Not signed in (Log In)
Random Photo
(changes every 15 minutes)
Don't hate me because I'm beautiful.
Photo by AquaVelvet. Caption by fruitflyguru.
read and rate other captions »
post your own caption »
submit a photo to caption »
Site Supported By Ads
Recent Comments

    Where’d everybody go?
    Posted by blackelixiroflife on May 03, 2005 at 11:07 AM

    Comments

    voodooeskimo's Avatar .
    voodooeskimo spoke on May 03, 2005 at 06:10 PM
    1. "Oh, no, I'm sorry, this is Abuse!"
    2. My major problem with the Democrats is they insist on the fallacy that message will always triumph over style. I think the Dems are right on a lot of issues, wrong on a few--but they never look like someone you can trust. I've been noticing that more and more.
    3. What we need is a crapload of money. With this, we can build the Median Party. We'll need to take on the Republicans and Democrats during the midterm and presidential elections at full swing, matching them dollar for dollar with advertisments. I mean, throw out money like air, just keep the party breathing long enough to establish a real base. Make it to where(the hardest part) we won't just be a branch of the Democrats who end up keeping the Republicans in office.
    4. Can we get Joe Biden and John McCain? Please? I don't like McCain's stance on this steroid thing, but he's definitely a moderate.
    JoeCocomo's Avatar .
    JoeCocomo spoke on May 03, 2005 at 06:31 PM
    I think a large part of what you're upset with results less from conditions only within the Republican party than from conditions occurring throughout the American electorate. As a society, we're becoming more divided, and our political "ideology" on both the left and the right is degenerating into political theology. I am not entirely sure as to why we, as a nation, are becoming so divided. I would theorize that our increasingly mobile and technological society has something to do with this, but that is pure speculation. However, that our political ideas are becoming less and less the result of civilized discourse between citizens of the republic and more and more the result of "Go, team, go; this is our team and this is what we believe" is evident in the major parties' platforms. You are a Republican; consider, your party supports subsidies for tobacco farmers, and long prison terms for marijuana farmers, opposes abortion and supports the death penalty, and opposes "welfare" for poor people but supports it for transnational corporations. (The Democrats are similarly non-sensical, and mealy-mouthed about it to boot.) None of these positions are underpinned by a well-constructed political ideology.

    Due to a quirk of the U.S. electoral system the Republicans will be in power for the foreseeable future. When the constitution was written, less populous states were worried that more populous states would ride roughshod over their interests in a strict "majority rules" environment. Ergo, the electoral and senatorial systems were created in such a way as to give less populous states a voice in government slightly out of proportion to their population. The current political split is along geographic lines; the cities are blue and the countryside is red. That is to say, more populous places vote Democrat and less populous places vote Republican. Ergo, as the population is roughly evenly split, the Republican party is in power, for better or for worse.

    These factors, I believe, allow the Republican party to become increasingly disconnected from the state of the nation. It has a majority which it is unlikely to loose, and when a new policy is articulated its constituency supports the team, no matter how much of a break the new policy is with what the party has stood for in the past.

    That said, I sympathize with your dilemma. I find the platforms and actions of both the major parties morally repulsive and in any case not very practical. Furthermore, the inevitable suggestion that a third party should be formed also strikes me as impractical; at this time the two major parties are so entrenched that it would require a prohibitive amount of money and mind-share to muscle in; attempts have been made by rich men at the state level, but generally to little effect.

