Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditIraqi parliament votes to end the occupation
The American public favors withdrawal
The cause of Democracy apparently demands we ignore both.
This Is What Democracy Looks Like?
posted by Christopher Hayes on 05/10/2007 @ 11:51am
-
Advertisement
Why would other nations be anxious to swallow US-style democracy after we've urinated all over it?
Posted by drhammer at 05/10/2007 @ 12:05pm
Yor link to the Iraqi story leadzs to a page with the message: "Sorry. I can't seem to find that story."
Posted by Pancho at 05/10/2007 @ 12:16pm
DR, you are correct, the whole world is watching. why should we care if the Iraqis want us to leave or stay? we did not ask them whether they would like to be invaded and occupied. no, this war will end in Washington, not in Baghdad.
Posted by johannesrolf at 05/10/2007 @ 12:17pm
Democracy by force.
We should be so proud?
Posted by New Dawn at 05/10/2007 @ 12:17pm
Chris..........see Pancho's statement.
As far as I know the Iraqi parliament hasn't VOTED on the subject. The speaker has refused to bring it to vote. The significance of this weeks thing was that SUPPOSEDLY now since a majority of Iraqi lawmakers have signed the petition now that FORCES a chamber wide vote (I highly doubt it will happen though).
Posted by freedomplease at 05/10/2007 @ 12:22pm
which proves my point that it was started for domestic political advantage, and to take the stain out of Bush's performance before 9/11.
Kerry should have taken a page out of Rove's playbook, back in 2004. attack his supposed strength. I would have made a commercial showing Bush with the bullhorn in front of the WTC rubble, and then the stuff where he says he doesn't care about bin laden.
Posted by johannesrolf at 05/10/2007 @ 12:32pm
any Iraq vote would not be binding. where have we heard that before.
Posted by johannesrolf at 05/10/2007 @ 12:33pm
Seriously...how soon until LVLIB, RIO, etc. call the Iraqis "defeatist leftists"?
Posted by Mask at 05/10/2007 @ 12:38pm
Seriously...how soon until LVLIB, RIO, etc. call the Iraqis "defeatist leftists"?
Posted by MASK 05/10/2007 @ 12:38pm | ignore this person
amusing yes, serious? no
Posted by johannesrolf at 05/10/2007 @ 12:46pm
Welcome back, NEW DAWN!
As you can see, the 'hood is getting a little better everyday. The ragged, skidrow conservaLosers -- increasingly boring and ill-smelling, even to themselves -- are slowly but palpably retreating into the shabby, ideological shantytown of MaximumCheerLeaderVille to commune in the miserablism of fellow 30% travellers.
Posted by Glenn Lemon at 05/10/2007 @ 12:52pm
So I guess this is where we say the rights of the minority (the neocon war drummers) are being protected against the will of the majority? Democracy indeed! :)
Posted by BlueTexan at 05/10/2007 @ 1:10pm
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 05/10/2007 @ 12:46pm
Only by a hair, JR. Seriously, I expect the 30% Club to come up with SOME way to say that the Iraqi parliamentarians supporting our pull-out either A. "are only the ones who support Al Queda and don't represent 'most' Iraqis" or (more likely) B. don't REALLY mean it ("they want us out soon, who doesn't, but they don't mean immediately when they say 'immediately'").
Posted by Mask at 05/10/2007 @ 1:13pm
That's what happens when you have a two party system that is really nothing more than one party with two opposing wings--both in the pockets of their corporate sponsors, both splitting the electorate with devisive social issues. Too bad the working class doesn't have a clear choice to vote for.
Posted by mtspence05 at 05/10/2007 @ 1:15pm
Too bad the working class doesn't have a clear choice to vote for.
Posted by MTSPENCE05 05/10/2007 @ 1:15pm
So until they do, MTSP's model is to NOT vote at all...right?
Posted by Mask at 05/10/2007 @ 1:52pm
osted by ZERO 05/10/2007 @ 1:49pm | ignore this person
you are mistaken, Zero. Kos is a site that selects the best, in their opinion, of editorial writing on the web, a survey. very much like americablog and the incomparable Froomkin, who concentrates on the MSM mostly.
Posted by johannesrolf at 05/10/2007 @ 2:04pm
Pancho, see:
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/51624/
Posted by leftofcenter at 05/10/2007 @ 2:12pm
LOC,
That's nice, but it isn't "Iraq parliament votes to end occupation" as Christopher Hayes would have you believe. It's a petition or perhaps even a bill that has 144 signers (perhaps co-sponsors) of 275 members. It's not a vote and the subject isn't exactly a deadline. Is it important? Hugely. Does it need to be misrepresented? No, so lets stop.
Posted by freedomplease at 05/10/2007 @ 2:32pm
Christopher,
If you've got something that actually supports your sensationalistic statements please link to it.
Posted by freedomplease at 05/10/2007 @ 2:34pm
Democracy, of the Lloyal Bushies, by the Loyal Bushies, for the Loyal Bushies... to paraphrase a rare great Republican, Lincoln.
Time and again the Loyal Bushies tell us that "regimes" are not transparent, not responsive to the will of the people, and as such are deemed repressive and ripe for regime change or darned tough talk in the press trying to force those countries to change their ways (see the handling of Putin lately for instance). Yet, at home, the Loyal Bushies do everything they can to thwart transparency of our own Administration to both the Congress and the public. Loyal Bushies ignore the stated will of the people when they refuse to accept reasonable compromise solutions on Iraq. They thwart the will of the people when they veto bills and support the veto of bills that clearly mirror the wishes of the democratic majority (little d, not capital).
Let's hear it for the great proponents of democracy, those Loyal Bushies who demand that Iraqis accept the government we want to foist upon them, with the model we demand they accept.
Clearly, today, democracy means cowing to the demands of the American military.
Posted by Lennonist at 05/10/2007 @ 2:38pm
Clearly, today, democracy means cowing to the demands of the American military.
Posted by LENNONIST 05/10/2007 @ 2:38pm
"Loyal Bushies" and "the military" are synonymous?!?!?!
Posted by Mask at 05/10/2007 @ 3:08pm
Now Mask, you are putting words in my mouth (or keyboard as the case may be). No, I would suggest Loyal Bushies use the military for their own agendas not the other way around. I think, by looking at the way I worded the post above, any thinking individual would figure that out.
Posted by Lennonist at 05/10/2007 @ 3:12pm
So until they do, MTSP's model is to NOT vote at all...right?
Posted by MASK
Voting legitimizes the system. Until the Dems (or some other party) provide a candidate that represents my interest they will not get my vote. You wanna be a tool, knock yourself out.
Posted by mtspence05 at 05/10/2007 @ 4:19pm
Posted by LENNONIST 05/10/2007 @ 3:12pm
LENNONIST, I simply read your post. You go on for three paragraphs about "Loyal Bushies"...and I got no problem with that.
But your last line said "Clearly, today, democracy means cowing to the demands of the American military"...not "Clearly, today, democracy means cowing to the demands of the LOYAL BUSHIES".
Is it a simple English Comp error (subject error)...or Freudian slip?
Posted by Mask at 05/10/2007 @ 4:29pm
Posted by MTSPENCE05 05/10/2007 @ 4:19pm
Well, MTSP, by your own admission several weeks back, without a major economic crises, it's unlikely that you will EVER get a candidate that "represents your interests"...given their Hard Left ideology.
So...simple question...if ALL of those who share your political ideology, also share your "I won't legitimize the system by participating until I get my PURE candidate"....what political power would they have, if any...and therefore why should anybody pay attention to their views given they are politically impotent?
Posted by Mask at 05/10/2007 @ 4:32pm
"Hard left ideology"? Advocating balance, providing the working class, the working middle class with a geniune share of the power in our political system is "hard left"? Espousing a common sense approach to the grave problems plaguing the US is "hard left"?
Impotent? The working class is politically impotent. Sure, the two parties need their votes, but the vast majority of Americans have no power, influence on our system. Just playing along solves nothing. Aside from a few scraps the pols throw out (those highly devisive social issues such as abortion, gun control, gay rights, flag burning, etc.) it's simply business as usual wrapped up in a one sided false presentation. All those millions that do submit a ballot are doing nothing more than legitimizing the system. Being right may not be popular, it may render you "impotent" but it is right, none the less. Pretending you're making a difference might make you feel better, but it does nothing to change the system.
