10 posts tagged “politics”
A comment by dox^2 got me thinking, and I am very curious to hear what conservatives think about this:
Why is global warming seen as a leftist issue?
(Please keep comments on topic. I will delete any arguments about the existence of global warming - just make your own post and put a link in the comments if you feel like you need to counter any claims in that vein.)
In an article about genetics and political preference, this little gem emerged:
Jost's findings, detailed in American Psychologist, suggest that environmental factors, or the types of situations people encounter in their lives, determine approximately half of their political preferences.
For example, when people fear death or terrorism, or are in a state of uncertainty, they tend to become more conservative, he said. A study of World Trade Center survivors after 9/11 reported that 38 percent grew more conservative in the 18 months following the attacks, as compared with only 13 percent who became more liberal.
Approximately half. This could be enough to tip someone who is unsure over the edge and keep them there.
This is why conservative politicians always talk about the danger we are in (and demonize anyone who suggests temperance). It is not a temporary justification for war, it is a psychological attack.
First they scare you, hopefully making you more conservative. Now that you are more conservative, they try to win your trust with the offer of protection. Now you trust them, they scare you again. I don't believe this is a devised system, more likely an evolved strategy, but it is dishonest either way. It also explains why the private media constantly barrage us with fear - it's not just good for ratings, it helps their political allies.
I have previously thought that when you see conservatives repeating the lies politicians tell them (Iraq had WMDs, we are under a real threat from fantaical muslims, if we retreat from Iraq the insurgents will launch a counter-offensive, we cannot allow failed states because they create terrorist safe-havens, etc) that they didn't believe them. I thought that they simply agreed with their leaders about the importance of empire and oil, and also agreed that it was better to lie about good intentions than admit to bad ones. But now I think I was wrong. Maybe most of them actually believe the lies, having been scared into trusting the liars at the top.
In one way it reduces my faith in humanity - if so many people can be so easily manipulated, what sort of hope do we have? But on the other hand, it is somewhat reassuring to think that rank-and-file conservatives are not dishonest, just scared and lied to.
"We face annihilation..."
Claiming underdog status is a long and hallowed tradition; they all try to do it. But this wasn't claiming underdog status. This was more like a cry of desperation.
So why did he say it?
Coalition MPs last night said they were "perplexed" by the polls. "None of us can find a Labor voter," one Liberal MP told The Australian.
That's how it's meant to be done, isn't it? Expecting victory is like not stepping down - you say it no matter how obviously untrue it is. (The fact that they never encounter people who vote for Labor may explain their performance - I would suggest they leave the golf course and opera and talk to people at a pub sometime.)
I'm sure he has a reason for saying it - I have a few theories.
1. Party polling suggests people see Howard (or the whole Liberal Party) as arrogant.
2. He thinks that he can scare people with the prospect of a Labor government.
3. He's getting ready to step down.
Theory #1 would make sense, but it seems like a very drastic statement to make regardless, as it raises leadership questions which would be worse than an appearance of arrogance.
Theory #2 is stupid. I'm sure Turnbull and Abbot could belive something like that, but Howard has never been an ideologue. The Union conspiracy theories are intended to reinforce the base's support, not to convince swinging voters. People are willing to give Rudd a chance with the economy.
Theory #3 is something I previously hadn't considred. And it raises the big question - who would replace him?
From http://abcnews.go.com/.
Jerry Falwell, a far right U.S. priest, died a few days ago. According to the article, a few people went to his funeral to "criticize the man who mobilized Christian evangelicals and made them a major force in American politics -- often by playing on social prejudices". I do not believe funerals are an apropriate place to hold a protest, but it appears some people feel stronger than I on the issue.
Campbell County authorities arrested a Liberty University student for having several homemade bombs in his car... he reportedly told authorities that he was making the bombs to stop protesters from disrupting the funeral service.
(Despite the name, Liberty University is actually a far-right institution.)
Now, I'm all for people taking up arms to defend themselves, their family or country. As for arming yourself to stop someone else from saying something that might make you uncomfortable? This isn't a justifiable act of war, this is an act of madness and/or hatred.
Religion scares me.
SEE COMMENTS FOR UPDATE
"The report found more than 40,000 Australian children live with an adult who uses cannabis daily..."
No, the report found that at least 40,000 children live with an adult who is brave enough to admit to smoking pot. These children are at continual risk of losing a parent if discovered and convicted. These children are constantly bombarded with messages telling them their parents are bad people.
These children are an often forgotten victim of prohibition
Many people think of marajuana prohibiton as a 'harmless' law. Unlike banning chemicals, banning pot doesn't turn drugs impure and kill anyone.
But it does destroy lives. It turns ordinary citizens into criminals. It puts people's employment at risk. It funds gang activity. People get killed over distribution.
You might think that when you support prohibition you aren't hurting anyone. But please, think before you act. Once you start prohibition, it is very hard to stop.
I have a Christian friend. He said something to me a few months ago that really bothered me:
I challenged him on this, and he quickly changed his mind (I think it was just something his priest had said that he just accepted without thinking about)."Suicide bombers are cowards."
I would like to think, that were I facing the option of giving my life in an attempt to help liberate my nation, I would rise to the challenge. I honestly do not know if I have that kind of courage.
