Election: Why So Close
Locked
123
123
Re: Election: Why So Close
 
|
Owen,
A theory (hypothesis strictly speaking) ... With all their polls and focus groups, the Republicans decided/discovered long ago that scaring the bejeebus out of people over fear of national insecurity was a great way to get elected and re-elected. The antidote to fear is a decent education, so the Republicans undermine the country's education system making it only available to the more wealthy, convicted right wingers who benefit from "them who has the gold make the rules". Then feed the less well educated on the belief of an American Dream (whateverthatis), repeat the mantra of "trickle-down-economics will work... trickle-..." and sleep well at night. Repeatedly tell folks Republicans are the only true patriots capable of defending the country from the foreign peril etc. and you have a self-perpetuating system. Until one day it just doesn't sell. But as I say it's just a theory: could it be? But I don't buy stupid people, I buy educationally deprived people, ie willful but not on their part. R Owen Densmore wrote: I'm very willing to accept your premise that people are willful, stupid, ignorant, and all the rest. ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
Hola:
The methods that the US political culture uses to discourage political involvement extend beyond merely fear mongering and wrecking the public educational system. Billions of dollars are spent every year to distract the public and degrade the quality of public discourse. The more well-known election-debasement techniques also include erecting barriers to voter registration and making the act of voting confusing and cumbersome. BTW, IMHO most of the Democratic Party leadership is almost as guilty (and much more hypocritical) as the Republican Party leadership regarding the implementation of the aforementioned practices. Richard Nixon was to the left of Bill Clinton on most major issues. -- Pat On Oct 31, 2008, at 12:57 PM, Robert Cordingley wrote: Owen, ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by Richard Harris-3
Found in the responses to this article, a wonderful neologism:
"It is always a pleasure to read George Monbiot's inciteful analyses, even from beyond the Pond." inciteful !!!! Just perfect :-) tom On Oct 31, 2008, at 11:07 AM, Richard Harris wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by Douglas Roberts-2
Greetings, all --
The Pauline Kael Syndrome affects all of us to a greater or lesser extent, I suppose (you may recall that Ms. Kael, film critic for "The New Yorker", famously commented in 1972, "I live in a rather special world. I only know one person who voted for Nixon. Where they are I don't know. They're outside my ken. But sometimes when I'm in a theater I can feel them."). I am a bit of a cross-kenner, perhaps, in that as a finance guy who's a social progressive, I have sympathies on both sides -- as do most voters, I'd say. At the end of the day, however, I'm more confident in the kind of society a Democrat can offer than any other party. It's also worth noting that third-parties have never been successful in part because we in the US like clear winners - no "grand coalitions". The Perot '92 voters are McCain '08 voters, for the most part, and the Nader '00 voters are mostly Obama '08. Maybe the distribution really is along the lines that Nassim Nicholas Taleb describes -- there's the narrative fallacy (believing in your ability to recognize patterns where none exists) and confirmation bias (paying attention only to information that strengthens your argument). Our deplorable lack of awareness of the world around us may be a feature, not a bug. We live in such relative peace and prosperity that politics doesn't really affect us day in and day out. Indeed, there are many economists who argue that there's no need to vote, since your single vote is unlikely to affect the outcome of an election. Of course, we in the sparsely poplulated West know better, and besides, there's a greater civic duty/social contract idea behind being a responsible citizen. That's the message of all the ads on MTV to get out the youth vote, and maybe it will work this time, but it's hard to force people. Citizens in South Africa and Iraq and Gaza have much more to gain, it seems, from participating in elections than we do. That neglects, however, the hard-won right to vote that our ancestors vouchsafed for us. We owe it to them as much as ourselves to make our voices heard. Like Owen and Doug, I'd like voters to be more intelligent, but I'll settle for their being less ignorant. - Claiborne - From: Douglas Roberts <[hidden email]> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]> Sent: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 1:35 pm Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Election: Why So Close
I can't resist:
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 1:30 PM, Tom Carter <[hidden email]> wrote:
[...] Democrats tend to have at least a little trouble flat out lying . . . Well, that would depend on what the definition of the word "is" is, wouldn't it? ;-} One of the more blatant Democratic lies ever uttered. Its echos are still reverberating. -- Doug Roberts, RTI International [hidden email] [hidden email] 505-455-7333 - Office 505-670-8195 - Cell ============================================================ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
Nicely said, Claiborne.
