things that are absolutely necessary since almost everything the government does is inefficient. The primary things are national defense, monopoly busting, etc.. I used to be against national health care but have changed my mind in recent years because of the medical industry's inability to operate in a competitive manner and watching several friends struggle to keep all they have worked for after an injury or illness.

I believe that most polititians are corrupt or close to it and use their position to increase their and their families and friends (contributors) net worth a great deal while in office. Over the years I have grown to trust both major parties less and less.

Willravel · 02-07-2006, 02:16 PM

I watch Democracy Now! and several college stations for news...espically political news. I also listen to KPFA radio from Berkeley. I read Naom Chomsky (reading Middle East Illusions right now, great book) and a few other writers, more often older books.

aceventura3 · 02-07-2006, 02:40 PM

I am anti-big government.

In college I read Free to Choose by Milton Friedman, it was required reading in one of my Econ. courses. I changed from being a fiscal liberal (Keynesian Economics) to being a fiscal conservative (Moneterism). Now I trend towaard Supply Side Economics. But in either case I see government as a hinderence to economic growth and the creation of wealth.

On a daily basis I read Investors Business Daily's Editorial page. The views presented are consistent with mine and factual. Today when commenting on Bush's budget proposal thaey pointed out the government spending is about 20% of GNP, not a historic high or low, but materially higher than when Bush to office. Think about it $1 out of every $5 is spent by government. When will it end? How big do we actually want government to be? I say cut taxes and cut spending. Although I support Bush, spending in Washington is out of control.

ubertuber · 02-08-2006, 09:47 AM

Hey stevo,

I've enjoyed reading your responses to this thread. In fact, I was thinking about your first post, and I was hoping to ask you for clarification. You wrote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

I feel its important to take a stand. Its important to know what you believe in. I think it is important to have convictions and not just sway with the wind. I think most people are "moderates" which, to me, basically says, "I take the side of the winner. I don't want to commit to anything until I have a good idea of the outcome."

Could you say more about WHY you think it is important to take a stand? I'm curious as to what order your thought process happens in. Given the importance you place on having a defined opinion or judgment, do you have to do preliminary information gathering before developing said "stand"? And after you've got some ideas and framed them in your values, what is the threshold for changing your stand?

An example (not a threadjack) would be your opinion of President Bush. I've gathered that your stand is that he's better than the alternative, if not wonderful. Given that, can you tell me a little about how you process the news (such as the State of the Union address or current NSA wiretapping story)? I'm typing this gingerly, because obviously this thread shouldn't devolve into yet another argument over the politics of the current administration. I'm trying to get an insight into how you evaluate information.

stevo · 02-08-2006, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubertuber

Could you say more about WHY you think it is important to take a stand? I'm curious as to what order your thought process happens in. Given the importance you place on having a defined opinion or judgment, do you have to do preliminary information gathering before developing said "stand"? And after you've got some ideas and framed them in your values, what is the threshold for changing your stand?

To be brief: Usually I have some background information and enough knowledge of the environment (political or otherwise) surrounding an event that I don't have to do preliminary information gathering first. If a newsworthy event moves me to, sure I'll follow up on it, but most events don't cause me to take a stand on way or the other, its only the ones I have strong feelings about prior. There is no "threshold" for changing my stand, it is only the facts as I see them, not necessarily how they are reported to me. I place more weight on some sources than I do others and I'm sceptical of main stream press reporting.

Quote:

An example (not a threadjack) would be your opinion of President Bush. I've gathered that your stand is that he's better than the alternative, if not wonderful. Given that, can you tell me a little about how you process the news (such as the State of the Union address or current NSA wiretapping story)? I'm typing this gingerly, because obviously this thread shouldn't devolve into yet another argument over the politics of the current administration. I'm trying to get an insight into how you evaluate information.