    I don't see a good solution to this problem; currently the only people getting good representation are those who can afford expensive lobbyists. Grassroots lobbying and membership-based NGO's have proven to be mildly effective in the past, but they have been almost universally liberal and thus none-too-beloved by your party of choice. :)
    Grizzly's Avatar .
    Grizzly spoke on May 05, 2005 at 10:32 AM
    Not sure 3 parties would help. We've got 3 main parties in Canada (plus the separatists in Quebec) and they all suck. While I'm fiscally aligned with our Conservatives, I'm repulsed by other elements of their platform. And while I'm theoretically aligned with the social and ethical aspects of our Liberal Party, in reality, they are a bunch of apathetic, thieving, arrogant and crooks. And our NDP... what a joke. Bottom line, we're likely heading into an election this summer, and I just couldn't bring myself to vote for any of them. But at least with 3 parties, the nation isn't as divided and is less likely to rip itself apart as seems to be happening in the US.
    JoeCocomo's Avatar .
    JoeCocomo spoke on May 05, 2005 at 03:11 PM
    You've got 3 main parties plus the separatists but Canada is less likely to rip itself apart? What's are the separatists all about, then?

    Besides, we in the United States don't rip our own country apart when we disagree about things political. We rip other countries apart. . .

    Joe Cocomo
    JoeCocomo's Avatar .
    JoeCocomo spoke on May 06, 2005 at 04:23 PM
    Of course, you do realize that this thoroughly illustrates what's really wrong with America. . .

    Post a rambling, half-baked endorsement of a genocidal, bankrupt political system, link]"> and you get all sorts of opinions for and against. Post an honest comment on the problems with the actual American politics, and the total responses include:

    1: An Eskimo wanna-be
    2: A guy who claims to have been kidnapped by aliens
    3: A Canadian.

    Maybe I can get the aliens to come back for me,
    Joe Cocomo
    DC's Avatar .
    DC spoke on May 06, 2005 at 05:42 PM
    First off, the deep political debates on foo seem to be a thing of the long-distant past. I'm sure most of us have had it with politics, at least for a while.

    Secondly, I think that the era of small government is at an end. Government is expected by the population to accomplish so much more than what was previously desired. Additionally, thanks to the increased complexity of society and the economy, government in some cases must take on more responsibilities, if only to keep its country in working order.

    As for the resurgence of religion and its role in politics: I really dont know what to say, here. It seems to be a recent phenomenon, starting in the 1970s and gaining strength down to today. For whatever reason (maybe another foob knows, I think there's a reason or two) the religious Christian movement in the U.S. became affiliated with the Republican party, where its base is now in the millions (at least 6 million, from what I last heard). This resurgence of religion is actually a worldwide phenomenon which has also adapted itself to the political systems and social conditions of other countries. Its likely to be here for at least a little while longer.

    I do think its extremely bad that now it seems the middle voice in our political system is shrinking in scope and power. This can be attributed to the rise in the 24/7 news phenomenon where people are constantly bombarded with information about political affairs and the rise of pundit talk shows. Now, everyone can be a pundit in the corner of his or her world and actively strives to soak up information, which is readily available, and defend his or her own opinions through the vigorous and loud-mouthed assertions of popular talking heads and opportunistic politicians. A columnist - whose name I forget - once talked about this rise of a nationwide political culture where everyone seems to be intimately aware of our political workings. Another byproduct of this heightened awareness is an inherent cynicism for the political process. For example, terms such as 'handlers' (describing political persona's electioneers), once jargon for media men now serves as common banter for the common man who sees all the gory details of political life firsthand through 24 hour news service. The result is the creation of a culture which spouts dogmatic political principles while holding in contempt the political process, media and discourse created to facilitate peaceable discussion and mediation of political ideas.

    As for a third party, they rarely are a major force in politics here. Thanks to gerrymandering and an inherent two party system, the creation of an electable third party seems only distantly possible.