At some level a certain degree of naivete is charming, perhaps even forgivable. On the other hand, stubborn attachment to an ivory tower whitewashed notion about the noble human nature, combined with sympathies for the "poor, downtrodden, uneducated, unwashed masses" is pretty hypocritical. If you have trouble believing that stupidity, racism, and just plain ugliness are not a very large part of the human equation, and in fact are the major drivers behind much of the flavor of our social network interactions (I just threw that last bit in to appeal to the more academic amongst us), take a quick glance at politics in the Democratic Republic of The Congo: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/27472662#27472662 What are the similarities between their two-party system and ours? Tutsi vs. Hutu, Republican vs. Democrat. A primary strategy employed in either case is for each party to demonize the other. The primary difference between their style of politics and ours is that they use real bullets and machetes to "prove" who's right. Myself, I'd be happy with less ignorance, but I'd settle for more intelligence. --Doug On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 2:20 PM, <[hidden email]> wrote:
-- Doug Roberts, RTI International [hidden email] [hidden email] 505-455-7333 - Office 505-670-8195 - Cell ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
Isn't the so-called Flynn Effect still considered true? Is there more
recent data for the U.S. (besides Bush being elected twice) that says otherwise? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by Owen Densmore
Responding to the original question, I'd say it's close because there really isn't that much difference.
Yes, the differences are striking when you highlight them and state them as the opposing parties want them stated. But the similarities far outweigh the differences. Which is why Palin can pursue socialist policies in Alaska and accuse Obama of more socialist leanings without blushing. Or maybe she does blush, but her makeup technician has it under control. And while the Republicans did invade Iraq causing untold suffering, the Democrats were pursuing a regime change policy in the Clinton years through blockade and no-fly enforcement which also caused untold suffering, if I remember what Amy Goodman's guests were saying way back then. As for spying on American citizens, well, J Edgar Hoover served as FBI director under 6 presidents, 4 democrats and 2 republicans. But that makes it sound too close, it was 11 years under republicans and 26 years under democrats. That wasn't all so long ago. Adding in the 11 years that Hoover served as the BI director before the FBI was established (under FDR), the presidents go to 4 and 4, while the democrats still have the edge in years 28 to 19. The funny thing I discovered was that Hoover was the technocrat president: "Hoover deeply believed in the Efficiency Movement (a major component of the Progressive Era), arguing that a technical solution existed for every social and economic problem." But that didn't save him when the bottom fell out of the economy. Which leads to why the Republicrats and the Democans are so similar -- there haven't been many "new" ideas in the last century, and they've converged on the consensus view of the "old" issues: slavery = bad, universal suffrage = good, socialism = in moderation, military imperialism = bad, racial segregation = bad, politcal corruption = bad, and so on. So while Glen may worry about being branded, tarred and feathered for his skepticism of universal healthcare, he will not argue that someone should thrown out of the hospital to die on the sidewalk for lack of health insurance. He just wants the bill to get paid without making a political issue or institution or scandal out of it. We don't believe in letting people die for lack of health care, but we're unclear how to make it so. And I don' t think that either party has any advantage on stupidity or ignorance, but it wouldn't change anything if one did: stupid, ignorant people can make brilliant decisions; smart, educated people can make horrible decisions. (The google ads on this thread are impressive, looks like Ron Paul wants to go bimetallic.) -- rec -- ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels
It it were a linear effect over time, then back around the year 0 BC the human populace would have all been flaunting IQs of approximately -500.
No wonder Christianity was such an easy sell.
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 2:47 PM, Marcus G. Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote: Isn't the so-called Flynn Effect still considered true? Is there more recent data for the U.S. (besides Bush being elected twice) that says otherwise? -- Doug Roberts, RTI International [hidden email] [hidden email] 505-455-7333 - Office 505-670-8195 - Cell ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by Douglas Roberts-2
Doug
> > */Well, that would depend on what the definition of the word "is" is, > wouldn't it?/* > > ;-} > > One of the more blatant Democratic lies ever uttered. Its echos are > still reverberating. Nahhh... that wasn't a /Democratic lie, /that was a horn-dog lie, caught like a deer in the headlights. I didn't care much for Bill (but compared to George I and George II even more, he was a saint), but this question (never mind the stupid answer) was totally inappropriate (but hugely effective). ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by Owen Densmore
Maybe it has to be close, because the media wants
it to be close. It has to be an exciting event and a big show. The media wants to make lots of money with it. It is like the Formula 1: if the races are not exciting enough, simply the rules are changed or the drivers are exchanged. Why is always a hype in the media about elections, although nobody questions the election system iself (the long-winded two-party presidential election system in the USA, for example)? Why does nobody ask if the candidates need to spend an ridiculous amount of money on campaigning and marketing? One reason is perhaps that the media itself is intricately involved in the process. The media needs to hold up the feedback illusion in the election ritual for the common voter: the satisfying feeling for each single voter that he/she has any real influence. The price for the voter is high: the feeling is only an illusion driven by commercial interests. Think of all the money the media can make with advertising and the high viewer levels during elections. To question the election process would mean to question the role of the media. The media does not only present the result, it also takes part in creating it. The decisions of the people is determined by the collective consciousness: the content of the major newspapers, journals and TV stations. The candidates and the media need each other. The more the candidates appear in the media, the more famous they become, and the more famous they are, the more they appear in the media if they are unusual: a self-reinforcing process. -J. ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by Steve Smith
This thread (and the reference to the column by George Monbiot, prompted me to post the following on my blog.