The US is steadily going backwards. I'm not going to participate in the process of turning back the clock.
Posted by mtspence05 at 05/10/2007 @ 4:57pm
Mask, if I was unclear, I apologise. I figured it was clear that the military is an arm of the president, not a policy maker or "decider" but one of the means of enforcing the decider's decisions. Anyway, to be clear, in my mind, I was pointing out that the military acts opn ocders fromthe president and has, as a result been a tool of this president to promote his own agenda.
Posted by Lennonist at 05/10/2007 @ 5:13pm
Oh and on the issue of voting or not, let's be clear on one thing. Though the traditional voters will probably not see it this way, I think not voting is a vote. It's a vote of no on all of the above. An abstention is a type of vote in Congress. So it is for individuals in an election.
Someday, some party will get it. That somewhere near 50% of eligible voters don't bother to vote. One could win an election by getting them to vote - for them - and just a small percentage of other voters. If the Green Party could galvenize that segment of society today, they'd be a huge force in our politics.
Sad truth is, no one out there who could and would run for something is actually willing to tell the American public the truth about the state of things and their positions and what they would do. As long as that is the case, this huge voting bloc will continue to not vote. As long as they don't vote, we are stuck with this assinine Democrat vs Republican system that no longer works.
I don't vote either. There is no one in the American political system who I could vote for. I voted in 1972, and 1992. That's it. If they give me Hilary vs any Repub, I won't vote again. The choice is, which wrist do I want to slit. My vote is neither.
Posted by Lennonist at 05/10/2007 @ 5:20pm
Welcome back, NEW DAWN!
As you can see, the 'hood is getting a little better everyday. The ragged, skidrow conservaLosers -- increasingly boring and ill-smelling, even to themselves -- are slowly but palpably retreating into the shabby, ideological shantytown of MaximumCheerLeaderVille to commune in the miserablism of fellow 30% travellers.
Posted by GLENN LEMON 05/10/2007 @ 12:52pm
Thanks, Glenn.
Posted by New Dawn at 05/10/2007 @ 6:08pm
We need more real journalists, not more links to "Daily Kos"
you can call kos whatever you want, but it doesn't necessarily mean that kos is not part of the political discourse. as you said yourself, "cash cow." following the money is also following the story.....
i don't read the kos, but i wouldn't invalidate its significance in terms of drawing attention to you candidates and issues that you, zero, support.
Posted by darladoon at 05/10/2007 @ 6:08pm
Clearly, today, democracy means cowing to the demands of the American military.
Posted by LENNONIST 05/10/2007 @ 2:38pm
Tell that to the Frat Boy. When the brass tells him that Iraq is lost, he won't listen to them, either.
Posted by Jack Rabbit at 05/10/2007 @ 7:32pm
Jack Rabbitt, when I said that, I wasn't saying it as if it was a good thing.
Posted by Lennonist at 05/10/2007 @ 7:47pm
"Hard left ideology"? Advocating balance, providing the working class, the working middle class with a geniune share of the power in our political system is "hard left"? Espousing a common sense approach to the grave problems plaguing the US is "hard left"?
Posted by MTSPENCE05 05/10/2007 @ 4:57pm
Apparently it IS, MTSP...since according to you neither Hillary, Obama, or even John Edwards espouse that (because you've already decided NOT to vote in 2008, even if one of those folks wins the nomination).
Ergo, the mainstream of the Democratic Party (aptly covered by The Big Three) is too "centrist" for your taste and therefore in the spectrum of American politics, from Hard Right and the GOP, to moderates, centrists, and independents, to the Democratic party....
you ARE on the Hard Left, since even fairly liberal Edwards is to your Right.
Posted by Mask at 05/10/2007 @ 8:12pm
Posted by LENNONIST 05/10/2007 @ 5:20pm
I agree that choosing not to vote is just as valid an expression as choosing to vote. I also think there is a good argument that voting actually legitimizes a fundamentally flawed and broken electoral system. Not to mention that 1/62,000,000 (theoretically, 1/301,000,000) of a voice is not a voice. it's a statistical nullity.
That said, you could go the other way too - why not vote for the people that most match your point of view? Better yet, write yourself in for every office on the ballot; who better to represent your point of view than yourself?
As a practical matter, it is possible for Greens (or any third party for that matter) to win - you just have to start at the lower levels of government. You need to win school boards before you can win the White House - or even a Congressional District.
Another thing to consider, what happens when many different parties start to win? What happens when a third party wins a few states and makes getting the required electoral votes impossible? I tell you what, the same-o, same-o has to change-o, change-o. Think about it.
Posted by srjenkins at 05/10/2007 @ 9:23pm
Posted by MASK 05/10/2007 @ 8:12pm
Let's see, according to Edwards 2004 NPAT:
1. "I also support the death penalty"
Is it too far left to think a state that thinks it is alright for it to kill is the foundation necessary for a state that thinks it is alright to torture? Should the state kill people as policy? Perhaps we are one of the few countries in the world that have a "death penalty" might qualify it as being "unusual", if not cruel?
2. "I support keeping drugs out of the United States"
More War on Drugs.
3. "[I support] funding for a strong national defense."
I'll keep spending billions on a war of terror.
4. "I support sanctions that target Castro's regime."
For reasons that are hard to fathom.
5. "...we must always recognize the larger framework of international law when we make decisions about defending ourselves."
Meaning we will pretend we care about the World Court and international law and continue with business as usual?
6. "I will reorient U.S. assitance toward supporting open societies..."
See previous U.S. successes in promoting freedom in Iraq, Nicaragua, Afghanistan and many other places. Plans on continuing the streak with more schooling of the rest of the world in the School of the Americas.
He talks a good game but when you read between the lines, he doesn't sound like he is making any kind of radical departure from the usual - particularly in respect to foriegn policy. Domestically, he's a lot stronger, but it isn't all roses either.
Posted by srjenkins at 05/10/2007 @ 9:48pm
SR, thank you for pointing out the right leaning strategies that have alweays been a part of the Edwards personna. He's anethma to any real liberal.
Posted by Lennonist at 05/10/2007 @ 10:28pm
Posted by SRJENKINS 05/10/2007 @ 9:23pm | ignore this person
what happens is a coalition gov't. two or more small parties banding together. this is both good and bad. the coalitions can collapse, leading to unstable gov't. it can also give an inordinate amount of power to extreme fringe parties, such as in Israel. where the ultra religious Shas party wields too much influence.
Posted by johannesrolf at 05/10/2007 @ 10:40pm
"That said, you could go the other way too - why not vote for the people that most match your point of view?"
I have tried this a number of times by voting for the Liberterian Candidate or the one closest to him/her....and we still end up with the 2 major partys only..
Posted by john maasch at 05/10/2007 @ 10:42pm
There is no individual alive in the US that can say, my vote made a difference in an election. Hence, when there's no real choice, there's no real reason to vote.
Posted by Lennonist at 05/10/2007 @ 10:53pm
There is no individual alive in the US that can say, my vote made a difference in an election. Hence, when there's no real choice, there's no real reason to vote.
Posted by LENNONIST 05/10/2007 @ 10:53pm | ignore this person
who cares if you vote?
Posted by johannesrolf at 05/10/2007 @ 11:11pm
The same people who care what you think!
Posted by Lennonist at 05/10/2007 @ 11:13pm
No f**king one.
Posted by Lennonist at 05/10/2007 @ 11:14pm
The same people who care what you think!
Posted by LENNONIST 05/10/2007 @ 11:13pm | ignore this person
to be charitable to you, I'll say as many people care what I think as care what you think.
Posted by johannesrolf at 05/10/2007 @ 11:32pm
Dunno why thiws guy doesn't like me, becauase we tend to be in agreement more than in opposition. Don't think I've ever been critical of anything he's ever said.
Jo - I will close with, I love you. I don't care what you think of me, I love you anyway.
Posted by Lennonist at 05/10/2007 @ 11:35pm
That may be the first time I've ever written anything to you too.
Posted by Lennonist at 05/10/2007 @ 11:36pm
Now, I'm gonna ignore you.
Posted by Lennonist at 05/10/2007 @ 11:36pm
Dunno why thiws guy doesn't like me, becauase we tend to be in agreement more than in opposition. Don't think I've ever been critical of anything he's ever said.
