March 01, 2005
A Dollar Per Mention
Mention of what? The word “freedom”.
Am I saying we shouldn’t speak of it? Of course not. What I’m saying is we shouldn’t wear this word out. Freedom this, freedom that. The Freedom Towers! Freedom Fries! The world wants freedom.
Bush in particular has an atrocious habit of using this word as if the rest of us don’t know what it means. It’s funny, though, that as one Republican after another makes a Gregorian chant of the word, they decry the use of that freedom by us Democrats to oppose them.
It's been my observation that the more people use a word or a catchphrase, the more life gets drained out of it. Take the word "extreme". Once, it was meaningful to call something extreme. Now, even your deodorant is extreme.
Do we really want freedom, as a word, to become so banal? Some would say "Oh, it can't possibly become so banal!"
But it can. What happens when the Iraqis or Lebanese make some decision that we don't like? Will we do what we did in the Cold War: speak of freedom, then turn around and do our best to frustrate it?
There is something in the human and spiritual experience of us all that corresponds to that word freedom, in its finest sense. Used enough, though, that word freedom will just become an evocation for use whenever some politician wants to ennoble their agenda, and avoid criticism for mistakes, or digressions from the public will.
Example? I remember Rumsfeld speaking of freedom when the chaos overtook post-invasion Iraq, with looting and rioting. Oh, freedom is messy, he said. Freedom hurts a little. But what we saw wasn't freedom, but the breakdown in law and order that would ultimately keep us in Iraq for the foreseeable future, where we could have completed the mission sooner.
Right now, I doubt the Iraqis think of themselves as being all that free. Even out from under the burden of Saddam Hussein, they are beset by both the weight of our occupation, and the pressures of the insurgency. Bush speaks of freedom, and yes, the elections were a great example of that. But we had to essentially lock the country down, ban vehicular traffic, in order to make it safe for the people to vote. We had to take freedom from them in one form, to give it to them in another. Since then, the violence has returned, it's tyranny of fear once more preying on the innocent Iraqi. A hundred and twenty-five people in the last blast. Will we be gone by the next year, the year after that? We don't know.
Hopefully, our presence will lead to their freedom. Some people have more than just hopes. Some people take it on faith that it will happen. That, however is a dangerous sensibility, especially if our government acts from expedience. In the late 80's and early 90's, we told the world to shrug off the bonds of tyranny. Well, in Iraq, after the Gulf War, we told the Shia to do that, but we didn't follow through, and Saddam Hussein crushed them mercilessly. If you want to guess why the Shia didn't spring to our aid like before, that piece of history is of supreme interest. And of course, there were the trade unionists and student democracy advocates who got crushed in Tiananmen Square, with no real penalties.
Freedom isn't free, as some are wont to say. It will be supremely ironic if in cheapening this word we end up making its reality prohibitively expensive for ourselves in blood and treasure.
Posted by Stephen Daugherty at March 1, 2005 07:23 AMThe average American takes their “freedoms” for granted and the ones who are informed only care about the “freedoms” that support their agenda.
We will never be the country we were until EVERYBODY realizes that ALL of our “freedoms” are important.
Your right, freedom isn’t free and the price we must pay to get it back gets higher each day, each year and with each administration.
Posted by: kctim at March 1, 2005 10:20 AMHow many years did George Washington spend in his quest for Freedom?
That was a little messy. Only by the grace of God was he able to achieve Freedom.
Was it a breakdown of law and order when James Otis led a mob down a Boston street to the house of
Thomas Hutchinson, broke and totally destroyed the place, because Hutchinson was about to do his duty and collect the stamp tax.
To kctim,
What freedom are you missing that you are going to get back?
Stephen,
It’s funny, though, that as one Republican after another makes a gregorian chant of the word, they decry the use of that freedom by us Democrats to oppose them.
You may be misunderstanding opposition to your policies and ideology with opposing your freedom to have them.
Not that you personally have exhibited this tendency but Democrats seem to view any dissent to their ‘dissent’ as violations of their first amendment.