I suppose I could. First I'd have to admit that I didn't watch the state of the union address. I looked over the transcript when I had a chance, and it was about what I expected. These wasn't too much to process for me when it comes to the state of the union address - bush gave a speech, some people agreed with what he had to say and some people disagreed. Mostly along party lines. When it comes to the NSA wiretapping story, I see it as nothing more than another jab from the left at our president and his administration. Some 5,000 american's have had their calls listened in on. That scares alot of people, and it scares me too. But it scares me because I see it as there are potentially 5,000 people in this country talking with Al-Qaeda -- not because 5,000 innocent americans are being spied on. I don't believe bush broke any laws. People want him to get a warrent and claim the process is fast, only takes a few hours to 24, or 48 hours...something like that. Well, telephone calls last just a few minutes. By the time you have a warrent the call is over. People complain that he should have applied for warrents after the fact. The problem is, we don't want to let the terrorists know they are being spied on. Warrents would put on paper for all to see -who, what, where, when, and why- Do you really want to let al-qaida operatives know this?

I think calling for bush's impeachment for this and calling the leakers heros is rediculous. The people that leaked this information to the media didn't do it out of "whistle blowing" - there are other channels to blow the whistle on classified info - and they care not for the national security of this country.

Sorry to threadjack, but maybe that gives you a bit of insight on how I see that particular issue. So I see just about any scandle that comes out against the bush admin as nothing more than the same old attempts to bring him down. Its like the boy who cried wolf. Sooner or later people stop listening to you.

stevo · 02-08-2006, 10:55 AM

ps - just saw your sig. nice. cool blue reason has got to be my favorite song by them. I don't know what it is about it, but there is something disturbing in that song.

Locobot · 02-08-2006, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I am anti-big government.
Although I support Bush, spending in Washington is out of control.

Can you explain please why you support Bush despite the fact that he has done exactly the opposite of what you allegedly support?

trickyy · 02-08-2006, 12:58 PM

here's what i read
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/TheNote
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/ (i've got a subscription)

here's what i watch
http://www.cspan.org/

i don't really see myself falling under a particular political ideology.

aceventura3 · 02-08-2006, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Locobot

Can you explain please why you support Bush despite the fact that he has done exactly the opposite of what you allegedly support?

I voted for Bush twice. I worked on his campain once. I think he is honest and a man of principle. I think he is the right man at the right time to lead our war against terrorism. I support his tax cuts. I supported his effort to reform social security. On the domestic front he has failed in the area of government spending. On a net basis I support him, although I am not in 100% agreement with everything he does or supports.

JustJess · 02-08-2006, 02:25 PM

Trickyy- I don't think I fall into a particular category either, but I certainly have opinions on the way I feel certain things should be done. Do you have any of those opinions? What led you to them?

A major source of ideology for me is from my mother (big surprise, I know). My mom is loud, opinionated, and stubborn... and I inherited most of that plus a lot of the same ideas.

I believe strongly in education and that our current system is failing, and that is mostly because my mom is a teacher, in the trenches so to speak, and I hear the first-hand accounts of the difficulties and failures of the current system.

I believe strongly in the right to privacy, mostly because that's how I was raised. Mom always got angry about seat belt laws and other such that were to protect us against ourselves, rather than allowing for the rights of the individual - even when we're being stupid. That right to privacy extends to marriages, body procedures, and the like.

I believe that we can have a social security program and a national health care program that isn't bleeding money and costing us billions in taxes and otherwise. I believe we should.

I believe that we must spend money to make ourselves free of the need for oil. There is a solution, possibly already considered - we need more research, and that costs money, and considering the countries we are dependent on generally hate us... it behooves us to be free of that both for fiscal reasons and security reasons.

I disagree with my mother about the war - but I chalk that up to our being in different generations, and that her generation may be a bit more inclined to fear than I am. She is one of the most open minded people I know - and she brought us up to believe that we are all people first and foremost... however, I hear her say things that belie a certain bias towards groups of people not her own. I think that is also generational... even tho, yes, I believe that we are ALL a little bit racist whether we like it or not.

I believe that Bush is not really all that bad a person - he has strongly-held opinions and does whatever he has to to support those opinions. I just completely disagree with most of them. That has come mostly from things I've read in the news and such, since I can't get a logical word out of my mother on that one (she despises him and "his goddamned smirk!!".

)

I believe that our political system is nearing a breaking point: either to complete corruption or complete meltdown. I don't know which, but it seems terribly likely in the next few decades.

So now that I'm an honest-to-goodness adult, I'm trying to find reasons for what I believe, and if those reasons don't exist, I would like to change those beliefs. I need to know more.

