I'm a LIBERAL!?!

[Roadtoad]

My son, Chris, and I were talking this morning about a number of political issues that we usually discuss. Among these were Bush's Social Security plan, (which I don't think is going to work, because for one thing, people don't understand that an investment is used to maintain value, not necessarily gain); Defense Department cuts; Federal R&D dollars used to development of new nuclear weapons, instead of working towards better nuclear medicine; political ethics, (an oxymoron if there ever was one); DoE regulations for schools in the US...

We were back and forth on a lot of this, when Chris floored me, saying, "Dad, admit it. You're a liberal."

A liberal? Me?

I always thought I was something of a conservative, but, hell, given the way the politicians behave these days, it's hard to tell who's conservative or who's liberal.

Could someone explain this one to me?

[TragicMonkey]

Easily. The labels "conservative" and "liberal" mean nothing. Nothing. Nothing. They are terms politicians apply to themselves or their opponents regardless of the political views, stances, actions, history, or desires of the person in question. Hence we have "conservatives" tramplings states' rights, "liberals" decrying national education legislation, and "moderates" advocating military invasion and occupation of foreign countries.

The terms are just more items to add to the list of words that are oft-used, but not to be taken at face value.

[Roadtoad]

Yeah, but Chris is a genuine, real-live, honest-to-Ed, card-carrying Move-On.Org member, liberal, and proud of it.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
Yeah, but Chris is a genuine, real-live, honest-to-Ed, card-carrying Move-On.Org member, liberal, and proud of it.

Then soon your journey will be complete. If you only knew the power of the dark side! It is useless to resist....it is your destiny! Join with him, and together you can rule the galaxy as father and son!


eta: Although once you do rule the galaxy, you'll spend a lot of time hammering out a universal health care plan.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
Yeah, but Chris is a genuine, real-live, honest-to-Ed, card-carrying Move-On.Org member, liberal, and proud of it.

this is part of michael moore's gig

Basically, if you believe in your heart that everyone should have free health care and there should be no wars then you are a liberal. He's been trying to feed this line of thought for several years after he wrote an article on it. Moveon and others are on the kick too.

Its a nice dishonest line of misdirection since I think most of us are pretty idealistic at heart but are more pragmatic and realistic. Sure we wish there were no wars and nobody got sick but that doesn't mean we want government health care or isolationism that could lead to chinese domination.

[Zep]

I'd second the "useless label" notion. Over here, "liberal" equates to "born to rule", or perhaps more accurately "Masonic Tory monarchist blue-blood with a faint Aussie accent".

You is what you is, Road. So's Chris.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
Yeah, but Chris is a genuine, real-live, honest-to-Ed, card-carrying Move-On.Org member, liberal, and proud of it.

There's your answer. Chris wishes to have this in common with you. This is way better than when they don't want to have anything in common with you.

[Chaos]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
Yeah, but Chris is a genuine, real-live, honest-to-Ed, card-carrying Move-On.Org member, liberal, and proud of it.

Then maybe calling you a liberal was his way of saying "Dad, I´m proud of you"?

[RandFan]

I remember listening to Tammy Bruce on talk radio for the first time. She was at that time head of the Los Angeles chapter of NOW. FWIW, she is also a lesbian. After 3 hours of not finding a single thing with which I disagreed with her on I came to the conclusion that I too was a lesbian feminist. Odd how that happens.

I'm only slightly kidding here. I really did become confused. Of course it turns out that Tammy is libertarian which is why I had agreed with her so much. The fact that she was also a feminist and lesbian only proved that I had some major misconceptions about those two things.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by RandFan
I remember listening to Tammy Bruce on talk radio for the first time. She was at that time head of the Los Angeles chapter of NOW. FWIW, she is also a lesbian. After 3 hours of not finding a single thing with which I disagreed with her on I came to the conclusion that I too was a lesbian feminist. Odd how that happens.

I'm only slightly kidding here. I really did become confused. Of course it turns out that Tammy is libertarian which is why I had agreed with her so much. The fact that she was also a feminist and lesbian only proved that I had some major misconceptions about those two things.