Is religion good or bad?
Obviously that's much too broad a question. And when it is asked, people usually respond by pointing to the good and bad things people do in the name of religion—e.g., like helping those in need (good) and the crusades (bad). But I think there is a real answer. A column by George Monbiot in The Guardian reminded me why, in general, I think religion is bad: at its core religion teaches people to favor faith over reason. One can probably stop there. Is it ever a good idea to encourage people not to think for themselves? I doubt it. Even when people come to incorrect conclusions by thinking for themselves, one at least has a chance with them if they are open to the idea that one should think things through. Religion closes that door by closing people's mind. It encourages a perspective in which a given opinion is to be accepted no matter what—because it is God's will or God's word, for example. The point is not whether some particular position is or is not "God's will" or "God's word." The problem is with the idea that one should decide something by asking whether it is "God's will" or "God's word." That sort of thinking allows people to let themselves off the hook of taking responsibility for their own actions and decisions. It's a lot easier simply to go along with the crowd or to do whatever one's religious leader says. That's true whether one is religious or not. But the problem with religion (and any cult) is that it encourages that sort of behavior. By its very definition, one of the fundamental teachings of a faith-based religion is mindless faith. I'm finding it difficult to express how deeply angry I feel about this. A country whose citizens are trained to be meek (and sometimes not so meek) followers of their religious leaders will inevitably become a backwater of ignorance and stupidity. That's what religion is doing to this country, and I hate it for that. -- Russ Abbott _____________________________________________ Professor, Computer Science California State University, Los Angeles o Check out my blog at http://russabbott.blogspot.com/ On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 2:31 PM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote: Doug ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
Unfortunately, part of the process of subscribing to a fundamentalist religion entails checking your brain in at the door. In spite of this requirement, I've encountered more than one brainwashed fundamentalist who was damned clever at avoiding logic in favor of dogma.
The reality is that as long as people feel the need to use religion hide from reality, to use ritual and dogma to avoid having to think for themselves, there will be fundamentalist religions and all of the bigotry, closed-mindedness, and anti-intellectualism that goes with that particular lifestyle preference.* --Doug *Note that not once did I use the word "stupid" in expressing my opinions regarding fundamentalism. Nor, did I attempt to characterize fundamentalists as weak, cowardly, or bigoted. Oops, I did use "bigotry". Oh, what the fuck. Fundamentalists *are* stupid. AND weak. AND cowardly. And, before the list moderator comes down on me: It's not my fault. THEY started this thread!! On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 5:02 PM, Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote: This thread (and the reference to the column by George Monbiot, prompted me to post the following on my blog. ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
Thus spake Douglas Roberts circa 10/31/2008 04:48 PM:
> The reality is that as long as people feel the need to use religion hide > from reality, to use ritual and dogma to avoid having to think for > themselves, there will be fundamentalist religions Excellent! Now we may get closer to the truth. Humans (and their psychological, biological, sociological, etc. constitution) _causes_ fundamentalist religions, not vice versa. (though there will obviously be reinforcing global forces when fundamentalism is the dominant context that feed back onto the causes, but fundamentalism re-emerges so often that I'd claim the feedback is weaker than the first order causes) Now that we have the directionality of that causal relationship straight, we can begin talking about the constitution of humans, i.e. the causes, rather than religion, which is merely the symptom. What is it about humans and their context that gives rise to the need for habit, ritual, dogma, "instinct", and un/subconscious stimulus-reaction processes? And when do things like habit prove beneficial versus detrimental? It's quite clear that when, say, riding a bicycle or hitting a baseball, ritual and habit reign. But when, say, voting or playing Go, it's better to spend a large amount of time thinking. Mixed circumstances, e.g. wielding an automatic rifle in the middle of Iraq, will obviously present a complex problem that has to be solved with part habit and part thought. Are there any generic (abstracted) properties of circumstances where habit is clearly best ... or where in-depth analysis is clearly best? -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
Glen,
It is if you are my shill, sitting out there in the audience amongst all the rubes. See my post immediately following... --Doug On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 6:08 PM, glen e. p. ropella <[hidden email]> wrote: Thus spake Douglas Roberts circa 10/31/2008 04:48 PM: -- Doug Roberts, RTI International [hidden email] [hidden email] 505-455-7333 - Office 505-670-8195 - Cell ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by Russ Abbott
Like a dog returning his own vomit, I can't seem to distance myself from this thread. One last contribution (hopefully). In one my circles of friends -- using the term somewhat loosely -- there is a cluster of Democrats and one lonely, besieged Republican. Naturally, the conversations between us have frequently devolved, using words like "stupid", and "DemoCRAP", and "ReFUCKINGPublican". After one particularly heated conversation where the lone Republican admitted, after incessant badgering from the rest of us (ok, from me), that he still *liked* Bush. I contemplated his admission for a day or two, and then responded with the following:
I had a small epiphany Friday evening. There was a Los Alamos Hill
Topper's home football game this last Friday, and the LA high school
band was out of town at some kind of competition. Because of this, the
high school had asked one of the bands that I'm in, the "HillStompers" to play at the game instead. We said, "Sure."