    At least, thats what I think. ;)
    DC's Avatar .
    DC spoke on May 06, 2005 at 05:48 PM
    :thumsup:
    DC's Avatar .
    DC spoke on May 06, 2005 at 05:48 PM
    :thumbsup:
    EuroTrash's Avatar .
    EuroTrash spoke on May 09, 2005 at 08:00 PM
    i guess thats how the US will end, we only get angry or passionate about the extremes, but each day just a little bit of what makes who we are is chipped away, we don't notice the little things until its years down the road
    's Avatar .
    Anonymous Coward spoke on May 09, 2005 at 10:23 PM
    Tune in, Turn on and Drop out. Quit voting and enjoy the rest of your life and be nice.
    JoeCocomo's Avatar .
    JoeCocomo spoke on May 10, 2005 at 02:35 PM
    As for the resurgence of religion and its role in politics: I really dont know what to say, here. It seems to be a recent phenomenon, starting in the 1970s and gaining strength down to today. For whatever reason (maybe another foob knows, I think there's a reason or two) the religious Christian movement in the U.S. became affiliated with the Republican party, where its base is now in the millions (at least 6 million, from what I last heard

    Allow me to say a little on that, though I must add the disclaimer that I am a True Believer®, and thus may be biased.

    Religious voters in the United States cannot be treated as a single monolithic bloc; for convenience we may split them into three distinct groups:

    The Liberal Protestants This particular group transcends denominational bounds and generally agrees with the current secular, liberal orthodoxies about most issues, even when they clearly contradict holy scripture or will strain relations with other branches of their churches. (One make take as an example the affair playing out within the Episcopal Church regarding the confirmation of a gay bishop; this is clearly contradicted by scripture and is on the verge of causing a schism within the worldwide Anglican Communion, but has strong support within the United States.) This group generally votes Democrat, and is strongly liberal. This is a change; most of the churches which could be considered Liberal Protestant were once very conservative, (The Episcopal Church, for example, was once nicknamed “The Republican Party at prayer”) but a new emphasis on a “Social Gospel” and social justice issues have changed that since the 1960's-1970's.

    The Fundamentalists/EvangelicalsThis is the group that best fits what most people think of when they think of “The Religious Right.” This group has a very strong Southern contingent, which from the time of the Civil War was historically hostile towards the Republican Party, but this hostility finally ended with the election of President Ronald Regan. The Republican Party’s platform well reflects the ideology of this group, and since the election of George W. Bush, it has begun to appear as if their ideology no longer controls their politics, but their politics control their ideology; that which G.W. says has become close to divine revelation for many Fundamentalist/Evangelical groups.

    The Roman Catholics This is the only major group which does not transcend denominational bounds. Prior to the 1970's this group was strongly Democratic. Democratic advocacy for the poor and marginalized well reflects Catholic social teaching. However, with the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, a significant split in between the beliefs of the Catholic Church and the platform of the Democratic Party began, and has only become wider as the Democrats has become the party for feminist and gay-rights activists. At current, neither party well reflects Catholic teaching; the Church opposes abortion and gay marriage, but also strongly opposed the war in Iraq and the economic disenfranchisement of the poor which the Republican party has come to stand for. Roman Catholics have in recent years been more or less evenly split between the two parties, but have been drifting rightward as the ideological rift with the Democrats becomes wider; a majority of Roman Catholics supported Bush in the recent election.

    That, in a nutshell is a (very simplistic) summary of the political currents in the churches.

    Joe Cocomo
    JoeCocomo's Avatar .
    JoeCocomo spoke on May 10, 2005 at 03:12 PM
    we don't notice the little things until its years down the road

    That is to say until it's too late. (Probably 5 or 10 minutes after Ceaser rides into Washington and "restores order.")

    Joe Cocomo
    DC's Avatar .
    DC spoke on May 10, 2005 at 04:49 PM
    Thanks for clearing that up. I should have also been more explicit when describing the terms under which Christians (fundamentalists / evangelicals) subscribe to Republican politics. However, it is true, at least from my vantage point in the south, that this subset is the most vocal and believes in having a holy monopoly on political righteousness. They are politically powerful, inasmuch that they can agree on certain key issues (abortion, gay marriage, prayer in schools) and vote appropriately en masse.