Elphaba · 02-08-2006, 03:39 PM

Quote:

First on the reading list...
What book, publication, article, author, whatever - completely evoked a visceral reaction in you, convinced you of a particular path?
What political persuasion do you consider yourself to be (moderate, liberal, conservative, whatever)? Why? What does that title mean to you and your beliefs personally? What sources did you use to come to the conclusion that you belong to "X" club?

This is an excellent topic, JustJess. You really should spend more time here, if this is an example of the contribution you could make.

I have always been the good citizen in terms of voting, but politics didn't become a passion until about five years ago. A very politically driven poster at another forum convinced me that it was irresponsible of me not to understand what I was voting for or against. I was "ripe" to become more politically aware and then came the 2000 election, 9/11, PNAC, Iraq WMD, and the like. My political mentor "John", who is very much of the same fabric as Host, led me to the international press when our main stream press went silent about important issues.

I consider my political persuasion to be "moderate" in that I can find common ground with moderate democrats and moderate republicans. Like several others have said, I am a fiscal conservative and a domestic progressive, and I see no contradiction in the two stances. My votes for president have been fairly equally divided between the two parties with one vote for an independant. I suppose that explains my annoyance when I am swept into the stereotype of "all you damn liberals are alike."

My foreign policy position is much more difficult to describe, but Mentor John influenced it greatly by pointing me to William Blum's, "Killing Hope - US Military and CIA Interventions since World War II." (I have recommended this book on a number of occasions in this forum.) This book has led me to the belief that our foreign policy intrigues have done more harm than good, both to our country and to those we have tried to manipulate. If the author's name seems familiar, it is because another of his books, "Rogue State" was mentioned in bin Laden's last audio.

Count me as another one who reads as much as she can, and I do favor op-ed pieces. I am fortunate to have a regional daily paper that prints two opinion pieces each day by nationally known columnists, one right and one left. My must reads are George Will, Richard Reeves, and Molly Ivans. I only scan those that wear their politics like a chip on their shoulder like Thomas Sowell.

There are a number of contributors to Truth Out that are also must reads primarily due to their credentials: Sidney Blumenthal, Ray McGovern, and Norman Solomon are among my favorites. (You just knew I would have to mention TO.)

Finally, one of my best sources for background, investigative reading was Host. I will never understand why providing sufficient background information to support a belief is contrary to the administration and flow of this forum. (No surprise that I would mention this particular beef, either).

roachboy · 02-08-2006, 05:00 PM

there are lots of books that i could recommend--only just now stubled across this thread (dunno why i missed it) so i'll maybe post more once i have thought about this a bit (brain is slow sometimes)....

the best book on globalizing capitalism i know of is manuel castell's "rise of the network society"---highly articulate, empirically very dense (look at the footnotes)--castells isolates better than anyone i have read the main features of globalizing capitalism, the crises that have and are being provoked by it (including a real problem for articulating social identity--on this you can see the bush-style american right and "islamic fundamentalism" as parallel rather than antagonistic)...a central problem that i see running through most politics (left and right) is the inability to work out how to think about, much less respond to, the gradual implosion of nation-states as the horizon within which economic activity is organized. this generates effects at nearly every level--but this fact appears to freak people out, so they run away from it, hiding in old, often analytically worthless ways of thinking.

full disclosure: it is not as though i have secretly worked anything out about how to think through this stuff--but more often than not i see a total inability to even pose coherent questions about the implications of this new mutation in capitalist organization. what i am fascinated with is how folk avoid this problem,and from this follows my interest (which i suppose in this space appears to border on obsession because i think it is all i really talk about--except in music or philo, where i do other things) discourse/ideology--what deleuze called machines, more or less---these strange circuits that people take over for themselves and which generate similar results in all who deploy them.

food just arrived, so i am off. more later. this is an interesting thread, methinks. glad you started it, justjess.....

