A public service massage

[thormagni]

I just don't see a lot of hope for America. We have two increasingly hostile camps who can't even agree upon the basic definition of common words, let alone choose an agreed upon set of facts from which they can proceed to argue policy opinions. And no matter who gets elected, I don't see it getting any better.

 

[APewty]

Go figure? I don't understand what you mean - that it is obvious that if a person has more education and a more intellectually informed view (an academecian), then that person is more likely to be broad-minded and less apt to favor tradition (conservatism) over new ideas? It sounds like you think this is a bad thing. Seriously, if the educated favor liberalism, then doesn't it follow (on some level) that liberalism is the more intelligent path?

(To me, if the more educated and informed people lean liberal, then that makes me want to lean in that direction as well. Not much point in agreeing with the uneducated and uninformed, right?)

You say you "feel" you have the best shot with McCain, but do you have any evidence? McCain has admitted to having a poor grasp of economics, but you feel you have a better shot with him? Sarah Palin can string together a coherent thought no better than Bush, and ...

I had to laugh a bit when you said, "I didn't bother reading the links either." A lot of conservatives (esp. Bush, I think) don't bother to read actual information before making decisions either. No offense meant, but that struck me as funny - and a wonderfully conservative thing to say.

Well, I had a post I've worked on for more than 30 minutes that went poof when I screwed up my password entry. Suffice to say that there's more to a candidate than intelligence. There's more than improvisational speaking. I don't know why you think it's a conservative thing to "don't bother to read actual information before making decisions" when I didn't have to follow the link for two reasons: 1. it wasn't actual information but an inaccurate "calculator" apparently supposed to give an estimate of promised tax cuts, when said cuts aren't even certain. 2. whether I follow the link or not, I'm not sure what decision I made before following it. I assume that you infer that the opinion I've already formed should hinge on this link. Having looked at the link I see nothing ground breaking to make me think that either side will probably raise taxes since the link does not mention any bailout or downturn in the economy. But thanks for assuming I can't come to any conclusions or form any opinions on my own without reading links provided by others. I suppose this is where I say I laughed at you saying "A lot of conservatives (esp. Bush, I think) don't bother to read actual information before making decisions either. No offense meant, but that struck me as funny - and a wonderfully conservative thing to say. " but I don't see anything funny here. I see someone making a lot of assumptions about conservatives. Nothing wrong with that, but it's not funny.

 

[APewty]

I just don't see a lot of hope for America. We have two increasingly hostile camps who can't even agree upon the basic definition of common words, let alone choose an agreed upon set of facts from which they can proceed to argue policy opinions. And no matter who gets elected, I don't see it getting any better.

There's a lot to not be happy about. I can easily put aside any discussion based on party lines. America has itself to blame in many ways. For the most part I don't like politics and mostly don't discuss it. The last time I did it was with a Bush hater. She never understood that just because you hate Bush makes anyone that's not Bush and not Republican better. It's cliche to say, but Hitler was neither Bush nor a Republican. Just because Obama promises change and isn't Bush or a Republican doesn't mean he can fix things. I'm not sure McCain can fix things.

I don't like the campaigns either. I wish one or both would take the high road and be honest and stop slinging mud. I don't even care who started it. I really don't trust either camp to be honest. That's sad. I've felt since early in the primaries that things were bleak politically.

I've mostly resolved to do what I can do to make my life better and safer. I think it's good advice, no matter who is running for office. Don't trust another person to keep you safe! Watch out for yourself and plan ahead, period. If more Americans would do this then many problems would be closer to being solved.

 

[APewty]

Palin Opens Up On Controversial Issues, VP Candidate Speaks Frankly With Katie Couric About Feminism, Homosexuality, Abortion And The Environment - CBS News

She can't even give a specific answer to the name of a newspaper or magazine she might have read! She has read them all!

Couric: And when it comes to establishing your worldview, I was curious, what newspapers and magazines did you regularly read before you were tapped for this to stay informed and to understand the world?

Palin: I've read most of them, again with a great appreciation for the
press, for the media.

Couric: What, specifically?

Palin: Um, all of them, any of them that have been in front of me all
these years.

Couric: Can you name a few?

Palin: I have a vast variety of sources where we get our news, too. Alaska isn't a foreign country, where it's kind of suggested, "Wow, how could you keep in touch with what the rest of Washington, D.C., may be thinking when you live up there in Alaska?" Believe me, Alaska is like a microcosm of
America.

It is strange if you think every question has to be answered. I have a rule of thumb when it comes to the media and any reporting or interviews; you never know how it's edited. You don't know what was said that didn't get played, aired, reported.