I have been lucky. I have never known oppression or occupation. While as a former recreational drug user I have faced discrimination, that discrimination is in the form of unemployment or gaol, not execution (but that is for another post).
The simple fact is that in a nation like ours patriotism is easy. Indeed, the nature of democracy means that no matter what you believe, saying it is patriotic. The most patriotic thing a citizen can do is be gaoled for illegal protesting or speech. In China or Kazakhstan or Saudi Arabia, doing so can get you killed - that's real patriotism. What we do is playtime compared to a Russian journalist or Burmese student activist.
You can be proud of your country, sure. If it's like the one I live in, you should be. But don't go thinking you're a patriot - just be happy in the fact that you havent had a chance to find out.
P.S. No, military service doesn't count if you got paid for it.
The Coalition is losing because they have no credibilty.
They are presently running a publicly funded ad campaign pushing their changes to Workchoices. What are the results of this?
1. It reminds people of just how much taxpayer money they have spent on advertising.
2. It doesn't even mention Workchoices, suggesting even they know how bad it is.
3. It pushes a new 'fairness test', which has yet to be specified (just like Workchoices in the last election) and makes a mokery of their continual claims that it was already fair.
They are copying Labor. This would not be such a bad thing but they only started a few months ago. The fact that an election is looming and they suddenly care about justice, the environment, worker's benefits, broadband, etc, just doesn't fly.
John Howard disagreed with Rudd's proclaiming that global warming was the greatest moral challenge of our time. He couldn't agree - his record would have made his dishonesty look farcical. But he could have just kept his mouth shut, or even faked a Road To Damascus moment. I honestly think that the moment he claimed it wasn't, he lost the election.
What can they do about it?
There aren't many options. A terrorist attack would probably shore up support. A smear campaign against Tin Tin might do the trick, but personal attacks have so far failed against him and backfired against Gillard. They could suddenly turn republican, but Labour already has stronger republican credentials and this could cause friction within the party.
Perhaps their best hope is to topple Howard and for his replacement to make a policy shift towards the center. Ratifying Kyoto, withdrawing from Iraq, abandoning taxpayer funded advertising, etc, could leave Labour facing a fresh party with fewer weaknesses and a good economic record. However, Howard has developed a very strong personality cult within the party and many Liberal and National M.P.s would rather lose an election than kick him out, leaving his resignation the only possibilty of this happening.
For this you will need three mobile phones, a bomb and an observer. You will have to be on a straight road.
The first device will be a mobile phone hidden near a road. Call it as the Presidential motorcade approaches, and time how long between the helicopter jammer disconnects you and the President's car passes it (call this time t).
The next device is a bomb with a timer connected to the third mobile. Set the timer to explode in t seconds, and in a way that it becomes armed when the mobile cannot get a signal.
For better effect use a string of bombs to compensate for variance in speed between convoy and helicopter (which should be minimal due to the helicopter pilot being carefully selected by the Government).
I'm not going to make fun of him for wanting to be an astronaut. Who didn't? (Well, the kids who wanted to be atheletes, and girls, but who of any importance didn't?)
But something very appropriate happened in the rush to shop him as an astronaut:
He got covered with the United States flag!
I was challenged in a comment by snowy to say what I would consider to be a democratic system.
I am not well enough versed in foreign political systems to point to an example, so I'll describe one.
Information flow
The basic problem with democracy is that it cannot survive under capitalism, nor can communism survive under it. Capitlism leads to a concentration of resources amoung the few, while pure democracy leads to a concentration of power amoung the largest groups (however they define themselves).
The second factor inhibiting democracy is the information media. This is why the poor do not have the power their majority should grant them. The poor rely on the media for their knowledge, and the media is in the hands of the wealthy. Thus, they do not receive information about politicians who would support them, or if they do it is only in the form of character assassination.
(This is the reason conservatives are so opposed to the ABC - the ABC acts as a standard the private television and radio newses cannot ignore without betraying their bias. Hence, the ABC is continually accused of having a left wing bias; if the ABC gives too much coverage to a leftist activist or candidate or an abuse of government power, the news can be about ABC bias rather than the story itself.)
Removing the media is not an option; the alternative is worse. The only reasonable option I can think of is to force all media to give similar airtime and column inches to all candidates, regardless of their present popularity.
Corruption
The other media issue is party advertising. I am not talking about Coalition style taxpayer funded ad campaigns (which could simply be fixed by giving any sitting member a veto), I am talking about political 'donations'. They simply serve to further concentrate power in the hands of the wealthy and force the poor to become poorer in order to compete. A simple cap of half the AWE per year could balance the system while allowing people to donate to their chosen party. Alternately, parties could be simply banned from voting on issues which affect anyone who donated to them.
Representation
Finally, one of the houses of Parliament (the Senate would be the obvious choice) should be determined by national percentages, rather than the votes in a single seat. While each area having its own member makes sense, doing so twice doesn't, and makes it impossible for new parties to gain a foothold (a fact the Coaltion and Labor are more than happy with, thank you very much). One member per 2% or 3% of the vote would make numbers manigable and inclusion possible.
So, can anyone see a problem with this system?
I can't, but if I had I would have fixed it already...
