liberal vs conservative – Page 2

Who wants to be pro-FED?

The hypocrisy of the American two-party system is so equally balanced, I wonder if they meet secretly to decided which party gets to champion the political issues of the day. If they do meet to debate who gets what, I imagine it goes something like this:

Each year the Democratic and Republican parties hold this secret meeting and divvy up political issues. The meeting is moderated by the wealthiest investors, financiers, speculators, and businessmen in America.

Chairman: From our pre-meeting polling it looks like we can keep this meeting fairly brief.

Chairman: The Republican party is content to keep hold of the following issues – the elderly, low taxes, Christianity, guns, heterosexuals, the rich, small government and the military-industrial complex.

Chairman: The Democratic party is content keeping the young, income taxes, everything but Christianity, the police, homosexuals, the poor, big government, and the anthropogenic global warming complex.

Chairman: The issues we have to divide up are the economy, jobs, terrorism, social security, education, Medicare, deficit reduction, and healthcare.

Chairman: From what I understand both sides have already discussed privately education and Medicare. Both sides have agreed that it makes senses for the Democratic Party to take education because they already have the young and for the Republican Party to have Medicare because they currently posses the elderly.

Chairman: That leaves us with the economy, jobs, terrorism, social security, deficit reduction, and healthcare. Neither party is willing to concede ownership, so the board has divided them as follows.

Chairman: To the Republican party – Economy, terrorism, and deficit reduction.

Chairman: To the Democratic party – Jobs, social security, and healthcare.

Chairman: Objections?

Republican Party: It makes sense to put the economy and deficit reduction together because if the economy improves we can take credit for deficit reduction too. We should also get to be the champion for jobs because those are tied to the economy.

Democratic Party: Putting social security and healthcare with our party makes sense because both of those are designed to protect people, shouldn’t terrorism go to the us because terrorism is about protecting people too.

Chairman: Its been part of our bi-laws for decades, and once again I’m forced to remind all of you that its doesn’t matter if the issue grouping makes sense. The purpose of dividing the issues is so the American people are equally divided in their support of the parties. As long as the public is divided in support, both parties will remain in power.

Chairman: One last thing, the Federal Reserve. Who wants to be pro-FED? Anyone?

Congress: Just Gimme Two New Parties

Here is Senator McCaskill arguing for extending unemployment benefits. The speech starts out with McCaskill pointing out Republican senators voted for prescription drugs for Medicare beneficiaries without paying for it. It is not very clear, but the argument seems to be if it was OK in the past to avoid worrying about debt, we shouldn’t be worrying about debt today.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBAzOEq9r-M

Senator McCaskill mentions cosponsoring PAYGO, but seems to be saying pay as you go can be ignored because of Republican hypocrisy of not paying for programs. All I can gather from this is its OK to be hypocritical, as long as the opposition is more hypocritical.

It’s a safe bet that soon there will be a Republican senator pointing to Democratic hypocrisy on debt as an excuse more debt. I want at least two completely new parties to take power just so we can get away from this justification via hypocrisy arguments. Two new parties would at least hit the reset button on finger pointing for a few years–maybe even long enough to fix DC.

What They Really Mean; Bipartisanship

After hearing several calls for bipartisanship, I thought it was time to update the list of words and phrases in political commentary and what they really mean. Politicians cry out for bipartisanship and then turn right around and debase any opposing views.

When politicians call for bipartisanship, it’s political theater to make it sound as though they are open minded and willing to work out a solution, but in reality are saying “I’ll listen to you when you stop being stupid.”

Bipartisanship – My ideas are good ones and the opposition is partisan, because they don’t agree with me.

What They Really Mean; Bipartisanship

Bipartisanship – My ideas are good ones and the opposition is partisan, because they don’t agree with me.

Ed Schultz and Sean Hannity team up to keep each other in the news

I’m wearing my tinfoil hat today; I’m starting to believe the cable news channels are part of a conspiracy.

This video from Ed Schultz “Psycho Talk” – 02/04/10 calls out Sean Hannity for being intellectually dishonest.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RBo3cXZfTw

At some point you’ll see Sean Hannity talk about President Bush giving up golfing in 2003 to be “in solidarity” with the families of soldiers who were dying in Iraq. Hannity will then call Schultz intellectually dishonest because the clips were prior to Bush’s statement. Hannity might even call out Schultz while Schultz is on Hannity’s show.