So, at 6:30pm we ambled in, and took our seats in the Sullivan Field stadium where the HS band usually sits. Immediately, a Down's Syndrome boy came over and told us we had to leave, because that is where the high school band sat. Our band leader tried to explain that we were the substitute band for the evening. He remained unconvinced for the entire evening. The epiphany: Stupid people don't recognize that they are stupid. Seemingly, this applies to any level of stupidity. Bush's level, Palin's level, XXXXX's* level, Down's Syndrome, your level, my level -- it doesn't matter. Stupid people are convinced that no matter who says differently, they are right. You can waste your breath trying to convince them otherwise if you so choose, but you will have succeeded in exactly that: wasting your breath. Which in itself is a pretty stupid thing to do. * XXXXX is, of course, the beseiged Republican --Doug On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 5:02 PM, Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote: This thread (and the reference to the column by George Monbiot, prompted me to post the following on my blog. ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by Douglas Roberts-2
Thus spake Douglas Roberts circa 10/31/2008 05:15 PM:
> It is if you are my shill, sitting out there in the audience amongst all the > rubes. I live to serve! -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
Administrator
|
People: I'm thinking Freakonomics here. Statistics. Human behavior
patterns. You know, Science! Thus far I've heard only rants on religion, stupidity, and probably bad spelling. Is there *any* reason for the close vote (especially in the 2000 2004 2008 elections). Here are a few possibilities: - Parties form attractors. - Classism. - Single Issue voters. - Marketing to a tie. - The Central Limit Theorem. This is especially interesting seeing how the rest of the world is so *hugely* for Obama. What's different about us? And don't tell me Europeans are smarter than us, they aren't. Different, yes. But they elect assholes as often as we do. I heard an interesting talk about how historians look at this: http://radioopensource.org/a-longer-view-of-2008-historian-gordon-wood/ One of his points is that: "I think that all of these candidates will find that they have been carried along by forces that they can scarcely understand." -- Owen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
Administrator
|
In reply to this post by Richard Harris-3
Hmm..this may be spot-on.