Jo - I will close with, I love you. I don't care what you think of me, I love you anyway.
Posted by LENNONIST 05/10/2007 @ 11:35pm | ignore this person
you are mistaken, I do not dislike you. I disagree with you. I am sorry I have caused you to think that. perhaps it is my bad manners.let it be some consolation to you, that I am surly toward everyone at one time or another. as you surely have noticed, no one is treating me with kid gloves here either, though I have received much approval, which I am proud of. I am also proud of the shit flung my way by jerks. while I don't feel I have quality opponents, I know I have quantity.
anyway, ignore if you wish. I don't think it's such a big deal to ignore or be ignored. I empty my ignore file now and then, when I am bored. tomorrow there will be new threads and we can fortunately all start over.
Posted by johannesrolf at 05/10/2007 @ 11:44pm
Posted by SRJENKINS 05/10/2007 @ 9:48pm
SRJ, the "base line" for the American political spectrum doesn't START with John Edwards, and MTSPENCE is just "slightly left-of-center".
Edwards is calling for an immediate pull-out of Iraq. A universal health care system. A massive redirection of domestic policy towards alleviating poverty ("Two Americas", etc). There are a number of people (mostly Republicans to his right) and a small number to his Left.
Now if we accept the term "Hard Right" for the LVLIB, RIO, BARRY, PONTI crowd...who oppose any pull-out of Iraq until "we win", support lessening Church and State separation, oppose "gay marriage", oppose ANY abortion allowances and even oppose stem-cell research, etc., etc.....then we must accept a term "Hard Left" for the opposite end of the spectrum.
And it can't be limited to the minute 1-2-3% who are die-hard Trotskyites or anarcho-socialists...any more than we can limit "Hard Right" to Fred Phelps and some Klan guys.
Ergo, MTSP is, as LVLIB, RIO, etc. are, to the extreme (but not "extremist") end of his respective political spectrum. He virtually admits it, given that he sees almost NO Democratic candidate (except perhaps Kucinich) that he will return from his self-imposed exile from the ballot box, to vote for.
Oddly, unlike the "Hard Right", who (in LVLIB's case) have said they WILL vote in 2008, even for a pro-choicer, pro-gay rights guy like Rudy Giuliani....MTSPENCE has isolated himself from the process and therefore he (and those like him, like ZERO) have little if any influence on the politics of their friendly political party (the Dems).
Guiliani may have to suck up a BIT to the LVLIB, RIO, etc Crowd....but Edwards, Obama, or Clinton can safely IGNORE people like MTSPENCE, since he isn't going to vote for them anyway and therefore they can try to win over moderates and independents.
In a way...MTSP-types are actually HELPING to drag the Democratic Party away from its more liberal base. There are few of them though, so the INVOLVED "progressives" have more influence...but it is ironic that he bitchs about the lack of a candidate that "represents his interests"....when he offers NOTHING to any candidate to do so...i.e. a vote.
Posted by Mask at 05/11/2007 @ 09:10am
Mask is always so determined to be right that he twists, omits, and does everything else he can think of to "prove" his point.
The current state of the two party system is nothing more than a sham. Both parties are beholden to the corporate interests that pay for the campaigns--to the corporate interests that the candidates and office holders are a part of! Each divides the electorate with social issues that take advantage of the many cleavages within the US. All the while the debate is framed by these two parties; if the Repubs and Dems choose not to address an issue, then it's not on the agenda, no matter how crucial, how pressing the issue may be.
Advocating a balance between the competing interests of our society is not "hard left". It is common sense! No system--whether it is a political, economic or eco system--can continue functioning without a balance. (If it's sunny all day, everyday, 365 days a year you have a desert!)
If you choose to vote for (or against) one party or the other simply because it in some vague manner comes closest to your interests, then you only validate the system; you do nothing to change the system. It is a rigged game, and you cannot change it with a ballot. It takes power to force changes. That's the way it has always been and that's the way it always will be. People, groups, parties act in their interests; the only way to make them act in your interests is by forcing them to.
Posted by mtspence05 at 05/11/2007 @ 10:55am
Freedomplease
Did I say that they voted on this? I just posted a link to the actual story that Pancho couldn't find due to the faulty link...remember don't shoot the messenger! After all, it could be the PCH Prize Patrol van!
Posted by leftofcenter at 05/11/2007 @ 11:50am
Dunno why thiws guy doesn't like me, becauase we tend to be in agreement more than in opposition. Don't think I've ever been critical of anything he's ever said.
Jo - I will close with, I love you. I don't care what you think of me, I love you anyway.
Posted by LENNONIST 05/10/2007 @ 11:35pm | ignore this person
you are mistaken, I do not dislike you. I disagree with you. I am sorry I have caused you to think that. perhaps it is my bad manners.let it be some consolation to you, that I am surly toward everyone at one time or another. as you surely have noticed, no one is treating me with kid gloves here either, though I have received much approval, which I am proud of. I am also proud of the shit flung my way by jerks. while I don't feel I have quality opponents, I know I have quantity.
anyway, ignore if you wish. I don't think it's such a big deal to ignore or be ignored. I empty my ignore file now and then, when I am bored. tomorrow there will be new threads and we can fortunately all start over.
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 05/10/2007 @ 11:44pm
Until someone outs you on your hypocrisy or your lies again - then you'll promptly iggy them, put your fingers back in your ears, and la-la-la like the gutless coward that you are.
I never "flung shit" Johanne's way until he called me a Nazi (which he first lied about, then failed to deny when confronted), so how would he explain my loathing for him, I wonder? He iggied me the first time not because I was actually uncivil with him, but because I said that "civility is no longer my concern" with him - making my point was. As uncivil as he often is with others, even those who usually agree with him - he's not only a lying coward, but a hypocrite to boot.
And I find it hilarious that he claims to have no quality opponents - that's only because he is too chickenshit to debate them - he'd rather run and hide.
How are things down in your spider-hole, coward?
Posted by New Dawn at 05/11/2007 @ 12:03pm
Curious about what power there is in NOT voting.
Curious how one "changes the system" by sitting on the sidelines.
Posted by Hman23 at 05/11/2007 @ 12:33pm
HMan -
Maybe when voter numbers continue to dwindle year after year, the populace as a whole will recognize the need for reform?
I really don't know, either - just throwing it out there.
Posted by New Dawn at 05/11/2007 @ 12:37pm
Posted by HMAN23 05/11/2007 @ 12:33pm
Electoral politics is not the only way to politically express yourself. There are options such as civil disobedience, grassroots activism and so forth. It's a matter of where you want to put your energy and what you want to support - and the fact that so many people don't show up does undermine claims that we are any type of "democracy". So, it does DO something.
Posted by srjenkins at 05/11/2007 @ 12:39pm
New Dawn -
And, apart from revolt, how is that (non-voting) populace going to actually bring about such reform when those in power know can count on them sitting out elections?
Posted by Hman23 at 05/11/2007 @ 12:41pm
{It} does undermine claims that we are any type of "democracy". So, it does DO something.
Posted by SRJENKINS 05/11/2007 @ 12:39pm
And this is a benefit, how?
Posted by Hman23 at 05/11/2007 @ 12:43pm
Posted by MTSPENCE05 05/11/2007 @ 10:55am
"People, groups, parties act in their interests; the only way to make them act in your interests is by forcing them to."
Ever consider finding where you can agree instead? The forcing people to act in your interests is the rationale used behind wars of aggression, terrorism and all other forms of intolerance. How then are you different?
Posted by srjenkins at 05/11/2007 @ 12:43pm
Posted by SRJENKINS 05/11/2007 @ 12:43pm | ignore this person
very cogent.
Posted by johannesrolf at 05/11/2007 @ 12:46pm
Curious about what power there is in NOT voting.
Curious how one "changes the system" by sitting on the sidelines.
Posted by HMAN23 05/11/2007 @ 12:33pm | ignore this person
yes, that is what I was driving at, when I asked "who cares if you vote".
Posted by johannesrolf at 05/11/2007 @ 12:47pm
Maybe I am just in a foul mood today, but I am sick of people on the Left looking for some utopian candidate that matches EXACTLY their political beliefs -- and if they don't get it, whine about it and then brag about not taking part in the process -- or even worse ridicule those that will vote for a candidate that is at least CLOSER to their beliefs.