I have to wonder if she just didn't want to mention a name and thereby give the publication publicity. And if she's to name one (as asked by the interviewer) which one does she name? If she reads myriad sources, why pick just one? Why pick five? Why does an interviewee have to jump through hoops just because a question has been asked?

Do you seriously think it's important that she divulge her "sources" of news media. I can see her not liking the question since it implies that she isn't capable of getting on the internet and accessing dozens of news sources, if not subscribing to a few or picking them up as she travels. I don't see that it's even important. Does anyone here know what media sources Biden, Obama, McCain or anyone in Washington read? For goodness sake, what the heck? Given this is asked of the woman from Alaska and not of every politician, it's natural she would assume it's because she's from Alaska.....

 

[InzeladunMaster]

I just don't see a lot of hope for America. We have two increasingly hostile camps who can't even agree upon the basic definition of common words, let alone choose an agreed upon set of facts from which they can proceed to argue policy opinions. And no matter who gets elected, I don't see it getting any better.

I pretty much agree. The increasing hostility concerns me. There is a lot of intolerance for alternative ideas/lifestyles/religions/looks these days. The partisan divide today is possibly insurmountable.

 

[InzeladunMaster]

Suffice to say that there's more to a candidate than intelligence. There's more than improvisational speaking.

I am of the opinion that intelligence and good oratory skill are important qualities to a leader. Of course there is more than that, though! http://www.leadership501.com/five-most-important-leadership-traits/27/ lists a few traits (including intelligence). Other ideas include Raymond Cattell's list(http://www.smallbusinessnotes.com/operating/leadership/leadership.html). Of course Warren Bennis, the guru on leadership, has his own list as well - which includes an ability to communicate a vision.

However, after 8 years of a fairly shallow-thinker with poor speaking skills, I will settle for someone who is intelligent and well-spoken in office.

"I'm also not very analytical. You know I don't spend a lot of time thinking about myself, about why I do things."—George W. Bush, Aboard Air Force One, June 4, 2003

I don't know why you think it's a conservative thing to "don't bother to read actual information before making decisions"

Because a lot of conservatives I have spoken to or listened to have said the same thing. Bush himself has stated "I mean, I read the newspaper. I mean, I can tell you what the headlines are." (Philadelphia, Dec. 12, 2005) and "I glance at the headlines just to kind of get a flavor for what's moving. I rarely read the stories, and get briefed by people who probably read the news themselves." (Washington, D.C., Sept. 21, 2003 (italics are mine)). Bush seemingly has made a number of decisions without bothering to really assess actual information ("And Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job.").

I've known several conservative Christians who have never read the Bible in its entirety - and I know one extremely conservative Christian who doesn't even own a Bible (she says her pastor tells her what she needs to know, so she doesn't need to read or own it). I have known a lot of conservative Christians who condemn other religions and/or lifestyles without even studying them, and I know a lot of conservative Republicans who condemn Democrats without really investigating what they actually stand for.

I also work with a conservative who does not acknowledge any evidence that runs counter to her opinion. Ever. Her mind never changes under any circumstances, no matter what the evidence is.

when I didn't have to follow the link for two reasons: 1. it wasn't actual information but an inaccurate "calculator" apparently supposed to give an estimate of promised tax cuts, when said cuts aren't even certain.

Hmmm. The second link was a news article. No, tax cuts aren't certain - but tax cuts aren't always in the best interests of the economy. As any economist will tell you, a tax hike is an effective fiscal tool to use against inflation. If that is what is best for the economy, I want a leader who will do it. Indeed, a tax cut during inflationary times will actually increase inflationary pressures! Tax cuts are a fiscal tool to fight unemployment, however. Obama's plan, to raise taxes on the wealthy and cut taxes on the lower incomes is designed to help with both measures. But no, it isn't certain. But I am certain that making Bush's cuts permanent may well remove a fiscal tool to fight inflation from the hands of the government.

But thanks for assuming I can't come to any conclusions or form any opinions on my own without reading links provided by others.

It wasn't that at all! I just thought the comment itself was funny, as I have heard similar things said before by conservative friends and students.

Here is a sampling of comments I have heard in the classroom: "Well, I don't know much about it, but I know I don't want Obama in the office," or "I haven't really read up on it, but McCain's my man!" or "All I know is that Obama is a radical Muslim who believes the ravings of his Christian minister, so McCain must be better for us" (yes, I actually had a student who thought Obama could actually be a Muslim and yet belong to a Christian church), or "I don't need to read the news to know what is going on," and so on.