A lesbian friend of my wife is more politically conservative than I am.

She's a banker, which may have something to do with it. :)

[Meadmaker]

The word "liberal" is supposed to refer to people who support freedom. "liber" is the root, after all.

The word "conservative" is supposed to refer to people who want to keep things the way they are. That's what they are "conserving".


So are the Democrats for freedom? Are Republicans trying to save the status quo? I think the answer is no, in both cases. The words no longer describe the people labelled by those words.

[Mephisto]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
Then soon your journey will be complete. If you only knew the power of the dark side! It is useless to resist....it is your destiny! Join with him, and together you can rule the galaxy as father and son!


eta: Although once you do rule the galaxy, you'll spend a lot of time hammering out a universal health care plan.

:D :D :D

[Mephisto]

I'll also agree that the labels are useless. For instance, I favor the death penalty, I'm against gun control, I believe in a strong military . . . what are my political leanings? :D

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Mephisto
I'll also agree that the labels are useless. For instance, I favor the death penalty, I'm against gun control, I believe in a strong military . . . what are my political leanings? :D Your The correct ones, as they pertain to this issue.

[jj]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
My son, Chris, and I were talking this morning about a number of political issues that we usually discuss. Among these were Bush's Social Security plan, (which I don't think is going to work, because for one thing, people don't understand that an investment is used to maintain value, not necessarily gain); Defense Department cuts; Federal R&D dollars used to development of new nuclear weapons, instead of working towards better nuclear medicine; political ethics, (an oxymoron if there ever was one); DoE regulations for schools in the US...

We were back and forth on a lot of this, when Chris floored me, saying, "Dad, admit it. You're a liberal."

A liberal? Me?

I always thought I was something of a conservative, but, hell, given the way the politicians behave these days, it's hard to tell who's conservative or who's liberal.

Could someone explain this one to me?

The same reason the fascists here call me a "leftist" or sometimes a "loony leftist" or something of that sort.

The political view in this country has been so utterly, completely and dishonestly perverted that by today's standards Barry Goldwater would be considered an "extreme liberal" by some.

The same people who would consider him an extreme liberal, however, refuse to accept that they have utterly perverted the whole scale, and moved it to where "conservative" means "totalitarian religious fascist", and "liberal" means 'demands any civil rights other than "might makes right" altogether'.

It's not you.

[jj]

Originally posted by corplinx
this is part of michael moore's gig


Fallacy of guilt by association.


Basically, if you believe in your heart that everyone should have free health care and there should be no wars then you are a liberal.


Straw man


He's been trying to feed this line of thought for several years after he wrote an article on it. Moveon and others are on the kick too.


Illicit extrapolation from straw man position.


Its a nice dishonest line of misdirection since I think most of us are pretty idealistic at heart but are more pragmatic and realistic.



Attempt to flatter the reader.


Sure we wish there were no wars and nobody got sick but that doesn't mean we want government health care or isolationism that could lead to chinese domination.

Multiple exercises of the excluded middle.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by jj
The political view in this country has been so utterly, completely and dishonestly perverted that by today's standards Barry Goldwater would be considered an "extreme liberal" by some. And JFK a conservative by some. You have a valid point.

[billydkid]

I have to add this because I often think there is a misunderstanding of some people who are not liberal, who, for example, would describe themselves as conservative or libertarian. In general, most of us agree with the goals espoused by liberals - equality, justice, personal liberty, prosperity for all, etc. The thing is, it is our belief that worst way to achieve those goals is through the state and through government. People like to think of libertarians as "greedy".

In fact, most libertarians are of modest means who believe the best way to achieve prosperity for everyone is to give everyone the opportunity to prosper and the best way to give everyone that opportunity is through free enterprise and that state management in the economy is not only not helpful, but, in fact, is counter productive - adding costs and obstacles and disincentives to commercial activities that would normally not be there.