In the media, they say to each other, “good for you, good for me.” Controversies are good for both sides in the media, as when Sarah Palin was on Oprah Winfrey’s show. Palin sold books and Oprah had good ratings, so it was a win-win for both.

I think both Schultz and Hannity are intellectually dishonest and wouldn’t be surprised to find out this back and forth is as staged as a wrestling match.

Don’t politicians generate enough intellectually dishonest controversies on their own? Are these two just tired of sharing the BS limelight with real politicians and have cut out the middleman?

As evidenced by the ratings for Hannity and Schultz, there is a market for political theater, but I think you should be a politician to play a part in the play.

War on Drugs – the GOOD kind of Socialism?

Fark.com – Seattle’s new city attorney dismissing all cases of pot possession. Conservatives outraged, saying that expensive, bureaucratic, pointless lawyers and jail cells are the GOOD kind of socialism (seattletimes.nwsource.com)

The headline is funny because its true; liberals and conservatives both suffer from “its not socialism when we do it” blindness.

It is socialism, because the mindset behind the war on drugs and health care reform are one and the same: creating a better society through force of government. It’s saying individuals don’t own the right to choose their actions if their actions don’t benefit society as a whole.

The definition of socialism is ownership and control of the means of production and distribution. When you can force your neighbor to follow your ideas of what is good for them, you are in essence claiming ownership of your neighbor’s morality and following the philosophy of socialism. You don’t own your neighbor. You are not your neighbor’s authority. You don’t own their thoughts, or the right to determine which actions are to their benefit.

Its a good thing to want to be part of a beneficial change. America is a society rich in morality. It comes as no surprise there are large numbers of people speaking out on issues that need improvement. Improving America’s society through force damages that source of morality, free people choosing to do the right thing without the intervention of others.

The way to achieve a better society is through persuasion and reason, not force. To those who embrace these socialist principles: the next time you see an evil in society and want to take a some action to improve the situation, speak up about it. Let others know how you think, explain your reasons for supporting or opposing an action. When reason fails to persuade and doesn’t change views , you should MAKE A BETTER ARGUMENT! Listen to the objections to your view, and use the feedback to craft a more persuasive argument.

Using force solve the problems in society is cowardly, because if you really believe in the logic and morality of your view, you’ll let the view stand on its own. If the change you seek really is beneficial, then it’s inevitable and predictable the change will come about, even if you take no action at all. Promoting a principle through force bastardizes the principle; a good principle doesn’t require force for others to adopt.

Using force to solve the problems in society is shortsighted. Force is only effective while force is present. When an authority isn’t present, people will do what they want to do. Forcing anything, even a good thing can cause people to reject it, because it’s natural to object to someone else running your life. The best society possible is one where people of good conscience act to the benefit of themselves and others by their own choice.

There is no good kind of socialism. Individuals with free will, reflecting principles of morality, own the means and production to a better society.

Liberal Hypocrisy vs. Conservative Hypocrisy – the Damage is Done

The left and the right cherry pick principles to champion based upon marketing strategy, and not based upon any core principles. This cherry picking approach has been steadily destroying the principles each claim to defend. Here are some examples of liberal hypocrisy and conservative hypocrisy and the damage they have done:

Defending Liberty – banning unhealthy living (left) vs. banning euthanasia (right). Both the left and the right claim to defend your right to live your life however you like. The left wants to restrict you from shorting your life by unhealthy living and the right doesn’t want you to choose when you die. If there is one thing that shows you live in a free society, it’s the right to decide to end your life by either slow or quick means.

Defenders of Justice – hate crimes (left) vs. terrorism crimes (right). Hate crimes are committed to send political messages and terrorism is often about religious intolerance. How important is the motive for murdering strangers when deciding an appropriate punishment? When the left wants to treat terrorists according to established law, the right labels them “terrorist sympathizers.” When the right wants to treat hate crimes according to established law, the left labels them as “racists sympathizers.” There isn’t any difference between these types of crimes. The left and right each want to be the champions of protecting the people: they just pick different villains to terrify the public while ignoring the principles of justice.

Defending free speech – banning the N-word (left) vs. flag burning (right). Both the left and right claim to be defenders of free speech but it turns out each would restrict speech that offends. Generally speaking, the left would censor violence and the right would censor sex in movies, TV, music and video games.