I know a few conservatives who believe voting Democrat means we will be attacked by terrorists again for certain - even though Republicans controlled the House, the Senate, and the White House the last time we were attacked (9/11).

Your comment just sounded a lot like theirs. It really didn't matter that it referred to some light-weight links that probably didn't need to be read, it was just the sound of the comment and how it mirrored so many similar ones I have heard - and that struck me as funny.

I suppose this is where I say I laughed at you saying "A lot of conservatives (esp. Bush, I think) don't bother to read actual information before making decisions either. No offense meant, but that struck me as funny - and a wonderfully conservative thing to say. " but I don't see anything funny here. I see someone making a lot of assumptions about conservatives. Nothing wrong with that, but it's not funny.

I have been told I have a strange sense of humor. I found it funny. I still find it funny. It really wasn't an assumption about you, just that I found it funny. You basically glanced at the headlines of the links and got a flavor for them from that, then moved on. A lot like Bush. (Not that you are like Bush - just that it sounded like something Bush would have said).

I really didn't mean to offend. It just struck my funny bone.

"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."— George W. Bush, Greece, N.Y., May 24, 2005

 

[InzeladunMaster]

It is strange if you think every question has to be answered.

No, but she seems to answer precious few of them.

I have to wonder if she just didn't want to mention a name and thereby give the publication publicity.

And she could have said that were that the case.

Do you seriously think it's important that she divulge her "sources" of news media.

No, I don't think it is important, but I think her rambling, nonsensical answer was funny. Katie Couric is hardly a worthwhile newscaster and no, it wasn't a great question, but the answer was funny to me.

Part of the reason it wouldn't be asked of McCain or Biden is that no one doubts their ability to understand foreign affairs, and the reason it wouldn't be asked of Obama is that he sounds informed. Sarah Palin does not sound informed. Is it fair? No. But if she doesn't want to answer questions like that, then she needs to at least sound qualified.

I have a rule of thumb when it comes to the media and any reporting or interviews; you never know how it's edited. You don't know what was said that didn't get played, aired, reported.

Well, let me respond to that with a quote from George W. Bush: "We look forward to analyzing and working with legislation that will make—it would hope—put a free press's mind at ease that you're not being denied information you shouldn't see." —Washington, D.C., April 14, 2005

 

[Grimhelm]

The current polarization has happened as a natural consequence of a two party system. Actually, it is surprising that it hasn't come to this point sooner. When one side pushes, the other side will mostly likely push back. It is a sort of consequence of human behavior that when one side of a debate or ideology rises up and asserts itself that another opposite sort of ideology appears to combat it.

When the terrorists struck NY, we rose up and fought them. As a result, their ideologies and our ideologies become more prounounced and combative. It is this way with any set of polarized ideals, such as liberalism and conservativism, religious and atheist, good and evil. Alan Watts compares this phenomenon to a wave. One cannot hope to get rid of the troughs by making the waves bigger. Yet, this is just how we operate in the sphere of ideas and ideological argumentation. We are always hoping to make our side bigger in order to squelch the other side. What we always fail to see is that by making our side bigger (the wave), we immediately create deeper troughs.

The way to eliminate this phenomenon is simply to bow out of it. Obama has done a pretty good job of simply avoiding this sort of debate. This is not to say there are other people willing to fuel the fire, but as President, it is his tone that will make the difference, not the tiny sharks in his camp.

McCain, on the other hand, is aggressive and combative to the end. During the debate he didn't hesitate to belittle his opponent with words like "he just doesn't get it." Obama never once accused McCain in this way.

The reason I predict a landslide is because, as IM has pointed out, education leads to liberal thinking. Obama's campaign is using the Internet and community organizing on a scale not yet seen. He is educating the masses. He is moving them to action. This movement may not be completely apparent yet, but I predict that his strategy will work overwhelmingly. I also predict that McCain's campaign will implode under the weight of his aggressive style.

What IM also alludes to is the biological fact that human beings like to have their reality and beliefs confirmed. As a general rule we only seek out knowledge that confirms our own beliefs. In our heads beliefs=reality. Therefore to change our beliefs changes our reality... a large step to be sure!

Therefore there are essentially two kinds of learners: The learner who believes his perception of reality is mostly accurate and the learner who believes his perception of reality is just a starting point. The first learner will work to confirm his own perceptions. The second will work to expand his perceptions. The first kind of learner will resist change and difference because it does not fit with his world view. The second sort of learner will expect to see change and difference and will incorporate it into his thinking because change and difference is already a part of his reality.

