Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

BWhite · 2005-06-23 12:04:25

Quack!

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-23 12:17:07

Appropriate verse from the Prophet omitted for redundancy.

Now were'd that rotting zombie horse run off to. . .

C M Edwards · 2005-06-23 13:25:03

Speaking of land condemnation/eminant domain, has anyone ever seen "The Castle" starring Michael Caton? It's a good movie. I highly recommend it.

clark · 2005-06-23 13:33:43

I've read The Castle by Kafka.

Which is about government... sort of. Wish he had finished it. :laugh:

BWhite · 2005-06-23 14:33:17

Rove feeds his base, http://www.familiesofseptember11.org/ne … 1352]steps in icky stuff

clark · 2005-06-24 06:03:55

The problem with American politcs lately is that either party has given up trying to represent the people of America. They simply struggle for dominance to represent one portion of the populace, thus making elections nothing more than either camp attempting to represent their particular constuiency, with no attempt (or little) to try and represent the interests of those within another party.

Thus a Republican win means Democratic leaning individuals go unrepresented, and vice versa.

Politicans represent their Party, instead of the people. And it is only getting worse.

BWhite · 2005-06-24 06:18:52

The problem with American politcs lately is that either party has given up trying to represent the people of America. They simply struggle for dominance to represent one portion of the populace, thus making elections nothing more than either camp attempting to represent their particular constuiency, with no attempt (or little) to try and represent the interests of those within another party.
Thus a Republican win means Democratic leaning individuals go unrepresented, and vice versa.
Politicans represent their Party, instead of the people. And it is only getting worse.

I've started reading Thucidydes again. The interplay of the factions is chilling in light of what is happening today. But like the Hatfields and the McCoys, geting both sides to walk away from the table simultaneously is difficult.

"After you."

"No, after you."

This is why I believe voting (upperdown) on judges in pairs (one named by the WHite House and the other named by Democratic leadership) where both are confirmed or both are denied together is one small mechanism to begin a de-escalation of party combat and to sow the seeds for future cooperation.

This can be agreed upon in the cloakroom and then voted on the floor in conformity with established procedure.

clark · 2005-06-24 06:24:21

I would prefer a mechanism that caused them to get even less done. A government working together invariably is working against us. Bleh.

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-24 06:49:16

I would prefer a mechanism that caused them to get even less done. A government working together invariably is working against us. Bleh.

Yep. No government results in me governing me, and that's good government.

But on a deeper level, I'm not convinced de-escalation is possible, at least not with any meaningful or lasting effects. What we have is a conflict over the fundamental ideas the country will be based on in the future. Now that the Right is increasingly throwing the Constitution out as much as the Left, I don't much care who wins it. Either way we're screwed.

If anything I would prefer to keep the tension high, both Parties are straining under it and both are dividing into essentially two camps. Might as well push them until they break.

Edited By Cobra Commander on 1119617370

Palomar · 2005-06-24 07:07:49

*Saw on the news last evening a bunch of in-fighting between politicians. A Republican accused the Dems of wanting to merely offer therapy and sympathy to the 9/11 terrorists whereas they -- the Republicans -- were the ones willing to actually stand up and do anything about it. Lots of indignation, following on the heels of "we are Nazis"-type comments from some Democrat a day or so prior. No, I don't keep tabs on all the names involved...

Servicemen/women in the line of fire in Afghanistan and Iraq, and our leaders are bickering like a bunch of grade schoolers. That's great. :down:

--Cindy

BWhite · 2005-06-24 10:57:27

I would prefer a mechanism that caused them to get even less done. A government working together invariably is working against us. Bleh.
Yep. No government results in me governing me, and that's good government.
But on a deeper level, I'm not convinced de-escalation is possible, at least not with any meaningful or lasting effects. What we have is a conflict over the fundamental ideas the country will be based on in the future. Now that the Right is increasingly throwing the Constitution out as much as the Left, I don't much care who wins it. Either way we're screwed.
If anything I would prefer to keep the tension high, both Parties are straining under it and both are dividing into essentially two camps. Might as well push them until they break.

Yup. That's pretty much what Rove said. There's no longer anything to talk about.

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-24 11:12:05

Yup. That's pretty much what Rove said. There's no longer anything to talk about.

Quite the contrary, it's not at all what Rove said and there is a great deal left to talk about. Rove and his ilk are half the problem, but only half. What I'm saying is that the conflict of fundamental differences in America is driving both Parties apart not only from each other but internally. Most people are neither Karl Roves nor Howard Deans in their politics, but those types of mentalities are taking control of both Parties. They're gonna crack.