Both the left and right follow the same underlying dynamic – if they don’t like something, you can make it go away by passing a law. They really believe the evils they see in society can be made to go away by passing a law or declaring war on it. They have declared war on terrorism, poverty, drugs, and racism. How are all these wars working out for you? When will people realize no government has the power to make things like terrorism and racism go away?

The results of liberal and conservative hypocritical governing speak for themselves. In championing their causes, they have blown up the economy, put more limits on freedom, put people out of work, made a mockery of the justice system, stuck us in endless wars and thrown the country into to debt for decades.

In theory, our elected officials are there to protect our freedom, but they forget to ask themselves a simple question, “Will this lead to more freedom or less freedom?” It doesn’t matter if the issue is fighting evil or doing good for others, the question of more or less freedom is always relevant. Maybe if the question is asked more often the damage they’ve done can be repaired.

Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad Witch?

In the anti-fandom of politics, there is a Wicked Witch of the left (Nancy Pelosi) and a Wicked Witch of the Right (Sarah Palin). Somehow Pelosi usurped the wicked witch of the left position formerly held by Hillary Clinton. Palin might also be replaced for Wicked Witch of the Right by Michele Bachmann.

Something about these individuals seems to bring out pure hatred from people with opposing political views. Almost anything they say is like pouring gasoline on the anti-fans’ fire. I don’t understand the vitriol response, because there isn’t anything I’ve heard them say that I haven’t heard from someone else before.

I don’t believe it’s a male vs. female issue because Obama and Cheney have comparable anti-fan bases. Pundits Olbermann and Beck have their anti-fan audience. I only used female figures because the wicked witch analogy is funny, and the male analogies are usually Hitler and Stalin.

I’ve heard others describe every word spoken by the people mentioned as “like hearing nails on a chalkboard.” The hated people didn’t create liberal and conservative values, so why the complete disdain for their every spoken word?

The reason for the hatred is these people are viewed as the embodiment of polarized viewpoints. Each of them represents a complete persona of what is wrong in this country to their political polar opposites. For the anti-fan, the view is, “If only we didn’t have people like [Pelosi | Palin | Clinton | Backmann], we wouldn’t have to worry about the country going into the toilet.”

To all the anti-fans out there, I am your anti-fan, because your hand is on the plunger. The biggest fear I have is that only what anti-fans have to say will be considered newsworthy. The underlying issues are getting buried under the belching bile of whom or what people are against and not about what values they support.

Anti-fans – next time you hear the “nails on a chalkboard” sound, use that energy generated to speak out for the value you wish to protect and avoid the personification of opposing views. I’d rather hear stories of heroes and heroines than the tales of big bad witches.

Can’t we have Freedom of Politics?

I know science is a method of study, but to me the term “Political Science” is an oxymoron just as “Christian Science” is an oxymoron. Political views are based upon personal morality; there is no science in politics. Nothing makes the belief in a democratic republic an absolute fact; the only fact is a form of government can match personal beliefs. I believe in freedom and democracy because they are in line with my own ethics.

It is easy to find volumes of writing supporting my belief in democracy, but nothing turns the belief ino fact. There are strong arguments to be made for many political views, but at their core, all political systems are a solely a matter of belief. In America, it is not uncommon to hear someone refer to the founding fathers as types of apostles and the US Constitution as the Bible.

What if we were all forced to choose between only two religions? And yes, by “all” I mean even the atheists would have to pick a side. What if all the religious beliefs were forced into two camps, the same way political beliefs are? Undoubtedly we’d see people wandering back and forth between the groups, depending on the hot issue at the moment.

I don’t know enough about them all to figure out which groups would kinda get along, so I have randomly thrown some religious traditions together:

Option 1–Methodist, Presbyterian, Seventh-day Adventist, Baptist, Vaishnavist, Islamist, and Wiccans

Option 2–Catholic, Lutheran, Atheists, Pentecostal, Buddhist, Jewish, and Jehovah’s Witnesses

Each would try to convert you to join their faith with the same scare tactics politicians use. The Methodist, Presbyterian, Seventh-day Adventist, Baptist, Vaishnavist, Islamist, Wiccans would try to convince you to join them, because if the Catholic, Lutheran, Atheists, Pentecostal, Buddhist, Jewish, Jehovah’s Witnesses get their way, Satan (or similar demonic figure) will rule the earth.

