Christopher Moore Home Page

The bulletin board is currently closed to new posts. Instead, why not check out Chris' Twitter and Facebook pages?


bbs.chrismoore.com Forum Index -> Blog Comments

the magnificence of the conservative mindset.
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
  Author    Thread This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics. This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
John



Joined: 02 Mar 2004
Posts: 521
Location: Massachusetts
 Reply with quote  

Quote:
By being fair, not by being more than fair. I once saw political correctness defined as "good intentions gone berserk."


But that's just it. It's not fair, and the balance, even with Affirmative Action, does not favor minorities. Not even close.

Quote:
Adequate funding. If you can legislate affirmative action, you can legislate education reform.


Again, that's a simple answer, but how do you do it? The collective IQ of our country was lowered the last time education reform was attempted in this country when liberal lawmakers decided it was more important for a student to not feel bad about themselves than to make sure he could read by the time he left high school. It was a disaster, and still is, because it took away any tools that teachers had to enforce any kind of discipline so that kids could learn. (Ha! Surprised you there didn't I. I don't believe in everything that is done on the "liberal side".)

Quote:
So was income tax...


And we still have that as well. Is it a bad thing? A lot of people would say yes, but without income tax we couldn't run our country, or at least, not at the level that we have become accustomed to and enjoy.

Quote:
Because it's not fair.


You are right it's not fair. But what I am saying is this. Even if we came up with the most fair system out there, that any one with some common sense could agree upon. There would still be no guarantee that it would pass and become a law. Not with the current leadership in my country. And that is sad. And that is why you see so many of us so upset about losing the election. I wasn't this upset when Bush Sr. was elected, because I still believed that Bush Sr. knew what America was all about and would safeguard those general principles. I also wasn't that upset when GW was elected the first time, because I still believed he knew what this country stands for and would protect its general principles. Now I know better. And so do a lot of other people. That is why we are all so upset, because we see GW as a threat to the very meaning of what it is to be American.
_________________
"Mares eat oats and does eat oats and little lambs eat ivy""

Post Sun Nov 21, 2004 11:39 am   View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
Ferrit Leggings



Joined: 29 Mar 2004
Posts: 2658
 Reply with quote  

John,

I know I am jumping on here but the problem with affirmative action is that it is seen as a quota not as a balancing in the work force. I am a token male teacher at the centre I work at. I know that I am and it looks good for the business that I work for. The only good thing about it is that I being male don’t have that glass ceiling that most women have.

Quote:
That is why we are all so upset, because we see GW as a threat to the very meaning of what it is to be American.


As for this quote…well I don’t see Georgie that way. I see him as an idiot. What I want out of a president is someone who is intelligent and that I can look up to as a leader. I had that with Clinton but not now. Clinton was someone that could be looked up to because he was smart. Who cares about the BJ in the White House, so what? The biggest thing that bothered me about him was when he said that he didn’t inhale. I mean who would take a toke and not inhale?

We have a race problem in American and it is our own doing. It is the mindset. You are right that nothing will be done about that problem even if a good solution comes along.

Look at this from Independent UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indian tribes 'fleeced in $66m lobbying scandal'
By Rupert Cornwell
20 November 2004

The annals of Washington lobbying contain many grubby chapters. But in terms of sheer greed and exploitation of the unsuspecting, few can match the tale of two Republicans accused of milking up to $66m (£36m) from half a dozen Indian tribes, newly enriched by gambling revenues.

The story of Jack Abramoff and Michael Scanlon - both associates of the House majority leader Tom DeLay - is still unfolding, as a federal grand jury looks into some of their deals.

But two sets of hearings this autumn by the Senate's Indian Affairs Committee have laid bare much of the squalid affair. In essence the tribes were persuaded to part with vast sums to protect the casino gambling operations that are their financial lifeline, in return for empty promises of access to Washington's corridors of power.

In September, Mr Abramoff appeared before the committee, and this week, Mr Scanlon underwent a similar grilling. Both used their Fifth Amendment rights to avoid answering question on how they had allegedly extracted $4.2m from the Tigua Indians in Texas.