Why is Romney flip-flopping? And Giuliani sucking up to the social conservatives? Because, as indicated by another poster, they WILL FUCKING VOTE.
If people on the farther ends of the Left are all but proclaiming they will not vote, why should ANY of the Democratic candidates care what they think?
Posted by Hman23 at 05/11/2007 @ 12:51pm
Posted by MASK 05/11/2007 @ 09:10am
I agree with your point: if you are on the left of someone like Edwards, removing yourself from the electoral process means the Democratic Party moves right. I would make the additional point that if you slavishly vote for the Democratic Party, even when they no longer represent your perspective, then you are also helping the Democratic Party move right. I don't see much difference between these two actions.
I guess where I disagree is using the very narrow range of American political discourse as the metric of how we determine right or left. I think the Political Compass provides an interesting perspective.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection
I fall on the lower left corner (left libertarian), whereas John Kerry and Bush represent the same ideology, (right authoritarianism). Plot out the current Democratic candidates on this graph, and I think Kucinch might be the only one that falls in my quadrant (too bad he comes across as such a dork). Edwards, despite his domestic agenda, is authoritarian right when it comes to foreign policy. This even more true of Obama and Clinton.
I simply disagree on whether we should judge what is left or right by how far it falls under right authoritarianism which passes as political thought in the U.S. - but this is something on which reasonable people can disagree.
Posted by srjenkins at 05/11/2007 @ 12:59pm
Posted by HMAN23 05/11/2007 @ 12:43pm
It undermines legitimacy, which is often needed to bring change.
Posted by srjenkins at 05/11/2007 @ 1:01pm
we will always have to vote on an imperfect candidate, right or left.
Posted by johannesrolf at 05/11/2007 @ 1:04pm
Posted by HMAN23 05/11/2007 @ 12:51pm
If my principle issue is peace, which of the main Democratic candidates should I be voting for....which one is coming out against the U.S. war of terror on the rest of the world? Who's representing that point of view?
Posted by srjenkins at 05/11/2007 @ 1:05pm
Who's representing that point of view?
Posted by SRJENKINS 05/11/2007 @ 1:05pm | ignore this person
that is the BIG question.
Posted by johannesrolf at 05/11/2007 @ 1:14pm
Posted by SRJENKINS 05/11/2007 @ 1:05pm
You need to be more specific. What does one who is "against the U.S. was of terror on the rest of the world" have to be saying to get your vote?
Posted by Hman23 at 05/11/2007 @ 1:14pm
If I had to guess, though, I would say Kucinich.
Posted by Hman23 at 05/11/2007 @ 1:16pm
you do nothing to change the system. It is a rigged game, and you cannot change it with a ballot. It takes power to force changes.
Posted by MTSPENCE05 05/11/2007 @ 10:55am
As already asked....how do get the power to force the changes, if not at the ballot box? What ARE you doing to change the system, MTSP....'cept sitting on the sidelines bitchin about the game and the teams?
Posted by Mask at 05/11/2007 @ 1:24pm
Posted by SRJENKINS 05/11/2007 @ 12:59pm
SRJ, still have to step back from the Observer and ask what THEIR agenda is. How does "politicalcompass.org" decide what is or is not "authoritarian" or even "libertarian", or "left" or "right"?
What's their base-line?
I'd say since we're discussing AMERICAN politics and elections, we look at the American electorate as the guide. On that scale, with a population that supports abortion (with restrictions to be sure) and a universal health system (left vague by the pollsters) by a fair majority, yet supports ending affirmative action and prayer in school....I'd say that Edwards is "left-of-center" and somebody like Romney is "right of center".
But again, by his own admission, NOBODY in the predominant Democratic field "represents MTSPENCE's interests" (and therefore he will seek "power to change things" by some other mysterious way)....he's BEYOND "left-of-center".
And again, that puts him and his fellows on the Hard Left, at a disadvantage, because the Hard Right guys (like LVLIB) have already said they'll support even a pro-choicer/pro-gay rights/anti-gun guy like Giuliani, just to keep Democrats out of power and of course because he "talks tough on terrorism".
80 years ago, MTSP would have likely voted for Eugene V. Debs...and he likely would have called Franklin Roosevelt a "sell-out" because he wasn't going to nationalize Standard Oil, Ford Motors, and the Chase National Bank.
hehe
Posted by Mask at 05/11/2007 @ 1:35pm
Yeah, Kucinich wasn't an early/first Democratic "poster candidate" on the cover of The Nation for nothing. And given Kerry's relative passivity/quiescence/unassertiveness I don't believe Kucinich's likely losing candidacy would have resulted in worse current circumstances/conditions. Go Dennis! (the MANagement's menace?)
Posted by lewwelge at 05/11/2007 @ 1:58pm
anyway, ignore if you wish. I don't think it's such a big deal to ignore or be ignored.
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 05/10/2007 @ 11:44pm (as copied off the post by New Dawn)
Seems to me, we come here to share our points of view with one another. I suppose some come here to argue. I, personally, do not. I come to discuss. I treat everyone here with civility and kindness. I try never to be rude, mean or attack an individual, I may counter their arguments or attack a point of view, but never the person.
Everyone has an opinion, and the opinions are all equally valid. I guess I probably sometimes sound like I am pontificating and a know-it-all. I am sorry if I do. That is never my intent. That perhaps is a natural result of typing out ones ideas, beliefs or opinions.
On the other hand, Jo, so do you come off like a know-it-all. And that is ok, so do nearly all of us on here. However, the thing is, when you attack someone personally as opposed to the idea, you come off like a dictator who is going to tell us what to think and you'll force the person to shut up. You also come off like someone only interested in hearing what they have to say and not what others do. You could type on a blog of your own and do that.
Anyway, not meant as a personal attack here. Meant in the spirit of being constructive. You actually might reach more people if you sounded more openminded and were more polite. I've always heard you catch more bees with honey than vinegar. And, you do your ideas a disservice when you clothe them in hate and vitriol directed at others. How are you any better than Bush, when an independent discription of you sounds just like Bush? You have to be the change you want to see if you ever hope to see the change occur.
Posted by Lennonist at 05/11/2007 @ 2:00pm
Oh, and if you do come to either share your point of view or to try to change minds, as I assume you do, then, getting yourself ignored kind of defeats the purpose, does it not?
Posted by Lennonist at 05/11/2007 @ 2:02pm
How are you any better than Bush, when an independent discription of you sounds just like Bush?
whattaloadofcrap. personal attack couched in pieties.
Posted by johannesrolf at 05/11/2007 @ 2:17pm
New Dawn -
And, apart from revolt, how is that (non-voting) populace going to actually bring about such reform when those in power know can count on them sitting out elections?
Posted by HMAN23 05/11/2007 @ 12:41pm
I don't know, H, I really don't know. It's a sick circle that Repubs certainly count on to eliminate their political enemies (read "Banana Republicans", the followup to "Weapons of Mass Deception", for a primer on the Repub's view of politics as war, if anyone doesn't buy this premise).
Posted by New Dawn at 05/11/2007 @ 2:24pm
Curious about what power there is in NOT voting.
Curious how one "changes the system" by sitting on the sidelines.
Posted by HMAN23
Each party needs every vote they can get; if they want more votes they have to earn them.
Posted by mtspence05 at 05/11/2007 @ 3:29pm
Can ANYBODY reconcile this contradiction?!?!?!?
"If you choose to vote for (or against) one party or the other simply because it in some vague manner comes closest to your interests, then you only validate the system; you do nothing to change the system. It is a rigged game, and you cannot change it with a ballot. It takes power to force changes. That's the way it has always been and that's the way it always will be. People, groups, parties act in their interests; the only way to make them act in your interests is by forcing them to."---Posted by MTSPENCE05 05/11/2007 @ 10:55am
and then...
"Curious how one "changes the system" by sitting on the sidelines."---Posted by HMAN23
"Each party needs every vote they can get; if they want more votes they have to earn them."---Posted by MTSPENCE05 05/11/2007 @ 3:29pm
So you "cannot change it with a ballot"...but to change the system, the parties have to earn more ballots?!??!?
Posted by Mask at 05/11/2007 @ 3:50pm
Ever consider finding where you can agree instead? The forcing people to act in your interests is the rationale used behind wars of aggression, terrorism and all other forms of intolerance. How then are you different?