An example might be this: I was walking downtown the other day during sidewalks sales days and there were a couple of food vendor carts. On the side of each of those carts were no less 8 separate licencing certificates from NY State and local governments. You that those vendors had to jump through hoops and pay through the nose for the privelege of selling their hotdogs to people who want to buy them.

Government goes out of its way to make it troublesome for industious little guys to go into business like that. What's worse, local governments have to grant you the privilege to sell your hotdogs in the local square, which they often do based on favoritism and friendships. This same sort of thing goes on on a macroscale thoughout all levels of government and this suppresses the economy and makes it hard for people who do want to do business on a small scale from participating in the economy.

[jj]

Originally posted by RandFan
And JFK a conservative by some. You have a valid point.

JFK I'm not sure of, I have never managed to figure out if he actually had a single goal, or if he was just reacting in real time.

Then there's his youngest brother. Oy!

[CBL4]

Inisting on putting multiple shaped pegs into either a round or a square hole is a foolish endeavor. It is even more aburd when from some angles the round hole is square and square hole is round.

The most notorius conservative republicans tend to be extremely conservative socially but their economic feelings are mixed (e.g. protectionism and low taxes). The most notorious leftist are extremely leftist economically but their social feelings are more mixed. When we throw in the mixed meaning of liberal (leftist vs. libertarian) it gets very difficult to use one or two words to describe someone.

Some people add a triangle hole for libertarians and pentagon greens, etc but this still is not accurate. I describe myself as a libertarian but I am also an enviromentalist and internationalist. So not only do I not fit in the round or square hole, I do not really fit in the triangle hole that has been added.

But because we have two parties, people insist on thinking we can be measured on one axis e.g. the consevative vs. liberal. To be meaningful in any way, we need to add a lot more axes:
Fiscally prudent or not.
Civil libertarian or not
Welfare state or not
Isolationist vs. internationalist
Secular vs. religious
Laissez faire vs. regulatory
Environmentalist or not

CBL

[Mephisto]

Originally posted by billydkid
Government goes out of its way to make it troublesome for industious little guys to go into business like that. What's worse, local governments have to grant you the privilege to sell your hotdogs in the local square, which they often do based on favoritism and friendships.

Nice explanation. We could use some libertarians in my home state. Santa Fe (the whore of SW art) is a perfect example of what you're talking about.

Many years ago, Native American and Mexican artisans sold their wares openly on the plaza in Santa Fe. It was a nice thing to help the artists directly and to get to know many of the jewelry makers and silver smiths in the area. It didn't take much, some talent, determination and a blanket on which to display your wares.

Enter big business. The gallery owners and tourist traps around Santa Fe petitioned the local government to ban sales of jewelry, artifacts and art in the plaza in Santa Fe unless it was through a gallery.

The big-money middle man legally insinuated himself into the way of life of native New Mexicans and through paying paltry sums for original art and jewelry (and gaining enormous profits from rich tourists), literally ran the "little man" out of the business. Now, Santa Fe southwestern art and jewelry is primarily done by retirees who have relocated from the east coast and sell their art to other rich retirees from the east coast.

That's why I absolutely HATE most SW art! I'm too "native" to be appealing.

[Ladewig]

Originally posted by billydkid
An example might be this: I was walking downtown the other day during sidewalks sales days and there were a couple of food vendor carts. On the side of each of those carts were no less 8 separate licencing certificates from NY State and local governments. You that those vendors had to jump through hoops and pay through the nose for the privelege of selling their hotdogs to people who want to buy them.



If no licenses were required of these food vendors, then I doubt that they would each pay the city and state the sales tax required for such a business. I also doubt that they would be easy for county health inspectors to find. Yes, if vendors sold enough tainted food, then the invisible hand of the market forces would drive them out of business, but in order to have the advantages of health inspectors, I am willing to pay more (either directly through taxes or indirectly through higher prices).

[Luke T.]

I've heard some "liberals" try to put forth the term "progressive" as a label for themselves. Mario Cuomo, for one.