In late 2001, according to testimony at the hearing, the two men backed a grass-roots lobbying campaign that led to the closure of the Tigua casino in El Paso. They then contacted the tribe and offered - in return for a hefty fee and $300,000 of political contributions - to use their influence with Mr DeLay to get the casino reopened.

In their dealings with the Tigua and tribes in California, Louisiana and Michigan, according to testimony and e-mails subpoenaed by the committee, Mr Abramoff and Mr Scanlon also manipulated elections to ensure that candidates favourable to them won.

All the while, the e-mails show, they heaped scorn on their clients, referring to tribal officials as "morons," "troglodytes" and "idiots".

Ben Nighthorse Campbell, the outgoing senator from Colorado who chairs the committee and who is the lone native American in the Senate, told Mr Scanlon: "For 400 years, people have been cheating Indians in this country, so you're not the first. It's just a shame, in this enlightened day, that you've added a new dimension to a shameful legacy."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Native Americans have been getting screwed longer than African Americans. I also believe there is a bill out now saying that even if Tommy and his buddies get convicted they still get to keep their seats. The problem with America today is consequences. Children don’t have them in school anymore when they screw up, business doesn’t have them because they are the ones who put our legislators where they are, and our president doesn’t have them. No one is held accountable for what they do. The whole country was in an uproar over Clinton getting blown but no one cares when we go to war with out cause and we re-elect the bastard. Also, if anything comes to pass with him being held accountable then nothing will get done because of the imbalance in the houses. He still gets to play president for another four years. Nixon was not even this bad.

Have a look at voter fraud. You know that won’t change either.

Affirmative Action is a good idea but it does no good unless the perceptions of other races change and we are more accepting of people.

I am already getting pounded with the soulful sounds of Nat King Cole and Chestnuts Roasting on an Open Fire. Do you think that my boss cares if there are a few Jewish people or Buddhist people or Muslim people at the centre? Hell no. It is Christmas and he is Christian and he can play that non-funky music because he is a white boy Christian with god on his side and I am a liberal elitist with only my IQ to back me up. Is it accepting to throttle the people with Jesus? I used to go to church but now all I have to do to get a few hymns in is go to work or the grocery store. “Come on Honey lets sing along to Silent Night while we pick up Johnny.”

Should I be more accepting of Christians, because I am supposedly one, sure, but I would also like them to be a little more accepting as well? We don’t all have to get along and like each other but it sure would be nice to listen to the news without hearing about a new humiliation in our government that nothing is going to be done about and as for Nat King Cole…Well. There isn’t much I can do about that one.

Ta,
_________________
I feel the same way about disco as I do about herpes. -HST

Post Sun Nov 21, 2004 1:13 pm   View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Nicknameless



Joined: 06 Nov 2004
Posts: 7
Location: New York
 Reply with quote  

Ferrit Leggings wrote:


People will always find some reason to hate someone else. Our last election is prime example. The Red States, oh how we hate those rednecks, and they hate the blue state people for our elitism. We are just too smart for them. It are these broad sweeping statements that gobble people into the throws of hatred and animosity.



See, I was with you in the beginning, but you lost me here.

I don't happen to agree that the red/blue divide of this past election is a prime example of people looking for blind reasons to hate. As a "Blue State" voter, I don't happen to think all those who voted for Bush are rednecks or whatever. Misinformed about his politics and perhaps a bit too willing to put their head in the sand (I could go on for hours, and have, about a myriad of W's policies and their specific problems but that is for another day.), but fundamentally evil people? No... well, not most of them at any rate. Smile And yes, there has been a lot of blowing off of steam, but it is just that. Blowing off of steam. As far as I know, we Blueies have not started lynch mobs or "Kill the Redies Campaigns." (Side note: Does anyone else find it ironic that, broadly speaking, populations that were most concerned with "commie bastards" now cannot be restrained from declaring their "red" status? I've had more than a bit of a giggle on that one.)