"Conservatives" tend to fall into the former camp. They are less likely to embrace change. In fact, they tend to see the past as a place that is better than the present. They tend to view the changes they have seen as negative for it does not fit with what their original view of the world was. "Liberals" tend to embrace change. They tend to be more future oriented. They do not look to the glorious past. They look to a future that can be affected and changed positively.

Anyway, this is long winded, ain't it? I guess to conclude the thought: Get educated. Become informed. Thomas Jefferson and the founding fathers knew it to be critical if democracy and FREEDOM were to survive. And let's face it, those guys were some liberal fanatics for their time and place.

 

[APewty]

Hmmm. The second link was a news article.

It was basically laying out what the calculator does by showing the cutoff ranges for income levels and the resulting cut/increase. Same subject, different presentation.

I've meant to say that I identify a lot with much of what Libertarians work for. Not everything, but as Grimhelm says, the system has become a two party boondogle. Not enough people have voted for a third party since the Whigs (I think it was the Whigs, wasn't it?).

Whig Party (United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

No, tax cuts aren't certain - but tax cuts aren't always in the best interests of the economy. As any economist will tell you, a tax hike is an effective fiscal tool to use against inflation. If that is what is best for the economy, I want a leader who will do it. Indeed, a tax cut during inflationary times will actually increase inflationary pressures! Tax cuts are a fiscal tool to fight unemployment, however. Obama's plan, to raise taxes on the wealthy and cut taxes on the lower incomes is designed to help with both measures. But no, it isn't certain. But I am certain that making Bush's cuts permanent may well remove a fiscal tool to fight inflation from the hands of the government.

I'm not an economist nor do I care to become one. However, I think more along libertarian lines. The purpose of a federal government should not be to solve everyone's problems. Only to do as the constitution intended. Of course, the scope of the constitution is broad so it can cover many things. Still, our governments do not have to stick their hands in everything nor create programs for everything. Just because time passes do all things need fixing.

You can say that I hang on to the old ways like it's a bad thing. But, consider what you all probably have experienced at work. Time and resources are spent brainstorming and learning how to do the same old things in new ways. It's mostly spin. In the work place, if the workers and managers worked at improvement all the time then most situtations would not require the infrastructure of processes such as Six Sigma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and the drain on resources that this represents. Problems and solutions come up in daily life, and are ignored many times. But, if a "problem solving team" studies things for a few weeks, then the solution for said problem is celebrated as a triumph. The bureaucracy of government is similar in many ways. In theory, you can take a dollar or an hour of your time, or both, and achieve something like feeding the hungry or cleaning the street. But using the bureaucracy inherent in government will take more than a dollar and more than hour to achieve the same. This inherent inefficiency is what I abhor so much. To know that it will always grow until the spending smothers us all is what bothers me so much about taxes and tax increases. It is rare for a government, be it local, state or federal, to collect "revenue", have a surplus and diligently return it to those it came from. Instead, that money is spent as soon as possible or held until it can be spent.

I work with a physician that told me he used to work at a VA hospital. I guess I assumed from the stories you hear about substandard care that it was rough working there and I asked him as much. He responded that it was very good. He said that what happens is that there is a budget and if you don't spend all the money, then the next budget is reduced. But, if you spend it all, the next budget is increased. Therefore they never held back on spending. This is what I suspect and fear about the government model of providing services, health care, etc versus the free market model. It's also more of a core principal of conservatism.

Speaking of intelligence, it seems intelligent to me not to hand your money to strangers and expect them to spend it wisely. It seems intelligent to oppose this kind of spending. Oversight is also just another kind of bureaucracy and is inefficient, not to mention the political difficulties that our party system entails when oversight fails.

 

[InzeladunMaster]

Therefore there are essentially two kinds of learners: The learner who believes his perception of reality is mostly accurate and the learner who believes his perception of reality is just a starting point. The first learner will work to confirm his own perceptions. The second will work to expand his perceptions. The first kind of learner will resist change and difference because it does not fit with his world view. The second sort of learner will expect to see change and difference and will incorporate it into his thinking because change and difference is already a part of his reality.

"Conservatives" tend to fall into the former camp. They are less likely to embrace change. In fact, they tend to see the past as a place that is better than the present. They tend to view the changes they have seen as negative for it does not fit with what their original view of the world was. "Liberals" tend to embrace change. They tend to be more future oriented. They do not look to the glorious past. They look to a future that can be affected and changed positively.

I agree with that totally. I also liked your wave example from Mr. Watts. Excellent stuff, as usual.

"Let me start off by saying that in 2000 I said, 'Vote for me. I'm an agent of change.' In 2004, I said, 'I'm not interested in change—I want to continue as president.' Every candidate has got to say 'change.' That's what the American people expect." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., March 5, 2008