I am over 40, and so I remain stubbornly attached to my self-label of a Conservative Republican. I am very unhappy with some of the things I see going on in my party right now, but my confidence in the People to self-correct, the greater of evils I see in alternate parties, and the aforementioned personal crustiness, keep me glued in my spot. I will not give it up. I'd rather be stubborn than rootless. Somebody has to hold the line.

[CBL4]

I also doubt that they would be easy for county health inspectors to find.This is true but it is also true that it is more expensive for for the health inspectors to a large restaurant than a coffee shop but the fees are the same (at least in Eugene OR.)

My wife ran a coffee shop and wanted to store unopened syrups, sugar, cups, and other non-perishable items in a cabinet in our garage. This was considered a "food warehouse." It was prohibitively expensive to comply with the law.

She also had 1 part time employee. The employee's wage was about 1/4 the total cost of the employee. Most people in her position (e.g. the previous and next owner) paid their employee under the table or called them a partner who happen.

CBL

[CBL4]

Originally posted by Luke T.
I've heard some "liberals" try to put forth the term "progressive" as a label for themselves.I prefer this label considering I read a "liberal" British magazine which is misdescribed as conservative. I tend to use the word leftist but perhaps I should switch.

Still it is foolish to have only two holes for all the pegs.

CBL

[jj]

Originally posted by CBL4
Still it is foolish to have only two holes for all the pegs.


All in all, this really is the real issue. From time to time, conservatives switch what their rallying cry is, likewise liberals, and on and on.

Lately, the philosophy seems to be "per poll interval" to me. Please don't take that as approval.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by jj
The same reason the fascists here call me a "leftist" or sometimes a "loony leftist" or something of that sort.

So who are these "fascists", jj?

[Luke T.]

The reason I ask is because to me the term "fascist" is far more extreme name-calling than "liberal." I've dealt with real fascists, and they called me a "marxist". If they had called me a "liberal", I would have taken it as a compliment.

[Ryokan]

Americans have changed the meaning of liberal, anyway. I'm a liberal, and feel I have nothing in common with most Americans calling themselves liberals.

Both the Republican and Democratic party would be considered right wing parties in Europe. Nader's Green Party would be considered center at best.

[jj]

Originally posted by Luke T.
The reason I ask is because to me the term "fascist" is far more extreme name-calling than "liberal." I've dealt with real fascists, and they called me a "marxist". If they had called me a "liberal", I would have taken it as a compliment.

You've dealt with some of them here, too, Luke. You're not the only one who has visited some of those roach-infested sites.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by jj
You've dealt with some of them here, too, Luke. You're not the only one who has visited some of those roach-infested sites.

I just think if we are going to be calling third parties on this forum something as extreme as "fascists" then they should be identified by name and allowed to defend themselves against the label. Otherwise, I have to take the statement as an unsubstantiated claim that is ironic in the face of a complaint of being called something as tame as a "leftist" by these unnamed third party fascists.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by jj
JFK I'm not sure of, I have never managed to figure out if he actually had a single goal, or if he was just reacting in real time.

Then there's his youngest brother. Oy! JFK was staunchly anti-Communist, lowered taxes, called for personal responsibility, aided South Vietnam. I'm not sure what reacting in real time is but I have an idea. I know many Republicans and some conservatives who look fondly on the Kennedy presidency.

FWIW, I don't think JFK was conservative but then I have problems with the labels anyway.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by RandFan
JFK was staunchly anti-Communist

Residents of Quemoy and Matsu may have an idea of what jj meant by 'real time'.

edited to explain: During the 1960 campaign debates, Nixon scored major points against Kennedy because Kennedy would not commit to military support of the islands of Qemoy and Matsu off mainland China if China invaded those islands. Nixon said this basically gave China the green light to take the islands, and he was right. After assuming the Presidency, Kennedy saw the errors of his ways and stated he would support Qemoy and Matsu if they were invaded.