Elphaba · 02-08-2006, 05:07 PM

Quote:

the best book on globalizing capitalism i know of is manuel castell's "rise of the network society"---highly articulate, empirically very dense (look at the footnotes)--castells isolates better than anyone i have read the main features of globalizing capitalism

Thank you, roachboy. I don't have even the beginnings of a rudimentary understanding of a globalized economy. I only know that I don't like what I see.

host · 02-09-2006, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I voted for Bush twice. I worked on his campain once. I think he is honest and a man of principle. I think he is the right man at the right time to lead our war against terrorism. I support his tax cuts. I supported his effort to reform social security. On the domestic front he has failed in the area of government spending. On a net basis I support him, although I am not in 100% agreement with everything he does or supports.

aceventura3,

How do you justify "working and voting" for that "man of the people",
much less posting about it here? Please explain how you "get around"
the following examples that cause me to react with revulsion to Bush's
lack of integrity and his "agenda". Please point out anything that is
inaccurate or untrue in the sources I cite, or why they "don't matter",
or have been misconstrued by me.

Two of my recent documentations of Bush deliberate lies related
to the 9/11 attacks and contradictions between what he stated, how he behaved
shortly before and after those attacks, versus the actual documented
record of the circumstances that he commented about. (Remember... Bush was
commenting about the most deadly attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor,
and he is supposed to be the POTUS, and most of his misleading and verifiably
untrue comments are sourced from the whitehouse.gov website, displayed there
for the past four years:

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/200...2/2957/237#237 <br>
http://www.dailykos.com/comments/200...2/2957/239#239

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...r=emailarticle
Bush's Social Security Sleight of Hand

By Allan Sloan
Wednesday, February 8, 2006; Page D02
(Sloan is Newsweek's Wall Street editor. His e-mail is sloan@panix.com.)

If you read enough numbers, you never know what you'll find. Take President Bush and private Social Security accounts.

Last year, even though Bush talked endlessly about the supposed joys of private accounts, he never proposed a specific plan to Congress and never put privatization costs in the budget. But this year, with no fanfare whatsoever, Bush stuck a big Social Security privatization plan in the federal budget proposal, which he sent to Congress on Monday.

President Bush didn't mention a new proposal for privatizing Social Security in the State of the Union, but it's in his budget.

His plan would let people set up private accounts starting in 2010 and would divert more than $700 billion of Social Security tax revenues to pay for them over the first seven years.

If this comes as a surprise to you, have no fear. You're not alone. Bush didn't pitch private Social Security accounts in his State of the Union message last week.

First, he drew a mocking standing ovation from Democrats by saying that "Congress did not act last year on my proposal to save Social Security," even though, as I said, he'd never submitted specific legislation.

Then he seemed to be kicking the Social Security problem a few years down the road in typical Washington fashion when he asked Congress "to join me in creating a commission to examine the full impact of baby boom retirements on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid," adding that the commission would be bipartisan "and offer bipartisan solutions."

But anyone who thought that Bush would wait for bipartisanship to deal with Social Security was wrong. Instead, he stuck his own privatization proposals into his proposed budget.....

Quote:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060208/...ocial_security
By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent Tue Feb 7, 11:03 PM ET

WASHINGTON -
President Bush's budget calls for elimination of a $255 lump-sum death payment that has been part of
Social Security for more than 50 years and urges Congress to cut off monthly survivor benefits to 16- and 17-year-old high school dropouts.

If approved, the two proposals would save a combined $3.4 billion over the next decade, according to administration estimates.

Any attempt to reduce Social Security benefits — no matter how small — could face intense opposition in Congress in an election year......

Charlatan · 02-09-2006, 11:21 AM

Host... can you start a new thread rather posting this here? While the issues you raise are worth of discussion can we at least have some respect for the original poster's design for this particular thread?

Thanks.

Supple Cow · 02-09-2006, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

Thank you, roachboy. I don't have even the beginnings of a rudimentary understanding of a globalized economy. I only know that I don't like what I see.

I haven't read extensively on the subject, but I would recommend In Defense of Global Capitalism by Johan Norberg (it's a Cato Institute book) for a positive view.

Rodney · 02-12-2006, 07:40 PM

Deleted -- I reread what I posted, and it was boring :-(.

pan6467 · 02-12-2006, 11:09 PM

JustJess,

You can read everything, listen to everyone and study every issue, but in the end, it's all up to you and what you are passionate about. Plain and simple.

Don't get me wrong, educating yourself on the issues is extremely important, but in the end, you'll only believe what you choose to and you'll only be as passionate on an issue and belief as you want.

Take guns, I've listened to both sides and the only passion I have is I believe in registration, if a community votes to ban them, they should be allowed and their wishes respected and not being allowed to carry them in places like amusement parks, libraries, bars, hospitals, churches and schools. I also believe that the owner has the right to determine if he wants them brought into his establishment.