Regular verbal engagement if nothing else keeps reminding us what the points of conflict are and hasten the day that either one or both viewpoints will be proven wrong and those left can start over with what remains, or less desirable that we all go our separate ways in some sense.

Which incidentally wouldn't be much of a problem under that Constitution thing we used to have. Keep the federal government shackled in its place and many of these problems evaporate.

But then that's one of the points of contention. :;):

clark · 2005-06-24 11:27:27

C.C., I would curse you with the wish that you got everything you wanted if it didn't happen to damn the rest of us.

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-24 11:52:56

C.C., I would curse you with the wish that you got everything you wanted if it didn't happen to damn the rest of us.

The "rest of us" are damned if nothing changes anyway.

But I can compromise, there's enough damnation to go around equally.

BWhite · 2005-06-24 13:55:38

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europ … ests/]Hmmm. . .

clark · 2005-06-24 14:15:36

Does this make America a state sponser of terror?

reddragon · 2005-06-24 15:57:33

Does this make America a state sponser of terror?

Depends how you want to interpret it. Realistically, though, there was no intention of aiding terror so the answer should be no. Rather, the CIA acted stupidly resulting in making things worse. We don't accuse generals who order a poorly timed attack of treason, but we do releive them of their duties. The same attitude should probably apply here.

It also sounds as if the CIA may have acted illegally. This should of course be investigated, and appropriate action should be taken.

Really, though, if we want to beat the terrorists, we have to do better than this.

Grypd · 2005-06-24 16:08:08

Since the Death of Nicola Calipari Italy has not exactly been very forgiving of tresspasses against its sovereignty. This does hurt the USA in the court of world opinion and is likely to cause real trouble to the current pro USA goverment of Italy. They will likely have no choice but to actively demand the handover of the USA agents and to investigate who gave the orders.

The USA will not hand over the agents and this will result in a very serious diplomatic incident. Italy will likely tell the USA that its base near venice having been involved in actions against the constitution of italy then that base should go.

Palomar · 2005-06-25 10:02:52

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u … ]President Bush INVITES REPORTERS to visit Gitmo

*But undoubtedly it still won't be good enough.

Now let's see if the reporters pick up the gauntlet. But chances are they'll nit-pick and blow out proportion even the slightest "infractions"...gotta keep $elling those newspapers, you know.

At a recent news conference, President Bush went so far as to invite journalists to see the prison and see that the allegations were false.

As for VP Cheney's comments, it's one of the -few- times I take him at his word. I think those detainees are likely being treated very well.

--Cindy

reddragon · 2005-06-25 12:44:57

I doubt the reporters will be invited to wander about the base and prison as they like. They'll be on a guided tour showing them what the military has decided is safe for them to see. Thus the allegations will not be confirmed or denied. Bush will say I showed you, we have nothing to hide. His opponents will point out that something could be hiding in what wasn't shown. If someone asks to see something they haven't been shown, they'll be told that would compromise national security. If Bush is finally allowing more media access to the place that's good, but I doubt he's going to suddenly become a big fan of open government.

Josh Cryer · 2005-06-26 16:41:06

Cindy, just want to respond to the corporations comment you made. Wal-Mart being the most notable example. My moms town was pretty much, well, dying, until the Wal-Mart came in. It was literally stagnating to death. The local grocery was crap, its selection of food was pithy, jobs were all taken (it's a relatively small town, I think the population is under 20k), it was always "who you know" and so on. Crime was up, a whole neighborhood was essentially condemned due to the nature of the drug infestation that was occuring, the list goes on and on.

After the Wal-Mart came in, it cleaned things up considerably. Sure, the local grocery is out of business now, but now you have a 1) cheaper selection of food and 2) higher quality of food. The first year my mom moved there, the Wal-Mart was built, the second year, you could literally see the economic developments. There is this mall across from where the Wal-Mart was built. For 4-5 years the buildings were apparently vacant. Now there is a furniture store, a sports store, a clothing store, and so on. It works. Corporations do help.

Of course, Wal-Mart is evil, it employees extensive use of slave labor overseas, it contributes to the worst consumerism imaginable, it really is a wonderful reflection of capitalism, on the face of things.

But to say that the area itself hasn't improved is just... crazy.

reddragon · 2005-06-26 17:49:47

Towns should probably try to look at whether there are other ways of revitalizing a community without taking people's land to bring in Wal-Mart.