[joe1347]

Why not take one of the on-line personality profiles to find out just how liberal you are? The link below is for a quiz to gauge whether you lean more towards the red or blue.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2103764/

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by joe1347
Why not take one of the on-line personality profiles to find out just how liberal you are? The link below is for a quiz to gauge whether you lean more towards the red or blue.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2103764/

I scored smack dab in the middle. But then I didn't know the answers to some of them and made a wild guess since "Don't know" was not and option.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by joe1347
Why not take one of the on-line personality profiles to find out just how liberal you are? The link below is for a quiz to gauge whether you lean more towards the red or blue.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2103764/
Middle>

It fascinates me that my knowledge of Big 12 Football gives me red points. I bet there's not a blue in Austin that would miss that one.

[joe1347]

Originally posted by Luke T.
I scored smack dab in the middle. But then I didn't know the answers to some of them and made a wild guess since "Don't know" was not and option.

Same here. So does that mean we're educated red-necks?

[billydkid]

Originally posted by Ladewig
If no licenses were required of these food vendors, then I doubt that they would each pay the city and state the sales tax required for such a business. I also doubt that they would be easy for county health inspectors to find. Yes, if vendors sold enough tainted food, then the invisible hand of the market forces would drive them out of business, but in order to have the advantages of health inspectors, I am willing to pay more (either directly through taxes or indirectly through higher prices).

But I think it is a myth - the assumption that government health inspectors will keep you safe. There is a certain amount of stuff in life you have to take on faith. An example of that faith would be the belief that mom and pop hotdog vendor are inclined not to sell their customers unwholesome food. You certainly don't make enough money operating a hotdog cart to be able to justify being fly by night. It is hard for me to imagine that someone would buy a hotdog cart in hopes of making a quick buck before he gets found out selling rancid hotdogs.

I hold to belief that people are essentially decent though not flawless and it is only in cases where there is the opportunity for great reward (say, politics, corporate boardrooms) where essentially decent people may well be tempted to cross the line. It is funny the way we might fret about the sanitation of a corner deli and yet have relatively little concern about the motives of the people we put in positions of great power over our lives and who can benefit greatly by exploiting those positions.

[jj]

Originally posted by RandFan
JFK was staunchly anti-Communist, lowered taxes, called for personal responsibility, aided South Vietnam. I'm not sure what reacting in real time is but I have an idea.


I'm suggesting that he had no principles other than what sold to the polls of the time, and that everything he did was grandstanding to the nation.


I know many Republicans and some conservatives who look fondly on the Kennedy presidency.


Yes, I can imagine.


FWIW, I don't think JFK was conservative but then I have problems with the labels anyway.

You mean like they've been so perverted, time after time, that they mean very little?

Look at what a "conservative" wants today. They are really radical reactionaries, they want to go back to the past, and force everyone else to join them.

[jj]

Originally posted by Luke T.
I just think if we are going to be calling third parties on this forum something as extreme as "fascists" then they should be identified by name

My opinions on this are already on the record in a variety of places on this forum.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Mephisto
I'll also agree that the labels are useless. For instance, I favor the death penalty, I'm against gun control, I believe in a strong military . . . what are my political leanings? :D FWIW, I'm opposed to the death penalty, favour reasonable gun control, and have no problem with a strong military. Where would I fit in?

PS. The Slate quiz is highly US-centric. So what happens if you just guess the answers?

[SezMe]

Originally posted by billydkid
But I think it is a myth - the assumption that government health inspectors will keep you safe. There is a certain amount of stuff in life you have to take on faith. An example of that faith would be the belief that mom and pop hotdog vendor are inclined not to sell their customers unwholesome food. You certainly don't make enough money operating a hotdog cart to be able to justify being fly by night. It is hard for me to imagine that someone would buy a hotdog cart in hopes of making a quick buck before he gets found out selling rancid hotdogs.

Yes, billy, it is a myth that inspectors "will keep you safe" but it is not a myth that inspectors will keep you safer. I do not agree that a mom and pop food vendor is the place to put your faith that they are clean. As you correctly point out, its a tough business and cutting even small corners can make the difference between success and failure. And this is a perfect example of where market feedback mechanisms and market forces will come into play. In the large cities, their clientel probably consists of tourists. If a touist gets sick back home after a couple of days, how are they going to connect it to the hot dog they ate. And, even if they do, how are they going to get that information back to the marketplace (read, the other consumers who patronize the vendor. Even local patrons are likely to be fleeting customers with little chance for interaction with other customers.

I do not want to argue that the vendor should have to get eight licenses but I do think some licensing on a health basis is reasonable.

Originally posted by billydkid
I hold to belief that people are essentially decent though not flawless and it is only in cases where there is the opportunity for great reward (say, politics, corporate boardrooms) where essentially decent people may well be tempted to cross the line. It is funny the way we might fret about the sanitation of a corner deli and yet have relatively little concern about the motives of the people we put in positions of great power over our lives and who can benefit greatly by exploiting those positions.
Here, I am in full agreement. Legislative, administrative, and regulatory of people in positions of power is pathetic. The poor schlub hot dog vendor might upset the tummy of a patron through sloppy practice but Enron, WorldCom, etc., etc., etc., sloppy practices utterly destroy the lives, hopes and dreams of thousands upon thousands of people.

[Hutch]

Getting back to Roadtoad's OP, the thing is, we ALL LIBERALS now (wait a couple of moments for Luke T. and several others to recover).......OK, but in comparison to 100 years ago--or even 50.

Think about it. Women got the vote in the 1900's, Blacks got the equal opportunity that they had been guaranteed in the Constitution years before, Labor Unions got the right to organize, Social Security and Medicare were passed to provide some assurance for older/poorer Americans....

I mean, we can argue point/counterpoint as to how far we go one some of the above (Title IX, Affirmative Action, Closed Shops, funding shortfalls) but I would suggest that any "Conservative", that were to suggest as a political platform that Women should go back to the kitchen and stay out of politics, Blacks/minorities should know their place, Workers should be glad they have a job, and that Government should have no role in helping people when they retire--well, they probably couldn't get elected dogcatcher in Southern Mississippi today.

The goalposts move constantly people...and the past century has been to the left. The reaction seen these days are but a rear-guard action to try and hold the line where it's at rather than completely roll back the gains of the 20th Century.

Still, history does have a nasty habit of abhoring a status quo, so what the next Century brings remains to be seen.

IMHO as always

[rdtjr]

Feh! FEH! I say!

The reason that the two political parties continue to exist in this country is because we all (implicitly or explicitly) and our impotent media allow them to define all arguments as either/or black/white yes/no choices. When hardly anything complex in the known universe works on a simple 1 or 0 basis.

If we didn't all keep buying into the false dichotomies and excluding of the middle most of these asshats would be out of jobs.

How about this:

I'm pro-choice and anti-abortion

I'm for executing some people as just too dangerous to the physical well-being of the rest of society and think that the way the death penalty is applied in the U.S. is grossly flawed on average

I'm for the right to bear arms and I don't want my neighbor to own an arsenal of fully automatic weapons and high-explosives

I understand that Al-Queda prisoners captured in the "War" on Terror are not technically afforded rights as POWs under the Geneva Conventions and think it is wrong to not follow due process with even the worst of the worst of the murders and criminals in the world

I think gov't should generally shy away from regulating individuals and think that big businesses can't historically be trusted to behave responsibly

I think that our public schools aren't doing their jobs properly and public funding of private schools is not the right answer

I think everyone should be free to exercise their religious beliefs as they choose and the gov't should never be a pulpit for supporting one subset of beliefs over another

I want U.S. energy independence and think that drilling for oil in a wildlife refuge is not just a bad idea, but doesn't even help us on that score

The solutions to many of these issues listed above are actually fairly pragmatic ones. Good solutions often lay somewhere in between the two dichotomies allowed by the non-pragmatic parties. But, the guys we keep electing will never say that... No instead we get that "nuance" is bad... recognizing ambiguity is bad... better paint white or black hats onto every issue so that we can all choose sides.

Well, F U! I don't want to choose sides. I want accountability and progress, I want liberty and security... and a big F-off to all the jerks who try to convince me that I have to choose between them. And another big finger reserved for the crappy media so afraid to ask a question at a news conference... and the other finger for the so-called "public" officials who don't feel they even have to answer a question in a straight-forward manner.