    The other groups don't get nearly the airtime on television and print media that evangelical christianity gets in relation to their political goings-on. And possibly for good reason: although church membership is probably the most strongly correlating to voting patterns, as you maintain, evangelical's religious ideology seems to be as much an effect of their political doctrines as a cause. Other churches may be more apt to let their members' political ideals flow appropriately from their religious teachings, not vice versa.

    Its interesting to note that Bush isn't an evangelical himself. He's a methodist; they are fairly moderate.
    JoeCocomo's Avatar .
    JoeCocomo spoke on May 10, 2005 at 05:28 PM
    Actually, Bush is an evangelical. In the Protestant churches denomination really doesn't matter as much as it used to; there are congregations of Methodists that could be considered liberal and there are congregations that could be considered fundamentalist or evangelical. Traditional denominational lines are becoming quite loose in many of the Protestant churches. Also, "Fundamentalist" and "Evangelical" describe a spirituality/theological outlook than any denomination.

    The Liberal Protestants make the news semi-regularly, usually doing battle with conservative elements in their denominations, either within the domestic churches or with their respective communions in the rest of the world. (Christianity outside of North America tends to be much more conservative than the Liberal Protestants would like.)

    In the North, where there are more baptized Catholics, the Roman Catholic Church gets trotted out as a bogeyman much the same way the Fundamentalists do, but in national politics the latter do get all the airtime. . .
    Grizzly's Avatar .
    Grizzly spoke on May 12, 2005 at 12:03 PM
    The point I was trying to make was that when there is only 2 parties, and the people are split down the middle (as is the case in the US), ugly shit happens. Instead of uniting the people, the 2 parties focus on splitting the people apart with fear, lies, deception, and other "hate thy neighbor" tactics. Your Republicans are masters and won Bush the election that way. I'm sure the Democrats are guilty too, but they are clearly not as organized. In any case, if you have more than 2 parties, it's not as easy to focus the public on the internal "enemy" (e.g. your Commie-Democrat of Nazi-Republican neighbor), and people don't become so polarized in their views.

    Regarding the French Separatists in Canada, while a Federal party, they have no support outside of Quebec. While I'm sure they'd love to "rip Canada apart", I'd guess >90% or Canadians are against Quebec separating. Kinda like if there was a State X Separatists Party... doubt there would be too many Americans supporting separation by a single state, however, if it was a wealthy one, some folks in that state might support separating to avoid sharing their wealth or something.

    Regarding your comment that "We (the US) rip other countries apart..." you sound proud of that? Isn't there a saying... "What comes around goes around?" Hope it's wrong.

    Have a nice day.
    JoeCocomo's Avatar .
    JoeCocomo spoke on May 12, 2005 at 03:06 PM
    I am aware of what you were trying to say. My reply was not serious political commentary, but rather an apparently failed attempt at flippant political humor.

    Part of me wants to ask one of those therapeutic "Wow, you're really sensitive about these things" questions, but I won't because I know it won't work.

    Part of me wants to do the Ann Coulter thing and embed a little cartoon of Bible-toting, NASCAR-driving American cowboys running a stampede of Texas longhorns through Ottawa and wrecking up the place, but I won't because I know it would work.

    Oh well. . . I hope you have a nice day, too. . .

    Joe Cocomo


    P.S. Yes, what goes around comes around. It is written; "Her sins have reached up to the sky and God has her crimes in mind. Treat her as she has treated others." My country is going to have its reward, and I'm not looking forward to it. But wars have been going on since the foundation of the world and all that, so you shouldn't go losing your sense of humor over them.
    lazarhat's Avatar .
    lazarhat spoke on May 12, 2005 at 07:18 PM
    All political parties should be outlawed. Period. Universal Sufferage means one human one vote and any other way is a corruption of true democracy.

    Seriously.

    -Laz
    JoeCocomo's Avatar .
    JoeCocomo spoke on May 13, 2005 at 02:41 PM
    What about the right to free association?