Discord is healthy. Disagreement is normal. They lead to discourse. Diversity is a beautiful, if not occasionally aggravating, thing. Anyone who survived high school knows just how painful growth and learning experiences can be.

As for affirmative action, I'm against it in principle but for it in practice. Things like battered women's shelters get the federal funding most of them survive on through affirmative action. Without affirmative action, there is no more federal funding for those shelters and effectively most of them would be forced to close. However, I do happen to think that the presumption that the self-aligned lineage (and yes all the "minority" categories according to the laws of affirmative action are self-assigned; ie. if you feel you are native american, you, according to all affirmative action rules, are.) actually define the sum total of the person in question is insane and fundamentally racist. I happen to believe that affirmative action's foundings are the same thought pattern of racism, simply wearing spots this time instead of stripes. However, affirmative action is simply too ingrained in the fabric of federal funding to simply be blinked out of existence.

As for the haters, well, it's time for them to move along. I say instead of screaming and yelling at them to stop hating, we laugh mockingly once at the sad, pathetic state of someone so filled with bile that they cannot help but spew it onto others for no reason and then move on with our lives. I say we shift the default of perspectives on humans from "protecting ourselves from the inherent evil lurking in all men" to "mocking the idiocy of those who actively choose not to budge from their pre-judgment." To all the haters, I say this life is a pretty good ride and if you want on, check your fear-baggage at the door.

-Christina

Post Sun Nov 21, 2004 3:31 pm   View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Ferrit Leggings



Joined: 29 Mar 2004
Posts: 2658
 Reply with quote  

Quote:
I don't happen to agree that the red/blue divide of this past election is a prime example of people looking for blind reasons to hate. As a "Blue State" voter, I don't happen to think all those who voted for Bush are rednecks or whatever.


What I was trying to do was make a comparison that would be acceptable. I don’t care for using the typical black to white, Muslim to American, Jewish to black, American to French, English to Irish, the rest of the world to French connection to formulaic hate. It is just too stereotypical. Sorry for any misconceptions.

I agree with you that discord is healthy but the way our society is now, it seems that if you disagree with Georgie Boy and the way he is doing things then you are deemed a traitor to your county. This country was founded on treachery both to the English and the Native Americans.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This may be a bit of a side bar thing but don’t you think that it is off that we celebrate Columbus Day when we know that he wasn’t here first? I hear people say that he did something that no one else did as a defence for the holiday but the Vikings were here well before him and they met some, you guessed it, Native Americans.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with you on affirmative action as well. It was a nice idea but what it turned out to be was something that it shouldn’t have been. I love the idea of equality however, that will not happen. There will always be some reason for someone to look down upon someone else. I had this discussion after a class in college called Male Female Roles in Society and this one person said that maybe we will all learn to get along if we bred between the races enough that there were nearly no noticeable differences. I disagreed because we would still find something not to like about someone else. There will always be these problems because we are human. It even happens in the animal world where one is ostracised for whatever reason. It could be a bird leaving behind the smallest hatchling or crocodiles eating certain young. It is just the way it is. I am not suggesting a survival of the fittest type of thing either in the human condition it is more of a survival of the best lot in life. There are some that overcome what they were born into, but, with an administration like we have now it will be even harder to overcome societal obstacles.

We have a big business mentality here now and business is what matters. Iraq is a quagmire sure but it is also a goldmine waiting to be dug. I am sure companies stated lining up as soon as the war started to get a piece of it but most of it is going to the biggest businesses. It is like Voodoo Economics also know as the Trickle Down Theory. Big business gets bigger and the scraps are taken up by the smaller businesses. The problem is that by the time the scraps are divvied up by the smallest there isn’t much left. The same goes with all parts of society. My boss owns a Mercedes and many other toys but the year he bought the car I got a smaller raise than I ever got. He was able to buy this car with his profits from where I work and I say good for him but the scraps that fell to him never fell to me or if they did they were gone by the time I put gas in my auto. Society in this country is set up so that there will always be haves and have-nots. Nothing is going to change that unless we change and go to Socialism, which doesn’t work very well either. Democracy is the best shot we have at a humane society in this country. It shouldn’t matter what colour a person is but it does to some people.

I just read an article on msn about a hate group passing out cd’s to children at a school so that they could recruit new members. These people will always be there because of the differences that humans have and it won’t ever change the best we can do is educate people and children not to hate. Hate is not something that we are born with. It is taught like the alphabet. Our greatest hope is not what is now but what is in the future. I have a sapping song playing in my head right now. We need to be able to understand the differences of people, accept those differences and not hate them. Acceptance is not necessarily condoning the differences like with homosexuality, religion and so on but being appreciative of the differences.

Ta,
_________________
I feel the same way about disco as I do about herpes. -HST

Post Sun Nov 21, 2004 7:12 pm   View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
palmer



Joined: 30 Mar 2004
Posts: 1324
 Reply with quote  

John wrote:
Quote:
By being fair, not by being more than fair. I once saw political correctness defined as "good intentions gone berserk."


But that's just it. It's not fair, and the balance, even with Affirmative Action, does not favor minorities. Not even close.


Fighting one unfairness with another unfairness simply multiplies the unfairness.

Quote:
Adequate funding. If you can legislate affirmative action, you can legislate education reform.


Again, that's a simple answer, but how do you do it?[/quote]

Legislation. If you can get together the votes to pass AA, you can get the votes to boost education, especially by pairing the getting rid of one with the gaining of the other. Say to the reluctant legislator, "Okay, we'll get rid of AA, which I know you hate, if in the same bill, we do such and thus to boost education," sort of thing.

Quote:
Because it's not fair.


You are right it's not fair. But what I am saying is this. Even if we came up with the most fair system out there, that any one with some common sense could agree upon. There would still be no guarantee that it would pass and become a law. Not with the current leadership in my country...[/quote]

...at which point we cease to thread-jack, and get back to the original thesis of the thread, yes?

This is where I came in...graceful exit, stage right....

Post Mon Nov 22, 2004 6:33 am   View user's profile Send private message
Guest





 Reply with quote  

All right, I apologize for my absence, but it should be duly noted that I have a rather undesirable connection, and a still more undesirable spyware problem. Which wouldn't be TOO bad a thing if I didn't have the most undesirable thing of all, a spyware blocker gone haywire, which will terminate the PAGE that produces the spyware, which has stopped me mid-post so many times it isn't even funny. And since I'm by now sick and tired of typing out the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over (exactly that many times) again, I'll make this brief and now direct responses. In fact, I'll just summarize my stance on the issue, since my wording has perhaps been, well, undesirable in getting my point across. (As it is half the people here believe me to be an anti-religious nut, so I'd best attend to that too.)

All right, on terms of my outrage at people voting on moral values, no, this wasn't an attack on the religious front, in fact, I honestly don't see religion-bashing as being that high on my agenda. I'd like to think of what I'm doing as trying to get in the face of people who dodged the issues... These include Values voters, media hype, the RNC/DNC/427s, public image in Presidency, and last, but not least, punditry. (Goes with media hype, but it's so much worse, it deserves its own category.) I'm generally pissed at all of these because they divert attention from the REAL issues that should always be #1 on our political plates. These include economy, taxes, environment, security and policy on both a domestic and foreign scale, healthcare, and social security (to name a few). The media focuses on scandals, punditry hypes and exaggerates thesee scandals, candidates kiss babies for votes and constantly shout at each other, basically turning to slinging mud at each other, the RNC/DNC have done nothing but smear Kerry/Bush throughout the whole campaign (www.whatmakesbushtick.com in Sept. and Oct. was a hassle and a disgrace to the Democratic party, funded and run by the DNC; RNC's outcry that Kerry will ban the Bible in critical Belt states was a downright lie and a slanderous claim)... All I am disgusted at.