And shame on all of us for letting the media feed us their tripe, for letting our elected and appointed officials (of all ideologies) treat us with contempt as if they don't have to answer to anyone, and for not demanding openess and accountability from our government. Complaceny is the ore from which a slave's chains are forged friends.

Thank you for indulging my little rant... if you bothered to read it.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Hutch
Getting back to Roadtoad's OP, the thing is, we ALL LIBERALS now (wait a couple of moments for Luke T. and several others to recover).......OK, but in comparison to 100 years ago--or even 50.
Good post.

[joe1347]

Originally posted by rdtjr
Feh! FEH! I say!

The reason that the two political parties continue to exist in this country is because we all (implicitly or explicitly) and our impotent media allow them to define all arguments as either/or black/white yes/no choices. When hardly anything complex in the known universe works on a simple 1 or 0 basis.

If we didn't all keep buying into the false dichotomies and excluding of the middle most of these asshats would be out of jobs.

How about this:

I'm pro-choice and anti-abortion

I'm for executing some people as just too dangerous to the physical well-being of the rest of society and think that the way the death penalty is applied in the U.S. is grossly flawed on average

I'm for the right to bear arms and I don't want my neighbor to own an arsenal of fully automatic weapons and high-explosives

I understand that Al-Queda prisoners captured in the "War" on Terror are not technically afforded rights as POWs under the Geneva Conventions and think it is wrong to not follow due process with even the worst of the worst of the murders and criminals in the world

I think gov't should generally shy away from regulating individuals and think that big businesses can't historically be trusted to behave responsibly

I think that our public schools aren't doing their jobs properly and public funding of private schools is not the right answer

I think everyone should be free to exercise their religious beliefs as they choose and the gov't should never be a pulpit for supporting one subset of beliefs over another

I want U.S. energy independence and think that drilling for oil in a wildlife refuge is not just a bad idea, but doesn't even help us on that score

The solutions to many of these issues listed above are actually fairly pragmatic ones. Good solutions often lay somewhere in between the two dichotomies allowed by the non-pragmatic parties. But, the guys we keep electing will never say that... No instead we get that "nuance" is bad... recognizing ambiguity is bad... better paint white or black hats onto every issue so that we can all choose sides.

Well, F U! I don't want to choose sides. I want accountability and progress, I want liberty and security... and a big F-off to all the jerks who try to convince me that I have to choose between them. And another big finger reserved for the crappy media so afraid to ask a question at a news conference... and the other finger for the so-called "public" officials who don't feel they even have to answer a question in a straight-forward manner.

And shame on all of us for letting the media feed us their tripe, for letting our elected and appointed officials (of all ideologies) treat us with contempt as if they don't have to answer to anyone, and for not demanding openess and accountability from our government. Complaceny is the ore from which a slave's chains are forged friends.

Thank you for indulging my little rant... if you bothered to read it.

Another good post that hits the nail on the head. In addition to the obvious exploitation by the media to only show the extreme ends (both) of the spectrum in the quest for ever higher ratings - I wonder if politicians are using the same tactic primary for media exposure and we (the citizens) pay the price.

[thaiboxerken]

The RR has taken over the conservative party anymore. Anyone that does not support christianity is a liberal anymore.

[SezMe]

Originally posted by rdtjr
Feh! FEH! I say!
I want to echo joe1347. Excellent post.

I am in agreement with significant portions of the Democratic platform. I am in agreement with significant portions of the Republican platform.

I am in disagreement with significant portions of the Democratic platform. I am in disagreement with significant portions of the Republican platform.

Hell, there are issues where I disagree with BOTH parties such as immigration, BOTH legal and illegal, redistricting, and so forth.

I believe labeling someone as "liberal" or "conservative" is a lazy person's way of avoiding a significant discussion of the issues of the day.