So for the gun control people, I'm not caring enough, for the pro-gun crowd, I'm too controlling, but to me I believe what I feel is right.

Same with abortion. I feel it is the lady's choice and it is her body BUT the man should have some say and communities should have the right to ban it. For the Pro-choicers I don't understand what women have to go through and the man should never have any say. For the pro-lifers, I'm still advocating abortion.

Then I have the Righties AND Lefties telling me I can't believe the way I do because I'm being wishy-washy and not passionate. Which I ignore because I believe what is best for me, as they are free to believe what is best for them. I don't dictate my views, they have no right to dictate theirs.

Like I said, YOU and only YOU need to decide what is best for you to believe and as long as you are comfortable about it, who the "F" cares what anyone else thinks you should believe.

02-07-2006, 08:53 AM	#1 (permalink)
JustJess Unencapsulated Location: Kittyville	The Re-Education of JustJess (and TFP) I read the Politics forum pretty regularly, though I don't often post (you guys are scary sometimes - sometimes from beating on each other and other times because you clearly know a lot more than I). Sometimes I have a hard time differentiating what is opinion, what is fact, and where all of these come from. What I'm proposing is an educational thread. I'm pretty moderate, I think - socially I'm very liberal, fiscally I am undecided, and my foreign policy opinions change daily. All of you seem to have very delineated opinions, and I'd like to know why. Convince me. What I DO NOT WANT TO SEE: Please, no sarcasm. Please try to leave your emotions out of it - I know you feel strongly, why else would you post? Please, no 7 feet long posts with nothing but article quotes. This is to be a discussion of the facts as you understand them, and the sources you choose to corroborate those facts. Did you read Book "X", and it convinced you? Do you find the NYTimes horrendously biased? Point me (us) in a direction! First on the reading list... What book, publication, article, author, whatever - completely evoked a visceral reaction in you, convinced you of a particular path? What political persuasion do you consider yourself to be (moderate, liberal, conservative, whatever)? Why? What does that title mean to you and your beliefs personally? What sources did you use to come to the conclusion that you belong to "X" club? Thanks! I hope to learn a lot from all of you! __________________ My heart knows me better than I know myself, so I'm gonna let it do all the talkin'.

02-07-2006, 09:31 AM	#3 (permalink)
ubertuber spudly Location: Ellay	Good topic, by the way! I'm always on the lookout for new sources. I'll look forward to seeing what some of my fellow TFPers post! Some excerpts from the PM I sent you (edited to make sense for others to peruse). I'm in the habit of reading opinion and editorial pieces. I think these are a highly underrated news source. The ideal of "objective journalism" occupies way too much of the public's attention and is highly suspect at any rate. Every news piece involves decisions about who to quote, what to say, what order to say it in and what not to include (because of space limitations, if nothing else). In other words, there is no way that bias won't come into play at some point, no matter how "balanced" the view is. With editorial and opinion pieces, at least you know where the author is coming from! Besides, the people that write these things are generally pretty smart - allowing them to do some first level analysis for you (even if it is coming from only one point of view) is a way of getting the heavy lifting done quickly and easily. That said, it's important to fact-check if something doesn't seem right - there is often a context that will explain things that appear to be inexplicable. For this reason, I am tired of all the pro-forma dismissals of NY Times, Fox News, Truthout.org, Washington Times/Post, etc... There may be a level of bias in their story selection, but the facts included are either true or not, and that is what is important. You can chase them down on your own later (or fill in the blanks). The bleating about the "obvious bias" of these sources seems like people who find it inconvenient to engage ideas that differ radically from their own. Another author I enjoy: Thomas Friedman. He’s a foreign affairs columnist for the NY Times who tends to focus on the intersection of political and economic issues (he calls it geo-politics). Friedman’s got a few things going for him. He’s definitely a moderate (and seems comfortable lauding/criticising both sides equally), he’s a good writer with a gift for catchy phrases, he has an uncanny knack for extended metaphors, and he’s extremely readable even when writing on dense topics. Most of all, Friedman seems to recognize that even in politics, economics, and globalization, the important story is the pragmatic one – which comes down to how issues affect people, and vice-versa. So, I make a point of reading every word he writes on the NY Times (requires a select membership, but that is worth it for him alone). Friedman’s books (all very readable and quite interesting): On middle eastern politics/life: From Beirut to Jerusalem On post 9/11 world affairs: Longitudes and Attitudes On globalization (read in this order): The Lexus and the Olive Tree and The World is Flat __________________ Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam Last edited by ubertuber; 02-07-2006 at 10:02 AM.. Reason: propper spelings' a werk en progres