Palomar · 2005-06-26 20:07:10

Cindy, just want to respond to the corporations comment you made. Wal-Mart being the most notable example. My moms town was pretty much, well, dying, until the Wal-Mart came in. It was literally stagnating to death. The local grocery was crap, its selection of food was pithy, jobs were all taken (it's a relatively small town, I think the population is under 20k), it was always "who you know" and so on. Crime was up, a whole neighborhood was essentially condemned due to the nature of the drug infestation that was occuring, the list goes on and on.
After the Wal-Mart came in, it cleaned things up considerably. Sure, the local grocery is out of business now, but now you have a 1) cheaper selection of food and 2) higher quality of food. The first year my mom moved there, the Wal-Mart was built, the second year, you could literally see the economic developments. There is this mall across from where the Wal-Mart was built. For 4-5 years the buildings were apparently vacant. Now there is a furniture store, a sports store, a clothing store, and so on. It works. Corporations do help.
Of course, Wal-Mart is evil, it employees extensive use of slave labor overseas, it contributes to the worst consumerism imaginable, it really is a wonderful reflection of capitalism, on the face of things.
But to say that the area itself hasn't improved is just... crazy.

*That's nice.

A company I previously worked for (smaller) was bought out by a large corporation.

The smaller company gave us more benefits and better pay.

When the corporation took over, I took a $200.00 per month loss in pay (not sure how much others lost) though I continued working the same number of hours. The smaller company paid the employee the difference in wages lost when their equipment broke down.

On and on.

The corporations have generally hung themselves in my eyes. Their doing. And I did say "a lot" in my other comments...not all. But likely all corporations have a tendency to be...(insert negative adjectives).

As for Wal-Mart: Most of their stuff is cheap. The clothing and shoes my parents purchased for my sister and I in the 1960s and 1970s at local, privately-owned stores were durable and quality.

Just some comments...I'm not really interested in a debate, per se. We all have our opinions.

--Cindy

P.S.: I'm not sure this particular conversation belongs in this thread either, but simply to answer...

Josh Cryer · 2005-06-27 04:49:31

"Corporations are evil" is a political position, imho. But in any case, I was just saying that there are situations where they can be beneficial. I am by no means saying that they are generally speaking.

The towns can "look in to" revitalizing their communities, but in the end, the local business owners are not going to give in too much, they're not going to hire several more employees per business (and it may simply not be possible, because talking to local business owners there, it seems as though they barely squeeze by, despite the fact that the local resturants do get tons of business- mind, Wal-Mart just put the grocery store out of business, and there was no real mall or anything that provided clothing or whatever except for this small Goodwill downtown).

In the end I agree that they are not what we want, but I try to open my mind a bit and not be too narrow. Corporations are evil? Absolutely. Are they always bad for communities? Possibly. But can they be beneficial? Why not?

Bet clark can't believe I, of all people, am parroting this. :;):

clark · 2005-06-27 05:44:24

What you said:

"Corporations are bad, except when they are not."

Your intellectual development is simply riveting. Except of course, when it isn't.

:;):

My way of thinking is not to really think about this kind of problem. Big company versus small company just white washes the real issues.

You should, at least from my point of view, be asking if the new business model is bringing in more value to the town than the old business model. Is Wal-Mart investing in the town and the people? Is the giant corporation invested in staying in the town?

Small shops build relationships with the community, generally, and the owners of small business tend to invest in the community for the long haul.

Big corporations represent anonymity, and generally show little regard for the local welfare of the population (beyond the necessary PR). Decisions are not made by people in town, who have families and relationships and ties to the community- they are made thousands of miles away by people who own stock and have never heard of where you live, except as "local outlet #8976", and evaluate the future based on charts and return of investments.

Is it always this way? No. But then again, it usually is.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2005-06-23 12:04:25

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#2 2005-06-23 12:17:07

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#3 2005-06-23 13:25:03

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#4 2005-06-23 13:33:43

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#5 2005-06-23 14:33:17

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#6 2005-06-24 06:03:55

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#7 2005-06-24 06:18:52

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#8 2005-06-24 06:24:21

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#9 2005-06-24 06:49:16

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#10 2005-06-24 07:07:49

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#11 2005-06-24 10:57:27

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#12 2005-06-24 11:12:05

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#13 2005-06-24 11:27:27

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#14 2005-06-24 11:52:56

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#15 2005-06-24 13:55:38

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#16 2005-06-24 14:15:36

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#17 2005-06-24 15:57:33

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#18 2005-06-24 16:08:08

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#19 2005-06-25 10:02:52

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#20 2005-06-25 12:44:57

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#21 2005-06-26 16:41:06

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#22 2005-06-26 17:49:47

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#23 2005-06-26 20:07:10

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#24 2005-06-27 04:49:31

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#25 2005-06-27 05:44:24

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

Board footer