Posted by SRJENKINS
Try and grow up. If a system is in place that benefits some at the expense of others, at the expense of most, that system is not going to change willingly. Those benefitting from it find all sorts of ways to rationalize it--that's human nature--and they are not going to just lay down and forfiet their priviledges. Try reading some decent history books and you might grow to grasp that.
(For all you "hippies" out there [i.e., the liberals that come from money]: The success of peaceful resistance is nothing more than a myth propogated by the ruling elites of the US. Had northern whites not endorsed and actually gotten involved in the civil rights movement the segregationists would have beat, killed, inprisoned and did whatever else they wanted to do. Ghandi? Great Britain was bankrupted by WWII; hundreds of thousands of Indians had been trained to fight during WWII; India is on the opposite side of the globe; an effort to oppress what they could not control would have only drove India into the Soviet sphere of influence. Hell, just read some Steinbeck, Dickens; it was not until after the Great Depression and the growth of union power following WWII that anything resembling a fair, democratic society in the US developed. Peace and love is great, but it doesn't change anyone or anything that doesn't want to be changed.)
I'm not advocating people be forced to act in my interests; I am advocating people not be able to enforce their interests on me or anyone else. People act in their own self interests. I am only advocating a political balance that can ensure the process is fair. Having things too far one way or the other is not good. If you can only hope people will do the right thing, you're gonna end up being disappointed. Sadly that is the way the world works.
Posted by mtspence05 at 05/11/2007 @ 3:50pm
Posted by MASK
C'mon, douche bag, you're a bright boy, you can figure it out.
Posted by mtspence05 at 05/11/2007 @ 3:53pm
Posted by MASK 05/11/2007 @ 1:35pm
I think the baseline that politicalcompass.org is using is all historical and political thought. You can get a sense of where they put Stalin, Gandhi, Friedman, Thatcher and Hitler by clicking on the link below. I don't know their methodology for plotting the graph, but it looks reasonable on the face of it.
Even if you define it by the American electorate, I'm a little uncomfortable defining left and right by the median or only by social positions. You simply cannot ignore foreign policy, and across both parties and contenders, there is a veritable sea of sameness.
Practically no one is talking about scaling back the military, dropping fewer bombs, closing Guantánamo, fair trade, observing international law, full support for the U.N., etc.
It's not enough to talk a good game on the domestic front. You have to deal with the foreign policy issues - and no one wants to step out and say something different there because they are afraid of looking weak on national security or not getting the nod from big business. For me, this is the central issue.
You might also be more charitable. If we are going to speculate, maybe MTSP would have been a staunch Bryanite and voted for Eugene Debs as the best option. I can see voting that way myself. If I was relying only on what I could reasonably have known in 1932, I could see perhaps taking Norman Thomas over Roosevelt too.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2
Posted by srjenkins at 05/11/2007 @ 4:00pm
Practically no one is talking about scaling back the military, dropping fewer bombs, closing Guantánamo, fair trade, observing international law, full support for the U.N., etc.
this is very good SR. it is however also true that we are in a "war crisis" and this issue needs to be resolved, before we can move on to these issues. I realize they are inextricably connected, and every attempt should be made to get the candidates to address these issues.
Posted by johannesrolf at 05/11/2007 @ 4:11pm
fantastic article on private contractors in Iraq. The Nation, you are the best.
Posted by johannesrolf at 05/11/2007 @ 4:25pm
Posted by MTSPENCE05 05/11/2007 @ 3:50pm
The success of peaceful resistance is nothing more than a myth propogated by the ruling elites of the US.... Had northern whites not endorsed and actually gotten involved in the civil rights movement...
But they did, and society changed. How can you call this a myth?
Violence begets more violence. There may be occasions where violence is unavoidable, but let's not sit here and pretend that it - other than in the rarest of circumstances - improves things.
Posted by srjenkins at 05/11/2007 @ 4:26pm
what a pleasant troll free day it has been.
Posted by johannesrolf at 05/11/2007 @ 4:26pm
politicalcompass.org Test
Economic: -7.63 Social: -6.72
Posted by mtspence05 at 05/11/2007 @ 4:34pm
Posted by SRJENKINS
It changes things.
It's a myth because nothing would have changed without the northern whites that chose to take part in the struggle. No whites, no change; peaceful demonstrations would have only secured severe abuse.
Posted by mtspence05 at 05/11/2007 @ 4:37pm
So you don't feel too out there MTSP, here's mine:
Economic Left/Right: -9.75 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.87
Posted by srjenkins at 05/11/2007 @ 4:37pm
What revolutions have not involved violence? If competing interests cannot compromise--if those on top refuse to work with those they oppress, exploit, then what choice do those on the bottom have? When push comes to shove it gets nasty. I'm not saying it's good.
Posted by mtspence05 at 05/11/2007 @ 4:41pm
Economic Left/Right: -3.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.28
Posted by Hman23 at 05/11/2007 @ 4:43pm
I wish all these people would take it. Maybe it would help them understand themselves a little better.
Posted by mtspence05 at 05/11/2007 @ 4:47pm
SRJ, took the test, but seriously have to question some of the "questions" and their relationship to "Left/Right", "Libertarian/Authoritarian"...such as
"Abstract art that doesn't represent anything shouldn't be considered art at all." and "Astrology accurately explains many things."
How does a person's view of abstract art relate to whether they support Marxism or laissez-faire capitalism? Is it NOT possible for a Leftist to be opposed to abstract art...or a right-winger to LOVE abstract art?!??!
And "astrology"? Proof of a person's gullitability, maybe...but political views? We've got people on the Left (and some Libertarian Right) who think that "Bush and Cheney are going to declare martial law and put dissenters in concentration camps in Montana built by Halliburton"...nuttier than astrology, but it cuts across two strains of paranoid politics.
BTW....I scored 4.75 Right and -4.9 Libertarian....I LIKE abstract art, guess that threw the Curve on me...hehe
Posted by Mask at 05/11/2007 @ 5:00pm
C'mon, douche bag, you're a bright boy, you can figure it out.
Posted by MTSPENCE05 05/11/2007 @ 3:53pm
Posted by MTSPENCE05 05/11/2007 @ 4:41pm
Ohhhhhhhh....you're waiting on..."The Revolution!!!" The "rising up of the proletariat against their oppressive capitalist masters when they take up arms and throw down the established order of exploitation!"
I gotcha.....
Boy...
are
you
in
for
a
long
wait...
hehe
Posted by Mask at 05/11/2007 @ 5:01pm
Hitler detested abstract art.
Posted by mtspence05 at 05/11/2007 @ 5:03pm
BTW....I scored 4.75 Right and -4.9 Libertarian....I LIKE abstract art, guess that threw the Curve on me...hehe
Posted by MASK
Like I said, "realistic libertarian" is an oxymoron.
Posted by mtspence05 at 05/11/2007 @ 5:05pm
And you're not all that bright.
Posted by mtspence05 at 05/11/2007 @ 5:21pm
Posted by MASK 05/11/2007 @ 5:00pm
As with any test of this sort, you have to take it with a grain of salt, but I think it still can be a useful tool - especially if it changes the dialogue so there is more going on than just a left/right axis.
As to your specific questions, I would guess that abstract art would give a rating along the Social Libertarian/Authoritarian axis. Abstract art doesn't lend itslf to authoritarian interpretations, and it probably contributed to your libertarian score - not throwing it.
As for astrology, it is a bit harder, but I'd guessing it also gives a rating on the Social Libertarian/Authoritarian axis. If you accept the authority of the stars, you probably are inclined to accept other kinds of authority.
But, we don't really know what is going on behind the scenes. Just making a guess.
Posted by srjenkins at 05/11/2007 @ 5:59pm
Abstract art doesn't lend itslf to authoritarian interpretations,
I missed most of this discussion, but I do know that you are correct on that point. both Nazi and communist party hated abstract art, preferring instead a sort of grandiose realism. of course abstract art can also become a dogma, as it was in the 60s when abstract expressionism overshadowed realist tendencies in american art. Rothko yes, Soyer no. it was pop art which broke the strangle hold abstract expressionism had over the art scene. I like them both.
Posted by johannesrolf at 05/11/2007 @ 6:08pm
I would think abstract art requires a nonconformist mentality, imagination--anathemas to authoritarianism.