You might also worry a little more about the cheapening of the word ‘fascism’ on your side of the aisle.
Posted by: ericsimonson at March 1, 2005 11:27 AMGeorge
First of all, they are not freedoms that “I” am missing and that “I” want to get back. They are freedoms that “WE” need to get back.
You can start with free speech. Many are censored or even arrested for excersing this freedom, Sherman Austin for example.
As long as you have committed no crime, you should be allowed to travel undetered. But now we have checkpoints we must pass through, only because we MAY be guilty of a crime.
I could go on and on but I will not bore you all with that. Here are just a few other freedoms (briefly)
- The freedom to marry whoever you love
- The freedom to own a gun
- The freedom of owning your own land
- The freedom of personal responsibility
- The freedom of a non secretive govt
- The freedom of being safe, secure and of privacy in your own home.
And so forth.
While these freedoms, rights or whatever have not been totally lost, YET, they are quickly disappearing.
The wolf in sheeps clothing is not always from the other side of the isle.
Posted by: kctim at March 1, 2005 11:45 AMkctim, you forgot to mention freedom to be born alive.
Posted by: George at March 1, 2005 11:48 AMYour right George.
But I did say “Here are just a FEW other freedoms (briefly)”
kctim-
People value different rights differently. That is a freedom in and of itself. Our constitution, and the efforts of others who care about those rights ensure that when we do need them, despite our lack of preference for them, they are there for us.
As for confusing opposition of politics with opposition of the freedoms of it, my party is not the one constructing “free speech” zones to keep protestors from the sight of our sovereign ruler. It’s not the one accusing people of treason simply for taking up liberal causes and expressing liberal opinions.
It’s your party that speaks of liberalism as an evil to destroy, right alongside such favorites as fascism and terrorism. Whens the last time you heard a Democrat speak of destroying conservatism? When we were in the cold war, you guys spoke of us as commies, and now you speak of us as terrorist sympathizers. You treat our party as if its some criminal conspiracy against decency and humanity.
As for the word fascism, you may very well be right. It does nobody any good to rely on catchphrases and perjorative word. Part of that relates to a point which in retrospect I think I ought to have included. The first part I got: diminishing returns. But there’s an additional problem: as we wear out those powerful perjorative and evocative words, we wear out the emotional strength of our argument, it’s effect.
This can be harmful when the object of one’s criticism or praise has a greater half-life than the strong word choice that describes it, and people’s strength of response is ebbing with the strength of the rhetoric. We can forget the good and the bad alike, and suffer for that creeping oblivion.
I believe by being repetitious, we hasten this turnover. If we departed from our drumbeat of familiar political language, get more creative, and less superficial in the way we speak of our politics, we could do more robust business in the marketplace of ideas.
I believe the Republicans in power are doing somethings that deserve the label, but I agree that just calling Republicans fascists all the time will do little to punish or discourage that behavior, and may even serve to diminish resistance to the more egregious of your party’s policies.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 1, 2005 12:56 PMStephen:
“Bush in particular has an atrocious habit of using this word as if the rest of us don’t know what it means. It’s funny, though, that as one Republican after another makes a gregorian chant of the word, they decry the use of that freedom by us Democrats to oppose them.”
These guys have studiedexactly which words to use as mantras. Its all manipulation and deception with the Neocon Artists. I think of it as chronic campaigning - because their ideologies are radical, they must constantly be selling them to the American people just like a commerical.
It’s been my observation that the more people use a word or a catchphrase, the more life gets drained out of it.
Yes, but sometimes words don’t even have to be used a lot to become meaningless - what springs immediately to mind is the statement: Mission Acomplished. Or Clear Skies and Healthy Forests.
They’re making a lot of words into meaningless gobbledygook, and the more feel-good a word is the more the Neocon’s will attempt to make it work toward one of their nefarious goals.
What is fascinating is how meticulously scripted it would all have to be - they can’t do anything without a greal deal of planning and preparation, otherwise they risk using a word carelessly. This is exactly why I believe the president doesn’t give many press conferences.