02-07-2006, 09:56 AM	#4 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	I feel its important to take a stand. Its important to know what you believe in. I think it is important to have convictions and not just sway with the wind. I think most people are "moderates" which, to me, basically says, "I take the side of the winner. I don't want to commit to anything until I have a good idea of the outcome." I don't understand people who claim to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative. To me social and fiscal programs are tied together. how can you be for massive government social programs but be against high government spending? I think thats just what people say to sound like they've put some thought into their position. I've read books by many conservative authors, but not too often, and after I was aware of my conservative beleifs. I listen to talk radio every once in a while (I'm not into podcasts and I can't really listen at work, so not too often either). I do remember the first time I heard rush limbaugh on the radio. I thought to myself "Thats what I think, maybe I am a conservative." So I listened to his show maybe for 20 minutes a day while I was in my car, and more often than not agreed with what he had to say. I check out most of the current happenings on the internet. www.drudgereport.com for a daily chieck on the news along with news.google.com A good place to start with links is http://www.intellectualconservative.com/links.html I never used to think the media was biased or there was some liberal agenda behind the latest blockbuster film, but once I was aware of it, it was painfully obvious. I'm actually suprised (a bit) in how my beliefs have turned out. I never really thought I would be a conservative. __________________ "If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser Last edited by stevo; 02-08-2006 at 02:54 PM..

02-07-2006, 09:57 AM	#5 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	I agree with the super potato. Opinion and ediorial pieces are very good fodder for understanding issues. The key is to read a variety of opinions. Use them as starting points. If you read an opinion that doesn't make sense or perhaps, is just of interest to you, do some more reading on the subject. In my mind it is always about balance. Trying to understand all sides (there are usually more than two) of an issue. Being able to admit when you are wrong as well as ask questions when you don't know are also key. Unfortuanately, in Politics this is too frequently seen as an excuse to attack rather than to enlighten. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

02-07-2006, 10:40 AM	#11 (permalink)
JustJess Unencapsulated Location: Kittyville	Okay, so we have two major approaches here: One, stevo's: listened/read until he found a place that he mostly agrees with strongly, and now is strongly firm in those beliefs and arguing those to the best of his ability, but has not completely barred the possibility of seeing something new (though he sounds difficult to persuade otherwise) - i.e. find a comfortable spot and camp in it; and two, charlatan and ubertuber's, reviewing many sources for information that is useful, trying to keep perspective balanced so as to learn new things, feeling firm in their beliefs, but possibly easier to convince of new ideas - some might call it fence-sitting based on different definitions of moderate etc. I also find it interesting that this is the first time I'm reading a reason why someone dislikes a media event. Thanks, Stevo! Also, Stevo: I don't think I agree that it's impossible to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative. As I've heard Bill O'Rights say (paraphrasing heavily): People should have the right to do what they want, but I may not want to pay for it. To me, socially liberal means that I believe strongly in the right to privacy. Am I gay? Am I having an abortion? No. But it's not my business if someone else is, as long as it's not socially irresponsible. (i.e. keep medical procedures safe, etc.). I'm a Practical Idealist - I want to take care of our people, but not indebt ourselves carrying the lazy. Can that be a new term? Practical Idealist? __________________ My heart knows me better than I know myself, so I'm gonna let it do all the talkin'.