The two groups would have leaders that artfully explain why theirs is the one true faith, while simultaneously pointing out the sheer evil and foolishness of the opposing faith.

I’m sure we’d also hear the worn out defense mechanisms kicking in when an obvious hole in philosophy is pointed out. When the Catholic, Lutheran, Atheists, Pentecostal, Buddhist, Jewish, and Jehovah’s Witnesses are cornered with “You can’t believe in God and no God at the same time,” I’m sure the response would be, “Well, at least we aren’t as crazy as the Methodist, Presbyterian, Seventh-day Adventist, Baptist, Vaishnavist, Islamist, and Wiccans–they worship God and Goddesses and Vishnu.”

Leaders would come in two varieties, similar to the leaders in the Democratic and Republican parties. You’d have the totally full-of-BS leaders that know the views held by their side are incongruent, but are adroit enough at spin to make it sound like one cohesive religion. The other variety of leader would be totally nuts, because they’ve somehow managed to hold all the conflicting views in their head without any cognitive dissonance.

There would be some members of these religions that stick to a set of congruent beliefs of their own, but they would be the outcasts for being heretics–AKA wing nuts, moon bats, tinfoil-hat-wearers.

I’ve heard Democrats poke fun at fundamentalist Christians, and then Republicans chuckle at new age religions. What strikes me funny is the religions they make fun of are more congruent in their own views and values than they themselves are with the views of their choosen political party.

There really is no political freedom in America when the final choice comes down to Democrat or Republican. There is a choice, but it is hardly a free choice when the choice is “Pick the one that sounds the least insane.” We have freedom of religion in America, so why can’t we have freedom of politics?

photo credit: Stuck in Customs

Shoot the messenger – Fat Ones are Easy Targets

I was browsing through the latest topics on Crooks and Liars , and this topic about Candy Crowley Still Touting ‘Security Moms’ Nonsense stood out because the comments about Candy Crowley were pretty harsh. This comment on Crooks and Liars stood out to me. “She is now a partisan hack”—because I remember conservatives saying Crowley is partisan over at NewsBusters in CNN’s Crowley: NY 23’s Hoffman the Choice of ‘Tea Bag Partyers?’

Comments from Crooks and Liars about Crowley using Conservative Talking Points:

“Security moms is a smoke screen for repub talking points!!”

“Candy loves her some uncheck republican talking points.”

Comment on Candy’s Weight:

“Rove is getting divorced , Porky Pig and Petunia here should get hooked up.”

Comments from NewsBusters about Crowley using Liiberal Talking Points:

“Please, bt. Candy Crowley? “Kisser”? Blehhhhhhhh! The “Mainstream” Media: By liberals. For liberals.”

“Their insults are simply a quick way to verify their ideology, they don’t get a rise out of me, either.”

Comment on Candy’s Weight:

“She hardly looks like a “Candy” anymore. She may have been ‘Candy’ material several decades ago but today she looks more like a bag of marshmellow [sic] peeps that got left on the truck dashboard in the hot sun and all the little eyes have run together.”

In Candy Crowley’s defense, it is her job to as a political correspondent to share her views. When you share political views, they are supposed to be your views with your own bias. There is insight gained from simply reporting different sides of issues, but that isn’t Crowley’s role all the time. Crowley is expected to draw upon two decades of covering elections and offer her own analysis.

Crowley is old and fat – to me that gives Crowley more credibility because you don’t see a lot of older, heavyset women on television news. That fact that Crowley is still on TV when so many other women are put out to pasture to me says someone finds her views valuable. Anderson Cooper words it much more eloquently than me: “She’s not the stereo typical political reporter, which, for me adds to her charm.”

Bill Ayers is pretty liberal from my point of view. Ayers described President Obama as a “moderate, pragmatic, compromising politician” and from Ayers far-left perspective, the President is a moderate. What I’ve gathered from comparing views from liberals and conservatives is partisanship is relative. It doesn’t matter where you own views fall in the left/right continuum–if someone’s view is to the left of your views they are liberals; if the views are to the right of yours, they are conservatives.

Because of the mindset “a view far from my own view is a very biased view,” I now have some sympathy for those in the media, because it seems you are damned if you and damned if you don’t. It doesn’t seem to matter what you say because you are bound to offend someone. I’m surprised after being attacked by both sides for being partisan she doesn’t just give up and go full tilt partisan because that’s where the money is.