What’s also interesting is to consider for a moment is the words they DON”T use. That they dare not use.
“There is something in the human and spiritual experience of us all that corresponds to that word freedom, in its finest sense. Used enough, though, that word freedom will just become an evocation for use whenever some politician wants to enoble their agenda, and avoid criticism for mistakes, or digressions from the public will.”
Exactly. Well said. Yes, they use such words not only to sell their ideas, but to try to cover their asses when they fail - which is often.
“You might also worry a little more about the cheapening of the word ‘fascism’ on your side of the aisle.”
Eric,
That maybe the single most hysterical sentence you have ever posted.
Posted by: Rocky at March 1, 2005 01:06 PMStephen
Sure you didnt mean your last post towards Eric?
Eric
Good call on the fascism link but I think it is mainly the liberals and not the Democrats who are guilty of it.
kctim-
I forgot to put his name in the right place. You’re right.
Liberals and conservatives tend to use the word freedom to mean different things. That has been a source of trouble for me with liberals and probably for liberals with me.
My definition of freedom is simple – a condition absent unreasonable constraints. (I use the modifier “unreasonable” because I don’t think freedom means you can just do anything you want.) If the government leaves me alone, I figure they have granted me freedom.
My liberal friends will rarely leave it at that. They say things like: Is a man without a job really free? Can you be free in a country where [fill in the blank] injustice exists? Or doesn’t freedom means we have to look out for the less fortunate? These might be good things, but freedom does not depend on them. Making freedom conditional on physical well-being is just wrong. Both are good things, but they are not the same thing.
You go back to conservative doubts about liberals during the Cold War. I still remember some of the conversations. I would complain about lack of freedom in the Soviet Union. My liberal friends would says something like, “Maybe their form of freedom is just different. After all they have economic security.” Wrong, and to me that sounding like making excuses. Fast forward to the war on terror. I say, “I hate terrorists.” My liberal friends respond, “We have to address the root causes of terrorism, like poverty.” (By the way poverty is not the root cause of terrorism and by the time we could address it we would all be dead anyway.) This to me looks like a wrong priority.
I admit the problem is as much mine as yours. It is a common communication problem. But I think the use of words is a “root cause.”
Stephen
“People value different rights differently. That is a freedom in and of itself. Our constitution, and the efforts of others who care about those rights ensure that when we do need them, despite our lack of preference for them, they are there for us.”
I agree with you on this but we now have groups dedicated to destroying basic freedoms that are supposed to be protected.
You can take smoking, vehicles, driving, guns, property or gay marriage and you will find a special interest group or even the govt itself who is set on denying these freedoms to the people.
“My liberal friends will rarely leave it at that. They say things like: Is a man without a job really free?”
Jack,
I would answer that a man without a job is more free than most.
“Can you be free in a country where [fill in the blank] injustice exists? Or doesn?t freedom means we have to look out for the less fortunate?”
There will always be less fortunate, there will always be injustice. These things have nothing to do with freedom.
Freedom cannot be all things to everybody.
Utopia cannot exist, someone has to do the dishes.
Posted by: Rocky at March 1, 2005 03:45 PMRocky:
“Utopia cannot exist, someone has to do the dishes.”
Wait, couldn’t we work out a rotating schedule where everyone has to do some? ;^)
Jack-
Our definitions of freedom are not that different. It’s our definition of unreasonable restraints that differ. ;-)
As for Communism, well, the trouble is that the Democrat party and liberal establishment produced both pinkos and hardliners, just as the Republicans have produced New World Order Democracy advocates in addition to their closet fascists. Democrats and Republicans alike, in this country, tend to frown on non-democratic governments.
In the end, Democrats waged wars against communist invaders, and Republicans bargained with Russkies and Commies. The Democrats waged Korea and Vietnam, the Republicans brought glasnost, detente, and deals with Chairman Mao. It was Republican negotiators and presidents who brought both of the above-mentioned wars to their uneasy conclusions.