Posted by mtspence05 at 05/11/2007 @ 6:10pm
Posted by MTSPENCE05 05/11/2007 @ 5:05pm
I think Mask's score is actually helpful here. He might say realistic because politically he is within the range of typical American discourse - even a bit "left" by the median of that metric. He also seems to advocate both free market (with qualifications) and has an anti-authoritarian stance on some issues.
What I find interesting is that even though I disagree with some of the conclusions MASK comes to - especially regarding economics, the anti-authoritarianism means there are quite a few issues where we can agree. Gun control - a universally accepted so called liberal cause (left, authoritarians that is) - being one.
I haven't read enough of your posts to know how much we agree - I suspect quite a bit. But, even the fact that we are close politically, we may favor different tactics, such as violent revolution verses reform or promoting organic change.
But from my perspective, there's room there too. Having a militant wing does help people to understand you are serious - and it has its place. But, I also think that place is much more limited and frequently works against you when it isn't used right.
Posted by srjenkins at 05/11/2007 @ 6:15pm
Posted by MTSPENCE05 05/11/2007 @ 6:10pm | ignore this person
this is true with all art
Posted by johannesrolf at 05/11/2007 @ 6:16pm
Posted by SRJENKINS 05/11/2007 @ 6:15pm | ignore this person
I will disagree on the gun control issue. the undeniable devastation left in the wake of unbridled gun ownership is far too great.
Posted by johannesrolf at 05/11/2007 @ 6:19pm
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 05/11/2007 @ 6:08pm
Sounds like when abstract art became authoritative, then something had to replace it. The king is dead, long live the king!
Posted by srjenkins at 05/11/2007 @ 6:19pm
My basic position is that guns are necessary, so the citizenry can revolt - if there ever comes a need. Secondary is that controlling access to guns is much like controlling access to drugs, it is not something that can be effectively done.
But the other side of that argument is: look at Africa. People revolting with guns often has decidedly bad outcomes. What about criminals, people with mental illness, etc.?
There is something there, but I guess I fall on the line that freedom means you have to live with people that will use their freedom unwisely. Individuals with guns do far less damage than governments with guns or even automobiles. Yet, no one talks about controlling government access to guns or limiting automobile use beyond getting a license. Why is that you think?
Posted by srjenkins at 05/11/2007 @ 6:34pm
guns are necessary, so the citizenry can revolt -
this is a myth. we have never had a revolution in this country. and with the firepower and other means the police and army have, guns in the hands of the populace would mean zip.
Posted by johannesrolf at 05/11/2007 @ 6:37pm
we do more than just issue licenses to drive. we take away the privilege of driving entirely, with drunk drivers.
Posted by johannesrolf at 05/11/2007 @ 6:40pm
Has Iraq, Vietnam and every other insurgency that happened around the globe over the last 100 years taught us nothing? You think the same doesn't apply here?
Posted by srjenkins at 05/11/2007 @ 6:41pm
Privilege? I smell authoritarianism...
Posted by srjenkins at 05/11/2007 @ 6:43pm
handguns vs tanks? it was tried in both east germany and hungary, to name just two. the Iraq civil war is not fought with handguns either.same with vietnam. or anyplace else you'd care to name.
I used the word privilege, as there is no inate "right" to drive. you drive sans license, they'll confiscate the car, if not arrest you.there is a difference between authority and authoritarianism. the state has a monopoly on legal violence. that is why we must always be vigilant, and keep them honest.
Posted by johannesrolf at 05/11/2007 @ 7:35pm
a "right" is something the gov't cannot take away. driving is not one of those. if you fail the driving test, for instance, you may not drive.
Posted by johannesrolf at 05/11/2007 @ 7:51pm
Posted by SRJENKINS 05/11/2007 @ 6:34pm
Well, first, as for "accepting the authority of the stars"...it MAY be a "libertarian/authoritarian" thing, but it's more a measure of the superstitious or even "religious" nature of a person.
Also what of this question (my own)..."If a majority of authoritative figures say something is true, I accept it and become distrustful of minority views"
Now, a "Strongly Agree" would seem pretty "Authoritarian", huh?
Okay...now suppose those "authoritative figures" are...climatologists discussing global warming? (No, I'm not a CW denier...just an example)
Now, as for some specific issues, how about this for some bipartisanship-
1. I support an ASAP withdrawal from the debacle of Iraq
2. I support ending the "Drug War"
3. I support abortion rights...and of course, stem-cell research.
4. I support full, no qualifiers, rights for gays (marriage, adoption, whatever).
5. I oppose the Military Comissions Act (aka "torture bill") (and also call to task Democrats who voted for it...unlike, sad to say, "The Nation" who endorsed Sherrod Brown)
But that same suspicion of Government guarding us from the terrorists, should be applied to them "guarding" us from a poor lifestyle...or own stupid choices.
Posted by Mask at 05/11/2007 @ 8:18pm
You can't use extensive firepower in urban areas without damanging critical infrastructure and upsetting the civilian population. You also assume direct confrontation.
Try your argument with the Irish Republican Army (IRA) from 1969 to the present, the Afghan Mujahideen during the Soviet occupation on Afghanistan from 1979 to 1989, and Chechen rebels during the Battles for Grozny in 1994 and 2000 and see how it starts to feel to you. I could pick other examples as well - but I think these make the point.
As for driving, they are not analogous. Gun control is about trying to screen guns upfront - either from particular people or across the board. Driving, on the other hand, the screening happens after some incident occurs.
I should also specify and say that the gun control I am against is the banning of firearms. I mind less somewhat bridled firearm ownership (say perhaps for people convicted of violent crimes) - depending on what the conditions are.
Posted by srjenkins at 05/11/2007 @ 8:56pm
MASK: All five points and your comments are completely consistent with an anti-authoritarian position, right or left. I completely agree with you. I bet most right-wing libertarians would agree with you too.
I think your question is a little different than the astrology question - probably because we make the assumption that astrology isn't based in fact.
Posted by srjenkins at 05/11/2007 @ 9:03pm
mask, this is a good list.
Sr, the gun control issue is one of handguns, and I guess to some extent assault weapons. the rebellions you mentioned were not fought with handguns, but rather with explosives. I'm not sure there is any comparison of the US and Grozny possible. the examples you used were all paramilitary groups. these circumstances just don't apply to our country. as I said there has never been a revolution here.
Posted by johannesrolf at 05/11/2007 @ 9:32pm
SRJ and JR...
My point on "authorative figures" and climate change is simply that I see a lot of "liberals" who easily establish beliefs from authority figures (rightly or wrongly) as much as the conservatives (mostly Religious Right) do. Many of these though BELIEVE themselves independent-thinkers, when it point of fact they're just as dogmatic as the fundamentalist Christians. Sub Michael Moore for Pat Robertson. (Boy THAT's going to get me in trouble, huh?)
As for gun control, I'd just like somebody to explain how, in our American culture, that trying to ban handguns (and don't let the hard-core anti-gun folks fool ya, that IS their ultimate end of the "slippery slope")....is going to work any better than the attempts to ban alcohol in the 20s, or drugs until today.
Registration...sure. But do you REALLY think that even after registration, waiting periods, no guns to those under 21...that if another "VA Tech" happens, they (the anti-gun folks) aren't going to come back and want the "whole smash"?
I'd just like to know why they think THEIR "Prohibition" is going to work any beter than the others?
Posted by Mask at 05/11/2007 @ 10:04pm
what a pleasant troll free day it has been.
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 05/11/2007 @ 4:26pm
How would you know? From where I sit, you seem to iggy those who provide you a real challenge.
Posted by New Dawn at 05/11/2007 @ 10:26pm
ND, who is and who is not on my list is my business, unless I'm willing to share that info. but since you asked, there were at the moment no trolls on it.
sooo, a snarky remark, is that your answer to my olive branch? as you wish.
Posted by johannesrolf at 05/11/2007 @ 11:12pm
I'd just like to know why they think THEIR "Prohibition" is going to work any beter than the others?
Posted by MASK 05/11/2007 @ 10:04pm | ignore this person
this comparison is a bit of a stretch. guns are in no way as prevalent and as ingrained in the culture as alcohol. you owe it to yourself to get a little more information here. the mayor of NYC has made great strides with unscrupulous gun dealers in Virginia.
Posted by johannesrolf at 05/11/2007 @ 11:16pm
guns are in no way as prevalent and as ingrained in the culture as alcohol. ----Posted by JOHANNESROLF 05/11/2007 @ 11:16pm
I'm sorry, JR, did you (as a proponent of more gun control) just state guns are not that "prevalent" in America or that it does NOT have an "ingrained gun culture"?!?!!?
So "Bowling for Columbine" is wrong?
Posted by Mask at 05/12/2007 @ 07:01am
prohibition had a racist component. the new immigrants, german, italian, irish had alcoholic beverages ingrained, pun intended, in their culture.
drinking alcohol is far more prevalent than gun ownership.
the gun culture in historical america is largely a myth, spread by the movies. sure, the pioneers may have had a rifle for hunting, but handguns were very expensive, and it has been shown that during the time of the writing of the constitution, private ownership of handguns, such as they were, was rare.
Posted by johannesrolf at 05/12/2007 @ 07:26am
both slavery and segregation were ingrained in american culture, yet they have faded. the gun problems too will fade, as the costs to society in lives lost and shattered become more clear.
Posted by johannesrolf at 05/12/2007 @ 07:29am
Posted by MASK 05/12/2007 @ 07:01am | ignore this person
your reading comprehension is slipping. I made a comparison, I did not say what you "heard".
when I say :there are more bottles of beer in america than handguns, it does not mean that there aren't any handguns.
surely you can do better.
Posted by johannesrolf at 05/12/2007 @ 08:10am
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 05/11/2007 @ 9:32pm
...these circumstances just don't apply to our country...
The key question you have to ask is, could it? Maybe not now, but at some future time? Could there be a need for an equivalent of the French Resistence or whatever other group you wish to use as an example?
If you answer yes, then you need to rethink your position.
If you answer no, then you have a rather difficult argument to make...one that contradicts the vast majority of history.
Posted by srjenkins at 05/12/2007 @ 09:51am
so basically your, and other's, argument is: because we may one day far far away need to revolt or resist an occupation, we need to have many many guns. the many many lives lost to this present calamity are collateral damage, I suppose. sorry, I don't buy that for a second. the revolution thing is a red herring.
Posted by johannesrolf at 05/12/2007 @ 10:07am
handguns are next to useless in a rebellion against a state with an army. not in one instance cited by others were handguns a factor. not one.
Posted by johannesrolf at 05/12/2007 @ 10:10am
Posted by MASK 05/11/2007 @ 10:04pm
..."liberals" who easily establish beliefs from authority figures (rightly or wrongly) as much as the conservatives (mostly Religious Right) do...
Agreed. It is why I like to add the authoritarian/libertarian axis to the discussion. There is significant difference between Thatcher/Milton Friedman or Stalin/Gandhi that is lost in a left vs. right framework.
But to be fair, it is not just people that are on the authoritarian side of the fence that dogmatically follow a leader or an idea. Free market fundamentalism (right) and a dogmatic commitment to pacifism (left) are two obvious examples that can be applied to anti-authoritarian viewpoints.
Posted by srjenkins at 05/12/2007 @ 10:11am
Let's introduce some facts into the discussion shall we?
Take a look at the charts in the link that follows, and tell me why you don't seem concerned about automobiles, unintentional falls, or poisonings? Why don't you talk about the fact that more people commit suicide with firearms than use them against someone else?
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/osp/charts.htm
The perspective, typically, that people making your argument have is that you don't see a use for firearms. You don't want to get in a dither about automobiles because you use them. It is also obvious that trying to do anything about falling or poisons is difficult to implement.
Now, let's add a new fact into the discussion:
"38% of households and 26% of individuals reported owning at least one firearm. This corresponds to 42 million US households with firearms, and 57 million adult gun owners. 64% of gun owners or 16% of American adults reported owning at least one handgun."
http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/13/1/15
Given the number of people that own them (myth?) - who presumably have a use for them that you don't, why do you think it is appropriate for you to tell them they aren't allowed to own them or have acces to them?
It seems like you are making a utility argument. The benefit of guns - particularly hand guns - is less than their cost to society. I disagree. Now, the question is: why do you - or the state - think you can enforce your will on this issue?
Posted by srjenkins at 05/12/2007 @ 11:03am
changing the topic to cars is a shoddy trick and immaterial to the discussion. your charts list homicide and suicide, but do not show handgun use.
why do you - or the state - think you can enforce your will on this issue?
we live in a society, and as a society we have methods of changing the status quo, when it is deemed necessary
Posted by johannesrolf at 05/12/2007 @ 11:22am
you have not in any way demonstrated the utility of handguns in this country.
Posted by johannesrolf at 05/12/2007 @ 11:23am
.....utility of handguns in this country....
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 05/12/2007 @ 11:23am
Let's not forget the very real "utility" called peace-of-mind!
Case in point: When my mother was widowed, she purchased a .38 and I took her to the gun range for her first-ever practice. Realistically, she is unlikely to ever fire that gun in self-defense....but it is in her house as `psychological' insurance. I would assume for millions of gun owners, this `psyco' utility is priceless!
Myself, after my uncle left me his dozen-gun/rifle collection, on top of my own handgun and .22 rifle, I am armed to the teeth! They do come in handy when we take Scouts to have some safe fun, work on shooting merit badges and of course, conduct safety instructions on firearms!
Posted by Happy at 05/12/2007 @ 12:08pm
Hap, these are illusionary advantages. the corpses are real.
Posted by johannesrolf at 05/12/2007 @ 12:33pm
I don't think you are taking your scouts out to practice with a Glock , and we are not talking about 22 caliber rifles here.
Posted by johannesrolf at 05/12/2007 @ 12:35pm
speaking of peace of mind. the mom who lives in the ghetto and who has her children sleep on the floor lest they get hit by stray bullets, what about her peace of mind?
Posted by johannesrolf at 05/12/2007 @ 12:36pm
My whole "red herring" argument is one demonstration. Despite your assertion that handguns have no use against military power, the fact that they are issued to soldiers in the field clearly indicates there is a use.
Frankly, I don't think I have to demonstrate anything. It is a fact that people buy handguns. They do so for a reason - maybe they enjoy marksmanship, maybe its for security - whatever. None of it is material.
It is on you to explain why it is deemed necessary to prohibit handgun sales, why it is appropriate for the state to do it and how, practically, you mean to do it.
And cars are very material to the discussion, it suggests that you are not being consistent in your logic. If cars kill more people than guns, are you equally concerned about them? If not, why not? I think you would say they are useful where handguns are not. If so, you have to recognize that people may differ with your assessment.
From my perspective, cars are much more dangerous than guns. I've been almost killed by a car on a few occasions - and I have never been almost killed by a gun. Cars also cause more deaths than firearms, so they are also important from a societial utility point of view. I won't even bother bringing in sprawl, air pollution and all the other problems cars bring that handguns do not (that is not to say handguns don't have their own problems).
The point is that perhaps you cut cars a break and not guns is because you own a car. It is my observation that most people that don't like guns have very little experience with them and harbor a bit of irrational fear - although perhaps this does not apply to you.
I will also grant that gun violence is a problem. The question is what is the solution? Banning handguns is your preferred solution - but I don't think it is a good or appropriate solution. Further, I don't think you can do it as a practical matter - for example, how do you collect all the guns that are currently in circulation?
In any event, this is a topic which reasonable people can disagree - depending on what you value. Perhaps, we should talk about other things rather than claim one or another of us is engaging in a "shoddy trick". I am merely presenting my point of view on this issue. I am not attacking you or saying that you concerns aren't reasonable - they are. But then again, so are mine.
Posted by srjenkins at 05/12/2007 @ 12:42pm
cars is cars, guns is guns. I do not describe your argument as a shoddy trick, merely your attempt to change the subject. that we issue sidearms to soldiers proves nothing. the instance I have cited, do.
a lot of things kill people, broadening the argument in this way is futile. you keep repeating your points. try taking up mine, please. if you do not wish to substantiate your views, don't engage in discussion. I respect your opinion, but I'm not giving a free ride, discussion wise. you have not refuted my points, I feel that I have refuted yours. it's called give and take.
Posted by johannesrolf at 05/12/2007 @ 12:52pm
perhaps you can include the many many classroom and workplace shootings in the argument. I have.