While it is true that morals are not generally derived from religion (that's a big fat DUH, and one I would have pointed out in correction if it wasn't already done), it is truth that the values people will go out to vote on, generally, those that are actually debatable, are generally topics pertaining to religion or values based on religion (such as gay marriage, abortion, etc., although I myself percieve the first as an equal rights issue and the second as a leap for science, and not values pertaining to morality). Other moral values, which I call "base values", are generally values we can all agree on. Help the poor, benefit mankind, feed children, don't kill/maim people, don't steal, et cetera. Values people don't generally vote on.

Those who cite moral values pertaining to how Iraq was fought should have voted on the premise of how Iraq was fought (78% of which voted for Kerry, by the way) and I will not consider them Values voters.

As for nuclear weapons, no, I don't think we need them. Let's think for a moment... A single nuclear weapon wiped out Hiroshima, and a few days later, another one crushed Nagasaki. And these were two low-phase bombs, essentially, in early stages. In 1945, a hundred of these bombs could have destroyed most of Japan, and today, we have more efficient and more deadly nuclear weapons, so the number required for that might even be less than half. So why ten thousand? Yes, it is true that there was an arms race going on, we all know what the Cold War is, right? Okay, so we won, Russia lost, and has since taken efforts to disarm some of its nuclear stockpile (although I heard Putin was planning on constructing still more deadly nuclear weapons, which I consider an outrage and a step backward in terms of peace efforts), so why haven't we taken any effort, but instead, built still more nuclear weapons? It's obvious by actions taken against the US in Clinton and Bush years that a nuclear deterrent is not only unnecessary, but dysfunctional, because in terms of conventional warfare, nuclear weapons would not apply--they are restricted by means of the Geneva convention! Unconventional opponents, I.E. al Qaeda, obviously aren't shaking in their boots over enough nuclear arsenal to blow up 80 billion people (about 12 times the Earth's population, I believe it was, according to the census bureau) in cities, because attacks on troops abroad STILL occur. And you know what the strangest thing is? If anything at all, the threat of a nuclear retaliation was a bluff this whole time, and Osama, by attacking 9/11 and managing to live to this day without nuclear action by the U.S., has called that bluff! We won't use the nuclear weapons, they are not a safe deterrent--so what use do we have for them?

And not only us, but the rest of the world. Of all the countries with nuclear weapons out there with nuclear weapons, Israel is the only country that genuinely needs them as a deterrent, and for unjust reasons! US and China have stockpiles to point at the world to get what they need (they have also been pointing them at each other over the issue of N. Korea's armament, thanks to a string of embargos that would pit them against each other if anyone involved made a serious attempt at invasion), Russia, well, Russia uses them for decoration, I guess, Pakistan and India point them in the general direction of each other in case things went awry between the two countries, the UK and France just have them so they won't be left out (they have no existing thread of a border war or anything of the sort, nor do they have hostile relations to a country that would put them at risk of nuclear war), but Israel, Israel has an actual reason to have nuclear weapons, and that is as a deterrent from the Arab nations surrounding it from most sides, and even that is for reasons I think are quite corrupt; they need a deterrent to prevent an invasion of Arab nations, some of which are outraged at the occupation of the Gaza strip and other sections of Palestinian soil!

As for comparing Canada to US, I am simply comparing a military superpower with a country that doesn't need to be, because it doesn't piss countries off enough to need a military fortress to protect them. In means of power, there is no comparison; I am simply comparing their need for it, and why, and asking for a solution that involves nuclear disarmament and a peaceful world. I don't see how that is so irrational, perhaps in the short-term, but not in the long.

So, forty-five minutes, and some pages of text later, I conclude this extended and long-thought-out brief summary of my stance and why. Now if you'll excuse me, I have a book signing to catch.

Post Sat Nov 27, 2004 4:58 pm   
Lonely Tylenol



Joined: 12 Nov 2004
Posts: 157
 Reply with quote  

Oh, woe is me! My long brief summary ended up a Guest post! Curses!
_________________
"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy?" ~ Mahatma Ghandi

Captain Obvious! Up, up, and away!

Post Sat Nov 27, 2004 4:59 pm   View user's profile Send private message
  Display posts from previous:      
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics. This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.

Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Last Thread | Next Thread  >

Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 
Templates created by Vereor and Ken