02-07-2006, 11:02 AM	#15 (permalink)
Poppinjay You had me at hello Location: DC/Coastal VA	If I had to pick any one thing that guided my political beliefs, that thing would be Jesse Helms. Growing up with him as my senator, I started to become amazed at the mental hoops people would jump through to vote for him. My first vote ever was for Harvey Gantt, who ran against him (and lost by .5%, fueled by a last minute racist mailing that told blacks they probably weren't eligible to vote). My favorite response from a Jesse voter, after I said there were many speeches and recordings of Jesse from his days as a radio man that well documented his hatred for the mixing of the races, they answered, "yeah, but he's moderated his views alot." And now, he's helping Bono fight hunger in Africa. Go figure. But I pretty much decided I was against whatever he was for. Plus being bookish, I read Upton Sinclair and Sinclair Lewis. They were pretty much in the liberal to Bolshevik spectrum. __________________ I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet

02-07-2006, 11:37 AM	#18 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Ha! I don't see this a jacking the thread rather I think it is a key issue to understanding how Americans act the way they do, politically speaking. The major media sources in Canada are: TV: CTV, CBC and Global as well as all the US channels cable and terrestrial Magazines: Maclean's is our Time Magazine... but we also get all of the US magazines. Time includes a number of pages devoted to Canadian issues Newspapers: There are two national daily papers: The Globe and Mail and the National Post. They are both centre right style papers though the Post in the past, when owned by Conrad Black was a lot more neo-con than conservative. We can also get US papers, if one wants them, by going to the bookstore. Though it's easier to get them online these days. I'd say the big difference is that we have a lot more access to American press than vice-versa. I can watch local news out of Buffalo (should I want to see all about the fires in Tanawanda) or I can watch Foxnews, CNN, the Daily Show or MSNBC just as easily as I can watch CTV, Global or CBC. There are plenty more publications and broadcasters, not to mention radio (which is where I get most of my news -- I love As It Happens on the Radio One, I think NPR carries it). __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

02-07-2006, 02:16 PM	#20 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I watch Democracy Now! and several college stations for news...espically political news. I also listen to KPFA radio from Berkeley. I read Naom Chomsky (reading Middle East Illusions right now, great book) and a few other writers, more often older books.

02-07-2006, 02:40 PM	#21 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	I am anti-big government. In college I read Free to Choose by Milton Friedman, it was required reading in one of my Econ. courses. I changed from being a fiscal liberal (Keynesian Economics) to being a fiscal conservative (Moneterism). Now I trend towaard Supply Side Economics. But in either case I see government as a hinderence to economic growth and the creation of wealth. On a daily basis I read Investors Business Daily's Editorial page. The views presented are consistent with mine and factual. Today when commenting on Bush's budget proposal thaey pointed out the government spending is about 20% of GNP, not a historic high or low, but materially higher than when Bush to office. Think about it $1 out of every $5 is spent by government. When will it end? How big do we actually want government to be? I say cut taxes and cut spending. Although I support Bush, spending in Washington is out of control. __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

02-08-2006, 10:55 AM	#24 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	ps - just saw your sig. nice. cool blue reason has got to be my favorite song by them. I don't know what it is about it, but there is something disturbing in that song. __________________ "If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

02-08-2006, 12:58 PM	#26 (permalink)
trickyy ►	here's what i read http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/TheNote http://www.foreignaffairs.org/ (i've got a subscription) here's what i watch http://www.cspan.org/ i don't really see myself falling under a particular political ideology.

02-08-2006, 02:25 PM	#28 (permalink)
JustJess Unencapsulated Location: Kittyville	Trickyy- I don't think I fall into a particular category either, but I certainly have opinions on the way I feel certain things should be done. Do you have any of those opinions? What led you to them? A major source of ideology for me is from my mother (big surprise, I know). My mom is loud, opinionated, and stubborn... and I inherited most of that plus a lot of the same ideas. I believe strongly in education and that our current system is failing, and that is mostly because my mom is a teacher, in the trenches so to speak, and I hear the first-hand accounts of the difficulties and failures of the current system. I believe strongly in the right to privacy, mostly because that's how I was raised. Mom always got angry about seat belt laws and other such that were to protect us against ourselves, rather than allowing for the rights of the individual - even when we're being stupid. That right to privacy extends to marriages, body procedures, and the like. I believe that we can have a social security program and a national health care program that isn't bleeding money and costing us billions in taxes and otherwise. I believe we should. I believe that we must spend money to make ourselves free of the need for oil. There is a solution, possibly already considered - we need more research, and that costs money, and considering the countries we are dependent on generally hate us... it behooves us to be free of that both for fiscal reasons and security reasons. I disagree with my mother about the war - but I chalk that up to our being in different generations, and that her generation may be a bit more inclined to fear than I am. She is one of the most open minded people I know - and she brought us up to believe that we are all people first and foremost... however, I hear her say things that belie a certain bias towards groups of people not her own. I think that is also generational... even tho, yes, I believe that we are ALL a little bit racist whether we like it or not. I believe that Bush is not really all that bad a person - he has strongly-held opinions and does whatever he has to to support those opinions. I just completely disagree with most of them. That has come mostly from things I've read in the news and such, since I can't get a logical word out of my mother on that one (she despises him and "his goddamned smirk!!". ) I believe that our political system is nearing a breaking point: either to complete corruption or complete meltdown. I don't know which, but it seems terribly likely in the next few decades. So now that I'm an honest-to-goodness adult, I'm trying to find reasons for what I believe, and if those reasons don't exist, I would like to change those beliefs. I need to know more. __________________ My heart knows me better than I know myself, so I'm gonna let it do all the talkin'.