-- Owen On Oct 31, 2008, at 12:07 PM, Richard Harris wrote: > Saw an interesting article on this topic in the Guardian the other > day. > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/28/us-education-election-obama-bush-mccain > > Don't really know what to add. > > Rich ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by Douglas Roberts-2
I lean more towards the "Forrest Gump" philosophy on this issue: "Stupid is as stupid does."I prefer Thomas Freidman's Dumb as we Wanna Be . Many of my "redneck" friends (as many with brown or red skin as pink like mine, if it matters) have a limited perspective which when I can shoehorn my head into, makes pretty good sense to me (if I ignore the pain in my head from the force-fit into said limited perspective). Similarly, many of my "educated elite" friends have an equally (but different) limited perspective (never really worked with their hands, or been hungry, or lost a loved one to lack of something or ...). This shoe horn is more of a silver spoon, but works pretty much the same as the utilitarian steel one I use with the former crowd. What do these folks have in common? I can't say they are unintelligent (though the latter categorically assume that of the former) but I do often think of both camps as "Dumb as they wanna be". They have a bunch of self-serving, limited perspective, ideas that they cling to despite everything, including the facts. If they were in a true survival situation, I would hope they would stand back and assess a little larger, zoom in and deduce a little more carefully. But maybe not, maybe the unction for a simple, actionable answer to everything is deep human (primate/mammalian/vertebrate/animal?) nature and trumps any attempt at higher processing when confronted with significant amounts of greed or fear. I suspect myself of the same (too often) and find myself suspecting myself anytime I feel too smug or sure about anything, especially "public policy". It is "easy" to assume that "anyone voting for Dubya (or McCain by extension)" is an idiot. Or that "most people" are idiots, but as Owen's original question suggests, it probably isn't that easy. That doesn't mean I'm not looking forward to "regime change" in a few days (or months, depending on how you demarcate). Carry on, - Steve ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by Tom Carter
Tom, of course the question "Why isn't Obama white?" is perfectly
valid. Most of us supposedly enlightened types would like to think that we all agree that, especially in a world where intermingling of a genetic nature among traditional genetic groups has made the notion of "race" fairly undefinable, it is of course not yet irrelevant. There are presumably genetic reasons why the children of mixed-race marriages between "Caucasians" and descendents of sub-Saharan Africans tend on average to preserve more of the physical traits of their African heritage, which contributes to our ease of identifying a Barack Obama as "black", without qualification. But our own sordid history as a nation of course also contributes to how we tend to identify people. (And how interesting it is that all the false reports of Obama being a closet Muslim -- and the assumptions that that would make him a terrorist by association -- seem to have trumped at least public debates about his being black. I suppose it's just that the rumor-mongers know that they have to be more careful about racial epithets than non-American-standard religious ones.) Another couple of interesting data points (recognizing that I'm getting wildly off-topic here): My wife, who somewhat to her chagrin is descended from a number of prominent slave-owning southerners, is reading the book The Hemingses of Monticello, which sounds fascinating. Jefferson's relationship with Sally Hemings was of course no aberration. I think one of the basic tenets of the book (which I haven't read yet) is that basically everybody on the plantation was related, and they all knew it. If I remember correctly, Sally Hemings was a blood relative of Jefferson's wife. So we have a long tradition of carefully identifying the children of (typically) the rape of a black (slave) woman by a white man as black, so that they could clearly be identified as slaves. (Interesting point of comparison -- continuing wildly off-topic): White Australians discovered that the distinctive physical traits of aborigines tend to disappear much more quickly on average when they intermarry or otherwise mix genes with whites, maybe because the original gene pool of those aboriginal settlers must have been pretty small. So the Australian government took exactly the opposite tack of our own nation, and went through a period --shockingly recent -- of kidnapping young aboriginal children from their families, raising them in their equivalent of Indian schools, and encouraging poor whites to marry them, in effect to wash away the aboriginal blood. If you haven't seen it, rent the wonderful Australian film Rabbit-Proof Fence on this subject. While I'm in book review mode, I am reading Paul Krugman's excellent book The Conscience of a Liberal, which I highly recommend to anyone trying to figure out how to save "liberal" from being a dirty word. Enough. john On Oct 31, 2008, at 1:30 PM, Tom Carter wrote: > All - > > I'm not singling out John for this comment, but just using it as a > trigger . . . > > On Oct 31, 2008, at 11:45 AM, John Sadd wrote: > >> it is totally effing amazing that a black man > > which raises the question, "Why isn't Obama white?" > > If that question sounds silly to you, think a little about how > deeply you and I and everyone seem to have internalized the "Jim > Crow one drop rule" (i.e., one drop of "black" blood makes you > black . . .). > > Part of the trouble is that we're all "willfully ignorant" in our > own ways, it's just hard to notice our own . . . > > But back to Owen's question . . . I'd say that the Republicans > have really gotten on board with the idea that it's OK to say and do > *anything* to get elected. In my experience, Democrats tend to have > at least a little trouble flat out lying . . . > > I often play the "projection" game when I listen to political > rhetoric -- i.e., if they accuse their opponents of something, it's > probably because they know that's what they'd do (or are doing). A > few examples: McCain says "Obama will say anything to get > elected" (charge doesn't really apply to Obama, but certainly does > to McCain). McCain/Palin say "Obama is a socialist" (Palin is > popular in Alaska because she increased taxes on the rich > (corporations) and gave the money directly to ordinary people, no > strings attached). McCain says "Obama wants to `spread the wealth > around'" -- meaning, he wants you to believe, take money from some > people and give it to others (he, and rich Republicans, are all for > it, as long as what you mean is, take $700 billion from ordinary > people and give it to financial institutions . . .) > > Oh, well . . . > > tom > > p.s. On the "Why isn't Obama white?" question: > > http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/27/EDQI13NPIT.DTL&hw=why+isn%27t+obama+white&sn=003&sc=242 > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |