With hesitation I post the script of what I feel is a very tell-tale conversation. There are few conversations that stick in my head in a day, and even fewer in the course of fourteen days, but this is one that I come back to, partially because it's on the web. It was a rivetting conversation to begin with, but the bolded section stood out in my mind in February, and tonight it was revisited. Please give me feedback: am I the only person who feels the combination of enlightenment and devestation? ...enlightened by the honesty it took to write this, and devestated by the lack of integrity and the implications for the user's character.
(The full conversation can be seen in rrnej3's post, "Change We Can Believe In...and Hopefully Afford", regarding the policies of Barack Obama.)
Green Underbelly: If you've actually listened to him (and not the pundits, which amusingly your views are being echoed EVERYWHERE. "What Change?" people say) you may know that he proposes he proposes a change in two key areas: defense spending and corporate tax breaks. Re-establishing a graduated income tax in order to reverse Reaganomics, and preventing further escalations (and gradually withdrawing troops from the Middle East) could create the type of funding needed for, say, his energy plan. If you've read his website, do him a favor by spreading the ideas, not the rhetoric.
And just so you don't get the impression I support him, I'll say that we're still dating... I'm not ready to take him home yet.
rrnej3: Why would I do him a favor? I don't support him. Ha.
And I specifically asked "how would he pay for it?" Didn't hear you comment on that.
Green Underbelly: "Why would I do him a favor? I don't support him. Ha."
Why would you drag him down for arbitrary reasons, reasons that when matched with statistics are crap? That's dirty politics--I say, hold him accountable for things the public should know. It's called constructive criticism for a reason.
Do you believe it's constructive to echo talk-show guests who haven't researched the issues?
rrnej3: It's politics nonetheless. This isn't a pretty game. You're a good citizen. You research the issues. Most people don't.
The game isn't played idealistically, my friend. I will use dirty politics, bashing, negative points if I see greater payoff. I don't care if they have no relation to the issues. I don't care about constructive debate in politics if negative talking will further my goals more. Democracy is about herding the masses to where you want them to go. If it has to be done with unconstructive means...so be it
I believe he's right in a sense. Democracy is about fighting for what you believe in; what you believe is promoting the welfare of the body politik.
However, I question his motive. What are the implications of rrnej3 style, any-means-to-an-end democracy? I know that America likes a fighter, a prize-winning bull that lavishes in the red-cloak charge, recoil, charge, recoil demeanor. It's basically what President George Walker Bush represents when he billowslet's attack 'em over there, we won't get 'em over here.
And according to rrnej3, we need more piping hot plates of the status-quo. Comin' right up, he says. Please tell me this isn't what ProgressiveU means to you.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Winning is Important. If some of the results to be lost or gained by winning or losing are life and death then what he says is true. That he said it, rather than sticking to the misinformation violated the principle he espoused, but it was having no principles.
Machiavelli wrote his famous book The Prince detailing this type 'Real Politik" and sent it to several heads of State seeking a job by demonstrating his cleverness and experience. He was widely admired for the clever tactics, but failed to gain employment because nobody felt they could trust him.
Do the methods he describes remind anyone else of Hillary?
Truth is a demure lady, much too ladylike to knock you on your head and drag you to her cave. She is there, but people must want her, and seek her out.
William F. Buckley, Jr.
Interesting point about Hillary Clinton. I'll check out Machiavelli.
I'm slowly learning what the Dalai Lama writes is the fundamental goal when discussing means and ends. "the supremacy of humanity over matter and ideology must always be maintained"
Sustainably yers, http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/green-underbelly
"the supremacy of humanity over matter and ideology must always be maintained"
In the era of ascending 'Science as religion' and atheist philosophies gaining at an unprecidented rate that is even more important to keep in mind. Secular humanism is the atheist belief that qualifies, there may be others. Young atheists should have a clear picture of exactly what their morals are and why, because amorality can lead some scary places.
Truth is a demure lady, much too ladylike to knock you on your head and drag you to her cave. She is there, but people must want her, and seek her out.
William F. Buckley, Jr.
Yeah well said-- it's easy to get carried away on society's sinners train. And I think humanism is peachy unless humans start elevating ourselves above Earth's cycle and beings.
My being above the food chain, able to snag a sandwich at Subway, doesn't guarantee me more right to life than that gray squirrel down the street who eats whatever.
Sustainably yers, http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/green-underbelly