Really, the fact is, you’re getting a few opinions out of many, and despite flirtations members of both our parties have had with those supposed to be our enemies, the mainstream American of both parties are loyal Americans.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 1, 2005 06:59 PMYou might also worry a little more about the cheapening of the word ‘fascism’ on your side of the aisle.
Eric
Good call on the fascism link but I think it is mainly the liberals and not the Democrats who are guilty of it.
In my recent WB post on the Gannon scandal, I ruminated a bit before I decided to use the Flash presentation called The 14 Signs of Fascism. This is the first indictment of the comparisons being drawn by the Left I’ve seen, but I’ve yet to read a direct attempt by the Right to refute the similarities that are irrefutably obvious.
but Democrats seem to view any dissent to their ‘dissent’ as violations of their first amendment.
Many on the Right, are going around crowing about how they ‘got’ CNN’s Eason Jordan. Is this an example of the ‘dissent’ you had in mind Eric?
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at March 1, 2005 07:31 PM
“my party is not the one constructing “free speech” zones to keep protestors from the sight of our sovereign ruler.”
http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20040725-091232-9085r.htm
Sometimes a statement is so ironic it needs nothing more than a link, but I will also add that Democrats, as well as Republicans, have been leading a fight against free speach. Not only do they BOTH set up free speach zones (how could you have forgotten abotu this one Stephen!), but Democrats continue their assault on free speach by pushing for tougher and tougher “campaign finance laws”, while Republicans push the FCC to regulate more and more. Moreover, people on both sides broadly support all of these anti-speach measures. Stephen, you are way too smart not to see this.
Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at March 2, 2005 04:01 AMBert, very nice propaganda video. Now tell me - did you (or whoever made this video) go about those 14 points objectively before looking at America, or did you tailor them to what you think fits? Looks like a professional remake of a Michael Moore clip :)
Posted by: Gandhi at March 2, 2005 08:34 AMBert and Gandhi
It is propaganda. I googled the author and can find no indication that he is a political scientist in any way besides self-proclaimed. His fourteen points are okay, but not defining in any particular way. I could think of similar ones that would fit other situations. I expect the three of us know as much about fascism as the author.
I would say that the whole production is akin to fascist provocation. We have a pseudo intellectual theory tied with very good visuals designed to attack a democratically elected government by using its own symbols against it. Leni Riefenstahl and Josef Goebbels would be proud to call something like that their own.
Beyond that some of the points apply to various countries. Some don’t apply to the U.S. very well and some don’t apply to fascism. Two particularly are misguided.
The point about corporate power, for example, stretches the point. In corporations, in the sense of their being corporations with the ability to make autonomous management decisions and respond to markets DON’T exist in fascism. Fascists control corporations in the same way they control labor unions. Neither is independent.
Fascist doesn’t suppress all intellectuals only those they don’t like (just like Communists do). Intellectuals were a very important part of Nazi propaganda. Many German intellectuals loved the Nazis. It was only later that they either recanted or we stopped defining them as intellectuals. In either case, it was an ex-post-facto thing.
Misha-
First, I have to agree that I dislike and am disappointed in that “Free Speech” zone set up at the convention. At the same time, I don’t know it to be a common practices among my party’s power elite. Bush did this on a regular basis, making a habit out of it.
As for Campaign finance reform, if is money is speech, bribery is legal. One is simply communicating one’s opinion with money. Enough money to be persuasive, that is. That is, if you consider it speech.
If you think about it, the money says nothing. It is the act of support that matters. It could be a dollar, a penny, or whatever. As long as the person is allowed to give it, no abrogation of speech is present. We of course make allowances for the practical necessities of mounting a campaign.
Freedom of speech is not necessarily freedom of time, place, manner, and degree. You can express your patriotism as you please, but you can’t write “I Love the U.S.A.” naked in the middle of a busy street at midnight, while loudly singing the national anthem.
The problem I have with free speech zones is that our government is bound by the constitution to be open to those with grievances with it, and they could, with reasonable measures, forgo the separation.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 2, 2005 10:30 AMSocialist firebrand Helen Keller once said, “When one comes to think of it, there are no such things as divine, immutable, or inalienable rights. Rights are things we get when we are strong enough to make good our claim on them.”
That was insightful enough that the FBI had her under surveillance for decades. I think you can substitute “freedoms” for “rights”. If you don’t like the “free speech” cages, don’t use ‘em.
Interesting article, Stephen, but I’m not sure what to make of it. Are you ticked that Bush is wrapping himself in the word “freedom”? Are you saying he’s cheapening the word, or actually redefining it?
Or are you saying that Iraq can only be considered free the same way our mission could be considered accomplished?
Freedom of speech is not the same as freedom to be heard.
Ward Churchill stuck his neck out in his infamous rant, but if I would have said the same thing, few would have noticed.
Because he is a ‘professor’ and department chairman that his public rants were so wide spread. Embellishing his heritage allowed him to rise to professor.
Now it appears Churchill may have misrepresented himself to his employer. Upon searching his origin he can find no Indian blood. Of course only in academia is this not an offense that warrants dismissal.
Universities are nut houses where faculty can be fired for stating the obvious in tones un-politically correct, but lying on your application is not a cause for dismissal.
Rocky - I like it.
Utopia cannot exist, someone has to do the dishes.
A man today with out a job is a man who is not looking for work.
There is no such thing as freedom without responcibility. Our society cannot allow anyone to do anything that they want. Society needs constraints to keep order. Remember: Locks don’t keep robbers out, they keep honest people honest. Society on a whole needs to restrain people for exactly that reason.
This, unfortunately, leads us to the issue of how many constraints we need in our society. Fortunately, irresponcible liberalism has breached that barrier long ago. Remember, those groups support “free speech” unless you are denouncing them. Then it is “hate speech.” Censorship already exists, but it needs to be applied equally.
Posted by: Tim at March 2, 2005 11:56 AMkctim, you forgot to mention freedom to be born alive.
George -
It’s impossible to be born dead…unless the child is stillborn…If you’re talking about abortion, then actually use the word.
BTW George -
Answers to your first questions:
“How many years did George Washington spend in his quest for Freedom?” - 7
“That was a little messy.” - Yes, it was, but nothing compared the mess which we are now capable of making.
“Only by the grace of God was he able to achieve Freedom.” - And more than a little help from the French and the bankers of Holland.
“Was it a breakdown of law and order when James Otis led a mob down a Boston street to the house of
Thomas Hutchinson, broke and totally destroyed the place, because Hutchinson was about to do his duty and collect the stamp tax.” - Yes, as a matter fo fact, it was…
Tim, what are you referring to when you’re referring to censorship. Your claim is a bit broad, and I’d like more detail.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 2, 2005 01:34 PMBert, very nice propaganda video. Now tell me - did you (or whoever made this video) go about those 14 points objectively before looking at America, or did you tailor them to what you think fits? Looks like a professional remake of a Michael Moore clip :)
When the Right uses the word ‘propaganda’ these days Gandhi, like ‘liberal bias’ or ‘Bush bashing’, it signals yet another one of the painful truths you’d rather not acknowledge or go into any great detail, unable to refute them.
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at March 2, 2005 01:50 PMSo when asked:
“did you (or whoever made this video) go about those 14 points objectively before looking at America, or did you tailor them to what you think fits?”
it is easier to say “it’s true because I say it’s true” or that the person is blinded by politics and unable to refute the info,
then it is to PROVE that the slideshow is accurate and therefore should be taken seriously?
You criticize and make light of the Right(always) for using words like propaganda, liberal bias and Bush bashing but yet I would bet that you use words like facists, evil and (the ever outdated and overused) racist when talking about Republicans.
Posted by: kctim at March 2, 2005 03:25 PMTo All:
That clip has been circulating for a while. And it has nothing to do with Michael Moore. Do you people live in caves?
And to kctim: we should call people rascist, fascist and evil when they fit those descriptions…which, unfortunately, fits some politicians on both sides of the aisle. Open your eyes to the problems in your own party.
But Bert, that 14 points thing is propaganda. I wrote why it is inaccurate.
Posted by: Jack at March 2, 2005 04:57 PMBrico
We should also label misleading fabrications, such as that slideshow, propaganda. Right?
We should also point out liberal bias in the media too. Right?
Sigh! I have no party.
The Republicans say I’m a liberal and the Democrats say I’m a conservative.
I am stuck in limbo.
kctim -
liberal bias in the media is mostly a fabrication. Read Eric Alterman’s book “What Liberal Media?”
The slideshow is based on a well known breakdown used in sociology courses for defining a fascist state. You may not agree with its use in the slideshow, but as Jack likes to point out, it’s how the debate is framed.
Propaganda has a fairly wide definition: “Methodical propagation of a particular doctrine or of allegations reflecting its views and interests.” That’s from Mr. Webster. Given that, can you really say that anything political or in advertising is not propaganda?
“Sigh! I have no party.
The Republicans say I’m a liberal and the Democrats say I’m a conservative.
I am stuck in limbo.”
kctim,
How do you think I feel?
Posted by: Rocky at March 2, 2005 05:38 PMI think the GOP is storing up the seeds of its own decline. I think it is doing the worst thing it possibly could do: putting its agenda to the test. Now Americans are tasting the bitter fruits of deficit and international tension. They are seeing a president who talks big about defending America, but who seems impotent to get most countries to go our way.
I think its the Republican party that has to learn to be more centrist. We went to the center more than a decade ago. Now it remains to the Republicans to realize that reality dominated ideology, not the other way around.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 2, 2005 08:00 PMThe slideshow is based on a well known breakdown used in sociology courses for defining a fascist state. You may not agree with its use in the slideshow, but as Jack likes to point out, it’s how the debate is framed.
Well stated, brico.
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at March 2, 2005 09:59 PM“The slideshow is based on a well known breakdown used in sociology courses for defining a fascist state. You may not agree with its use in the slideshow, but as Jack likes to point out, IT’S HOW THE DEBATE IS FRAMED.”
And its truth depends upon which side of the issue a person supports.
During the 90s, tons of videos were made, using a similar breakdown, defining the “socialist” state we were living in under clinton.
Were those on the left promoting these videos and asking everyone to accept them at face value as they are with this slideshow? I doubt it.
SD
“I think its the Republican party that has to learn to be more centrist.”
Why is the answer always “its the other sides fault, not ours?”
BOTH parties need to learn to be more centrist.
Rocky
I know how you feel my friend.
And to think I’ve been blaming my hairloss on my kids.
The slideshow is based on a well known breakdown used in sociology courses for defining a fascist state. You may not agree with its use in the slideshow, but as Jack likes to point out, it’s how the debate is framed.
Thank You brico, after two days of beating around the bush, we can get to specifics.
Are you buying the old people argument that there is nothing wrong with social security?
What is the young people’s thoughts on this?
I am glad I won’t have to carry a retired person alone.
Germany just announced it has 11.7 % unemployment, up for the 13 straight month.
Should they reduce their work week again even further? Perhaps a large government work program should be enacted.
Are you buying the old people argument that there is nothing wrong with social security?
What is the young people’s thoughts on this?
I’m the wrong person to ask, George, as I’m not young.
So, if I agree that there’s very little wrong with SS, does that make me old?
I’ve had this debate previously on another board.
Let’s put it this way: if Bush manages to push this through, I am one of those people who will have the choice of diverting a portion of my pay into a new private account. And guess what? I won’t do it. I look at Chile as being a prime example of what can go wrong with this program. Also, there’s a good article in the Washington Post this morning about the plan.
Unlike many people, I’ve had to rely on SS checks after my father died.Those checks allowed my mother to keep food coming in, keep the house heated, and put clothes on our backs while I finished high school and went into college. Needless to say, I am a fan of the system. But let’s be honest: Bush’s plan has nothing to do with “reforming” Social Security. It has to do with ultimate removal of the system. More than one conservative pundit has spoken (rather gleefully from the sound of it) on how they can dismantle the entire “welfare state” once they get their hooks into Social Security (paraprhasing - I think the term was more along the lines of spearing the belly of the beast).
Also, in terms of the argument that our population is aging and the tax rolls will be declining, I haven’t seen anyone talking about the influx of immigrants (legal, and therefore, taxpaying), on the system. There was a report released yesterday or the day before about population growth and it seems that we (the U.S.) have a growth projection taking us to something like 380 million in the next fifty years. (I’m calling this off the top of my head, so my figures may be off, but it was a substantial growth).
Personally, I think the only thing we really need to do with Social Security is raise the cap.
BTW - I didn’t think this particular board was about SS. Are we jumping topics?
Oops!
Misspelled “paraphrasing.”
Damn! Betrayed by own lousy typing!
Stephen-
I was meaning that it is not uncommon for some groups to claim that everyone has the right to free speach, only to attempt to suppress those who speak out against them. This is the root of the idea of “hate speach.” I am just annoyed that these groups can say whatever they want, no matter how inflammitory their words, and then when others try to counter their claims it is labeled at “hateful” and “unenlightened.” Once an idea or statement has this label, it is shunned from further discorse. This is censorship. It is my position that this censorship needs to be applied to the initiators and not just the reactors. Society does not need this unnecessary distraction and irritation.
Posted by: Tim at March 3, 2005 03:11 PMTim-
What groups? Provide me with some examples, so we can discuss the situations in question.
In the meantime, my opinion is this: don’t expect people to make the case for your way of life for you. First, people will always believe their opinions more worthy of expression than others. That’s just the way things are, and yes, certain people will ignore certain material because it doesn’t fit their world view.
I believe, though, it doesn’t rise to the level of censorship unless the person or entity in question is engaged in a business or profession where transparency is considered part and parcel of their role. Journalism, Public Affairs, government, and the like.
Take note: by this definition, censorship is not only the intent to remove from circulation, or unpopularity that reduces circulation, but basic prior restraint of information before it has the chance to circulation.
We have to understand that in a society where expression is free, so is anybody’s response to us. We must sell our ideas well and keep our customers satisfied with our notions. That includes doing hard sells. The listener always has the choice to ignore us. Our best bet in those situations is to make ourselves both hard to ignore and hard to dismiss. As tempting as it is to coerce this, it’s not really something you can force.
My opinion is that politics is theory, and policy is practice, and politics, like theory, should yield to practice. Politics should not decide the way the facts are viewed- The facts should decide that first, with further interpretation laid on after a clear picture of that has emerged.
Otherwise, our parties only become political versions of the ivory towers that Republicans and Independents seem found of criticizing.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 3, 2005 04:33 PMI was just reading through your board, i like to read what both sides talk about and im just wondering if you guys even noticed a few things.
1. As to the social security, the proposal is modeled off of the same system congress set up for federal employees a few years ago-which is working well.
2. Bush’s ‘failed’ foreign policy and I believed you talked earlier about freedom and how the iraqi people arent doing that much better… im in the service and i talk to a lot of guys who have been over to the desert and let me tell you iraqis for the most part dont hate us, it’s frustrating to watch the news and never see anything of what we do over there unless something goes wrong- even fox is guilty of this- school building, road work, infrastructure repair, and countless jobs contracted out to iraqi’s.
One of my pet peeves is the solo argument. The only difference between the un and the league of nations is our presence, without us the un is just a group of blithering idiots who can talk( oh and make under the counter deals) the number one thing foriegn nations respect is open power and the willingness to use it when we say we will.
i could go on forever but then id just look like a raving conservitive.
Getting back to the original discussion topic - in line with Stephen’s suggestion to charge $1 per mention of “freedom”, I’d like to suggest additional surcharges for mention of the following words and phrases:
“disenfranchisement”
“rigged elections” (except references to Ukraine)
“fascist”
“evil corporations”
“Iraqi oil/Cheney/Halliburton”
“another tax cut for the rich”
“how can Bush be so stupid?”
“how can 50+ million Americans be so stupid?”
“I’ve been to Iraq, so the rest of you should shut up”
All direct references to Hitler or Nazis.
I daresay that Stephen isn’t the only one on this board who’s a little tired of rhetoric :) I sympathize with him; I too am tired of hearing every Bush speech conclude with picturesque nature scenes talking about freedom ringing, not because I don’t agree with spreading democracy, but simply because it’s getting boring. The President needs a new speechwriter for his concluding paragraphs.
Gandhi,
I would also like to add:
Treasonus,
Anti-American,
Unpatriotic,
Traitorus,
The word liberal used as an insult.
This goes both ways pal.
Stephen,
“We must sell our ideas well and keep our customers satisfied with our notions. That includes doing hard sells.”
We must also be able to take no for an answer.
Posted by: Rocky at March 4, 2005 10:14 AMJonathan White-
First, Bush’s proposal, by his own admission does nothing to improve solvency. Privatization, or invidual investment accounts won’t save the system. Bush says reform is needed to save social security for the future, but if you take his admission seriously his is not the plan to do that It’s a distraction, and it’s going to cost us two trillion dollars over the next ten years to set that up. Annually, that’s 200 billion dollars a year in new debt, to add to the debts that Bush has piled up with the Medicare Drug Benefit, the war your friends are fighting, and the tax cuts he gave people, unprecedented in a time of war.
What I want you to consider is whether or not what can be done with maybe a hundred thousand government workers will scale up for hundreds of millions. Also, the funds under this plan will be operated by government officials, who will take much of the choice out of the investment. This means that the private accounts aren’t that private after all, and that people are depending on the government to wisely invest their money.
How many pension funds took massive hits in the wake of Enron? How many people lost money when the Dot-Com bubble burst? Social Security has never been meant to enrich people. those who need it, who can’t afford the far more lucrative IRAs or Pension funds, need it for the sake of security. They don’t want a risk, they don’t want a high rate of return, they want something that won’t turn downhill with the next bear market.
As for news reports about Iraq, I think the news organizations are looking for historical turning points, rather than mundane improvements. There are three reasons. One, historical turning points, whether good or bad, make for better television.
Two, there’s a sense that this president needs a counterbalance, especially in the wake of a massive intelligence failure, and the failure to anticipate or stop the insurgency. He’s screwed up some important things, so people get the sense that unless the successes work to resolve the mistakes (capturing Saddam, Elections that didn’t turn into bloodbaths), he doesn’t deserve positive coverage for small improvements.
Which leads into my third explanation which is this: our problems in Iraq, as covered by the news organizations, may have a disproportionate effect on things. The failures of our policy there may eat up the goodwill and the good works, unfortunately.
As for going it alone… Well, you’re right. We do need to be able to project force when we say it will. That’s part of the problem of Iraq. We have most of our active combat divisions circulating through that California size piece of real estate. Could you really say, at this point, that we have the troops to fight a Korean war, or a war against Iran? What if they call our bluff, make their move, and we’re too strained on our manpower to make an effective show of force? Our invasion of Iraq, and our entanglement in the insurgency has made this problem a much likelier scenario. Displaying power is nowhere near as important as its appropriate use, in situation and in methodology.
Gandhi-
There are some cliches or mantras we need to phase out, but there are some issues and phrases that persist because the problems themselves persist. Cheney and Halliburton, and the tax cuts, for example. It pains me that we have to repeat ourselves, but that’s what people sometimes do, short of satisfactory answers.
As to the social security, the proposal is modeled off of the same system congress set up for federal employees a few years ago-which is working well.
Jonathon White -
As for comparing Bush’s SS plan and the Government’s “Thrift Savings” plan, see the Washington Post article from yesterday. It talks with the man who set up the Federal plan and he has very specific reason why Bush’s plan is nothing like the Federal employees plan and why it can’t be used as a basis for Bush’s Social Security “Reform.”
freedom like when someone says they love u and they really are just there too….. will he say as a country’s father he did it because he loved US?
freedom just another word.
unless you have the money to buy it back.