02-08-2006, 05:00 PM	#30 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	there are lots of books that i could recommend--only just now stubled across this thread (dunno why i missed it) so i'll maybe post more once i have thought about this a bit (brain is slow sometimes).... the best book on globalizing capitalism i know of is manuel castell's "rise of the network society"---highly articulate, empirically very dense (look at the footnotes)--castells isolates better than anyone i have read the main features of globalizing capitalism, the crises that have and are being provoked by it (including a real problem for articulating social identity--on this you can see the bush-style american right and "islamic fundamentalism" as parallel rather than antagonistic)...a central problem that i see running through most politics (left and right) is the inability to work out how to think about, much less respond to, the gradual implosion of nation-states as the horizon within which economic activity is organized. this generates effects at nearly every level--but this fact appears to freak people out, so they run away from it, hiding in old, often analytically worthless ways of thinking. full disclosure: it is not as though i have secretly worked anything out about how to think through this stuff--but more often than not i see a total inability to even pose coherent questions about the implications of this new mutation in capitalist organization. what i am fascinated with is how folk avoid this problem,and from this follows my interest (which i suppose in this space appears to border on obsession because i think it is all i really talk about--except in music or philo, where i do other things) discourse/ideology--what deleuze called machines, more or less---these strange circuits that people take over for themselves and which generate similar results in all who deploy them. food just arrived, so i am off. more later. this is an interesting thread, methinks. glad you started it, justjess..... __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 02-08-2006 at 05:05 PM..

02-09-2006, 11:21 AM	#33 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Host... can you start a new thread rather posting this here? While the issues you raise are worth of discussion can we at least have some respect for the original poster's design for this particular thread? Thanks. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

02-12-2006, 07:40 PM	#35 (permalink)
Rodney Observant Ruminant Location: Rich Wannabe Hippie Town	Deleted -- I reread what I posted, and it was boring :-(. Last edited by Rodney; 02-12-2006 at 07:42 PM..

02-12-2006, 11:09 PM	#36 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	JustJess, You can read everything, listen to everyone and study every issue, but in the end, it's all up to you and what you are passionate about. Plain and simple. Don't get me wrong, educating yourself on the issues is extremely important, but in the end, you'll only believe what you choose to and you'll only be as passionate on an issue and belief as you want. Take guns, I've listened to both sides and the only passion I have is I believe in registration, if a community votes to ban them, they should be allowed and their wishes respected and not being allowed to carry them in places like amusement parks, libraries, bars, hospitals, churches and schools. I also believe that the owner has the right to determine if he wants them brought into his establishment. So for the gun control people, I'm not caring enough, for the pro-gun crowd, I'm too controlling, but to me I believe what I feel is right. Same with abortion. I feel it is the lady's choice and it is her body BUT the man should have some say and communities should have the right to ban it. For the Pro-choicers I don't understand what women have to go through and the man should never have any say. For the pro-lifers, I'm still advocating abortion. Then I have the Righties AND Lefties telling me I can't believe the way I do because I'm being wishy-washy and not passionate. Which I ignore because I believe what is best for me, as they are free to believe what is best for them. I don't dictate my views, they have no right to dictate theirs. Like I said, YOU and only YOU need to decide what is best for you to believe and as long as you are comfortable about it, who the "F" cares what anyone else thinks you should believe. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"