[rdtjr]

Originally posted by joe1347
Another good post that hits the nail on the head. In addition to the obvious exploitation by the media to only show the extreme ends (both) of the spectrum in the quest for ever higher ratings - I wonder if politicians are using the same tactic primary for media exposure and we (the citizens) pay the price.

That's the thing. I don't think the problem begins with the media, it begins with the politicians. The politicians pull this crap and try to sell us these false dichotomies. The politicians feel like they don't have to be open, subject to accountability, or answer an questions from the lowly mainstream citizens. The fault of the media is that they enable this behavior.

Despite all the crying from the conservative side of the aisle about the so-called "liberal" media, the media is anything but liberal. What the media are is a bunch of cowtowing whores who will do anything to guarantee continued access so they can get their bogus stories and continue making money. The current administration is very adept at handling our panzy media under these circumstances... Ask a question we don't like? Well, we just won't call on you for questions anymore... see how your bosses like that, have a good day! Reporters are such total access whores that they play right along. It's no different from CNN not doing stories about things they saw in Iraq so that they wouldn't lose access under Saddam's regime.

It's pathetic and the 4th Estate is totally failing the American people. Of course, the media wouldn't matter if the politicians weren't almost wholly crooked, cronying, lying, shills for the influence peddlers. They continue to paint everything in black and white and treat acknowledging nuance or ambiguity as somehow weak... because they have to do so in order to stay in power. If they told the truth our two-party system would crumble over night. So, truth tellers and pragmatists are treated as liars and maniac radicals, or god-forbid painted as a "librul", and the prostitue media parrots right along. Most of us are so sick of it, or so emotionally wedded to one party that we just shrug and go along with the continuous flow of b.s. as well - often committing multiple counts of intellectual hyprocrisy along the way ourselves. None of us escape blame, but for those out there actively trying to effect change and make the system work better and more honestly on our behalf.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by rdtjr
That's the thing. I don't think the problem begins with the media, it begins with the politicians. The politicians pull this crap and try to sell us these false dichotomies. The politicians feel like they don't have to be open, subject to accountability, or answer an questions from the lowly mainstream citizens. The fault of the media is that they enable this behavior. The other day I was watching TV with my extended family and lamenting the idiocy of advertising. The commercials are often very insulting I opined. "Why do you think they show them?" my brother asked. "Simply because they work" I said.

In the end, it is not the medias fault. It is ours. We get what we deserve. I don't mean to be trite. We live in a democracy, we can and should demand better. If people would turn off Fox News it would go away. If more people would think critically rather than viscerally then the politicians wouldn't pull this crap. We enable their behavior.

[rdtjr]

Originally posted by RandFan
The other day I was watching TV with my extended family and lamenting the idiocy of advertising. The commercials are often very insulting I opined. "Why do you think they show them?" my brother asked. "Simply because they work" I said.

In the end, it is not the medias fault. It is ours. We get what we deserve. I don't mean to be trite. We live in a democracy, we can and should demand better. If people would turn off Fox News it would go away. If more people would think critically rather than viscerally then the politicians wouldn't pull this crap. We enable their behavior.

As the rest of my post points out, I agree we all are just as much at fault as the media. That said, the media has a responsibility to dig for and report the truth regardless of whether it is popular or "sells". They have completely abandoned this responsibility.

[Jorghnassen]

Originally posted by Zep

PS. The Slate quiz is highly US-centric. So what happens if you just guess the answers?

You will likely end up in the middle. At least that's what happened to me. Somehow, knowing who Jon Stewart is gives you blue points, while knowledge of the Bible gives you red points... Go figure.

[Jas]

I know how RoadToad feels...I remember the day someone told me I was conservative (this actually happened backstage at a fetish show, so was pretty memorable).

I think I fall somewhere in between. I'm believe I'm socially liberal/progressive..I'm pro-choice, support the right of gays to marry...but I'm also against (most) gun-control, and support the death penalty (properly applied).

I'm also fiscally conservative..I don't agree with a welfare state, believe in user fees...etc.

I think I'm a "accountability-ist". I think you should be held accountable for your actions, and no one elses, be they good or bad.