    Joe Cocomo
    lazarhat's Avatar .
    lazarhat spoke on May 14, 2005 at 09:10 PM
    They way the system is set up now, the two parties have an unfair advantage against other minority parties because of issues revolving around campaign financing and political contributions -- so called 'soft money'. The two parties also tend to control media access, including having changed the rules and requirements for participating in presidential debates.

    As things stand now, we are free to assemble with anyone we wish -- but only with Democrats or Republicans if we wish to have a voice within the system. That needs to change. Either outlaw parties and the way they currently work or find a way to level the playingfield for all.

    -Laz
    JoeCocomo's Avatar .
    JoeCocomo spoke on May 15, 2005 at 07:17 AM
    The way the system is set up now, the two houses of Congress have an unfair advantage against other minority legislatures because of issues revolving around the constitution - the so-called "federalist system." The two parties also tend to control media access, including having changed the rules and requirements for building TV stations.

    As things stand now, we are free to assemble with anyone we wish -- but only with Senators or Representatives if we wish to have a voice within the system. That needs change. Either outlaw Congress or find a way to level the playingfield for all.

    -Joe




    The fact is we live in a republic, a representative form of democracy. Unless you intend to overthrow the government and establish a direct democracy, we're always going to have some group that holds power in the name of the rest of us. Even if parties were outlawed, they would come to exist in some other form so long as the people have the right to free association; like-minded people tend to come together in groups.

    The two party system has some serious problems. Given the new rigidity in the parties' platforms which has developed since the end of WWII, anybody who doesn't substantially agree with one platform or the other is, in effect, disenfranchised. This is a serious problem. However, there have been serious problems with the two-party system before. (Ever hear of the "Whig Party?" Or the "Federalist Party?" Or the "Populist Party?") There may not be any smashing, great, everything-works-out-like-the-end-of-a-sitcom solutions to these problems, but I think there are better ones than abridging the first amendment or overthrowing the Republic.

    Joe Cocomo
    's Avatar .
    Anonymous Coward spoke on Oct 31, 2006 at 11:39 AM
    I am glad you brought up the media and it's role. The only reason issues are so "divisive" in my opinion is the glossy, mega-hyped. talking-point coverage that showers us daily in all forms of media. It seems like the coverage is bought and paid for by one party or another. Facts are always neglected for sensationalism. Corporate merchandising and hollywood gossip dominate the tickers at the bottom of our screens Information has become a product that is heavily marketed and only slightly deviates from administration talking points. Not exactly a news flash I admit. Yet this is the fodder that most Americans digest every evening in their living rooms, at their churches and schools, and while they sit in traffic. If we we want to change the culture of politics, we have to start with our sources of political information. If anything, this digital age of information is exposing a trend that has long been truth from civilization to civilization. We have the illusion of choice, we are being appeased and placated into lives of unwitting servitude to the whims of those in power.

    You are absolutely right, a third party foothold wouldn't even the playing field. It would only be labled and marginalized to fit into one talking point or another. The republic only works if we know as little as possible about what is actually happening. P.T. Barnum once said, "If you can't sell it, no one will buy it." That is a true 100 years ago as it is today, only it seems easier to see now.

    All I ask for are the small victories. The intreped reporter that asks the tough question and doesn't stop before he gets a reasonable answer. A news company that isn't afraid to piss off corperate sponsors by reporting the truth that their labor practices border on slavery and are violating human rights overseas to save a buck on making a product with a 300% markup by the time it hits the shelf. A media that exposes the truth when the government goes to far. Someone who forces them to play by the rules we have, then we may have a fair shot at changing them.
    's Avatar .
    Anonymous Coward spoke on Dec 17, 2008 at 10:52 AM
    stupid lazy ahmerwican. we wrape yo dautahs and stee yo land. ah ha ha ha .

    Post A Comment

    Posting as: Anonymous Coward. Please log in or register.

    You are not logged in so I need to know that you are not a spam bot.
    Type 6 x's into this field: