Right vs. Left

Precisely my point. I think we can all (right, left, and everything in between and extending further) agree on this bare minimum of a right to personal freedom from expoitation as a fundamental life philosophy. How then can it lead to such wildly divergent opinions as "killing others is sometimes okay" versus "killing others is never okay," to boil down current events to overly simplistic yet elementally truthful terms? Is it simply a matter of one seeing personal freedom on an individual versus global scale? That is, would a rightwinger assume that it is their right (and everyone else's right) to secure for themselves as individuals the freedoms we desire, and would a leftwinger assume that it is their responsibility to secure those freedoms for everyone?

I'm just trying to understand...

I think the day to day politics that divides people (who all claim to celebrate Liberty) are often just cases of competing interests. Sooner or later there must be cooperation, compromise, sacrifice for everyone to enjoy Liberty.

Instead of actually disussing honestly what our interests are and how they can be mutually reached, groups that have a vested interest in their own existence (rather than the interests of their suppossed constituents) play one side against the other to create the illusion of ideological coflict rather than a simple question of "how can we both get what we want since we essentially both want the same thing."

Parties exist to perpetuate themselves, not to secure the interests of their constituents. Same goes for most ideologies.

As is not uncommon, Lerk's thoughful comment has gotten drowned out in the perpetual flamewar. Just wanted to give it the thumbs up.

I have always assumed that the vast majority of Apple users were liberals.

Playing devil's advocate:

Conservative tendencies include but are not limited to: wanting more free stuff from the government in the form of lucrative contracts, price supports, infrastructure and the like while preaching otherwise; minimizing personal freedom by imposing restrictions on speech, sexuality, victimless crimes and the like, fixation on maintaining male WASP hegemony, the systematic imposition of Christianity in American culture, emphasis on prudery in the public arena, adherence to an "I'm self-made" mentality even when they're not, and belief in US sovereignty at the cost of global cooperation. Overall, conservatism employs an narrow thought process that leads to illogical conclusions, but appeals to the emotions. And of course, no taxes, unlimited corporate power and a dislike of firm disciplinary action against their own should be thrown in for good measure.

Conservatives tend to believe in less government intrusion except when there's money in it, an emphasis on arming bears, adherence to the idea that abuse of the freedoms one enjoys will reap serious consequences and not petty fines or weak sentences except for their own, emphasis on archaic, oppressive values (founded in Judeo-Christian theology) but to the non-religious based on narrowness(tm), belief in a mentality that emphasizes self-interest above public or community interests, upholds national sovereignty over the utopian ideal of globalism, and insists on the use of emotion that tries to cut through the smokescreen of logic. And of course I'll add lower taxes for people who don't need them, smaller government except when there's money in it, and support for the use of capital punishment (i.e. the ultimate use of state power over the individual) even though it's been demonstrated repeatedly that innocent people get wrongly convicted.


Now, is it fair to generalize conservatives in such a manner? No - it's just to illustrate the problem with generalizing from either side of the spectrum.

Oh now that was a good one!

OAW

Ah, so well put.

I guess I am an anarchist, although I'm hesitant to label myself or my views.

Yes - it's not criticism of the left or right that bothers me, it's the failure to see the inconsistencies and hypocrises that exist in equal doses on both ends. Political bias is one thing - we all have it, and that's what makes for a vital democracy - it's blind partisanship/loyalty that concerns me. The idea that the right is politically more virtuous than the left and that the mass media is a giant left-wing propaganda machine is simply delusional. To suggest the converse (is that the right term?) would be equally delusional.

But there's a place for blind partisans - they're often the drivers of worthwhile politcial causes. And we need them on one side to balance out those on the other. It's just difficult to have mutually enlightening discussions with them.

Good thing we don't have real political parties in the United States.

::applause::

I think you mean Ralph Reed. I have a feeling that Rex is a Log Cabin kinda guy.

Ralph is the Christian Coalition guy. Jerry Fallwell was responsible for the Moral Majority (now defunct).

You're right, I'm delusional. Since I recognize it, though, doesn't that mean that it can't be true?

I say that your refusal to accept the fact that the media is Left-biased is delusional. And elitist.

So I see your delusion and up you a neurosis (I think).

What 'media' are you refering to exactly? From my vantage point some of the big media coprs in the US are blatently right-biased... Fox... CNN even.


Oh and when did being an elitist become a bad thing?

The mainstream corporate media have a particular political agenda only so far as they can profit from said agenda. That's their job; they are a corporation like any other where a bottom line matters. Does anyone honestly believe that a major news agency (Reuters, AOL/T-W, Gannet, News Corp, etc) would jeopardize their profitability to further the personal political agenda of any one editor or talking head? That would be ludicrous and dysfunctional. Any corporation with that kind of business model would fold.

That being said, to assert that "the media" is left-wing is a tautology, as it's whatever it needs to be at the moment to remain a viable corporate entity. In the midst of a virtual right-wing stranglehold on politics, its only natural for the media to appear oppositionary. The reverse, of course, would be true during a liberal administration (how many times a day did we hear about Monica Lewinsky?). They must purport a degree of opposition, or else it becomes readily apparent that they have no goal whatsoever besides profit (as if it weren't apparent already).

An independent non-profit organization is your best bet when you want an honest appraisal of domestic and foreign policy. HUman Rigths Watch (HRW.org) has been invaluable to me personally.

::applause::

Excellent post. I've tried to express that before but you've done it much more succinctly.

wow. praise from caeser.

It's not that one can't find liberal or leftist biases, it's that those are the only biases that you seem to be able to recognize. It's Lerk's Law in extremis. The idea that a bunch of corporate conglomerates are out to destroy the republic is . . . well, if isn't delusional, it's pretty far out there. It's like comparing Bush to Hitler - too far out to be worthy of debate. But if history proves you right, I'll eat my cable modem.

Finboy, I can't believe there are people like you out there. Let me know when you run for public office so I can vote against you.

Well, it looks like you just revealed yourself as a out-and-out racist.
According to you, no-one admitted as a result of affirmative action can have any actual talent or ability.
I no longer see any point in reading a single word you have to say on any topic whatsoever.