Posted by johannesrolf at 05/12/2007 @ 12:53pm
I am not interested in changing your mind. I am here to present my views to you and the readers here. there may be some that have not made up their mind on this issue. it is they whom I try to convince. if I should convince you, even on a single point, that's gravy.
Posted by johannesrolf at 05/12/2007 @ 12:56pm
while I would be glad to ban all handguns, I do not think that is realistic, and I have not advocated it. strict regulation is another matter, and it is that which I am advocating.
Posted by johannesrolf at 05/12/2007 @ 12:58pm
I should not have ascribed that shoddy thing to you, sorry. I mean it is a shoddy trick, but you did not mean it to be so. and a nod to your automobile thing, cars and their use are far more regulated than handguns. to regulate gun use as much as we do cars would be a step forward.
Posted by johannesrolf at 05/12/2007 @ 1:35pm
I'd like to go back to this...
"prohibition had a racist component. the new immigrants, german, italian, irish had alcoholic beverages ingrained, pun intended, in their culture."----Posted by JOHANNESROLF 05/12/2007 @ 07:26am
First, so Germans, Italians, and Irish are "by culture"...boozers....but the English aren't?
Second, got ANY proof that assertion. After all, the American Temperance Society got started in 1826...well before the mass immigrations of the LATE 19th Century/early 20th.
Posted by Mask at 05/13/2007 @ 07:54am
Posted by MASK 05/13/2007 @ 07:54am | ignore this person
I did not say the temperance movement, I said prohibition. and yes they were hypocritical about it. this is an interpretation on my part. it is not a fact, so to speak. you may disagree, but you must stick to what I actually said.
Posted by johannesrolf at 05/13/2007 @ 09:41am
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 05/12/2007 @ 12:52pm
I've read your comments here closely. Your argument seems like it is focused on firearm deaths as a public policy concern. From what you have stated here, it mirrors the Firearms deaths section of the Gun Politics in the United States article in Wikipedia. A charitable rendering might look like this:
1. There are high levels of gun violence in the United States. 2. If we restrict access to guns, it will bring the level of violence down. C. We should restrict access to guns.
You also make the secondary argument that "during the time of the writing of the constitution, private ownership of handguns, such as they were, was rare" whose purpose seems to be to undermine any rights based argument based on the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
So, if we take this to be your position, and it was a bit of work for me to get here since you didn't clearly state it yourself, the question is how do you respond to the criticisms of this position:
1. In some cases, banning guns in a particular area has increased gun violence, i.e., the position that making civilian ownership of firearms illegal would increase the crime rate by making law-abiding citizens vulnerable to those who choose to disregard the law.
See specific examples on the following link, under - Handgun Bans: A History of Failure or those details under Weighing positive uses of handguns against criminal misuses.
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=17
2. The same link also states under the Morton Grove example:
"Pistols were used throughout the Revolutionary War, and not just by officers. '(T)he pistol was the principal firearm of a small yet important body of enlisted men.' The cavalry, the navy, and selected infantry regiments all used pistols. The first federal militia statute (1 Stat. 271, 272, 1792) mentioned pistols, and colonial laws more generally also considered pistols legitimate arms."
Even though this is from the NRA, they raise questions about your argument that you need to address. Do you have sources that support your second premise or that the writers of the Constitution did not mean to include hand guns as part of the Second Amendment? If so, I would like to take a look at the evidence and see whether it is convincing or not.
Now, I'd like to move on to some of your other comments. Pardon me for cherry picking, but I was looking for your substantive points:
1. [G]un control issue is one [for] handguns, and...assault weapons.
I have heard people make the argument that all guns should be banned. So, we can't assume this for everyone.
2. [G]uns are in no way as prevalent and as ingrained in the culture as alcohol.
I think this is true. But, you are using it to say that a prohibition against guns is somehow different that a prohibition against alcohol. This, I think is an open question - especially in light of the cases where bans on handguns have led to more violence.
3. [W]e live in a society, and as a society we have methods of changing the status quo, when it is deemed necessary.
While true, the question is whether these methods meet either a deontological or utilitarian standard. Is it right for the state to impose its will here? Is it truly a benefit - either from the effectiveness of gun control measures or the new problems it introduces such as the greater likelihood of government tyranny? You haven't addressed these issues.
5. [G]un problems too will fade, as the costs to society in lives lost and shattered become more clear.
While it may be true that lives are lost and shattered by guns, it is not clear that gun control solves that problem.
Let's move on to your criticisms of my argument:
R. [T]he revolution thing is a red herring.
Quite the contrary, I believe it is the basis for the 2nd Amendment. From the Wikipedia article on the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution:
"Among their objections to the Constitution, anti-Federalists feared creation of a standing army that could eventually endanger democracy and civil liberties as had happened recently in the American Colonies and Europe."
Militia, as we use it today, would be the equivalent of a standing army.
R. There has never been a revolution here.
We tend to call them rebellions. The American Revolution, Shays Rebellion, Civil War, forming of miltia groups based on ethnicity prior to the Haymarket Riots, Ten Days War (in Colorado), Battle of Athens, etc. If you want to bring in strikes, non-pacifist civil rights elements and so forth, we could have an even more interesting discussion.
R. [G]uns in the hands of the populace [against an army] would mean zip.
We disagree on this point. There is nothing more deadly in this world than a committed group of people with firearms. It's part of what makes Special Forces, special.
R. The state has a monopoly on legal violence.
What do citizens do in Hitler Germany or occupied France? Maintaining that these circumstances can't happen in the U.S. is simply an indefensible argument.
R. You have not in any way demonstrated the utility of handguns in this country.
See the counter-examples above regarding the effectiveness of gun control measures and what that suggests for the utility of firearm ownership.
R. [P]erhaps you can include the many many classroom and workplace shootings in the argument.
See the ban arguments above. I would also add here how can you know that people doing these shootings would not use other measures - poisonings, home-made exposives, and knives? Do you have any data that suggests total violence is reduced with gun control laws and that people comitting violent crimes with guns will not seek out substitutes?
R. Your charts list homicide and suicide, but do not show handgun use.
The whole point of bringing the charts into discussion was to put firearm violence in perspective. Even in violent deaths, homicide with a firearm trails unintentional death in a motor vehicle (by a factor of four), unintentional poisoning, unintentional falls, and suicide with a firearm. Now, take these numbers and compare it to 10 Leading Causes of Death.
The question it leads me to ask, if you are taking a utilitarian point of view, why aren't you talking about strict regulation of diets, of motor vehicles or of developing cures to make influenza less likely to kill? Why single out guns?
I think I have addressed all your substantive points and did not bring in anything other than your position or your comments regarding mine. If there is something else you would like me to address, please let me know. I look forward to reading your response to these criticisms and any data you have to back up your perspective.
Posted by srjenkins at 05/13/2007 @ 09:59am
Sr, a lot of this is attacking strawmen and not what I said.
Posted by johannesrolf at 05/13/2007 @ 10:06am
Can you point to what exactly is a strawman? I tried to use direct quotes and give the best rendering I could. Can you make it clear what your position is if this is not it?
Posted by srjenkins at 05/13/2007 @ 10:08am
We tend to call them rebellions. The American Revolution, Shays Rebellion, Civil War, forming of miltia groups based on ethnicity prior to the Haymarket Riots, Ten Days War (in Colorado), Battle of Athens, etc. If you want to bring in strikes, non-pacifist civil rights elements and so forth, we could have an even more interesting discussion.
the american revolution was not a revolution. it was a secession. the people in charge here in america were the same before and after, they just didn't report to england anymore. it cannot be considered a revolution like the french revolution, the biggie, since its effects were profound all over europe, or the russian, Haitian etc.
my larger point is not that it can't happen here, just that it hasn't. my point about the utility of handguns has not been challenged. handguns against tanks? I have no problem with handguns in the hands of the military or the cops. I repeat, I have never suggested banning them, but rather strictly regulating them. you got enough straw in your post to feed a horse.
I'll try to get to some of your other points. it's just to much for me right now.
Posted by johannesrolf at 05/13/2007 @ 10:13am
R. [G]uns in the hands of the populace [against an army] would mean zip.
We disagree on this point. There is nothing more deadly in this world than a committed group of people with firearms. It's part of what makes Special Forces, special.